Cloned Cattle Beef Is Safe To Eat, Say Scientists

Submitted by: midnightblis 6 years ago in Science
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11844141

Meat and milk from cloned cattle and their offspring are safe to consume, independent scientists have said.
There are 76 comments:
Female 282
I could drating have told you that. All you people think that it`s like some stupid abomination that`ll cause mutations, but all they`re doing is duplicating a cow. So it`s kind of like you`re eating the same hamburger over and over again. Now if it`s a good quality hamburger, why not make more of it?
0
Reply
Male 208
Don`t do it man that`s how Deadrising starts.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
EWE super cow is gross! The nice thing about super cow though is that, to an extent, you know how super cow has been altered. They obviously bred super cow from many kinda super cows, which they then probably inbred the crap out of to come up with SUPER COW. Your GMO food you have no idea WHAT or WHO got spliced in.

That said either way YOU LOSE GENETIC DIVERSITY! That`s why certain dog types have hip problems, eye problems, or hearing problems because we inbred the crap out of them. It doesn`t matter if it is in the lab or just through breeding programs it is bad to eliminate mother natures diversity. Then its easy for one disease to whipe out EVERYTHING which equals TERRIBLE FAMINE which equals MASS DEATH and CHAOS.
0
Reply
Female 2,695
safe, but a hell of a lot more expensive..
0
Reply
Male 61
"This is the stuff that makes our children grow bigger faster."

Indeed. Our children and our children`s children are growing into mutants!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnL1xE1WFe0
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@meepmaker

It`s a wholesome diet of steady vitamins, minerals and proteins that kept us growing through the centuries. Original Homo Sapiens were very short. It did not take steroids introduced to foods to make us evolve to be bigger.
0
Reply
Male 6,694
This is the stuff that makes our children grow bigger faster.
0
Reply
Male 39,576
genetic manipulation isn`t always done in test tubes and labs. It can be as simple as selective breeding. Look at the SUPER COW in the documentary.

Those`d be some beefy ribs ! YUM

0
Reply
Male 573
I want the truth, not some corporate statement or some paranoid conspiracy theory.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@fris212

Mahalo ala nui. Hated to be graphic. Just want others to think about it rather assuming every consumer is protected.

0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Yaezakura the only problem is that genetically modifying food in labs is a relativly recent event in our history. So don`t fool yourself into thinking that these foods have been tested for years upon years, let alone on humans!

However the problem that I REALLY have with genetically modified foods and cloned meat is that we end up with FAR LESS genetic diversity. Which equals real bad sauce if you have an outbreak of a disease or something like that! You could lose all your food real quick and famine isn`t something that I would look forward too.
0
Reply
Male 61
Sorry to hear about your friend Handy...

and Yaezakura, it`s no secret that members of FDA are ex-lawyers who worked for Monsanto. How else do you think rBGH was approved after only 3 years of testing. I`m not going to do your homework for you, I`ve already done it for myself, you can google.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@Yaezakura

continued.... toxins that will give you liver cancer. I just finished burying a friend from such. You see he was a leading researcher for the University of Hawaii at Hilo experimental agriculture station in Pahoa. He was essentially poisoned from the genetic tests. he died due to complications of exposure due toward insecticides in gene modification.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@Yaezakura

"The criminal investigation of Craven Labs involved the Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Division, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Texas, the EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, and the EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. The relevant employees of every company that had conducted analysis at Craven Labs were extensively interrogated to determine whether or not they had colluded with the lab in generating false data. (In fact, no company was found to have conspired with the lab.) Most, if not all, current and prior employees of the lab were also interrogated. The investigation uncovered widespread data manipulation that began at least as early as 1980 and involved numerous pesticides.

Corporations are fraught with deceit. Get a perspective. Don`t think I;m really ridiculing you. I`m serious that you should not be so trusting. I would like to see you live a healthy life and not wind up with t
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@Yaezakura

Since your asking others for CFR`s. Here is a link just one of many:



http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/tcaw/10/i11/html/11regs.html
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@Yaezakura

Seriously now you put over man made evolution based on profiteering over natural evolution. Also lab results are not studied for years in corporate industries. Furthermore if you think for one minute that government officials have the manpower to monitor years of study such as the FDA you are very naive about the world. Another is data can be manipulated, and often is. All you have to do is study the amount of results suppressed by the drug industry. When you live a few more decades, and that`s a big "if" based on your blindness. Then you can comeback and scold me.

