Volume 9, Number 15 January 11, 2007
Cloned Meat is Old Meat
by Dr. Ridgely Abdul Muímin Muhammad
When I read that the FDA was approving the marketing of meat from cloned animals, I had a
negative gut reaction. Aware of these types of negative gut reactions to using clones in the food
supply, the FDA issued responses to what it called "cloning myths". The agency's material
compares clones to identical twins, describing the latter as "naturally occurring clones."
We first must ask the question, Why? Whatís the rush? What are the costs and benefits of this new form of meat production? Why is it necessary to make clones of animals for food consumption? Is there a problem with the natural reproductive system of animals that we now need to set up another one to replace one that God created? It may be true that white people are having a hard time reproducing naturally, but the other heterosexual mammals on our planet seem to be doing quite well.
Whenever the ideas of cloning or genetic engineering comes up, the food industry argues that these techniques would increase human health or feed the hungry. However, the largest problems facing humans in relation to medical services and adequate diet are financial. The poor just can not afford adequate medical services or decent food.
In terms of food supply, the last time I checked there was ample land and farm animals, but the prices in the market were too low for the farmers to make a profit and at the same time insure the safety of their products: note the recent E.coli outbreak in "organic spinach". From our reading of the literature on cloning there are a few problems that any business person would consider before going into cloning animals for meat. For instance, there is over a 90% failure rate in bringing a cloned embryo to birth. No farmer can afford to tie up the reproductive system of his breeding stock with a 90% failure rate.
Many of the fetuses grow too large in the womb of the animal implanted with a cloned embryo resulting in the suffering of the host animal or "mother". It is as though the embryo is growing in the womb to catch up with the biological age and size of the donor animal. Indications of just these problems were discovered in the first publicly announced cloned animal, Dolly.
Dolly was born in 1996, but had to be put to sleep when she was just six and a half years old because she was suffering from illnesses normally associated with old age. The life expectancy of sheep is somewhere between 10 and 20 years.
Already being treated for arthritis, Dolly was found to be suffering from a progressive lung disease. Therefore within the science community arose the question of whether the cloning process produced a new born animal whose aging clock started at zero, as with normal sperm/egg reproduction, or did it start at the age of the donor animal, say 6 years old as in the case of Dolly.
In addition, the immune systems of cloned animals seem to have been compromised leading to higher
rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice
live in poor health and die early. The weakened immune systems of cloned animals may require the
farmer to use more drugs to keep their animals free of disease-causing bacteria such as E. coli.
About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia's first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death. Could she have died from old age?
Normally we do not eat meat from an animal that dies on it own, but leave it for the buzzards. Some religious traditions require animals to be killed in very prescribed manners to insure that the animal is not sick or producing toxins harmful to humans. Therefore if a cloned animal dies while seemingly healthy right before it was supposed to be slaughtered, will it be discarded or included in the lot to be processed?
Why is there a gut negative reaction to the idea of cloning? It may be related to the fact that procreation is one of the most mysterious aspects of nature created by the Creator. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan teaches us that in the darkness of the womb, God given and driven intelligence is working within the sperm and the egg. Although many sperms may be emitted and desire to fertilize the egg, through the process of survival of the fittest, most never make it to the egg. Then when the few winners meet the egg, usually only one is chosen to fertilize her. The sperm emits an electrical current which stimulates the egg to give him the right chemical decoding information to allow it to break through the shell of the egg to begin the process of producing a new life.
How does the cloning process work? Dolly was created by a same-sex reproductive cloning technology where scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a female donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from the donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of another female host where it continues to develop until birth.
Therefore the process starts out by a man stealing an egg, stripping it of its nucleus, then forcing a foreign nucleus into the egg. God has been moved out of the picture and replaced by scientific rapists and tricksters who show no respect for the interrelatedness of nature. According to these scientific servants of the "merchants of death", the process of evolution through natural selection is too slow and man must step in to speed the process up in a financially profitable direction.
These are the same scientists who admit that they do not know the function of 98% of the DNA. The genes that they think they know how to manipulate comprise only 1 to 3 percent of the molecular structure of the DNA. The rest they call "junk".
Since these "merchants of death" can not trust nature or the farmer to be a docile slave for their desire for wealth and control, they must try to eliminate both. These "merchants of death" believe that they can break any of the laws of nature they desire. Is there a consequence for such arrogance and who will pay?
Since the FDA and USDA seem to be working for these "merchants of death", it would be wise to support our own Ministry of Agriculture within the Millions More Movement. Or are we willingly going to accept and eat just any old meat from these "merchants of death"?