-By Phil Lempert

Can you imagine stepping up to a supermarket meat counter and being asked to choose from among ground beef that's natural, cloned, or transgenic?

In January, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that food from the healthy clones of cattle, swine, and goats is as safe to eat as food from noncloned animals. FDA said it came to this conclusion after years of detailed study. But even with such government reassurance, many consumers are still concerned about the safety of food that comes from cloned animals.

The religious, ethical, and scientific debates on cloning flared up in 1996, when the world was introduced to Dolly the sheep, the first cloned animal. And although the idea of cloning for some is still disturbing with regard to the balance of nature, the most important issue at hand (at least in our opinion) is whether cloned meat is safe for human consumption.

The current debate is about business and profits, as some farmers and research studies are pushing for the government and public to embrace the technology.

Do we really need to clone animals for food? Some believe the breeding of cloned "supercows" could bring such benefits to consumers as leaner meat and more nutritious milk. But the truth always lies in the action, not the hype.

For example, hog farmers did an exceptional job of producing hogs that were less fatty and more nutritious by changing their feed, not by cloning the perfect specimen. As a result, pork earned a brand-new image as the "other white meat," and sales increased.

Scientists suggest cloned animals could be more resistant to disease, and might yield healthier food. The Pew Institute of Food and Biotechnology, an independent agency that helped FDA review the issue, reports that cloned animals are no different from their conventionally bred counterparts.

It's important to note that cloning doesn't mean animals popping out of test tubes fully formed; cloned animals are born just like other animals. Think of clones as identical twins, but born at different times. As in other assisted reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination, embryo transfer, and in vitro fertilization (all methods that have been used in livestock since the 1950s), a male and female parent each contributes half of his or her genes to an offspring. When a farmer determines that this offspring contains the desired traits for passing on to the herd, that offspring's genetic material is added to an immature egg. The resulting embryo is then implanted in the uterus of a surrogate, and later delivered as a new baby.

To breed, not to eat

Consumers worry that animals are being cloned for the sole purpose of becoming part of our food supply, but the reality is that animals are mainly cloned for the purpose of breeding stock. These animals are then used in conventional breeding, and the resulting offspring become animals for food production.

After FDA lifts the existing voluntary moratorium on sales, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would work with industry professionals to plan an orderly market transition. According to the International Food Information Council (IFIC), once that moratorium is lifted, it could take as long as three to five years for the products to get to market.

Once it gets there, the FDA wouldn't require any special labeling to indicate it can be traced back to a cloned animal. Labeling would only be required when the nutritional content of an item is changed, or if a potential allergen is added.

The FDA believes that "clone" labels could confuse consumers because of the implication that there were nutritional or safety differences between products derived from clones and products from conventional animals.

The FDA stance on labeling is a mistake, with long-term implications. We say that labeling would eliminate confusion, and give people the right to choose. A majority of consumers -- 53 percent, according to a recent IFIC study -- say they're unclear as to what animal cloning actually involves, and it has become increasingly important that we educate shoppers in this area.

Meanwhile, many U.S. retailers, including Kroger, Safeway, and Whole Foods, have publicly stated they won't sell cloned animal foods. The question is, without mandatory labeling, how will they know exactly what they’re selling?

What do you think? Should grocers sell cloned meats and other dairy products? Should labeling of cloned foods be mandatory? Send me an e-mail at PLempert@SupermarketGuru.com.


EXCLUSIVE WEB CONTENT

Don’t send in the clones just yet

Do you think it is okay to clone animals?
No        82%
Yes      18

Would you feel comfortable consuming food such as beef or milk that came from a cloned animal?
No        84%
Yes      16

Do you think food products that come from cloned animals should be labeled as such?
Yes      95%
No          4

Source: SupermarketGuru.com Consumer Panel Survey, February 2008; 1,756 responses, 72 % female, from all U.S. states except Hawaii