FDA: Food from cloned animals safe

[dArKeR]

Agency closer to allowing sale of products from clones

Milk and meat products from cloned cattle, pigs and goats and their offspring were safe for consumers to eat, according to a Food and Drug Administration document obtained by Reuters from an industry source.

“EDIBLE PRODUCTS from normal, healthy clones or their progeny do not appear to pose increased food consumption risk,” said the 12-page executive summary of an FDA report.

http://msnbc.com/news/987179.asp?0cv=CB10

Hey, the guys who made this report are the same ones who made the 'WMD in Iraq' report.

[flamingyouth]

1. I'll pass, thanks

:shudder:

[Maple]

2. Of course there wouldn't be

any risk from it. How absurd.

[range78]

3. "normal clones"

Is there such a thing?

[Maple]

4. Yes

they're called twins.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Notice it's headlined as "Food from cloned animals safe" but

in the article we read:

“EDIBLE PRODUCTS from normal, healthy clones or their progeny do not appear to pose increased food consumption risk,” said the 12-page executive summary of an FDA report. (Bolding added by me.)

Weasel words.

[Maple]

6. Quite safe

they are duplicates after all.

[gardenista]

7. Clones are not equal to twins.

Genetically manipulated clones are not the same thing as natually produced twins.

[NickB79]

10. Explain please

The technical definition of twins is that they have an identical genetic makeup, the same DNA sequences if you were to compare tissue samples from the two. This is also the definition of clones: they share the same genetic make-up. You can argue about the morality of manipulating nature via modern science, but there isn't much to argue about when it comes down to the molecular level. Clones are virtually the same as naturally occurring twins based on their DNA.

[Sufi Marmot]

25. There can be significant phenotypic differences...

The cloning process does not exactly mimic the natural processes by which identical twins are formed (when a naturally fertilized egg splits in two). There are other epigenetic factors that make significant contributions to an organism's phenotype besides the DNA itself, so you're not guaranteed to get a phenotypic clone of the parent just by inserting its DNA into an anucleated cell and starting up the growth process. Many cloned animals have shown siginficant phenotypic differences from the parent animal from which they were generated.

I don't know whether any of these differences could plausibly render cloned animals unsafe to eat, however...

-SM

[kwolf68]

35. Well...

Keep in mind, identical twins won't be identical either.

As you may well know, phenotype differences are caused by environmental factors and even factors within the developmental stages before birth. Factors that are not restricted to just the clones. Twins have the same conditions that produce variability in phenotypes for clones.

For the laymen, the differences in clones and twins is really minute. In a clone the DNA comes from one source where two sources (gametes) provide for twins. And you can't get "twins" from a piece of hair or dead skin. I guess other than some philosophical arguments, thats really the only difference.

And like you I am not sure if cloning makes animals unsafe to eat.

In fact, I would tend to argue they aren't. HOWEVER, just like anything else we don't know about there can be (quite possibly) extremely negative factors that could develop. I fear we have not done enough study on this and are unleashing GM foods on the marketplace without knowing the deleterious effects that could happen. Contigencies no one has considered as of yet.

[Sufi Marmot]

40. I was specifically thinking of imprinted genes...

Imprinting. I'm not sure but I suspect that identical twins have the same initial imprinting, whereas cloned organisms definitely don't, due to the way they are created. I think the chances of a cloned animal expressing some novel toxin or harmful protein are fairly low, unless there were unfortuitous unrepaired DNA errors during the initial cloning process It would be interesting to see, however, whether cloned animals express various nutrients and hormones at the same levels as naturally born ones - changes in gene expression of normal genes due to imprinting differences might plausibly affect levels of, for instance, cholesterol, or a particular vitamin. (I'm not saying there's any evidence of this, it just occurs to me that it's not beyond the realm of possibility...)

-SM

[Pez]

8. mmm... i'll have seconds!

so what is the giant graphic they're going to put on milk, eggs and meat in the supermarket to indicate whether they are clone products?

tell me there will be a giant graphic.

pretty please?



i'll try it at least once... morbid curiosity.

[SpiralHawk]

9. Wait a minute.

We've already got human food and animal food grown from genetically altered seeds using petro-chemical based fertilizers and pesticides. That food is then adulterated with preservatives and "food processing" techniques that would churn the stomach of even Killer Kowalski, the semi-famous pro-wrestler of 1950s and '60's who boasted of his "Cast Iron Stomach."

