I have to agree with Arnie on his veto of the California bill requiring foods containing meat from cloned animals or their progeny to be labeled - “requiring” being the operative word. The basis of his veto was the bill is preempted by federal labeling guidelines and would have required tracking and labeling requirements that were unworkable, costly and unenforceable.

Very little of our food gets into supermarkets with traceability even to the point of origin. This bill would require traceability to the parentage of each animal harvested in order to be enforced. The industry is choking on just being able to identify the country of origin of most animal products (and that law has significant exemptions for manufacturers and food service).

In reality, there are few clones in existence, and they are used primarily to produce elite breeding stock, not meat. Even their offspring are generally too valuable to be targeted for meat, but go on to become breeding animals themselves. The CA bill did not provide any appropriations for implementing the requirement; it simply made it a crime to manufacture products from or produce meat from cloned animals or their offspring. I would much rather see effort and resources going to other issues that have a much bigger impact on consumers.

The FDA’s position is that if a new practice is deemed safe (after scientific review) and produces food that is the same as existing products, a label identifying the practice is not required.
And because the FDA has deemed that there are no safety issues associated with cloning, it would actually be illegal to require labels under Federal laws.

What about the consumer’s right to know? By all means, brands/companies/labels should be able to specify participation in, or avoidance of, certain production practices. I think it is quite reasonable, for instance, for organic brands to require that producers not use cloning as a reproductive tool; not because I think cloning is not safe, but because it is what the customer base of those brands desires.

There are a lot of things I’d like to know about my food and for that matter, most other products I buy. I support pastured/grass-based meat production, humane animal handling, fair labor practices, environmental sustainability, and other practices. For those issues about which I care, I look for “positive” labels that tell me the producer/processor is monitoring what is going into the product I am buying. I trust voluntary participation more than mandated prohibition.

Enforcement of a local bill such as the one in California would cripple the state’s food economy. Repercussions would include shortages of fresh and processed meat and dramatic increases in prices. Among the most affected would be lower-income families, for whom being able to afford high-quality protein is already an issue.

Although this bill appears to be for the protection of California’s citizens, it would do far more damage than good.

1. Food Safety And Animal Health Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at 8:58pm

   Beef Recall: Fear when you hear these words? Food safety for the ‘Average Joe', Article Three….

   You get home from an exhausting day at work, feed the family, then settle down for a little bit of relaxation time….