America will never get back to clean eating..........
Grokette
Posts: 3,330 Member
This more than troubles me...............it downright disgusts me. Those of us that are trying to eat clean for health and weight loss - the need to seek out farmed sources of meats, eggs, dairy, vegetables and fruits is a great necessity.................
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/americans-more-accepting-of-cloned-animal-products-than-europeans.html
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/americans-more-accepting-of-cloned-animal-products-than-europeans.html
This was more than a little surprising to me. Why would either side be ok with the idea of cloned foods. Is this a science fiction movie? Apparently, across the Atlantic views toward cloning animals for food differ.
According to Food Navigator:
“We were interested in finding out how different groups of consumers react to the possibility of consuming products that were derived from cloned animals …We were also interested in how those reactions differed between countries, particularly in the United States and Europe,” said lead researcher Sean Fox, who is a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Kansas."
Researchers studied agriculture, English, and sociology students at the University of Kansas and compared their attitudes to agriculture students at University College Dublin in Ireland and Ecole Superieure d'Agriculture in Purpan, France.
Americans were more accepting of cloned meats than Europeans.
Again Food Navigator:
Fox said that more European students were concerned about cloning from an ethical and moral perspective, whilst American students cited food safety concerns as the main reason to avoid cloned meats.
Moral and ethical reasons incited much more passion than just food safety concerns.
The European Parliament is looking at legislation to ban cloned animal products while the FDA has no such ban and does not require such products to be labeled currently.
The Union of Concerned Scientists discussed the unethical nature of cloning over on TreeHugger:
The potential gains from cloning particularly productive animals come at the expense of a potential increase in animal suffering. Most attempted clones are grossly defective and are lost early in development (cloning success rates generally range from zero to 20 percent). Defects among cloned animals include overly large fetuses, placental disorders and inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.
GMOs and cloning. What are we eating?
0
Replies
-
What do they mean by "Americans were more accepting than Europeans"? They were more accepting by 2%? By 20%? By 50%? I think there needs to be some clarification there. Also, I am not surprised that Americans "cared less" about moral issues than other people around the world...0
-
ugh if we're being fed cloned things it should at least be labeled....I don't eat meat, but the FDA doesn't require labeling cloned or genetically modified veggies either0
-
Uhh... playing devil's advocate, I believe that this is an extremely imporant science to study. I personally believe that looking into genetically enhanced food, getting corn stalks that can grow 3 to 4 times as much corn, bigger, more protien filled meat, is not necessarily always a bad thing, just because its not 'organic'. Ive worked alongside a lot of medical and farming professionals, and I honestly believe organic foods are a bit overrated. If we look through history, we can see farmers adn breeders have always tried to get the bigger stronger beefier animal/crop to help reproduce, inorder to create a more profitable and benificial product. This artical does not pointout any health problems or issues, so Im assuming their issue is moreso the morality issue.
Cloning is saving species of animals, ones that cannot be made up for by more 'natural' means. Animals that are starting to go extinct, scientists are now working to try to repopulate them by cloning, because the natural ways are not currently being effective.
I guess my issue is just that because its cloned, does not in anyway make it unhealthy. Just aswell this article fails to point out the difference in birth defects from organic processes, a more typical growth process, and a genetically enhanced process. Im sure there are some differences, but the article would be a much more sound one by actually explaining these differences.
The last thing to point out is how do you view livestock. Are they simply a crop? Or are they animals that are being raised to be happy and healthy, live longer than they do in the wild, and eventually are used for food? Just something to think about.
Note: I don't support any intentional cruelty to animals, but I am a proud meat eater0 -
what americans? where are they? most people i know want REAL food, real animals, no hormones, no additives, they want vegetables grown with no pesticides & with organic methods ... so many people i know hunt & have gardens & can their vegies & do whatever they can NOT to buy the corporate packaged emptiness you find in most supermarkets. i don't know about this "never" business ... i am not one of those people who started eating dirty foods, whatever they are.0
-
I guess my issue is just that because its cloned, does not in anyway make it unhealthy. Just aswell this article fails to point out the difference in birth defects from organic processes, a more typical growth process, and a genetically enhanced process. Im sure there are some differences, but the article would be a much more sound one by actually explaining these differences.
This. Another way that the article needs to use comparison statistics to make itself more credible.0 -
ugh if we're being fed cloned things it should at least be labeled....I don't eat meat, but the FDA doesn't require labeling cloned or genetically modified veggies either
Im gonna let you in on a secret, if you eat broccoli, any kind, you are eating a genetically modified food. Broccoli is an evolved food, created by very specific genetic selection. It was done about 2,000 years ago, but broccoli, in the sense that most people use it, is not a 'natural' food.
