# "I'll have the cloned ribeye...."



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

Now that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved it, meat from cloned animals could arrive in the stores soon without being labeled as being the product from a cloned animal. http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/28....ap/index.html

What do you think?


----------



## greenawalt87 (Jul 26, 2004)

count me out on buying and eating the meat. I buy now only CAB


----------



## panini (Jul 28, 2001)

The problem is how do you know if it's cloned beef. most of the cloned beef is used to breed other beef. The weird part is cloning from a hunk of meat removed from a cow. It is very expensive to do this with profit right now. I'm probably going to be for eating and buying cloned beef. Only because I have visited a company working on this and it could proove to be very rewarding for investors ViaGen doing unbelievable things with this subject.
pan


----------



## mredikop (Dec 6, 2006)

This entire concept of cloning reminds me of something out of a Philip K Dick novel. I wish they were going to label the cloned meat so I could avoid it. Just my preference.


----------



## chrose (Nov 20, 2000)

This should do away with inconsistency!


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

There was a farm in North Carolina (and may still be) that preserved the older breeds of livestock. As tastes change, the stock change. We used to like fattier milk and so bred cows that produced fattier milk. Then we didn't, so we bred cows that didn't. When we wanted the fat back again, this farm was able to provide the biodiversity (read genes) necessary to be able to do so. I don't think cloning is a good idea because, in the future, we may need some of those genes we think unfashionable right now.


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

Its a case of pro's and can's I guess...yes thats right can's. We all use ingedients today that have been created or improved by sience. In my opinion if it looks and tastes the same and somewhere down the line brings relief to famished countries like ethiopia then why not. As chefs we dictate food trends and in turn shape the household shopping list of tomorrow.Its pretty deep, I know.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

Unfortuntely, chefontheloose, the science has done less to bring relief to famished countries like Ethiopia and more to line the pockets of ADM, Monsanto and the like. As chefs, the responsible food trend to shape is one that embraces biodiversity and health.


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

Thats cool free rider.You are a gentleman and a scholar.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

I'm no gentleman... mostly because, being female, I don't have the appropriate parts to be one.


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

My bad...what are you views on msg then....


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

It gives me a terrible headache. So does aspertame.


----------



## entropy (Nov 11, 2006)

I think cloning's as creepy as inbreeding. 

I worry that people are only looking for fast, easy solutions and forget to consider or underestimate long-term consequences. I, for one, think everything should be labeled as specifically as possible, regardless of whether it states "all-natural" or "contains trans-fats." 

There's kind of a conflict here too, some people think that we should have the right to have everything and decide for ourselves what to choose, but how can we know what to choose if the choices aren't crystal clear? It seems unfair and irresponsible to me. Maybe the FDA says cloned beef isn't harmful to you, but I don't want to eat it for whatever reason, so I want to know where the meat at the market comes from. Is that not my right as a fully-participating consumer in America?


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

Biodiversty,health,no cloned meat and msg give you a headache. Come on free rider...okay what about chocolate...you gotta give me something.


----------



## culprit (Nov 8, 2006)

This thread seems to be more political/philosophical than culinary. Where's the moderator when we need 'em.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

Exactly, Entropy. How can we decide what to eat if that information is kept from us? This is now McDonalds can be sued for making people fat... the people weren't given the information with which to make an informed decision.

As for this being political versus culinary, it isn't. It is culinary... some chefs want to keep their ingredients secret. While that is understandable to a point, the person for whom the chef is cooking should know what they are eating. I want to know if a chef has replaced more expensive butter with cheaper hydrogenated oil, for example.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

I like chocolate. So what does a chef provide? Not baiting, but just a question. You said chefs shape our culinary tastes. Is it all about taste? If so, I had a cat who liked to eat plastic. Should chefs serve plastic if people enjoy eating it?