The food's got freaky hormones. More and more it's getting freaking irradiation. And it's being cooked in microwaves.

So now we will have cloned meat and meat by-products heaved into this mass of slumgullion.

No thank you. I choose Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). I want to know who is growing my food, how they are doing it, and I want to keep farm land open in my city. Read all about it:

http://www.chiron-communications.com/farms-1.html

[NickB79]

11. We've survived all that so far

So I don't have much fear that cloned meat, eggs or milk will do any more damage than the pesticides and hormones have already.

[karlschneider]

38. Everything you eat has been 'genetically engineered' by one method or

other (evolution mostly up until recently.) Hop in a time machine and go back a million years and try to find something to eat that won't kill you. If your complaint is about the -process-, that is a subjective opinion to which you have a right but the DNA changes will happen whether you approve or not.

[camero]

39. It's better that nature does it

She actually knows what she's doing.

[karlschneider]

41. Uh, "nature" is not a she, or any other sort of sentient entity. In fact,

it exists only conceptually, like deities. I could, if I were a disagreeable fellow, point out that "nature" has killed more humans than humans have (so far.) But I won't do that. ;-)

And I could mention that nature would not likely have evolved the computer you are probably using to read this...

[camero]

43. I'm not afraid of practical technology

But when they start playing god and messing with the food supply, that is another thing entirely.

And yes, I know nature doesn't have any gender, I was using it as conjecture. My computer will not make me sick even theoretically.

[treepig]

46. theoretically, your computer

contains enough toxic metals to make you very sick. it's utterly irresponsible for computer companies to have unleased millions of pounds of toxic computer waste into the environment:

http://www.state.me.us/newsletter/may2003/toxic_technology.htm

if you want to rationally engage in a side by side comparison of how many people's health has been harmed by computers, vs. how many people's lives have been saved by gmo's (and cloning techniques), you'd be sadly on the wrong side of the equation.

[camero]

49. If you treat it like that, yes

But it causes me no harm sitting on my desk. And why do you use yours if you wanna get into this debate?

[treepig]

52. ok, glad to hear your computer is benign

in many cases, other people's aren't!

besides the toxic metals, they contribute to tunnel carpal syndrome and inhibit the ability of young children to learn how to read.

but, of course computers can be used safely and responsibly - but you seem to inhabit a black and white world entirely devoid of nuance. sure, gm foods could be used for evil, pretty much like almost anything. should we ban everything?


and if you don't want to play god (a reference to one of your post above) - you should be all gung-ho for anything that reduces humankind's impact on the environment - such as the reduction in toxic pesticides that is achieved by the use of gm crops.

[treepig]

45. ding, ding, ding

i think we've just found the winner for the "most utterly ridiculous statement" in this thread.

perhaps on one hand you do have a point, insofar as mother nature has an excellent process for creating gmo's (namely, evolution)

on the other hand, almost all mutants that nature creates are not a step forward (in any way). instead, nature creates millions, or billions, of genetic variants - and then lets the environment sort out which ones will survive. in many cases mankind has played an intrusive role and has over-ridden environmental controls on what gmo's nature creates that will ultimate survive (one recent example is the massive over-use of pesticides, a problem that man-made gmo's is bringing under control). where's the outrage??

[camero]

48. Do you have any proof that GM foods are safe?

And guess what. We've survived for hundreds of thousands of years with nature at the helm. I don't think that is an utterly ridiculous statement.

Actually, you can't say that and then say I have a point. More hyperbole from the frankenfood group.

[treepig]

51. demanding absolute proof that gm foods are safe

is just plain bizarre!

it's a bit like demanding proof that a hammer is safe - not so safe when i'm whacking you over the head with it, but actually quite beneficial when you're using it to fix your leaking roof. clearly, there are toxic proteins (ricin for example) that could be spliced into your food products (and god knows saddam is out there right now doing that to your food) - but come on, as evil as monsanto is, do you really think that they're doing that?

in any event, do you have any proof that naturally occurring food is safe? for sure it has not been tested at the level that anti-gm activists demand for gm food.

consider that it is now known that people contain millions of different forms of genes. by now everybody knows that the human genome has been completely sequenced and contains ~25-30,000 genes. however, a huge variety of each of these genes exists (i.e., different forms occur in different people, already 1.8 million different SNP's (single nucleotide polymorphisms) have been characterized and the search has barely begun, see http://snp.cshl.org/ for more details).

