
The U.S. government ruled on Tuesday
that food from cloned animals and their offspring is as safe as
other food, opening the door to bringing meat and milk from
clone offspring into the food supply.
"Extensive evaluation of the available data has not
identified any subtle hazards that might indicate food
consumption risks in healthy clones of cattle, swine or goats,"
the Food and Drug Administration said in a final risk
assessment that confirmed preliminary findings from 2006.
The FDA, after reviewing more than 700 studies, said it did
not have enough facts to make an assertion about cloned sheep.
The ruling was the latest twist after years of debate over
the reproductive technology, which advocates say will provide
consumers with top-quality food by replicating prized animals
that can breed highly productive offspring.
The cloning industry, made up so far of only a handful of
firms, expects that it will be the offspring of cloned animals,
not the costly clones themselves, that would provide meat or
milk to U.S. consumers.
There are currently about 570 cloned animals in the United
States
, but the livestock industry has so far followed a
voluntary ban on marketing food from cloned animals.
Even as the FDA unveiled its final rule, the Agriculture
Department asked the cloning industry to prolong the ban on
selling products from cloned animals during a "transition"
period expected to last at least several months.
That ban would not extend to meat and milk from clone's
offspring, a USDA spokesman said.
It could take four or five years before consumers are able
to buy clone-derived food on a wide scale as animals are
cloned, mature and give birth to progeny used for food.
While the FDA findings are a boon for the cloning industry,
the topic remains controversial even among food producers and
is an unpalatable idea for many American consumers.
U.S. food companies are approaching the ruling gingerly.
Some dairy firms oppose cloning, betting that shoppers will
shun goods they see linked to cloning technology.
Several major food companies, like Tyson Foods Inc, quickly
stated that they are not signing up for cloned livestock, at
least right away.
CAUTION AMONG LAWMAKERS, PRODUCERS
Others in Congress and civil society believe more testing
is needed before concluding that cloning is safe, especially
with consumer confidence marred by recent food scares.
"The cloning industry's proposal is simply another attempt
to force cloned milk and meat on consumers and the dairy
industry by giving the public phony assurances," the Center for
Food Safety, an advocacy group, said in a statement.
The FDA will not require mandatory labels for clone-derived
food and will review "clone-free" labels individually.
The FDA notes that the ethical and moral implications of
cloning fall outside the scope of its findings. Critics, like
the U.S. Humane Society, say cloned animals born with defects
or prone to disease are proof the technology is a bad idea.
Greg Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for
Science in the Public Interest
, says the cloning industry must
now convince the public why cloning is useful.
"Just because the technology is safe, it doesn't mean that
as a society there is reason to embrace it," he said.
Jaffe expects Congress or some states may try to impose
additional restrictions on marketing or labeling.
A spending bill passed by Congress last year urged the FDA
to conduct further analysis, while the Senate has passed a
measure as part of a giant agriculture bill that would delay
FDA approval until more studies are completed.
"The FDA has decided to continue the alarming trend of
acting on behalf of political and corporate interests," said
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat.
U.S. cloning firms, including Texas-based ViaGen Inc,
believe the sale of cloned animals, which can cost upwards of
$13,000 each, will grow slowly in coming years.
The FDA cloning decision comes as biotechnology becomes an
ever more important part of global agriculture.
Just last week, the European Food Safety Authority made an
interim ruling about food from cloned animals and their
offspring, saying it was unlikely there was any difference from
food derived from traditionally bred animals.
(Additional reporting by Bob Burgdorfer in Chicago and
Maggie Fox in Washington; editing by Russell Blinch and
Christian Wiessner)