First irridated meat and now ... cloned hamburgers?
Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration issued apreliminary assessment that said food products from cloned farmanimals appear to be safe.
I think the key word here is "appear." After all, how much do wereally know about gene-altered meat, eggs and poultry?
The answer is: not much. The FDA stressed that it wanted publicreaction to its safety assessment before granting government'sapproval for genetically-altered meat, eggs and poultry to beginshowing up in our grocer's freezers as early as next year.
But signs point to the likelihood that, within a few years, theFDA could very well okay such a move.
After all, both the FDA study and a similiar study last year bythe National Academies of Science optimistically minimize theimpact of cloning on animal health, citing that food products fromcloned animals appear to be "as safe as food that we eateveryday."
Perhaps as a precaution, the FDA did note in its study that itwould make sure existing food regulations did not permit malformedand unhealthy clones to be available for public consumption.
That statement may issue a small sigh of relief from someconcerned carnivores, but nowhere in the FDA study is animalwelfare, environmental safety or ethical questions to this practiceaddressed.
In an article last month by British-based Guardian Newspapers,Joe Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, voicedhis opposition to cloned food products.
"I think they [the FDA] have realized that consumers are goingto be concerned at this issue, and there is probably widescalepublic resistance to eating products of cloned animal," hesaid.
But will the public really voice its concern, or willgenetically-altered meat join a long line of other FDA-approvedbiotechnical foods?
An opinion poll conducted by the Food Policy Institute atRutgers University last month revealed that only 52 percent ofAmericans are even aware that genetically modified food productsare sold at their local supermarkets.
This is a frightening statistic when the Guardian articlereveals as much as 80 percent of the processed food on storedshelves is believed to contain components from genetically modifiedcrops.
So will the FDA require genetically-altered meat to be set apartfrom its convential counterparts with some kind of sticker,preferably one with a warning label?
It's hard to tell, but the Rutgers study does reveal the publicmay want such a label, especially since only 41 percent of thoseAmericans polled approve genetically-altered food. That numberdrops to 27 percent for those who happen to of approve animal-basedcloned products.
To boost support for genetically-altered food, Lisa Dry,advocate for genetically-altered food and director ofcommunications for Biotechnology Industry Organization, issued astatement to CBS News that read as follows: "Opponents ofbiotechnology claim that the crops and foods are not tested - butthe total opposite is true. There are in fact nine steps in theapproval process (which can take up to 10 years and cost up to $10million) where consumers and government regulators can "just sayno."
If that is the case, I think it's time for the government tobegin touting a new kind of "Just Say No" campaign.
Write to Gail at glkoch@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