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

culpit has a point....with that i say if the meats good....cook it, plate it, sauce it and stand by the kitchen door and watch your satisfied guests eat it. because just as much as they trust that you didnt drop it on the floor before plating it we need to trust the fda that if we serve that meat or customers wont be giving birth to children with three arms or six toes in the near future.
thanks culprit.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

What makes it good? Taste alone? The FDA has made mistakes before.


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

you said "had a cat" i dont suppose it choked?

no wait that was bad of me i apologise but i seem to have touched a nevre here...my opinion on food trends was by no means a display of arrogance.i was just trying to say that what you eat when you go out does influence what you cook at home,or shold we blame that on the media now?


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

It's no different than the foie gras question, ie., whether the liver comes from force fed or pampered geese. Feel free to try and steer the thread toward a discussion about cooking.


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

you see the whole thing about "information is kept from us" is what gets my back up...chefs are trained professionals and, as doctors run around saying "do no harm", we have moral ethics too.As a consumer you have every right to know what went into your meal and most chefs would be more than happy to tell you cause he/she takes pride in what they do.this career is about passion, not lies and making money.let loose a little and live life.enjoy good food cause when you look at it almost everything today has carcinogenic properties, that why we need to take in everything in moderation.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

The cat died of old age. He never managed to swallow a plastic bag because he relied mostly on licking them rather than chewing. He preferred Kroger plastic bags to Whole Foods.

You're right that what we eat when we go out influences our cooking at home. I have also been rather annoyed at cooks who either cannot or will not tell me what is in their food, even when I specify what I'm interested in. I don't want to eat hydrogenated oils, for instance, for reasons that I described in another thread. I also don't want aspertame or msg. I think it only fair that I know what I'm being served as food. 

Is it not a chef's responsibility to be responsible in the way in which he leads us down a culinary path?


----------



## entropy (Nov 11, 2006)

Sorry if anyone has upset you. Unfortunately food can become political and philosophical. The fact that the FDA has to approve and monitor our culinary pleasures is a testament to that fact. 

Strictly culinarily speaking, I don't want to eat cloned food of any kind b/c I like "natural food," at least concept wise. I am what I eat, and I want to keep that as pure as possible.

How do you feel about it culinarily, culprit? 

(Please don't think i'm mocking you, I fully appreciate your concerns here....)


----------



## entropy (Nov 11, 2006)

I get your point. But the FDA is made of humans. Humans make mistakes, even the smartest ones. Therefore I don't trust it completely. I prefer fully-explanatory labels. Not even the most informed people can know everything when there is no access to all of that information.

btw, I'm just referring to the topic at hand here, not the conversation b/t you and freerider.


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

i just wanna keep an open mind about the whole cloned meat thing for now...i have nothing to judge my decision on as yet.FREERIDER-does msg really give you a headache.


----------



## entropy (Nov 11, 2006)

Now I am responding...

Not all chefs are like you, who seem to be very conscious and responsible which is great. Unfortunately there are plenty of chefs and doctors who are just in it for the money. That makes it a lot harder for people like Free rider who happens to care very much about what she eats.

The thing is, a compromise needs to be made somewhere so that everyone is on a level playing field. Personally, I don't see the harm in having access to all information, whether it be labels or info on the pros and cons of all food. We live in a very diverse society comprised of both informed and uninformed alike for a variety of reasons. Info should be spelled out. Everyone deserves a winning chance. Its not enough to say, "Just trust me," b/c there are too many jerks out there who give the industry a bad rep. Just my two cents....


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

now heres my problem...how do i as a chef provide that fully-explanatory label on my dish for you.i understand yours and freeriders concerns but **** you gotta stop with the cospiracy theories somewhere along the line and trust the guy that cooked it.by all means dicect the tv dinners they have in the supermarket but what about eating at a resturaunt.if im going to buy cloned meat and serve it in my resturaunt i will only do it knowing that it is suitible for human.if you ask me "is this cloned" then yes ill be obligated to tell you.if the fda isnot going to lable it...well then we do have a problem.


