fda/food/cloning

fda approves safety of cloned food products:
http://www.webmd.com/news/20080115/f...src=RSS_PUBLIC

I've got a real problem with cloned anything. If there are to be no
labels denoting cloned from not cloned, as it would appear those doing
the cloning will prefer, my husband and and I have discussed
vegetarianism because we don't believe the cloned foods will be safe.

What not makes them safe? I don't know much about it but would like to know
the dangers.
Jacquie
"Sharon Chilson" <SharonChilson@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17944-4793C295-748@storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net...
>
> I've got a real problem with cloned anything. If there are to be no
> labels denoting cloned from not cloned, as it would appear those doing
> the cloning will prefer, my husband and and I have discussed
> vegetarianism because we don't believe the cloned foods will be safe.
>

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:52:21 -0500, SharonChilson@webtv.net (Sharon
Chilson) wrote:

>I've got a real problem with cloned anything. If there are to be no
>labels denoting cloned from not cloned, as it would appear those doing
>the cloning will prefer, my husband and and I have discussed
>vegetarianism because we don't believe the cloned foods will be safe.


Why?

I heard on the news that there is something we eat all the time that
is already being cloned and no one told us. Can't remember what it
was, tho.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. If it is identical to
the original....what's the difference? And what if the clone got away
and mixed in with a bunch of originals...how would we know?


Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

I was thinking the same thing....Unless there is hormones involved...there
just isn't enough info yet.

"Dana©" <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in message
news:dsi7p39fs2qk4ulv9cj18jut0jhv95s283@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:52:21 -0500, SharonChilson@webtv.net (Sharon
> Chilson) wrote:
>
>>I've got a real problem with cloned anything. If there are to be no
>>labels denoting cloned from not cloned, as it would appear those doing
>>the cloning will prefer, my husband and and I have discussed
>>vegetarianism because we don't believe the cloned foods will be safe.
>
>
> Why?
>
> I heard on the news that there is something we eat all the time that
> is already being cloned and no one told us. Can't remember what it
> was, tho.
>
> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. If it is identical to
> the original....what's the difference? And what if the clone got away
> and mixed in with a bunch of originals...how would we know?
>
>
> Dana
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
> for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

then there's the following:
green pigs: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22563650/

"Dana©" <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in message
news:dsi7p39fs2qk4ulv9cj18jut0jhv95s283@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:52:21 -0500, SharonChilson@webtv.net (Sharon
> Chilson) wrote:
>
> >I've got a real problem with cloned anything. If there are to be no
> >labels denoting cloned from not cloned, as it would appear those doing
> >the cloning will prefer, my husband and and I have discussed
> >vegetarianism because we don't believe the cloned foods will be safe.
>
>
> Why?
----------------
For me, not so much that it's *poisonous*, just that it's *weird*. Cloning
is something most of us have a visceral revulsion for.

Eva

Sharon Chilson wrote:
> I've got a real problem with cloned anything. If there are to be no
> labels denoting cloned from not cloned, as it would appear those doing
> the cloning will prefer, my husband and and I have discussed
> vegetarianism because we don't believe the cloned foods will be safe.

Clones are supposed to be 'genetically identical' to the parent,
although I don't know if that's entirely true. I haven't read
enough about eating cloned foods to have formed an opinion.

At this point I have a mcuh bigger problem with three other types
of foodstuffs in our food supply.

The first has been around for a while - factory-farmed meats
(most of the meat that is sold in your supermarkets), which are
treated with hormones (for rapid growth) and antibiotics (to
counteract the rapid spread of disease that's endemic in the
crowded conditions in the feedlot or henhouse or fish farm).
Both remain in the meat. Low doses of hormones have the
potential for affecting our bodies, particularly those of the
developing fetus and infant. Low doses of antibiotics contribute
to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Additionally, the food itself is far from the animal's natural
diet. Meat scrap is ground up and incorporated in cattle feed,
to add protein - but cows don't eat animal protein, aside from a
few insects that might be on the grass they eat. In China, racks
of chicken cages sit above fish farms, so that the droppings fall
into the water to 'supplement' the fishes' diet.

