Are meat and dairy products from cloned animals better-quality food at lower costs?

  • Yes scientology is a religion

    Yes Scientology should be considered a religion. Religion is an organized set of beliefs and Scientology falls well within that spectrum. Many may view it as very radical, but it does not change what it is. Freedom of religion in this country allows people to practice Scientology without being persecuted.

  • It is cheaper and faster than waiting.

    If everybody had to wait for animals to breed to get meat then we wouldn't be able to produce enough food for our every growing world. However if we started cloning animal the correct way and could do it right, we would be able to produce enough meat for the entire world.

  • Times are tough, and sometimes sacrificing things that aren't noticeable is worth it for a cheaper price.

    In the current economic times, everyone is struggling to save a dollar somewhere. Grocery shopping can get expensive if you only buy the top end, real stuff. Sometimes when you have a lot of mouths to feed and are on a budget, cutbacks need to be taken somewhere. If a difference cannot be tasted, I would buy it if it were cheaper.

    Posted by: BelligerentFausto31
  • Products from cloned animals are better foods at lower costs, because they are designed to be just that.

    Scientists care about the Earth and know we're growing in population. But, also know that our available space is static. Research is done all the time to bring us better, safer foods that are economically available to most people. It is scientific breakthroughs that eliminate diseases and give us safe methods to store and prepare food. Cloned animals are a recent development and surely have room for improvement. But, there has never been big news of widespread health problems from their food products. Fears are, to date, unjustified.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • No, because nature and selective breeding do a fine job of passing down the best traits, so cloning isn't needed to improve farm animals.

    I can see how cloning could be used to produce bigger, fatter livestock, and livestock that produce more milk, but it isn't the only way to achieve this. Natural selection and selective breeding already serve to ensure that the best traits are passed down. Cloning shouldn't be used for this purpose.

    Posted by: Th4Fire
  • I support meat and diary products form cloned animals. The consumer gains from this decision.

    Cross breeding to create the best product is acceptable. In my opinion, cloning is the natural progression of cross breeding. The FDA has approved cloning more than ten years ago. Cloning lowers the cost to produce meat and dairy while producing a better quality product. Lower cost to produce should mean lower cost to the consumer.

    Posted by: N34I3HeIP
  • I don't believe cloned animals produce better-quality food and that there is no difference between cloned and traditionally produced meat and dairy products.

    I do not believe that cloned animals produce better quality meat and dairy products. They do produce less expensive meat and dairy products. Cloned animals are cloned from animals produced from natural selection genetics so they don't produce anything better than Mother Nature already produces. Since many people will be reluctant to buy cloned meat and dairy products it will sell at a discount. That should force all meat and dairy prices lower.

    Posted by: l0lliep0ps
  • I am unsure about the "quality". I don't think we should use cloned animals as food because we still don't know enough about what the side-effects might be of ingesting "cloned food".

    Using cloned animals as food might be cheaper. That being said, I don't think the cost is worth the risk. We still don't know a lot about cloning and its potential side-effects. While food is getting more expensive and the cost-of-living raises aren't coming in, we still don't know much about cloning. It would be a very sad and tragic thing if we began eating cloned food, only to find out there were less than favorable side-effects. Let's not upset the status quo until we have all the facts.

    Posted by: JayceC
  • I disagree with the cloning of animals for food, mainly because of the safety issues that may arise from using these animals as foodstuff.

    There is a growing belief that cloned animals may be prone to diseases and other maladies that will affect the human population. If these animals are consumed, we may be opening a Pandora's box of diseases and plagues.

    Posted by: HangingDorsey39
  • Meat and dairy products from cloned animals are said to be cheap and high quality, but they are not worth their inherent risks.

    While meat and dairy from cloned animals appears to be the answer to mankind's' dietary woes, the risks involved are too high to justify their use. Mankind has suffered throughout the ages when a once reliable clone of a food product has contracted a disease or suffered an infestation, only to be all but wiped out.

    Posted by: C0n5tGet
  • I do not believe that cloned animals provide food that has the proper nutrition.

    It is never a good idea to interfere with nature by cloning animals. Anytime you start began interfering with the way things are supposed to happen naturally, it never gives the best results. As a result, animals who have been cloned do not provide all of the nutrition that an animal who is not cloned does.

    Posted by: SocialHami
  • No, because we don't know enough about the safety of cloning to eat cloned meat and dairy products.

    Cloning is a new technology and we have no idea what the long term effects of eating food that comes from cloned animals would be. We should wait until several long-range experiments have been done by impartial scientists before we can feel that it is safe for people to eat cloned food. Saving money isn't a reason to endanger people's health.

    Posted by: R3yGoobIe
  • Food products from cloned animals are not "better and cheaper" because we do not yet know the long-term effects of eating cloned animal products.

    There is a Native American saying that asks you to consider the 7th generation when you do anything that will change the world around you. We have forgotten that lately.

    Cloning has two potentially dangerous aspects. First, we do not know what will happen as we clone new creatures from those already cloned. At the risk of going "sci-fi" could there possibly be a "Xerox" effect? When you copy a copy of a copy of....etc. you get a very fuzzy copy that is not as good as the original. Living organisms are complex. We are still discovering things about our bodies and those of our fellow creatures. Should we make the arrogant assumption that we know what will happen to the genes of a third-generation cloned animal? We don't have a complete picture of what genes do. Cloning isn't essential. Most animals are quite happy breeding as they have for millennium.

    The second potential risk is what we may be missing. Nature has selected the most adaptive animals to survive. Cloning would short-circuit that very efficient selection process. Unless we are very certain we can do it better, perhaps we should not try to "fix something that ain't broke."

    Posted by: CI3Iike
  • No, because there is no evidence that cloned animals offer higher-quality food, and the scientific research and experimentation required to produce cloned animals is expensive.

    Humans have lived for years off of the animals that are present on Earth. Humans have used natural, evolutionary processes to domesticate animals in order to make them more useful to us. Cloning animals does what domestication would, at a higher price. There is also a question as to the quality of the food produced from cloned animals, as human error is always an issue in scientific experiments.

    Posted by: enygmatical
  • No, I don't think that is the case because substantial testing has not been conducted on this type of food.

    Cloning is still in its infancy as far as I'm concerned We don't know enough to mass produce cloned meat and dairy products. Those things are already mass produced, and quality controlled, I don't think cloned products like those are a very good idea just yet. We need to know more about this before it is unleashed on the public en mass.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • No, meat and diary from cloned animals are not better quality food for lower costs.

    I don't even like the way that sounds. I wouldn't want to eat meat and dairy from a cloned animal. I understand the genetic make up is the same but what about what they put into that DNA to make the animal. It just doesn't seem right.

    Posted by: LorenaH
  • I believe that eating products from cloned animals is dangerous to overall public health.

    I believe that eating meat or dairy products from a "cloned" animal is dangerous to the public and overall general health. People and animals were not designed to be "cloned". What does it take for mankind to understand that he or she cannot duplicate what God created? Everything that was originally developed within both humans and animals were put there for a purpose, and cannot be duplicated by man or machine.

    Posted by: Quibarce

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.