I disagree with cloning for food etc But I maintain that if people still want to go down the road of the "convenience" of the supermarket/stupidmarket that maybe cloning is the only way to go for keeping up with demand If we really are concerned with what we eat we should be producing or supporting producers more on a local scale. Growing a tomato plant does not require a whole lot of skill or effort. If the individual does not take control of how they want their food then it is up to the corporations to supply. And as my Dad told me when i complained that I didn't like what Mum cooked "you'll eat it, and what's more you'll like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" If you don't like the idea of cloned products Don't Buy Em Leo
Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: "Hank Herrera" >To: "'Community Food Security Coalition'" >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:21:45 -0500 >Subject: [COMFOOD:] FDA announces cloned meat safe to eat > >Today the Food and Drug Administration issued a press release on >cloned meat (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01541.html). > >The release covers the following points (copied from the release; >the release has more detail): > >Draft risk assessment > >The draft risk assessment finds that meat and milk from clones of >adult cattle, pigs and goats, and their offspring, are as safe to >eat as food from conventionally bred animals. The assessment was >peer-reviewed by a group of independent scientific experts in >cloning and animal health. They agreed with the methods FDA used to >evaluate the data and the conclusions set out in the document. > >Proposed risk management plan > >The proposed risk management plan addresses risks to animal health >and potential remaining uncertainties associated with feed and food >from animal clones and their offspring. > >Draft guidance for industry > >The draft guidance for industry addresses the use of food and feed >products derived from clones and their offspring. The guidance is >directed at clone producers, livestock breeders, and farmers and >ranchers purchasing clones. It provides the agency's current >thinking on use of clones and their offspring in human food or >animal feed. > >The FDA wants comments > >FDA is seeking comments from the public on the three documents for >the next 90 days. To submit electronic comments on the three >documents, visit >http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/commentdocke >t.cfm?AGENCY=FDA. Written comments may be sent to: Division of >Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 >Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD, 20852. Comments must be >received by Apr. 2, 2007 and should include the docket number >2003N-0573. > >For more information, visit http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm. ----- The Consumer Federation of America has released a statement opposing the FDA's decision. On the question of whether FDA should consider the ethical issues involved: "This first decision to advance animal biotechnology raises ethical issues beyond the FDA's expertise. Neither the agency nor animal scientists are qualified to tell us whether and when it is ethically acceptable for humans to alter the essential nature of animals. We need a national discussion, including ethicists and religious leaders, to consider the wisdom of creating cloned and transgenic animals. The President should halt further FDA action on cloning and set in motion a process for beginning this broader discussion." http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/dec28pressrelease.pdf FDA DISDAINS PUBLIC OPPOSITION; PROMOTES ANIMAL CLONING STATEMENT OF CONSUMER FEDERATION'S CAROL TUCKER FOREMAN The Food and Drug Administration today announced it intends to allow cloned milk and meat in the food supply, imposing these products on a public that opposes cloning technology and does not want to consume cloned foods. The Gallup Research Organization reports that over 60 percent of Americans think animal cloning is immoral. Other respected independent polls report consumers declare they will not knowingly eat the products even after FDA approves them. Both FDA and the cloning industry are aware that consumers won't knowingly buy cloned foods. The FDA therefore has okayed selling the products without identifying labels, preventing consumers from choosing not to purchase and use cloned foods. CFA urges consumers who oppose production and sale of milk and meat from cloned animals to make their views known. Write to the FDA and tell them to reverse this anti-consumer action. Write to your members of Congress urging them to put a stop to FDA's efforts to sell cloned animals. Tell your supermarket manager that you don't want to eat cloned milk and meat and ask them not to sell these products. The FDA has been criticized in recent years for making political decisions about drug safety. The agency and cloners insist that today's decision is based solely on science and if cloned foods are safe they must be accepted. This convenient fiction does not serve the public interest. The decision to take a drug is entirely voluntary and is made because an individual believes he or she will benefit and the benefit will outweigh any risk involved. Prescription drugs require approval of a license physician. The physician and package inserts provide detailed information on side effects. While the FDA must insist that food companies sell only products that are safe for human consumption surely Congress never intended that the FDA insist that consumers eat a food just because it is safe. Putting cloned milk and meat on the market with no identifying label information eliminates the option to avoid the products. The FDA has strained to encourage cloning animals. Three years ago, the Agency declared they were safe for humans and animals but published no data to support their position. Recently the Agency published its risk assessment. The risk assessment acknowledges that cloning results in larger numbers of miscarriages and deformed fetuses than other assisted reproductive technologies. The Agency, however, has chosen to ignore such defects as Large Offspring Syndrome because it is not unique to cloning. The government ignores the fact that more animals suffer pain, deformity and disease. Our government, in effect, says it is okay to increase the number of suffering animals as long as they don't suffer in new ways. There are no consumer benefits from this questionable technology. Cloning will not produce safer or cheaper milk and meat. Having cloned cows produce more milk won't reduce milk prices. U.S. farmers produce more milk than we drink and the government is required to buy the surplus. Since 1999, dairy support programs have cost taxpayers over $5 billion. The FDA's efforts to help a few cloning companies enables those who aspire to clone humans. The laboratory techniques used to clone animals will advance the ability to clone humans. This first decision to advance animal biotechnology raises ethical issues beyond the FDA's expertise. Neither the agency nor animal scientists are qualified to tell us whether and when it is ethically acceptable for humans to alter the essential nature of animals. We need a national discussion, including ethicists and religious leaders, to consider