----------



## entropy (Nov 11, 2006)

You don't. How can you? You're absosmurfly right about that. Only if a customer asks should you be obligated to answer. Otherwise we should only cook for ourselves at home. Believe me, I understand your whole trust issue, I too work in professional kitchens. 

I was writing more with the idea of the fda issue in mind, sorry if I got carried away. Communication breakdown.... Btw, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I just don't think its wise to put 100% trust into the FDA, or any human institution for that matter. I don't think that they're planning the demise of the human race, I just think they are as fallible as anyone, including doctors. I just want to retain my choice in what I eat, and that includes having the appropriate info at hand. 'Tis all...


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

its weird to be on what looks like the losing side of the discussion but i have no quams with the manner inwhich the fda have changed the way food is consumed today...yes you have the right to know if you meat was growen in a test tube or not.i wont argue that.i may be naieve but i believe some good can come out of cloning meat like i said before to provide relief to staving nations.freerider may think that only profits will be gained from this but i like to think tht there is some light at the end of the tunnel for this whole fiasco.


----------



## chefontheloose (Dec 28, 2006)

okay so we both on the same page when it comes to the fda labling of foodstuffs...cool.no prob there.now the question remains will you eat it or not and if not then why not.


----------



## waltwill6 (Nov 24, 2006)

It seems to me that there's a bit of overreaction in this thread.
Think what it was like to buy meat 100 years ago. Little or no refrigeration, no controls on what the animals ate (Trichanosis, etc), NO SCREENS - flies on everything, including the horse manure in the street, TB in the milk! 

My great grandfather, and grandfather both died of TB in their thirties.

Since we have had the USDA and FDA, in spite of the fact they are "government agencies" with all the incredible efficiency that hints at, people getting sick from spoiled or contaminated food is rare, and almost no one dies from it, anymore.

Just think, a century ago, hardly anyone ever survived long enough to get alzheimers.


----------



## entropy (Nov 11, 2006)

As it happens, I agree with both you and freerider on this one. In all honesty, I have no real answer to give. Only time will tell as in many circumstances.

In regards to your last post, I personally don't feel comfortable eating cloned meat for myriad reasons, mostly b/c the whole idea of cloning on a mass scale just doesn't sit well with me. What will be the long-term results on every level? If they're good, then that's great, but I just have no desire to participate in the experiment. 

Whew, I've certainly enjoyed this discussion!!


----------



## panini (Jul 28, 2001)

We went from cloned beef to a chef's responsibility.
Chef's are not responsible for a customers intake of their foods. The customer (only) should look out for him or herself. If and when a chef refuses to give any information on your food, you absolutely have the right to up and walk just as the chef has the right to serve you or not. Eating out is still a luxury, when it becomes a necessity then the suits can step in. As owners if the Gov. puts much more of their work on us you will be dining in momopolized feeding troffs. Let's see, we collect each and evey one of the fed taxes, we collect the sales tax, we collect the local taxes, we collect/pay the local unemployment, fed unemployment and the list of jobs we do for the Gov't. goes on and on. Now with the little valuable time a chef has left you want him to label every ingredient and be creative at the same time.
Private restaurants,bakeries and independant businesses will be a thing of the past in our lifetime. We will all sercumb to mediocre food from large feeders.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Hey! how's that for going off topic.
I'm thinking we need to compile a list of foods we already eat that are modified and a list that are being worked on.
I think it would be interesting to see how much modified foods we already eat without knowing it.

The FDA if fact finding and we follow interpreted guidelines.

I will be eating the cloned beef until Oprah has a show on the harms from eating it :lol: I'll be the chubby old one on the right with the small hoof growing from my neck.BTW on the right because my left is the one with the hoof:crazy:
BTW I don't prepare beef for sale so please don't boycot the business. I would certainly label cloned beef for customers. It's very hard to get things like this through the red tape. There has been a group who has fought for years to enforce signs where real chocolate was not being used and where it was, as they have in Europe.If you are calling anything chocolate then it must be real chocolate with a sign hanging. No sucess.


