According to the FDA, all is clear for ‘clone, clone on the range’
by Steve Fairchild

At the close of 2006, the FDA announced that consumption of meat and milk from the offspring of cloned animals will be allowed. I listened attentively for outrage caused by the story, but didn’t hear much. And that’s interesting.

The rage is there, I assure you. Just sign on to the right Internet address and you’ll find it swirling—a gaseous blob of magma under the surface. Sometimes the stuff will burp sulfur and heat enough to push public opinion, but, so far, not this time. And here’s why.

The FDA said, “FDA does not recommend any special measures relating to human food use of offspring of clones of any species. Because of their cost and rarity, clones will be used as are any other elite breeding stock—to pass on naturally-occurring, desirable traits such as disease resistance and higher quality meat to production herds. Because clones will be used for breeding, almost all of the food that comes from the cloning process is expected to be from sexually-reproduced offspring and descendants of clones, and not the clones themselves.”

Gary Weaver, director of the Program on Agriculture and Animal Health Policy, Center for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy at the University of Maryland delivered the typical line coming from science.

“FDA reported that meat and milk from cloned animals and their non-cloned offspring are indistinguishable from those of traditional animals. In fact, the only way to positively identify a clone is to certify that it has virtually the same genetic material as another animal that is not its identical twin,” said Weaver.

The steak-eating public doesn’t know it, but a pack of straws and a little liquid nitrogen spectacularly transformed the nation’s beef herd genetics. Cloning speeds that process—yet to understand it is more cerebral exercise than your typical Outback customer wants.

A survey from Weaver’s University of Maryland framed the issue.

Some 92 percent of the respondents said that they eat meat at least once or twice a week. But 73 percent hadn’t heard that the FDA made the ruling. Some 63 percent said they’d keep buying the meat they buy if it were made known that it included meat from the offspring of cloned animals. While 35 percent said they’d stop buying. And yet, 66 percent of the folks interviewed said that, overall, they were uncomfortable with cloning being used to reproduce animals.

So the collective response was that people didn’t know about the ruling, though it was widely reported. That means they’re not paying attention. Will a vocal group rattle and wheeze until they’ve built a furor over cloning? Watch this space.

In the long run, this is an issue you must address. The opportunity to enhance animals through cloning elite cattle is tremendous. Producers can make better products in less time. Yet seekers of “natural” markets will eye that 66 percent of consumers who had reservations about consuming clone offspring. Marketers take note—one position will best resonate with consumers. The earliest and most accessible consumer campaign wins.

But what if some niche market heats up for a throw-back breed that’s nearly extinct—so close to extinct that cloning saves the day? Purveyors of “natural” specialty meats may end up serving clone burgers at the local Whole Foods.

Out of the muddle, one thing is clear: before you put down “clone-free” as a marketing position, you’d better be able to track your cattle.