What a riot! Yeah believing that the truth is fully divulged in corporate worlds. Bwahahahahaah!
0
Reply
Female 385
@fris212: Okay, you have made a bold, accusatory statement. Namely, that a branch of the government is controlled by an agricultural business.

Supply evidence, or shut the hell up.
0
Reply
Male 61
@Yaezakura

You`re fooling yourself. With the FDA in Monsato`s back-pocket, new food-stuffs are fast tracked to the market all the time.
0
Reply
Female 385
[quote]Absolutely when Dupont is adding a derivative of RoundUp into the corn. There is a difference between natural gene modification and artificial modification.[/quote]
There indeed is a difference. And you know what one of those major differences is? Any genetic modification done in a lab is studied for years before it`s allowed to become a commercial crop. They are tested over and over and over and over to ensure the resulting crop is safe for human consumption. They must pass far more stringent safety tests than more "natural" methods.

I`d personally feel much safer eating food developed in a lab than food developed randomly by nature.
0
Reply
Male 95
for the record bananas are made like that...originally they were grown fat and brownish... they were made yellow.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@Yaezkura

Absolutely when Dupont is adding a derivative of RoundUp into the corn. There is a difference between natural gene modification and artificial modification.

When your liver in 20 years from now fails because of insecticide toxins don`t cry to me.
0
Reply
Male 511
Why would it ever not be safe to eat?
0
Reply
Male 723
Gerry1of1,

... and let`s not forget the bane of every atheist, the humble banana.

He he he

8-) LJ
0
Reply
Male 1,222
Well you eat it then
0
Reply
Male 39,576
..."Meat with no brains" ...

Leave CrakrJak out of this.
0
Reply
Male 39,576
You purists that don`t like modified foods ever eat carrots? You know they aren`t naturally orange, right? That`s a genetic modification. Carrots are naturally white or red. Look it up.

You should rethink your tomatos, peas, and soy beans as well.

If you don`t like modified foods you better stop eating. Nothing is `natural` except us Humans. Nature has equiped us that we are smart enough to modify and improve our surroundings and resources .
0
Reply
Female 385
[quote]My firm belief that GM foods should be required to have a label on them. As a consumer I want to know what I`m spending money on.[/quote]
So... everything you`ve ever eaten should have a GM label on it? `cause seriously, there`s no commercial food source that is as it was found in nature anymore. Selective breeding is simply a slower form of genetic modification that humans have done since we first started farming and ranching instead of hunting and gathering.
0
Reply
Male 812
They`re still living animals, even though they`re clones. Just like in star wars.
0
Reply
Male 2,424
I`ll eat it.

Might even gain super powers.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
You city folk no how to wreck the thrill of the hunt. Meat with no brains sheesh.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
really it`s not gonna be too long before your `meat` is grown and never even had a brain, so people should get used to the idea of science messing with the food supply (it`s not like they haven`t been messing with it for centuries already)
0
Reply
Male 2,579
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuk that
0
Reply
Male 14
Ghostofme16.. Love it, don`t short telemors just stop the aging process though? hurrah for Veal!!!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
I honestly don`t see any "ethical" or "moral" issues with cloning an animal for whatever.

In fact, I would say it`s MORE ethical than just slaughtering natural creatures. After all, if we make it, we have the right to use it, no?

Not that much of our food supply is "natural" anymore anyway, what with the selective breeding and natural-process genetic modification we`ve been doing for THOUSANDS of years...
0
Reply
Female 386
The only thing I would think could be bad are the short telomeres, but that shouldnt affect the meat, only the animal, so I dont think its bad at all....
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Here is a link to answer questions on the concerns of genetically modified foods. There are different levels of risks involved depending on the country and their regulations. The other factors include what is introduced into the DNA of plants and organisms via insect resistance or virus. You should take GM foods and organisms with a watchful eye. Introducing toxins into the DNA can have positive and negative effects. My firm belief that GM foods should be required to have a label on them. As a consumer I want to know what I`m spending money on.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html
0
Reply
Male 44
@DixxyRarr
In reply to your question - cattle are cloned for use as breeding stock, not for milk or meat. While it appears that cloned animals sometimes do make it into the food supply, it will always be cheaper to use straws or let the cows hump.
0
Reply
Female 1,515
@Darkhumor That`s scientist speak. If there`s no significant difference it means statisticaly they are the same. You can`t rule out every option because obviously they can`t account for every cloned thing, and in science there seem to always be exceptions but that`s a definitive scientific statement that it`s safe to eat -.- What words scientists use/what they mean to a scientist and what words mean in common speach is not always the same. Eg. theory.
0
Reply
Female 1,515
Of course it`s safe. There`s nothing wrong with the cow.

