2007-01-10 06:27:54 · 12 answers · asked by Daniel w 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
According to preliminary FDA findings regarding cloned meat nutritional values, there are no discernable differences between naturally-produced and cloned meats. They possess the same level of proteins and fats as well as any other distinct characteristics as their natural counterpart. Cloned animals used for foodstock would also have biological controls implanted in them to prevent or reduce any virological or other microscopic infection and counter the naturally-affected markets such as beef (Mad Cow Disease) and poultry (Avian Bird Flu issues).
However, since the operative word is PRELIMINARY, there is still a long way to go in full approval of cloned meat for normal consumption in the American markets.
2007-01-10 06:35:46 · answer #1 · answered by icehoundxx 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As this question is limited to foodstuffs, the DNA is really no different than a regular animal. Only the conception process is artificial. Gestation and birth are the same. I'd rather eat meat from a cloned animal (that was chosen for robust health), than a conventionally bred one that had to have all kinds of hormones, antibiotics or other treatments to try and keep them healthy.
2007-01-10 06:38:23 · answer #2 · answered by KirksWorld 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would you eat the meat of a cow who was born an identical twin? Identical twins are clones. They are not genetically altered. Only the way their "egg" was begun.
2007-01-10 06:45:32 · answer #3 · answered by Batty 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the questioned applied to just 1st world nations I would say no. However, when weighted against the potential for feeding the millions that are starving in poorer nations I think that it is acceptable. providing there are no major health risks.
2007-01-10 06:34:45 · answer #4 · answered by nick w 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have the exact same DNA as a natural born animal so I don't see why not.
2007-01-10 06:31:48 · answer #5 · answered by Leicester B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. It's meat.
2007-01-10 06:32:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does it seem more acceptable than just the regular 'bred for slaughter' method?
2007-01-10 06:35:12 · answer #7 · answered by Jon P 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Apparently, the FDA just approved its sale.
2007-01-10 06:32:21 · answer #8 · answered by LoneStarLou 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes. genetically it the same and physically as well. nothing is different but the way that it was born.
2007-01-10 06:32:35 · answer #9 · answered by eatheralldragon 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as long as it tastes like chicken.
2007-01-10 06:31:19 · answer #10 · answered by bequalming 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