Spade & Spoon: Localizing the Way Westerners Eat
After FDA Approval, Input Sought from Montanans on Cloning
By Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel, 1-22-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Jopek's Farm | |
|
Two weeks ago, I reported on the possibility that the FDA would make a decision that cloned meat and milk is safe to eat. This article follows up on that story, after the FDA released their decision on January 15th that cloned food is indeed safe to enter our food chain.
This week, Whitefish, Montana’s State Representative Mike Jopek, sent out an email asking constituents to tell him what they think about cloned food. In it, he writes:
“I am looking for input as I truly respect the insight on the best approach. If no approach at all is warrented, (sic) please let me know. I also know many folks are unaware of this debate and may rather I continue to advocate for a more fair tax climate, better state funding of our education system, and clean water and open public lands. But I am a farmer who believes that good food is the foundation to a great health system.”
The organic farmer’s outreach comes less than a week after the FDA decided that cloned milk and meat are safe to eat. “We found nothing in the food that could potentially be hazardous. The food in every respect is indistinguishable from food from any other animal,” according to FDA food safety chief Dr. Stephen Sundlof. “It is beyond our imagination to even find a theory that would cause the food to be unsafe.”
Even so, the USDA has asked producers to continue a voluntary moratorium on sales of meat or milk from clones for a little longer, claiming that this decision is solely for marketing reasons and to distribute the safety findings among foreign trade partners and food companies. As Bruce Knight, USDA Undersecretary, said, “This is about market acceptance.”
But that market acceptance may come by default since the USDA moratorium applies to clones but not their offspring. Companies producing clones, such as Viagen Inc. and Trans Ova Genetics, have already focused their efforts on immediately selling the offspring of clones into the market…no labels required.
For Jopek, “Montanans know best and have a right to morally good food,” and the government’s decision puts that at risk. Subsequently, he is considering reintroducing a bill in the 2009 Legislative Session that would put a moratorium on cloned milk and meat products in Montana. The bill could also include mandatory labeling of cloned milk and meat and ban public funding for research on animals cloned for consumption.
Jopek introduced a similar bill (opens pdf) in 2007, which would have put a similar ban in place. According to Jopek, this bill failed in the House Agricultural Committee because of “heavy lobbying from big-corporate agricultural interest.”
Jopek is not alone in his concern. Margaret Mellon, Director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists writes:
“Animal cloning is a controversial technology with few, if any, benefits to consumers. Although successful clones may appear normal, the possibility remains that some may harbor subtle genetic defects that could impair their health or make them unsafe for consumption. The FDA should have required that cloned products be labeled as such and kept them off the market at least until it established a mandatory tracking system to allow retailers to avoid purchasing the products.
“The agency’s risk assessment is long on assumptions and short on hard data. It fails to address ethical issues associated with cloning, including the role of animal cloning as a steppingstone to human cloning.
Because of these risks Jopek, calls the decision to allow cloned products into our food supply, “bad for our family farmers, our morals, our State, and consumer confidence.” Whether Montanans agree with him is yet to be seen.
Join Kisha Lewyllen Schlegel each week for a discussion about local food and agriculture in the Rocky Mountain West at www.newwest.net/spadeandspoon.
Resources: If you have comments, contact: Rep. Mike Jopek 406.250.1184
[End of article]I guess in the cold weather cloned dairy cows would be ice cream clones.
Comment By concerned, 1-22-08Personally, I do not want to eat it and have a right to know if I am puchasing that "product" or not. At the very least, food should require labeling to inform consumers if they are indeed purchasing cloned products. That really goes for all genetically modified food. This is already required in much of Europe and not here only due to big lobbying efforts. It would also be great to have the country of origin on the label.
Comment By jedediah, 1-22-08Not to worry, folks.
The mistakes end up in frankfurters, etc., now.
I doubt they'll be served up as steaks or chops for years and years...
This column points to the UCS and their concerns over cloned clows. There is another side of the story which was not included: http://www.viagen.com/wordpress/news/cloning-has-world-of-benefits/
Comment By concerned, 1-22-08Well of course it is a positive article...it is from one of the companies who profits from this brave new world. I'm all for scientific advances that help feed a growing population on less land, which in the company newsletter sound very altruistic, but I should have the right to choose not to eat cloned foods, which is the labeling issue.
Comment By Anonymous, 1-22-08For an educational eye-opener concerning our food supply, in particular relating to genetically modified foods and animal/dairy product issues, consider reading "The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Change Your Life and Our World" by John Robbins. There is an appendix in the back of the book listing countless additional scientific resources. These are from outside scientific studies, not one's sponsored by corporate ViaGen. Please note that the website link mentioned in a previous comment is basically a press release given out by ViaGen, with the link "for credibility" on their site to http://www.FeedstuffsFoodLink.com smacking of the biased dairy and meat producer perspective.
