Ok, so the FDA has preliminarily approved cloned meat and milk, and every article I read about it says that the FDA determined that they are safe to eat: (www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01541.html):
"Based on FDA's analysis of hundreds of peer-reviewed publications and other studies on the health and food composition of clones and their offspring, the draft risk assessment has determined that meat and milk from clones and their offspring are as safe as food we eat every day," said Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D., director of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. "Cloning poses no unique risks to animal health when compared to other assisted reproductive technologies currently in use in U.S. agriculture."
So it is as safe as any other meat and milk products out there right now. Since no one knows how safe products are from factory farmed, antibiotic, growth hormone, and GM corn/animal product/crap fed animals, this says exactly nothing, doesn't it?By the way, the actual cloned animals are very expensive to produce, so their offspring, which will presumably share their desirable qualities, are primarily what will be consumed. But since the the FDA has preliminarily approved clones for consumption, that is what this diary is about.
Now I guess I'd better tell you that I'm not a geneticist, biologist, or veterinary scientist and I am really really hoping that those with a better understanding of this will comment on this diary. What I'm writing is basically a summary of what I've read while trying to make sense of this for myself. If you are too hung over to read the rest of this, I'll tell you what I found out - that the experts think eating cloned animals is safe but there is no way to know for sure.
I'm as open minded as the next person (who reads rather than watches that is), so I really want to know the whole story. Thinking about cloning -I can't think of anything unhealthy about making an exact copy of a healthy, tasty animal, right? But what is conspicuously missing from news articles is a discussion of health effects.
The news articles also say that the ignorant public might reject cloned animal products on the basis of the "yuck" factor, and on ethical grounds. So there is a delay before final approval during which time I presume we will be educated by the meat and dairy industries.
The FDA evaluated a large number of studies on the subject, and the report can be found on their website (www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm)
In reference to its references, the report states:
The nature of the published reports, with some exceptions, reflects the institutions producing them: academic laboratories tend to report the development of new technologies and the observation of abnormalities, while corporate entities tend to report successful implementation of the technology, including summaries of the health status of animal clones. These studies are useful in identifying hazards to the health of animals involved in the cloning process and characterizing the potential risks that may stem from those hazards. Despite the extensive literature search performed, and the large number of papers that were reviewed for animal health, few reports directly addressed food safety.
Hmmm so there haven't been too many studies about the food safety, for a report on food safety.
The FDA study was actually a risk assessment, which also wasn't mentioned in the news (ie. do the benefits outweigh the risks?). To my mind this is different than a scientific study, conducted using the scientific method, of whether or not there is a risk and what the risks are. Anyway,
There were two key assumptions in the FDA's risk analysis:
- that "sick" animals or those with genetic anomalies would not be consumed by humans. So strict new regulations would be put in place to prevent this, right?
- that any health risk would be associated with "epigenetic dysregulation" of the genome of the developing animal", which I don't have time to understand right now, but apparently is related to changes in DNA function (not sequence) that can result from the process of cloning, and is the source of the many animal health problems related to cloning. So what are the health risks to humans resulting from "epigenetic dysregulation"?
The FDA report assessed thousands of studies on cloning, the majority of which are about cows (there were many studies on sheep, so the approval does not include them). However:
Very few (studies) systematically evaluate the health of the animals, many simply state that "animals appear normal and healthy" or that "no differences were observed between clones and controls."
Anyway, from these few studies (in the literature) that actually did evaluate the health effects on animals, the effects could be divided into several categories:
Cell Fusion/Reprogramming
Embryo/Fetal
Perinatal periods
SCNT process
This section (chapter VI) had a lot to say (none very encouraging) about cloned animals being mutated, unhealthy or dead copies, but nothing much to say about the effects of our eating them or their offspring.
There was some discussion of this later in this chapter (in the "unknowns" section),and here are some excerpts I found interesting:
One potential meat-based hazard that can be postulated is that epigenetic changes in animal clones could somehow alter the rumen and intestinal microflora of the ruminants (cattle, sheep, and goats), or the intestinal microflora of the monogastric species (swine) considered here. Such an alteration in intestinal flora could theoretically result in the growth of a novel zoönotic pathogen or increased levels of an existing zoönotic pathogen contaminating the edible tissues derived from the food animal. The use of animal drugs has similarly been postulated to alter the intestinal flora of treated food animals, resulting in an increased load of zoönotic pathogens in the food supply.
So we can possibly look forward to more of the same from those who brought us the new deadly strain of e-coli!
there is no validated method for determining small differences in protein constituents in foods, and even if such methodologies existed, the question would still remain as to how to interpret them-
So we don't know if the proteins of cloned meat/milk is the same as in non-cloned and there is no way to check it.
the issue of the hypothetical dysregulation of endogenous substances that may pose a hazard by virtue of increased dose should be addressed. The primary concern in this case is the up-regulation of small molecules that may retain bioactivity in the bodies of the human (or animal) food consumer, usually by virtue of the lack of degradation in the intestinal tract. For example, levels of endogenous substances that have posed some public concern in the past (e.g., estrogen and IGF-I) have been evaluated in bovine clones, and based on those data, there is no reason to expect that the levels of these substances in clones would pose any food consumption risks for humans.
OK -we already have heard that hormones in milk and meat are good for us!
Now, the amount of data included in this report is truly staggering, and the lack of any meaningful scientific summary may be the reason why the media is not touching this aspect of the story. Basically they list many problems associated with cloning and then come to the conclusion:
In summary, no toxicological hazard of concern for the human consumer has been identified in any of the reported studies.
OK, so here we are again. It hasn't been shown to be harmful (at least not more harmful than anything else out there) so it must be OK. And on this basis it was approved and we are assured by the experts that cloned animal products are the same as non-cloned.
There was also something else in the report -the part about money. Different conclusions were reached by Cyagra than in the peer reviewed articles, and because their studies were so extensive they were included in the FDA's risk assessment. Cloning livestock is already big business, and there are already lots of patents on cloning technology. So at heart, this decision was about business, big business:
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_12/b3775105.htm
And since the products are unlikely to be labeled when they hit the market, if we don't want to become part yet another mass experiment we've got to buy organic (since hormones are used to produce clones it seems implicit that there can be no organic clone offspring products). Or of course, those of us that haven't could stop eating meat!