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.

‘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.

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).

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.