although it hasn't been studied in detail, similar genetic variety exists in all species. for example, every time you eat beef, even if it comes from the same herd (unless the herd consists of clones), you will be eating a large variety of different variations of the 25-50,000 or so proteins produced by a the cow's genome. if you are eating beef from different types of cows, or different countries of origin, the differences will be even greater. furthermore, it is almost certain that some of these proteins have just recently evolved and have never been eaten by a human before. is there any proof that all of the millions of different proteins collectively found in the world's naturally-occurring beef supply, as provided by mother nature, are safe? there sure isn't!!

according to the standards demanded by anti-gm activists, considering that in the natural world every cow, every corn plant (etc) is genetically distinct, each and every animal or plant eaten by people would have to first have it's genome completely sequenced, and any novel proteins found in each individual plant or animal would have to be thoroughly studied before any plant or animal would be deemed safe to eat. basically, no one would be eating anything anymore. getting back to the original topic of this thread, cloned animals, considering that they have much less genetic variety, they should be much safer for humans to consume based on the bizarre objection to GM foods that arise.

[camero]

53. One difference

I have more control over what I do with my hammer than what is put into my food. Your analogy is baseless. We must rely on the honesty and integrity of corporations to have a safe food supply.

Not something they have alot of right now. How about ConAgra? Ring a bell?

I can decide to not use a hammer. I cannot decide not to eat.

[treepig]

56. of course corporations are evil

for example, have you seen the movie erin brokovich (sp?) - and if you have, have you stopped using commercially-generated power because electric power utilities are poisoning people? and do you happen to be a human being? if so, you must be incredibly evil because josef stalin also was a human being and murdered 20 million or so people.

in any event, and notwithstanding your broad over-generalizations, you're absolutely correct that you don't have a lot of control over what is put into your food.

but somehow it's a delicious irony that by embracing gm or cloned foods, you'd be able to increase the level of control over what you eat.

[camero]

58. If they are labeled

That is not what I am hearing and reading.

[camero]

60. oh boy

I don't have the wealth or power to be that evil, another bad analogy. One question, do you work in bio-tech? Just trying to gauge your bias even though I should think I have enough info already.

[treepig]

61. no, i do not work in bio-tech

i'll let you choose what i actually am:

a) a skilled progandist employed by halliburton
b) somebody who did not obtain his or her biology education in kansas

[camero]

62. Ding ding...C

All of the above....lol

[Kinkistyle]

12. A twin are clones. Nothing wrong with cloned animals, but...

Twins are clones. Twins are still people aren't they? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a cloned animal, its just a twin - albeit man-made. Except for one small thing: If cloned animals proliferate and a disease (like say for example, Mad Cow) comes along that these animals are susceptible to, they will all be wiped out.

The thing about a diverse genepool, is that if a disease comes along, there will be some who are genetically susceptible, and some who are immune -- the immune folks will live on to reproduce, and thus we end up with a slightly stronger genepool. If everyone has the same set of genes, what might have been a relatively trivial disease might turn into a "plague".

[treepig]

19. presumably cloned animals will be less susceptible to mad cow

disease.

there are certain (rarely-occurring) mutations in prion proteins that make animals with these mutations (or people with similar mutations) particularly prone to developing "mad cow disease" - in essence these animals act as incubators to spread the disease to other healthy animals (or people).

presumably, animals with mutations that render them susceptible to prion diseases will not be cloned (except perhaps by the morons at PETA or greenpeace to make a point of how dangerous this technology is - when blatantly and stupidly misused), therefore in cloned populations of animals the "incubators" of prion disease will not be present, and disease like mad cow disease would be less likely to occur.

[DeathvadeR]

13. Like anyone should ever believe the FDA ever Again!!!!!

Fuqin sellout bitches, They worship only the dollar, not our safety.

[ConcernedCanuk]

14. I could answer individual posts, but scary thought - wanna clone JUNIOR ?

.. besides

someone said "we have survived so far" - that's a marketing phrase

remember formaldihyde ? (sp)

asbestous ?

and so on -

Trouble is

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F_CK WE ARE DOING with all these chemicals and experiments -

BUT we do know that alot of them f-ck up !

so - another adage

err on the side of caution -

JMHCO (Just My Humble Canadian Opinion)

[camero]

15. Oh really

Someone should tell me why the rise in the rates of diabetes and other deadly diseases has coincided with the rise of GM foods.

