FDA Approves Cloned Food

Yeah, it may be ok, it may not, but we should at least know what we're eating if there's even a ghost of a chance that something is wrong with it.

The report was pretty thorough and clear. There is not a shred of evidence that there is any health danger from cloned meat and milk -- and it's not for lack of trying to find it. Check out the published -- and unpublished! -- research they cite. Holy cow! They really took this seriously and put a lot of work into it.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding about the FDA's role. They are narrowly charged with looking at the health science and returning a conclusion and a policy based on that, and that only. If they were to require labeling without scientific backing here, just because there is some public "discomfort" with cloned food, then they would be exceeding their regulatory limits.

If the public wants labeling, it should be done outside the FDA. Perhaps Congress could ask the Agriculture Department to operate a labeling regime for pure "information" purposes for things that there is no scientific backing for, but there is still a public interest -- however irrational -- in.

I think any commenters to this thread who object to the FDA's decision should, in fairness, specifically list at least one health danger that you think cloned meat or milk could pose. It astonishes me that most people who object to it have never looked into it to the degree that they can even name a specific -- albeit hypothetical -- potential problem. It's all just vague fear and paranoia.

"Has the FDA never heard of informed consent?"
They may not, but we sure as hell have! Now the forms are the size of a small phone book! :-)

Couldn't the labeling of Cloned/Non-Cloned food be similar to the USDA labeling guidelines for organic foods?

Part of the reason they created standards and labeling for organic foods was to "ensure that [consumers] can be confident in knowing what they are buying..."

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2000/12/0425.htm

Just a thought...

This shoud be interesting to see what happens? I would like to know what I am eating!

I think any commenters to this thread who object to the FDA's decision should, in fairness, specifically list at least one health danger that you think cloned meat or milk could pose. It astonishes me that most people who object to it have never looked into it to the degree that they can even name a specific -- albeit hypothetical -- potential problem. It's all just vague fear and paranoia.

Personally I'd like to see HUMAN DATA from trials of humans fed cloned milk and meat. It seems you're quick to say any objection to such food entering our food supply is silly...but where's the human data showing safety?

I don't know, cloned meat squeaks me out. I wouldn't want to eat it. With Dolly and CC aging as rapidly as they did, I wouldn't want to eat meat from an animal that is 1 but has aged like it was 7.

They are making it easier to buy from local, organic farmers.

Mark: Jan brought up the first point I was going to make. I would be less worried about cloned meat if they at least got the cloned animals to live as long as the originals. But the fact that there is such a significant difference means they haven't perfected it.

Next, I don't think it's even necessary to bring up a specific reason as to why we're paranoid about cloned meat. Science may not even know the very things that are different in cloned meat. We may not know such factors even exist. We make all these changes in our food that come back to bite us later. Who would've known grain-fed and grass-fed beef would be that different? Who knew refined sugar would be worse than, say, honey? They both have sugar, right? We made vegetable oils and hydrogenization to evade saturated fat, and I would say that those two are far worse than the fats we were avoiding ever could be. Nature is very picky, very precise, and very complicated. We're nowhere near close to understanding all of it; let's not muck with it any more than we have to.

I agree with Ryan! Yikes !! :-)

Well said Ryan!

I do too (agree with Ryan). I've also found that when I stay away from all processed foods I feel better - and lose weight. No more chemicals in my diet. I'll be eating fresh fruit and veggies, locally raised organic meat and oatmeal. Anything else will be a rare treat.

I think they should have to label it as cloned

Since cloning is so new, and there is no long term data on humans eating cloned meat, I would be wary of buying dairy or meat products from such animals. Ryan made a very good point. So it's "virtually" indistinguishable. That doesn't mean it's the same thing.

Face it the FDA is just another goverment agency that doesn't keep our best interest at heart!!

Personally, I have no worries until there's actually a company in the cloned-animals-as-food business -- and that won't happen with current technologies. Why would a business invest millions to produce animals unlikely to live to maturity (their harvesting time, to be blunt), when it's so simple to create them the usual way? This is like the FDA deciding that food produced in Star Trek replicators is ok to eat: it won't be relevant for a long, long time.

