Ottawa Foodies

I saw this story on the news last night. The I read an another article that was sent to me from a health web site that I subscribe to:
www.webmd.com

I find this very frightening indeed. While the science of cloning is fascinating, in a scary sci-fi sort of way, is it really necessary to our existence? A cloned animal has ever lived as long as the animal that is was cloned from and clones tend to be more prone to illness and disease - this is fairly common knowledge and there are many studies that back this up.
(www.centerforfoodsafety.org)

The fact that the FDA has approved cloned animals for human consumption only prooves that level of power meat, dairy and biotech companies have over the US Federal government. The kicker is that the FDA does not required cloned meat and dairy products to be labelled. How frightening is that? In the short term, do we need to worried about ordering meat in restaurants when travelling in the States? I think so... But how long before this happens in Canada? I think it is time to make friends with local small production farmers.

Anyone have any additional thoughts on this, or differing opinions? I'd love to hear what you think.

To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with their rationale for the authorization and their decision to not require labeling. But I know that probably won't go over well.

So what I'll do is say that I believe that their policies are scientifically sound and not just the work of lobbyists, and that's good enough for me, and then never respond to this thread again ;)

I was about to post about this! I'm glad I'm a vegetarian and will definitely avoid buying American cheese (not that I ever did ANYWAY)and would probably attempt veganism if this started happening in Canada.

I just don't see how this safety approval from the FDA can be trusted. Have there been long-term studies about the effect of eating cloned meat? No there have not. I'm always reading about how things get pulled off the shelves because the FDA approved it and then years later discovers unanticipated side effect.

I heard about this on the news this morning and I'm not sure I would want to try cloned meat. I will probably buy organic meats exclusively now or better still locally raised meats so I know what I'm getting. It's too early to know what the long term effects will be. Not too long ago we were able to get hybrid vegetables - anyone remember getting broccoflower at Loblaws? Even though it may be 'nutritious' some nutrients may be lost in the cross polination of the two vegetables. I hope this is one food trend that will not catch on here.

I don't personally believe there would be an issues eating the stuff. What really worries me is that if feedlots go this route, we will be reducing the genetic diversity by several orders of magnitude. That probably wasn't covered in the studies, and it a huge recipe for disaster.

EDIT : but I do think they should be labeled as such

Come back Momomoto! I want to know what you have against labelling and, by extension, informed consumer choice. :)

Yeah, no kidding!

Think of it as a cheap and efficient method for feeding future hordes of cloned humans!

....sorry :-)

Heh, I think the science (ie, the methodology) is questionably sound and the resulting homogeneity of the "gene pool" is something to consider on the "cons" side of this debate, and Zym touched on that point briefly. I won't go on about it either, but I'd like to maybe suggest that people read up or watch clips of David Suzuki on the topic of GMO's, cloning, etc. considering that his expertise, originally, was in genetics, he lends a very interesting insight into some of these issues.

On the other hand, as far as ethics are concerned with introducing GMO's or cloned food into the food supply... it's really odd... we seem to set a very high standard for ourselves in this rich nation, yet starving nations would gladly accept a sack of GMO rice, specially created to endure harsh crop conditions & genetically altered mould resistant properties. Alernatively, why should people look down on others who can't afford to buy non-GMO, organic, free range, etc food product? Admittedly, people can't deny there is a smugness/elitist attitude associated with "ethical" food options. And, say they clone animals that are disease resistant, reach maturity faster, and yield more meat; why should a starving nation be denied this food? Whose morality prevails in this situation?

Starving nations are being denied food because we have all the money.

It's called 'capitalism' and that's the way it's supposed to work. You can't have filthy rich unless you have filthy poor.

Don't kid yourself.

Now if I came back, then I could be proven wrong, now, couldn't I? ;)

But before I go into my take (which is only my opinion, mind, and not the be-all and end-all), I do have to agree with you, Zym, that the monoculture issue is likely to be a problem with cloned animals. Were I a farmer, I'd not make my entire lot out of one cloned animal, that's for sure. That's awful business sense.

The labeling issue is so thorny to me, and represents quite a slippery slope should it be allowed. If data show that it is equivalent to its conventional counterparts, then it should be treated the same as the conventional product. By labeling it, you're implying that there's something wrong with it, which isn't the case.

Thanks for coming back Momomoto!

A lot of people are going to think there's something wrong with it no matter what the science says. If science says that eating cloned animals is safe then there should be no fear in admitting as much on the label. Sounds more like a marketing decision than a good science decision.

