Discussions
Rejection of ingredients from cloned animals
Posted by timethief • 9/05/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: animal products, cloning, food, food companies, food retailers, labeling, meat
This is a long post that requires careful reading and consideration before replies are made.
20 LEADING FOOD COMPANIES AND RETAILERS REJECT INGREDIENTS FROM CLONED ANIMALS IN THEIR PRODUCTS
Washington, D.C. , September 3, 2008 – The Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth today announced that 20 of America ’s leading food producers and retailers have stated that they will not use cloned animals in their food.
The companies include Kraft Foods; General Mills; Gerber/Nestle; Campbell Soup Company; Gossner Foods; Smithfield Foods; Ben & Jerry’s; Amy’s Kitchen; California Pizza Kitchen restaurants; Hain Celestial; Cloverland, Oberweis, Prairie, Byrne, Plainview, and Clover-Stornetta Dairies; and grocers PCC Natural Markets, Albertsons, SUPERVALU, and Harris Teeter.
The move by these companies represents a growing industry trend of responding to consumer demand for better food safety, environmental, and animal welfare standards.
“This rejection of food from clones sends a strong message to biotech firms that their products may not find a market,” says Lisa Bunin, PhD, Campaigns Coordinator at the Center for Food Safety.
“American consumers don’t want to eat food from clones or their offspring, and these companies have realistically anticipated low market acceptance for this new and untested technology.” This sentiment is echoed by General Mills in their letter to the Center which identified “consumer acceptance” as an important consideration with respect to the potential use of ingredients from clones in their products.
Kraft Foods expressed a similar position in a letter stating that although they defer to the conclusions of the FDA on the safety of ingredients from cloned animals, “product safety is not the only factor we consider in our products. 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.”
In May 2008, the Center for Food Safety began reaching out to companies involved in the production, use, and sale of meat and milk products, regarding their position on the use of food from clones. In response, three of the top-earning food manufacturing companies indicated that they will not be using ingredients from clones or their offspring.
Kraft Foods, North America ’s second largest food and beverage company, reported revenue of approximately $37.2 billion in 2007, with products such as Cracker Barrel, Cool Whip, Velveeta, Oscar Meyer, and Philadelphia Cream Cheese.
General Mills, another leading American food processing company, with brands that include Pillsbury, Betty Crocker, Totino’s, Yoplait and Haagen-Dazs, reported revenue of approximately $12.4 billion in 2007. Gerber/Nestle, a top international food manufacturing company and leader in baby food and infant formula production, whose brands include Carnation, Toll House, Lean Cuisine, and Stouffer’s reported approximately $121 billion in revenue in 2007; Bringing their total revenue for 2007 to $170.6 billion.
Ben & Jerry's Social Mission Director, Rob Michalak, told the Center for Food Safety “Cloning presents a host of complex social, economic and animal welfare consequences. The decision to approve clones for food use was rushed through, under the radar, without a proper, comprehensive review. As a result, we now need to establish a national registry and tracking framework so that people know where the clones are.”
Ben & Jerry’s, Amy’s Kitchen, Clover-Stornetta, Oberweis Dairy, Prairie Farms Dairy, Plainview Dairy, PCC Natural Markets, and Hain Celestial have gone one step further by stating that they would not use ingredients from clones or their offspring. The Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, and the American Anti-Vivisection Society are working to obtain more commitments of this kind.
In addition, Friends of the Earth has worked with top U.S. grocers to determine their policy on the use of cloned animals and their offspring in their food, and presented them with over 8,000 signatures from consumers who reject products made from these animals.
To date, Albertsons, SUPERVALU and Harris Teeter have informed Friends of the Earth that they will not sell products from cloned animals.
SUPERVALU, owner of Shaw’s, Cub Foods, Acme Markets, and partial owner of Albertsons, is the second-ranked grocer in the nation, with a reported 2008 revenue of $44 billion. Albertsons, which operates more than 300 Albertsons supermarkets nationwide, reported over $40 billion in revenues in 2006. North Carolina-based grocer Harris Teeter reported $3.3 billion in revenues, supplying upwards of 90% of parent company Ruddick’s profits.
