Today’s the day I’ve been dreading for quite some time. The FDA officially declared that meat and milk from the offspring of cloned animals is safe enough to for the shelves of America’s markets*. What’s more, apparently the FDA is SO sure of their decision that they don’t think it’s even necessary to label these products any differently (despite significant public outcry to the contrary).
Back in December, a few friends and I were discussing how various factions within the wine industry are testing the effects of different types of closures (cork, synthetic, glass, screwtop, etc) on a range of wines over a period of time. The idea is, no one in the wine industry advocates a blanket statement saying “synthetic corks are fine” (or whatever type of cork), without knowing what kind of effect that cork will have on wine that is aged 10 years . . . or 50 years . . . or 80 years . . . even though it may have proven effective thus far; there are simply too many variables to evaluate, and not enough time has passed yet to let those variables play out.
The conversation hit me as particularly ironic when compared to the way the FDA is treating cloning and its potential impacts to our food chain. How long has the FDA monitored these cloned animals and their progeny to be this unerringly confident about the safety of introducing them into our food chain? 15 years, 20 years, 30 years? If the wine industry is protective enough of their product to observe the effects of different corks for decades, surely the FDA is being even more diligent about the nation’s meat and dairy supply, which has exponentially more variables at play than grapes or wine.
Not so much.
Many of the recent studies sourced in the draft document began in 2003 and most of the data (if not all) came from cloning companies who were offering their data to the FDA. None of the studies were peer reviewed.
What’s more, not all advisors on the matter are unbiased participants. The senior advisor for biotechnology at FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), the entity charged with drafting a risk assessment on human consumption of cloned livestock, was the founder of Integrative Biostrategies prior to joining the CVM in 2002. Integrative Biostrategies is a company who helps clients with regulatory issues within various governmental agencies, such as the FDA. It already lists “developing the technical approach for the first approval of a genetically-engineered whole food” as one of its “successful projects.” Will cloned food be their next victory?
Proponents of cloning like to dismiss its opponents with the argument that we “think we’ll be eating a deformed cow from outer space or something” (an incorrectly summarized phrase I heard on NPR this morning). But that’s just insulting. What I object to is the rush to market of a technology that has so many wrinkles of impact yet to come that we surely cannot foresee, and the rendering blind of the public by allowing the sale of these products with no labeling differentiation.
I think we—the public, the industry, the FDA—need to take a careful look at the aspects that should be pondered before allowing scientifically-altered foods into our food chain. And I think the FDA could learn a thing or two from the wine industry about patience.
Question for you . . . What do you think about cloning?
* To be completely accurate, despite the pithy title of this post, sheep are not yet cleared for sale — just cattle, goats and pigs so far.
Two more interesting articles on the issue:
- Comments by the Consumer Federation of America on the Cloning Issue
- Washington Post discussion stating that cloned meat is already on the market (oops)
13 Comments
Of course I find the entire concept of eating cloned meat simply frightening..all the more reason for us to seek out local, known sources of meat.
Amen, Mama . . . I mean Izzy’s Mama ;-).
I’m glad you were motivated to write a post about meat from cloned animals! I’ve been reading about the FDA approval for a couple weeks now, and it is truly frightening. Needless to say, I’m on a mission to track down a local farmer to buy all my meat from now.
I think it is scary how lax the rules are, how quick governments and businesses are to rush through things like this without really testing the impacts. Andhow often independent research isnothing of the sort but is funded by industry. Excellent post, thanks
Elisabeth . . . Good for you! The local quest has just been taken up a notch, hasn’t it.
Crafty Green Poet . . . I hear you. It amazes me to hear these officials declare that they’re absolutely sure that this is safe. It’s like I can hear an echo coming from a decade in the future that says, “we didn’t forsee that xyz would happen . . .” as it often does. The only problem is, we don’t get an “oops” with this. Once the food supply is tainted (as, according to this Washington Post article today — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011501555.html, it already is), that’s it. No going back.
