When asked to comment on the possibility of the presence of clone derived products in packaged foods, the manager of Harvard Market, a Stadium Village area convenience store declined, explaining, “I just don’t see that happening within the next ten years.”

A casual skim through the contents of several biotechnology companies’ websites (Trans Ova Genetics, ViaGen and Cyagra, just to name a few) tells a different story. “Trans Ova Genetics has offered cloning technology for both pharmaceutical and agricultural purposes for the past seven years,” explains the Trans Ova website’s Q&A section, “Cloning has been a successful tool for those clients who have chosen to create genetic twins of their elite cattle.”

Harvard Market’s manager is not alone in her sentiment; today’s generation is disenchanted by promises of science fiction. Hopes for flying cars and robot apocalypse have been dashed, and the idea of a clone army (a viable threat in the 90’s) no longer elicits much concern. The Food and Drug Administration’s Jan. 15 announcement of their approval of meat and milk from cloned cows, pigs, and sheep for human consmption has largely fallen on deaf ears, “Did you say clones?” asked Dana Kabitzke, employee of Harvard Market convenience store, “I had no idea.”

Cloning for agricultural purposes is done by Somatic Cell Transfer, a technique surprisingly simple to explain. The nucleus of an animal’s reproductive cell contains only half of the genetic information (DNA) of a regular cell. A complete set is produced upon fertilization. In SCT, DNA is flushed out of an unfertilized egg cell and replaced with a complete set of DNA extracted from the donor, that is, the animal being cloned. The zygote is then implanted in a female animal and, in theory, the process proceeds like a regular pregnancy.

At this point, the price tag for a single clone is between $10,000 and $20,000, which would make for some extraordinarily expensive burgers. Since it is uneconomical for farmers to clone animals for slaughter, livestock is usually cloned for breeding purposes. According to Trans Ova, “Cloning allows breeders to copy or replace special individuals that may have been lost too early in their breeding careers, or to increase the genetic impact of existing superior individuals.”

Before Jan. 15, the FDA had a voluntary ban in place on agricultural cloning. This ban was loosely interpreted, and several biotech companies openly admit to selling semen from cloned bulls. “It is likely that there is meat from the offspring of clones in your grocery cart already,” sayd Jaydee Hanson, policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety (a lobbyist organization).

But is a cloned animal, or the offspring of a clone, safe to eat? The FDA’s research deals with milk and meat derived directly from clones, with the implication that products from the offspring of clones is also safe to consume. According to the FDA’s risk assessment, “There is no current evidence that food products derived from adult somatic cell clones or their progeny present a food safety concern.”

Many disagree. “[The FDA’s] studies are flawed and narrow is scope,” explained Jillian Madill from Friends of the Earth – a Washington based nonprofit advocacy organization, “serious health risks have not been evaluated adequately.”

Madill points out the low sample size and short time span of the studies. There are only about 600 cloned animals in the United States and the technology itself has only been developed recently. “They don’t know the long term consequences,” said Madill.

Hanson is also concerned. “There have been a number of peer reviewed studies,” said Hanson, “but not on what counts – which is food safety.”

According to Abel Ponce, the University of Minnesota’s School of Agriculture’s dean, further research about the health effects of cloned meat is unnecessary because the meat from a clone is genetically identical to the meat from its donor, and therefore has identical health effects. “Genetic variation among clones is zero,” explained de Leon, who studied cloning for his doctoral project at the University of Massachusetts. “I agree with the outcome of the studies,” he said, “they have looked at the facts.”

According to Hanson, however, the FDA’s risk assessment’s latest version acknowledges the fact that clones are not quite identical copies of their donor animals. This discrepancy is due to mitochondrial DNA, small strands of which remain in the mitochondria, or power source, of an egg cell even after its nuclear DNA is removed.

Possible health risks of consuming cloned animals are unknown, Madill speculates about cancer and degenerative disease. Many scientists insist that there is no additional risk, “If you make me a steak out of a cloned animal, I’ll eat it,” assured de Leon.

There are other various causes for debate surrounding the issue. “Although the health aspect [of this issue] is important, it is a very small piece of the puzzle,” explained Madill.

One important aspect is the issue of animal rights. “[Cloning involved] creating things that wouldn’t exist in nature and putting them through unnecessary harm,” said Madill.

According to Hanson, only 5-10 percent of clones implanted in a female animal survive past the first few weeks of life. Many of the surviving clones have medical issues such as Large Offspring Syndrome, which affects about 1/2 of the clones and only about 1/7,500 of regular animals. The FDA’s Risk Assessment skirts this issue: “Currently, it is not possible to draw any conclusions regarding the longevity of livestock clones or possible long-term health consequences associated with cloning due to the relatively short time that the technology has existed.” Supporters of the FDA’s decision say that cloning is not less ethical than other reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination.

Other concerns revolve around the fact that, as with global warming, there is potential for unpredictable effects. “We are taking nature into our own hands and directing it in a way we don’t understand,” warned Madill, “we’re messing with the very basics of life – which is very dangerous.” Some possible concerns include downstream ecological effects due to a decrease in biodiversity, negative economic effects on small farmers, and the threat of human cloning and the emergence of a superior race.

De Leon has simple answers to these concerns, in response to a question about human cloning he said, “I am optimistic that [cloning] is not going to be used that way.” He said he feels that cloning is a natural progression from animal breeding, something humans have been doing for hundreds of years and that there is nothing particularly mysterious or sinister about the procedure. “Science is one thing, politics is another,” he added.

The two major political organizations involved in deliberations are the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture. Although these two agencies are typically in agreement, the cloning issue has created a rift between them. The FDA has approved cloned meat and milk quickly, but the USDA is hesitant to follow suit. One of the main reasons behind the USDA’s indecision about cloning in agriculture is the fact that the U.S. is a major exporter of meat to Europe and Asia, and the USDA is afraid that other governments will respond unfavorably to cloned meat. According to Hanson, the fast rate of approval of cloned meat by the FDA may be due to conflicts of interest involving members on the research committee’s peer review board. Hanson says he has a very low opinion of the FDA’s risk assessment of cloning: “We basically think the FDA has employed the classic B student trick,” he said, “if you don’t have good results, make your paper longer.”

One particular part of the FDA’s decision has received a considerable amount of backlash: their failure to require special labeling for meat or milk derived from clones and their offspring. “If people are okay with [cloning], that’s fine,” said Kabitzke, “but as a consumer, you are entitled to know about something like that.”

That sentiment has echoed around the country, “labeling is a step in the right direction,” declared Madill.

The trouble with labeling is the only way to enforce it successfully would require the development of a DNA database which would allow any piece of meat to be tested and tracked. “Science should progress,” said Madill, “but we would like to see FDA regulation to ensure human and animal safety.”

So far, the FDA has been unwilling to take on the daunting task of creating a meat database, but politicians and lobbyists are working on congressional bills to address the issue.

According to Hanson, several large corporations have already announced their plans to stay away form meat and milk derived from clones. Among these is the Minnesota company that brings you Spam: Hormell. However, if you want to be absolutely certain that your food is clone free “go organic,” advises Hanson.

In the end, it is the customers who will decide. “Consumer pressure is our biggest and strongest tool,” stated Madill.

Hanson says that he could see himself supporting the FDA’s decision if it were backed by more thorough and reliable research. De Leon said that if the public wants more research, they should be given more research, “we are not in the position of creating a conflict, we are all here to solve the issues,” he said, “the dialogue on understanding what cloning is needs many more conversations.” The decision rests in the hands of meat and milk consumers, if they are willing to wake up to today’s brave new world and participate in the conversation.

Tags: Science