----------



## oldschool1982 (Jun 27, 2006)

I guess if it looks, smells, tastes and feels like beef... It must be what's for dinner!!!!:roll:With all the "crap" we "fire down the gullet" this might be the least of our worries.

BTW Pan! That mental picture was just too funny!!!:lol:


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

Until we start having personal experiences eating and cooking with this beef, I think we can only deal with the philosophical points.

My thoughts on the subject? Well, I'm not really sure. It seems a bit strange to me...but we've been eating genetically altered vegetables for years now. Come to think about it...many of these altered vegetables look great but taste horrible. 

I suppose it comes down to application and availability to all farmers. If your going to give me the same fate that todays pork, vegetables, chicken meat, eggs, beef (although beef seems to be getting a little better). The focus seems to be on things other than taste.

this is why I question the available or ability of all farmers to use this "technology". If with all the (as I see it) steps backward in todays meat, diary, fruits and vegetables. It seems we are now starting to see more and more companies filling this niche market of food with taste (albeit at a price). But It seems that if this technology is actually available and affordable for all farmers to use...then we may see some great products coming out. 

 But if the initial/operating costs are too high...then I'm sure we'll see more of the same. Low taste products that look great. I have no doubts that if the goal is to turn out an inferior piece of meat that looks and is graded as prime, then that's what they'll accomplish.

Only time will tell :talk: 


cheers,
dan


----------



## gonefishin (Nov 6, 2004)

Chefs certainly aren't the only ones going thru this...nor are they the first (and won't be the last.) Made in the U.S. no longer gives an assurance or quality or pride of the worker who made it. People seem to unite for mediocrity in todays times, which in turn (in turn) suits the likes of big business quite well. 

(if I read your posts correctly) I think your exactly right about the trend of quality further declining with a rise in larger business controlling every market. But from this...from this is where things will get better. Because there will be a need for a re-emphasis on quality...which in turn will lead to a pride in the craftsmanship. This, I will suspect, will lead many people to branch off of the large business into their own ownership of small business.

I do not think that we have a large emphasis on quality or pride in ownership(of family, material or workmanship) in todays society. But I believe the furthering decline of these thing will lead us toward a future that closer resembles the individual values of yesteryear more than today.


(Yikes  I'm trying to keep my mouth shut and this topic on subject) But it's not working...sorry!

dan


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

If I ask the chef if a certain ingredient is in the food he serves, he should be able to tell me. Some people don't care. I'm not talking about the chef labelling everything, but being able to answer basic questions. Unfortunately, a lot of cooks are not, imho, chefs. They open bags of pre-prepared dough, for instance, let it thaw and go from there. Sysco Syndrome.

The labelling should be required on food sold in grocery stores. While eating out is a luxury, food from the grocery store is not. The meat and milk should be labelled as to what it is and accurately labelled too. Today, the luxury is having enough land to raise your own meat and milk. 

Btw, I don't buy from companies that I think are unethical. I avoid foods that come from unethical companies, but in the USA that is extremely hard to do. I think there is a food crisis in the USA and that there is simply not enough real food to go around. Therefore, lots of chemical filler such as hydrogenated oil is used. One only has to look at what's in a jar of Jif or Skippy to see that.


----------



## mredikop (Dec 6, 2006)

Not even in a jar or perhaps wrapped in foil deep in the freezer? LOL

Back to the topic at hand. It just sets my ill at ease to think that what we think is fine now may later prove to be unsafe. What if there is some degenerative disorder which becomes inherent in "cloned" proteins. To borrow/paraphrase a cheesy movie quote "We spent so much time wondering if we COULD, that we didn't take the time to ask ourselves if we SHOULD"


----------



## panini (Jul 28, 2001)

Gonefishin
No that's great, but depressing feel I should put out the for sale sign 
You're so right and that is what I was trying to say so horribly.
It seems to be cyclicle sp?. I can remember my 86 yr old dad talking about and risking his life to break up these big monopolies. Now he talking about what a big waste of time it was. I personally don't think these huge food monoplies are going to spawn off private business only because the interest has shifted from the consumer to the bottom line. It will be too hard to compete and make a living.
2 cents by pan


----------



## mlansing (Dec 21, 2006)

So they said there is no risk for consumers, but I'm still not sure how it will interact with our body system. Eating cloning products still sounds a little weird to me. 



