Back in late December the Food and Drug Administration declared milk and meat from some cloned animals safe to eat. This was based on scientific conclusions that food products from cloned animals are “indistinguishable” from those produced by animals born the old-fashioned way (artificial insemination) and, yes, from those bred the very, very old-fashioned way (“Ferdinand, this is Daisy…Daisy, Ferdinand. You both enjoy standing and chewing...”). “Cloned food” is still at least a year away from getting the FDA’s final approval, let alone landing in our shopping carts or on our dinner tables, and in the meantime, farmers and cloning companies have agreed to a voluntary ban on producing meat and milk from clones, but the recent decision still has plenty of people upset.

While cloned food may indeed have some freaky, sci-fi undertones, most experts agree that the fear is unfounded. Scientists and cloning advocates point out that the price tag attached to cloning (about $15,000-$20,000 per procedure) is enough all on its own to prevent clones from flooding the refrigerated sections of our local markets. The people who want to clone animals want to do so for breeding purposes, so those clones can pass their tender, delicious, healthy, nutritious genes on to their offspring. It’s those offspring (reproduced the old-fashioned way) that you could be basting at your 2008 backyard barbecue. This means your meat would still come to you pretty much business-as-usual, and if birth defects or illnesses arose in those offspring, the FDA’s same old screening process would prevent those animals from entering the food supply by the same rules and restrictions it currently enforces. Still, even cloned cows don’t live forever, and once they’ve lived beyond their breeding years, farmers don't just crumple them up in a ball, shout, “Two points!” and make their best overhand shot at the wastebasket in the corner of the pasture. Some clones would eventually end up in the food supply.

But would that be so bad? Bioengineers say perfecting cloning and breeding technologies will allow them to “knock out,” or block, genes for diseases like mad cow disease, thus potentially creating safer, healthier food sources and even potentially reducing the use of things like antibiotics and growth hormones in livestock. Still, I can’t help recall how mad cow disease was spawned by farmers feeding ground-up cow parts to cows. (It turns out that’s bad!) And that leads me to wonder if cloning and genetic engineering are really the answer, or if these problems couldn’t be handled more safely and more simply just by getting back to nature.

Those opposed to cloned foods argue that, at the very least, they would like to see food from clones labeled as such, so they could choose to not consume them, and to not feed them to their families. But that’s not likely to happen. Why? Because (pardon the visual if you’ve got a tummy full of Big Mac) most modern meat and dairy processing plants would have to put “Dolly” through the same grinder and along the same conveyer belts as Lulu and Daisy and the rest of the herd. The same is true for dairy products. (You knew that all the milk in that carton didn’t come from the same cow, right?) Farmers and agri-business execs argue it’s just not feasible or practical (let alone necessary) to separate out and specially label “FDA approved” cloned foods from other “FDA approved” foods. Plus, the label might look bad to consumers.

This argument, of course, hasn’t done anything to calm fears. That’s because those who object aren’t so much worried about what scientists know. They’re worried about what scientists don’t know. (Perhaps they’re thinking, “Remember how pretty things used to look with FDA approved Red Dye No. 3 in them?”) Whether these consumers are being paranoid or wisely wary, one thing is clear- there are a lot of them. Most national polls and surveys show that over half of Americans (somewhere around 60% by most accounts) are uneasy about allowing the use of cloned animals in food production. And because of this, it seems more likely that instead of seeing “CLONED” labels, we’ll more likely see “CLONE-FREE” labels.

Just as the widespread use of growth hormones and pesticides gave rise to brands and packages declaring themselves, “100% your-worst-nightmare-FREE!,” so, too, most experts agree that the same market phenomenon would happen with cloned foods, or rather clone-free foods. Of course, those companies would have to be very careful in their labeling, to avoid making maybe cloned/maybe not products seem maybe bad/maybe awful. In a similar case, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), a growth hormone that’s been in widespread use for milk production for over a decade now, won FDA approval. But, logical or not, thanks to the controversy that surrounded it, you can now find plenty of cartons in your dairy case with labels reading, “from cows NOT treated with rBST.” The choice, it seems, will still be yours to make. Probably.

Our January online poll posed the question, "Would you feed your family cloned meat?"
Over 65% of respondents said, "No."
About 20% answered, "Yes."
And almost 15% found themselves in the "Maybe" category, putting Sacramento Parent readers right in step with the general public opinion, as reflected in national polls.
So, where do you stand? We welcome your letters, emails, and general reactions to the issues tackled inside Sacramento Parent's pages and here on our website.
Send your feedback to amy@sacramentoparent.com (subject: Letter to the Editor), or send us some snail-mail: 457 Grass Valley Hwy, Suite 5; Auburn, CA 95603.