The second is relatively new - genetically modified (GM) crops.
These are genetically engineered to produce pesticides, for
example, so that the crops don't have to be sprayed. I don't
know WHAT that does to the humans or animals that eat the crops,
and they can cross-pollinate with non-GM foods in the next field,
potentially affecting the seed of those crops.

The third is irradiated food, done to increase shelf-life and
kill bacteria. That works, but the radiation also can cause
changes within the cells of the food... What are the changes, and
what are their effects? Are they benign or potentially
dangerous? I don't know.

Agribusiness, of course, knows how much all this grosses people
out, so they fight tooth and nail against laws requiring the
foods to be labeled. Our only out is for producers who don't
follow these practices to label these foods as not being from
animals fed antibiotics or hormones, not from GM crops, not
irradiated.

The FDA has merely become a department of pharmaceutical and
agricultural mega-business. It no longer works to protect the
citizens, only the corporations. IMNSHO.

FurPaw
--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dogs.

Dana© wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:52:21 -0500, SharonChilson@webtv.net (Sharon
> Chilson) wrote:
>
>> I've got a real problem with cloned anything. If there are to be no
>> labels denoting cloned from not cloned, as it would appear those doing
>> the cloning will prefer, my husband and and I have discussed
>> vegetarianism because we don't believe the cloned foods will be safe.
>
>
> Why?
>
> I heard on the news that there is something we eat all the time that
> is already being cloned and no one told us. Can't remember what it
> was, tho.
>
>


A LOT of your fruit and veggies are already "clones" - every time you
propagate a plant from a cutting rather than a seed, that's what you
are doing.

Bananas - when did you last see a seed in a banana?

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:09:02 GMT, Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com>
wrote:

>A LOT of your fruit and veggies are already "clones" - every time you
>propagate a plant from a cutting rather than a seed, that's what you
>are doing.

I was thinking it was veggies.

>
>Bananas - when did you last see a seed in a banana?

Ah. Gee, never?


Dana

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Dana© wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:09:02 GMT, Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A LOT of your fruit and veggies are already "clones" - every time you
>> propagate a plant from a cutting rather than a seed, that's what you
>> are doing.
>
> I was thinking it was veggies.
>
>> Bananas - when did you last see a seed in a banana?
>
> Ah. Gee, never?
>
>

Exactly - the varieties of bananas we use these days are completely
seedless and propagated totally from cloning.

It does worry some agricultural scientists - we're so dependent on a
single variety of some major food plants that if some plague or pest
strikes there's zero resistance.

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

Jette wrote:

> Exactly - the varieties of bananas we use these days are completely
> seedless and propagated totally from cloning.

They're propagated from cuttings and root shoots that the plants
themselves send out. Asexual reproduction is a form of cloning,
but it's an ancient form of cloning that evolved and is used
'naturally' by many plant varieties. It doesn't require the type
of hormonal and mechanical intervention that cloning an animal
does.

The bananas that we eat are seedless (the little black specks in
their centers are vestigial seeds) as a result of a mutation
several thousand years ago.

> It does worry some agricultural scientists - we're so dependent on a
> single variety of some major food plants that if some plague or pest
> strikes there's zero resistance.

And that's currently a major problem for bananas; a fungus that
attacks the most widely cultivated type of banana is controlled
only by massive spraying with fungicide.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...irebanana.html

FurPaw



--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dogs.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:06 -0700, FurPaw
<furrealpawdog@gmaildog.com> wrote:

> Asexual reproduction is a form of cloning,


That reminds me of something I heard on the news about the shark in
the tank totally alone giving birth to a baby! They can't figure out
how she did it.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

I/we don't like the cloning of foods because it just seems wrong. The
other food things--raising animals in cages, franken foods, etc.--don't
like them either. I think maybe this is the straw that broke the camels
back for us.

The very idea of cloning is creepy. Plus, with the FDA saying it's safe,
and that nothing has to be labeled as cloned (which to me means that I'm
not the only one totally put off by it), to me that means that some day
the crapola will hit the fan and it'll turns out that there are health
risks posed by those meats. And maybe I'm suffering from a huge case of
paranoia, but that's what I think.

I am against the cloning of humans too.

