Would you ever eat the meat -- or drink the milk -- of a cloned cow?Heck, why am I even asking? You really have no choice!
One of George W. Bush's last decisions as Commander-in-Chief included quietly passing legislation allowing the meat and milk of cloned animals to be sold to consumers without being labeled as such.
The Food and Drug Association's argument is that since food from cloned cattle is no less healthy than that of "conventional" cattle, there is no need to differentiate between the two.
In fact, some documentation quotes scientists as saying cloned meat can actually be better, since it often results in tender, juicier steaks (right, I am sure this was the driving force behind animal cloning).
The main line of reasoning behind cloning is to provide more food to the American public.
Really? The food industry is already supplying an average of 3,900 calories per person -- almost double the requirement for most people. Do we really need more food? And if we do, why is red meat the chosen one?
The chances of you having consumed food from a cloned animal is low, as the number of them is currently too low to enter the food supply.
However, don't expect any special announcements once this happens.
Industry response to concerns from consumers? "If you don't feel comfortable eating food from a cloned animal, buy organic."
Thoughts?
Posts
3 comments:
It is kind of an "ew" subject. Setting aside the icky factor, someone will have to admit that there just isn't enough data to know if it is better, worse, or the same. Just like with GMOs, everyone wants to rush in before the data comes back on what the long term effects might be. Where's the fire? What's the rush? Why isn't waiting for the data ever an option??
That is precisely my concern!
I suppose it just comes down to this: Is the meat nutritionally equal to non GM meat. If it is identical then I really don't have a problem. So my friend Andy, what's the data? Is cloned meat bad for you, or the same as traditional meat?
Post a Comment