Talk:Cloned cattle's milk and meat seem safe, according to new study

The following bit needs heavy editing:


 * The same surplus of milk was true back when Monsanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto) introduced their genetically engineered recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin) to the marketplace a couple of years ago. It is reported to have caused [1] (http://www.ejnet.org/bgh/nogood.html) caused all sorts of problems.

I'm not sure what the goal was, but clearly it was not objectively reporting the news, and much of it is not coherent english.


 * Tghis article came from Submit a Story so im not 100% certain either... but i've made a stab at it. → CGorman (Talk)  21:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was my first story submitted here so I inadvertantly put it in Submit a Story first before realizing I could put it into the Developing Stories list myself, and there seemed to be no way to remove it from Submit a Story afterwards. As for the goal of the last 2 paragraphs, it was to discuss how this is the second use of high tech to create cows that produce higher than average milk, despite there being a surplus of milk and despite there being documented health risks associated with bovine growth hormone and the possiblity of health risks associated with cloning. So that much is objective, I think -- any scientist will admit to health risks with rBGH and cloning. Perhaps it was the last sentence you objected to? I'm sure I could have found links to scientists who support the view that rBGH was a solution in need of a problem, although that shouldn't be necessary since there is no question that we had a surplus of milk at the time rBGH was invented. And I quoted the Washington Post above as saying that some critics were questioning why we are pursuing cattle cloning at a time when we still have a surplus of milk. So I don't know... I can understand your objections, but I wonder if we're not being overly zealous in the level of objectivity required, as I can certainly see The New York Times or the Washington Post printing a similar level of substantiated opinion in their news stories. Oh well. --Drog 17:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)