So much of the uproar following the FDA’s announcement is over the possibility of eating cloned meat, or more correctly, meat from cloned animals. The USDA today issued a request that producers continue to withhold their cloned animals (but not offspring) from the food supply in order to buy time for ‘an acceptance process’ consumers in the United States and abroad will need, “given the emotional nature of this issue.”

In reality, it is the genetics, not the meat that will reach the consumer. Clones themselves will be used for breeding, so the impact on the food chain will be essentially the same as other breeding technologies, such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer. I have read the FDA’s report . The genetics of the cloned animals remain unchanged so there is no reason to expect, nor evidence to support that offspring of cloned animals are in any way different than offspring of the original animal.

What about labeling? The FDA’s stance on clones is consistent with that on other technologies: If the product is not materially different, labeling is not required. The FDA’s job is to evaluate the safety of our food, and I believe their conclusion that meat from cloned animals and their offspring is not different from that of animals produced without cloning. I applaud the tracking system voluntarily implemented by cloning companies. The system makes it possible for companies to validate that they are not using meat from cloned animals, should they choose to do so. Requiring labeling makes no more sense than requiring labeling of cattle produced by artificial insemination or embryo transfer.

As far as limiting the gene pool, the impact of cloning will be much less than that of artificial insemination and embryo transfer, both of which are widely used today, especially in dairy cattle. I saw some data recently on the “genetic effective population size” of human and domestic cattle; they are about equal, even in dairy cattle. While I believe there is a need to preserve rare livestock breeds, the use of clones is virtually irrelevant with regard to this subject.

In my mind, the only arguable area relates to personal ethical feelings about cloning. Some people have religious objections to cloning, just as some do to the use of electricity. There have been reports (often sensationalized) of animal welfare concerns. While there is an increased incidence of problems at birth with cloned animals relative to naturally conceived animals, none of the reported problems are unique to clones. The levels seen in cloning now are about what they were at the advent of embryo transfer and are about the same seen with in vitro fertilization; as the technology has advanced these are decreasing.

I sell pasture-finished beef direct to consumers, so an animal that produces tough beef, doesn’t grow well or is unhealthy really affects my business. An animal that produces tender, well-marbled beef efficiently on grass makes me and my customers happy. If the semen I use came from a cloned bull or one of my cows had an ancestor that was cloned, I wouldn’t have any qualms about producing, eating or selling beef from them.

If you’d like more detailed information on cloning, a good resource is clonesafety.org.

1. gloria Says:
   March 10th, 2008 at 1:18pm

   Wow, I never even thought to be worried about this!



2. Jamie Jones Says:
   March 10th, 2008 at 1:27pm

   This is so interesting



3. suzannabanana23 Says:
   March 12th, 2008 at 10:02am

   But how can we be SURE the meat and milk is the same? Isn’t it just kind of yucky? And would you feed it to your kids?



4. Sara Says:
   March 12th, 2008 at 11:19am

   Suzanna: Having read the report, I am quite comfortable in the “sameness”. There’s even some data that shows that there are waaaay more differences between breeds of animals than there are between cloned animals and their genetic donors. As far as yucky, not any more so than the thought of eating something that came out of a chicken’s bum (eggs)



5. suzannabanana23 Says:
   March 12th, 2008 at 12:20pm

   Yuck — I never thought of eggs quite that way! Next time I decide the Weight Watchers points are too much for a breakfast of scrambled eggs I’ll remind myself where they came from.



6. Matt Bogard Says:
   April 5th, 2008 at 4:40pm

   Thanks for sharing the link on cloning safety. This is the second post I’v read on this blog and I can tell that I’m going to be coming back for more. I especailly appreciated your coments regarding gene pool effects and animal welfare.

   While the consumer may be after a consistent and uniform product, there is not always a consistent and uniform way to produce it. Different producers require different genetics to match their various management, nutrition, and environmental constraints. This will ensure continued preservation of diverse genetics, and I think cloning technology is actually conducive to this end.



7. pawseries Says:
   October 24th, 2008 at 2:26am

   we inspired to read this article