The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday declared that meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring is as safe as the natural version, clearing the way for the products to enter the food supply without special labeling.
In releasing their final risk assessment on the safety of cloning technology, the FDA asked producers to continue keeping cloned cattle, pigs and goats out of the food supply during a transition period of unspecified length to give the market time to adjust.
But products from the offspring of clones can be sold to the public immediately, the federal agency said.
“Meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine and goats and their offspring are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals,” said Randall Lutter, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for policy.
Government scientists said they did not have enough information on cloned sheep or other species to rule that they were safe to eat.
Initially, only a small amount of steaks, pork and dairy products derived from clones will become available in grocery stores. But over the next three to five years — after ranchers have time to clone their most prized animals and those clones are able to breed — the products will become routine on store shelves, industry executives said.
The decision was based on dozens of studies conducted around the world that found that meat and milk from clones is biologically indistinguishable from the meat and milk offered in stores and restaurants today.
Critics remain unconvinced. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., is pushing an amendment to the pending farm bill that would require the FDA to conduct further studies before ruling that clones are safe.
“The FDA’s bullheaded action (Tuesday) disregards the will of the public and the Senate,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. “FDA’s action has placed the interests of a handful of biotech firms above those of the public they are charged with protecting.”
Even with the FDA’s endorsement, producers face an uphill battle persuading consumers to accept the newfangled technology.
A survey conducted last year by the International Food Information Council, which is supported by the food, beverage and agricultural industries, found that only 22 percent of U.S. consumers had a favorable view of animal cloning, compared to 50 percent who were opposed. If deemed safe by the FDA, the proportion of people who said they would accept animal cloning for food would rise to 46 percent — a substantial increase, but still a minority of consumers, the survey found.
Cloning advocates acknowledge that the technology has a “yuck factor” that has been difficult to shake.
“The entertainment industry has used the word ‘clone’ in a negative context,” said Jerry Baker, chief executive of the Federation for Animal Science Societies in Savoy, Ill. “That’s a hard one for us to overcome, but we have to continue to try.”
Scientists frequently point out that clones are not genetic mutants but identical twins of naturally produced animals that are just born at a different time.
To make a clone, scientists remove the DNA from the nucleus of a normal egg and replace it with DNA from a prized animal. A tiny electric shock induces the egg to grow into a genetic copy of the original animal. No new genes are introduced or modified as part of the process.
“We’re not out to create some kind of abnormal individual,” Baker said.
Producers, like Limousin cattle rancher Larry Coleman of Charlo, Mont., say they simply want to extend the breeding capabilities of their most superior animals.
Coleman spent $60,000 for three clones of his late prized bull, First Down, whose semen sells for as much as $700 a vial and is in short supply. By offering semen from the clones, born in 2002, Coleman hopes to multiply his sales while offering breeders the same high-quality product at a cheaper price.
But because he has abided by the FDA’s voluntary moratorium against introducing meat and milk from clones and their offspring into the food supply, Coleman is still waiting for his chance to recoup his investment.
The livestock industry has a long record of using assisted reproduction technologies to improve the quality of its herds.
“Once we’ve identified the superior animals, we want to use those to the extent possible to produce the next generation,” Baker said.
The FDA began studying the safety of cloned food in 2001. It commissioned a report from the National Academy of Sciences, which found the risk presented by cloned animals and their offspring was small.
A 2006 study by scientists from the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine scrutinized the vitamins, minerals, proteins, amino acids, fat, water and carbohydrate content and found no “nutritionally or toxicologically important differences.”
Clones are more likely to die in utero or shortly after birth and to have birth defects. They also pose a risk to their surrogate mothers because they tend to be larger than their naturally conceived counterparts.
But the clones that survive into adolescence are just as healthy as other animals, according to the 2006 study. Screening methods already in place would prevent clones that are sick or abnormal from entering the food supply, so no additional safeguards should be required, the scientists said.
Relatively few clones are likely to become burgers or bacon because they cost far more to produce than they would be worth at a slaughterhouse. ViaGen, for example, currently charges $17,500 to clone a single cow and $4,000 for a pig. It is their offspring that are more likely to wind up on a dinner table.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