Plus I stick to the local, organic farmers anyway :-)

Bravo Ryan...and the others who pointed out the glaring fact that the whole cloning business (and it IS a business) just has not been around long enough to prove/disprove ANYthing.

So...where IS the data on children raised on cloned food and who are now adults? There isn't any. Nothing truly long term has been done yet because it is so new.

I, like others, am not for playing God or messing with mightly Mother Nature. It always, always backfires on the long run.

The FDA has the authority to decide what is safe to eat and what is not. That is it! The FDA does not have the right to decide for me what I should consume. I do not care if the FDA approved that cloned meat and dairy is safe, I DO NOT want to consume cloned meat. It is unatural and for me it is unethical. It is best they lable what is cloned and what is not because it will save tax payers money when the law suits begin to occur.

Let's fact the facts. It's still protein. It's just like taking a cell and growing it to make more meat, like in laboratory animals.

The FDA still has problems and that's gonna happen no matter what is done. Yet, to state with 100 percent assurance that there is no danger is a foolish one. Yeah, the science seems solid, and it always does even when things come out later showning signs of danger in the past that were not revealed to the public. I just always have to question some things the FDA does as they were a lobbying group's right hand man for so long. Now, who knows if they can ever be anything but that, esp. since there's big money to be made.

I think labeling it at least for 5 to 10 years maybe a bit longer like 20 years, to play it safe, would be appropriate. It would at least give solid proof of safety as a number of people would buy it and consume it. Until then can they make a bold statement of fact to it's safety in my book. Heck we can't even figure out how our vegt. supply becomes tainted, at times, with certainty - we can only throw out likely guesses.

If the cloned animals can't live as long regular livestock then that is of great concern. It means a number of things. As some one said before on this thread, it means they have yet to perfect the process. It means they may not know why this is a reality. It means the livestock internal organs may not be as strong to sustain the animals life, which should always be of great concern. See, I can guess to. Yet, they should not when they are putting out something in the food supply which should always be aggressively tested (even more so then meds) esp. when it's something heavily consumed. More testing equals less guessing. But when money starts flashing in front of some people's faces I guess they just don't give a DAM#!!!

I have absolutely no faith in the FDA, so it looks like it'll be vegetarianism for me. I guess I'll have to start my garden again, though, since we can't trust that those we buy won't make us sick (or worse) with e. coli.

Sorry James I cant agree with you. They admitted the fact that cloned animals have a much greater chance of being born with deformaties. That proves that there definetly is something wrong with them.

...besides, how many times has the FDA approved a drug which later turned out to be deadly. There just has not been enough time to say it is safe and besides, as I previously mentioned, WE should decide what we want to eat. Label the meat!

Vince. It's still protein. And Don't be thinking about vegetarian. I know for a fact that I love animal, and I love riding with horses, pampering with pets.

Unfortunately, many vegetarians may start off fine, but sooner along the road, they are going to run into health problems.

And for kidney problems, it ain't the proteins that's hard on the kidneys. Look, Vegtable protein is the same as animal protein. There are studies done that animal protein does not hurt your kidneys or even your heart. There were 80 or 90 year-old people who ate meat, and despite that, kidneys were good as new. And there were vegetarians with kidney problems. But there's one major study show that people who ate lots of refined sugars, starches, and carbohydrates had more kidney problems.

And Many diabetics are prone to having kidney problems. What's the real cause of kidney failure? well, people say it's the animal protein. Well, it ain't. The real cause for kidney failure is sugar. When you constantly consume refined carbohydrates, all that sugar plumps into your blood stream. Your pancreas produces an excessive amounts of insulin and your liver produces LDL cholesterol. During that time when blood sugar is at a very high level, these sugars damages your lining of your arteries that are in your kidneys, and also damage your kidney cells.

A high amount of uric acid in your bloodstream is caused by the failure of the kidney removing that uric acid from your bloodstream, because of the damaged filter system. You produce uric acid all the time, no matter if you are a vegetarian or not. The uric acid overload is a result of kidney failure, not the meat you consume. The difference between vegetable protein and animal protein is that animal protein contains B12 vitamins, as well as vitamin D3 and full-blown vitamin A. Fish contains long-chain omega 3 fatty acids (nuts, flaxseeds, and green leafy vegtables only contain short-chain ALA omega 3 fatty acids). This also proves that the eskimoes ate a lot of marine protein, and they were kidney failure free.

