quote:The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced its approval of meat and dairy products from cloned animals amidst widespread concern among scientists, food safety advocates, and public citizens. Despite recent consumer opinion polls showing that most Americans do not want food from cloned animals, meat and milk from cloned animals may soon be sold -- unlabeled -- in grocery stores across the country.
A November 2006 food industry poll conducted by the International Food Information Council showed that 58% of Americans surveyed would choose not to buy meat or milk from animal clones even if the FDA found such products to be safe. A December 2006 poll by the Pew Initiative found that 64% of Americans were uncomfortable with animal cloning and would not want to buy cloned milk. Gallup Polls indicate that more than 65% of Americans think it is immoral to clone animals.
Despite these concerns, the FDA intends to allow food from cloned animals into the market without requiring the labeling of such foods. The FDA should consider the moral and ethical concerns of people who object to animal cloning. Those who object to the technology should have the choice not to use it, but the FDA's actions would completely undermine that ability.
The FDA's current approach will allow industry to market these potentially unsafe foods, with the burden on the public to demonstrate that these foods are unsafe. With this approach, the food safety risks of cloned animals are borne by our families and children, who will serve as the test subjects in biotech industry's cloned food experiment.
It is not clear that the food safety and animal welfare issues in cloning can be resolved, but even if they are, the agency must protect those who object to cloning by requiring mandatory labeling of cloned foods.
Leading cloning scientists say clones are likely to carry genetic abnormalities, and the lead scientist responsible for creating Dolly has warned that even small imbalances in a clone's hormone, protein, or fat levels could compromise the safety of its milk or meat.
The FDA decision follows the recent news that the agency has refused to investigate health problems in animal clones on a U.S. dairy farm. Greg Wiles, whose Williamsport Maryland "Futuraland 2020" dairy was the first farm in the nation to have cloned cows, told the FDA that one of his two cow clones was suffering from unexplained health problems. Wiles told Food Chemical News that the clone "just stopped growing... she just looks terrible," but says that when he reported the problems to federal officials, he was "paddled around like a tennis ball from agency to agency."
The FDA based its decision on labeling on the agency's claims that no issues in food from animal clones were found, and that such foods were "indistinguishable" from conventional foods, yet among the few new studies cited, several reported troubling results. Among the studies published in January 2007, one found a failure rate in animal cloning of over 90%, with over 40% of 'successful' clones suffering from disabling health problems leading to early death. Another found significant health differences in clones' offspring compared to normal animals. A third study found that healthy appearing clones are often physiologically different than normal animals, and concluded that food from clones should not be marketed without further research. The National Academy of Sciences has said that there is not enough data to know if the hidden defects in clones could pose food safety risks, and cautioned the Federal Government to monitor for potential health effects and urged diligent post-market surveillance, which is not possible without mandatory labeling.
The FDA's action comes in the face of growing opposition on Capitol Hill to the use of clones and their progeny for food products. In November, Senator Barbara Mikulski sent a letter to the FDA requesting a complete overview of how the agency came to its decision of using clones in food. In early December, a bi-partisan group of seven senators led by Senator Patrick Leahy asked the FDA to reconsider its assessment of cloned animals.
It appears that once again the FDA has ignored scientific and public concerns, and fast-tracked a decision for the benefit of a handful of cloning companies and their shareholders.
Given the many concerns and uncertainties around food from cloned animals and their offspring, it is essential that these foods be labeled as such so Americans have the right to choose what we feed ourselves and our families. I urge you to support the Cloned Food Labeling Act, SB 414 and HR 992.
quote:The Food and Drug Administration's assessment that food from cloned animals is safe to eat is a victory for biotech companies and a loss for everyone else. Like many decisions on the cutting edge of agricultural technology, it was hurried along in a way that is more sensitive to political and economic pressure than to the long-term welfare of animals, humans and the world they inhabit. Asking whether cloned meat and milk are safe is not even the right question. The right question is, why clone at all?
Approving food from cloned animals will create another food-labeling nightmare and the same aggressive litigation that usually blocks any attempt to tell consumers where their food comes from.
But cloning has much worse consequences. It marks a revolutionary shift -- from the relative randomness of sexual reproduction to the apparent uniformity of asexual reproduction. Because cloning creates genetically identical animals, it will shrink the gene pool on which agriculture rests, and any drastic shrinkage in genetic diversity creates enormous health risks for a species.
Cloning isn't just a matter for the F.D.A. to decide. It is up to us as a society to decide as well. We should be asking much broader questions than the F.D.A. is able to. Who will cloning benefit? What will it do to the health of the animals themselves?
But the most important question of all may be this one: Are we willing to judge the suitability of new technologies in ways that fully address their ethical and biological complexities? Or are we doomed to give in to politics and the bottom line?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