“Grocers are recognizing that people do not want to eat food from cloned animals,” said Gillian Madill, Genetic Technologies Campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “Food safety authorities must also recognize this and – in keeping with their public interest mandate – enact labeling regulations that allow Americans their fundamental right to choose.”
The American Anti-Vivisection Society, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Citizens for Health, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Humane Society of the United States, Organic Consumers Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Interfaith Center on Cooperate Responsibility have sent FDA over 150,000 letters from their supporters who oppose the unlabeled introduction of cloned animals and their offspring into the US food supply.
This information was obtained from The Center for Food Safety, which is national, non-profit, membership driven organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On the web at: www.centerforfoodsafety.org
Discussion questions:
(1) Do you support the entry of ingredients from cloned animals into the food market with or without labeling?
(2) If so, why. And if not, why not.
User Comments
-
Whoa, thats a lot to read. Ill have to come back to it. But this is very interesting, I cant pass up the opportunity to talk about cloned animals, haha. I definitely be back.
buzz buzz -
1. No--I don't want ingredients from cloned animals in my food.
2. I don't trust the meat industry anyway (they are CRAZY!) and I don't trust the government either as far as this goes. I am not certain about the science they are using and as such, I don't want any part of it (plus it is just creepy). I don't eat anything but farm raised meat from local places where I know and trust the practice of the business.
3. Absolutely--I think that all ingredients from cloned animals (and otherwise, really) should be clearly labeled. -
"The move by these companies represents a growing industry trend of responding to consumer demand for better food safety, environmental, and animal welfare standards."
I didn't see where it explains how food safety, environmental and animal welfare are improved by excluding cloned animals. I can understand the visceral emotional reaction, but where is the science that explains the drawbacks?-
Hm...I don't know about you, but I generally don't make "I haven't seen any proof that it's not safe" my standard for eating something. If I'm walking in the woods, for instance, and I see a pretty berry and have no idea what it is, I presume that it is NOT food until I encounter evidence to the contrary. Why would the process be opposite in this situation?
-
-
1. Yes, with labeling so those who choose not to eat cloned products will not have their choice taken away.
2. I just don't see any problem with eating cloned meat. If it is as I understand it to be, it is basically the same as a "test-tube" fetus except the DNA that fertilizes(so to speak) the egg is take directly from the original animal in lieu of sperm.(nonsexual reproduction) I just don't see how that could be any different from eating a naturally born animal. -
Cloning indeed causes genetic alterations: the extraordinary rates of early and horrible deaths among cloned animals testify graphically to that. The FDA counters that a clone capable of reaching breeding maturity is safe, and that genetic alterations caused during cloning aren't passed to their offspring.
Some say the issue isn't whether its safe to eat. The REAL issue is when we have the same situation with crops as we do with livestock, where huge corporations OWN the DNA to certain disease resistant or impeccable specimens, then farmers have to pay quadruple the price to get these, and then the FDA bans certain disease treatments etc. so that you are almost forced to pay someone for the special DNA. Eventually (its what they did with crops) they might start making the clones sterile, (terminator genes) so you have to buy ALL clones at an extremely high cost to farmers. In the case of animals these corporations require farmers using their DNA to feed specific feeds (they own the companies) and use specific drugs (they own the drugs) too, as well as, contractual terms.
I'm sorry I don't have the time to go into this in any depth. Please use the net and find what's out there. www.thevarsity.ca/article/1899
serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f03/web2/mwilliams.html
feeds.wired.com/~r/wiredscience/~3/217183117/fda-dont-ask-do.html-
BTW the FAO has lots of information on farm animal genetics and bio-diversity that is worthy of reading. Here's a start but there's much much more. www.fao.org/Ag/magazine/0609sp1.htm
-
Well, that's a chilling thought. We could phase out real animals altogether. I hadn't considered that possibility, but should have. Earlier this week, I posted an article about the Department of Agriculture quietly preventing meatpackers from testing their cattle for mad cow disease. A conspiracy theorist might start to wonder about the possible connections...
-
-
Polybore can see a case for cloning in animal husbandry. However this has to be done sensibly. It is very important to retain genetic diversity in the livestock herd. Over use of cloning techniques would result in a lack of genetic diversity and a susceptibility to disease.
