Would you eat cloned meat?

[trekr5]

Honestly the way is world is going I'm seriously considering becoming a vegetarian. Read this:BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Would you eat cloned meat?

[JJH]

There's no way I'm going to eat cloned meat!

[ahimel]

I see no reason not to. There is no evidence and no reason to think that meat from cloned animals would be any different from meat from "naturally bred" animals. Except that it's likely to have fewer diseases.

If you eat meat at all, and can accept the cognitive dissonance that comes from eating Bessie, cloned meat is no more disgusting.

[Sadhana]

Hmm. If you're okay with eating meat, why are you not okay with eating meat from cloned animals?

[Dimitry]

Originally Posted by ahimel

I see no reason not to. There is no evidence and no reason to think that meat from cloned animals would be any different from meat from "naturally bred" animals. Except that it's likely to have fewer diseases.

If you eat meat at all, and can accept the cognitive dissonance that comes from eating Bessie, cloned meat is no more disgusting.

You are very correct in your analysis. For me it just comes down to: how well do we actually understand the implications of cloning and what they do. Imagine 50 years down the road we find out that eating one set of DNA isn't great for you and you need to mix it up (kind of like nutrients). Or we find out that our cloning process isn't exactly all that efficient and makes mistakes we couldn't detect when we first started cloning.

I don't sit here and pretend to understand even the tiniest bit other than the general knowlege about cloning so it's hard for me to argue on those points. I'll stay organic for as long as I can though until everything is "beta tested" and all the "bugs" are fixed. Then, if I'm still alive at that point and they still clone, I'll make my decision.

[Markus74]

Why not? What's the difference?

And if they could clones steaks just like that you don't even need butchers anymore. And you could just let a few cows graze somewhere because it looks nice, not because you need them for food.

No more horrendous animal treatment but still enough meat. That would sound like a win/win situation to me.

[Dimitry]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Why not? What's the difference?

And if they could clones steaks just like that you don't even need butchers anymore. And you could just let a few cows graze somewhere because it looks nice, not because you need them for food.

No more horrendous animal treatment but still enough meat. That would sound like a win/win situation to me.

Umm, I think the cloning done in this case isn't like duplicate a certain object on the spot. They would take the DNA of one animal, throw it in a carrier egg (I forget the proper term here), give it some sort of boost to start growing and a duplicate animal is born.

Hence you still need all of the above that you mentioned, except on a grander scale if this gets out of hand.

[Markus74]

I know, I said that ideally they could just clone a steak just like that. Meaning they grow a steak instead of a cow ...

[skydust]

no. i think it would have serious health implications. it would mean the dna would not be updated with new information and would be adapted to outdated habitats and contexts. we would probably be more prone to illness as a result, and become very fragile to new bacteria or any change in environment.

[impaul99]

I will not eat it for one reason. My intuition tells me "BAD IDEA!". That's all the evidence I need.

I'll stick with organic meat or none at all. I won't go against my intuition to save $.

[Markus74]

Maybe. I'm not totally sure whether I would eat it or not. I'm generally also more a fan of organic food.

[Healthyfit]

H*LLZ NO

[Maxwell]

If they don't clearly mark it cloned, I may just switch to seafood only.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Maxwell

If they don't clearly mark it cloned, I may just switch to seafood only.

Then hurry because in a decade there will be no more seafood left in the oceans ...

[tc33]

I would expect cloned meat to have higher quality and consistency at a lower cost. I'd rather eat the meat of a genetically superior cow than a mediocre one. Bring it on!

http://www.mercola.com/2004/jan/24/gm_foods.htm
When polled only about one-quarter of Americans report having eaten genetically modified food. However, if you randomly pick an item off your grocery store’s shelves, you have a 70 percent chance of picking a food with genetically modified (GM) ingredients. This is because at least seven out of every 10 items have been genetically modified

[JJH]

Not in New Zealand - We are GE Free, and proud of it.

[Steve Pavlina]

I'm surprised to see such resistance to eating clones. If you're OK eating animals in the first place, cloning seems like it would be a relatively minor issue.

If you eat anything that comes out of typical factory farms these days, you've already left nature far behind. You're swallowing a man-made chemical factory in every bite, including antibiotics, growth hormones, and pesticides. Plus you've digested enough man-made marketing to consider animal cruelty irrelevant. If you can handle that, then trying out for Fear Factor seems more congruent than worrying about cloning.