Hmm.. I’m not as opposed to this as you and the others who have commented. I trust trustworthy groups (like the National Academy of Sciences) to tell me that global warming is a bad thing, and here I trust them to tell me that eating cloned meat is an OK thing. How it affects the economy and the world of food, ethics, etc. is separate from the actual safety of ingesting the meat, yes?
Rosemary . . . I’m so glad you added your voice! Your message is a good one–find sources you trust and keep up to date with their recommendations. One thing I found interesting is that in the NAS’s earlier 20004 assessment on genetic engineering in agriculture, they didn’t single out GE as being a particular threat. Instead, they widened the net, recommending “that ALL altered foods should be assessed on a case-by-case basis before they are sold to the public to determine whether unintended changes in the composition of the food could adversely affect human health.” I very much agree with that. I’m not so much arguing with the science as it stands now, as questioning the length of time and generations of livestock that should be observed before making any definitive decisions on what may be possible unintended consequences in the future. Call me conservative, but there’s no food shortage crisis, no need to fast track this effort. And yet there is no rewind button if the future plays out differently than the FDA administration believes it will. I just think we should take more time with this decision.
My instinct is against it and to agree with your conclusions about taking this slowly. For the same reasons I eat organic vegetables and dairy products, this does not appeal to me. But if I’m being honest, I have to say I don’t know enough about it, haven’t researched it, haven’t thought about it. For that reason, I was very interested to read your post.
I did see another posting that says the FDA has asked the companies to hold off selling this meat. Do you know anything about this? Does it mean the FDA has not yet approved it for sale? I’m a little confused as to what exactly has happened. Here’s the post I mentioned: http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2008/01/clone-burgers-n.html
Here’s a thought-provoking perspective, particularly the author’s conclusion: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/beef-battle-tis.html
Laurie . . . Yes, both the FDA and the USDA has placed a “voluntary moritorium” on the sale of cloned meats, meaning they’ve asked the major cloning and cattle companies to keep it from the market for a period of time. The primary reason for this, apparently, is so that they can placate our trade partners of any concerns. (I think it’ll be interesting to see what kind of marketing campaigns spin out of this to try to convert the public both here and abroad.) The scary thing is, though, is that all parties involved admit that there’s probably already cloned meat out in the market today, that’s already “leaked out” into the food chain, which erodes any confidence I may have had in that volunteer moritorium. There’s an excellent article here at the Washington Post explaining all of this . . . check it out if you like: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011501555.html?sub=new. I’m curious to read the links you have here too! I’ll be back to comment when I return from my four-day-seclude-myself-in-a-house-on-the-coast-and-FINISH-my-novel-trip. Cheers!
I have to admit that this doesn’t bother me that much for some reason. I view it as another advancement in farming. Like pest-resistant crops.
There is some irony in my position though as I belong to an organic farming co-op for most of my vegetables and meats. But that is mostly because I think the food tastes better than what you get from the large commercial farms.
I asked my farmer husband and he shook his head and asked me why should we be concerned. It is, as Steve mentioned, just another advancement. We’ve used genetic selection for many years, which chooses a trait and then breeding for that. It works in agriculture too. Flowers. Etc. With cloning, you are making an exact copy and then breeding too.
I’m completely against human cloning though.
I do think it should be ok to label meat that was from cloned animals. Just to allow folks to have the choice.
I sometimes buy organic from local farmers market because fruit and veggies from a local farm tastes better and the only farmers markets nearby are organic farmers. As we all know, home grown tomatoes taste better than the ones at Safeway. But my husband’s parents have a ranch and grow a huge garden every year and it is not organic and those tomatoes taste heavenly.
steph
Lia, the Washingoton Post article was very interesting; thanks for the link.
Steve, Steph . . . It’s so enlightening to get everyone’s varying views here. I wrote in another post how I’m encouraged by the fact that even though I may not be passionate about every ’cause’ out there, I know there are enough people fired up about each and every one to make a difference. And it’s a similar feeling with this subject, seeing how some people feel very strongly against cloning, some people feel very strongly about allowing it to move ahead, and others really aren’t concerned about it one way or another. Thanks for sharing your views!
Laurie . . . I’m so glad you enjoyed the article. I’ll be looking through yours once I settle back in here . . .