eating cloned animals wont hurt you any more than eating their non-cloned predecessors. why would it? eating their drug-and-hormone filled relatives will, so why not make a stink about that?

why would it be any worse?

I wish, I WISH, we had mandated labeling here that indicated if food has GMOs. The only way to be sure here is to eat organic. (They were going to allow GMOs in organic food, but there was such a cry of rage from the organic comunity that they backed down and do not allow GMOs to be labled as organic.)

They should be required to lable both GMO and cloned food.

It's the same for genetically modified foods as well. They're modified to be made healthier and heartier--more resistant to diseases that could cause harm to humans if eaten, more resistant to drought to insure a steady supply, etc.

Just because our ancestors had to deal with things like sickness and drought ruining their food supplies doesn't mean we should have to endure the same. If we have the means to increase the amount and safety of our own food supply, we should do so, without question.

It matters because I should have the choice to eat or not to eat. Whether or not the difference is important or even 'real'. Something I can't have unless the food is labeled.

I have a right to know if the apple I'm buying is a Pippin or a Granny Smith and to chose the one I want to eat.

I have a right to know if the milk I'm buying is from a cloned animal or not, and to chose which I'd rather drink.

But let's look at this scenario: Drinking milk from either Cow A or Cow B.

Cow A was born naturally.

Cow B is a genetic clone of Cow A.

These two cows grow up in the same environment, eat the same diet, are exposed (and protected against) the same diseases. They produce the exact same milk. You could put the two different milk samples into an atom smasher and find that they are, quite literally, identical all the way to the sub-atomic level.

That being the case, it only seems silly to discriminate between the two milks. They offer the exact same nutritional value, health benefits, and potential health risks.

It's got to be more expensive than the old fashined way of making new cows.

And most people won't care and I'll be part of a crazy fringe minority that prefers to drink milk from uncloned cows. From milk bottles that are clearly labeled if the milk is from cloned or uncloned cows.

I can live with being part of a crazy fringe minority.

...Monsanto sued ... over their use of a label which read: "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormone."

Beginning January 1, 2008, the U.S. state of Pennsylvania will ban so-called "absence labeling", which includes milk labeled "rBGH/rBST-free."

Demand for organic milk (produced without the use of synthetic hormones) in the US has increased 500% since Monsanto introduced their rbST product; organic milk is the fastest growing sector of the organic food market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bgh

Now, explain to me why meat, milk, and other producers shouldn't even be able to label their products as being free from clones, artificial growth hormones, etc. if their customers want that information.

I wouldn't drink milk or eat meat laced with artificial growth hormones either. But I have no problem with genetic engineering or cloning.

I'm just saying they should be labeled and I should have a choice.

Even if my choice makes no difference at all, even if I'm being foolish and extreme, I should still have that choice.