FDA Expected to Approve Clones in the Human Food Chain

The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to make a final ruling that clones in the human food chain don't pose any dangers to the people who consume products produced by them or their progeny.

According to the International Food Information Council, "favorable" impressions of animal cloning had risen to about 20 percent last year, up from 10 percent three years ago. I'm part of the 80 percent of people who don't find the prospect of introducing cloned animals into the food chain a favorable outcome.

In addition to my belief that not enough research has been done to determine the potentially harmful long term effects cloning can have on animals who have been cloned and their offspring-let alone the humans who may end of eating their meat or drinking the milk they produce-I just don't think making food production more cost efficient is a good enough reason to tamper with Mother Nature. An even bigger concern for me is my suspicion that the FDA and food industry advocacy groups will push to prevent consumers from obtaining information about whether the food on their grocer's shelves is from clones or their offspring.

I started buying organic meat and dairy several years ago. The factors that led me to go organic were: 1. The discovery of a cow with "mad cow disease" in the United States. 2. The revelation that the FDA allowed cows in the human food chain to consume downer cows-live cows that were not able to walk due to injury or illness. 3. My observation that my older daughter was developing breasts at an early age...I was personally convinced that drinking milk treated with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) had somehow contributed to this phenomenon. The fact that we immediately switched to organic milk and my younger daughter, who is only a year younger than her older sister, has not begun developing breasts provided me with more than enough evidence that my we made the right decision.

Dairy producers like Stonyfield Farms and Organic Valley, along with companies like Ben & Jerry's, who refuse to use milk and other dairy products from cows treated with a synthetic hormone designed to increase milk production have been fighting an uphill battle with the FDA and dairy industry groups over product labeling for years.

One cannot help but wonder why the FDA and some state governments would consider banning conscientious dairy producers from labeling their products as free of a synthetic hormone, not to mention why it does not insist on having those dairy producers who do administer rBST to their herds to label their products to that effect. The answer is of course: politics. Informed and knowledgeable consumers are going to reach for those brands that that are rBST when they have the opportunity even if it costs significantly more-I happily plunk down nearly $7.00 for a gallon of organic, rBST free milk because I believe it's worth it.

I believe that, as consumers, we should have the right to be informed if synthetic hormones, antibiotics, nitrates, nitrites, genetically modified foods and animals that are fed downer animals or clones are in the grocery stores where we buy our food...and we should have a right to know which foods are affected. If these products are supposedly safe and not discernible from their unadulterated counterparts, what is the problem with differentiating and identifying them to consumers? If the FDA, as expected, approves the introduction of cloned animals into the food chain, will it right? If the rBST controversy is any indication, I wouldn't count on it.