FDA: Cloned Meat and Dairy Safe to Eat

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine and goats, as well as the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals.

However, there continues to be insufficient information for the agency to reach a conclusion on the safety of food from clones of other animal species, such as sheep.

The FDA has issued three documents on animal cloning outlining the agency's regulatory approach: a risk assessment, a risk management plan and guidance for the industry.

The documents were released in draft form in December 2006; since that time, the risk assessment has been updated to include new scientific information that reinforces the food safety conclusions of the drafts, the FDA reports.

The FDA explained that in 2001, U.S. producers agreed to refrain from introducing meat or milk from clones or their progeny into the food supply until the FDA could further evaluate the issue.

The FDA reports that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will convene stakeholders to discuss efforts to provide a smooth and orderly market transition, as the industry determines the next steps with respect to the existing voluntary moratorium.

Consumers should be aware that the agency is not requiring labeling or any other additional measures for food from cattle, swine and goat clones or their offspring because the FDA declares that the food derived from these sources is no different than food derived from conventionally bred animals. Should a producer express a desire for voluntary labeling (e.g., "this product is clone-free"), it will be considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure compliance with statutory requirements that labeling be truthful and not misleading.

The FDA reports that the clones would be used for breeding and would not be expected to enter the food supply in any significant number. Instead, their sexually reproduced offspring would be used for producing meat and milk for the marketplace.

An animal clone is a genetic copy of a donor animal, similar to an identical twin, but born at a different time. Cloning is not the same as genetic engineering, which involves altering, adding or deleting DNA because cloning does not change the gene sequence. Due to their cost and rarity, clones are intended to be used as elite breeding animals to introduce desirable traits into herds more rapidly than would be possible using conventional breeding, the FDA states.

The FDA is currently working with scientific and professional societies with expertise in animal health and reproduction to develop standards of care for animals involved in the cloning process. Although the agency is not charged with addressing ethical issues related to animal cloning for agricultural purposes, the FDA plans to continue to provide scientific expertise to interested parties working on these issues.

In the guidance for industry, the FDA does not recommend any special measures relating to the use of products from cattle, swine or goat clones as human food or animal feed. The guidance states that food products from the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed for food are suitable to enter the food and feed supply.

 

Comments

[Mulder]

Sounds great, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is only responsible for surveying food safety, and there are ethical issues at hand here that have nothing to do with how good a clone-burger tastes.

For example, some data show that cloned animals are often abnormally large at birth, which makes things very difficult for their surrogate mothers, in addition to the fact that the cloned animals themselves do not exhibit a good survival rate. Also, one should keep in mind that several companies will want to make a business out of cloning (picking that one cow to clone that produces more milk than the others, etc.).

So, while this report provides relief to consumers who worry about the safety of the food they eat, one should also look at the bigger picture when it comes to technological innovations in the food industry.

[yellow ochre]

You have GOT to be kidding me. On one hand - this is really interesting to me because I have such a strong reaction that cloned meat is just not right, but the flipside is - if there really is no difference in the quality and safety, then what does it matter? I can see this raising a lot of backlash with naturalists. What is the underlying reasoning for eating cloned meat in the first place? Who is this actually benefiting - because someone has to be making money off of this? Will it save on farming costs or run farmers out of business? I wonder how this will impact farms and countries without adequate food. It is always interesting to see what ripples and waves are created when something like this begins...I for one, will not be eating cloned meat if I can help it.

[Veggie]

You raise some interesting and pertinent points, Mulder. Unfortunately, most people are more concerned with the quality of taste and safety of meat, not the quality of the animals' lives. That is why I'm a vegetarian. I, for one, wish that the FDA would at least require companies to state if they use cloned meat. That way, consumers could decide, based on their moral/ethical beliefs, whether or not they want to purchase certain meat products.

[Scully]

If subtle differences are being noted regarding the size and morbidity/mortality of cloned animals at this stage in the game, what do you think will emerge during the next few years, assuming that this practice will become more and more widespread? Think about what we know about cholesterol. First, all cholesterol was bad; then we found out that there is good and bad cholesterol. Then we discovered that there is good-bad cholesterol, good-good cholesterol, bad-good cholesterol, and bad-bad cholesterol! My point is that as time goes on and we learn more, a clearer picture emerges. Regarding cloned animals, we really have little idea what the dangers and risks could be at this point.