I think I am going to raise my own livestock..and just feed them fresh
feed The only thing we can't have on our property is pigs...and if you
have ever gone past a pig farm you know why

I believe some spices and herbs are irradiated..I think I read that
somewhere. Pork too?
Jacquie


"FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmaildog.com> wrote in message
news:FeydndV9yc9XrAnanZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Sharon Chilson wrote:
>> I've got a real problem with cloned anything. If there are to be no
>> labels denoting cloned from not cloned, as it would appear those doing
>> the cloning will prefer, my husband and and I have discussed
>> vegetarianism because we don't believe the cloned foods will be safe.
>
> Clones are supposed to be 'genetically identical' to the parent, although
> I don't know if that's entirely true. I haven't read enough about eating
> cloned foods to have formed an opinion.
>
> At this point I have a mcuh bigger problem with three other types of
> foodstuffs in our food supply.
>
> The first has been around for a while - factory-farmed meats (most of the
> meat that is sold in your supermarkets), which are treated with hormones
> (for rapid growth) and antibiotics (to counteract the rapid spread of
> disease that's endemic in the crowded conditions in the feedlot or
> henhouse or fish farm). Both remain in the meat. Low doses of hormones
> have the potential for affecting our bodies, particularly those of the
> developing fetus and infant. Low doses of antibiotics contribute to the
> development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Additionally, the food
> itself is far from the animal's natural diet. Meat scrap is ground up and
> incorporated in cattle feed, to add protein - but cows don't eat animal
> protein, aside from a few insects that might be on the grass they eat. In
> China, racks of chicken cages sit above fish farms, so that the droppings
> fall into the water to 'supplement' the fishes' diet.
>
> The second is relatively new - genetically modified (GM) crops. These are
> genetically engineered to produce pesticides, for example, so that the
> crops don't have to be sprayed. I don't know WHAT that does to the humans
> or animals that eat the crops, and they can cross-pollinate with non-GM
> foods in the next field, potentially affecting the seed of those crops.
>
> The third is irradiated food, done to increase shelf-life and kill
> bacteria. That works, but the radiation also can cause changes within the
> cells of the food... What are the changes, and what are their effects?
> Are they benign or potentially dangerous? I don't know.
>
> Agribusiness, of course, knows how much all this grosses people out, so
> they fight tooth and nail against laws requiring the foods to be labeled.
> Our only out is for producers who don't follow these practices to label
> these foods as not being from animals fed antibiotics or hormones, not
> from GM crops, not irradiated.
>
> The FDA has merely become a department of pharmaceutical and agricultural
> mega-business. It no longer works to protect the citizens, only the
> corporations. IMNSHO.
>
> FurPaw
> --
> "Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
> every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
> a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
> those who are cold and are not clothed."
> - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
> To reply, unleash the dogs.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:11:24 -0700, "jacquie"
<happikat694@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I think I am going to raise my own livestock..and just feed them fresh
>feed

And then eat them?! Awwww........I couldn't do it.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:53:33 -0500, SharonChilson@webtv.net (Sharon
Chilson) wrote:

>to me that means that some day
>the crapola will hit the fan and it'll turns out that there are health
>risks posed by those meats.

If they are identical to the original, what risks could there be? And
suddenly turning into a vegan is not to be taken lightly. It is not
easy to do. I admire vegans because it takes alot of planning to live
without meat. And if cloning becomes a way of life for everyone, how
will you know what is cloned and what is not. Sounds like too much
drama for me. I have a short time on earth I don't want to spend most
of it planning meals and worrying about what I have eaten. None of us
get out of here alive, anyway.

I agree with you about cloning humans. Now, I find that creepy.

Dana

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Dana© wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:53:33 -0500, SharonChilson@webtv.net (Sharon
> Chilson) wrote:
>
>> to me that means that some day
>> the crapola will hit the fan and it'll turns out that there are health
>> risks posed by those meats.
>
> If they are identical to the original, what risks could there be?

They're genetically identical to the original, but their DNA is
the DNA of an older animal. Strands of DNA are capped with
structures called telomeres, which shorten as the animal ages.
If the DNA is taken from an older animal, the clones all have DNA
with short telomeres. What effect does this have on the quality
or safety of the meat? I have no idea... but I don't think this
is well-studied.

This article also mentions potential economic problems of
cloning, and problems with loss of genetic diversity in a herd.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience...just_meat.html

I don't know the answers, but it sounds like at the very least,
labeling of meat from cloned animals should be mandatory, giving
the consumer a choice.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dogs.

