SERVING MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL / MINNESOTA
Donate Now Sustaining Member

MinnPost thanks these major sponsors:




Sponsor of
Second Opinion



Our major advertisers


Our in-kind partners


MinnPost thanks these generous donors:

INDIVIDUALS AND FOUNDATI0NS
Blandin Foundation
Otto Bremer Foundation
Bush Foundation
Sage & John Cowles
David & Vicki Cox
Toby & Mae Dayton
Jack & Claire Dempsey
Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation
Sam & Stacey Heins
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Joel & Laurie Kramer
Lee Lynch & Terry Saario
Martin & Brown Foundation
The McKnight Foundation
The Minneapolis Foundation
The Saint Paul Foundation
Rebecca & Mark Shavlik

(See all donors here.)

Sharon Schmickle

  • Switch to Small Text Size
  • Switch to Medium Text Size
  • Switch to Large Text Size
Email Print Submit a Comment

    FDA approves cloned food, and braces for backlash

    As expected, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ruled that "meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine, and goats ... are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals."

    And, as expected, controversy continues to rage over the very notion that products from clones could take a place at the nation's meat counters and dairy cases.

    On the heels of the FDA's announcement today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) called for continuing a voluntary moratorium on sales of food from clones. Companies doing cloning had agreed to withhold the meat and milk while the FDA deliberated on the safety question.

     

     

    The USDA official making the call — Bruce Knight, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs — didn't say how long the moratorium should continue. A Q&A issued with Knight's statement said that the USDA needs "a sufficient period of time to prepare so that a smooth and seamless transition into the marketplace can occur."

    Special labels?
    One smoldering argument is the question of whether food from clones should be specially labeled. Anticipating that fight, the FDA said in its announcement that it will not require any labeling. The USDA echoed that decision.

    Instead, the FDA said producers of the foods may be able to label their products as "clone-free." Such labels might be allowed on a case-by-case basis, the FDA said, to ensure that the labels are truthful and not misleading.

    The approach would be similar to a compromise government regulators reached years ago during the uproar over milk from cows given a genetically engineered hormone, popularly known as BST, to boost milk output. Dairies that could certify their milk came from herds not treated with BST were able to say so and charge a premium for the milk.

    But consumer groups and many bloggers were quick today to denounce any similar compromise over food from clones. The Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., said the FDA's position "deprives consumers of their right to know about the origins of their food." A headline in Wired's blog network chided the FDA's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell on Cloned Meat."

    One reason regulators resist the labels is because they aren't easy to enforce. The FDA says it cannot distinguish between a steak from a cloned steer and one from its conventional counterpart. The same would be true of offspring from clones, which the FDA also cleared for food consumption.

    Tracking system
    So there would be no simple way of testing meat or milk to determine a label's truthfulness.

    However, cloning companies set the stage for an identification system by pledging in December that they would register cloned animals before they are sold and require the buyers to make the animals' background available down the marketing line. The system would be voluntary and, thus, not binding on every company that might clone animals.

    Organic food networks, in particular, are likely to make use of that tracking system and other strategies for excluding clones from their product lines.

    It isn't U.S. consumers alone who worry the USDA as it tries to ease the fury over cloning. The agency also is wary of the response from international markets where the image of American farm products was battered a decade ago because Japanese and European consumers rejected gene-altered crops. That dispute has quieted but it isn't forgotten.

    The USDA's Knight said international customers are among the stakeholders the agency seeks to calm. The agency also proposes to work with the cloning industry's tracking system to help reassure trading partners they can know whether or not they are buying food from clones.

    At this point, the fuss is over a few hundred high-priced breeding animals that aren't intended to frequent milking barns or see a slaughter house any time soon.

    "We understand there are currently only about 600 animal clones in the U.S., and most of them are breeding animals, so few clones will ever arrive in the marketplace," Knight said.

    Like what you just read? Support high-quality journalism in Minnesota by becoming a member of MinnPost.

    0 Comments:

    E-mail address

    Password

     

    Forgot Password? | Register to Comment

    MinnPost does not permit the use of foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed by moderators to ensure that comments meet these standards and adhere to MinnPost's terms of use and privacy policy.

    We intend for this area to be used by our readers as a place for civil, thought-provoking and high-quality public discussion. In order to achieve this, MinnPost requires that all commenters register and post comments with their actual names and place of residence. Register here to comment.


    Sharon Schmickle
    Illustration by Hugh Bennewitz


    minnpost.com/sharonschmickle



    Sharon Schmickle has won numerous awards for her coverage of science, foreign affairs, national politics and other issues at the Star Tribune. She has reported from 22 countries, most recently Egypt, Afghanistan, Thailand and Iraq. Her science-writing credentials are based on the Templeton-Cambridge fellowship this year at Cambridge University in England and earlier fellowships with the Knight Science Journalism program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing Inc. in New York. She covers science and foreign affairs for MinnPost.com. Schmickle can be reached at sschmickle [at] minnpost [dot] com. 

    Recent Posts by Sharon Schmickle

    More Sharon Schmickle Posts