If you can stomach the existing factory farming process from beginning to end, how can the cloning bit possibly be of any concern?

If I had the mindset to eat animals, I'd wolf down the clones with nary a thought. It would be no more a concern than my peas touching my mashed potatoes.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I'm surprised to see such resistance to eating clones. If you're OK eating animals in the first place, cloning seems like it would be a relatively minor issue.

If you eat anything that comes out of typical factory farms these days, you've already left nature far behind. You're swallowing a man-made chemical factory in every bite, including antibiotics, growth hormones, and pesticides. Plus you've digested enough man-made marketing to consider animal cruelty irrelevant. If you can handle that, then trying out for Fear Factor seems more congruent than worrying about cloning.

If you can stomach the existing factory farming process from beginning to end, how can the cloning bit possibly be of any concern?

If I had the mindset to eat animals, I'd wolf down the clones with nary a thought. It would be no more a concern than my peas touching my mashed potatoes.

Speaking of farming processes, I've seen video clips of animal cruelty and factory conditions etc. but do you guys think those are real? I mean, do you think that the majority of those factories are like that? or are these video's just made to spread fear? I mean, it's kind of like when you see people spitting in food at restaurants. I worked at a McDonalds for 2 years when I was younger and that never happened when I worked there, even when people complained about their food, made special order etc. When food dropped to the ground we chucked it, never serving it to the customer etc. But everyone always says "They'll probably spit on my food." whenever they complain about something etc.

So I'm wondering if these video's I've seen on the Internet and such where they have these fly infested cows with dripping blood gashes and infections on their udders are really what it's like in most factories? Chickens without beaks?

I've been slowly reducing my intake of meat for the last few years and will be making an even bigger reduction in the new year, for health reasons, but some of these video's I've seen just seem more like propaganda than anything else. What do you guys think?

[ChefSalad]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Speaking of farming processes, I've seen video clips of animal cruelty and factory conditions etc. but do you guys think those are real? I mean, do you think that the majority of those factories are like that? or are these video's just made to spread fear? I mean, it's kind of like when you see people spitting in food at restaurants. I worked at a McDonalds for 2 years when I was younger and that never happened when I worked there, even when people complained about their food, made special order etc. When food dropped to the ground we chucked it, never serving it to the customer etc. But everyone always says "They'll probably spit on my food." whenever they complain about something etc.

So I'm wondering if these video's I've seen on the Internet and such where they have these fly infested cows with dripping blood gashes and infections on their udders are really what it's like in most factories? Chickens without beaks?

I've been slowly reducing my intake of meat for the last few years and will be making an even bigger reduction in the new year, for health reasons, but some of these video's I've seen just seem more like propaganda than anything else. What do you guys think?

I agree, impaul. While I'm sure such cruelty exists, and may even be somewhat commonplace, I seriously doubt that it's the norm. Just like messing with people's food at a McD's.

It would be no more a concern than my peas touching my mashed potatoes.

That's just gross, Steve. Who in there right mind would let their peas touch their mashed potatoes?

[tc33]

Originally Posted by impaul99

So I'm wondering if these video's I've seen on the Internet and such where they have these fly infested cows with dripping blood gashes and infections on their udders are really what it's like in most factories? Chickens without beaks?

I spoke with a guy a few months ago that had previously worked at a large commercial dairy farm in Oklahoma. With regards to the aforementioned cruelty, he mentioned nothing of the sort; in fact, he said that these cows live better than some people!

Moreover, I don't think any modern-day commercial farming company in the US could treat their animals as poorly as you describe simply because it is such a significant business risk. It would only take one PETA nut to expose the issue and have the whole thing blow up in the company's face. Credibility, of any type, typically takes a long time to build, but only a single action to destroy.

- Tom

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by tc33

Credibility, of any type, typically takes a long time to build, but only a single action to destroy.

That depends on your marketing budget.

Problems like bad PR due to debeaking chickens or feeding cows cement dust to increase their weight can be effectively addressed with a few billion dollars of advertising, some political lobbying, and harsh penalties for whistleblowers. At least that's the current strategy being employed by the animal products industry. It works pretty well as long as most people prefer to keep their heads in the sand.

Does the cigarette industry have credibility? Or the oil industry? It doesn't really matter if people are already addicted to their products.

