I am realistic and know that the selling of gen-food and now clone-food will spread. I am against it, but i cannot help it. No consumer ever told the companies to invest in that, but they did, unwanted, and now want to enforce it onto us for their precious profits.

However, what I really hate and get hot about is: what lying efforts are taken by the EU as well as national law makers and politicians to prevent that clear marking of such food is obligatory to be practiced. In germany, yes, gen-food needs to be marked as that - but only in the smallest of smallprint, and only when certain treshhold levels are surpassed, and only when the genetic manipulation in the vegetable for example did not exceed a certain limit. Even more, such changed products even can be misleadingly labelled as "bio" food! we have a "consumer protection ministry" in germany. It really does honour to it's name: it successfully protects the industry against consumers. they want to shove the sh!t down your throat against your will, and without you being able tell.

"If you meet politician, kill politician" - nine out of ten are telling lies the moment they open their mouths, and they will appeal to the lowest of man's instincts, and they will sell you easily and all too willingly if they have a profit from it.

No gen food and no clone food over here, thanks. At least as far as I can tell by the intentionally misleading labels.

Unfortunately, clones do have shorter lifespans than normal creatures. They're definitely not the same as naturals, but what causes them to die we can't be sure of. For instance, to perfect Dolly, over 200 attempts were made. And that's not all:

Seventy calves have been created from 9,000 attempts and one third of them died young; Prometea took 328 attempts. Notably, although the first clones were frogs, no adult cloned frog has yet been produced from a somatic adult nucleus donor cell.

I'm skeptical about cloning food... there's definitely a downside to it somewhere along the line...

The general plan of a breeder is to determine what are, say, the top 1% of his breeding stock. Then, clone only those top 1% animals, and use the clones to mate and produce normal (usually via artificial insemination) sexually reporduced offspring. Those offspring are the ones that would be raised and sold at market for slaughter.

So, regardless of your feelings on clones, you would still be buying meat made "the old fashioned way".

The breeder would replace his clones from frozen embryo's taken from the original 1%. In order to avoid inbreeding depression, he would periodically outbreed some animals with a different male, and then again reselect the best breeders from that to replenish his clone stock.

The cost saving is foreseen to be in the ability to select only the very best breeders, and then focus exclusively on them via cloning. It removes a lot of the money lost due to the variable breeding success in a variable herd.

Actually, as a business model, it still remains to be proven effective. And there will be a need for breeders to be careful not to deplete whole breeds or strains of animals of too much genetic variation (although most commercial farm animals are already highly inbred, deliberately so, by selective breeding). But they also keep things genetically mixed up somewhat by normal sexual reproduction (and its inherent recombination) of the market stock, and periodically re-selecting the breeders for cloning from that.

It is very possible i was wrong there, its really late here and im tired. Ill get back to this after i have rested and iv had time to read up on the issue.