If consumers shouldn't be worried about the details then why label at all? What's the point of putting the fat content, etc. on a package if, as a food stuff, it's been approved as edible at some level?

Slippery slope indeed. :)

One thing to note about this proposal is that no cloned animals would be used for producing milk or meat. What would be used is the offspring of cloned animals. This is a serious level of safety. The ability to reproduce is incredibly complex and is fairly conclusive proof that the cloning was successful, in which case the resulting animal is no different from an identical twin of the original.

As well, there's bad news for Tiana, apparently cloned plants are used all the time (according to the Economist: www.economist.com).

The reason that many poor countries are unable to obtain GMO crops is that Europeans are so deadset against them, that they refuse to fund any aid program that involves GMO, and won't buy any crops from countries that use it. They're stuck with the horrible dilemma of doing their best to feed their own people (which may involve using GMO), or accepting aid and continued trade from Europe. A ridiculously tough choice to make.

Zym, I think you missed my point, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. Trust me, I'm not "kidding myself", and I'm very well aware of how capitalism works, ahem. But why should someone's moral/ethical POV prevail where need is being expressed? Do you really think it's all about capitalism? Should a lobby group interfere with technology that could provide more aid elsewhere just because people don't like the idea of GMO/cloned foods? This goes into a realm of ethics where capitalism does play a role, but only as a portion of the problem in a holistic view. There are certain parallels between this debate and that with stem cell research, which I was going to comment on, but I'm not going to comment any further in this thread, like Momo. Ciao.

Am I the only one confused by why some people are leaving this topic? Seems like we're having a pretty civil discussion.

Using GMO to feed the world is addressing the symptom, not the cause. That's my point.

ollie, I think people are bowing out of this one because they realise that it is a controversial topic with highly polarised viewpoints. A little like politics, abortion, and religion. :-)

My apologies, I guess my "don't kid yourself" is technically a personal attack. In any case, I've already made the 2 points I want to make, so if anyone is staying out because of me, I promise I'll keep my big mouth shut from here on in :-)

Actually, I am going to make my point a little more explicitly and then bow out and shut up.

A lot of these places are starving precisely because they've taken aid from the West - under our conditions not theirs. A lot of places have managed to feed their people just fine, if somewhat meagerly. But feed them nonetheless. Then they e.g. want some aid to help them set up a transportation system to help get the food across the country better - from the farming regions to the cities and so forth. But we can't just give them money on their terms, we have to impose all sorts of conditions - like converting their food-crops over to commodity crops which can be traded on international markets. Food crops which have been feeding their people for decades if not centuries. So now they no longer grow food to feed their people, they grow coffee, vanilla beans and other similar things that are of little use to their own people, but are shipped to us for our hedonistic orgy known as consumerism (speaking of which www.storyofstuff.com/ will be the best 20 minutes you'll ever spend)

Initially farmers are promised higher prices - and of course that really happens. But then once we've got them all converted over, we've got them by the proverbial short-and-curlies. Their goods are traded internationally and of course the pressure is always down, down, down. Prices plummet and farmers make less-and-less. Switching back to what they were doing before is no longer an option because they are just in too deep. That would be a massive undertaking and would mean 2 or 3 years with no income until the old crops come back.

Add to this that the new way of doing things cuts out a whole slew of middlemen and farm helpers because of technological upgrades. So suddenly a huge number of people are out of work and have no means to support their families.

And now the country has gone from being relatively independent, to having a stranglehold put on it by Western Capitalists. And in many cases the commodity crops aren't as finely tuned to the balance of their ecosystem as the crops they'd previously been growing for generations, so this helps lead to ecosystem collapse and total crop failure.

And the solution to this is GMO? Riiiiight. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

BTW, there has been a really good series on this on CBC radio, but I forget the name of it and when it airs. Precisely the above is going on in India right now in it's most recent incarnation. And Wal Mart is heavily involved as they are the ones setting up the transportation system.

There. I'm done. I promise I'll shut up NOW.

oh boy what a Pandoras box this is opening! I believe that food should be labelled gmo/cloned etc. we have the right to make informed choices in our food supply. I do think though that if there is a silver lining to this is that people will rush into the arms of small ethical and sustainable farmers and food producers and eschew the larger agri business. As to the whole feeding the third world arguement why not allow any technology then? There has been debate raging about terminator seeds by the logic of many commenting on this issue this should be allowed. Don't kid yourself like others have said this is only about big agriculture making more profits and damn the potential for problems. And speaking about technology supposedly benefitting third world countries how about things like asbestos which Canada is still exporting, not allowed here but it is being exported to poorer nations. I think that we should be working towards a sustainable safe food supply not a profit driven model.