As for PETA I'm on their list to receive their progress updates every week or two. Most people don't want to know the kinds of things they uncover, and you won't see a lot of their work in the mainstream press because the dominant advertisers won't allow it. The info is all available for free on their various web sites though, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animal rights organization. FWIW PETA has actually made quite a bit of progress this year and has gotten many companies and organizations to stop torturing animals needlessly. Many people dislike their tactics, but they are making a dent in animal cruelty.

[openeyes]

I'm not entirely sure why people would seek to produce cloned meat commercially. At least with how cloning goes so far, it has produced genetically inferior animals with more illness and weaker immune systems, when the animal makes it to term at all.

I see plenty of reason for genetically modifying animals though, and for producing meat in a petri dish (skipping the animal altogether), but don't see why the conception method (cloning in this case) is so important, particularly if it still has to go through a normal gestation process.

Of course, once the normal gestation process can be skipped, via artificial wombs as are currently being developed, mass production could take place on a whole new scale.

Oh, and I suppose there is one case in which cloned meat would be quite interesting: think cloned wooly mammoth. It sooths the caveman soul It'd enable people to eat endangered/extinct animals with little guilt.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

That depends on your marketing budget.

Problems like bad PR due to debeaking chickens or feeding cows cement dust to increase their weight can be effectively addressed with a few billion dollars of advertising, some political lobbying, and harsh penalties for whistleblowers. At least that's the current strategy being employed by the animal products industry. It works pretty well as long as most people prefer to keep their heads in the sand.

Does the cigarette industry have credibility? Or the oil industry? It doesn't really matter if people are already addicted to their products.

As for PETA I'm on their list to receive their progress updates every week or two. Most people don't want to know the kinds of things they uncover, and you won't see a lot of their work in the mainstream press because the dominant advertisers won't allow it. The info is all available for free on their various web sites though, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animal rights organization. FWIW PETA has actually made quite a bit of progress this year and has gotten many companies and organizations to stop torturing animals needlessly. Many people dislike their tactics, but they are making a dent in animal cruelty.

So based on your info rom PETA, would you say that animal cruelty is the norm? Or at least, would it be safe to say that a significant percentage of meat we eat has come from a source such as this?

WHat about organic meat? From my nutritional studies which are semi-biased towards a vegan lifestyle since I think a lot of the authors of the course materials are vegan, they still say that if you are going to eat meat, as long as the meat comes from a Certified Organic source, you're ok. Meaning, you're still killing an animal, and the meat is still not good for you due to the high amounts of saturated fat etc. so health wise it's not good to eat it, but animal cruelty wise it's not the same as non-organic meat. The animals on organic farms are not treated like crap and the chickens run around like normal chickens and are not stuffed in cages. There is no drugs or antibiotics or hormones put into them either.

THere are several farms I've seen out close to where I live where you can go and buy meat from the farmer himself (butcher) and you can see the animals in the back running around. They are organic.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by impaul99

WHat about organic meat?

You may enjoy an article by John Robbins, author of Diet for a Small Planet, on grassfed beef:

"grass-fed [...] It's far healthier, more humane, and more environmentally sustainable. It's indeed better. If you are going to eat meat, dairy products or eggs, then that's the best way to do it."

The Food Revolution

He still recommends people at least eat less meat, and points out that many grass fed cows still go to regular slaughterhouses, but they often get to have a more natural life up to that point.

There are a number of websites that enable you to order animal products (meat, dairy, raw unfiltered honey, etc) straight from the producer, having it shipped to your house. Cutting out the middleman, it isn't so much more than going to the grocery store, and the quality is generally much better.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by impaul99

So based on your info rom PETA, would you say that animal cruelty is the norm? Or at least, would it be safe to say that a significant percentage of meat we eat has come from a source such as this?

From what I've seen from PETA and other sources, I'd say efficiency is the norm. If animal cruelty makes an operation more efficient, it tends to fairly standard. When it doesn't improve an operation's efficiency, it tends to be less common. Debeaking chickens is a common practice because in tight cages the chickens go insane and peck each other like mad, which damages the final product. Having the chickens go insane doesn't hurt the operation's efficiency, but having them peck holes in each other does. Hence debeaking is the practical solution.

An interesting statistic I came across (from John Robbins I believe) was that 75% of U.S. poultry inspectors claim they will never eat chicken.

I haven't heard of any industry-wide figures on the percentage of factory farms that do X, Y, and Z, since that's not the kind of data the industry wants to make public. I don't know how an outsider could compile such data without help from the inside.

