When news leaked out that milk and beef from cloned cows, cows raised from embryos created by biologists in laboratories, was being sold for human consumption scientists were quick to point out there was no health risk from consuming such foods. Nobody had suggested there was, what worried people is the inceasing tendency of science to play God. Fortunately they stopped short of telling us the science is settled otherwise nobody would have believed them.
The other big question of course is as usual “Cui Bono?” Who gains from this,; no doubt the politically correct wailers will be whinging about feeding the third world poor but as cloned cattle are delicate creatures and need warm, dry sheds, an enriched diet and plasma TVs, pool tables, gymnasiums with personal trainers etc. the produce from their bodies will sell at quite a premium.
And they have an enormous carbon footprint.
So who is likely to benefit? Not you and I for sure, not the poor and hungry. I think it might be the political control freaks, the scientists who get a step nearer to playing god and the corporations that will control the breeding stock and thus another important part of the food chain.
The point nobody wants to discuss is where is the need for this technology? Are we short of cattle? Is the current production method failing? Or is this another technology that will be forced on us.
RELATED POSTS:
Never Let Me Go (cloned humans)
Little Nicky Machiavelli 
Good points Ian. In a way there is a need for this technology: Reminds me of the time when some starving countries in Africa would not accept donations of GM corn. Starve then, you choosy bastards!
LikeLike
They did have a point as GM cormn is sterile so they can’t put part of their crop aside for next year’s seed. It’s the pro GM lobby that dreamed up the Frankenstein food tag, most sceptics are more concerned about the amount of control it gives big agribusiness over farming.
LikeLike