The Food and Drug Administration has concluded that "meat and milk from clones and their progeny is as safe to eat as corresponding products derived from animals produced using contemporary agricultural practices," meaning that not only is the meat likely to be approved for human consumption and sold at stores, but that there will be no label to distinguish it from natural meat. Consumer groups want to see a label on the meat because most (64%) people are uncomfortable with the idea of eating cloned food, but the FDA's decision is based on the fact that there is no food safety issue in question, and no need to "warn" people about what they're eating in this case. "The bottom line is, we don't want to misinform consumers with some sort of implied message of difference," said one researcher, although this does seem to be at odds with existence of labels that indicate the difference between organic/nonorganic produce and grass fed beef, where there is not necessarily a health risk or benefit in question.
The Consumer Federation of America said that they, along with other groups, will ask food companies and supermarkets not to carry food from clones. "Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers don't want them in their foods."
New York Times Magazine's food issue
Chicken McNuggets frolic at New York City pet store
Eat your broccoli orbs! 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-28-2006 @ 2:08PM
DanGarion said...
Mmmm... Gotta love that Grass Fed Beer! Yum Yum!
Reply
12-29-2006 @ 9:43AM
Foodie Bride said...
If the food is safe and offers no distinct taste from what we conventionally know as "regular beef," then what's the big deal? The world's population is growing and it's not that far-fetched to believe it will grow beyond what it can naturally support. Test tube beef is better than starvation.
Reply
12-29-2006 @ 5:12PM
PghEats said...
I second that, Word Diggity.
I read that the plan is not for the cloned animals to be used directly as food, but if one is bred to be of very high quality, they will clone that animal to also use as breeding stock.
The people who have a knee-jerk reaction against cloned food are probably the same sort who don't use microwaves because "it does something to the molecules".
Reply
12-29-2006 @ 5:13PM
Word Diggity said...
"Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers don't want them in their foods."
What? How is that possible? Is the meat of a cloned cow somehow absent all the nutrients and protein you'd find in non-cloned meat? Fear, uncertainty and doubt, that spells F-U-D. If cloning means lower prices for meat, I'm all for it. Otherwise, why bother?
Reply
12-29-2006 @ 5:14PM
angelique said...
The world doesn't suffer from a lack of food. We have plenty enough to feed the people on earth. What we do have is turmoil and armed conflict which keeps food from getting to people who are in dire need, and organized campaigns to keep people from getting support for ideological and/or political reasons. We humans are starving each other, not the earth. Many countries produce far more food than they need, but destroy a portion of it in order to manipulate the market price.
What's wrong with this cloned beef? Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. No one knows. And without legislation to force labelling there will be no way to tell, at least in the US, what the hell it is you're eating. What about informed consent? Don't we deserve to know what the heck it is we're consuming? No one could argue that the US lacks food. We certainly don't have a need to clone animals in order to survive! This whole scheme is about increasing profits for producers, not health, not necessity, not a scarcity of resources, or improving food supplies. I'm personally appalled that we won't be given the chance to opt out of the experiment. I don't want cloned beef. There's nothing wrong with the old-fashioned self-replicating cows!
Reply
12-29-2006 @ 5:14PM
Spoonman said...
The answer, FB, is found on the CFA website in their statement against the FDA decision: "We need a national discussion including ethicists and religious leaders." The people who have a problem with the decision are either ignorant or have some kind of religious reason. Why else would you include religious leaders in a scientific discussion? It's new technology, and the drooling masses are incapable of understanding said technology. That's why we have people like the FDA make those kinds of decisions. To allow the general populace the ability to make them makes about as much sense as allowing them to elect their own leaders. :)
Reply