2006-12-29 01:24:18 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
As far as we know. That's always a behind the scenes consideration.
We once thought that feeding waste protein from cows back to cows was safe. We said, "How can it be a problem, protein is protein." But, along came bovine spongeform encephalitis (mad cow disease) and we found out things weren't as simple as we first thought.
On the other hand, we do lots of other things with our food supply that don't seem to have any adverse consequences. It always comes down to the same thing- we take our best guess, do it, and see what happens.
The best guess right now is that there shouldn't be any problems.
2006-12-29 01:34:29 · answer #1 · answered by xaviar_onasis 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People can find the damndest things to worry
about! A naturally occurring twin is a clone. A
clone is genetically identical to the animal it was
cloned from. If the parent of the clone was free of disease so is the clone. If there is some sort of
deformity in the cloned offspring this is an accident
of development which can occur in any naturally
born offspring as well. There is absolutely no
reason for worry about eating cloned organisms.
2006-12-29 02:50:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cloned animals should be genetically identical with the parent animal. Since it is likely that only a very healthy animal specimen would be selected for cloning, the cloned offspring are more apt to be healthy too. A possible problem is that the donated DNA and egg do not have to compete for reproduction as in the real world of breeding but glitches can happen either way. Opponents should present evidence (microscopic or other) to support their position. That is the scientific method vs unsupported belief. That said, all are free to believe as they wish for their own account.
2006-12-29 02:17:42 · answer #3 · answered by Kes 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since they are identical to the animal they were cloned from there is no reason to think they would be less suitable as food.
.
2006-12-29 09:36:15 · answer #4 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why wouldn't they be? They are biologically identical.
You wouldn't have any issue with eating a cow that happened to be a twin. A cow that is a clone is the same thing.
2006-12-29 01:26:45 · answer #5 · answered by poorcocoboiboi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Animals consume animals consistently, besides. Vaccinated animals can smash out with somewhat greater. Wild animals could carry rabies etc. yet maximum extreme illnesses, your canines could have been vaccinated against (actual?) Which extremely leaves minor issues collectively with worms, nutrition poisoning (did your canines vomit?) etc. he's in all possibility going to be advantageous. whilst uncertain, call the vet or take him in for a pass to.
2016-10-06 04:05:30 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the FDA recently declared that they were. they are identical to the "real" animal -- the difference is that clones are more likely to have other problems not effecting their consumptive value (like inbred animals having problems...)
2006-12-29 01:32:55 · answer #7 · answered by izaboe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't intend to find out. Who can predict what the long term effects could be.
2006-12-29 01:27:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The FDA said so, but I am still a little skeptical.
2006-12-29 01:31:34 · answer #9 · answered by Niecy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You will be eating them not breeding with them. Your tum-tum won't care how they were made.
2006-12-29 01:28:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