Cloned Animals not Necessary to Sustain U.S. Food Supply

The FDA's recent approval of cloned animals for introduction into the food supply offers no direct or immediate benefit to the general carnivorous public.


Cloned beef? No, thank you.

The FDA's recent approval of cloned animals for introduction into the food supply offers no direct or immediate benefit to the general carnivorous public.

Already our beef is plentiful. Kansas is second in the nation for the number of beef cattle on feedlots with 2.3 million head, according the the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the total number of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more head is 10.7 million nationwide.

Also, cloned animals produce offspring with genetic abnormalities, as attested by K-State's own experts, so the long-term viability of cloned beef cattle is limited at best.

Certainly the element of cost does not work in its favor. Anything that is experimental and lab-intensive isn't likely to be economical. Reasonably priced cloned beef still is years away.

Petri-dish burgers also are not likely to taste any better than your average mass-produced cow. Their genes might be strong, but it's the way they're raised and fed that ultimately affect their sapidity.

If you're looking for superior taste or redeeming nutritive value, try grass-fed beef as an alternative to feedlot cattle, whose meat often is laced with antibiotics. Beef from cows that are allowed to graze is lower in calories and fat and higher in omega-3 fatty acids. For its slightly higher grocery store price tag, at least grass-fed offers some quantifiable benefits.

To date, cloned meat has shown no such benefits. Perhaps down the line it will be practical to have of pens of cows with identical genes, but ultimately, it won't improve the condition of the pot roast sitting on our dinner table.

Setting aside the debate over the ethical soundness of cloning, currently, there is no reason to support the introduction of cloned meat into our food supply.

Megan Moser, Kansas State Collegian, 7/8/2007

Read More...

Summary only...

Web 2.0

Heard the term "Web 2.0"? Not sure what it is? Here is the latest digital analysis from Dr. Wesch (Anthropology Professor at Kansas State) that helps put things into perspective in an appropriate medium. This video helps explain what this coblog is after, and why it can be given the label "Web 2.0".

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. Plans to Remove Gray Wolves from Endangered List

Once Hunted to near extinction, gray wolves in the western Great Lakes regions and the northern Rocky Mountains have rebounded so succesfully they no longer need federal protection, officals said.



U.S. Plans to Remove Gray Wolves from Endangered List
January 30, 2007 — By John Flesher, Associated Press

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- Once hunted to near extinction, gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region and the northern Rocky Mountains have rebounded so successfully they no longer need federal protection, officials said.

The Interior Department said Monday it would remove about 4,000 wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin from the endangered and threatened species list in about a month. State and tribal governments will be responsible for keeping their numbers at healthy levels.

The department hopes to take the same action for about 1,200 wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming within a year.

"Today, through this action, we recognize a comeback of the wolves," Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett said in a conference call with reporters.

Government-approved bounty hunting nearly wiped out the wolf in the lower 48 states by the 1950s. Changing attitudes led to their protection in 1974 under the newly enacted Endangered Species Act.

The federal government will continue monitoring wolf populations for five years after they are dropped from the list and can return them on an emergency basis if necessary.

States and tribes are developing management plans dealing with touchy issues such as whether to allow sport hunting of wolves and how to deal with livestock depredation.

All three Great Lakes states would prohibit trophy wolf hunts for at least five years, while Idaho's governor has said he would push for immediate hunting to slash wolf numbers. Wyoming is pushing for greater authority to authorize killing wolves to protect livestock and wildlife.

"Restoring the wolf to its place in the natural world while addressing conflicts with people is a difficult balancing act," Scarlett said. But managers, scientists and educators in state wildlife agencies "have strong working relationships with local landowners and the ability to quickly deal with potential conflicts," she said.

The path to removing the wolf has been strewn with bitter arguments and legal challenges, and more are likely now that the government has released its plan.

A federal judge threw out an earlier version in 2004 because it combined areas where wolves were doing well with places where they were still in trouble. The latest proposal establishes the western Great Lakes as a separate wolf population region.

Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency had learned from the court case and believed its new plans would survive lawsuits.

At their low ebb, a few hundred wolves in Minnesota were all that remained in the Great Lakes region. After being listed, they quickly increased and migrated east. Latest estimates show more than 3,000 in Minnesota, over 460 in Wisconsin and more than 430 in Michigan, plus 30 on Isle Royale in Lake Superior.

"A classic Endangered Species Act success story," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of the environmentalist group Defenders of Wildlife. "The remarkable recovery efforts to restore the wolf have paid off, and the states are ready to assume the responsibilities of managing their own wolf populations."

But environmentalists said the proposal to delist Northern Rockies wolves was premature and that management plans drawn up in those states seemed designed for eradication rather than protection. Other critics say the government is moving too slowly to shield elk and other prey animals from wolves.

Read More...

Summary only...