Of course I'm speculating, but it has never been studied and more than likely won't with this group running the show.

[SpiralHawk]

18. We also have an epedemic of obesity

But, of course, there's no way that could be caused by the growth hormones in the meat and milk. Industry scientists have assured us so. All we need to do is TRUST.


"I think the American people--I hope the American--I don't think, let me--I hope the American people trust me."
- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2002

[camero]

22. They are also in processed foods

including vegetables. GM foods are just about everywhere. Not to mention, is irradiation of meat really safe? But that's another thread.

[Malva Zebrina]

28. Ugh, the rise of diabetes is two fold

people eat too much, period. People who eat too much are too fat, period. Someone upped the ante and declared that a fasting blood sugar of 126 is indicative of diabetes and needs to be treated, when the old fasting blood sugar that indicated a blood sugar anomoly and diabetes, was 140. Remember that ? It was advertised on TV as 140. All of a sudden now, 126 is the benchmark. So naturally we have more diabetics. People are too fat--period. People eat too much and are obsessed with food in this country. period.

[camero]

29. I agree, but my case was different

I have never eaten that much ( I have always been thin,135 lbs at the most). I get your point about the benchmarks(they are now down to 105, almost impossible to maintain). But we should not discount the fact that we have had the equivalent of steroids in our food (growth hormones) for sometime now.

They say my case was genetic, but I'm not so sure, because all my research points to gamma cells, which comes from the brain.

There is more going on than they would have us believe.

Left one thing out: about 4 years ago, I was passing through the Spokane,WA area quite regularly for my job as an OTR truck driver, and this was an area where they found plutonium in the groundwater.

I wonder what effect this had on my health?

[Malva Zebrina]

30. Yup

and it is unfortunate that they cannot be believed or that people are suspicious--whoa the benchmark used to be 140! Howcome we have lowered the bar?

The costs go up because there are now people who are designated diabetics whose fasting blood sugar is 126--horrors--they need medication and they need doctors to prescribe the latest in oral medication--some of which is so dangerous that it requires lab tests to determine if the medication is destroying the liver. Oh goody--lots and lots of money to be made from that! They need to buy a blood sugar monitor and they need to have a prescription fot the test strips , under medicare, which cost at least 75 dollars for a monthly supply,(one dollar for each strip) one follows the admonition to "test six times a day" so they can monitor their eating habits or their insulin dosage. Do the math. Disgusting.

[camero]

32. They are putting me on insulin

While my pancreas is technically still working. My BS is 200 granted but it is lowering after I eat and from what I heard, the advice that doctors gave diabetics before and some now was to try to keep your BS below 200. Now it is so low as to almost be impossible to maintain.

Are they putting people on insulin that really don't need to be, thus making the pancreas lazy and making more money from the sale of insulin and the increased usage of test strips and everything else you mention?

I just think that they have not looked at the environmntal causes of alot of diseases and they won't because it would cut into corporate profits big time.

[Tikki]

33. It is certainly possible.........

...living in that 'area' effected many of our family members' health, adversely....




The Tikkis

[camero]

34. They don't want people to know these things

So there is the standard blame the victim mentality. It's all lifestyle without even studying how environmental toxins and chemicals in the food are affecting our health.
Reminds me of the movie "Soylent Green".

[pinniped]

16. Ok, which RAT wants to test out the cloned food first?

[camero]

17. One question

Can we make Georgie eat a cloned pretzel...lol

[sendero]

20. all I ask for ....

... is a label. Isn't it a lynchpin of the Repuke "free market" approach to let the consumer decide?

Well, if this stuff was labelled, (and GM frankenfoods as well) they would dissappear faster than an ice cube in hell - because there is no benefit to the consumer to eat this crap and plenty of risk.

If you want an example of the integrity of the medical community and the FDA you need look no further than the inclusion of themerisol in vaccines, now implicated in thousands of cases of autism.

Of course, the FDA won't admit it, and the vaccine makers after protesting for years that it was not the culprit quietly removed themerisol from vaccines, and congress slipped in a blanket immunity from legal consequences into a recent law - but naw, these people are all looking out for us. Sure.

