(snip)
LOS ANGELES -- A long-awaited study by US scientists has concluded that meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring are safe to eat and drink and should be allowed to enter the food supply without any special labeling.
(snip)
(snip)
"All of the studies indicate that the composition of meat and milk from clones is within the compositional ranges of meat and milk consumed in the US," the FDA scientists concluded in a report published in the Jan. 1 issue of the journal Theriogenology, which focuses on animal reproduction.
The study, however, prompted a sharp reaction from food safety advocates.
The FDA "has been trying to foist this bad science on us for several years," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Food Safety in Washington. "When there is so much concern among so many Americans, this is really a rush to judgment."
(snip)
(snip)
Though cloning is expensive -- Coleman paid $60,000 to clone First Down -- producers have embraced it for the efficiencies it can bring to a farm or ranch. If a particular bull consistently produces strong offspring or a dairy cow is an unusually prolific milk producer, those advantages can be multiplied with clones.
(snip)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/24/meat_milk_from_cloned_animals_okd/?page=1This is a bad idea. Worse a dangerous and harmful idea.
And I'm not saying that because I don't believe the scientific reports supporting the safety of cloned animals, at least that isn't the primary reason. I'm not an expert and haven't studied those reports so it would be disingenuous of me to base my criticism of this decision on claims of faulty science. In fact it makes sense to my engineering trained brain that there should be no difference between a cloned animal and a more traditionally grown animal. In fact I've considered this debate in the food safety circles pretty irrelevant until recently.
I'd generally be willing to let a panel of experts advise and make some of the decisions related to cloning of livestock - but which experts and what goals are they looking to achieve or assist with their advice and decisions?
This decision is about supporting and enabling the massive and destructive industrial food chain - at least the meat part - in this nation (increasingly global as well).
Yesterday nosmokes posted on the subject of the industrial food chain which linked to a TomPaine piece which in turn referenced a article by Micheal Pollan:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/22/the_dirt_on_our_farms.phpMichael Pollan's book "Omnivore's Dilemma" is what educated me about the dangers of our industrial food chain. The way we force cattle to eat and live in ways completely contrary to how they evolved, even under the somewhat directed evolution of thousands of years of domestication - which has until recently really a coevolution with humans.
The decision to allow cloning is spurred by a fundamental hubris and recklessness that has lead to things like force feeding corn to grass eating cows (which causes illnesses that require the use of strong antibiotics which put humans at risk from new and more powerful bugs) and that is that "All the knowledge we have is all the knowledge we need"
As a species we can not be over timid and not make decisions and take action on the basis of our always limited knowledge, but we must not swing to the other extreme either and forget the 'limited' part of our knowledge and make decisions without calculating the risks.
And that is what this decision is doing or perhaps that is not fair. They have calculated the risks - to profit and large scale industrialization and the decision is cloning should be allowed. Cloning will allow the further 'mechanization' of cows and other meat animals, removing us further from our connection to nature and the natural coevolved food chain.
But we can never remove ourselves from the natural food chain and the more we disconnect ourselves from the natural food chain the more danger, the more risk we are creating to our most basic need - Food.