- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- Science Education Progress
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Cloned Livestock Is OK for Food, Says FDA
An FDA study says that milk and meat from cloned animals is safe for human consumption. The “final risk assessment,” which analyzes scientific research conducted over the course of several years, is not yet available to the public, but Rick Weiss of the Washington Post obtained an advance copy. The news breaks close on the heels of reports that the E.U.’s European Food Safety Authority released similar findings that food from cloned livestock is “very unlikely” to harm consumers.
At the moment, clones are rare animals. The Post indicates that there are 570 cloned cattle in the U.S., with 30 bovine offspring; there are 24 cloned dairy cows, and 5 pigs. It would be many years before farmers would consider slaughtering or milking clones themselves—their near-term value lies in cloning hearty animals for breeding purposes.
Some groups will argue that consumers might like to know if, in the future, they’re buying products derived from cloned animals. But Weiss reports that “FDA officials have said they do not expect to require food from clones to be labeled as such, but they may allow foods from ordinary animals to be labeled as not from clones.”
The strategy sounds counter-intuitive—labeling all livestock-derived products in a grocery store that are not made from cloned animals would presumably be more complicated and costly than just labeling everything that is derived from clones. But the proposal would serve the interest of producers because a “Made From Cloned Livestock” label could effectively serve as a black mark on food packaging. Organic food labeling provides an analogy. Producers are not required to indicate when they utilize environmentally hazardous chemical fertilizers and pesticides to produce food products. Rather, by following stringent regulations, they are allowed to label foods that are not produced with hazardous agents. Those products are “organic.”
UPDATE: The FDA has released the report: press release, full site; Weiss has more coverage of the negative reactions from consumer groups.
Image credit: flickr.com/sunfox
Comments on this article
Why aren’t reporters doing their homework? This is the third time this cloned livestock story has appeared in the mainstream media and, like the previous two, it fails to connect the cloned livestock fiasco with the National Animal ID System. Regardless of how safe or dangerous cloned livestock ultimately prove to be, small farmers and consumers who buy organic food have already paid dearly so that Big Beef can sell cloned milk and meat products. This story is also about perhaps the most explosive issue in rural farming communities today. The FDA approved cloned livestock and the USDA destroyed organic farms and farmers to make sure the FDA could do it. This story deserves the full work out. I tried giving it one, but nobody seemed to notice –http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071231/pentland_gumpert
January 16th, 2008 at 11:18 pm