Nor people who own dogs, sorry to say, but your dog more than likely is a descendent of a breed that was genertically engineered as well.
Just because it was someone doing it outside by selecting the variables, as opposed to someone doing it in a labratory, does not make it inherently evil0 -
I guess my issue is just that because its cloned, does not in anyway make it unhealthy. Just aswell this article fails to point out the difference in birth defects from organic processes, a more typical growth process, and a genetically enhanced process. Im sure there are some differences, but the article would be a much more sound one by actually explaining these differences.
This. Another way that the article needs to use comparison statistics to make itself more credible.
Thankyou. Im sorry, but after years and years of having to preform arguments, debates, medical research, etc, it irritates me to see an opinion based article pose as one that is based of scientific evidence0 -
ugh if we're being fed cloned things it should at least be labeled....I don't eat meat, but the FDA doesn't require labeling cloned or genetically modified veggies either
Im gonna let you in on a secret, if you eat broccoli, any kind, you are eating a genetically modified food. Broccoli is an evolved food, created by very specific genetic selection. It was done about 2,000 years ago, but broccoli, in the sense that most people use it, is not a 'natural' food.
Nor people who own dogs, sorry to say, but your dog more than likely is a descendent of a breed that was genertically engineered as well.
Just because it was someone doing it outside by selecting the variables, as opposed to someone doing it in a labratory, does not make it inherently evil
Selective breeding isn't the same as splicing genes from one plant and then putting them into another in a lab though. We don't have any idea what effect that tinkering will have long term on us or the ecosystem. I think we should be able to choose whether we want to eat those foods or not, I think they should be labeled as such.0 -
Still, /most/ non organic meats are fed with corn and stocked up with estrogen. Those chicken breasts don't just get huge on their own, and real chickens don't grow full size in 6 weeks like a chicken full of hormones would. People eating this stuff are just eating corn, and hormones. That's probably the last thing this county needs.
Organic is basically the way to go. It may cost more, but guess what... You buy less, And those real farmers have to take twice the time to grow all this stuff naturally = more time to grow it = why its more expensive.0 -
It is a shame that you can buy junk for cheaper than you can healthier food. Dh drinks alot of soda, I don't and I made the comment we saved more money picking up juck that "real" food. There is a reason there is an obesity problem in US.0
-
If you know the person who grows your food, you have more control over what you eat. I know not everyone has access to a farmer's market, but many places have them. Many markets sell meat and dairy products.
I think "never" is a pretty strong word. A lot of Americans believe in eating sustainable foods.0 -
As I said, the article has nothing to do with the healthiness of eating cloned or engineered food, its merely the ethics.
One thing I want to point out that many people do not realize. Organic certification is not something regulated by the government, nor when you recieve certification, do you have regular checkups to confirm you are keeping with organic. I work with one of the largest chicken distributors in the midwest, and the biggest problem they have seen with organic chicken farming is once farms are certified, they often switch to more 'scientific' forms of chicken raising, to yield a larger product. In other words, at least a portion of the chicken (and Im sure everything else) that is 'organic', may not be so organic0 -
-
As I said, the article has nothing to do with the healthiness of eating cloned or engineered food, its merely the ethics.
One thing I want to point out that many people do not realize. Organic certification is not something regulated by the government, nor when you recieve certification, do you have regular checkups to confirm you are keeping with organic. I work with one of the largest chicken distributors in the midwest, and the biggest problem they have seen with organic chicken farming is once farms are certified, they often switch to more 'scientific' forms of chicken raising, to yield a larger product. In other words, at least a portion of the chicken (and Im sure everything else) that is 'organic', may not be so organic
I've heard that about the USDA organic cert but third party certification, like Oregon Tilth for example, is a more reliable indicator of actual organic practice.0 -
I'm just here to provide a resource on genetically engineered crops, especially for those who think, either in terms of health or ethics, it is the same as selective breeding or "natural" genetic modification:
http://tinyurl.com/22ozk4r
Especially since I think most people who think GMOs are a good thing just aren't educated enough about them.0 -
From http://newhope360.com/regulation-and-legislation/sales-third-party-certified-products-explode
"Consumer demand for certification labels beyond organic is on the rise. New data from Schaumburg, Ill.-based market research firm SPINS shows that in 2010, sales in the combined natural and conventional retail channels rose 13.3 percent for Whole Grain Council-certified products, 16.6 percent for Fair Trade USA-certified goods and a stunning 25.3 percent for Non-GMO Project-verified products."
