Art Caplan on food from cloned animals

In his latest column for MSNBC.com, Art calls for transparency in the marketing of food from cloned animals:

The Food and Drug Administration has spoken: meat, milk, cheese and other products from cloned animals are safe to eat. And the federal agency won't require any special labels identifying these products.

There is no reason to doubt the FDA's science. It is as careful a review as possible. The agency reviewed dozens of studies from around the world without finding any evidence that meat or milk from cloned animals is in any way biologically distinguishable from meat and milk from any other animal.

So is the debate over the use of cloned animals for food now over? Hardly.

We don't chose what we eat based on science. If we did, we would not be in the middle of an obesity epidemic.

Food is about emotion. Food producers, manufacturers and sellers know that very well. That is why cookies are sold by elves, biscuits by a doughboy and oatmeal by an 18th century Quaker.

The food industry is not going to like the emotions surrounding cloning.

A survey conducted last year by the International Food Information Council found that only 22 percent of U.S. consumers had a favorable view of animal cloning. The proportion of people who said they would eat cloned animals if it were approved by the FDA rose to 46 percent. Still, not a number likely to bring a smile at Hormel, Jimmy Dean, Dannon, Kraft, Von's, Giant or Nestle.

Cloning has gotten a bad rap in American society. It is the best means for scaring the daylights out of the American public short of making a movie or TV show about terrorism. We all know what clones do - at least on the big screen. They are monsters, fiends, reincarnated zombies, drones. Eat them? Hell you would not even want one standing in a field near you. No wonder why your poor deli manager is tied up in knots trying to figure out what to say when the day comes when customers ask if any of the products for sale are made from clones.

All of this fear-mongering about clones has made Americans forget that cloning is nothing more than artificially creating twins. It has made us forget that every drop of wine we drink comes from cloned grapes. It has made us ignore the fact that if you want to worry about what you are eating, you'd be better off wondering if the FDA has enough inspectors at meat plants looking for salmonella and E. coli.

But none of that really matters. If those farmers and grocers who want to make money using cloned animals really hope to sell Americans on cloned meat and milk, they'll need more than the FDA's blessing. They had better be ready to tell the consumer, either through labeling or on a Web site, whether something comes from a clone.

Sneaking products from clones into the food supply will not work. Plenty of food suppliers will make sure there's lots of clone-free food to appeal to the 50 percent of the public suspicious of it.

Transparency is not always the value that is used to sell food, but in this case safety is not enough. The consumer will have the last word. If the clones are to join us for lunch then we better know they are there.

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

comments

Readers might be interested in my comments on this story (including comments on Art Caplan's comments), on my blog:

The Business Ethics Blog
http://www.businessethics.ca/blog/2008/01/ethics-fda-and-cloned-meat.html

Similarly, over at the Women's Bioethics Blog, we've posted about the treatment of animals, cloned or in CAFOs and lessons we can learn from other parts of the world: http://womensbioethics.blogspot.com/2008/01/goats-in-road-and-their-cloned-cafo.html

I have serious doubts about the assurances from the FDA that cloned animals are safe to eat. The USDA seems to have some doubts as they have banned cloned animals from organic food.

The Center for Food Safety, a non-profit public interest organization, has stated, “Given the lack of data regarding human health impacts, CFS believes the FDA was premature in pronouncing food from cloned animals to be safe to eat."

According to the Cornucopia Institute, a nonprofit farm policy research group, the realities of cloning include some disturbing phenomena:

• 64% of cattle, 40% of sheep, and 93% of cloned mice exhibit some form of abnormality, with a large percentage of the animals dying during gestation or shortly after birth

• High rates of late abortion and early prenatal death, with failure rates of 95% to 97% in most mammal cloning attempts

• Defects such as grossly oversized calves, enlarged tongues, squashed faces, intestinal blockages, immune deficiencies, and diabetes

• When cloning does not produce a normal animal, many of the difficult pregnancies cause physical suffering or death to the surrogate mothers

Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute says: "Regardless of what the proponents claim this is all about bottom-line profit and producing more and more of our food from giant industrial-scale farming operations. We are getting so, so far away from farmer Jones and the intimate connection between the land, animals, and the people who care for them in a sustainable and regenerative system. I wish I could say this was science fiction."

I don't think the FDA has any such doubts. Morphology is not toxicity and food saftey is about toxicity in some form. What does or does not meet organic defintions more to do with organic philosophies than food safety.

One can oppose cloning meat animals without trying to posit, in the absence of evidence and the presence of testing, that cloned meat is toxic to eat. Something can be bad in some ways without being bad in *all* ways (in science if not politics) ;)

contribute a comment

Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.

what is this?

A 'Nature Top 50' science blog by the editors, staff and friends of The American Journal of Bioethics. Science writes: "To follow the latest twists in ... science stories with social impact, dive into this Web log"

The original story behind this blog

What people are saying about blog.bioethics.net

recently on blog.bioethics.net

March Issue of AJOB is Now Online!

Trans fat bans, peer recruitment for human subjects research, and the clash of culture versus the rights of physicians are the featured issues in this... (more)

Trans Fats Today. Hot Dogs Tomorrow?

Will banning artificial trans fats today effect your ability to have a hot dog tomorrow? On the The Bioethics Channel, Lorell LaBoube seeks an answer... (more)

Looking for Dr. Right? Get Yours via Speed Date!

Want to find your "Dr. Right"? Now, you can! You can meet your next doctor on a "speed date." Dne Texas hospital is trying its... (more)

End of Life-ology

William King is dying from MS. His two twenty-something sons, Ennis and Malcolm, already lost their mother to cancer 15 years earlier and now must... (more)

If You Are STILL Wondering Why Health Care Reform Is Important...

Check out this statistic from the Chicago Tribune today: "Illinois consumers to pay up to 60% more [for health insurance premiums], data show." When do... (more)

this blog's feed

  • Subscribe
    • XML
    • Google Reader or Homepage
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • Add to My AOL
    • Convert RSS to PDF
    • Add to Technorati Favorites!
    • Add to your phone
    • Get RSS Buttons

info

archives

tags