Sick planet: the Geo-4 report

Recently, the United Nations released its major Global Environmental Outlook report.

As this BBC News article explains,

Geo-4 covers the whole range of environmental issues, and the links between them.

In these climate-obsessed times, it is often forgotten that issues like forestry, fresh water supplies, agriculture, biodiversity, and the spread of desert land all connect to each other and to climate change.

In the language of James Lovelock's Gaia theory, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that have punctuated 2007 allowed us to take the planet's temperature; Geo-4 shows us what is going on in the blood supply, the lymph system, the intestines and the immune defences.

Third, it explores the links between social trends and environmental decline in a way that is not often done. Which other body, for example, asks whether the divergence we are seeing in the wealth of the richest and the poorest is good or bad for the environment?

This is a major report that should be brought to the attention of the public. Scientific evidence of our planet's declining state is not some alarmist liberal conspiracy, but a fact-supported plea for action. Often the ones who could take action most easily and effectively are some of the world's most affluent, and thus powerful, people, organizations, and nations, not to mention the big polluters and those who value short-term economic gain over long-term environmental livelihood (which greatly affects economic well-being too, not to mention mere human lives). Let's not value money over the planet that sustains — barely, at this point — our actions.

I hope to talk soon about the GEO report, as I skim it for eco-friendly living ideas (I've decided to move it from Mondays to Fridays). In the environmental complexities of today's world, it's good to look at the big picture.

Eco-friendly living tip: cease the beef

Eight years ago, general science magazine New Scientist said this:

IT IS hard to measure the methane in a cow's farts. But Dieter Ehhalt has made an estimate. It is hardly an easy task to count how many cattle there are in the world. But the West German chemist has tried to do that too. Ehhalt's answers are, respectively, 200 grams per day and 1300 million. Together, they suggest that the world's cattle emit into the atmosphere approaching 100 million tonnes of methane each year, enough to warm up the planet.

Today global warming is all-the-more pressing. CO2 may be the prime culprit in the eyes of environmental do-gooders, but methane is also a factor in the human-encouraged changing in our planet's climate. It is amazing to look back nearly a decade ago and see that nobody but 'environmentalist nuts' — as they are so often stereotyped in mainstream culture — heeded the warnings of scientists; now the general public is becoming more aware. Still, we see some hardly scientific denials every now and then, and many are still not even pretending to take action, but the thought of the precious polar bear dying out and the Manhattan of 2020 being a tourist spot for scuba divers has changed some minds. Where am I going with this? Well the topic of that old news article is the "Earth-friendly living tip of the week", albeit a few days late — methane, in specific the methane emitted from cows.

Why red meat isn't bad just for your heart...
Cows not only require a huge amount of food and water, considering especially how much food they provide, but also produce large amounts of methane, a key and harmful greenhouse gas that plays a role in global warming. Thus beef consumption is far from a good thing for the Earth.

As was written in the Christian Science Monitor,

American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year. ... Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

Beef is a big part of the livestock problem; a study earlier this year reported that

A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home.

It can seem daunting that the steak you so enjoy is just as bad for the planet as a long drive in a SUV or 4X4, but it's about true. I'm one of those people who would love to be a vegetarian but just loves meat too much to kick the habit. However, I have lowered my beef intake, especially recently. This is more of a sacrifice than shutting off your computer or television, or changing a few light-bulbs; nonetheless it's something to consider. Lowering beef consumption is better for both health and environment, it seems.

Note: Usually I do the Earth-friendly living tip of the week on Mondays. Since this week has been a bit hectic, it's being done today instead.

Carbon footprint tool(s)

Here is an interesting resource on the Earth Day website that calculates your carbon footprint — i.e. amount of CO2 greenhouse gases your activities and lifestyle emits — based on the car you drive, whether you eat meat, the size of your house, and a number of other factors. Not only is it important to take its results with a grain of salt (they're fairly scientific, but I wouldn't bet my life on them), but your impact is probably underestimated due to factors they don't ask about, like what kind of lawnmower you have, or whether you unplug your televisions when they are not in use, or what your electric and water consumption is... there are more things than could be included in a simple quiz.