[treepig]

21. a lower price is a "benefit to some consumers"

suppose it's nice to be affluent enough to consumer inefficently grown, but morally superior, agricultural products. not everyone has that luxury

[sendero]

24. lame lame lame

Prove that these product actually lower costs to consumers. I really doubt that they do, they just shift more revenue from others to Monsanto.

Regardless, it should be my right not to eat sh*t if I don't want to, and there is simply no credible counter-argument, I've heard them all.

[treepig]

27. due to whatever irrational fears you may have,

you may not like gm foods, but they are more economical to grow than non-gm crops. just like you may not like walmart (perhaps for perfectly valid reasons, like abusing their workers) there must be some reason for this company's widespread success - in this case it's basically their low prices. and the politicaly incorrect masses love it.

if you think about it, why would a farmer pay monsanto inflated prices for their seeds if they did not gain a net financial benefit, in this case from greatly reduced pesticide usage?

furthermore, a rationale analysis of risk would rank the massive introduction of pesticides into the environment (as is currently happening) as a much higher risk than introduction of so-called "untested" gm crops into the environment.

[Ratty]

23. Just can't be sure

Remember GM foods? Those were approved too. But it turns out that when plants are spliced with corn genes, the result aggravates people who have corn allergies. Now previously corn-free foods can sicken and kill people. So, okay, we be sure and label them. Let the consumer decide. Except all of these new GM'd strains polluted the air with their pollen and now you can't find natural versions of the plants without the new genetic sequences in them.

Nobody mentioned that when GM'd foods were approved.

Okay, so nobody's gonna buy cloned beef because it's icky. Next step, relax the labelling requirements. Soon we won't even have the option to decide whether to eat cloned products or not! And I'm willing to bet Texas cattle rancher GW Bush won't have any moral qualms about these clones.

Cloning is still a new field. Let's not rush all hasty to do something we won't be able to undo.

[treepig]

26. could you kindly provide more information about

the corn genes that were spliced into other crops - i'm most intrigued!

while i have heard of corn being the host for non-corn genes, i do not know of any instances of corn genes being introduced into other crops.

but since there are all those sick people out there, i suppose it must have happened. ok, i'm eagerly awaiting your citation of actual examples, and because i've never known an anti-gm person just to make stuff up out of the thin blue air, i hope to soon learn something new!

[GermanDJ]

31. Cloned animals are not identical to twins

At least that's my knowledge on this subject.

When sheep Dolly was produced somes scientists speculated that she would die earlier than a "normal" sheep because of her "production process" (and I'm using this rather cruel formulation by intent, sorry 'bout that ;) )

From an article by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/353617.stm

"Dolly the Sheep may be susceptible to premature ageing, new research suggests.
The possibility that the sheep may die early has been raised after a study of her genetics by some of the same scientists who created the clone in 1996.
A team from the biotechnology firm PPL Therapeutics in Scotland examined structures in Dolly's cells called telomeres.

They report in the journal Nature that the structures are slightly shorter than would be expected in a sheep of her age born normally.

There is some evidence that telomere length is linked to ageing. However, the researchers say it is currently impossible to predict precisely how long the world's most famous sheep will live. (...)"

And really, Dolly died earlier than you would expect, compared to the average lifespan of sheep.

From another news report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2764069.stm

"Dolly the sheep, the first animal cloned from an adult cell, has died.

Scientists at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, where she was born, say she was put down after developing a lung disease.

Under normal circumstances, sheep can live for 10 to 16 years - so at six she was relatively young.

Coming only a week after the sudden death of the first sheep cloned in Australia, it is bound to raise fresh fears about the wisdom of cloning. (...)"


I wonder on what data agencies like EPA base their judgements on?

[karlschneider]

36. It doesn't matter to me. I would LOVE to have a freezer full of steaks

from a cow cloned from that Angus I got a couple years ago. There sure are a lot of people around here who are terrified by new technology. It amazes me they aren't refusing to use computers.
:eyes:

[camero]

37. Computers don't make you sick

There needs to be more study and information given to the public.

[karlschneider]

42. Well, you are wrong about the first thing...computers make a LOT of people

sick. Maybe not physiologically, but I know more than 2 or 3 people who have physically attacked their machines out of frustration. I consider that to be somewhat sick. But I wonder, do you have any information or evidence that the consumption of cloned foods would or could cause illness? And if it's just technophobia, why not just say so?

