FDA Poised To OK Food From Cloned Animals

Federal Scientists: Cloned Animals Are Safe For Human Food Supply

(AP)  Federal scientists have concluded there is no difference between food from cloned animals and food from conventional livestock, setting the stage for the government to declare Thursday that cloned animals are safe for the human food supply.

The Food and Drug Administration planned to brief industry groups in advance of an announcement. The agency indicated it would approve cloned livestock in a scientific journal article published online earlier this month.

The agency "concludes that meat and milk from clones and their progeny is as safe to eat as corresponding products derived from animals produced using contemporary agricultural practices," FDA scientists Larisa Rudenko and John C. Matheson wrote in the Jan. 1 issue of Theriogenology.

Also, FDA believes that no special labels are needed for food from clones or their offspring, the scientists wrote. Consumer groups say labels are a must, because surveys have shown people to be uncomfortable with the idea of cloned livestock.

"Consumers are going to be having a product that has potential safety issues and has a whole load of ethical issues tied to it, without any labeling," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety.

Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said the FDA is ignoring research that shows cloning results in more deaths and deformed animals than other reproductive technologies.

The consumer federation will ask food companies and supermarkets to refuse to sell food from clones, she said.

"Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers don't want them in their foods," Foreman said.

The FDA scientists wrote that by the time clones reached 6 to 18 months of age, they were "virtually indistinguishable" from conventionally bred animals.

Final approval of cloned animals for food is months away; the FDA will accept comments from the public after issuing a risk assessment on Thursday.

Those in favor of the technology say it would be used primarily for breeding and not for steak or pork tenderloin.

Cloning lets farmers and ranchers make copies of exceptional animals, such as pigs that fatten rapidly or cows that are superior milk producers.

"We clone an animal because we want a genetic twin of that animal," said Barb Glenn of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

"It's not a genetically engineered animal; no genes have been changed or moved or deleted," she said. "It's simply a genetic twin that we can then use for future matings to improve the overall health and well-being of the herd."

Thus, consumers would mostly get food from their offspring and not the clones themselves, Glenn said.

Still, some clones would end up in the food supply. As with conventional livestock, a cloned bull or cow that outlived its usefulness would probably wind up at a hamburger plant, and a cloned dairy cow would be milked during her breeding years.

That's unlikely to happen soon, because FDA officials have asked farmers and cloning companies since 2001 to voluntarily keep clones and their offspring out of the food supply.

The informal ban would remain in place for several months while FDA accepts comments from the public.

Approval of cloned livestock has taken five years because of pressure from big food companies nervous that consumers might reject milk and meat from cloned animals.

To clone, scientists replace all the genetic material in an egg with a mature cell containing the complete genetic code from the donor. Cloners argue that the resulting animal is simply the donor's twin, containing an identical makeup. Yet there can be differences between the two because of chance and environmental influences.

Some surveys have shown people to be uncomfortable with food from cloned animals; 64 percent said they were uncomfortable in a September poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a nonpartisan research group.

A dairy industry spokeswoman said last week it would be reassuring if the FDA concluded there were no safety issues.

"It remains to be seen whether dairy farmers will even choose to use it," said Susan Ruland, spokeswoman for the International Dairy Foods Association, which represents such brands as Kraft and Dannon.

"There are very few cloned dairy cows in this country — only about 150 out of the 9 million total U.S. dairy cows, and many of these are show animals," Ruland said.

[bubshar00]

I don't feel that food or drink from a cloned animal should be approved for human or animal consumption. Enough is not known about the long term results. If it is approved, at the very least, it should be labeled as coming from a cloned animal or one that has consumed cloned meat or drink. There are many people that do not want food or drink from cloned animals and they should have this right!

[djquon]

Not sure this is a good idea....I read on the internets that if you eat meat from cloned animals, a cow or something like that, then the genes from that animal could get inside of you and make you turn into a cow or something (I guess it depends on what you eat?)

yeah thats impossible.
By the way god doesnt get it right the first time. thats why we have extinction! and even if he did ITS A CLONE!!! EXACTLY THE SAME! NO DIFFERENCE! so that puts the argument to rest.

the most important ethical decision here it how it will be used to help those who are malnurished or help those who own the cloning rights who are already well off. thats is what concerns me

[starlady2]

I think is high time to put this Country on high alert! Who needs to worry about foreign terrorist when we have them right at the Monsanto-controlled fascist FDA! How is this involuntary, illegal, unconstitutional human experimentation even considered, let alone decided in contravention to our constitutional rights. Did I miss something and all of the sudden there has been a communist-fascist take over of our nation?

[susieq_13]

I think it is wrong to clone in the first place. God did get it right the first time, so why do it? And then for the FDA to say its ok to eat what has been cloned? YUCK!

[oxmyx-2009]

More deference to mega-corps. When will it end? Does anyone remember the butterflies that DIED after eating Taco Bells genetically engineered corn. It's like global environmental issues- we don't know how long it takes between cause and effect! If you lemmings allow this to go forward, you deserve everything that happens to you, your children etc.

[atljade]

I have yet to hear a reason why 64% will not purchase cloned products. If the FDA can produce a legitimate report that says it's safe for me to consume and it doesn't cost me any more money I'm for it.

[bluestardad]

big yippy skippy!

[jsilver2th]

Another good reason to GO VEGETARIAN.

[shanev137]

How many times has the FDA been wrong?

[alphaa10-2009]

This well-written article covers most of the bases, pros and cons, and even manages in its regrettably short space to define why cloned animals are of interest and debate.

We know bull genes are kept "on ice" so breeders can have a better chance at making a copy. This method of manufacturing animal tissue seems reasonable enough-- if cloning is not actually changing the genome, as with genetic engineering.

Opponents, of course, argue the cloning method and a host of particulars do change the genome, and the public risk is still unacceptably large.

Will the FAA Rule apply? (This fictitious and cynical expression imagines the FAA issues no rule before the cost/benefit ratio is met. In some political regimes, that is no longer a cynical joke, however.)