Clones, It's What's For Dinner
In the near future, meat and dairy products in your local grocery store may be the result of clones. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently determined that cloned animals are safe for human consumption. It’s more likely that consumers will eat the offspring of clones, however, as the original clone may cost anywhere from $10K to $20K. Furthermore, consumers may not even realize they are eating cloned products as there is no requirement for vendors to use a discerning label. Despite the FDA "go-ahead", consumers and food companies reacted negatively to the idea. "Both the animals and any food produced from those animals is indistinguishable from any other food source," said the FDA’s safety chief. "There’s no technological way of distinguishing a food that’s come from an animal that had a clone in its ancestry. It’s not possible." While permission to use clones directly in the market is new, animal cloning is a practice dating back more than a decade.
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- A Collaborative 3D Encyclopedia, by gnifyus over 4 years ago
- What Direction Does Your Cow Point?, by wyldeling over 4 years ago
- Fat is Neither Created or Destroyed, by VnutZ about 5 years ago
- Create Sperm From Bone Marrow, by VnutZ over 5 years ago


Print Friendly
Write an Article
Cloning around by NomadSoul
What I don’t understand is why they would to use a cloned animal instead of a natural one. I can only guess that proponents seek to clone the largest or most productive animals to get the highest possible return on their investment. I just can’t see how it’s cost effective, though. Not to mention the ethical questions (is this an ethical level of domestication or does it go too far?) and the health concerns—just because we can’t measure a difference doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It may turn out that we need genetic diversity in our food as well as in our ecosystem.
RE: Cloning around by VnutZ
Well … within the linked stories themselves, it indicates the clone will not be used for food. Rather, the clone’s offspring. I think the intent was if a favorably tasty animal were made, you could just keep making top notch ribeye steaks (for example) without hoping to get another perfect cow.
RE: Cloning around by Anonymous
I can’t imagine why it would "go too far"… Granted I don’t know the details of the cloneing process, but I’m thinking that those of us who are ethically OK with killing the animals won’t be too squeamish about how conception occurrs.
I don’t think we actually use the DNA of our food, do we? Just the proteins, which are basically the same for all (non-mutant) instances of a given species.
RE: Cloning around by NomadSoul
Regarding health concerns, I’m really just throwing possibilities out there. I suppose I’m just reacting to the thought of eating (what is essentially) the same animal over and over again.
As for the ethics—I definitely think it can go too far. There is an ethical difference between, say, hunting an animal that lives more or less free in the wild, and killing an animal that is born and bred in captivity for the sole purpose of being food. Cloning takes that a step farther—the animal is a commodity from the moment of conception. I think I’d be far more comfortable eating lab-grown blocks of protein than eating a living, feeling animal that was created strictly for the purpose of filling my stomach.