On another note, morality and looking out for the best interest of the people is not a known strong point of the FDA, as they consistently approve products from special interest groups to the detriment of consumer well-being ~ based on this history, their guarantee of safety is not one that comforts me. Think about this: If labelling of cloned foods was mandated, likely not many of us would buy a cloned product, given the price difference was not too great compared to the natural variety. Therefore they came up with the "don't tell them the difference" marketing strategy. This has been done for a long time with more food items than we know. This is one of the worst things my government can do - render me helpless and a fool with what they are dishing out without my knowledge or consent.
Seriously, this is such a non-issue.
Do you know how much a cloned bull costs? Over $10,000.
At that cost, you will never see a cloned cow, bull, or any other animal in your food basket. As Trace Adkins said on Bill Maher... "did these animals stop f*cking? What problem does this solve?" The man is right. I guess we just have to be up in arms about something? How bout the fact that food to fuel (biodiesel, ethanol) represent huge and significant threats to not only our food supply but world food markets. THAT is something to think about.
The meat is indistinguishable from non-cloned. So then what is the problem? Verlyn Klinkenborg, the NYT's eco-farmer, says it's because we'll lose diversity and increase disease risk. Perhaps, but the reality is closer to we'll clone the absolute best only, which means in terms of gain and health.
People who don't like the idea can just ask, Hey, is this clone-source meat?
If they don't get an answer, shop elsewhere. Enough do that, and cloned meat will die in the marketplace, both of money and of ideas. Simple.
I love neo-Luddism.
Cloning and genetic engineering are two completely different things. If you want to read about cloning beef read http://forums.chef2chef.net/chef-blog/archived.php?Cat=0&Number=507155&PosterId=16107
which describes the methods and results.
The sky is falling people would still be using candles if they had their way. As we progress in knowledge things will change and change is not always something to fear. How many of you who are wringing your hands about this really understand the process of cloning? Read about it and learn before you condemn.
Largely, price is the deciding factor in fungilble commodity purchases. Organic grown foods are vastly more expensive. I check often when I am in a grocery store. Only through increased demand will prices ever moderate. Therefore, scaring people away from other choices seems to be part of organic marketing to create more demand. Just look at the construction of this column. The benefits of cloning are completely ignored as we are left with the fear laced warning from the UCS.
Comment By anonymous, 1-24-08I am all for medical and scientific advancement. I have read about cloning and am not convinced, as there is conflicting evidence and given the choice, hesitate to be a test subject. All I am really saying is please, please, please give us the choice by labeling the meat, instead of releasing it untracable into mainstream foods - with new technologies, there are often side effects that show up later.
My concern is personal - as a mother with a formerly robust son with an onset of health issues five years ago, mostly relating to his immune system. He underwent testing from a variety of physicians, narrowing down the cause as exposure to foods that he was sensitive to, meaning ones with pesticides, GMO, ect al. He has no true allergies otherwise and this caused his immune system to suffer? It didn't make sense to me then. So began a few years of extensive research on food, diet, cause and effect. We had eaten reasonably healthy from the supermarket shelves before and still do, however I read labels closely now -this is very important to us. BTW, my son's immune system is much better, yet it will be a lifelong process. If eating products with GMO and pesticides can wreak this havoc with one kid's health, what similar or greater potential damage can cloned dna "gone wrong" do to any one? There are enough questions about this technology where there are unknowns and the FDA is releasing it into the public? I am a single mom with daily life keeping my hands full and am not a person that is "fearful, fanatical or uneducated." If there is something we feel strongly about we become educated and that removes the fear. I am striving to protect my kids due to our personal experience and share what I have learned if it can benefit even one person reading this. It should be all about our personal choice. Enough said.
http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/practices/genetic_engineering_and_cloning_farm_animals.html
Condensed quotes from above link:
Recent cloning research also reveals high failure rates and abnormalities, problems widely acknowledged by scientists in the field and indicative of poor animal welfare.(10,11) The list of problems from which clones can suffer is extensive, including enlarged tongues; malformed faces; intestinal blockages; diabetes; shortened tendons; deformed feet; weakened immune systems; dysfunctional hearts, brains, livers, and kidneys; respiratory distress; and circulatory problems.(12-16)
Ian Wilmut, Ph.D., who led the team to clone Dolly the sheep, also found low success rates and a host of problems upon review of the world's cloned animals. His review specified regularly occurring defects, such as fetal overgrowth, or large offspring syndrome, in cattle and sheep; heart defects in pigs; developmental difficulties, lung problems, and malfunctioning immune systems in cows, sheep, and pigs; and individual problems, including a lamb barely able to breathe due to grossly thickened muscles surrounding the lungs—which led him to conclude: "The widespread problems associated with clones has led to questions as to whether any clone was entirely normal....There is abundant evidence that cloning can and does go wrong...."(19)
Seemingly healthy bioengineered animals are at risk for a variety of defects. "All cloned babies have some sort of errors," stated researcher Ryuzo Yanagimachi. "I'm surprised they can survive it."(34) Another researcher, Rudolph Jaenisch, a biologist at Whitehead Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reached a similar conclusion, stating, "Cloned animals that reach birth or beyond may appear normal, but our research shows they're not."(35) "From what we know, I would argue that cloned animals cannot be normal," Jaenisch concludes. "They can be closer to normal, but not normal."(36)
Some abnormalities may not show up until later in life. Particularly among cloned dairy cows, the most common causes of death are late-developing musculoskeletal problems so severe that the cows need to be euthanized. According to leading(37) cloning scientist David Norman Wells, the development of musculoskeletal problems, such as chronic lameness and severely contracted flexor tendons, in these high-production animals "emphasizes the point that any underlying frailties in cloned animals may not be fully revealed until the animals are stressed in some manner."(38)
Immune deficiency is another defect challenging cloned animals. Researchers with the University of Missouri and the U.S. Department of Agriculture found the immune systems of cloned pigs do not fight diseases as effectively as those of non-cloned pigs. The cloned animals' immune systems did not produce sufficient quantities of natural proteins called cytokines, which animals must have in order to survive infections. This impaired immune function may contribute to cloned animals' susceptibility to illness and early death.(39)
Decreased immune function, combined with decreasing genetic diversity—a problem that will be exacerbated by even moderate adoption of cloning—increases vulnerability to disease. A single pathogen could devastate countless numbers of genetically identical animals, putting animal health and the global food supply at risk. The rampant spread of disease has already become an international problem and applying biotechnology to commercial animal agriculture could be disastrous in this regard.