Sharon Chilson wrote:
> I/we don't like the cloning of foods because it just seems wrong. The
> other food things--raising animals in cages, franken foods, etc.--don't
> like them either. I think maybe this is the straw that broke the camels
> back for us.
>
> The very idea of cloning is creepy. Plus, with the FDA saying it's safe,
> and that nothing has to be labeled as cloned (which to me means that I'm
> not the only one totally put off by it), to me that means that some day
> the crapola will hit the fan and it'll turns out that there are health
> risks posed by those meats. And maybe I'm suffering from a huge case of
> paranoia, but that's what I think.
>
> I am against the cloning of humans too.
>

My nieces are clones - of each other. It's called "being twins".

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Jan 21, 12:45 am, FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmaildog.com> wrote:
> Sharon Chilson wrote:
> > I've got a real problem with cloned anything. If there are to be no
> > labels denoting cloned from not cloned, as it would appear those doing
> > the cloning will prefer, my husband and and I have discussed
> > vegetarianism because we don't believe the cloned foods will be safe.
>
> Clones are supposed to be 'genetically identical' to the parent,
> although I don't know if that's entirely true. I haven't read
> enough about eating cloned foods to have formed an opinion.
>
> At this point I have a mcuh bigger problem with three other types
> of foodstuffs in our food supply.
>
> The first has been around for a while - factory-farmed meats
> (most of the meat that is sold in your supermarkets), which are
> treated with hormones (for rapid growth) and antibiotics (to
> counteract the rapid spread of disease that's endemic in the
> crowded conditions in the feedlot or henhouse or fish farm).
> Both remain in the meat. Low doses of hormones have the
> potential for affecting our bodies, particularly those of the
> developing fetus and infant. Low doses of antibiotics contribute
> to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
> Additionally, the food itself is far from the animal's natural
> diet. Meat scrap is ground up and incorporated in cattle feed,
> to add protein - but cows don't eat animal protein, aside from a
> few insects that might be on the grass they eat. In China, racks
> of chicken cages sit above fish farms, so that the droppings fall
> into the water to 'supplement' the fishes' diet.
>
> The second is relatively new - genetically modified (GM) crops.
> These are genetically engineered to produce pesticides, for
> example, so that the crops don't have to be sprayed. I don't
> know WHAT that does to the humans or animals that eat the crops,
> and they can cross-pollinate with non-GM foods in the next field,
> potentially affecting the seed of those crops.
>
> The third is irradiated food, done to increase shelf-life and
> kill bacteria. That works, but the radiation also can cause
> changes within the cells of the food... What are the changes, and
> what are their effects? Are they benign or potentially
> dangerous? I don't know.
>
> Agribusiness, of course, knows how much all this grosses people
> out, so they fight tooth and nail against laws requiring the
> foods to be labeled. Our only out is for producers who don't
> follow these practices to label these foods as not being from
> animals fed antibiotics or hormones, not from GM crops, not
> irradiated.
>
> The FDA has merely become a department of pharmaceutical and
> agricultural mega-business. It no longer works to protect the
> citizens, only the corporations. IMNSHO.
>
> FurPaw
> --
> "Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
> every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
> a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
> those who are cold and are not clothed."
> - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
> To reply, unleash the dogs.

it just amazes me - how research & technology, driven by corporate
monies, have the ability to dramatically change life as we know it. i
don't think you can screw around with this type of thing & not expect
to have significant & far reaching consequences that are
unimaginable. but our technological advances are matched by human
arrogance & greed, not wisdom & common sense. do i even need to
mention things like the corporate patents on the seeds & what that
means (throw in the gmo pollution with that & you see another scary
scenario in addition to the the unknown environmental/health risks).

it's not like we get to collectively vote on this, do we? if
interested, this clip is among many that looks at gmos. i don't know
if it is raises consciousness, but it sure makes my hair stand on
end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U0pd...eature=related

"Dana©" <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in message
news:2btbp3dljmncj0psb5phs67pncvccq0j8g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:53:33 -0500, SharonChilson@webtv.net (Sharon
> Chilson) wrote:
>
>>to me that means that some day
>>the crapola will hit the fan and it'll turns out that there are health
>>risks posed by those meats.
>
> If they are identical to the original, what risks could there be? And
> suddenly turning into a vegan is not to be taken lightly. It is not
> easy to do. I admire vegans because it takes alot of planning to live
> without meat.