Mike


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

I've watched this thread with interest- not only because I started it. :crazy: My point was to get the discussion going and see how people felt about it. You'll notice I didn't give an opinion in the initial thread. 

We eat genetically modified food products because that's what hybridization is. That doesn't bother me one bit. It's been going on since long before Mendel did his thing in the pea patch. Heck, nature does it too; it's called natural selection.

Cloning.... that's not terribly different to my mind. Instead of uniting two germ cells (egg and sperm) the scientists take a somatic cell (body cell rather than germ cell) and use it with a germ cell to produce a copy. Sounds similar to in vitro fertilization, which has produce a lot of human babies in the past 25 years or so. If I have the process wrong, please correct me. I'm decades away from biology class!

In short, I'd eat the products. I agree with those who say that widescale availablity is a long way off though; it's an expensive proposition. The failure rate of cloned animals now is very high, so we have a while before it's generally available in super markets and restaurants.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

Ah, but Mezzaluna, we all know that inbreeding leads to disease and all sorts of problems in the genetic stock. Cloning is inbreeding to the extreme.


----------



## panini (Jul 28, 2001)

FreeRider,
Don't think I'm not with you. I absolutely think that your questions should be answered. I'm like you, if I get a good enough dose of MSG, I'm in the ER.
Sometimes it's just as hard for us to get questions answered by products offered. I will ask the rep and he or she will not know, but insure it's a great product. I contact the manufacture and get the run around about how many different kinds they make and have the rep call with the label numbers. I pass up this stuff all the time. If we let it, the Sysco Syndrome will rule the industry if it doesn't already.
I had a raw product come in the other day with this little label. This product might contain peanuts. What! I had the rep track it down to the machine is used for multiple products. I guess they can't take the time to clean it down. I don't have a clue. Money dictates most proceedures in manufacturing. That also includes the disclaimers because we're so darn letigious sp?.
Mezz, the company I visited can clone from strips of meat, is that different than what you're refering to?
pan


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

I don't see how cloning is inbreeding. In-breeding is the reinforcing of recessive traits that aren't normally expressed in the species. With cloning there is no such genetic reinforcement. The same genetic structure is duplicated so the inheritable traits remain the identical from generation to generation.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

Yes, like twins having babies = inbreeding.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

I looked at Pillsbury cake flour the other day and the package listed five or six things that the product may contain, amongst them eggs. I think it is really important to label properly and accurately. Indiscriminately labelling that a product may contain peanuts just to avoid a law suit is inaccurate labelling.

Are we going back to the days of muckrakers? I must admit, I was very sad to find out about Sysco. The restaurant where I worked made everything from scratch.


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

Not at all. Absent cloning, only fraternal twins could have babies. They wouldn't produce offspring genetically identical to either of them. And even with identical twins, combining gametes from either in an invitro method, the odds of producing a genetic copy is very low.

Cloning is very different from inbreeding.

Phil


----------



## entropy (Nov 11, 2006)

just a thought:

I consider cloning to be a relatively new field today. Putting it into mass production is even newer, and as stated earlier, its not going to happen tomorrow. From my point of view, no one really knows what the long-term effects of cloning will be, nor what even the implications will be. Hopefully nothing bad will ever come of it, but can anyone say 100% that nothing will? Right now most everything's a theory. I just feel like the FDA might have decided on this too quickly. 

I can't help it, but I keep thinking about the FDA's approval on transfats which I think was a mistake.