From http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2011/09/08/grocers-embrace-local-organic-try-drive-growth-tough-times
"Food retailers see opportunity in organic food. In 2010, the organic industry overall grew by about 8 percent to $28 billion. That drove 66.2 percent of retailers to add natural and organic items to their shelves. Almost 65 percent said sales of those items increased in the prior 12 months, according to the report. Most of that growth was in the West and Northeast, which saw organic sales growth of 80 percent and 72.2 percent, respectively. In the Midwest, 19 percent of retailers reported organic sales declines.
Locally sourced food, on the other hand, is popular with consumers across the board. More than 90 percent of consumers buy local food at least "occasionally," 9 percent do so "whenever possible" and 9 percent "never" do, according to FMI's consumer-focused report, "U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends 2011.""
There are quite a few someones who want/like/buy organic, non-gmo foods.
The industrialized food industry is the biggest reason there is no labeling in the US. I know I have read studies that if food were labeled as GMO consumers would avoid buying it. Products that have voluntarily marked their products as non-GMO have seen much higher sales growth rates than the food industry in general.0 -
t comes down to the fact that when the US allowed corporations to patent genetically engineered genes, we ruined the process of scientific research for the better of us and our food. Now scientists don't talk to one another and try to figure out how to make a buck instead of doing the world good. I don't want to eat the genetically altered foods and I try to avoid it. The chicken in the US is SCARY compared to the rest of the world. It's takes me 3 chicken breasts here (Middle East) to feed my family when I am in the states ONE.0
-
I'd rather eat a genetically cloned cow that was from a grass-fed "parent" and grass-fed itself than eat a cow that had a "natural birth" and then was stuffed with grade b corn for it's short 18 mo life...
People just don't like things that aren't "natural" but realize that most meat offered here today isn't "natural", even if cow+steer came together to form the original shape...0 -
What do they mean by "Americans were more accepting than Europeans"? They were more accepting by 2%? By 20%? By 50%? I think there needs to be some clarification there. Also, I am not surprised that Americans "cared less" about moral issues than other people around the world...
I don't care what % was more accepting...............The fact that Americans in general are ok with GMO and cloned foods is greatly alarming and disturbing to me.0 -
As I said, the article has nothing to do with the healthiness of eating cloned or engineered food, its merely the ethics.
One thing I want to point out that many people do not realize. Organic certification is not something regulated by the government, nor when you recieve certification, do you have regular checkups to confirm you are keeping with organic. I work with one of the largest chicken distributors in the midwest, and the biggest problem they have seen with organic chicken farming is once farms are certified, they often switch to more 'scientific' forms of chicken raising, to yield a larger product. In other words, at least a portion of the chicken (and Im sure everything else) that is 'organic', may not be so organic
I never mentioned eating organically..............
I said finding local, farmed sources to purchase the food you eat.
It is becoming a necessity to get to a point where one is eating local and sustainable.0 -
Those chicken breasts don't just get huge on their own, and real chickens don't grow full size in 6 weeks like a chicken full of hormones would.
I wish you and others would do some research before making random statements like this one. The fact is that the FDA doesn't allow the use of hormones in any kind of fowl. Which is why you'll never see "hormone free" on any chicken, turkey,duck or egg packaging...period!0 -
Really interesting and objective article. Thanks for posting the link :flowerforyou:0 -
This sounds like the stupidest business decision in the history of man. Would you pay $100 for a cow, or $500 for a lottery ticket with a 1 in 5 shot at winning a cow? While I don't know for certain, my guess would be that there's no regulation against it because it's not being done and no one plans on doing anytime soon.0
-
You know the irony in all this is that the folks who really buy into organic foods are the ones that are against this. This type of genetic manipulation is the only way your going to see a decrease in the use of growth hormones and such things. If you can breed the super species that performs as well as those "hopped up" animals is there no room in your mind to consider that may actually be far more healthy? What we all must face is the fact that this planet is severely over populated so if we want to continue to have food for all, maximizing our abilities to harvest foods is going to be important.
I personally fail to see how a cow whose genes we're spliced in a lab is any different than a cow who was intentionally bread to maximize specific genes. I'd rather have a genetically engineered cow producing my milk than one that's loaded with all sorts of growth hormones.0 -
You folks are confusing GMO and cloning.
GMO is an organism that has had genetic splices from different organisms inserted into its genetic code to give it specific characteristics. Argue how you want about the merits of GMO, that's not my point in this post.
Cloned organisms are absolutely identical to their donor organism. Chemically, biologically, genetically identical. They ARE natural organisms for all intents and purposes and even their creators can't tell them from the originals using any test except their age.
