Of course, I’ve heard about cloning. And what I know about cloning goes beyond The 6th Day. Thing is, I always thought that the experiments on cloning were more in the field of medicine and whatever experiments were conducted with plants were merely preparatory for experiments on animals. And I thought that the interest had more to do with life-saving or enhancing the quality of human life more than anything. That’s why most of my reading on cloning was focused on ethical issues.
When I read that USFDA declared that meat from from healthy clones of cattle, swine and goats is as safe as meat from non-cloned animals, little did I know that there has been a long-standing debate over food safety issues. The way I understood it, what triggered the research on animal cloning was the need to meet the demands of an ever-growing market of meat consumers. This confused me because the way that First World countries are dumping cheap meat on Third World countries — consider why Rustan’s and its subsidiary Shopwise are hard-selling Australian lamb meat — I kinda thought that First World countries are already overproducing meat and are now obliged to sell them cheaply abroad just to cut losses.
Whether or not there is overproduction, the fact that imported meat is widely sold in our local markets points to the obvious fact that when meat from cloned animals are sold commercially in a few years’ time, chances are they will find their way in my neighborhood grocery. It’s not like consumers can simply choose not to buy meat from cloned animals. Consumers won’t know because the meat won’t be labeled as such. If I am not convinced of the safety of cloned animals’ meat, or even if I simply find them distasteful for some arbitrary reason, I’ll probably end up buying them anyway.
If you recall the brouhaha over Monsanto‘s previously unlabeled Bt corn, and what pushed for its proper labeling in some parts of Europe, you’d raise an eyebrow over the no-label issue.
Cloned meat should be just as tasty as non-cloned meat. After all, it’s supposed to be an exact duplicate of the original. Ethical issues notwithstanding, there should no distinctions about the taste.
But the prices of meat, now that, I’m pretty sure, will go down even further. Mass production of meat would be like machines then and costs would be driven down low.
I say bring it on! I love my meat, after all.
I’ve no doubt that the taste will be comparable. The debate was about safety. That aside, animal cloning might help in easing hunger especially in cultures where people refuse to kill their beasts of burden for food.
Fine by me as long as it’s safe and i don’t turn green.
I hope somebody has the good sense to clone Wagyu and Angus. Baka sakaling bumaba ang presyo. Parang ginto eh
I wonder if there are ways to spot the original from the cloned? Taste wise or look wise…
Clones are the exact replica of the original. If their going to clone pigs or cows for human consumption, as long as its not GM (genetically modified), I got no beef with that.
In all account, it’s much better than “The Soylent Green” scenario.
Even if clones are genetic replicas, the quality of the final product still depends on a lot of environmental factors — yung feeds, yung facilities, yung manner of slaughtering, yung meat preservation practices, atbp.
But you raised an important issue, Connie. Does the world really need cloned animals as food source? It not like there’s food shortage eh. Mas kailangan yata i-improve yung food distribution, di ba?
Ruth, I agree. In fact, improve the quality of production and distribution. No short cuts with feeds, no misrepresentations (like carabeef being passed of as cattle beef) and better handling also.
I am sure people are not aware of the implications of cloning since it is a new field with studies still going on and no definitive anwers on long term health risks.
But this is what we know. We have very very bad experiences when genetic materials were changed by accident which resulted to mad cow disease and the little known kuru in Papua New Guinea tribe.
The women in Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea practiced cannibalism to increase fertility. It was common until half of 20th century. It led to outbreak of kuru, similar to mad cow disease. At first, it was thought that kuru was inherited genetically. Scientists have since proved beyond doubt that Kuru is infectious and that the disease was transmitted by eating meat, in this case human meat.
On the other hand, the cattle industry in Britain was under pressure to produce more milk and beef at lower cost because of public demand. Since grains are imported and expensive, the cattle feeds were substituted with enriched protein food from dead or recycled animals. This is forcing the naturally vegetarian animals to become carnivores. This triggers a change in genetic makeup that causes prions and spread mad cow disease to cattle and to humans who eat the altered beef.
Again cloning is trumpeted to bring down cost. That is exactly what we know now. I just hope tinkering with genetic material will not bring another bubonic plague.
Umphhh! ‘di pa ba sapat yung dead pigs fed to tilapias?