ANYWAY, regardless of all that hoo haa, all I want is to know what I'm eating. If someone wants to eat cloned meat, that's fine with me. If someone wants to eat a box of granola instead, that's fine too. Everyone has their own personal reasons behind their diets, whether its health or ethic related. I'm not going to question anyone. I just think people have a right to know, so that they can make informed decisions. All I want is a stinkin' label with words on it, that's all.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

With cloning, you don't even need them to be fraternal! You perpetuate the same genes to the exclusion of diversity. Then you breed these clones with each other. Inbreeding to the extreme.

Edited to add the National Institutes of Health definition of inbreeding: The process of repeatedly mating sequential generations of sibling animals, usually mice. Within an inbred strain, same-sex animals are genetically identical and have two identical copies of each allele at corresponding loci of the paired chromosomes.


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

Yup, exactly.


----------



## panini (Jul 28, 2001)

cloned, inbreeding, these are also labels. As far as this being way off in the future, not so, I have seen the cloned beef. There is plenty of it. It's just to expensive to start butchering them up to see the results. The clones are being made into breeders. Hey, The Italians did this for centuries!! What's the problem??? No not cloning, inbreeding :talk:


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

Panini!  The thing I worry about is the reduction in the gene base for our food. What if we find out that a particular gene was necessary for a certain quality, whatever it may be, in our food that is suddenly missing. Will there be a way back? Who will have preserved those genes? Will we be stuck with the genes of twins twins twins? This is different than the genetic modification that has been going on up til now because gm has embraced diversity in the genes rather than excluding genes from the pool. Cloning by its very nature eliminates genes from the pool. Heirloom tomato, anyone?


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

In animal husbandry. some inbreeding is actually essential to establish a trait and make it breed true to succeeding generations. 

Cloning an animal to breed with itself is possible and might happen, but it wouldn't be normal practice in the course of raising animals.

Phil


----------



## panini (Jul 28, 2001)

Hey??? Great question.
look up ViaGen if you get time. They are in Austin and I feel the for runners in this field. Not to mention I hold some stock:smoking: 
Like you were saying. What if! we don't have the same type feed 30 yrs down the road? I'm not sure. I think I will become passionate after I cash in. Hate me, but that's life. Got to be aggresive and openminded out there to make a buck, or steer, cow. 
pan


----------



## free rider (May 23, 2006)

Viagen also does gene banking, which means a copyright/patent on specific genes. Interesting implications there.


----------



## entropy (Nov 11, 2006)

All this talk of inbreeding and cloning has led me to this observation: all of these processes are not acts of nature, they are acts of tampering by mankind. I've never heard of animals in the wild mating with each other to establish certain traits. One could argue "survival of the fittest" and that genes do play into the game at some point, but I think that "controlled" breeding or cloning is taking it to a different level where we don't know what the overall consequences will necessarily be. Nature ultimately gets tampered with, but where do we draw the line?

Just a thought.


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

There's a bright side to this. Nobody says you can't label beef that's not from cloned steers. Just like milk and hormones.


----------



## entropy (Nov 11, 2006)

True.

But the question is, since no one has to, will they?


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

They label milk as non rbgh but they don't have to. There are people (as evidenced by this thread) who want to know.


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

Good point, Kuan. There's a natural food store near my home that labels the milk that merits the label as "hormone free". (One of my U.S. Senators, Russ Feingold, spearheaded legislation that resulted in such labeling when he was a state senator.

The marketing people will want to use that "pure" status as a tool. At least people who want to know would be able to make an informed choice.


----------



## mezzaluna (Aug 29, 2000)

My local paper had a piece about the FDA calling for comments on its DRAFT policy on cloned meat.

Here's a link to see the draft policy. At the bottom of the page there's a link to follow to add your comments.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01541.html

Have at it!

