Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I'd think that finding and cloning a single good specimen would be a lot easier than keeping an entire herd free of genetic disease and unwanted mutation. Plus with GM you could make them resistant (as they do with crops already).

Seems far less risky.

Originally Posted by deprav

Except we have no idea about the effect of GM cultures yet, mixed with industrial process, might be causing some cancers etc...
I don't see mass cloning farm animals being a good solution. In ANY specie you need diversity to keep its "durability". What if cloned animals, coming from the same DNA, start reproducing with each others ?

Regulatory agencies around the world have agreed that food derived from cloned animals and their offspring is safe and there is no scientific basis for questioning this. Commercial application of somatic cloning within the EU is via the Novel Food regulation EC No. 258/97.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Citation?

Originally Posted by deprav

Citation for what ? GMO or inbred animal retardation ?

For GMO subject you can just google "GMO study" or whatever, it's more likely that it's not totally safe and we have no clue about what our generation, fed with industrial food, will end up like.
Inbred reproduction is just common logic and knowledge, it's not good to reproduce with a specimen of the same "gene source" (family), so it's probably not good to reproduce with a copy of your DNA.

Eco-systems, nature in general, is about balance, not about "making it more performant". We grow within an eco-system, it feds us, makes us breath, provide water etc... it shaped the living organisms that we are, changing it radically for the sake of agribusiness companies' profit probably won't end up with healthy consumers and free food for everyone, that's naяve. Even dumb.

People fiercly defending GMO and not even doubting might have some financial interests behind (or relation with GMO industry), people saying we should watch out and find other ways only have their integrity and care for our future.

Cloning is basically the same thing, something we recently discovered and only have little knowledge about.

Originally Posted by deprav

Citation for what ? GMO or inbred animal retardation ?

For GMO subject you can just google "GMO study" or whatever, it's more likely that it's not totally safe and we have no clue about what our generation, fed with industrial food, will end up like.
Inbred reproduction is just common logic and knowledge, it's not good to reproduce with a specimen of the same "gene source" (family), so it's probably not good to reproduce with a copy of your DNA.

Eco-systems, nature in general, is about balance, not about "making it more performant". We grow within an eco-system, it feds us, makes us breath, provide water etc... it shaped the living organisms that we are, changing it radically for the sake of agribusiness companies' profit probably won't end up with healthy consumers and free food for everyone, that's naяve. Even dumb.

People fiercly defending GMO and not even doubting might have some financial interests behind (or relation with GMO industry), people saying we should watch out and find other ways only have their integrity and care for our future.

Cloning is basically the same thing, something we recently discovered and only have little knowledge about.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

No.

GM is well studied, I think you are confused as to how genetics work, and nature, and industry.

I was asking for a citation about 'GM cultures ... might be causing some cancer' or 'What if cloned animals, coming from the same DNA, start reproducing with each others?'. I don't think either of these things are concerns.

Originally Posted by deprav

inbred animal retardation ?

I'm more likely to not share your opinion of the "natural balance". If there was a natural balance once, it was lost since a man created a tool using his intelect to kill another thing (for example, creating an axe), or the industrial revolution.
etc...

By the way, what do you mean by "recently discovered"?

Wouldn't that technically be impossible? The animal would not be able to breed with what is essentially itself, for the same reason that a bull cannot breed with its brother or a cow cannot breed with its sister.

Farmers already take precautions to make sure that their animals are not born with defects through inbreeding. They don't have any problems despite only typically using 2-3 of the "best" bulls per ~100 cows per generation. These are often bought from different farmers in farmers markets. I don't see why they would stop taking these precautions, or why it would be harder to do so when dealing with clones.

Originally Posted by Tinerr

In fact, I've read an article a couple of months ago explaining exactly why two people with same parental origin could cause problem to their child, will see if I can find them.