the wisdom of creating cloned and transgenic animals. The President should halt further FDA action on cloning and set in motion a process for beginning this broader discussion. ------ GM WATCH daily http://www.gmwatch.org --- --- GM WATCH COMMENT: According to this Associated Press piece, the US government is expected to declare today that cloned animals are safe to go into the human food supply. There has, of course, been no public debate about whether US citizens, let alone the recipients of US exports, wish to consume milk and meat from cloned animals. And this isn't just an issue of democratic deficit. A spokesman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization is quoted in the article as saying, "We clone an animal because we want a genetic twin of that animal. It's not a genetically engineered animal; no genes have been changed or moved or deleted." But we know clones are very far indeed from perfect copies and that all clones are, in one way or another, defective with multiple flaws embedded in their genomes. Rudolf Jaenisch, a geneticist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, estimates that something like 4-5% of the genes in a cloned animal's genome are expressed incorrectly. And these genetic defects can have tangible results - some subtle and hard to reckon but others all too clear. Some clones have been born with incomplete body walls or with abnormalities in their hearts, kidneys or brain function, or have suffered problems like "adult clone sudden death syndrome" and premature ageing. Quite apart from the uncertainties, and any health concerns, the defects of clones may pose for consumers, people might well wish to avoid the products of a process that is so disastrous for animal welfare. But, as with GM, they won't be given the choice - food from clones will not be labelled. From rogue GMOs in your rice to pharmaceuticals in your corn flakes, to cloned beef in your burger, America's food chain is shaping up as the world's most exotic. EXTRACT: "Consumers are going to be having a product that has potential safety issues and has a whole load of ethical issues tied to it, without any labeling," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety. Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said the FDA is ignoring research that shows cloning results in more deaths and deformed animals than other reproductive technologies. The consumer federation will ask food companies and supermarkets to refuse to sell food from clones, she said. "Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers don't want them in their foods," Foreman said. --- --- Announcement on cloned animals expected today FDA set to OK food from cloned animals By Libby Quaid THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, December 28, 2006 http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061228/NEWS/61228 0372/1002/BUSINESS WASHINGTON - Federal scientists have concluded there is no difference between food from cloned animals and food from conventional livestock, setting the stage for the government to declare today that cloned animals are safe for the human food supply. The Food and Drug Administration planned to brief industry groups in advance of an announcement. The agency indicated in a scientific journal article published online earlier this month that it would approve cloned livestock. The agency "concludes that meat and milk from clones and their progeny is as safe to eat as corresponding products derived from animals produced using contemporary agricultural practices," FDA scientists Larisa Rudenko and John C. Matheson wrote in the Jan. 1 issue of Theriogenology. Also, FDA believes that no special labels are needed for food from clones or their offspring, the scientists wrote. Consumer groups say labels are a must, because surveys have shown people to be uncomfortable with the idea of cloned livestock. "Consumers are going to be having a product that has potential safety issues and has a whole load of ethical issues tied to it, without any labeling," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety. Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said the FDA is ignoring research that shows cloning results in more deaths and deformed animals than other reproductive technologies. The consumer federation will ask food companies and supermarkets to refuse to sell food from clones, she said. "Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers donÄôt want them in their foods," Foreman said. The FDA scientists wrote that by the time clones reached 6 to 18 months of age, they were "virtually indistinguishable" from conventionally bred animals. Final approval of cloned animals for food is months away; the FDA will accept comments from the public after issuing a risk assessment today. Those in favor of the technology say it would be used primarily for breeding and not for steak or pork tenderloin. Cloning lets farmers and ranchers make copies of exceptional animals, such as pigs that fatten rapidly or cows that are superior milk producers. "We clone an animal because we want a genetic twin of that animal," said Barb Glenn of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "It's not a genetically engineered animal; no genes have been changed or moved or deleted," she said. "It's simply a genetic twin that we can then use for future matings to improve the overall health and well-being of the herd." Thus, consumers would mostly get food from their offspring and not the clones themselves, Glenn said. Still, some clones would end up in the food supply. As with conventional livestock, a cloned bull or cow that outlived its usefulness would probably wind up at a hamburger plant, and a cloned dairy cow would be milked during her breeding years. That's unlikely to happen soon, because FDA officials have asked farmers and cloning companies since 2001 to voluntarily keep clones and their offspring out of the food supply. The informal ban would remain in place for several months while FDA accepts comments from the public. Approval of cloned livestock has taken five years because of pressure from big food companies nervous that consumers might reject milk and meat from cloned animals. To clone, scientists replace all the genetic material in an egg with a mature cell containing the complete genetic code from the donor. Cloners argue that the resulting animal is simply the donorÄôs twin, containing an identical makeup. Yet there can be differences between the two because of chance and environmental influences. Some surveys have shown people to be uncomfortable with food from cloned animals; 64 percent said they were uncomfortable in a September poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. A dairy industry spokeswoman said last week it would be reassuring if the FDA concluded there were no safety issues. "It remains to be seen whether dairy farmers will even choose to use it," said Susan Ruland, spokeswoman for the International Dairy Foods Association, which represents such brands as Kraft and Dannon. "There are very few cloned dairy cows in this country - only about 150 out of the 9 million total U.S. dairy cows, and many of these are show animals," Ruland said. [so what happens to most show farm animals when they've finished with them in the ring?] _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