And once again, animal protein is animal protein, no matter if it's cloned or not. The real problem is the bovine growth hormones and antibiotics.

There are other ways to get a product labelled. Those that feel strongly about that, can seek that.

Plus, there can be optional labelling from those who don't used cloned animals--- a manufacturer would be bound to pursue this for increased sales. I know I use Laura's products because of the lack of hormones used and whatnot

Beware of Low-Carbohydrate Diets!
By Don Matesz, Nutrition and Wellness

Since low-carb diets have received a lot of media attention recently, many people have the mistaken impression that they provide the best path to fat loss. In fact, these diets don’t work well in the long run, fail to meet many human nutritional needs, and may promote degenerative diseases and premature aging.

Studies comparing meat-based low-carbohydrate diets and plant-based reduced-fat diets indicate that the low-carbohydrate diets might produce greater weight loss in the first six months, but beyond that, the plant-based approach works better. Although low-carb diets have been used for more than 30 years, the National Weight Control Registry database indicates that less than 1 percent of 2,681 people successful in maintaining weight loss of greater than 30 pounds for more than a year have used reduced-carbohydrate diets. So far, the most successful people have used carbohydrate-rich diets in which fats provided, on average, only 24 percent of calories.1

Compared to tubers, whole grains, fruits and vegetables, fat-rich foods provide eight to 45 times more calories per gram. Few if any people overate these low-fat plant foods, and the body rarely converts carbohydrates to fat.2,3,4 People can easily overconsume calories from fatty foods, and the body converts at least 95 percent of excess dietary fat to body fat.4 A 2002 research review found the scientific evidence strongly supports reducing dietary fat, not carbohydrates, as the best method for preventing obesity.5

Because they exclude many vegetables and fruits, low-carbohydrate plans undersupply several micronutrients (carotene, vitamin C, folate, magnesium) and fiber. They also lack the phytonutrients linked to the prevention of cancer, heart disease and other disorders.

The primitive Eskimos obtained about 90 percent of their calories from meat and fat from seals, whales, caribou and fish. They illustrate the long-term effects of low-carbohydrate diets. Despite many generations of low-carb eating, Eskimos did not completely adapt to it. Several scientists reported that primitive Eskimos suffered from diet-related liver enlargement. When Eskimos traded in some fat and protein for carbohydrates, their livers reduced to a healthy size.6

Although they had a remarkable resistance to dental decay and heart disease, Greenland Eskimos experienced a high incidence of hemmorhagic stroke, possibly caused by their high-fish diet.7,8 They also had a total cancer incidence similar to the Danes,9 among the highest in the world10 and linked to their high fat and protein intake. Eskimos also experienced the world’s highest rate of osteoporosis, despite ingesting at least 2,000 milligrams of calcium daily from fish bones. Their extremely high protein intake caused bone calcium loss.11

According to renowned anthropologist Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who lived with Eskimos for several years, they have an average lifespan at least 10 years shorter than Americans. Stefansson specifically noted that Eskimo women “usually seem as old at 60 as our women do at 80.”12

Research has shown that the acid residue of high-protein diets lacking adequate alkaline vegetables and fruits increases the risk of kidney stones and may cause scarring damage to the kidneys.13,14 This effect of a high-meat intake might be reduced by eating at least twice as many fruits and vegetables as meat, but then the diet wouldn’t be low in carbohydrates.

We produce enzymes for digesting starch and have taste buds designed to guide us to foods with a sweet taste. Our gut features haustrated small and large intestines and an appendix, characteristics of animals adapted to a plant-dominated diet. Our muscles and liver can store 400 to 600 grams of carbohydrates in the form of glycogen. For healthy function, our brain requires at least 50 to 150 grams of glucose daily. Starchy foods like sweet potatoes and whole grains (prohibited on low-carb diets) provide the most glucose.

