Oh No! We’re Eating the Offspring of Clones!
In a class I'm teaching right now, we've been talking about the nature of science and also about the common misconceptions, misunderstandings, and simple ignorance that pervades our mainstream media. Yesterday, I ran across this article on Reuters: Clones' offspring may be in food supply: FDA.
The first line:
Food and milk from the offspring of cloned animals may have entered the U.S. food supply, the U.S. government said on Tuesday, but it would be impossible to know because there is no difference between cloned and conventional products. (emphasis mine)
I think this is a perfect example of how issues of real scientific import become muddled sometimes by skimpy reporting and usually by a failure of most American readers to actually understand the complexities of scientific issues (even when these issues may have direct impacts on their own lives and health).
The article itself isn't that bad - it does mention that:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in January meat and milk from cloned cattle, swine and goats and their offspring were as safe as products from traditional animals.
Don't get me wrong, there are many, many issues still left to be studied and understood regarding genetically-modified organisms, as well as issues related to animal rights, biodiversity, and economics with regards to cloned animals.
But when your reporting says things like
"It worries me that this technology is out of control in so many ways," said Charles Margulis, a spokesman with the Center for Environmental Health. The possibility of offspring being in the food supply "is just another element of that," he said.
it tends to strike me as a bit fear-mongering and I can instantly see a thousand people reading this one line and abruptly turning their minds off to the possibilities. "Oh no. It's out of control. We've gotta stop it all now. Stop the research. What am I eating? Stop playing God. Stop!"
I am not trying to argue the position that "we should eat cloned cattle" - mainly because the benefits aren't that clear to me (it seems mostly economic at this point). But I DO know that, as the article states, the offspring of a cloned animal is identical to it's "parent", as far as its chemical makeup and safety. I find too often in the media that the technologies of genetically modifying organisms and the relatively simpler technology of cloning are confused with one another. Adding genes or changing genes in an organism is a far different beast from simply creating a new animal using the genetic material of another. The FDA cannot tell cloned animals apart because there is no difference. From a health standpoint, there is no reason whatsoever to eschew ingredients from the offspring of cloned animals.
I think that there are many potential and amazing opportunities to be found in modifying organisms - for food nutrition, for medicine, for things like sustainable energy production (though I am less than enthusiastic about the modifications being done for herbicide and pathogen resistance). However, much research needs to be done still, especially with things like lateral gene transfer from crops to the environment. The important point is that I think the public needs to become much better informed about the specifics of these technologies.
The article states
"We must also carefully consider additional factors such as consumer benefits and acceptance ... and research in the U.S. indicates that consumers are currently not receptive to ingredients from cloned animals," she said.
Why aren't consumers receptive to cloned animal ingredients? It's certainly not because of a sober look at potential impacts to biodiversity and animal rights, as examples.
No it's because they don't really know what it means. It's gut instinct. "Frankenfood." FEAR
(FYI: The title is intentionally ironic)
Update: Some posted the original article on Digg. The poster said "I don't want to eat meat anymore". The first commenter said:
"If this meat is no different than conventional meat, why don't we just throw is dogs and cats into the food supply and solve the stray problem. They are after all meat also and are considered delicacies in many parts of the world."
Somehow he got from "there is no difference between offspring of a clone and the original" to "scientists claim all meat is identical", or something like that.
Sad.
October 13th, 2008 - 23:45
“the offspring of a cloned animal is identical to it’s “parent”, as far as its chemical makeup and safety.”
This sentence is confused. We have several groups of animals:
1. The normal genetic donors that provides a nucleus for SCNT.
2. The normal egg donors into which the nuclei are transferred.
3. The clones, which will suffer from a variety of epigenetic problems.
4. Offspring of the clones, which generally do not share the problems of their clone parents.
None of these groups are identical in chemical makeup to any of the others.
October 14th, 2008 - 00:48
What I mean is, from the standpoint of the meat obtained from such animals, they are biochemically equivalent.
That is to say, they do not contain transgenes or any added molecules. From a food safety standpoint they are identical.
I am VERY well aware of the difference between the hosts, donors, first clones, and offspring of clones. I am also well aware of the high incidence of birth defects of cloned animals. Thanks for the lesson.
My statement was meant to compare the host meat, with meat from the offspring of clones, which is identical (in the way that meat from any two different cows is identical – NOT in absolute terms, obviously).
October 14th, 2008 - 01:01
“I am VERY well aware …Thanks for the lesson.”
No offense intended, I didn’t mean to imply that you don’t understand it, just that it was unclear.
‘Precautionary principle’ types argue that the epigenetic issues might cause some unknown negative effects, and if readers see claims that clones are identical to the donor animals from scientists, and then Green arguments about birth defects, they are more likely to buy into the latter than if the distinction (and the fact that the differences fade in the next generation) had been made clear originally.
October 14th, 2008 - 09:10
Agreed.
I think the point that needs to be made is that – yes, nuclear transfer technologies result in some defective embryos and animals – but those are discarded. Only healthy animals are used for breeding.
Of course they could argue til the cows come home that some lingering unknown dangers exist. But once a cloned line has gone through the germline, most if not all epigenetic problems should be gone as the nuclei are reprogrammed into gametes and then into a zygote, etc. Unfortunately I don’t think there’s anyway to explain epigentics to the lay-burger-eaters.