“We can't imagine that we can find out what theory means this kind of food is unsafe.†This unmistakable word of recognition comes from the mouth of Steven Foods, chief food safety expert at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). . He recently declared that food from cloned cattle, cloned pigs, and cloned offspring of goats is safe for human consumption. The decision was made not long after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced the same conclusion.
At first glance, this seems to repeat the controversy surrounding the emergence of GMOs in the agricultural sector more than a decade ago. At that time, an ambitious industry (headed by Monsanto, a pioneer of American genetically modified organisms) tried to praise the many benefits of this emerging food technology. However, radical groups and some media have said that GMOs are dangerous and not ethical. Although the scientific communities on both sides of the Atlantic agree that GMOs can be safely used, the political factors make it difficult to move in Europe.
Will the same series of incidents also appear on the issue of cloned food? Biotech companies are also slightly sloppy, just as Monsanto did at the time. James Greenwood, head of the biotechnology industry organization of the American biotechnology industry’s lobbying organization, once spoke to reporters. Thanks to the efforts of the industry, the six continents have now successfully cloned animals. David Faber, the leader of TransOva, a leading US company in this pioneering field, declared that this technology will help achieve “elite breedership†and thus breed animals with faster growth, better disease resistance, and better genetic quality. .
In contrast, for those who oppose the cloning of food, the FDA and EFSA's decision only means one thing: that monster food has already started. Since the researchers cloned Dolly Sheep in Scotland in 1996, these opponents have called thousands of people to sign the petition and dressed as cloned animals to protest. Immediately after the two most recent decisions, the anti-cloning community began to take hold. The “Friends of the Earth†immediately claimed that it was organizing a boycott of the stores selling the cloned food.
Notice the difference between the two so far, the entire incident is listening to a remake of the GMO dispute, which is still pending in Europe, although genetically modified organisms have become popular in the United States, Brazil, India, and other countries. The European Council may also veto EFSA’s scientific advice for political reasons—especially if its committee of experts responsible for reviewing the ethical issues of cloned foods declares that the technology will cause opposition. (Recently there were rumors suggesting that the final report will be released soon.)
However, there are three reasons why cloned foods do not necessarily suffer the same fate as GMOs. First of all, and regardless of all those radical arguments, clones actually used in food production are not particularly aggressive. As Joseph Mendelson of the US Center for Food Safety said, cloning animals for food production would become an "entry technique" that would inevitably inflict society's danger of cloning humans. This statement is impossible. convincing. Having a cup of milk from a cloned cow does not make you want to clone your child.
It is true that cloning can be used as a step in the production of transgenic animals, but the recently approved method does not involve genetic manipulation: it does not introduce any foreign DNA. According to one researcher, "It was like having a single twin, but it was not born at the same time. This means that cloning can be considered as a method used by animal breeders except artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization. In addition to the other tools, cloning has long been commonplace in plant breeding.Furthermore, it is only because milk and meat from future generations of cloned animals are sold instead of foods from cloned animals themselves. Cloning is still a rather difficult operation, and many attempts have failed. Catlin Gerslan-Laneoul, executive director of EFSA, admitted that “there are still some problems in animal welfare†but also believe that food safety concerns are Unfounded.Because only successful cloned animals can continue normal fertility, the FDA estimates that there is no difference between any food product from cloned animal offspring and normal meat and milk.
The second reason why cloned foods do not fall into the same dilemma as GMOs is simple: the food industry seems to have learned some lessons from Monsanto's incident. Although biotechnology companies engaged in cloning technology have performed very enthusiastically recently, they have prudently praised the U.S. government's decision to "voluntarily" suspend the production of food derived from cloned animals themselves. Different from Monsanto’s original attempt to ignore such issues, today’s genetic pioneers have deliberately avoided trade friction. They stressed that they are willing to slow down the increase in the number of cloned animals (for example, there are only about 600 in the United States), and stressed that they plan to mark and track all cloned animals.
The third reason that cloned foods can be popular—even in areas where European and other genetically modified organisms have been blocked—is straightforward. Monsanto's early genetically modified organisms such as the “anti-Rongda†seeds can reduce the use of pesticides and increase yield, which is beneficial to producers but does not bring any exciting benefits to consumers. In contrast, if the promotion of the cloned food industry is truly credible, foods derived from cloned animals may be more tasty, of higher quality, and even healthier. This is because breeders can use cloned animals to produce thinner, fatter, more even and tenderer meat, depending on the customer's preference.
However, this has led to an ironic contradiction. Although cloned food has so many advantages over genetically modified organisms, it may still encounter an unnecessary trouble. Since the cloned food industry was eager to avoid any criticism, it persuaded the U.S. regulators not to stamp any food that originated from offspring of cloned animals. They said that if they were allowed to sell cloned foods in the future, they would only label foods that were directly derived from cloned animals.
It can be imagined that critics of cloned food will of course express dissatisfaction. Ben & Jerry's company (which is a "socially responsible" ice cream company whose founder Jerry Greenfield appeared in the photo along with the protestors mentioned above) complained that the FDA's The decision not to add a logo "undoubtedly caused trouble for our supply chain." He said that his customers and some foreign markets would refuse to clone foods, but he is not sure how to prove that his dairy products contain no milk from cloned offspring.
However, proponents of cloned food may also regret not marking. Because if the steak made from cloned animals is indeed more healthy or better to eat, customers who want to buy at that time may not be able to identify them in the shop. If the cloned food industry is confident in the merits of its products, it should not worry about adding labels.
Automobile Parts Mould,Door Panel Injection Mould,Door Panel Plastic Injection Mold,Automobile Door Plastic Injection Moulds
Taizhou ANO MOULD CO.,LTD , https://www.ainomould.com