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)