HSUS and Others Question FDA's Position on the Safety of Cloned Meat

November 18, 2003


	HSUS

An independent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientific advisory panel, as well as consumer and animal advocacy groups including The HSUS, recently questioned the FDA's draft risk assessment of animal cloning, which concluded that clones and their offspring are safe to eat.

The agency's first formal appraisal of the draft risk assessment, originally released on October 31, took place on November 4 during a public meeting of the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee. Several panel members claimed that more data are needed to support the FDA's conclusions on cloned food safety. Others expressed concern over the level of animal suffering that cloning entailed, and felt the FDA did not adequately emphasize animal health problems.

A cloned animal is a nearly exact genetic copy of another animal, usually produced by transferring a cell nucleus from the body of the "parent" to an egg cell that is put into a surrogate mother, who then carries the fetus to birth. Advocates of the process foresee producing genetic copies of prize cattle and other farm animals for use in agriculture.

But the health problems for cloned animals can be high. Many embryo clones spontaneously abort, and cloned cattle and sheep who survive are often 20% heavier than average at birth. Many of the animals have excess fluid in their organs or placentas, and difficult births are not unusual. Dolly the sheep, the first mammal to be cloned, was recently euthanized due to chronic health problems, a common issue with clones that demonstrates the technology's high failure rate.

Animal welfare advocates believe the draft risk assessment gives short shrift to the severe animal health problems that the technology causes. During the November 4 meeting's public comment period, The HSUS's Dr. Michael Appleby, vice president of Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture, called the costs associated with cloning "graphic."

"Even among bovine clones surviving to the perinatal stage, one third then died by the age of one year," Appleby said. He added that the report contained "misleading understatements," such as its contention that the number of live, normal births of clones appears to be increasing. "It is increasing," Appleby noted, "from very, very bad to very bad."

A lack of available research on cloned animals contributes to skepticism about the safety of cloned food. Consumers Union representative Mike Hansen claimed the FDA assessment failed to address the question of whether stress from developmental problems might result in the increased shedding of pathogens in the feces of animal clones. Such a boost in bacterial load could result in more contaminated carcasses entering the food supply. The National Academy of Sciences also noted this as a potential problem in their review of cloning.

Few consumers feel that the cloning of animals benefits them, noted Carol Tucker Foreman, director of Consumer Federation of America's Food Policy Institute. "Most of our members are opposed to having [food from cloned animals] enter the food supply." The Center for Food Safety's Joe Mendelson added that his organization's members "object to the presence of clones or progeny in the food system."

The HSUS's Appleby urged the panelists to carry out ethical analyses in addition to looking at food safety. He noted that a cost-benefit analysis of cloning animals for food would show that it is "monumentally unnecessary."

"The potential benefit of introducing this technology is effectively zero," Appleby said. "This country is already producing so much meat that the agricultural industry can only make a profit by exporting it. As for milk, in the supermarkets milk is cheaper than water. Society does not need cheaper meat and milk. It does need protection of animals, the environment, and communities."

In light of the advisory panel's concerns, the FDA has indicated it will reexamine the issue. The agency's next move will be to release the full risk assessment, followed by a 60-day comment period.

Information on the risk assessment can be found at www.fda.gov/cvm.

E-MAIL THIS PAGE

PRINTER FRIENDLY