Cloned Meat, Frankenfood and Facts

Introduction

With all of the controversy swirling around the cloned meat announcement by the FDA, it was time to collect some facts and make some sense out of the cloud of uncertainty.

Cloned meat identical to normal, study says. The European Food Safety Authority Friday said it has concluded that meat and milk from healthy cloned cattle and pigs is "very unlikely" to pose risks to consumers, opening the door to possible European sales of those controversial foods in the future. FDA unsure about safety of cloned meat. FURTHERMORE, the Food and Drug Administration is also set to rule that these CLONED meats and milk will NOT have to be labeled as CLONED meat and milk. Like most things, the FDA's statement that cloned meat and milk is safe means that it won't kill you immediately.

As far as I know there is no cloned meat sold today and it is unlikely to come anytime soon. I'm not sure if the FDA will want the word "CLONED MEAT" on packaging, but I hope so.

Safety

Safety isn't the only concern among consumers. The international scientific consensus is clear: food from these animals and their offspring is as safe to eat as any other food. The European Food Safety Authority released its draft report Friday saying that meat and milk from cloned animals are safe to eat, according to ViaGen. The FDA says meat and milk from cloned animals are just as safe as products from livestock bred the old-fashioned way.

Some now believe that Vegetarians may be the only ones safe in the future.

Industry

The FDA's 678-page report was a victory for the biotechnology industry, especially biotech companies CyAgra and Viagen, which have both invested heavily in developing cattle- and pig-cloning technology. There are currently about 570 cloned animals in the United States, but the livestock industry has so far followed a voluntary ban on marketing food from cloned animals.

Assessment

The risk assessment document basically shows how the FDA review agreed with that of the National Academy of Sciences report of 2002 that found meat and milk from clones and offspring of clones of cattle, swine and goats was safe. The finding is a strong signal that the Food and Drug Administration will endorse the use of cloning technology for cattle, goats, and pigs when it publishes a key safety assessment intended to clear the way for formal approval of the products. Weiss called the FDA's work "a weak risk assessment with people with a vested interest from the industry side" participating. Last week the FDA issued draft documents saying that the agency's risk assessment had judged meat from cloned animals to be safe to eat.

Groups

Consumer groups counter that many Americans are likely to be revolted by the idea of serving clone milk to their children or tossing meat from the progeny of clones onto the backyard grill. And when FDA convened its own focus groups, it found a third of consumers would never eat food from cloned animals, while another third weren't worried and the rest fell somewhere in the middle. Meat or dairy products from cloned animals or their offspring would however likely face deep-seated opposition from consumers groups, some of whom still routinely refer to foods such as genetically-modified corn as "Frankenfood". One big question on the minds of groups like Hanson's is how these abnormalities would affect the composition of milk and meat, whether it could change the nutritional value or introduce some harmful component. Many consumer and religious groups strongly oppose cloning, which takes cells from an adult and fuses them with others before implanting them in a surrogate mother. The first is safety -- some groups don't think there's enough research to prove that cloned animals are safe to eat. Some industry groups, such as the National Milk Producers Federation, representing 45,000 dairy farmers across the country, described the program as an encouraging step toward easing consumers' minds.

Conclusions

Cloned meat will probably be identical to normal, study says. Cloned meat will be bland, 0% fat and boring. Why do you think some people find the idea of eat cloned meat alarming? It seems that not all of the facts are available. The next issue would be the selling of cloned meat and seeing if the public will put aside their moral and ethical concerns and eat the cloned meat.

But I suspect sometime in the future we'll see reports on cloned meat being "generally regarded as safe", which is industry code for "We never really got around to fully testing the meat for it's susceptibility for disease". ViaGenAnd the site says this about a program to track cloned meat. One critic disagrees with the FDA and will make sure to be very careful not to eat cloned meat.

If an outbreak of some consequence DOES OCCUR, how will you be able to tell what is in your freezer, natural or cloned meat?

And that is real food for thought!

Copyright 2008 by Monte Luxley. Author and critic on subjects of health and wellness and organic food topics (http://Real-Food-For-Thought.com)

FDA Cloned Meat - Ethics Issues

Eating Cloned Meat has raised ethical issues from various religions.

Christian View

Roman Catholicism and many conservative Christian groups have opposed human cloning and the cloning of human embryos, believing that life begins at the moment of conception. Other Christian denominations such as the United Church of Christ do not believe a fertilized egg constitutes a living being, but still they oppose the cloning of embryonic cells. The World Council of Churches, representing nearly 400 Christian denominations worldwide, opposed cloning of both human embryos and whole humans in February 2006. The United Methodist Church opposed research and reproductive cloning in May 2000 and again in May 2004.

Jewish View

Judaism does not equate life with conception and, though some question the wisdom of cloning, Orthodox rabbis generally find no firm reason in Jewish law and ethics to object to cloning.[1] Liberal Jewish thinkers have cautioned against cloning, among other genetic engineering efforts, though some eye the potential medical advantages.

Other Views

At present, the main non-religious objection to human cloning is that the cloned individual may be biologically damaged, due to the inherent unreliability of its origin; for example, researchers currently are unable to safely and reliably clone non-human primates.

Some believe that as cloning research and methods improve, concerns of safety and reliability will no longer be an issue. However, it must be pointed out that this has yet to occur.

Rudolph Jaenisch, a professor at Harvard, has pointed out that we have become more efficient at producing clones which are still defective.[2] Other arguments against cloning come from various religious orders (believing cloning violates God's will or the natural order of life), and a general discomfort some have with the idea of "meddling" with the creation and basic function of life. This unease often manifests itself in contemporary novels, movies, and popular culture, as it did with numerous prior scientific discoveries and inventions. Various fictional scenarios portray clones being unhappy, soulless, or unable to integrate into society. Furthermore, clones are often depicted not as unique individuals but as "spare parts," providing organs for the clone's original (or any non-clone that requires replacement organs).

Cloning Progress

On December 28, 2006, the FDA approved eating meat from cloned animals[1]. It was said to be virtually indistinguishable from the non-cloned animals. Furthermore, companies would not be required to provide labels informing the consumer that the meat comes from a cloned animal. On December 19, 2007, the FDA announced plans to track all cloned animals as they move through the food chain in a national database system that will allow food to be clearly labeled [2].

This tracking system is part of the National Animal Identification System [3].

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_cloning