[newt]

If the purpose of this practice is to produce more high-quality meat and milk products (given that the number one complaint from consumers is that these products are not up to snuff), I think it is a step in the right direction. Of course I would really like to know what sort of regulatory steps are being taken to ensure that abuses do not happen. What about quality of life issues for the animals? How will this affect their health and day-to-day existence? I read that it was really the smaller producers who were pushing for this. So will surveillance be easier or harder?

[doubting Thomas]

If there is no scientific test to differentiate between cloned and non-cloned animals, how would a manufacturer be able to state that its product is from non-cloned animals? Is there any speculation as to a test that might be in development that would allow scientists to discern? The Department of Agriculture is stating that meat and milk that come from cloned animals do not meet the standards of “organic.” My question is how would you ever REALLY know?

[George]

I wonder what process they are using to clone animals, because although the article states that cloning does not change the DNA at all, this may not be exactly true. The process of reproductive cloning, through somatic cell nuclear transfer, involves placing the nucleus of a donor adult cell into an egg cell with no nucleus. If the egg divides correctly, it can be placed into a surrogate uterus and grow into an identical organism. BUT, mitochondriae, the cellular organelles responsible for generating ATP for energy, have their own set of DNA, separate from the rest of the genetic material in the nucleus. Mitochondriae are found in the cytoplasm, NOT in the nucleus, and therefore, the cloned organism would contain DNA from the adult donor somatic (body) cell AND from the mitochondrial DNA of the egg, a different type of cell. Technically, this would be a genetic hybrid.

[Emily]

Personally, it really bothers me that the FDA won’t be requiring labels to state whether or not the meat is cloned. I don’t eat meat myself, but I would think that consumers would want to be able to make the decision for themselves whether they wanted to eat cloned meat or not. Health and taste are not the only issues here, and with all the controversy over stem cell research and other similar genetic research, I’m shocked that anyone decided that this procedure was a good idea. Understandably, the FDA is not in charge of moral or ethical issues. OK, fine. But I would think that they would at least have the foresight to realize the amount of backlash that must be looming over this non-labeled mystery meat.

[juror]

I’m still on the fence about the moral issues attached to cloning, but I’m sure I can’t be sold on this particular circumstance. I have to agree that yes, there are a lot of positive possibilities that can come out of developing cloning technologies. Repopulating endangered species, for one. But re-producing an animal just so that it can be killed off and eaten seems hardly worth it to me, and frankly, downright inhumane.

[Cassandra]

It doesn't surprise me that there are no labeling requirements in the U.S. Unlike European Union nations, as well as Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and several other countries, the U.S. does not even require that genetically MODIFIED foods be labeled. If GMFs don't have to be labeled, and their long-term health effects are unclear, then why would the FDA require cloned meat to be labeled?

[Pete]

Have theoretical risks even been proposed for cloned meat? If it's just a genetic replica of another organism, I wonder how it could cause harm.

[Undecided]

According to the Center for Food Safety, federal health officials used a flawed analysis when they approved food from cloned animals. The consumer group said the FDA used "scant data from few peer-reviewed studies" and failed to consider possible side effects of cloning.

Although the FDA claims that they analyzed an "exhaustive amount of peer-reviewed data," the center said that, "the FDA could not find studies on milk or meat from clones and whether they're safe." The center claims that the FDA relied on studies done on cloned animals and whether they appeared healthy.

The full article is available at: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=2971339

[Aeon]

I am not surprised that the FDA does not require labeling for cloned animals products unless you go through the proper paperwork to say that your meats are cloned. I feel that our government sometimes cannot see past the end of its nose. A lot of food that we buy today has been genetically altered or modified and we really have no idea how or why. I can answer the why; we want better meat, more meat, bigger apples, seedless fruits and crabs with softer shells. Where will the cloning go next? The thing is, everything is probably cloned - we just don’t know about it, yet.

[Bella]

According to a New York Times article, 64 percent of Americans are “uncomfortable” with eating cloned meat and 46 percent “strongly uncomfortable.” The article also states that an estimated 14 percent of women would stop buying all dairy products if cloning was introduced to the food supply. If these numbers are accurate, it would make sense why the FDA wouldn't require labeling.

