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.

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.

Genetically modified foodstuffs do not have a very good public relations team working for them. Hearing that food has been genetically modified in some way will turn off most consumers because the assumption associated with it is that the food has been made more pest/disease resistant and less flavorful through unnatural means. Unnatural, in this instance, refers to a quickly forced change in a particular plant and not to a gradual evolution through selective breeding. The word does not have a positive connotation, yet in spite of that, not everything done with GM foods is a bad idea.

The US Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS) is currently working with a gene that "induce high levels of beta-carotene into food crops." The gene, named Or is responsible for the orange color of some cauliflower and "promotes high beta-carotene accumulation in various plant tissues." Beta-carotene, is processed by the body into Vitamin A, so an increase of its concentration in foods that are naturally low in it could make a significant impact on worldwide Vitamin A deficiencies, which affects approximately 250 million children worldwide. More studies (there have only been eight years' worth) are needed before any action is taken.

This isn't to say that GM foods are necessarily a good idea, but it does show that there are applications beyond inserting jellyfish genes to make food glow.

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?

Could it be true? Could bacon really be...healthy for your heart?

According to an article I just came across, American researchers have cloned pigs that can produce their own omega-3 fatty acids, which would make bacon and pork good for your heart. Omega-3 fatty acids are those compounds found in fish like tuna that reduce the incidence of heart disease.

For now, the research is still in a theoretical stage, as scientists are not sure whether meat from the cloned piglets whose flesh is laden with the omega-3 fatty acids have the same effect as the omega-3 fatty acids from fish. They are also not sure how consumers would react to genetic modification.

The Norwegians are building a "doomsday vault" for seeds. Buried deep inside a mountain, deep in the Arctic Circle, scientists say that the seeds will be preserved indefinately at temperatures well below freezing. And, to prevent theft, as well as for safety's sake, "the mountains are patrolled by polar bears," though humans will most likely monitor the facility.

The seed depository is being created to preserve the various species of plants that currently exist on the planet, many of which will disappear with each passing year as selective breeding reduces diversity in favor of commercially popular crops. In theory, these seeds can be used to resurrect species of plants that may disappear in the future. Intriguing as this idea is, one must wonder if there would be a demand for such reconstructed species, or whether they would only be regrown for scientific curiosity. Would it be easier to simply alter existing strains of apples - through selective breeding or gene modification - than to rebuild it from a seed or two? And if it were necessary to rebuild agriculture from the approximately 2 million seeds in the vault as the result of something wiping out global plant life, it seems likely that most of humanity would be wiped out as well. Maybe the Norwegians would still be able to get there, though.