Practical solutions for people + planet
Should we believe them? FDA says cloned food OK
It was hard to miss the news this week about the FDA's stance on the safety of food from cloned animals.
From the Washington Post:
"A long-awaited final report from the Food and Drug Administration concludes that foods from healthy cloned animals and their offspring are as safe as those from ordinary animals, effectively removing the last U.S. regulatory barrier to the marketing of meat and milk from cloned cattle, pigs and goats."
"The 968-page "final risk assessment," not yet released but obtained by The Washington Post, finds no evidence to support opponents' concerns that food from clones may harbor hidden risks. "
NO LABEL REQUIRED
According to the LA Times, "The FDA does not require products derived from clones to be labeled because agency scientists found no difference between them and meat and milk produced the conventional way."
Someone pinch me. While this might be true from a short-term scientific view, how does this impact genetic diversity and adaptability? Who's taking the long view?
Here's a provocative follow-up from the Chicago Tribune.
WHAT'S YOUR TAKE?
I'm struggling with how to process this and would be interested in your thoughts.
From the Washington Post:
"A long-awaited final report from the Food and Drug Administration concludes that foods from healthy cloned animals and their offspring are as safe as those from ordinary animals, effectively removing the last U.S. regulatory barrier to the marketing of meat and milk from cloned cattle, pigs and goats."
"The 968-page "final risk assessment," not yet released but obtained by The Washington Post, finds no evidence to support opponents' concerns that food from clones may harbor hidden risks. "
NO LABEL REQUIRED
According to the LA Times, "The FDA does not require products derived from clones to be labeled because agency scientists found no difference between them and meat and milk produced the conventional way."
Someone pinch me. While this might be true from a short-term scientific view, how does this impact genetic diversity and adaptability? Who's taking the long view?
Here's a provocative follow-up from the Chicago Tribune.
WHAT'S YOUR TAKE?
I'm struggling with how to process this and would be interested in your thoughts.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Afriendof B on -
Like GMOs the long term risks are unknown. The USDA has a terrible track record when it comes to Identifying things that have risks that are not immediately obvious. I fear cloned food will soon be like the ubiquitous GM grains we now find in everything we eat. Not requiring labeling will allow it to slip into the food system and disappear. It takes away any choice the public has.
-
Permalink Reply by Urban Gardener on
-
What kind of government do we have in this country? Decisions like the FDA's recent one on cloning are so obviously designed to favor the earnings of America's corporations rather the health of its citizenry.
I'm disgusted by this decision. It reflects the sham that the FDA has become.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeffrey V. on -
I think of our friend Percy Schmeiser and his difficulties when GMO "Round-up Ready" seeds blew into his canola fields and contaminated his crops.
A canola scientist, in an affidavit for Monsanto in the trial, said Schmeiser's theories of cross-pollination by wind and bees did not make sense to him, given the purity of plants grown based on Monsanto's tests. "It was a very frightening thing, because they said it does not matter how it gets into a farmer's field; it's their property," Schmeiser said, in an interview with Agweek. "If it gets in by wind or cross-pollination, that doesn't matter."
Is there a cross-pollination effect to worry about with cloning of animals?
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Jonathan Mather on -
Aloha Jeffery,
I remember reading several years ago about an interesting observational study someone had done
somewhere in Canada ( Vancouver leaps to mind, but not sure). However, somewhere up there our good northern brothers had observed that when genetically altered cucumbers were eaten, and the
reproductive tissue of males analysed,( testicular tissue ) Can you guess? Bingo! Genetically altered
material present "down below"... Don't recall their final upshot, but between you, me, and the boys in the sac, it doesn't really sound like a good thing , does it? I guess my thought to your above question would be-- only if the animals are eaten, their by-products used (like milk, or butter, or eggs)
or if they are involved in the bearing of offspring... All of which are exactly what they have slated for
these "superanimals" of our immediate future. Not sure how many DOZENS of countries have outlawed( as in against the law) these genetic misadventures, but I find it hard to believe that they're all just old fashioned genetic fuddy-duddies, while the one country locking down all the copyrights on "new lifeforms" and looking at beyond trillions of dollars of profits in the quite near future (ask the farmers of India how altruistic and easy to work with these guys are) is the one that's got it right. I'm afraid Mr. Schmeiser's comment may turn out to be the understatement of the millenium. A very frightening thing, indeed....
-
Permalink Reply by Susie-Q on -
More reasons to buy organic!
I received a press release from the Organic Trade Association on Tuesday affirming that meat from cloned animals will not be certified as Organic by the USDA. The National Organic Program, the programming arm for the USDA's organic certification, has revised its statement on cloning as well. - Attachments:
-
-
1-15-08NOPCloningQA.pdf, 10 KB -
1-15-08NOPCloningTalkingPoints.pdf, 15 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by Usoak on -
In terms of direct human health it's probably true, cloned meat isn't dangerous. There's no reason to suspect that cloning an animal will make it unhealthy to eat. The danger instead comes from the ecology of agriculture. There are reasons that mammals rely on sexual reproduction, instead of asexual means. Lack of genetic diversity will make diseases spread more easily throughout a community if only one, or small number of clones are used. Further, the process of cloning encourages a mass produced style of agriculture which is dangerous to adjoining ecosystems, and is susceptible to disease outbreaks which can sicken animals (humans naturally included). The cloning issue indeed is similar to GMOs. In and of themselves they're almost certainly safe. But in terms of the surrounding ecologies they have the potential to harm. Clones, like GM, can in some circumstances be useful and beneficial to humanity, not just corporations (cyanide free cassava for example). Yet in general it seems silly to spend time and money developing these plants and animals when traditional breeding techniques (with improvements such as marker assisted selection) are available and cheaper, and do not have the public stigma attached to them. It is no longer 1910, and as such the USDA must begin considering broader ecological consequences of agriculture, instead of simply "is it safe to eat".
