Besides FDA approved cloned meat Ncbi.gov and pubmed confirmed medical literature for GMO'd animals distribution, and mrna tech produce articles

someguy35 · May 27, 2024

FDA Approved cloned meat and statement of offspring in the food supply - FDA approves use of cloned animals for food
A study on current risk assessments and guidelines on the use of food animal products derived from cloned animals - PubMed
Mrna vaccination of livestock legislature in Texas proposed and sanctioned 2023-2024 - https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB02632S.htm
Referentials for Genetically Modified Animals including ethic workshops references starting 2017 - Towards progressive regulatory approaches for agricultural applications of animal biotechnology

and additional articles on mrna tech implementation into produce development from agricultural websites.
Grow and eat your own vaccines?
Plants as mRNA Factories for Edible Vaccines

mRNA Vaccines as Edible Vaccines For Humans

tnfarmbureau.org

Hans Blaster · May 27, 2024

someguy35 said:
FDA Approved cloned meat and statement of offspring in the food supply - FDA approves use of cloned animals for food

16 years ago, so what?

someguy35 said:
A study on current risk assessments and guidelines on the use of food animal products derived from cloned animals - PubMed

And the answer was: no risks involved. If it helps think of a clone as just an identical twin born much later. Nothing biologically weird about it.

someguy35 said:
Mrna vaccination of livestock legislature in Texas proposed and sanctioned 2023-2024 - https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB02632S.htm

Texas passed a law. It means nothing scientifically or factually. Texas's government isn't exactly known for its dedication to science and fact.

someguy35 said:
Referentials for Genetically Modified Animals including ethic workshops references starting 2017 - Towards progressive regulatory approaches for agricultural applications of animal biotechnology

There are workshops on the ethics. Why does this matter? Is that bad some how?

someguy35 said:
and additional articles on mrna tech implementation into produce development from agricultural websites.

Grow and eat your own vaccines?
Plants as mRNA Factories for Edible Vaccines

mRNA Vaccines as Edible Vaccines For Humans

tnfarmbureau.org

What's your point?

The sites you mention in the title as "confirmation" are libraries of scientific articles. They don't do the work or confirm anything. It would be like saying that your local library "confirms" something because you found a book about it in the stacks.

Is your post just some sort of GMO fearmongering? That's what it looks like.

someguy35 · May 27, 2024

@Hans Blaster
I'm not here to argue with you, If you can't see the highly unethical medical implications beginning with eating cloned animals. Which the assessment for risk evaluation is one study. I put it there as to be non biased in this matter of research. And it being since 2008 without most of the publics knowledge makes it something to be addressed.

The proper suggestion would be to go to your local city council and speak on the matter of what is occuring with our food including engineered nanomaterials in food which there is plenty of science medical literature in that its been increasing in complexity and application.

and they are confirmed as in, they are being practiced in the food industry, not theoretically.

Hans Blaster · May 27, 2024

someguy35 said:
@Hans Blaster
I'm not here to argue with you,

You did post in the "arguing section" of CF ("discussion and debate").

Since this is the Science sub-section did you have some point of science to discuss, because I don't get that from your post. It was rather disorganized and seemed to be some sort of attack on certain biotechnologies.

someguy35 said:
If you can't see the highly unethical medical implications beginning with eating cloned animals.

What does it have to do with medicine or medical ethics specifically. If you want to discuss the ethics of eating animals there is a "Ethics & Morality" section. Scientifically, cloned meat isn't any different than the meat from the animal cloned. If you have a pig called Sally and you make 50 clones and raise them for meat. The meat that comes from butchering the 50 clones will be the same as the meat from butchering Sally the Pig. (Except in volume.)

Cloning doesn't change an animal. That is the point of it. It provides a much more reliable replication of economically desirable individuals than breeding.

someguy35 said:
Which the assessment for risk evaluation is one study. I put it there as to be non biased in this matter of research. And it being since 2008 without most of the publics knowledge makes it something to be addressed.

There aren't an real risks. It's just a different method of animal reproduction. (Did you know most livestock reproduction is done with some sort of reproductive technology these days anyway?)

someguy35 said:
The proper suggestion would be to go to your local city council and speak on the matter of what is occuring with our food including engineered nanomaterials in food which there is plenty of science medical literature in that its been increasing in complexity and application.

What nanomaterials? And the local city council has nothing to do with food safety.

someguy35 said:
and they are confirmed as in, they are being practiced in the food industry, not theoretically.

Discuss the science, or craft an ethics post and put it on the right board.

Desk trauma · May 27, 2024

someguy35 said:
The proper suggestion would be to go to your local city council and speak on the matter of what is occuring with our food including engineered nanomaterials in food which there is plenty of science medical literature in that its been increasing in complexity and application.

How is wasting the time of local government on an issue they have little if any control over “proper”?

someguy35 · May 27, 2024

I leave this discussion as all these are valid matters that me posting it shouldn't cause such contention, but rather, it would be important to say these things. Theres no contention on my part. These are proper discussions and postings that should be looked at and researched.

someguy35 · May 27, 2024

It being made aware to the public in a timely manner is good which is proper to do and yes it is good to let city council know about these matters.

Desk trauma · May 27, 2024

someguy35 said:
It being made aware to the public in a timely manner is good which is proper to do and yes it is good to let city council know about these matters.

By wasting time during meetings?

Hans Blaster · May 27, 2024

someguy35 said:
It being made aware to the public in a timely manner is good which is proper to do and yes it is good to let city council know about these matters.

What is the "It". We can't tell what you are talking about or if you are responding to any particular post. (To reply to a specific post, click the "reply" link at the bottom of that post.)

dlamberth · May 27, 2024

someguy35 said:
The proper suggestion would be to go to your local city council and speak on the matter of what is occuring with our food including engineered nanomaterials in food which there is plenty of science medical literature in that its been increasing in complexity and application.

Having served on a City Council for 20 years, I can tell you for certain that is not the place to go with this kind of concern.

Ophiolite · May 28, 2024

someguy35 said:
It being made aware to the public in a timely manner is good which is proper to do and yes it is good to let city council know about these matters.

I get that you have a concern. You believe you have identified a practice that has, arguably, important negative aspects that are being ignored by the public, in part because the public is unaware of them. Does that summarise your position?

Now, to make the public sit up and take notice you need to meet certain criteria:

It may be obvious to you that the practice is wrong, but if you assume that everyone else will think the same when told about it then you will fail.
You must demonstrate clearly why you consider this practice to be a bad one. It is not sufficient to make the assertion without providing support.
Support does not simply consist of showing that the practice occurs. That is not being disputed. You must demonstrate, preferably by reference to peer reviewed scientific articles from respected journals that the practice may be dangerous.
You must also identify the formal and informal bodies that can best inform the public and potentially influence a change in the practice. If I may be direct - suggesting talking to your local council is a ludicrous way of attempting this and will simply have you branded as time-wasting conspiracy nut. That is hardly what you should be aiming for.

As should be clear now, you are falling way short of meeting any of these criteria. If you are serious about changing things, this is not the way to go about it.

RileyG · May 28, 2024

For some reason, this jus makes my skin crawl. I don't know how I should feel about it.

Besides FDA approved cloned meat Ncbi.gov and pubmed confirmed medical literature for GMO'd animals distribution, and mrna tech produce articles

Member

Raised by bees

Member

Raised by bees

The pickles are up to something

Member

Member

The pickles are up to something

Raised by bees

Senior Contributor

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Veteran

Similar threads