[Izzy]

Robert Lanza, vice president of research and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology, told Science News Online that even though most cloned animals are healthy, some suffer from health problems that are not fully understood. For instance, some cloned animals appear to become obese, age early or have weakened immune systems.

The article also notes that cloning animals is extremely expensive. Lanza says that clones will most likely be used as breeding stock for reproducing desired traits in agricultural animals the old-fashioned way. So, in other words, we're most likely to consume the offspring of cloned animals.

[Sarah]

But now that the word is out that cloning will be used in dairy and meats and will be introduced into the food supply WITHOUT our knowledge of which products are clones, won't that affect consumption of these products anyway? Even if they aren't clearly labeled as cloned meat or dairy products, we still don't KNOW that they aren't. So that 14 percent of women who might stop buying dairy products altogether might actually be a higher statistic because of the lack of labels. Clearly, people are not welcoming of the idea of cloned foods, as noted from the NY Times article. So with or without labels, I think this will definitely affect consumption of meat and dairy products.

[Mandy]

Cloned animals also have shorter life expectancies (if they aren't killed for food), and some of this is unrelated to obvious health complications, but rather, to reasons that researchers are still unsure of. So what I don't understand, is if cloning animals is so objectionable with consumers, is so expensive and is still not clearly understood to be completely safe or even the same as other animals, why is this process even moving forward? Risks aside, how can we even know if foods from these cloned animals have the same health benefits as the regular foods? The biggest reason for consuming certain foods is the nutritional value, which may not even carry over into cloned foods.

[Anti-meat]

Some of these abnormalities that are observed in cloned animals are caused by small changes that occur when the DNA from the cloned animal is being read and translated by the egg cell from the animal it is implanted into. Although clones are commonly called "genetic replicas," they're not EXACTLY the same. These minor genetic changes are called epigenetic changes, and they allow doctors to tell human identical twins apart.

The big question is whether or not these small changes could effect the nutritional value of or introduce some harmful component into the food. Although the FDA conducted and evaluated research for about five years, many consumer advocacy groups are not sure that the testing has been rigorous enough.

Personally, I hope that this drives a lot of people to become vegetarians because meat is not an ecologically sustainable food source. It's actually better for the environment to avoid eating meat.

[VeggieGirl]

Some other reasons to avoid eating meat…according to The American Dietetic Association, “appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.” Studies have shown that vegetarians have lower rates of morbidity and mortality from multiple chronic degenerative diseases than non-vegetarians do, and vegetarian diets have been successfully used in health programs to reverse severe coronary artery disease. Since vegetarian diets are generally lower in saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein content, and higher in folate concentration, antioxidants, and phytochemicals, they also help protect against diseases and keep total serum cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes lower. Vegetarians also have less instances of lung and colorectal cancers and in some areas, also lower rates of breast cancer.
Check out the whole position paper: http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/adapaper.htm

[nervous]

Here’s some comforting news for Whole Foods shoppers, and people concerned about the lack of labeling cloned meat in general. U.S. News reported that two of the biggest livestock cloning companies, ViaGen and Trans Ova, proposed a voluntary system that would allow food companies the choice to track cloned animals in a national registry. Whole Foods was one of several retailers that decided they would NOT sell meat or milk from cloned animals, since the United States Department of Agriculture deemed meat from cloned animals officially UNorganic.

[Jo]

I’m wondering if the prices of meat and dairy will skyrocket once cloned products hit the market. A cloned cow costs between an estimated $15,000 and $20,000 to create. If this is so, I don’t see how this would be an economically smart decision. Consumer agencies are already worried about consumption dropping due to hesitancy to eat cloned foods, and higher prices will only make this worse. It’s also more likely that what would be used for the food supply is second or third generation animals, which have not been adequately assessed for safety.

