Cloning: are we missing the point? It’s not about the science; it’s about the information!

April 15, 2008

In January, the FDA announced that food from healthy clones of cattle, swine and goat is as safe to eat as food from non-cloned animals. This finding, according to the FDA was derived from years of detailed study, and came as no surprise to researchers who have been successfully cloning livestock since 1996. But even with some government reassurance, many consumers are still concerned about the safety of food that comes from cloned animals.

In August of 2005, we reported in Progressive Grocer what members of our consumer panel thought when FDA first announced that the use of cloned animals for our food supply was being considered. A lot has changed since then in Washington DC and biotech labs. But not so much has changed when it comes to consumer concern.

Let's turn the clock back to 1996, when the religious, ethical, and scientific debate on cloning began as the world was introduced to Dolly, the first cloned animal. And although the idea of cloning for some is disturbing in regard to the balance of nature, the most important (at least in OUR opinion) issue at hand is whether or not food from cloned animals should be sold. That's right, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER CLONED MEAT IS SAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. Can you just imagine going into a supermarket or fast foodery near you and being asked to choose between a burger that is "natural, cloned or transgenic"? It's about business and profits, as some farmers and some research studies, are pushing to embrace this technology and are doing all they can to say that the products made from cloned animals are safe for human consumption. Companies such as Cyagra, a Pennsylvania biotechnology company, says it has cloned more than 100 cattle for farmers and ranchers and is now anxiously awaiting the day the FDA states it will allow the sale of food products coming from cloned livestock.

OK, OK, before we all decide to go download Soylent Green in order to get a primer on the subject (just joking!), we must get the answer to the simple question; do we need to clone animals for food?

Some believe the birth of "supercows" could bring such benefits to consumers as less fatty meat and more nutritious milk. But the truth is always in the action and not the hype. Let's not forget that hog farmers did an exceptional job of producing hogs that were less fatty, more nutritious by changing the feed; not cloning the perfect hog. As a result pork got a brand new image, and soon became the "other white meat". And, oh yea, sales did go up.

Reports indicate that scientists believe animal clones could be more disease resistant and may yield healthier food. The Pew Institute of Food and Biotechnology, an independent agency that helped the FDA review the issue; reports that their findings suggest that cloned animals are no different from their conventionally bred counterparts. Basically, "a copy is just a copy." Past research indicates that genes are altered in the cloning process and that there is a chance that this could result in toxins. But, according to the data that is out there, there are not any strong indications that cloning would have adverse effects on the food.

It was on Valentine's Day in 2003 that the world famous Dolly (the first cloned animal) was put to sleep by doctors after being diagnosed with progressive lung disease. She was only six years old. Before that, Dolly was diagnosed as having arthritis. It was not clear whether the condition was a result of the cloning process causing premature aging of her cells or if it was just a fluke. Anyone's mouth watering for some succulent "cloned" Frenched Lamb Chops?

While genetic engineering involves the altering, adding or deletion of DNA, according to the FDA and many scientists, cloning does not change the genetic makeup of the animal. An animal clone, they say, is an exact genetic copy of another animal (called the donor), and is intended to be used as an elite breeding animal to help introduce desirable traits into herds more rapidly than conventional breeding methods. It's important to note, that cloning is not the stuff of science fiction novels with animals popping out of test tubes fully formed. Cloned animals are born just like other animals.

Think of clones as identical twins, but born at different times. As in other assisted reproductive technologies, like artificial insemination, embryo transfer and in vitro fertilization (all methods that have been used in livestock since the 1950s), a male and female parent contributes half of his or her genes to an offspring. When a farmer determines that this offspring contains the desired traits for passing on to the herd, that offspring's genetic material is added to an immature egg. The resulting embryo is then implanted in the uterus of a surrogate, and later delivered as a new baby.

Consumers worry that animals are being cloned for the sole purpose of becoming part of our food supply, but the reality is that animals are mainly cloned for the purpose of breeding stock. These animals are then used in conventional breeding, and the resulting offspring become food producing animals. The offspring of a clone is not a clone, and is the same as any other animal produced through sexual reproduction.

Some benefits of cloning include making animals disease resistant, more suitable to the climate in which they are raised, more fertile and more tailored to suit the tastes of different markets. Just as farmers look for qualities like leanness, tenderness, color and cut when breeding animals through traditional, slower methods, cloning allows farmers to reproduce the most productive, healthiest, best tasting animals quickly, efficiently and reliably.

As far as we know, there are no animal products derived from cloned dairy and beef cattle available at supermarkets at the moment, as the FDA continues to recommend that these products stay out of the food supply while more research is conducted. After the FDA lifts the existing voluntary moratorium on selling these products, the USDA will work with industry professionals to plan an orderly market transition. According to the IFIC, it could take as long as three to five years (post lifting of the voluntary moratorium) for products from cloned animals to be available at market.

Once at market, the FDA will not require any additional labeling to indicate that a product comes from a cloned animal, and that’s a mistake with long-term implications. Labeling will only be required when the nutritional content of an item is changed, or if a potential allergen is added. The FDA believes that clone labels could create confusion along consumers, as they would imply that there were nutritional or safety differences between products from clones and products from animals breed conventionally. We say that not labeling does just the opposite: eliminates confusion and gives people the right to choose between cloned and non-cloned foods.

The reality is that cloning is not new. Many consumers fail to realize that we have actually been eating cloned plants for decades. Bananas, potatoes, apples, grapes, pears and peaches can all come from clones. With a majority of consumers – 53% according to a recent IFIC study – stating that they are unclear as to what animal cloning actually involves, it has become increasingly important that we educate shoppers in this area.

Currently, animals are being cloned for agricultural purposes in countries across the globe, including Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, South Korea and the United Kingdom. New Zealand, for their part, recently issued position papers declaring products from cloned animals to be as safe as their non-cloned counterparts. The European Food Safety Authority announced its support of the FDA Risk Assessment study on January 11, 2008. However, many retailers, including Kroger, Safeway, Whole Foods and even California Pizza Kitchen have issued public statements that they will not sell any cloned foods; but without mandatory labeling the question begs to be asked…how will they know?

What do you think? Should our supermarkets be selling cloned meats and other dairy products? Should labeling of cloned foods be mandatory?

Posted on Tuesday 4/15 by Kelly
Of course not, the whole concept is insane. But then again most things going on in this country are all about the mighty dollar, and who can gain as much as they can, whatever way they can. So, I will not be surprised if very soon, we see "cloned" meat in our stores, along with the scary produce I already see at the store. Everything looks the same on the produce shelves so, why not clone live animals? I will tell you why not: Cloning started in 1996, barely 12yrs of research cannot begin to scratch the surface of what effects this can have on not only the human body, but on the later genetic problems that could be the demise of all livestock. Someday, I hope these "powers that be" will look back and realize what evil they are. Most likely not, as they are innately evil, no conscience or concern for others. I can only hope that they label it, so that I have a choice as a consumer not to buy it.

This discussion has been closed!