Still check it out if you want to see which areas that affect your carbon footprint you need work in. One of the more thought-provoking features of the results the calculator gives you is how many planets the world population would need if everyone lived like you. For me, that number is a lot more than two.

But wait, there's more!
There are many more footprint tools out there. Listed below are some of the best I've found on the web. All of them are pretty quick and easy, so feel free to give them a try. (Post your scores and we can compare!)

World Resources Institute's carbon footprint tool;

Official UK govt. calculator;

A pretty good one from BP (go figure);

US EPA emissions tool.
Also see...
Yahoo! Green;
Clean Air-Cool Planet.

More on global warming and the environment soon.

Drunk flying

Wow, this cannot be good for a national space organization already tarnished by scandals, lack of public interest, decrease in funding, increase in political rhetoric, and who knows what else...

BBC News:

US astronauts were allowed to fly while drunk at least twice, a review panel set up by space agency Nasa has found.

Any good news for America's space agency? Nope.

Earlier, Nasa confirmed that a contractor had sabotaged a computer in an unrelated incident.

What ever happened to Bush's far-fetched attempt to court at least some of the scientific community by proposing a mission to Mars? Between the administration's contempt of biological research like stem cell technology (the stem cell vetoes speak for themselves) and its opposition to taking action or truly acknowledging climate change, and its embrace of creationism, not to mention funding cuts and a belief that religion trumps science, the scientist demographic is not one the White House scores well with. Realizing that, the president probably decided to drop his Mars fantasy for the most part.

The deja vu veto

Every once in a while, one sees something in the news and thinks, 'Haven't I seen this before?'. That's what happened when I saw the story of President Bush's second veto on the BBC News front page.

Today, Bush wasted his third ever veto on something very similar to the thing he vetoed a few years ago: stem cells.

US President George W Bush has vetoed a bill that would have eased restrictions on federally-funded stem-cell research.

He also issued an executive order encouraging scientists to focus on ways to conduct research without using stem cells from human embryos.

Mr Bush said advances must be pursued in a way "that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values".

The Democratic-led Congress is expected to try to override the veto but is unlikely to get enough votes.

Last time Congress had nearly enough votes for an override — which requires 2/3 of both the House and Senate. Now that it is majority-Democrat, the legislature might — although party politics sometimes keep loyalties cemented in votes — have a shot at overriding the executive. Unlike with Iraq, voter risk for Democrats on challenging Bush is low, too. The bill flew easily through Congress up to this point, but can an override happen?

...the issue may provide the opportunity for the first of a wave of veto showdowns during President Bush's last 18 months in office. "The congressional Republican leadership protected the President for his first six years and kept measures that he would veto from ever getting to the White House," says Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "That time is over."

Because his breed of extreme Christianity views anything to do with stem cells as 'immoral', Bush has courted the religious right lobby once again by restricting stem cell research and funding of such research. Back in August 2001 Bush imposed a ban on federally-funded stem cell research.

As a reminder, this is one of the few major issues the majority of the American public actually has a good opinion about. Most Americans are pro-stem cell research, and why shouldn't they be unless they think the little 'snowflakes' — unborn embryos often frozen that are due to be discarded anyways — are some form of unborn life (hint: the unborn part cancels out the living part, they're potential at best but are bound to be destroyed anyways unless used to make babies or, more likely in this case, disposed of or researched).

Can there be life that doesn't in fact live? Is the only way we can fight to defend our freedom to take it away? Those questions would be answered "yes" by many Bush supporters who weld great power with their narrow-minded views of policy on a number of 'moral' and security issues.

Log of Bush vetoes — none of which are positive in my eyes even when he had the opportunity to veto poor legislation that he vowed to nix in the first place! 'The Decider' has threatened to use his veto tens of times, he's very good at instilling fear for his own political aims (think "war on terror").

