should meat/milk from cloned animals be labeled?

[bishop]

FT.com / World / US & Canada - US says food from cloned animals safe

The US Food and Drug Administration on Thursday took a big step towards approving the sale of meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring without special labelling. A draft FDA risk assessment found that food from clones of cattle, pigs and goats was as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. However, cloned meat and milk is unlikely to reach the shops before late 2007, at the earliest. Agricultural biotechnology and livestock companies will continue to observe a moratorium on their commercial introduction until the FDA has assessed public comments on the draft assessment and issued a final ruling. The agency will receive hostile comments from some influential groups, such as the Center for Food Safety and the Consumer Federation of America, which accused the FDA of “imposing these products on a public that opposes cloning technology and does not want to consume cloned foods”. But the Biotechnology Industry Organisation welcomed the long-awaited FDA assessment. Jim Greenwood, BIO president, said: “Animal cloning is the latest step in a long history of reproductive tools for farmers and ranchers, and can effectively help livestock producers deliver what consumers want: high-quality, safe, abundant and nutritious foods in a conscientious and consistent manner.” Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, said: “Based on FDA 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. Cloning poses no unique risks to animal health when compared to other assisted reproductive technologies currently in use in US agriculture.”

[Jack]

From what I've read, cloning is no different than artificial insemination which is already practiced widely in the animal industry. In that case, I don't see where labeling is necessary or warranted. Most consumers have no idea where their food comes from these days.

[bishop]

i tend to think that people have a right to know what's in their food, and extended it to include whether/not their food has been genetically engineered/modified.

there's been an ongoing controvery over using growth hormone in cows so that they can overproduce milk. many people, including scientists, believe that the fda's tests were flawed because of the absence of certain key controls. to the best of my knowledge, this type of milk isn't labelled either. there's a long line of bad side-effects from genetically modified foods.

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods

if the food really is so safe, why not certify that statement by labelling the food as such?

[Chaossaber314]

I agree with Bishop. While I realize they're trying to drop the stigma associated with genetically altered foods, if there is no risk, there shouldn't be any problem with a labeling requirement.

[Jack]

I'm all for labeling for ingredients or manufacturing processes that could pose a health risk for someone. I don't see the benefit of labeling to reflect the method of conception. Does cloning introduce something into the animal that could pose health concerns? If so, then it should be mentioned.

[Occam]

From what I've read of cloning, it is as Isherwood said, not particularly different from other methods of breeding. It's not the same thing as genetic engineering. I would have no problem eating or drinking products from cloned animals, however, even if most people don't know what the labeling means, I think we should all be told what's in the products we use.

Most will ignore it, some will draw incorrect conclusions, but for those of us who are interested and knowledgeable, we should have the data available.

Occam

[The Bacon Guy]

Cloned products are exactly the same as natural products. The compounds you are consuming are identical, so there is no reason to require labelling on health grounds.

However, people have moral issues with cloning or are ignorant and think that the food will harm them. While these viewpoints are frankly stupid, the people have every right to hold them and to let them influence their choices. So, I think the information should be available, but only on request for people who are truly concerned about the issue. If you wish to take issue with cloning, you must make the effort to avoid cloned products yourself. It is no one else's responsibility. So long as the information is in some way attainable, people who care sufficiently can make the choice between cloned and non-cloned.

So, the information should be available on request in order to allow the public to make their own decisions, however irrational these may be. However, since it is not directly related to the product on the shelf, I don't think it should be required by law to provide the information on the packaging.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think it should be labeled.

[bishop]

it seems that while the FDA won't mandate that clone food be labelled, manufacturers who don't use cloned livestock are taking advantage of the situation.

Cloned food may prompt 'clone-free' labels - Health - MSNBC.com

Meat and milk from cloned animals may not appear in supermarkets for years despite being deemed by the government as safe to eat. But don’t be surprised if “clone-free” labels appear sooner. Ben & Jerry’s, for one, wants consumers to know that its ice cream comes from regular cows and not clones. The Ben & Jerry’s label already says its farmers don’t use bovine growth hormone. “We want to make sure people are confident with what’s in our pints,” company spokesman Rob Michalak said. “We haven’t yet landed on exactly how we want to express that publicly.”

i know a lot of people, myself included, that like to eat "free range" beef - as opposed to beef from livestock that were kept crammed into stables, eating cheap gruel... and, lots of people definitely get picky about the stuff mixed into their food - which is why we see all sorts of "whole foods" and "trader joe's" types of stores opening up across the country.. i have a feeling that this "not cloned" marketing will prove successful for the companies who decide to differenciate themselves.

and, it costs some $20k to clone an animal right now - so i don't think we'll be seeing them in the supermarkets anytime soon.

[Praxius]

I think it should be labeled, not because I am concerned by what goes into me, I imagine it's just as good as normal food.... but if they have to label if something has no Hydronated Oil, or is made by Organics, or has something designed out of the norm, it's good too know.

Kinda like how makeup labels it wasn't tested on animals, etc. If it didn't affect my health, then I'd eat it.... if it reduced the amount of animals and such killed for my survival, then so be it..... I'm still a meat eater, and if something has to die for me to survive, then so be it, but if it can be prevented, then that's even better.