"ollie, I think people are bowing out of this one because they realise that it is a controversial topic with highly polarised viewpoints. A little like politics, abortion, and religion. :-)"

Yeah, I totally get that but it usually takes someone "dropping a bomb" before people abandaon a contentious topic and I hadn't seen that yet.

The OP asks "In the short term, do we need to worried about ordering meat in restaurants when travelling in the States? I think so... But how long before this happens in Canada? "

I have no idea whether meat from cloned animals is healthy/unhealthy, ethical/unethical or whatever. But what concerns me is that meat from cloned animals and/or their offspring will enter Canada before we have even had a chance to discuss the issue. I'm not sure how far along the public debate over meat from cloned animals is elsewhere, but it seems to me that this debate has barely begun in Canada. BSE issues aside, I believe livestock and meat products are traded fairly freely across the border. Without labelling or tracking of cloned offspring, we will have no way of knowing whether imported meat is the product of cloning or not.

I almost don't understand why I've waited so long to comment on such a controversial topic. I have to admit I'm a little onboard with momomoto, or at least his reasons for not thinking they need to be labelled. I agree that it should be a food safety, and possibly animal/humane treatment issue, and not one of what is essentially technophobia. I leave you all with a question... if we have a law that requires the meat from cloned animals to be labelled, shouldn't that mean that highly inbred animals should also be labelled? Isn't the resultant gene homogeny similar, and if there are resultant problems, won't those problems have similar causes ( gene diversity? )?

I think most food by nature is labelled ie everyone knows provimi veal is not the most humane to raise an animal and that the average supermarket chicken is kind of scary but I still think we have the right to know and it is not just fear of technology. We still don't know what is and is not safe about cloning and what the long term effects might be. And we do have problems with many forms of animal husbandry look at BSE.

Aaaaaaaaaaaa! I've been biting my tongue because I promised to shut up, but I do need to comment on what Bruce said a couple of days ago about it all being nothing but profit-driven. That is so true!

The thing that really amazes me about it, though, is that here in Canada if you mention "for profit health care" you'll just about get lynch-mobbed. A huge percentage - certainly a comfortable majority - believe this is simply wrong. And they can all give you good reasons why. Most of them will include something along the lines of it just being a fundamental need in a civilized society.

Yet our food supply - which is without question far more fundamental of a need than health care - is completely profit driven and people seem to think that is normal. Though I think if you point this out to people, it just may change some minds and attitudes. Here's hoping ...

Ah.. zym... something near and dear to my heart. I am far from a constipated capitalist.. but technically the food industry is 'market driven', and not profit driven. The difference being that a market will deliver what is in demand, and profit driven can only really exist in monopoly situations. We can claim that it's the industries fault (which in part maybe it is) but if people stopped buying cheap (or not so cheap) crappy food, then the food companies would no longer offer it. That being said, it seems pretty certain (and bravo to you) that you are not a big financial supporter of crappy food, so you are doing your part. Now.. how to convince the other 30 million Canadians? As for health care (I couldn't resist), it's already 'for profit'.. it's not like doctors and nurses and clinics do it for free. What is valuable about our healthcare system isn't the 'for/against profit' of the providers, but rather the enforcement of a 'single payer', namely the government.

"I leave you all with a question... if we have a law that requires the meat from cloned animals to be labelled, shouldn't that mean that highly inbred animals should also be labelled?"

Yes, yes, absolutely yes!! The more information the better. I don't understand why you (the generic you) wouldn't be onboard with this unless you stood to profit from an ignorant consumer base.

Ha ha.. well, the generic me is always thinking about implementation... and the problems with implementation is what I was obliquely skirting when I mentioned inbreeding. I used inbreeding, because I'm fairly certain (correct me farmers) that it is quite common, and if we were trying to track parentage would be a logistical nightmare. Thus, it was precisely to make the opposite point.. that more information is not always better. Each new piece of information that is legislated imposes a burden, and a cost on the production, and thus onto the consumer. I will pull a ridiculous number out of my arse, and ask if people were willing to pay 2x the current going rate, so that they can have 'cloned/inbred/whatever else' labels on every piece of meat? You might argue that it would never cost that.. but it would certainly cost something... and that something just may not be worth it for most people. I think there are possibly better ways to work such a system, especially since you are talking about information based upon preference, and not one based upon known scientific fact of issues with eating cloned meat. One such way, for example would be to have a label, that can be 'earned' where the label says "Not Cloned Meat". Anybody who wanted that label, had to be able to show chain of custody (and also shoulder the cost). Everyone who didn't want to bother, whether their meat was cloned or not need not do anything. If consumers then decide they will only buy the meat with the label.. then everyone wins. If consumers end up not caring.. everyone still wins.