Veto 1
Date: 20 July 2006
Subject: Funding for and restrictions on stem cell research
Public opinion: For the bill
Status: Long dead

Veto 2*
Date: 1 May 2007
Subject: War funding bill with Iraq troop withdrawal amendment
Public opinion: Mixed, on Iraq
Status: Successor still in the works

Veto 3
Date: 20 June 2007
Subject: Another stem cell bill easing regulations on government funding
Public opinion: Affirmative of the legislation's proposals
Status: Just vetoed... possibility for congressional override if partisanship doesn't rule supreme

Thus George Bush's war on science with misguided morals continues. Considering how important science is to the modern world — especially the prospect of breakthrough in biology and medicine (see The Economist's cover this week) — this administration is moving America backwards, not forwards.

technorati tags: stem-cells, bush, veto, congress, white-house, science, united+states, politics, george+w+bush+vetoes, public+opinion, iraq, funding, bill, legislation

Supreme Court tells EPA to do its job, and it should

The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can — and should — do its job. The party spearheading the case against the EPA was a collection of environmental groups, states, along with other individuals and groups. (The EPA is a part, like, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security, of the White House.) The Bush administration had argued the EPA should not regulate greenhouse emissions known to cause global warming created by driving a car. Apparently, in their view, protecting the public interest from climate change is pointless — since it isn’t happening and of course it’s not our fault (so they think).

The Bush administration has even brought California to court in the past because of its tough environmental policies on vehicle emissions and clean air. Just because the EPA doesn’t do its job doesn’t mean the states cannot. In addition, that contradicted the federalist stance of many conservative heavyweights associated with and in power in the White House.

The EPA has even refused to mandate an official policy on potentially disastrous effects of too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Such gases are so called because of the earth-warming effect they produce, where sunlight is trapped. The court ruled the EPA had no excuse in overlooking greenhouse gases and global warming, on a policy and regulatory level. The EPA has also given plenty of poor excuses for its lack of initiative on an issue deemed so important by the scientific community. This is yet another judicial defeat — albeit a righteous one — for Bush.

This isn’t the first time the Bush administration and US government has disregarded science: evolution, stem cells, and other issues remain and the White House seems to want to tie religion into all of them. Maybe they also don’t think that driving a big SUV releases gases which — when given out in massive amounts — contribute to climate change. Then again in their view global warming isn’t happening. Just like evolution.

On a similar note, the UN is set to release the second in a string of reports this year on climate change. The upcoming one will focus on the impact of such global change. We already know it hurts the poor the most.

Update:
I thought it good to include some of the majority and dissenting opinions of the ruling, which delt with both the Clean Air Act and the EPA's regulatory power over emissions in the first Supreme Court ruling on climate change-related issues. Expect more to come; and Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, the conservative pals on the bench, will continue to hide behind their limited judicial power/review ideology.
IHT:

"EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both 'actual' and 'imminent,' " Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, citing two standards linked to standing.

"EPA identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants," Justice Stevens wrote. Instead, the agency resorted to "impermissible considerations" in rejecting the plaintiffs' request to regulate those admissions, the justice wrote.

"Its action was therefore 'arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,' " Justice Stevens went on. Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined his decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. dissented, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. The chief justice said his dissent "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem."

Not only did Stevens, et al rule against the Bush administration's interpretation of existing pollution legislation, meaning greenhouse gases, in the court's view, is a similar destructive pollutant to that of those highly regulated, but they also slammed the EPA for just not caring about CO2, politics and policy brushed aside.

technorati tags: EPA, bush, politics, supreme+court, environment, government, climate+change, global+warming, news, current, un, united+states, usa, united+nations, greenhouse+gases, auto+emissions, environmental+protection+agency, california, court, justice, white+house

The forgotten? African strife

There is always conflict in the Middle East, it seems, and when something breaks out in Europe or the Americas, western news is all over that too. But what about in Africa?

More developments related to the Darfur conflict in Sudan, which I hope to have a in-depth report on soon. (Too bad they are not exactly good developments, though they are not totally bad either.) People are dying there too!

BBC News:

Envoys from the United Nations and the African Union are visiting Sudan on a joint mission to re-energise the peace process for Darfur.

But the AU says the Sudanese government has bombed two villages in Darfur. There is no word on casualties.

Jan Eliasson and Salim Ahmed Salim also want to secure Khartoum's permission for the deployment of UN troops.

Despite a peace agreement and numerous ceasefires the conflict in Sudan's far west shows little sign of ending.

