Are there persuasive health reasons not to eat food products from animal clones?

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Looks fine to me.

i also am fine with the overall wording of this issue.

regarding the use of the word persuasive, i understand your concern.

it seems we have 2 options here:
---remove the word persuasive and then just let the wording be: are there health reasons not to eat food products from animal clones?

---remove the word persuasive and and replace it with a different adjective that is more neutral. if we go this route options that i am considering include: valid, legitimate. these are a bit less biased i think.

in terms of finding evidence for this issue, it may be easier to find evidence if we remove the word persuasive and NOT replace it with another adjective.

thoughts on this?

Do we really need "persuasive" in there? Aren't we kind of sneaking some biased wording if we imply that some reasons just aren't "persuasive" enough.

Cool.  Thanks.

another good one. I love these ag issues. I like this wording, not the old one.

This issue moved from another topic. The original issue can be found here

issue prior to revisions:

It's true, but I think the FDA issue is covering the same ground as other issues that are more relevant.

We would have an issue about the health issues of cloning, as well as an issue about the ethical implications, which we currently have in Science. Those are the two fronts of the debate. The FDA issue would mostly be replicating these aspects. I don't think it's necessary.

I like the following as two separate issues: 

1. Are there persuasive health reasons not to eat food products from animal clones?
2. Should the FDA approve food products from cloned animals for public consumption?

i'm fine with esperanto's revision

This is my proposal:

1. Move this issue into "Food and Nutrition."

2. Revise: Are there persuasive health reasons not to eat food products from animal clones?

I could go with either the FDA issue or the "persuasive health reasons" version. (Which is more likely to yield good evidence?)

(If the former, I'd reword Jacki's revision slightly to "Should the FDA approve food products from cloned animals for public consumption?" simply because I think it's the most common term.)

i kind of wonder whether this really needs to be an FDA-specific question. Talking about GM foods in another issue, we rejected the "Are GMOs safe to eat?" route for "Are there persuasive health reasons not to eat GM foods?"

Maybe we consider going this route.

should we say "public consumption" instead of "into the marketplace"?

Should the FDA endorse food products from cloned animals for public consumption?

it mirrors the pf evidence and is a bit cleaner, no?

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (no)

Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) today sent a letter to Acting Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach opposing the FDA’s expected endorsement of the use of meat and milk from cloned animals for public consumption.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today issued three documents on the safety of animal cloning -- a draft risk assessment; a proposed risk management plan; and a draft guidance for industry.
The draft risk assessment finds that meat and milk from clones of adult cattle, pigs and goats, and their offspring, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals.

can we get sample evidence under this?

issue prior to revisions:

Wouldn't "animal clones" also work? I guess the "cloned animal" could be either the original animal or the clone, but "offspring" sounds a little absurd. Like, we can eat the clone, but not the clone's baby?

"Animal clones and their offspring?" That's the FDA's wording.

Then again, in the EU, they're two separate issues.

Maybe just "animal clones," and let the rest sort itself out?

need to include "from cloned animals' offspring".  the meat is from the offspring of the clone, not the clone itself