Legal Niches

FDA?s cloned animal decision ? the real victims

By jennifer

Today, the FDA released a report stating that meat and milk from most cloned animals are safe to eat. This report gives industry the green light for marketing cloned animal products, since it indicates that the FDA will not seek a ban on the products.

However, the USDA is asking the animal industries to hold off on selling cloned products — not because they might have some unknown adverse health effects, but because they want to “allow[] the marketplace to adjust.” In other words, they want some time to convince consumers that cloned meat is safe, to avoid a public backlash that might (horrors!) hurt the sales of animal products.

In addition, the FDA won’t require companies to label their products as cloned. And I’m willing to bet that, when the big companies start selling cloned products, they’ll file lawsuits to keep other companies from labeling their products as non-cloned, or to include something on the non-cloned label stating that “cloned meat is identical to non-cloned meat.” Just like Monsanto has done to protect the use of bovine growth hormone in milk.

I have no idea whether cloned animal products are more unhealthy than non-cloned animal products. Perhaps this will discourage some people from eating meat and milk. However, the real victims here are the animals, since the cloning process causes more harm to the animals than a natural reproduction process (not that the agribusiness’s reproduction process is very “natural” to begin with). Says an AP report,

[M]any attempts at livestock cloning still end in fatal birth defects or with deformed fetuses dying in the womb. Moreover, Dolly [the first cloned sheep] was euthanized in 2003, well short of her normal lifespan, because of a lung disease that raised questions about how cloned animals will age.

The FDA’s report acknowledges that, “Currently, it is not possible to draw any conclusions regarding the longevity of livestock clones or possible long-term health consequences” for the animal.

The FDA’s report includes a chapter on “Animal Health Risks” and acknowledges that some animals, particularly unborn animals and babies, do have an increased risk. However, I don’t think this consideration influenced the FDA’s decision in any way — animal interests are always sacrificed for any benefit, however minute, for people or corporations. The FDA’s decisions shows, again, that animal interests don’t play the slightest role in the decision-making process of government agencies, despite the government’s touted concern for “animal welfare.”

Full post as published by Animal Blawg on January 15, 2008 (boomark / email).