More than 200,000 people have been killed and more than two million made homeless since war broke out in 2003.

The crisis in Darfur has brought numerous politicians, troubleshooters and envoys to Sudan.

For all their optimistic statements about progress made and agreements signed, little has changed on the ground.

Some day, I hope the current Sudanese government is convicted of war crimes. By killing, raping, and impoverishing its own citizens, supporting genuine terrorist groups, and not letting even the UN in (usually), President Bashir has done great harm to the lives of far too many.

There is still a chance to help the victims of this genocide. The world turned a blind eye to Rwanda, let's not let the history books show us as doing it again. Over three years and hundreds of thousands of deaths...

Want to help? See here and remember: political pressure on your government can also make a difference. Most people are not aware of, largely, what is really going on in the world, not least something like the troubles of western Sudan.

There's a great blog called Daily Darfur that can keep you up to date along with BBC News' relatively great coverage.

The Darfur genocide, like the more deadly Rwanda genocide in the late 20th century, seems to have gone under the radar of the news media, especially in the United States. If something does not include a celebrity, sex, or something to do with America (e.g. US troops in Iraq), it gets pushed back.

Genocides must not make sexy news, but what about civil wars?

Guinea is on the verge of a civil war and is descending into civil strife as a "state of siege" is declared by the president. Fuji — which had a coup late last year — and Guinea are just two countries recently falling into deep political turmoil.

--
Update: Ok, looking at my own blog I see how depressing and serious most of the news is. Here is an interesting — yet totally unrelated to this post — science story on how chimps learned to make tools on their own without humans. Interesting stuff.
Also: "Top 10 gay animals".

technorati tags: darfur, media, sudan, genocide, news, guinea, guinea+civil+war, science, darfur+genocide

Science Friday

There are some cool science stories in the news lately. Two of the stories dominating the news — climate change and bird flu — I have already covered, but here are some more...

Have you ever worried someone could 'read' your mind? Look at your private thoughts and feelings, explore the inner reaches of your brain? Personally, that thought frightens me and I hope it is not purely possible, but scientists are making headway on mind reading technology.

Brain scans have been developed which it is claimed can predict what a person is about to do.

German, British and Japanese scientists were able to "read minds" using sophisticated functional magnetic imaging (fMRI) and computer programs.

Current Biology reported people were asked to think about adding or subtracting - scientists were able to read intentions in 70% of cases.

A UK expert advised caution, but said such technologies would develop.

Such techniques could be used to help people who are paralysed - there are already some steps being taken towards helping people using computer-assisted prosthetic devices linked to computers.

But this research might also allow abstract thoughts and intentions to be read.

It may even be possible to carry out instructions such as "send email" simply by thinking them - with a scanner picking up the wish and translating it in a way that the computer can act on.

It looks like you need a scanner and computing hardware and software, a willing participant, and some luck (the chance that the intentions will be picked up by the fMRI) for this kind of mind reading to work. From what I have read, it is not like the computer would be able to read your inner thoughts, and the thoughts they would read would be voluntary. I doubt mind reading technology can get advanced enough to read anything more complex than a voluntary nerve impulse — like in the case of a paralyzed person wanting to get a drink by signaling with their hand, but they can't because they are paralyzed, so the computer alerts their caregiver. This is interesting nonetheless, but I would not worry too much about someone extracting your memories and abstract thoughts with a scanner and computer.

With all this talk about the destructive effects of climate change, do you find yourself wondering what would happen in the worst case scenario? Would future human inhabitants or potential extraterrestrial visitors be able to see and experience the amazing biodiversity we enjoy today? Thanks in large part to the Norwegian government, it looks possible.

The final design for a "doomsday" vault that will house seeds from all known varieties of food crops has been unveiled by the Norwegian government.

The Svalbard International Seed Vault will be built into a mountainside on a remote island near the North Pole.

The vault aims to safeguard the world's agriculture from future catastrophes, such as nuclear war, asteroid strikes and climate change.

Construction begins in March, and the seed bank is scheduled to open in 2008.

The Norwegian government is paying the $5m (£2.5m) construction costs of the vault, which will have enough space to house three million seed samples.