Mezzaluna


----------



## jayme (Sep 5, 2006)

I have a question, if they do get cloned meat mainstream, and they do decide (voluntarily or mandatory) to label it- how will that affect what we find in a restaurant? Will we have to change the menus to include "cloned" in the dish description ie. "9oz cloned rib-eye, with a wine, mushroom, and shallot sauce served over...." ??? and would customers order that?? (I'll take this, only could you hold the cloning on mine??)


----------



## habman (Jan 4, 2007)

I doubt that "cloned meat" will be making an apperance at the local market anytime soon, as the cost to clone a cow is MUCH higher than to breed one. 

That being said, this is just one more example of government hiding facts about our food supply from us. You have to disclose all ingedents in your salsa, but cloned, medicated, and chemically enhancement doesn't warrant a mention.


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

I have to call BS on that. Nowhere in the structuring documents of our nation does it declare that the governemnt shall require all food to be labeled about every possible thing. It's simply not the government's job. Nor should it be. 

Look at the dairy issue. Most doctors think we consume too much dairy product. But the dairy lobby and gets the FDA to include a sizable dairy recommendation in the food pyramid. The government is a poor standard for healthy practices. We should look to people who are in the health industries, doctors and nutritionists for example who as private groups aren't subject to political lobbying. 

If we as consumers showed detailed interest in our food, producers would be all over themselves to provide detailed info for the competitive edge. And there are producers providing all that info and more. But the fact is most consumers don't read labels and don't understand the nutrition labeling even when directly asked to read it.

With all that against the FDA and our current food market, what we call organic produce today simply CAN NOT meet the requirements for FDA approval in the food supply if that varietal were to have been created via genetic modification. Our natural food doesnt' rise to the level of safety the FDA requires of modded food. 

Paracelcus was right. Everything is poison; only the dosage makes something poison.

Phil


----------



## habman (Jan 4, 2007)

That's the point, the FDA is actually an arm of large agribusiness, and as such is not interested in health, but in maximizing industry profits. 

As for looking to people in the so-called health industry, they are the ones that where pushing margarine a number of years ago. The health industry has no real interest in improving health, as there is so much more profit in healing rather than prevention.

We need to think more about what we eat and how we prepare our food. Fresh, clean and natural always beats heavily pre-processed.


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

To a small degree. More strongly, Doctors relied on the BEST information available. When the information was updated, they updated their views. Sounds highly responsive and responsible to me. 

I like fresh food, but we can't know everything so at some point you have to rely on professionals in their respective fields. Pick them wisely.

Phil


----------



## entropy (Nov 11, 2006)

That's a good question, b.c there will be people who want to know, as evidenced by many posts on this thread, including mine.

I think we might see more of what we see now, menus that list where the meat comes from, like "Niman Ranch organic milk-fed pork," or whatever. I find it hard to believe anyone will print the word "cloned" on it b.c its rife with controversy. I don't think the labeling thing applies to menus anyway, and I don't think that kind of labeling even falls under truth-in-menu laws. Its just that if a customer asks a question, hopefully they'll get an honest answer. 

I don't know, I have to say, these kinds of things provide a great opportunity for the more "natural" and "organic" food purveyors to capitalize on b.c their products become a rarity.


----------



## jayme (Sep 5, 2006)

Unfortunately, when all health concerns, ecology, moral aspects, truth in advertising, and fear of the unknown, is all cleared aside...... it seems to all come down the the $$$$- who has it, and who stands to make the most from it! If it was a moral/ethical/health decision, wouldn't most restaurants be serving local organic produce and meats because it is healthier for the comsumers?, but it is rarely financially feesible to do so. Right now, it still costs $40,000 to clone a cow- even Kobe beef is cheaper than that- but remember when other "controversial" items came along- microwaves for example, they were pricey and folks were concerned about the effects- now you can buy a micro for $30 and they are in nearly every kitchen and college dorm in the country. And no one even thinks about the effects of microwaves anymore........ perhaps we become complacent with time.....
?????? 
just my 2 cents


----------