Or eggs. Or dairy... no way could I restrict myself that much, food-wise. I
like a nice, wide selection of foods. The fact that I don't like most
fish/seafood already poses enough of a restriction on my diet, AFAIC! <g>

Cathy



And if cloning becomes a way of life for everyone, how
> will you know what is cloned and what is not. Sounds like too much
> drama for me. I have a short time on earth I don't want to spend most
> of it planning meals and worrying about what I have eaten. None of us
> get out of here alive, anyway.
>
> I agree with you about cloning humans. Now, I find that creepy.
>
> Dana
>
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
> for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Dana© wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:04:21 GMT, Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My nieces are clones - of each other. It's called "being twins".
>
>
> But, they don't have the same fingerprints. Which makes me wonder...if
> they cloned a human would the copy have the same fingerprints as the
> original?
>

Did you see the cloned cat? It didn't even have the same fur patterns
as the clone mother.


--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:04:21 GMT, Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com>
wrote:

>My nieces are clones - of each other. It's called "being twins".


But, they don't have the same fingerprints. Which makes me wonder...if
they cloned a human would the copy have the same fingerprints as the
original?


Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:50:58 -0700, FurPaw
<furrealpawdog@gmaildog.com> wrote:

>They're genetically identical to the original, but their DNA is
>the DNA of an older animal. Strands of DNA are capped with
>structures called telomeres, which shorten as the animal ages.
>If the DNA is taken from an older animal, the clones all have DNA
>with short telomeres. What effect does this have on the quality
>or safety of the meat? I have no idea... but I don't think this
>is well-studied.

I remember back when they first cloned that sheep they found that it
aged at a faster rate than it should have. Would that mean that we
would age faster if we ate the meat of the cloned? I don't *think*
so..
>
>This article also mentions potential economic problems of
>cloning, and problems with loss of genetic diversity in a herd.
>
>http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience...just_meat.html
>
>I don't know the answers, but it sounds like at the very least,
>labeling of meat from cloned animals should be mandatory, giving
>the consumer a choice.

Yep, choice is best. But, some little grocer will get in a hurry one
day, bypass the label of CLONED on the package and someone is gonna
eat what they don't want and not even know it.

Dana
>
>FurPaw
>

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Jette wrote:
> Dana© wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:04:21 GMT, Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My nieces are clones - of each other. It's called "being twins".
>>
>>
>> But, they don't have the same fingerprints. Which makes me wonder...if
>> they cloned a human would the copy have the same fingerprints as the
>> original?

Very similar, but most likely not identical.
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/ID_Twins.html

> Did you see the cloned cat? It didn't even have the same fur patterns
> as the clone mother.

Right from the moment of fertilization of twins, or whatever they
call the creation of the blastocyst for clones, the environment
begins to exert an effect on the developing embryo, even to the
point of influencing when or whether genes are activated and
deactivated. So genetically identical (same genotype) organisms
do not develop to be absolutely physically identical (differences
in phenotype). Differences at birth can be are difficult to
detect, but more and more differences appear as the organism ages.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dogs.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:33:18 -0500, Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:50:58 -0700, FurPaw
><furrealpawdog@gmaildog.com> wrote:
>
>>They're genetically identical to the original, but their DNA is
>>the DNA of an older animal. Strands of DNA are capped with
>>structures called telomeres, which shorten as the animal ages.
>>If the DNA is taken from an older animal, the clones all have DNA
>>with short telomeres. What effect does this have on the quality
>>or safety of the meat? I have no idea... but I don't think this
>>is well-studied.
>
>I remember back when they first cloned that sheep they found that it
>aged at a faster rate than it should have. Would that mean that we
>would age faster if we ate the meat of the cloned? I don't *think*
>so..
>>
I don't know. I only think no farmer wants to own a 4 year old infant.
They lose time.

