After six years testing the safety of cloning, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed cloned animals fit for consumption.

Don't like it? Well, you don't have much of a choice. The FDA also decided that labels won't have to divulge whether or not they contain parts from cloned animals, because the ingredients are no different from that of animals raised the old-fashioned way. Besides, aside from the creep-out factor, most people probably wouldn't choose to eat a cloned animal to begin with; they cost ten times as much as your average, farm-raised cow or pig.

Americans should be used to to science and industry playing a starring role in our food choices. From pesticides to force-fed ducks to hormone-laden dairy products, it shouldn't be any surprise that cloned animals were the next step.

And our food is already meddled with, sometimes without our knowledge (ever wonder how you can perfectly fresh peaches and strawberries in the middle of February?), and sometimes quite obviously (plutots, anyone?) But while this shouldn't come as a shock, this newest agricultural development does seem like an eerie foreshadowing of events to come.

Chef Mark Peel prepared two platters each of steaks and hamburgers at his Los Angeles restaurant, Campanile. The medium-rare steaks and perfectly cooked burgers were served without adornment, which makes it sound as though this dinner could have been for a die-hard Atkins fan, when in fact it was a taste test. Six diners, including radio host Evan Kleiman, Gregory Jaffe from the CSPI and USC sociologist Barry Glassner and his wife, had come to the dinner party to experience a side-by-side taste test of conventionally bred and cloned beef.

The meat was all provided by Collins Cattle ranch in Frederick, Oklahoma and was nearly identical in every way, same look, same cuts. The taste of both the hamburger meat and the porterhouse was identical, as well. Along with the reassurances of animal geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam, from UC Davis, that the meat was entirely safe to eat, the diners seemed satisfied that cloned meat was not necessarily a bad idea when it came to flavor. Even so, that won't be enough to sway public opinion in favor of cloned meat by the time it (probably) hits the market later this year.

Now that meat and milk from cloned animals has been approved for sale and consumption by the FDA, all kinds of issues have been raised about these animals, from whether or not they can be considered organic to whether people will actually want to eat them. Those who support cloning say that cloned animals will be more disease resistant and that the products derived from them will be more consistent and of higher quality. The largest dairy producer in the US, the Dean Foods Co., has announced that they will be avoiding all of these issues because they will not sell milk from animals that are clones or have been cloned. A representative said that they "see no consumer benefit from this technology" and that surveys done on their behalf show that most US customers are simply "not interested in buying milk or milk products that come from cloned animals."

Dean Foods is the first major company to come out against using milk from cloned cows, joining smaller companies like Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and Organic Valley.

Meat and milk from cloned animals have been deemed safe by the FDA and won't make it to market for some time yet, which is a relief to many consumers because the USDA has also determined that there needs to be no label distinguishing between cloned meat and naturally-bred meat and some would like to see that policy change before the products are on store shelves. Another issue that needs definition is whether or not clones can be organic. Many feel that as long as the clones are "raised organically," living the same lifestyle and receiving the same food as conventionally organic animals, they should receive the designation.

Others, all supporters of the organic movement, range from strongly against the issue to rabidly against it. The terms "organic" and "cloned" just don't belong together, they say. The current guidelines state that genetically modified foods cannot be consider organic. By implication, an animal made in a lab - even if it isn't "genetically modified" - should also be excluded. "Surely, these opponents conclude, no animal is more engineered than a clone."

For the moment, it seems that the current organic rules would apply and that it would not be difficult for cloned foods to qualify as such, but ultimately, the decision lies in the hands of the USDA, which could be considered by an advisory panel as early as spring. After this decision, we may see a revision of the definition of "organic" itself.

At the moment, food produced from cloned animals is not approved for sale to consumers, but the FDA said this week that they were "moving closer to approving meat and milk from cloned animals." It could happen as early as next year.

Understandably, some people are concerned about this. 60% of Americans say that they are "uncomfortable" with the idea of eating such animals. Most feel that any products resulting from a cloned animal should be clearly marked so that consumers have a choice about what they're eating - despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded there is no more danger in eating meat or other products from cloned animals than there is from conventional animals. There are no more than 2,000 or so cloned animals in the US for now, and the FDA has asked producers to voluntarily keep such products out of the production lines.

One question that has been raised is why farmers or ranchers would want cloned cattle (or other animals) in the first place, since it would cost just as much to upkeep them as natural animals. The other big question is why consumers would want cloned food over non-cloned food. There is said to be little difference between natural and non-natural meat and dairy, and if consumers can't tell the difference, why would they pay for it?

The FDA is getting ready to approve a new genetically modified salmon which grows twice as fast as normal farm-raised salmon. The trick is altering a gene that controls the production of growth hormones. The company behind the technology is Aqua Bounty, and they say that the modification of the growth hormone does not affect taste or raise any health concerns. What do you think? Are you ready for super big GM salmon on your shelves?