[Mike]

Mark Walton, the president of ViaGen, released a statement last week, following the FDA’s declaration, saying that they applaud the FDA’s release of their “rigorous scientific analysis” after the conclusion of the “most extensive food safety review in FDA’s history.” But from what I’ve read, this isn’t necessarily true. According to Stephen Sundlof at the FDA, their information is at the stage that they “haven’t identified any hazard” and they “still need know if the food is identical.” Information coming from cloning companies and articles about the FDA declaration are definitely misleading. This sounds to me like there’s still a lot to be determined about the safety of cloned animals.

[Marya]

According to Viagen, we shouldn’t be concerned about cloned animals’ introduction into the food supply: “The number of cloned animals in the barnyard today is minuscule compared to the size of the total livestock population. In addition, clones are to be used as breeding animals, not for consumption. Because of a supply chain management system that allows tracking of cloned livestock, consumers are unlikely to ever eat these animals.” I’m not convinced that it’s as simple as that. Animals bred from cloned animals are not necessarily safe and aren’t the ones that have been tested! And why are we being led to believe that these cloned animals will be an anonymous part of the foods we eat?

[Lara]

In response to the questions about why we bothered to clone animals, and concerns over the cost, here are some quotes from Rick Weiss at the Washington Post you may find interesting…

“There is no shortage of farm animals here. Nor is there a shortage of milk. Quite the contrary. But what cloners argue is that there IS a shortage of consistently high-quality meat and milk. Surveys apparently indicate that the No. 1 complaint of meat eaters is that too many of the steaks and chops they buy are tough or otherwise disappointing. By using uniformly high-quality clones as breeding stock, you can be reassured that every piece of meat you buy will be exactly as good as the last one. You can decide for yourself if that predictability and reliability is a good thing or not. As for prices, I can see it going either way. Some have argued it could make prices go down because there will be less waste in the form of poor producers and low quality animals sold for scrap. But at least some cuts from clones may be priced at a premium if it really turns out to be noticeably better tasting or more uniformly tender and palatable.”

Here’s the whole article with a lot of reader questions answered: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/15/DI2008011502270.html

[Aeon]

I asked about 20 people in the grocery store if they have ever heard of cloned meat or animals. I was shocked, some people did not even know what the word cloned meant, some thought I was making up stories and that science has not gotten to the point where we can clone meat and others had no idea that the meat they may have just bought might have been a baby from a cloned cow. That was a fun hour in the grocery store.

[Jake]

I don't really see the harm in this. To me, cloning is similar to artificial insemination. I trust the FDA's decision. If they found, after years of research, that cloned animals products are safe, then I believe it.

[Kayla]

No other country has approved cloned animal products. So, that means we won't be able to export any of these products to other countries.

Also, even though manufacturers are not required to say if their products are from cloned animals, I bet many manufacturers will say if their products are clone-FREE. Manufacturers currently do this when dairy cows are not given hormones or chickens do not receive antibiotics.

[Ivan]

Consider all of the health risks currently associated with meat eating. There are so many diseases and infections that can easily be passed to humans who consume meat. So, wouldn't it be much better if we could clone only the healthiest animals who are resistance to certain illnesses, to help reduce these risks? I am very accepting of this new technology, and I think we should take advantage of it, rather than let it go to waste.

[Skeptical]

It will be a few years before these issues really become relevant and cloned products are sold nationwide. Currently, there are only about 500 or 600 cloned cows in the United States, out of tens of millions of beef and dairy cows, and there are only about 200 cloned pigs. We have a ways to go before cloning becomes mainstream.

[Bob]

“At the end of the day, FDA is looking out for a few cloning companies and not for consumers or the dairy industry,” Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group, told the New York Times.

[Lily]

Some people have argued that the FDA released this statement during the holiday to reduce publicity. However, the FDA denies these claims.

According to Stephen F. Sundlof, the FDA’s chief of veterinary medicine, the agency can only consider the scientific issues, not consumer demand or the ethics of cloning.

[Aeon]

Here is a link to an interesting article titled:
Meat and milk compositions of bovine clones.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/18/6261

Here, they go into some of the defects associated with cloning.

[Deb]

I am still on the fence with this issue. As a meat-eater, I don’t know if I would feel safe eating cloned meat even though the FDA said it is safe. If the cows are being born with health defects, who’s to say that there isn’t something wrong with the meat. I would need to see a lot of the research the FDA is working on or else when cloned meat is sold nationwide, I would be wary of the meat that I choose.