Deja Moo: Are we ready for cloned cattle? Noo!

----- Original Message -----
From: FAO-Dairy-Outlook To: dairy-outlook-l@mailserv.fao.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:09 AM
Subject: FW: Deja Moo: Are we ready for cloned cattle? Noo!

FAO-Dairy-Outlook is a service provided by the FAO Trade and Markets DivisionVisit our webpage: http://www.fao.org/es/esc/en/20953/20999/index.html

Dear DOL,

Interesting remarks [BELOW] from Food Navigator and George Reynolds of FoodProductionDaily.com

I have not read 'the scientific evidence examined by US and EU regulators [that] indicates a cloned cow is no different from regular meat'. (Tell it to Dolly the Sheep.) However, I have read reports on other genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and am not convinced - functional equivalence or not - that these technologically-adapted foods are as nutritious or safe to humans as their 'natural' forbears.

When I queried GM industry spokespersons in Brussels on the safety of recombinant dairy hormones (rBGH or rBST) in 1988, they admitted that rBST-enhanced milk bore more immuno-growth-factor-1 (IGF-1) than 'natural' milk. But they claimed this was a moo-oot point because all IGF-1 is destroyed in the stomach. However, Jeffrey M. Smith (book ref below) is among those who claim significant amounts of IGF-1 do pass the stomach and are absorbed in the intestines. Pinch me, or am I dreaming when I see more teen obesity in the USA since rBST was permitted in 1994?

I would be grateful if DOL-ers can alert me to another book as good as or more authoritative than this: Jeffrey M. Smith (2003) ‘Seeds of Deception: Exposing industry and government lies about the safety of the genetically engineered foods you’re eating’. Foreward by Frances Moore Lappe. 2nd edition. ISBN 0-9729665-8-7. Fairfield, Iowa: Yes! Books.

CLONING? Crucially, I argue that, as with GMOs, the arguments do NOT end on 'the single issue of whether food derived from GMOs is safe for public consumption’. So it is with cloning. The cloning debate includes not just human food safety, but also the biosphere including animal biodiversity, genetic robustness, social justice and other aspects of environmental sustainability.

That's just the beginning. We must also ask political economic questions like: Cui bono? Who profits from cloning? Farmers, consumers, economic stability - or a few investors? Will consumers buy milk from cows with spots in all the same places?

Much good has come from genetic research, and more is on the horizon. But, in my opinion, just because we can develop a technology inside the laboratory is no reason to deploy it commercially.
Sincerely,

Bruce Scholten
Durham University (UK)
**

FAO-Dairy-Outlook is a service provided by the FAO Trade and Markets DivisionVisit our webpage: http://www.fao.org/es/esc/en/20953/20999/index.html

Comments anyone?Michael
Source:
Food Navigator29/01/2007 - Here we go again. Yet another technology in its infancy is likely to be introduced into the food supply, while industry remains cautious and consumers divided.The issue over cloned meat is not one of health and safety – the scientific evidence examined by US and EU regulators indicates a cloned cow is no different from regular meat.Instead the issue the industry must now face is whether it wants to test consumers' acceptance of such a new technology, given the current concerns – and controversy -- over the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).Cloning may be safe and ultimately offer future benefit to the industry, but the controversy surrounding the entire issue demands that individuals must be allowed to make the choice of whether they want to buy products containing such foods.

This is why there is a strong case to be made that food industry organisations and politicans must now take immediate action to require labelling before the backlash grows.Labelling and a programme of education would put an end to most of the debate and take the fear factor being created by media headlines declaring cloning is creating a "freak show" on the farms – which harkens back to the “Frankenstein” language that was used to express distrust of GMOs.

One can already see the fault lines developing over the issue in the recent actions taken by US and EU regulators – a potential rift that could lead to the same consumer confusion that has arisen over the conflict between the two trading partners in the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).In the US, the regulator has issued a consultation proposing to allow cloned meat into the food chain without the need for labelling. In the case of the EU, regulators from member countries have said cloned meat – while safe – needs to go through its novel foods approval process as in the case of GMOs.And we know what happened to public opinion in Europe once the EU's food safety regulator began giving positive opinions on GMOs – approvals were blocked at the political level due to a consumer backlash.And the public is suspicious of cloned foods, because of the memories of past heath scares, the feeling that technology is being shoved down their throats without consultation, and a lack of understanding of the science involved.An independent study in the US indicates that 60 per cent of Americans would not knowingly eat cloned meat.

A 2002 EU survey found that Europeans were generally against any new foods that had been produced through new scientific advances – such as GMOs.A new tactic is therefore needed by the food industry.One could argue that the regulatory decision-making process begins and ends on the single issue of whether food derived from clones and their progeny is safe for public consumption.Theoritically and in practice, this is done by examining the scientific evidence and then making a risk-based assessement of the potential benefits and harm.

But once the regulators have finished with their part, the decision on actually introducing cloned food then enters the realm of politics, market economics and ethics.Railroading a cattle-train of clones into the food supply will simply serve to heighten fears and potentially cause a backlash against the food industry.George Reynolds is a reporter for FoodProductionDaily.com and FoodProductionDaily-USA.com. He has studied journalism and accounting.If you would like to comment on this article please contact george.reynolds 'at' decisionnews.com