From foodconsumer.org
Ready for roast cloned beef?
By Ben Wasserman
Feb 19, 2008 - 11:23:10 AM
TUESDAY FEB 19, 2008 (Foodconsumer.org) -- Rumor has been around for some time that the Food and Drug Administration is preparing to approve sales of meats from cloned animals. In fact, the agency has already issued at least one statement to indicate that cloned animals are likely safe to eat.
The assessment of cloned meat safety was largely based on studies of nutrient compositions. Early, Yale University compared the nutrient profile of cloned beef with that of conventional beef and saw no difference in more than 95% of the content. This prompted the researchers to conclude that cloned animals are safe to eat.
Not all people are convinced. A health advocate affiliated with foodconsumer.org who does not want to be named said what kills often has an effect at a dose of far less than 5%. It is common sense just because the majority of meat components are the same does not mean the meat is safe to eat.
Food advocates at the center fro Food Safety have already filed a lawsuit against the FDA, according to naturalnews.com. They petitioned the agency in 2006 to evaluate cloned animals with the same meticulousness as they deal with pharmaceuticals.
"We will pursue the FDA's denial of our petition in court," Joseph Mendelson, legal director at the Center of Food Safety, was quoted as saying.
The Senate reportedly passed a measure last month to bar the FDA from approving the cloned products until more research results in a more definite conclusion. The bill sponsored by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) means to block the FDA from approving cloned foods, naturalnews.com reported.
"Just because something has been created in a lab, doesn't mean we should have to eat it," Senator Mikulski was quoted as saying in a prepared statement. "If we discover a problem with cloned food after it is in our food supply and it's not labeled, the FDA won't be able to recall it like they did Vioxx."
The FDA was said to have received over 30,000 comments from the public concerning the labeling issue. As many would guess, approved cloned meat is unlikely labeled as such for such a label would make consumers think twice before making a purchasing decision, potentially lowering the sales of cloned meats.
For instance, milk from cows that have received hormone injections does not carry a label to indicate the product is produced by hormone-injected cows. Actually, milk from cows that do not receive hormone injections is not allowed to carry a label indicating the mild is from cows that are not treated with hormones.
Cloned meat per se has no added value although prized animals may be cloned to produce meat that helps producers gain some marketing edge and make more profit. But there are some other issues to consider.
Advocates are concerned that cloning by itself would produce unhealthy animals, a cruelty that animal rights people could not bear.
Many dairy producers and processors have indicated that they have no intention to use cloned milk or meat fearing that a backlash from the consumers may eventually hurt their business.
Critics fear that once the cloned foods become acceptable, the cloning companies will have controlled the breed right. Genetically modified crops are a prime example to illustrate this potential peril for farmers. A farmer has reportedly sued by Monsanto for allegations that he reused seeds without permission from the company. He is supposed to buy the seed on a yearly basis from the seed company.