Also, cloning is a very, very inefficient way to get an animal compared to just simply breeding the thing, so I seriously doubt they will ever become economically feasible as a food item for most people.0 -
I think there is a fine line between ethics, sustainability and consumption.
The truth of the matter is that the large supermarket chains (yes, even the so-called fairtrade ones) engage with farmers in a very unethical way to ensure large scale provision of "perfect" produce for as little money as possible. The waste that is generated is criminal.
But the consumer doesn't want to pay a premium to eat well. They have got used to cheap food and the supermarkets exploit such consumerism. If food bills continue to rise above the rate of inflation, and GM produce is seen as a much cheaper alternative, then as sure as eggs are eggs, the public WILL vote with their wallet.
There is no evidence that GM crops are any less wholesome than traditional crops. There is a moral issue insofar as some GM seeds will grow single yield crops, thus the farmers have to continue to buy new each season. That is the commercial aspect of GM. The business behind the science is not developing the technology altruistically.
On the other side of the coin... the worlds' population is increasing dramatically and we cannot sustain that growth with current methods of farming. If growing GM wheat and cloning chickens helps lift a nation out of stravation and poverty, would that be so wrong?
Of course we know that will only happen if someone makes a profit... and it sure as heck ain't gonna be the farmers!0 -
Those chicken breasts don't just get huge on their own, and real chickens don't grow full size in 6 weeks like a chicken full of hormones would.
I wish you and others would do some research before making random statements like this one. The fact is that the FDA doesn't allow the use of hormones in any kind of fowl. Which is why you'll never see "hormone free" on any chicken, turkey,duck or egg packaging...period!
Actually, that's not true. I have seen packages of chicken and turkey labeled "hormone-free". I noticed this because I know hormones aren't allowed in poultry. They can advertise it's hormone free as long as they also label it somewhere in fine print that hormones aren't allowed in poultry. Marketing gimmick. I've seen it on pork too.0 -
Those chicken breasts don't just get huge on their own, and real chickens don't grow full size in 6 weeks like a chicken full of hormones would.
I wish you and others would do some research before making random statements like this one. The fact is that the FDA doesn't allow the use of hormones in any kind of fowl. Which is why you'll never see "hormone free" on any chicken, turkey,duck or egg packaging...period!
Actually, that's not true. I have seen packages of chicken and turkey labeled "hormone-free". I noticed this because I know
hormones aren't allowed in poultry. They can advertise it's hormone free as long as they also label it somewhere in fine print that
hormones aren't allowed in poultry. Marketing gimmick. I've seen it on pork too.
You are correct that marketing crap is allowed but in reality it shouldn't be because of uneducated people assume that hormones are allowed in poultry and pork. My point was that there are many who are ignorant of the facts and make random statements that have no basis...holds true for hormones and many other aspects of diet and nutrition...
[/quote]0 -
[/quote]Those chicken breasts don't just get huge on their own, and real chickens don't grow full size in 6 weeks like a chicken full of hormones would.
I wish you and others would do some research before making random statements like this one. The fact is that the FDA doesn't allow the use of hormones in any kind of fowl. Which is why you'll never see "hormone free" on any chicken, turkey,duck or egg packaging...period!
Actually, that's not true. I have seen packages of chicken and turkey labeled "hormone-free". I noticed this because I know
hormones aren't allowed in poultry. They can advertise it's hormone free as long as they also label it somewhere in fine print that
hormones aren't allowed in poultry. Marketing gimmick. I've seen it on pork too.
You are correct that marketing crap is allowed but in reality it shouldn't be because of uneducated people assume that hormones are allowed in poultry and pork. My point was that there are many who are ignorant of the facts and make random statements that have no basis...holds true for hormones and many other aspects of diet and nutrition...
Sorry. I agree with your point, I just wanted to point out that you will find "hormone-free" chicken.0 -
ugh if we're being fed cloned things it should at least be labeled....I don't eat meat, but the FDA doesn't require labeling cloned or genetically modified veggies either
Im gonna let you in on a secret, if you eat broccoli, any kind, you are eating a genetically modified food. Broccoli is an evolved food, created by very specific genetic selection. It was done about 2,000 years ago, but broccoli, in the sense that most people use it, is not a 'natural' food.
Nor people who own dogs, sorry to say, but your dog more than likely is a descendent of a breed that was genertically engineered as well.
Just because it was someone doing it outside by selecting the variables, as opposed to someone doing it in a labratory, does not make it inherently evil
Really? Your first post was intelligent and well thought out, then you post this BS? There is a big difference between “genetically engineered” and selective breeding. I’m sure you know this, please try not to bend the truth to make your case, it will make your argument much more sound.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions