HOME

Name: margalit
Location: Massachusetts, United States Professional writer, educational advocate, opinionated ultra liberal mother of 18 year old twins, living life in the slow lane due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, and diabetes.

email: margalitc at yahoo dot com

View My Complete Profile

My Amazon.com Wish List

Rate this Blog at Blogged

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

PanHandling!

Photobucket

Alltop, confirmation that we kick ass



Powered by FeedBlitz

Subscribe with Bloglines

Blog Search: The Source for Blogs

Add to Technorati Favorites

Digg!

Powered by Blogger

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Please pass the cloned beef, Mom.

Today the FDA decided to allow human consumption of cloned foods, including beef and milk products. Yummy!

I don't know about you, but I have as much trust in the FDA as I do in Tom Cruise's sanity. And after viewing this piece of bizarre, I think you'll agree that Tom Cruise's sanity is in deep deep doo-doo. So you can imagine how much faith I have in the FDA's decisions on what is safe and what isn't for our families. For me, cloned beef isn't gonna happen. I have no intention of consuming any cloned product, no because I'm against cloning, because I'm not. Because I don't believe that the FDA has the consumer's best interests at heart in cases of just normally grown foods, never mind cloned or genetically altered food. Silly me, I think food should be food, not a science experiment.

Several things bother me about this latest gaff from the FDA. First, cloned animals are still extremely rare, with about 400 cows and 200 pigs alive right now. So the fact is, cloned animals aren't going to be on the store shelves anytime soon. So why did the FDA decide to pronounce the cloned animals as safe? Because they're protecting big agriculture, as usual. You know, the same companies that provide us with unsafe meat and poultry. As I said, the FDA has never been about protecting the interests of the consumer. Nope, they're all about helping the corporate agriculture companies to protect their money interests.

There hasn't been any significant testing, and the testing that has been done has not been rigorous. The data is insufficient, and yet the FDA pronounces the beef products as safe when they know no such thing. There aren't enough subjects to test, what with cloning being such a difficult process and all.

They have no intention of allowing the corporate aggies to label the foods as cloned. Yes, you won't know what you're eating. Unless you keep Kosher or Halal, both dietary religious platforms ban cloning. Go Jews!

Dairies that refuse to use cloned milk will have to label their products as "clone free". And what dairies are those? The small farmer, who once again has to carry the burden of ensuring that the food he provides consumers is safe.

Me, I think the whole thing stinks of cow patties. I understand why people would want to clone animals. Prize race horses, show dogs, even family pets that are beloved all would be good reasons to clone if you can afford it. But to put cloned animals into the nations food supply with little to no reassurance of it's safety? Only the arrogant FDA, especially THIS FDA under the Bush administration which has been allowed to run wild and free would attempt this. The scum.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Digg! Stumble It! JBlog Me add to kirtsy

5 Comments:

Blogger margalit said...

Testing. Comments seem to be broken. Ignore this.

16/1/08 2:56 AM  
OpenID margalit said...

what is going on with the signing in? WEIRD.

16/1/08 2:58 AM  
Blogger kabbage said...

Like you, I don't trust the FDA on cloning. My guess is that the big-Ag people will try to prevent the non-cloners from saying "this meat is from clone-free animals" or anything of that ilk so consumers cannot make an educated choice.

I disagree on the desirability of cloning a beloved pet. I think it would be unfair to the clone because its environment will be so different that its personality will be different. Heck, even the markings are very likely to be different (I've seen pictures of identical twin [same placenta] puppies, and their markings were different. Similar, but distinctly different), let alone the personality. Even if raised by the same people, everybody is X years older and Y experiences different than with the original. People may be angry that Fido II is not just like Fido I.

16/1/08 11:22 PM  
Blogger margalit said...

kabbage, that's a good point! But you gotta wonder just what kind of person would spend so much money on cloning a pet anyhow.

16/1/08 11:33 PM  
Blogger kabbage said...

Somebody nutty enough to be irrational about Pet II NOT being Pet I, despite its clone status. I fear the irrational when they're supposed to be the responsible parties for caretaking. I fear animal abuse potential in this situation.

17/1/08 11:55 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Copyright, 2003-2011 by Animzmirot Design Group. All rights reserved. No part of this blog may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval without written permission from Margalit, the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review. In other words, stealing is bad, and if you take what doesn't belong to you, it's YOUR karma.