All of that being said, I'm not sure that more information is as important as transparency.. which I think is not quite the same thing, but can be used to similar ends...

"One such way, for example would be to have a label, that can be 'earned' where the label says "Not Cloned Meat". Anybody who wanted that label, had to be able to show chain of custody (and also shoulder the cost). Everyone who didn't want to bother, whether their meat was cloned or not need not do anything. If consumers then decide they will only buy the meat with the label.. then everyone wins. If consumers end up not caring.. everyone still wins."

That works for me. Isn't that way the "organic" label already works?

P-i-O :
"Profit Driven" == Toe-MAY-toe
"Market Driven" == Toe-MAH-toe

The comment about if people wouldn't buy it then nobody would make it is a circular argument which assumes that market/profit driven food chain is the right way to do it.

zym: There is quite a lot of literature that indicates 'ideal' free markets provide for the most efficient distribution strategies for goods (and some that says it doesn't.. but I'll ignore the naysayers ;-)) Sort of like the Stirling Engine of economic theory. Impossible to attain, in that it is not likely to acheive the 'ideal' part. However the opposite, which is best described as 'command and control', does't provide many better options. If I can segue another thread into this one... The idea that the government should control/force labelling etc for cloned meat is very command and control management style. Controlling liquor distribution is also another form of command and control.. which is one I'm pretty sure you disagree with. From the comments you've given on other threads you've indicated a desire for a free-er market in liquor and beer (correct me if I'm mistaken.. but the hypothetical point still stands). The problem with people is they want the government to be command/control for the things that don't directly affect them ( meat eater want's more labelling, but the logistics that need to be in place don't directly cost them anything).. but they want the government to be 'hands off' on things they do care about and that directly affect them (small brewers wanting a market to sell their wares). Everybody has a different set of these items, and so you can never get everyone to agree...

All of that being said, I disagree with your assertion that Profit and Market driven forces are equivalent. Ironically, Profit driven businesses do better when they can manage, or positively influence(positive for them) the 'Command and Control' structure, and do less well in 'ideal' Markets, where profit is spread more evenly among the participants.

Food and healthcare are basic needs. Liquor is not. Of course they should be treated differently.

I'm sure the literature also shows that a free-market is the "most efficient" way to distribute healthcare, too. Yet 10s of millions of people in the US get none. And it costs far more per-capita for those who do get it, because of course corporations need their profit.

My point is that people in Canada seem to be incensed with the notion that the less-well-off would not be able to provide healthcare to their families. Yet these very same people that we as a society feel we must provide healthcare to are sending their kids to school every day with no food in their bellies. All the literature in the world on "ideal distribution" does not change this fact. And I believe if people sit down and really think about it, they will come to believe that this is far more unjust than someone not getting healthcare.

I'm also sure that 50 years ago there were all sorts of naysayers about universal healthcare. Doom-and-gloom, the world will come to an end. Our free society will come to an end. Quoting studies and literature. Yet from the perspective we have today, I would say it would be difficult to argue anything but that universal healthcare produces a far freer society than without. And where food is far more basic a need than healthcare, I believe that 50 years from now we'll be looking back and saying the same thing about our food chain.

Hehe.. actually there's some pretty good literature that shows centralized (government run) health care is the most efficient way. I think the distinction might be that market proponents think markets are the solution to every problem, and they are not. A market solution makes no guarantee (as you succinctly point out) that everyone gets healthcare. This is where people get confused as to where the benefit of the Canadian style healthcare exists. People think the value is in the fact it's run by the government, but from a management efficiency perspective, the value of the system is that there is ONE PAYER for services. Whether or not the provider of the services are public or private really doesn't matter. That's why there is such fear over allowing 'wealthier' people to buy their own 'better' healthcare, becuase this essentially fragments the 'ONE PAYER' model... which allows providers to segment the service market between more profitable segments and less profitable segments, eventually reducing the money available for services for the less wealthy.