FDA says there's no scientific difference between clones and normal organisms and they don't have to be marked on the packages. Probably in the short term this won't make a difference but in the long term it may become profitableThoughts?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Memphis Fan @ Jan 14 2007, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldnt eat them if I knew they were cloned.</div>but you won't know because they won't be lableled
I don't see why it would matter. I'm no expert in cloning, but it doesn't seem as though there would be any discernable difference based on my decent knowledge of biology. If someone could give me a scientific reason why it's bad, I might be willing to think otherwise.
there is no difference except for neurological decay, that is, when a clone is born it has the same decay on its DNA as the organism it's cloned from. That means that if they clone a clone and clone that clone, eventually it'll be the equivalent of eating meat from much older cows = more chance of illnesses.Not that this will stop me in any way from eating meat
