Growers and Grocers

The FDA has tentatively declared that meat and milk from cloned animals is safe (FDA release, NY Times article in the SF Chronicle, Washington Post article). A few commentators (The Accidental Hedonist and Life Begins at 30, for example) have attacked the FDA’s initial position to not require labels on products deriving from cloned animals. Although I agree that labels should be required on products deriving from cloned animals (and also on GMO products), because the FDA’s responsibility is food safety, the agency probably doesn’t have any reason to require a label if the scientific review panels determine that cloned food is safe. “Sundlof [the FDA’s chief of veterinary medicine] said that by law the agency could consider only the scientific issues, not consumer demand or the ethics of cloning.” (I’m not sure about the USDA’s regulatory authority and under what circumstances it could require a label. It would be interesting to see what USDA plans to do about cloned animals.)

Industry is interested in cloning because it offers the possibility of higher output, better quality, and lower prices for the consumer. But food is about far more than just safety, efficiency and price. Food is about ethics, taste and aroma, traditions and heritage, and concern for the natural world. Rolling Stone has a long piece about what happens when efficiency and cost are the only concerns.

Ideally, the U.S. Government would have an “Office of Food Ethics” which would have the authority to create a labelling system related to animal welfare and “big issues” like genetically-modified foods and cloning. But barring such a highly unlikely bureaucratic earthquake, consumers and producers will have to take matters into their own hands. The rBGH growth hormone for dairy cows provides a good example. The hormone is approved for use by all necessary agencies and labeling is not required, but many retailers (e.g., Trader Joe’s) and many producers (e.g., California-based Clover Stornetta) refuse to allow it in their products, and they certify that their milk is from cows not dosed with the rBGH hormone, and label it. Starbucks — a company which sells a lot of milk — is currently being pressured to buy only non-rBGH milk and the campaign is seeing some promising initial results. Other examples of consumer-driven labeling are “No GMO” labels (which I often see on tofu containers) and “cage free” labels for eggs (a label which needs quite a bit more oversight and definition).

Since the FDA has limited authority here, a better approach might be to pressure the big buyers. For example, writing letters to the CEOs of McDonalds, Burger King, and other large meat purchasers might have more impact because if McDonalds or the other fast food giants say “We will not buy any meat or milk derived from a cloned animal,” their producers will probably cancel any plans to use cloned animals or their progeny.

Congress — which controls the funding for the executive branch and each agency’s jurisdiction — also needs to hear what you think about cloning food animals and whether labels should be required.

The FDA is taking comments on the Cloned Animal Risk Assessment documents until April 2, 2007. Electronic comments can be submitted here, written comments may be sent to Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD, 20852. Include the docket number 2003N-0573 on your correspondence.