“Let Them Eat Clones!”
Posted on December 29, 2006
| buzz-it! | Huff it!
The FDA reports that the meat and milk of cloned animals pose no unique risks to consumers. Looking past my visceral reactions to such news I have to say that I imagine that on the face of the issue the FDA is accurate. I see no reason that a cloned animal that reaches maturity in good health would be any more damaging to the consumer than eating an animal that resulted from sexual reproduction.
The relative healthfulness of animal products that could be consumed today is not where the danger lies in cloning. The danger is in the implied intention to allow the mass marketing of cloned animal products. We’ve seen factory farming at work and know about the disregard for the animals’ quality of life. We’ve seen the willingness of the ag industry to push production to such levels that widespread use of pharmaceuticals and hormones are required both to sustain output and to suppress the disease that results directly from overproduction.
If business interests gain the ability to produce a consistent product through replication of relatively few genetic lines, and to do so in abundance with good profitability, there is no question what will be the choice of corporate farming. It could even be a relatively safe thing to do for a time.
But what if producers, over the course of years, specialize in animals that represent a relatively small genetic pool? There might be a small hedge with preserved genes in freezers or in some kind of “genetic farm animal preserve.” But what if the mass-produced herds come down with a serious disease that they can’t survive? Will anyone know whether the sample in the freezer will be resistant to the plague of the moment?
With genetic diversity the world has a hedge against the unforseen, including the adaptability of some genetic lines to environmental and ecological changes, whatever they may be.
We’ve already seen mass markets produce fewer and blander varieties of fruits and vegetables. Thanks to seed savers and the current prosperity, we have a market environment that seeks out unique varieties and a good many choices are stil available. There was a period, though, in the 1950s to the 1970s or so, when we sought homogeneity and convenience to the exclusion of many varieties. Thank goodness for the small producers and private gardeners that kept some heirloom vegetables viable.
There are still many concerns for protecting the diversity of our crops, especially for maintaining lines that have no genetically altered content.
Who’s to say what future social trends and economics will bring? There are some signs that suggest a future with less abundance. Future economics may not support the revival of old, nearly extinct genetic lines. The smart thing would be to maintain current diversity. Why would we allow corporate interests today to compromise future human and animal life?
In full disclosure, I’m vegetarian, so whether we eat cloned animals or not doesn’t directly affect me. I’m a realist though, and expect animal products to remain a mainstay of the Western diet. And anyway, some of my best friends are meat eaters. 
My interest really is as stated: to preserve genetic diversity. Also, I anticipate as we slide down this well-lubricated slope, present animal cruelty from factory farming will be multiplied.
Comments
Leave a Reply
