FDA OK’s cloned food
There’s so much unnecessary angst over the cloning-for-food issue. You probably already know that I’m pro-cloning. I think the reason that cloning gets such a bad rap is that it’s so often thrown in with the genetic engineering argument. But cloning ISN’T genetic engineering.
Here’s the distinction: Cloning is simply creating an individual of any species that’s genetically identical to some parent (cell-donating) animal. It’s like a photocopy, or a twin that’s “born” later on.
Genetic engineering, on the other hand, is when mankind changes an organism to meet some need using some foreign or modified genetic material-like making a glow-in-the-dark fish to keep as a pet or designing a baby to make it grow up taller or with a full head of hair.
Many people – myself included – are wary of the path that genetic engineering leads us down. But a good deal of this is based on the moral implications of genetically engineering humans. When it comes to food, I’ve got a much more open mind. If properly regulated, I believe genetically engineered food has the potential to enhance food quality.
So cloning (again, when it comes to food, not humans) is a different discussion. And I believe that the FDA has made the right move in declaring it safe to eat. I respect the potential of cloning (when done right, of course) to standardize the quality of meats, or to refine things like protein/fat ratios, etc. It will greatly increase of quality, decrease disease resistance, and generally help the reproduction of animal food.
You know I believe we should only eat meat after it’s been grazing freely in a pasture. So you’re probably thinking that cloning just means twice as many (or even more) penned up cattle that are force-fed grain. Well, if it did, I’d be right on the “no-clones” bandwagon. But if the scientists are only going to be cloning the best of the best (and it wouldn’t make sense to do otherwise), these expensive animals are going to be getting the royal treatment. And I don’t think that’ll mean cooped up herds being force-fed grain.
If my predictions are even close to being correct, you can bet the big cattle business will have a thing or two to say about it. Which, of course, means that it could take longer than already anticipated to get this cloned meat business up and running.
Still, at this point, legally the debate is over. But the debate in the public arena is surely just beginning.
The truth is, whether or not the FDA has approved cloned meats, it’s up to the American consumer if it succeeds. Those companies that wish to build a businesses based on cloned foods will have to do some pretty slick marketing to get people to buy into the idea-because it’s one thing to be pro-cloning, but it’s an altogether different thing to eat meat from a cloned animal.
Many forms of livestock have been successfully cloned-including cattle, horses, pigs, goats, and, of course sheep. And FDA research shows that the milk and meat from these animals is just as safe as it is from the “originals,” and poses no risk to consumers. But that doesn’t seem to matter much to consumers.
In the past, surveys indicated that about 60 percent of Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of eating cloned animals (or drinking their milk). Interestingly, of that 60 percent, most object to cloned products for religious or ethical reasons, not for fear of poor quality or mutation.
Once this approval is final and the mainstream media picks up the story, you can bet that the next step will be determining whether or not cloned meat and dairy products must be clearly labeled in stores. As you probably know, this may add to any stigma that these products are already up against.
I happen to think that cloning can vastly improve the quality of our food. Imagine – a steak that’s perfect nearly every time, with just the right amount of fat and nutrients. If cloning takes off in the food industry, poor quality meats could become a thing of the past. What could possibly be wrong with that?