R

Ratatosk, Jola
--

If you need to e-mail me, replace "don'tbother" with "zedicus"

FurPaw wrote:
> Jette wrote:
>> Dana© wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:04:21 GMT, Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My nieces are clones - of each other. It's called "being twins".
>>>
>>>
>>> But, they don't have the same fingerprints. Which makes me wonder...if
>>> they cloned a human would the copy have the same fingerprints as the
>>> original?
>
> Very similar, but most likely not identical.
> http://forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/ID_Twins.html
>
>> Did you see the cloned cat? It didn't even have the same fur patterns
>> as the clone mother.
>
> Right from the moment of fertilization of twins, or whatever they call
> the creation of the blastocyst for clones, the environment begins to
> exert an effect on the developing embryo, even to the point of
> influencing when or whether genes are activated and deactivated. So
> genetically identical (same genotype) organisms do not develop to be
> absolutely physically identical (differences in phenotype). Differences
> at birth can be are difficult to detect, but more and more differences
> appear as the organism ages.
>
>

Yeah, I can tell the girls apart - but I still can't remember which
one is which unless they're wearing their signature colours <g>


--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Jan 22, 1:33*pm, Dana© <AneeB...@ownmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:50:58 -0700, FurPaw
>
> <furrealpaw...@gmaildog.com> wrote:
> >They're genetically identical to the original, but their DNA is
> >the DNA of an older animal. *Strands of DNA are capped with
> >structures called telomeres, which shorten as the animal ages.
> >If the DNA is taken from an older animal, the clones all have DNA
> >with short telomeres. *What effect does this have on the quality
> >or safety of the meat? *I have no idea... but I don't think this
> >is well-studied.
>
> I remember back when they first cloned that sheep they found that it
> aged at a faster rate than it should have. Would that mean that we
> would age faster if we ate the meat of the cloned? I don't *think*
> so..

As I recall, the reason why the cloned sheep didn't live as long
wasn't because it aged faster, but because a cloned animal's lifespan
is limited to the lifespan remaining to the animal it was cloned
from. It's like Furpaw said, the cloning was done from older cells.
So even though the cloned animal looks younger, it has some built-in
aging. Not a big issue when it comes to animals that are grown for
food, but it would be for a cloned human.
Les

>
>
>
> >This article also mentions potential economic problems of
> >cloning, and problems with loss of genetic diversity in a herd.
>
> >http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience...bout_more_than...
>
> >I don't know the answers, but it sounds like at the very least,
> >labeling of meat from cloned animals should be mandatory, giving
> >the consumer a choice.
>
> Yep, choice is best. But, some little grocer will get in a hurry one
> day, bypass the label of CLONED on the package and someone is gonna
> eat what they don't want and not even know it.
>
> Dana
>
>
>
> >FurPaw
>
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
> for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:08:21 -0800 (PST), sage hen
<desertnymph@cwo.com> wrote:

>wasn't because it aged faster, but because a cloned animal's lifespan
>is limited to the lifespan remaining to the animal it was cloned
>from.


Ewww....now that's weird.



Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:29:47 -0500, Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:08:21 -0800 (PST), sage hen
><desertnymph@cwo.com> wrote:
>
>>wasn't because it aged faster, but because a cloned animal's lifespan
>>is limited to the lifespan remaining to the animal it was cloned
>>from.
>
>
>Ewww....now that's weird.
>
Not realy. every cell in our body can split for a limited times. A
cloned animal gets the DNA witch has split for a number of years.
I don't see the profit in cloning.

R

Ratatosk, Jola
--

If you need to e-mail me, replace "don'tbother" with "zedicus"

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:08:21 -0800 (PST), sage hen
> <desertnymph@cwo.com> wrote:
>
> >wasn't because it aged faster, but because a cloned animal's lifespan
> >is limited to the lifespan remaining to the animal it was cloned
> >from.
>
>
> Ewww....now that's weird.

No, what's weird is how sperm made in an aging body meets up with an egg
that's been in the woman's body since before her birth, and the two make
a completely _new_ body together, with new cells and a biological clock
starting at zero. That contradictory behavior is one reason for stem
cell research.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:23:15 +0100, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote:

>No, what's weird is how sperm made in an aging body meets up with an egg
>that's been in the woman's body since before her birth, and the two make
>a completely _new_ body together, with new cells and a biological clock
>starting at zero. That contradictory behavior is one reason for stem
>cell research.

Right.


Dana

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.