How bad does it have to get before one's conscience begins to question one's stomach?

WHat about organic meat?

"Organic meat" is merely a marketing term, since it isn't backed by any enforced federal standards. By itself the term is meaningless.

[tc33]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Does the cigarette industry have credibility? Or the oil industry? It doesn't really matter if people are already addicted to their products.

I agree that industry-wide abuses are tolerated. I was speaking strictly from an individual/commercial farmer's perspective. For example, let's say you have two farmers, A and B, who sell beef to McDonalds. A 'tortures' their cows, while B doesn't. If a PETA zealot successfully exposes farmer A, McDonalds will sever ties with farmer A and claim ignorance in order to save face. Farmer A goes bankrupt while farmer B prospers. In this situation, I believe it would be a significant business risk for farmer A to continue to torture their animals if farmer B does not. If exposed, farmer A's credibility is destroyed instantly.

Thanks for the update on PETA. Glad to see they're making progress. Like everyone else, I'm all for eliminating needless cruelty, but I'm also for low prices. Similarly, most people favor increased social programs in addition to lower taxes. Balancing acts like these will never satisfy everyone. We live in an interesting world

- Tom

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

"Organic meat" is merely a marketing term, since it isn't backed by any enforced federal standards. By itself the term is meaningless.

Are you speculating or have you researched this? Maybe in Canada things are different but from my research and studies the authors that I have read say that "Certified Organic" means it's been independantly tested for quality standards. If it says "made with organic materials" that's useless, because 99.9% of the product can be non-organic and then they add a pinch of organic salt for example, but "Certified Organic" means the facilities are regularly inspected.

Here in Canada I know we are a lot more health conscious especially in BC as our economy doesn't depend on farm animals as much as the US so I wonder if that makes a difference. I know when I travel to the US I find it a LOT harder to eat Organic or vegetarian meals. I'm not sure how Vegas is but the places I've been to in the US (New York, Hawaii, California) were all places that were hard to find good vegetarian organic food. Even in our restaurants here the standard size of a steak if you order one is like 7-ounce or 9-ounce, not the 12-16 ounce ones I see in the states. Also, chicken fried steak doesn't even exist here.

Anyway, I'm really wondering if Organic Meat is better then non-organic for the animals I mean. I really don't think "Certified Organic" is a meaningless term, although I could be wrong as I haven't done enough research yet.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by tc33

I agree that industry-wide abuses are tolerated. I was speaking strictly from an individual/commercial farmer's perspective. For example, let's say you have two farmers, A and B, who sell beef to McDonalds. A 'tortures' their cows, while B doesn't. If a PETA zealot successfully exposes farmer A, McDonalds will sever ties with farmer A and claim ignorance in order to save face. Farmer A goes bankrupt while farmer B prospers. In this situation, I believe it would be a significant business risk for farmer A to continue to torture their animals if farmer B does not. If exposed, farmer A's credibility is destroyed instantly.

This is essentially what PETA does, but there's far more abuse than manpower available to confront it. Plus there's a lot of follow-up required even after the initial research is done. Often it's an internal whistleblower that brings the abuse to PETA's attention.

PETA's budget isn't even 1% of their opposition's, so they have to pick their battles. Typically they target large corporations rather than smaller businesses like individual farms. Not long ago they scored a victory by getting KFC to stop some of its most abusive practices. Pet food company Iams was another target. They even went after the U.S. military for intentionally shooting animals to conduct wound research.

One thing I like about PETA is that they make an effort to bring animal researchers up to speed with nonviolent research methods that are just as effective. A lot of torturous animal research procedures are obsolete, but they're still done out of habit. PETA understands the importance of the bottom line for corporations and tries hard to work with them to find viable alternatives that don't require animal cruelty.

[tc33]

Steve, thanks for decreasing my high level of ignorance in this area. It's obvious you are passionate about eliminating animal cruelty in the world and I wish you the best of luck in this venture.

Happy 2007!

- Tom

[Steve Pavlina]

My interest in treating animals with compassion is a side effect of my interest in helping people live more consciously. I don't consider myself an animal rights activist by any stretch. However, the way we treat animals as a society is highly unconscious and incongruent right now, so it becomes an obvious target for helping people make more conscious choices.

Treating dogs like man's best friends and pigs like man's worse enemy seems nonsensical to me. I should be free to take an axe to the dog next door, especially if it looks tasty.