FDA says cloned meat is edible

[Civil War Man]

From here

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Meat and milk from most cloned animals are safe to eat, the Food and Drug Administration announced Tuesday.

According to a 968-page "final risk assessment," the FDA finds no safety risks in meat from healthy cloned cows, pigs or goats or milk from cloned cows and their offspring.

"Food products derived from cattle, swine, and goat clones pose no more risk than food derived from sexually reproduced animals," the report said.

However, in the end, the FDA decided it needed more information to determine the safety of meat and milk from cloned sheep. The FDA also decided food from newborn cattle clones, "may pose some very limited human food consumption risk."

The agency reportedly included hundreds of pages of raw data in the risk assessment, to help the public understand how it came to its findings.

For years, a heated debate over the use of cloned animals for food production has stretched from Congress to cattle farms. The agency reached a preliminary decision in December 2006, after a four-year review, that milk and meat from cloned animals was safe for human consumption. Under government policy, the agency was required to collect more safety data before issuing a final decision.

It is highly unlikely actual clones will be used in food production. A cloned cow costs $15,000 to $20,000 to create. More likely, experts said, the offspring of cloned animals will be used. Experts also say it will be three to five years before consumers see milk and meat from their offspring.

Opponents of using cloned animals in food production are angry that the FDA is releasing its report now.

"We think the FDA should pay attention to what Congress is asking them to do," say J.D. Hanson, policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. "It looks like they are releasing it to sidestep what Congress has asked them to do."

Another concern is economics. "People will start consuming less dairy and meat" out of uncertainty, suggested Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with Consumers Union. His group calls for more study and clear labeling.

Last month, the Senate passed a measure that would bar the FDA from approving the proposal until it conducts further study of the potential health effects. The legislation also would require the Agriculture Department to examine consumer acceptance of cloned meats. The amendment was part of the Senate's $286 billion farm bill, which was passed in December.

Other consumer groups are satisfied with the findings. "There are still unanswered questions about the use of cloned animals in the food supply, but the Food and Drug Administration has satisfactorily answered the safety question," the Center for Science in the Public Interest said in a statement. "While the safety of any food cannot be proven with absolute certainty, consumers should have confidence that meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring will be safe."

Makes me wonder just how many people think that someone would actually be trying to take the glow-in-the-dark pigs they cook up in genetics experiments and sell them in the grocery store, as if the USDA wouldn't notice.

[Rogue 9]

Greenpeace denouncing this decision in 3... 2... 1...

[Admiral Valdemar]

Wow, chalk another "no shit" off to the FDA. It's almost as if clones were super different and evil in more ways than one.

If only someone had made a meat analogue that could be grown in vats to disprove this bullshit.

Greenpeace denouncing this decision in 3... 2... 1...

What? No People Eating Tasty Animals?

[Nephtys]

Who would have guessed that your stomach doesn't care what genetics protein has when it gets splashed in enzymes and acid. It won't change a thing though. Some people after all, actually believe that a tomato grown with manure is better than one grown with a sack of fertilizer. Especially down here in California.

[Stravo]

I love the people who get worked up about this. Considering the ultra processed foods we eat I think most of them wouldn't even know if they were eating meat much less cloned meat.

[Broomstick]

If someone has an ethical objection to cloning animals I can handle it, even if I don't agree with it. But I think a lot of people are cloaking their ethical objections as safety concerns and that I do have a problem with.

[J]

No kidding, I remember reading a thread somewhere about burgers & hotdogs containing bits of cow anus.

[Admiral Valdemar]

No kidding, I remember reading a thread somewhere about burgers & hotdogs containing bits of cow anus.

The best bits are in the rump, as they say...

[The Vortex Empire]

Really, a copy of an edible animal is also safe to eat? I never would have guessed.

[Rye]

Next they'll be telling me that a cow's brother is safe to eat!

[Bob the Gunslinger]

How am I supposed to ingest an animal's strength and courage if the one I'm eating has no soul?

Seriously, does this mean we can preserve the tastiest cows through cloning? Surely this will let us preserve the least diseased strains of plants and animals. Maybe soon we can just skip to the big ol' vat of meat technique...

[Darth Wong]

I love the people who get worked up about this. Considering the ultra processed foods we eat I think most of them wouldn't even know if they were eating meat much less cloned meat.

As with many things in life, it's a half truth. In general, you will get healthier and tastier food if you buy things that have undergone less processing. But the notion that anything "unnatural" is automatically bad is an extremist interpretation of this fact.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There are reasons not to use cloned cows for food production. In the short term it may increase yield. At the cost of genetic variation that can protect herds from disease.

But they are perfectly safe to eat.

Same with organic vs non-organic produce. Our modern agriculture system is screwed up. We use monocultures which subject the crops to devastating blights and insect plagues, because we cannot develop pesticides fast enough to counteract evolution and without variation there is no substrate in the monoculture on which selection can act, and pesticides damage the soil quality and cause pollution

On the other hand, organic farming techniques dont help either. Farms still select for traits, and thus reduce variability with every generation. They use more land to get the same crop yield thus increasing habitat destruction, and they use manure for fertilizer which still fucks up the soil.