1. Lable it.
2. Polyobre thinks that it is unlikely that anyone will be eating cloned meat. However we may eat the offspring of cloned prime breeding livestock. The fact is that entire herds will not be cloned. -
I don't want to eat cloned food. I am glad to see that some of the major companies are rejecting it. What worries me is that I have heard that there are some ingredients companies don't have to disclose on their labels, and that political pressure could cause cloned foods to be included in that group. I do think we have the right to know what we are eating, so we can make informed choices. -
We are in a sad state of affairs. Corporations may own the patents on the DNA for cloned animals. That would make us the thralls of corporate shareholders. Cloned animals in factory farms owned by the same corporations, who also own the feed companies, and the drug companies who specify in contract terms what must be fed (only their feed) & administered (only their drugs) to the cloned animals may drive small farmers out of business and the genetic biodiversity may be lost. We may lose entire livestock breeds. Genetic traits like resistance to heat that many African cattle have and other genetic traits in other livestock may be lost to us.
At present most people do not understand the implications of losing biodiversity. Pastoral peoples who rely on their stock not only for food but also as a source of heat from dried dung may be so marginalized by the corporate competition that they may be disinherited of their lifestyle, their stock and reduced to abject poverty and www.pastoralpeoples.org/
Combine those potential losses with the spectre of arable food producing land being turned into biofuel producing crops and we could be facing a horrible future. Cloning and the ownership of farm animal DNA is a huge issue and most people are entirely unaware of the possible outcomes.-
With genetic modification of food, they usually isolate a specific gene. The gene that makes tomatoes red, for instance. They then ensure that this gene is expressed more clearly. It's very difficult to impact biodiversity in this way, if not impossible.
There are some cases where genetic modification was used unethically. Corn, for instance, was made infertile. Now you have to buy new corn seeds from the supplier every year, whereas genetically unmodified corn yields seeds you can plant again, although the corn plants themselves only last one year.
The big issue is not really the safety of genetically modified food, but the consumer resistance to genetically modified food.
-
-
Im for cloned trees for the de-forrestation problem. But I see how cloning can take out that evolution ingredient from our meat. But does that really factor in when its judged solely on eating? If we cloned and ate a prehistoric animal will it not still be nutrious and delicious for us. I dont know 'bout you guys but I would love to have a Tyrannesaurus Rex T-bone steak, a 120ounce monster that I could eat all week.
Its true that livestock would hit a dead-end in evolutionary gain with cloning and may even degrade the DNA strands to the point that they are useless after a certain amount of clones. Its a dangerous avenue to venture down for financial gain.
But if they find a way to clone some dinosaurs, throw 'em up on the grill. I'd be first in line to see what a valosa raptor taste like.
buzz buzz-
Domesticating animals already took the evolution factor out of our food long ago.
-
-
that's a lot of information. I usually sees you doing research and posting them on discussion forum. I adore you.
well if cloned meats are part of the plan to reduce starvation world wide..i just agree then. People don't usually ask is this meat cloned ? If i am hungry I just ate them...and let the body digest accordingly.. -
Yaiks no... Cloned ingredients? Come on, I'd prefer to eat sashimi instead...
Reason: it doesn't make sense. -
Do you support the entry of ingredients from cloned animals into the food market with or without labeling?
I'm not sure what is meant by cloning. As far as I know, animals may be genetically modified for food, but this is not quite the same thing as cloning.
I support the entry of ingredients from genetically modified and cloned animals into the food market with labelling.
If so, why. And if not, why not.
Because consumers have a right to know what they put into their bodies. I don't see why cloned/genetically modified food is necessarily dangerous to a person.-
Well, you said it as well as I could, so I'll just agree.
-
-
I don't believe in altering a foods ( including ingredients from cloned animals as food ) genetic history in order to increase the produce, Instead the Govt's could do with preventive steps and spending time How to avoid massive deforestation taking place around the world for reasons galore including rapid industrialization of worlds major economies like China and India. Save the Wild Life on the brink of extinction, invest more in alternative fuels to make the planet more healthier for our generations, if we are not going to have at least the basic of foods which are unmodified, then what are we going to have which is unmodified, already we see how much role fertilizer's and chemicals play in the farms produce which is all but perilous which I personally believe.