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Jonathan Mather on
-
Aloha Usoak,
It turns out that there are actually a large number of extremely compelling reasons that cloning an animal would make it, at the very least, "unsafe" to eat. In the recent Everything's Hunkydory! report by the FDA, if you read a little deeper into the lengthy report, you'll discover that things aren't quite as smooth or even minimally competent as they and the FDA would like you to believe. Did you know that LESS THAN 10% OF CLONED ANIMALS are born healthy? Setting aside the fact that these are living creatures, I'm struggling to come up with any industry or business model where a less than 10% production rate is viewed aa an A-OK FULLSPEED AHEAD. In reality, clones are typically born
grossly deformed, with fetuses often growing too large, resulting in agonizing and prolonged pregnancies. Kind of takes the rosy glow off the FDA's spin, doesn't it? But its not like there's a problem-- the FDA cheerfully assures us not to worry-- because these obviously grossly deformed
animals would never make it into the food supply. I guess if you're willing to happliy foster what certainly appears to be an industry in which the overwhelming product (90+%) is deformed animals
then we're all set! Oh, wait... one more thing. It turns out that for some years now, a few highly placed scientists within the "cloning community" have been raising conderns and pointing to research
that clearly indicates that there are fundamental, underlying failures in the expression of genes in cloned animals. Rudolf Jaenisch, a professor at MIT, who heade one of the two labs invlolved in genetic expression in mice, puts it like this, "...clones ar efar from perfect copies. All clones are defective in one way or another, with multiple flaws embedded in their genomes." He goes on to
state that at least 4 to 5 % of the genes in a clone's genome are expressed incorrectly.
It is possible for mammals to be born even when genetic abnormalities are substantial. It is also
common for genetic flaws to remain . unexpressed or hidden . How does the FDA, or anyone in the "cloning industry" propose to check for these silent, hidden genetic time bombs? And with an estimated 4 to 5% rate of mutated genetic material introduced into the breeding stock of the world's
farm animals, how many generations do you think it will take to produce a hideous catastrophy?
And remember, once the genetic material is altered, it can NEVER be returned to its natural state...
So, in closing, I apologise for being a bit long-winded, and one more word to the wise. And Usoak.
In and of themselves, (disregarding their poor agonized existance) these animals are most certainly
NOT safe. For eating, for the continuation of their species, for the good of the planet....
There ARE reasons.... Yours In The Spirit Of Lively Discussion, Dr. J
-
Permalink Reply by kelli on
-
Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has info on this topic as well as urging folks to send their comments to the FDA. You can find the info here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9699.cfm
And to take action (they already have a handy message written out for you): http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oca/campaign....
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Kidder on
-
From my reading the thing that surprised the mammalian "cloning community" was that the cloned offspring seemed to exhibit some of the age related traits of the parent. This implies that something is going on here in terms of the specific cloning techniques they're using, or the cloning process itself, that isn't fooling Mother Nature one little bit. I say we have a little more research that needs to be done. After all, we're just figuring out that epigenetics plays a major role in gene expression, and that all that "junk" DNA might actually have a purpose. Humble and careful might be a good attitude to take?
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Jonathan Mather on
-
Aloha Susan!
Didn't want to get too etheric in my previous post on cloned animals-- but will add this to your wisely precautionary words-- there are MANY veiled and direct references to the hugely diverse array of subtle functions DNA has-- these references are found in the Vedas, arguably the most profound source of spiritual and SCIENTIFIC information available to humankind. We are talking about some of the many unseen, typically unpercieved blueprints of our subtle energies. Things that are definitional and fundamental to our existence as beings capable of higher perception... These are truly sacrosanct realities where even angels dare not tread... If you really want to get new agey
consider the widely accepted reason that Atlantis was karmically slated for "recycling"... that's right--
genetic transgressions... Aloha, Dr. J
-
Permalink Reply by Melissa MoonGoddess on -
Cloned meat will likely be CAFO beef, too. Yuck!
N. Americans consume way too much protein as it is. My belief is that meat consumption should be rare, infrequent and *special* as it is in most of the world.
If we truly honor the lives of the animals who give their lives for us in the interdependent web of life (cows without humans caring for them would quickly become extinct - haven't heard of feral cows lately) and raise them in life-honoring ways, then I believe judicious consumption of animal protein is merited.
The farther north one lives the less practical it is to be vegetarian if one's goal is to eat local, organic and in season. Sadly, USDA so-called "organic" labeling is not to be trusted. I look for third party certification.
Oh... and cattle didn't evolve to eat grain anyways. That's why when/if I eat beef I buy local, organic, grassfed/pastured. And that's only happened once in the past year!
-
Permalink Reply by Afriendof B on
-
I find it interesting that the USDA would allow something like this and at the same time pursue rules that would essentially eliminate all small diversified farms from the pool of salad greens producers. (See Growing For Market, Jan. 2008, or visit www.caff.org/foodsafety/ for more info.) The agency that is supposed to be protecting us has allowed GMOs to become ubiquitous in the food system without any long term testing and is at the same time trying to make all food production happen in sterile soil or better yet sterile hydroponic food factories. Maybe I should be promoting Guerilla Local rather than Living Locally
- 1
- 2
© 2009 Created by Bioneers on Ning. Create your own social network
