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.

Representatives from the dairy industry who support the use of the hormone say that it is only a matter of time before Starbucks passes increased costs onto consumers, but supporters of the switch say that more dairy farmers will stop using the hormone as consumers and businesses look for dairy produced without it, keeping prices under control. Starbucks has not said how this change has affected their operating costs, but will say that they are not planning to raise drink prices as a result of the switch.

The most expensive beef in the world is wagyu, or Kobe beef. It comes from cows that are not only genetically predisposed to intensely marbled meat that is very high in fat, but that get fed a special diet that is meant to improve that marbling beyond anything that other beef can achieve. To keep the meat from getting tough, it is said that some producers massage the muscles of their cows, rather than let the cows exercise themselves. With meat like this available and gaining rapidly in popularity, it is hardly a surprise, all of the world's most expensive steaks, as selected by Forbes Traveler, feature wagyu beef. Without further ado, these are the places to go - and how much you'll have to pay - for some of the best and most-expensive steaks in the world:

• "103" Wagyu rib eye at Craftsteak New York (private order item), $2,800 for 20 pounds
• Charbroiled Kobe Filet, Aragawa, Tokyo, $258 for 8-oz.
• Select Special Kobe Filet at the Kobe Renga-tei Steak Restaurant, Kobe, $246 for 160 grams (5.6-oz.)
• Australian Wagyu Striploin at the Al Muntaha restaurant, Burj Al Arab Hotel, Dubai, $169 300 gm
• Japanese Wagyu Rib Eye at Wolfgang Puck's CUT at the Beverly Wilshire, Beverly Hills , $160, eight-ounce filet
• "Wagyu no sumibiyaki" at Zuma, London, $132 (no size indicated)
• Sendai Sirloin at the Ekki Bar & Grill, Four Seasons Hotel Tokyo at Marunouchi The Price: $129 for 150g
• Australian Wagyu Fillet Mignon at the Polo Club, Marriott Royal Aurora, Moscow, $101 for 12-oz.
• Smoked Salt American Kobe Rib Eye Cap Steak at BLT Prime, New York, $95 (no size indicated)

Robiola are unique cheeses from the Piemonte and Lombardia, which are regions of Italy. The cheeses have a long history going back into antiquity, and are members of the Stracchino family of cheeses. Ribiola is unique because it can be made from one, two, or three types of milk from cows, sheep, and goats, something a bit unusual in the cheese making world. It is also made in several styles as well, including fresh and aged, so this is a cheese that can be radically different in taste and texture depending upon how and who makes it. I read about it recently but haven't had the chance to try it since it can be hard to find in the U.S. Have you you seen or tried any of the varieties of Robiola available?

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?

Although many consumers are concerned with the standard of living of the cows, one of the primary reasons that people buy organic milk is because they are concerned about drinking milk from cows that have been treated with hormones, specifically the growth hormone rBST. The hormone has been in use since 1993 and estimates say that about 22% of cows are regularly treated with it. Only about 3% of the milk market is covered by organic milk and, due to demand and the higher operating costs of organic farms, organic milk can cost consumers twice as much as conventional milk.

For both consumers and producers, there is a middle ground: hormone free milk. Dairies do not have to meet the standards for organic milk, which is good from a time/cost perspective, but they can charge more for the hormone-free milk than for conventional. The non-rBST milk is usually priced right between conventional and organic, so shoppers can save and still get milk they feel comfortable drinking.

The Department of Agriculture has proposed some changes to the standards currently in place for grass fed beef. At the moment, there really are no specific guidelines, and farmers who produce at least 99% grass fed beef want labels that indicate that their beef is exactly what it sounds like: from cows that live in pastures and eat only grass. The proposal has no provisions that state that the cows must be kept in pastures and it defines "grass" to include "leftovers from harvested crops," including corn and silage, which feedlot finished cows are already fed. It means that some conventional beef, feedlot beef, could be labeled "grass fed."

Understandably, the farmers who have pasture-raised cattle don't like the proposal because it devalues the "grass fed" label, barely separating it from conventional beef as far as consumers are concerned. They propose a more specific definition of "grass" and a minimum amount of time that the cows must spend grazing in pasture each day. The Agriculture Department says those rules are too strict and that their standards put less strain on ranchers, particularly in years of bad weather or drought when pastures may suffer.

Under the Agriculture Department's standards, more beef labeled "grass fed" will reach the market. But will consumers want it, or be willing to pay a premium for it, if it has no distinction from conventional?

The Institute of Food Technologists, a nonprofit group with over 22,000 members, studied over 20 years' worth of past research on antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance with a group of food scientists and microbiologists and came to the conclusion that using antibiotics to treat animals is not necessarily harmful to humans. The study was intended to provide a contrast to the claims of organic groups that promote antibiotic free foods as being the healthiest option.

While the results will be officially released tomorrow, scientists emphasize that they are not dismissing "concerns about overuse of antibiotics or antimicrobials," which can certainly be unnecessary and their overuse could even lead to the production of new, antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. But the fact remains that the health of many animals would suffer if they were never treated with antibiotics; the cost of meat could increase, perhaps to levels that would be prohibitively expensive for some, if food production dropped and the supply of meat on the market went down.

The study does not say that antibiotics and antimicrobials are unconditionally safe, as they can certainly be overused or misused, but it does serve to reinforce the idea that food production doesn't exist in black and white or good and bad, even if there is a hard line between organic and non-organic.

In truth, no studies have confirmed that all grass-fed beef is better for you than regular beef - the majority of which is "finished" on a diet of other grains, like corn, and soybeans. There are two things that make grass-fed beef appealing, though: the flavor and the idea that the cow is living a healthier, happier life in some field, not crammed onto a feed lot.

Under current regulations, any beef can be labeled "grass fed." The cattle industry says that the diet of most cows is about 75% grass, more than likely consumed as they are growing and before they are shipped to a feed lot. Farmers who raise their cattle entirely on grass and natural forage want to implement a labeling system that recognizes beef that is at least 99% grass-fed. This beef is not necessarily organic, though it can be.

Scientists around the world are working to develop a reliable process that will grow meat in a lab from a few cells. So far, they have successfully grown meat tissue that, while it smells like meat, neither looks nor tastes very much like the real thing. The process has only been done on a small scale and the results resemble jelly. Flesh colored jelly. To get an idea of what this product currently looks like, take a look at PBS's virtual taste test, which compares the properties of lab meat to animal meat.

Scientists hope to see this jelly develop into something that looks and tastes like the cuts of meat that can be achieved from butchering a cow - without having to kill the cow and with the added benefit of being able to grow the meat at home in an incubator. Achieving this goal would nearly eliminate the need for animals in meat production and reduce the total energy and expense required to feed, raise, slaughter and transport those animals.

Meat from a non-sentient source presents an interesting problem for vegetarians, as many become vegetarians for ethical reasons alone, objecting to the practice of raising animals for slaughter. Because the initial culture cells can be taken without harming the donor animal, no animals would be harmed in this type of meat production. In-home meat growth might also limit access to truly natural meat, which may raise concerns of those who are against artificial and otherwise modified food products.

There is a short video segment available on the PBS website about cultured meat and a poll which reveals that 45% of respondents would eat the artificially grown meat. I can't honestly count myself among them.