Now there is already talk of EU's reneging on it's climate change commitments citing the present financial situation, why am I talking about all these issues is because all these systems form our ecosystem, and if we are going to squeeze somewhere for our benefit then it would have an effect on some other aspect. -
I don't know how anyone who really thought about it could intelligently reject foods from cloned animals.
We've been eating cloned vegetable matter for decades. Every time you take a cutting from a grape vine, root it and plant it, you've produced a clone. Limbs from walnuts and navel oranges are cut from "parent stock" and grafted onto the trunks of other trees; seedless grapes are clones...without seeds, how else do you propagate them?
If the "parent" animal of a clone is healthy and suitable as food, why shouldn't a genetic copy of the creature be equally suitable? I can appreciate that some people are put off by the "ick" factor, but I don't think they should be permitted to dictate to the rest of us. Label it so they can avoid purchasing it, but don't withhold it from the majority of consumers because 8,000 out of more than 250 million don't like the idea! -
"Advantages include the ability to put genes into bacteria so that they can produce important molecules for us. An example of this is when we put the human insulin gene into bacteria so that we can produce human insulin for people with diabetes.
A second advantage is that we can put genes into things to make them stronger - like adding a pest repellent gene into corn prevents outbreaks of pests that eat the corn.
This advantage can also be a disadvantage,... if the gene ends up in all corn by cross-breeding, then the corn might not be suitable for human consumption.
If you are talking about whole organism cloning, then an advantage would be that if you had an animal or plant that was very rare (almost extinct) you could produce more."
A disadvantage to whole organism cloning is that we are not that good at it yet, and so they are often less fit than the original - shortened DNA.
tinyurl.com/3vvjnq -
"What are the risks of cloned animal products entering the food-supply?
The real problem is that we don’t know, but neither does the FDA. Our review of the FDA studies is very troubling. The FDA is relying on very little peer-reviewed research on the impacts of consuming meat and dairy products from cloned cows, pigs, and goats.
The Center for Food Safety has petitioned the FDA to use the process they originally said they were going to use to evaluate the safety of food from cloned animals, which are the same standards they use to review new animal drugs. The process they used for evaluating cloning could not even be used for a new antibiotic used in animals because the science is not adequate.
We know that cloned animals are born sicker and therefore require more antibiotics. We also know that cloning can create chromosomal abnormalities and problems with gene expression. In addition, there’s reason to question whether products from cloned animals can cause allergic reactions. These are all issues the FDA review process has not addressed.
Another problem from a food safety perspective is the overall health of cloned animals. About half of the cloned animals die unexpectedly and the scientists can’t tell us why. They look healthy but then they suddenly die. Sick animals cannot be put into the food system, but if they don’t look sick, then they can and will go into the food system. We need multigenerational studies to understand why cloned animals are so unhealthy and whether these problems pose any kind of health risks for human consumption. "
tinyurl.com/3v8f66 -
Off the Topic: "The credit crisis can be used to make progress in a new direction, an opportunity for global green economic growth," de Boer, who heads the Bonn-based UN Climate Change Secretariat, told a news conference.
"The credit crunch I believe is an opportunity to rebuild the financial system that would underpin sustainable growth ... Governments now have an opportunity to create and enforce policy which stimulates private competition to fund clean industry."
www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/10/10/afx5538264.html
De Boer said a successful outcome to climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009 would create new markets, investment opportunities and job creation.
But he warned that 'if available global capital is used primarily to refloat the financial world, we literally will sink the futures of the poorest of the poor.
'And I hope that the credit crunch will not mean that people in the South will have to wait for those in the North to have repaid their credit card debts and mortgages before attention is again turned to the South.'
Without reaching out a hand to developing countries, it would be very difficult to make advances on the rest of the environmental agenda, De Boer said.
Environment ministers will meet in two months' time in Poznan, Poland, to prepare for the Copenhagen summit, which is due to agree on a new global-warming accord to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
