is part of the Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

  • American Agriculturist
  • Beef Producer
  • Corn and Soybean Digest
  • Dakota Farmer
  • Delta Farm Press
  • Farm Futures
  • Farm Industry news
  • Indiana Prairie Farmer
  • Kansas Farmer
  • Michigan Farmer
  • Missouri Ruralist
  • Nebraska Farmer
  • Ohio Farmer
  • Prairie Farmer
  • Southeast Farm Press
  • Southwest Farm Press
  • The Farmer
  • Wallaces Farmer
  • Western Farm Press
  • Western Farmer Stockman
  • Wisconsin Agriculturist

FDA Cloning Report Draws Varying Reactions

Cloning advocates say the technology is safe, but critics worry about consumer reactions.

After a Thursday declaration that cloned and conventional livestock are "virtually indistinguishable" and that products from cloned animals are safe to eat, the FDA said it would accept public comments on the issue over the next 90 days. They didn't have to wait long for the comments to start coming in.

Some critics take issue with the FDA's recommendation that food from cloned animals should not be labeled any differently than food from conventional livestock. The International Dairy Foods Association's Susan Ruland says the introduction of products from clones may turn many consumers off of certain products.

"[Consumers] have concerns about the social, ethical, even religious," she says in a report by Marketplace (California). "And there's also a visceral reaction of, where is my food coming from and the animals and how are they being treated on the farm."

Gregory Jaffe, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, tagged that visceral reaction a "yuck factor" in a CNN interview, due partly to peoples' tendency to associate animal cloning with human cloning.

Advocates of the technology point out that since clones are virtually indistinguishable from conventionally bred livestock, a label indicating that a food product came from a clone would be misleading.

"We don't want to misinform consumers with some sort of implied message of difference," says Barb Glenn of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "There is no difference."

BIO and others defending cloning point out that cloned animals are not genetically modified, and the main purpose for clones - for the time being, at least - is for 'breeding, not eating.' The technology would allow producers to duplicate their most productive animals, which can then be bred to improve the overall quality of the herd.

Hide comments

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Publish