[camero]

44. Physically attacking a computer is not sick

It's not human. Engaging in hyperbole to throw us off the scent are we? The facts are that there have been no real studies to confirm the safety of cloned meat or GM foods. And the industry has been de-regulated for some time now. Remember ConAgra? Or do you just work for a food producer?

[treepig]

47. cloned animals are particularly valuable for pharmacetical products

domesticated farm animals are being used to produce alot of pharmaceutical products:

Animal
Drug/protein
Use

sheep
alpha1 anti trypsin
deficiency leads to emphysema

sheep
CFTR
treatment of cystic fibrosis

sheep
tissue plasminogen activator
treatment of thrombosis

sheep
factor VIII, IX
treatment of hemophilia

sheep
fibrinogen
treatment of wound healing

pig,
tissue plasminogen activator
treatment of thrombosis

pig
factor VIII, IX
treatment of hemophilia

goat
human protein C
treatment of thrombosis

goat
antithrombin 3
treatment of thrombosis

goat
glutamic acid decarboxylase
treatment of type 1 diabetes

goat
Pro542
treatment of HIV

cow
alpha-lactalbumin
anti-infection

cow
factor VIII
treatment of hemophilia

cow
fibrinogen
wound healing

cow
collagen I, collagen II
tissue repair, treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

cow
lactoferrin
treatment of GI tract infection, treatment of infectious arthritis

cow
human serum albumin
maintains blood volume

chicken, cow, goat
monoclonal antibodies
other vaccine production


a downside to these "pharming" endeavors is the high cost of producing a trans-genetic animal to make these products:


The cost of making one transgenic animal ranges from $20,000 to $300,000, and only a small portion of the attempts succeed in producing a transgenic animal.


on the positive side, once an appropriate transgenic animal is made, it can be very valuable:

A Wisconsin firm that clones transgenic calves for human pharmaceutical production estimated that one transgenic animal can produce, in its lifetime, $200 to $300 million worth of pharmaceuticals.

(and note that cloning these transgenic animals is much more cost-effective than de novo genetic engineering of the original animal)

hopefully, all the anti-gmo people out there will refuse, on principle, to be treated with any and all of these life-saving therapeutics and nobly go to their early death with sanguinity.

on edit, information is from:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/animal_pharming.htm

[bpilgrim]

50. the requirements are pretty slim for something so new...

"The FDA will look two issues: Are the animals themselves healthy, and are the products nutritionally indistinguishable from those produced by noncloned animals?"

i know some piosonous plants and animals look pretty healthy in the wild and i am sure would provide some nutritional value as well if eaten but of course those pluses would soon be over taken by sudden death :evilgrin:

peace

[VolcanoJen]

54. Kick

:dem:

[RebelOne]

55. Well, I don't have to worry whether it's safe or not

I don't eat animals.

[camero]

59. A vegetarian

But you eat GM crops, which also haven't been adequately studied or labeled for that matter.

Ah, doh: sorry, you may not but it ties in with this. Noone can be really sure.

[camero]

57. About GM meat and milk

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2207697.stm

New genes inserted into the DNA of GM animals will make proteins which are not normally present in the human diet, the report says. These could produce allergic reactions, or even be poisonous.

The committee of scientists admits that data is scarce, particularly on animals cloned from adult tissue, like Dolly the sheep-the technique known as somatic nuclear transfer.

But it's safe anyway, just trust us, yeah right. ok. Anythin you say, Mista Big Business and Bushco FDA.

[frustrated_lefty]

63. This seems like a prelude to "bait and switch" rationale

One point is worth bearing in mind. Given the time, man-power and cash required to clone an animal, food products from cloned animals are not likely to hit the dinner table within our lifetime.

Personally, I think the issue is being raised to open a backdoor for arguing in favor of GM crops. A lot of people who would be against GM crops would have no objection to food products from cloned animals. These are two different issues. We're not altering genetic content in cloned animals. Arguing that food products from cloned animals are potentially hazardous is akin to arguing that children produced by means of in vitro fertilization are potential hazards. GM crops, otoh, are actually modified, their genetic content has been manipulated, additional genes have literally been introduced into the plant.

I think the administration is floating the idea of food from cloned animals because a lot of people will support the basic principle. And, after that support has arisen, the administration will switch the issue and attempt the argue that GM crops are similarly "safe." Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to be how this administration works.