And don`t get me started about genetically modified BS. Cause there`s nothing wrong with genetically modified food, infact all the food we eat is technically genetically modified due to human selection of desireable traits. It`s the exact same except instead of waiting for a mutant plant to develop and then breed it, we just alter the DNA ourselves. If you believe there`s something wrong with genetically modified or cloned foods, then you`re sadly misinformed.
0
Reply
Male 1,548
I cannot take a person who thinks cloned foods are dangerous seriously. It`s exactly the same. THAT`S THE WHOLE F*CKING POINT OF CLONING!
0
Reply
Female 136
I do not think that cloned cows would be a bad thing, but when do we draw the line and what`s so wrong with variation tis all good. It be all boring if all the cows are the same and impossible to count the cow farm that is opposite to my house. I don`t think it would be cheaper either at the moment unless they figure out a way of cloning cows for less than one bull; which I can`t see happening in the near future. So it would be pointless in a way for all those steak companies?
0
Reply
Male 2,402
I have no problem with cloning until it becomes unethical. However there is a difference between cloning and GMA. When your modifying a gene instead of straight cell by cell without modifying then you risk the consequences of playing God. When you introduce a derivative of herbicide into plants such as corn. Then you risk the negative effects that go along with the positive of such modification. Putting pesticide in the environmental ecosystem may produce higher yields and better profit. However in the long run the results will be disastrous. Sans DDT in the 60`s and the fact they manufacture has patents on the sterile seed you must pay for each sowing. Just a matter of time in several decades when many will say WTF happened?
0
Reply
Male 8,302
OMG I can`t believe this debate. In case you didn`t realize it, the US has been eating about 65% genetically modified food for at least 30 years. Cloning is no different. Its a way of growing meat, just like growing vegies. And please don`t start me on the moral issues, they`re animals not humans. They have no immortal soul.
0
Reply
Male 74
"You`re right. That`s why they would never do it. The point is to selectively breed desirable traits into the cattle."

They can and do do it. Desirable is subjective. Desirable to the grower is not the same as desirable to the species. There is no perfect animal. You can get one that has quite a few positive attributes but it still has bad ones. If you did manage to make the super cow? We would shortly discover the super virus that thrives on supercow.

When you clone something you not only clone it`s good traits but also it`s genetic weaknesses (it will always have genetic weaknesses). Cloning reduces the gene pool. Reducing the gene pool gives virus and disease that still have their gene pools going strong a chance to get a leg up.
0
Reply
Male 7
DuckBoy87: If it can be done to make cheap affordable meat, I`m all for it. Especially if it`ll help feed the starving.

The cheap argument is weak.
First of all it is definitely not as cheap as regular cow reproduction.
Second, even if you clone them, they still have to eat food. The body weight can`t just come magically from nothing.
Third,the whole problem with feeding the starving is not that there is too little food. We have enough food and resources on this planet for that.
The problem is transporting the food, or bringing the knowledge affordable to the poor.

0
Reply
Male 17,512
We`ve cloned plants for quite a long while now without any major problems, There is no evidence that cloning animals will have any major problems either.

However, I am against any cloning of human beings.
0
Reply
Male 491
NitroJunkie
Studies and surveys? Marketing bullpoo. Birth it, raise it, take it to the abattoir and grill it.Tastes better than that store bought meat.
0
Reply
Male 257
i`d like to highlight the important words UNLIKELY to cause harm, no SIGNIFICANT differnce.
0
Reply
Male 1,057
" ignoring animals that are more resistant to hoof-and-mouth because they produce less. That is a bad idea. "

