Gourmet's Barry Estabrook investigates the possibility of the presence of cloned beef's existence in the nation's meat supply. The following is an excerpt of his findings published on Gourmet.com.

I just found out that I may have dined on meat from the progeny of a cloned cow. You may have, too.

In January, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decreed that meat and milk from cloned livestock was safe to eat. Last week, the agency went a step further and said that it was "theoretically possible" that the meat from the offspring of cloned cattle was already in the food supply.

The story continues at Gourmet.com: Politics of the Plate: Dining on Cloned Beef

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."

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?