The design plans look neat too.

The mental disorder of autism is more common than previously thought, as around one in 150 American children have it, according to new data.

Approximately one in every 150 children in the United States has autism or a closely related disorder -- a figure higher than most recent estimates -- according to a federal survey released yesterday, the most thorough ever conducted.

The new data, from 14 states, do not mean that autism is on the rise, because the criteria and definitions used were not the same as those used in the past.

The article goes onto say that the nationwide number of autistic children is 560,000. Why is the prevalence so high?

First ever legitimately FDA-approved over-the-counter diet drug:

GlaxoSmithKline's weight-loss drug, "alli", has become the first ever to be approved for over-the-counter use in the US, where 65% of the population is obese or overweight.

The question is, will it work and what are the affects — assuming they're positive maybe the drug will help. However, wouldn't it just be easier to live a more active lifestyle and eat healthier? I guess in America, every health problem needs a drug as a solution... from bad parenting to obesity. (Just a note, but that 65% statistic the above article cites seems low compared to figures I have read.)

technorati tags: autism, obesity, health, science, mind+reading, brain, biology, ecology, norway, domesday, doomsday, glaxosmithkline, autistic+children, news, tech, technology, mind

Young children and racial prejudice

Here is an interesting article:
Prejudice at Age 6

By age 6, many kids are well schooled in societal prejudice. In fact, children associate white workers with higher status jobs.

By age 6, many kids are well schooled in societal prejudice. In a study, researchers interviewed 92 African-American first- and sixth-graders from varying socioeconomic backgrounds about job status and their own interest in particular occupations.

Children from all economic backgrounds associated white workers with jobs that they saw as higher in status. Furthermore, when asked about unfamiliar and even imaginary jobs such as a "tenic," someone who organizes and marks handicapped parking spaces, children rated careers pictured with white workers above those depicted with black workers or a mixed group.

"It's troubling that children in our society take race as something that defines the status, importance, and pay of jobs," says Lynn S. Liben, professor of psychology at Pennsylvania State University and coauthor of the study, published in Developmental Psychology.

Liben also found that poor children in the sixth-grade group showed less interest in high status jobs such as a doctor or airline pilot, which they saw as occupied primarily by whites. She speculates that underprivileged children in particular may "self-select" away from high status jobs because they assume a lack of access to the education and resources needed to attain them.

By the age of 11 or so, a child will finally be able to understand abstract concepts like politics and religion — though the age and the understanding differs from person to person. However, by then (age 11) it may be too late. The socialistic, familial, and otherwise biases imposed on him or her might have already made an impression that would last a lifetime. There are some (like me) who can break free from these kinds of social constructs of opinion and form their own, even if basing off of those around them and what they have been taught, experiences, and shoved into their minds.

I will be writing more on society — and individual opinions — soon. I've been busy lately but will try hard to post some this weekend.

technorati tags: children, psychology, science, society, social, opinion, prejudice, race,

Warming, warming, warming...

Global warming and climate change: the inevitability, the issue, the danger, the scenario, and the crisis.

I may have missed out on analyzing the Stern Review**, but this latest climate change study is totally new to the news.

The Global Carbon Project says that emissions were rising by less than 1% annually up to the year 2000, but are now rising at 2.5% per year.

While I think the carbon emission market set up in Europe is a brilliant idea, it has been hard to implement and there have reportedly been misunderstandings and loopholes in enforcing the principles of the project — which is like a carbon dioxide (CO2 is one of the leading greenhouse emissions) stock market. The United States is by far the number one polluter of greenhouse gasses, and shows no sign of letting up soon.

At the recent United Nations climate summit in Nairobi, a number of delegations, including those of Britain, Australia and the US, pointed out that they had managed to grow their economies without significant increases in carbon emissions.

Proof enough, or just that nasty UN getting on the righteous "freedom"-loving Americans again? Who needs stupid diplomacy? .