According to the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), 78 percent of 247 studies investigating links between vegetables or fruits and cancer have shown that vegetables and fruits help to prevent cancer, while none have shown a negative effect.11 When Harvard scientists renewed the links between diet and coronary heart disease, they concluded that diets with an abundance of vegetables, fruits and whole grains provide substantial protection against CHD.15

The healthiest populations in the modern world consume high-carbohydrate diets. People in Okinawa eat a high (55 percent) carbohydrate, low (25 percent) fat diet. They have rates of heart disease, cancer, senility and diabetes among the lowest in the world. They may also have the world’s highest proportion of disability-free centenarians. The Japanese, Greeks and Kitavans eat similar diets and have rates of degenerative disease much lower than Americans.

From a Chinese medical perspective, low-carbohydrate, meat-and-fat-rich diets tend to burden the spleen qi and produce accumulation of damp-heat, stagnate liver and large intestine qi, deplete liver yin, consume kidney essence, and weaken the bones.

http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-04/features/inuit-paradox/?page=1

"says Harold Draper, a biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition, is that there are no essential foods—only essential nutrients. And humans can get those nutrients from diverse and eye-opening sources."

The entire article is worth reading Dr. J

What's the purpose of decreasing the cost of food production anyways? More profits for the agriculture industry. It does nothing for the general public, absolutely nothing.

How long before the cloned meat is 'accidently' added to the food supply? I once heard 'if you want to see how things are to be in the future, look at the track record (the person, company, etc.)has had in the past. If that is true, the price of cloned meat will be lowered so the poorest of our nation will be the 'human testers'. Again, without their consent.

The food will slip by unnoticed in some processing plant and by the time the food is consumed FDA will not have to make any recall. Afterall, it is expensive to recall anything, regardless of how dangerous.

I don't care if the food isn't dangerous or unsafe. I want the right to choose.

I grow most of the vegetables my family eats. I do this to avoid the GE foods that have entered most of America's diet.

As for ONE reason to be afraid of the cloning of our food sources...If (and I know it seems like a big if today) a disease should come through and wipe out all the same cloned or GE foods, many humans (and animals) would strave long before they could find new food to grow--be it animal or plant. That is assuming the plant and animal germ isn't lost forever as some have been.

I've studied the subject, written papers on it, and I do feel very informed. I know we can't stop the cloning. But what guarantee is there that the dying earlier, sickly animals, and many dead at birth problems will not affect the human eating it? Decades ago, the food chain was turned topsy-turvy when cows were fed chicken waste to gain weight faster. Shortly after that, cows were fed sheep meat waste. We have mad cow disease today. Nature isn't too happy about us trying to undo what it has taken millions of years to do. Is it too much to ask that FDA doesn't jump on the band wagon this time?

We are what we eat. That is science in it's purest form.

I found this link by "googling" fda cloned food comment
comment form at: http://ga3.org/campaign/Cloning

through this web form, you can email them directly to office@centerforfoodsafety.org

There is absolutely no logical reason for cloning animals. The only possible motivation is that some mega Frankenstein foods biotech company wants to sell their technology. If the fda approves this it would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the fda is corrupt.
sincerely,

As for reasons why we would protest....I will cite common sense. You don't just go off eating some unknown plant just because you are hungry do you? That plant (unlike this Frankenfood) may not hurt you. It may even be good for you. However, since you don't know the plant (for all you know it could be poisonous), you wouldn't eat it unless you had very good reason to, would you?

You are what you eat. Seems to me that whatever chemicals are used in cloned meat is digested in your system upon consumption. Where are the studies on the effects of child bearing mothers who consume cloned meat? Do they bear cloned or deformed children? There is too much unknown and I agree we should have the right to decide if we want to eat cloned meat.

I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm smart enough to know that we can not improve upon mother nature-- try as we may.

To me this is not a good idea. Our health has been compromised by corporations trying to increase profits. They tell us it's in our best interest, but that's just their way to blinding us to the fact that they are trying to make more money off us.

Our ethical standards have gone to nearly zero in the past few decades. I sure hope people start thinking and questioning the way we do things.