The mounting evidence shows that death and deformities found in many cloned and genetically engineered animals are the norm rather than the exception, resulting in needless suffering.
...
On September 19, 2005, four days before his resignation, Lester Crawford, D.V.M., Ph.D., then Commissioner of the FDA, said in a speech before the 28th Annual National Food Policy Conference: "With respect to use of cloned animals for human food, FDA has stated upfront that the risk assessment methodology and all the information used in performing the risk assessment would be publicly available....Until the risk assessment is complete and publicly available, the voluntary moratorium on release of these products into the food supply remains in effect; and secondly, while our risk assessment only addresses the safety of food from animal clones and the risks to the cloned animals, we are well aware that there are many social and ethical issues related to the cloning of animals."(42) (Emphasis added.)
Indeed, while animal safety is part of the FDA's remit, it is clear that the agency's principal concern lies with food—not animal—safety. In fact, there are no regulations to protect the welfare of animals from dysgenic effects during cloning or genetic engineering.
Conclusion
High failure rates, defects, disabilities, and premature death of both surrogate mothers and offspring have plagued the application of biotechnology to farm animals. As there are currently no regulations to protect farm animals during cloning or genetic engineering in agricultural research, the welfare of these animals can and does suffer greatly.
anonymous, I completely agree with you about labeling. I like to know what fruits and vegetables have a higher risk of ecoli from organic fertilization and processing methods. Remember the Odwalla juice mess? http://www.jonentine.com/articles/odwalla.htm
Comment By anonymous, 1-24-08Touch'e, Craig... I see your point. As the article you mention concludes,
"Mistakes are built into life; character is defined in the breach. There is no such thing as "business ethics," only ethics of individual business men and women."
So if it is left up to our individual ethics, awareness is key, in order to have at least a fighting chance of taking a gamble with our health.
if cloning goes wrong all the time how can cloned food possibly be ok to eat?
Comment By Matt Warner, 1-31-08I find it funny that interests on the side of cloning possess a gradation of scientific beliefs. Cloning sciences are fine, yet environmental sciences are not to be believed. All of the debate in the world is not going to stop unlabeled, cloned beef from setting up shop in our colons. There is too much money involved... simple as that. I know Rove is mixed up in this somehow.
Comment By Craig Moore, 1-31-08Matt, there is a difference between science and dogma. The sicence regarding cloned animals and the offspring from such examines the facts relative to uncloned animals. The science finds no difference in risk. Dogma is what prevails in the organic world. Take raw milk. Some people swear by it. Others die from it. The science says it's truly risky. See: http://www.milkismilk.com/blog/2005/01/pure-raw-milk-pure-ignorance-and-stupidity-and-it-could-kill-your-kids/ and http://www.notmilk.com/forum/463.html and http://www.nutritionathome.com/raw_milk_-_a_health_risk.htm
In fact, I would suggest that parents be held criminally responsible for injuries to children from such unpasterized fluids. These injuries are completely preventable if not but for dogmatic convictions.
I am guessing that the science finds no apparent risk difference in cloned meat due to the sad state of animal health from the effects of agribusiness factory farming ... unfortunately neither are safe.
Comment By Mike Ortley, 2-01-08There is one piece of information that is missing from this article, and that is the reasoning behind selling cloned animals for food. Though I am not a scientist or a business professional, it would seem that this process of cloning would not only be technical, but also expensive. How could this process be cheaper than other methods? If companies must continue to treat animals like a commodity, at least let them reproduce the more enjoyable way or use artificial insemination.
Comment By Chris Woolstenhulme, 2-05-08How is this more economically sound? Cloning animals is somehow cheaper than natural reproduction? Haven't there been generations of cattle bred by selecting the parents for their traits? I feel that science is wonderful, but all because you can clone cattle doesn't mean you should and I'm not particularly interested in a cloned steak.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/after_fda_approval_input_sought_from_montanans_on_cloning/C520/L40/