Coming up right behind the US is rising power China, expected to take the number one spot in a while. America has yet to show any promise, with no help to the news media (versus the near-ample coverage British media has given the scientific issue of climate change). Any time that global warming has potentially been tied to something regular people can associate with (e.g. 2005's Hurricane Katrina hitting the US gulf coast), that smidgen of credibility and sensibility is knocked off the table by the media that does talk about global warming and possible implications blowing things like hurricanes out of proportion! Therefore, you have the groups of: sensible educated people who believe in scientific climate change (that's me), those who don't believe it at all [because they are narrow-minded or otherwise], those who believe it because of the hyped version that links global warming to temporary things (unseasonably summer heat, hurricanes — yet to be proven tied to the kind of climate change we are really talking about), and those who don't believe in global warming because of the sensationalized version they get.

The United States may have left the building of realism of impending ecological disaster for now, but at least there are international consortiums — such as the IPCC (see aforelink) — working on this serious matter.

**: From 1 Nov.

Check out the latest global warming report commissioned by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, the Stern Review. It shows that climate change could easily and greatly devistate the economies of the world very fast. The more we wait, the higher the economic, humanitarian, and environmental toll will be.

technorati tags: news+media, media, climate+change, ecology, environment, science, stern+review, global+warming, greenhouse, international, united+states, USA, china, UK, hurricaine, weather, katrina, un, united+nations, diplomacy, IPCC

Stem cells in the US, part 1

See post on stem cells and cloned food.
See also this post on the stem cell wars between ideologues and normal people.

From a BBC News Q&A article on the United States and stem cells:

There are religious and social conservatives who oppose abortion and consequently the destruction of embryos required for stem cell research. Many of these are also supporters of Mr Bush.

This junk from the large group of social American conservatives is largely false. Scientists have found that they can do stem cell research without the risk of cloning or injuring a potential baby, yet most of these people have still refused to accept any form of stem cell research or treatment. Bottom line: the majority of staunch American partisans and conservatives are closed-minded and won't go by any of the facts, only the fantasies and fallacies they create in their quasi-moral (e.g. supporting torture of "enemy combatants"; no consented death for those with terminal illnesses?) politic.


technorati tags: stem+cell, stem+cells, united+states, religious+right, christian, conservative, social+conservatives, science, politics, ethics, biology, biotech, technology, commentary, in+perspective, clearthought, news, current, bush

Cloned food, stem cells, and the FDA

So in the United States we are allowed to eat cloned meat but not use stem cell and related techniques that are much less severe than the technological and moral implications of cow (etc.) cloning?

From the Washington Post article:

Three years after the Food and Drug Administration first hinted that it might permit the sale of milk and meat from cloned animals, prompting public reactions that ranged from curiosity to disgust, the agency is poised to endorse marketing of the mass-produced animals for public consumption.

There seems to be an indication that the cloned food is OK for humans, but what about the natural balance? Couldn't this create very negative affecting (to consumers and the ecosystem in which cows, etc., interact) result, from things like genetic mutations?

From the Wired News article:

Consumer watchdog groups are skeptical, and say cloned meat should at least be labeled.

Studies have shown differences between cloned and regular animals, including a higher incidence of genetic and physiological abnormalities in clones. But scientists say these differences don't pose a threat to someone who eats cloned meat.

A 2002 National Academy of Sciences report said there was no evidence that cloned meat was dangerous to eat, but more data was needed to be certain.

Discount or no, it would not be practical for farmers to clone all their cattle rather than breed them normally.

It's unnatural and unethical; cloning — I thought that was wrong!?! Haven't all those scientists been saying so? Americans should not be so willing to put so much shit into their mouths, whether it be cloned, genetically modified, or just really fatty and pumped up on preservatives. I am not one of those vegan health nuts — I like food too much — but the FDA needs to be watching out for consumers, not advancing overzealous meat mass-producers' fantasies. Of course, the Food and Drug Administration has already vastly failed on the "Drug" part, and most of the "Food" part, I guess it is just a matter of time until when one sees the FDA stamp, they will know the food is bad. There is a difference between cloned food that is safe for humans to eat, and cloned food that is safe. At this point, the former may be true, but certainly not the latter.

technorati tags: clone, food, health, ecology, stem+cell, stem+cells, biotech, science, technology, news, politics, in+perspective, in+the+news, clearthought, current+affairs, fda, united+states, usa, cloning