Ewww! I am sure a lot of people will be creating noises about this where I am. I just wish they will properly be labeled if they ever make it to the market for human consumption. Seriously, I do not expect these cloned meat to be in our grocery stores in the next 5 years. It’s going to be a tough “political” decision to make.
ooppss..tough political decision for the politicians to make.
This is not good. I read the business bulletin from National Cattlemen’s Beef Association or NCBA.
“Cloning is an assisted reproductive technology that allows livestock breeders and others to create identical twins of their best animals. This breeding technique does not change the genetic make-up of the animal.”
“Cattle producers support the development of new technology that can further enhance the safety and quality of beef products, but the technology comes with a high price tag and is likely to be used only for replicating the most elite breeding stock. Food products will still be derived from conventionally-produced offspring, and scientists agree that offspring of cloned animals are not clones.”
The last statement is scary that, “scientists agree that offspring of cloned animals are not clones.” Introduction into food supply is done through the offspring of cloned parents.
d0d0ng, re “tinkering with genetic material”: modern-day Frankensteins, eh?
Ting, that’s also my “beef” — the labeling. If consumers have the option of buying or not buying meat from cloned animals until such time that they feel comfortable with the idea, well and good. But to practically force the meat down the throats of consumers, well… might be good business for the producers but hardly fair to consumers.
d0d0ng, re: “scientists agree that offspring of cloned animals are not clones”
The way I understood it, the cloned animals are slaughtered for food and NOT made to breed. How wrong my impression was! Offspring of cloned animals are totally a different issue.
Guess it will take a decade or more before we see products from cloned animal parents in our groceries together with the “lower” prices as the technology application costs are high. It will probably take 10 generations to successfully propagate a sire and dam line exhibiting the same traits as the original parent (or grandparent or great grandparent …). In any case, IMO, they approved the tech just because world food prices are skyrocketing upwards due to competition with biofuels… there is a need or a future market for animals that grow faster on less grains. Haaay where our world will go… kawawa naman our grandchildren and the generation after.
I believe most of the meat being sold aren’t even labeled as cloned or non-cloned meat. So we eat without knowing and I suppose “what we don’t know won’t really harm us.” But I would like to know so that I can make a choice. We should be informed about the differences in consuming both types of meat, apart from the taste. Personally, I would admit to some prejudice against consuming cloned meat. It’s just a prejudice and I need to be better informed to see if my prejudice holds water. But I would like to know and labeling helps.
Cool Man, I think the real problem is the uncontrolled growth of the world population vis a vis the shrinking supply of resources. Perhaps, the cloning thing isn’t so bad if meant to augment (although I do have serious questions about the so-called meat shortage). And, sometimes, I can understand that it’s just the resistance to change that make us balk at the idea of meat from cloned animals. STILL, I think it’s only fair that they be clearly and properly labeled as such.
Bayi, my sentiments, exactly. Until we can feel comfortable with the idea of eating meat from cloned animals — safety issues aside — it’s only fair that the public be informed.
im okay with cloned meat for food basta safe naman. hindi rin kasi natin malalaman kung cloned yun o hindi eh. parehas lang sila since cloned pero shempre, depende talaga yun kung pano inalagaan yung hayop. kahit tabachoy yun baboy na na-clone pero kung ang cloned baboy naman hindi pinakain ng tama at hindi malinis ang pagkaka-katay, magkaiba pa rin.
bottomline, as long as malinis at ligtas yung karne, bakit hindi.
(masarap kaya cloned babuy sa tosino?)
joey, okay lang sa iyo na hindi separately labeled as “meat from cloned animal” yung karne?
I don’t eat meat. http://meat.org
I think the offspring from cloned animal would be better to eat than the cloned animal themselves, more stable genetically than the exact clones. And they would be cheaper than eating the exact clones!
I do agree with you, Connie, that consumers should be given a choice as to what they eat. Personally, I would eat a genetically-modified food. I see nothing wrong with the science based on what I’ve studied in class. My concern with GMO is more on the business side, like who is holding the technology captive. With all the IPR issues involved, that may drive up the prices.
“who is holding the technology captive”
Great point, Gay. In which case, the original intention of the research, presumably a higher production at less cost, will be rendered illusory.