Frankenfood

In early January 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declared that meat and milk from cloned animals are just as safe for human consumption as products derived from animals bred through conventional means (Charles 2). Due to a hesitant consumer response, the FDA recommended that food producers wanting to utilize cloning technology wait a bit longer before making their products commercially available. Meanwhile, the federal government has decided not to require food producers to label their products as food produced from or by cloned animals (Hedges 1). This decision is facing much criticism and opposition. Food producers using cloned animals should be required by law to label their products for several reasons. First, the technology behind animal cloning is very new and unperfected. Second, many ethical concerns continue to exist regarding the cloning process as well as the technology in general. Third, the current research on the safety of consumption of “cloned food” is still insufficient and speculative, with possible long-term side-effects yet to be determined. Most importantly, regardless of any safety reassurances, consumers should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to purchase and consume food that has been produced, directly or indirectly, through cloning.

It was only eleven years ago that a large mammal was successfully cloned for the first time. The cloned sheep, named Dolly by the Scottish scientists who created her, was considered a scientific breakthrough. She was preceded by many failed cloning attempts. Although considered a successful clone, she had to be put down at a young age due to arthritis and a progressive lung disease (Stobart and Mestel 1). To the disappointment of the scientific community, Dolly was not the first entry in a long list of scientific miracles. In an article for the Associated Press, medical writer Lauran Neergaard observes that even today, “many attempts at livestock cloning still end in fatal birth defects or with deformed fetuses dying in the womb” (Neergaard 2). While there is no concrete evidence that Dolly’s early demise was due to her being a product of cloning, that possibility cannot be scientifically excluded. Dolly was born with short telomeres – regions of highly repetitive DNA bands at the end of linear chromosomes. The shortening of telomeres is associated with the aging process (“Dolly’s” 1). Nevertheless, a decade after Dolly’s creation, the technology behind animal cloning continues to be relatively unreliable. The FDA has admitted that for the time being “it is not possible to draw any conclusions regarding the longevity of livestock clones or possible long-term health consequences” for the cloned animal (“Animal Cloning” 10).

Ethical questions regarding the cloning of animals also continue to be heavily debated. For some, cloning is a form of playing God. Mother Nature has been known to make changes, not to replicate. Even identical twins, despite having identical DNA, are not carbon copies of one another – or of their parents. Also, animal rights activists are concerned about the large number of failed cloning attempts. The National Anti-Vivisection Society, one of the oldest animal rights organizations in the country, recently concluded that “there are serious concerns regarding animal suffering for animals who are ‘rejects’ of the cloning process,” and that these concerns need to be addressed before the new technology can be approved (“Stop Sale” 2).

As for the safety of consuming food produced with cloned animals, the Food and Drug Administration appears convinced that there is no risk, judging by their 900-page safety report, “Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment.” The FDA plans to continue to observe the scientific research on cloning technology, but it will not specifically monitor the cloning process of animals for food production purposes, or the production or quality of those food products. The safety report drafted by the FDA is based on scientific analysis of the genetic differences – or lack thereof – between a clone and the “original” animal. The FDA’s conclusion is that if the meat from the original animal is completely safe to eat, then the meat produced from its clone is equally safe (Weiss 2). The agency places the responsibility of safety and quality control of food products solely on the production companies. That may be a questionable approach, considering the high cost of cloning livestock. Since it can take up to one hundred tries to successfully create a clone, with each attempt costing thousands of dollars, food producers will want to maximize the profit achieved with each clone (Weise 1; Neergaard 1). In most cases the cloned animals will not be used for food, but for breeding purposes, to acquire masses of animals with the positive characteristics of the original. In time, there will be millions of animals which are descendants of cloned animals, and will therefore carry some of their genes, and be susceptible to possible hereditary conditions. How thoroughly will manufacturers monitor the health of those cloned animals and their millions of descendants, and how quickly will they be willing to dispose of those expensive animals, should the livestock develop health problems? After all, whether cloned animals are genetically predisposed to degenerative diseases or premature aging is yet to be determined. In an article for the Washington Post, journalist Rick Weiss reported that “[Scientists associated with the FDA] concluded that [cloned] newborn cattle are often unhealthy, probably because of epigenetic changes” (Weiss 2).

American consumers should not have to fight for their right to know where the food they eat comes from. Many food producers acknowledge this, and have released statements stating that their products will continue to be “clone-free” (Heller 1). Jerry Greenfield, a co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, is among the loudest voices opposing livestock cloning. The company is considering special labels for their products in order to make it clear that their dairy products do not contain milk from cloned cows. “Putting cloned animals and their milk in our food supply is just weird, and people don’t want it,” Greenfield told BusinessWeek (Gogoi 1). Some retailers have chimed in as well with their disapproval. HEB, a large grocery retailer, recently announced that they will not carry any products which contain meat from cloned animals (“FDA: Cloned” 1). However, for many consumers and public interest groups, this is insufficient. The National Farmers Union (NFU) is supporting the Cloned Food Labeling Act introduced by Senator Barbara Mikulski. The bill, if passed, would require food producers to use labels to distinguish food produced from cloned animals. Following the release of the FDA’s risk assessment report, the president of the NFU, Tom Buis, issued a statement in which he criticized the agency’s decision not to require labels. “In the face of ever increasing food safety concerns,” Buis said, “it is troubling to see the FDA approval of products from cloned animals to be sold to the public, when questions surrounding the health risks, legal implications and ethical concerns remain unanswered.” According to Buis, there is currently no documented consumer demand for cloned food products (“NFU Statement” 1).

Ultimately, it should be up to each consumer to decide whether or not to buy food that has been produced with the use of a cloned animal. Requiring food manufacturers to specifically label such food products is a matter of protecting the right of the consumers to know what they are eating.

Tagged as: Cloning, FDA