You`re right. That`s why they would never do it. The point is to selectively breed desirable traits into the cattle. Then, when you`re satisfied that this cow is a `keeper` - meaning you want it to breed and produce high quality offspring - you clone it so you can breed the clones and produce high quality offspring on a larger scale.
0
Reply
Male 3,625
If it can be done to make cheap affordable meat, I`m all for it. Especially if it`ll help feed the starving.
0
Reply
Male 74
@APJ311
being `unnatural` isn`t the only reason not to do it. Although the term biodiversity sounds like complete bs, it is important. From the marketing standpoint you would clone the animal that produces the most, ignoring animals that are more resistant to hoof-and-mouth because they produce less. That is a bad idea.
0
Reply
Male 749
I can`t see any reason why cloned animals would be unsafe to eat. Many people will fight against it, but the majority of them will have no real basis other than claiming it to be `unnatural`.
0
Reply
Male 7
Yeah, that was pretty obvious. And yeah, some people will think it`s different, just like bottled water tastes better than tap water.The question is: Is it necessary and is it economic/ecologic reasonable to do this?
0
Reply
Male 758
Oh, and sawdusty-
It is 100% guaranteed, pure truth, you can NOT prove this wrong, but you will NOT taste a difference. Just like those schmucks that think `organic` food tastes better-you can NOT tell the difference. Countless studies and surveys have proven this.
0
Reply
Male 758
Taipan-
Not nice to fool with nature? We`ve been doing it for eons. This is just speeding it up a little- there`s no harm there. It`s the exact same idea as before...taking a specimen with ideal traits, and instead of breeding it with another and potentially yielding undesirable traits, this yields nothing but what we want- the good traits. Everything else is left out.

And southpaw- that is the most ignorant argument that there is against this.
0
Reply
Male 225
okay
really
how much of us are educated enough to have serious comments
...
0
Reply
Male 491
No matter what the geeks or you superstore says meat from a steer raised on the north 40, breed by a bull to a cow (like mom nature intended) will still taste better than that cloned poo.
0
Reply
Male 156
it is not nice to fool with mother nature
0
Reply
Male 358
why wouldent it be safe, i mean you stomach isnt gonna notice some faulty genes
0
Reply
Male 267
Those farm-raised turkeys may not be able to reproduce naturally, but they`re damn tasty.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
oh those European and eco-freaks, that they allow to dictate policy, much how they allowed neo-libral- conservatives in.
0
Reply
Male 96
@ Billito:
Not when you consider that they are selectively breeding and making supercows with high fat, low muscle, and overall much larger. It will get to the point where chickens are now at some point, those chickens are so damn big they cant move, let alone reproduce naturally.
0
Reply
Male 74
I don`t think that it really matters if it is safe to eat or not. It will always be way cheaper to have a bull hump a cow than to make a fertilized egg in a lab and implant it in a cow. Cloning for food is an utter waste of time and money.
0
Reply
Female 2,120
@DixxyRarr
I`m just guessing, but I`d suppose so they can clone the most efficient milk-producers without all of that nasty sticking-your-hand-in-cow-vag business.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
And the Ignorant Hippy speaks up: What`s the reasoning behind cloning cattle? Is it too hard to breed them regularly?
0
Reply
Male 44
This story may be obvious to y`all, but there are a million ignorant hippies out there who, despite this study, will fight you tooth and nail to say otherwise.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
WOw, at least you can say, it tastes like something else!
0
Reply
Male 7,814
why wouldnt they be? its still normal cattle DNA that makes these animals.
0
Reply
Female 7,997
Stating the bleeding obvious - scientists do a field test.
0
Reply
Male 4,680
AND THIS JUST IN: the sky is blue.
0
Reply
Male 541
no kidding eating beef that`s the same as other beef is ok >.< retards... and to think they get paid for doing this.
0
Reply
Male 838
Sooo... does this mean buy one, get one free on steaks? lol
0
Reply
Male 758
Oh, hell...the jesus-freaks are gonna have a field day with this one.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
Why would it pose a risk? The building blocks are the same. The cow that grew the proteins did it the same way as a non-cloned cow. Your body breaks the food down the same.

What difference does it make if the proteins are grown by a "normal" cow or a "cloned" cow? protein is protein....

My guess is, it`s fear by the ignorant. Fear that which you do not understand...
0
Reply
Male 1,929
I`d be very hard-pushed to think of a reason why it wouldn`t be.
0
Reply
Female 48
Link: Cloned Cattle Beef Is Safe To Eat, Say Scientists [Rate Link] - Meat and milk from cloned cattle and their offspring are safe to consume, independent scientists have said.
0
Reply