Google
Pinoyagribusiness
March 29, 2024, 10:12:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
affordable vet products
News: 150 days from birth is the average time you need to sell your pigs for slaughter and it is about 85 kgs on average.
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Meat and milk from cloned animal is safe  (Read 571 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
nemo
Veterinarian
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6245



View Profile WWW
« on: April 02, 2008, 04:41:53 PM »

associated press
msnbc
updated 1:42 p.m. ET Jan. 15, 2008

WASHINGTON - Meat and milk from cloned animals is as safe as that from their counterparts bred the old-fashioned way, the Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday — but sales still won’t begin right away.

The decision removes the last big U.S. regulatory hurdle to marketing products from cloned livestock, and puts the FDA in concert with recent safety assessments from European food regulators and several other nations.

“Meat and milk from cattle, swine and goat clones are as safe as food we eat every day,” said Dr. Stephen Sundloff, FDA’s food

ut the government has asked animal cloning companies to continue a voluntary moratorium on sales for a little longer — not for safety reasons, but marketing ones.

USDA Undersecretary Bruce Knight called it a transition period for “allowing the marketplace to adjust.” He wouldn’t say how long the moratorium should continue.

“This is about market acceptance,” Knight added, who said he would be calling a meeting of industry leaders to determine next steps.

Regardless, it still will be years before many foods from cloned animals reach store shelves, for economic reasons: At $10,000 to $20,000 per animal, they’re a lot more expensive than ordinary cows, meaning producers likely will use clones’ offspring for meat, not the clone itself.

And several large companies — including dairy giant Dean Foods Co. and Hormel Foods Corp. — have said they have no plans to sell milk or meat from cloned animals because of consumer anxiety about the technology.

Labels not required
But FDA won’t require food makers to label if their products came from cloned animals, although companies could do so voluntarily if they knew the source. Last month, meat and dairy producers announced an industry system to track cloned livestock, with an electronic identification tag on each animal sold. Customers would sign a pledge to market the animal as a clone.

But that system is voluntary, and there is no way to tell if milk, for example, came from the daughter of a cloned cow.

“Both the animals and any food produced from those animals is indistinguishable from any other food source,” Sundloff said. “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.”

The decision was long-expected, but controversial. Debate has been fierce within the Bush administration as to whether the FDA should move forward, largely because of trade concerns. Consumer advocates petitioned against the move, and Congress had passed legislation urging the FDA to study the issue more before moving ahead.

“The FDA has acted recklessly,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who sponsored that legislation. “Just because something was created in a lab, doesn’t mean we should have to eat it. If we discover a problem with cloned food after it is in our food supply and it’s not labeled, the FDA won’t be able to recall it like they did Vioxx — the food will already be tainted.

“If you ask what’s for dinner, it means just about anything you can cook up in a laboratory,” said Carol Tucker-Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America, who pledged to push for more food producers to shun clones.

Fatal birth defects
The two main U.S. cloning companies, Viagen Inc. and Trans Ova Genetics, already have produced more than 600 cloned animals for U.S. breeders, the vast majority cattle, including copies of prize-winning cows and rodeo bulls.

“We certainly are pleased,” said Trans Ova President David Faber, who noted that previous reports by the National Academy of Sciences and others have reached the same conclusion.

“Our farmer and rancher clients are pleased because it provided them with another reproductive tool,” he added.

It was a day forecast since Scottish scientists announced in 1997 that they had successfully cloned Dolly the sheep. Ironically, sheep aren’t on the list of FDA’s approved cloned animals; the agency said there wasn’t as much data about their safety as about cows, pigs and goats.

By its very definition, a successfully cloned animal should be no different from the original animal whose DNA was used to create it.

But the technology hasn’t been perfected — and many attempts at livestock cloning still end in fatal birth defects or with deformed fetuses dying in the womb. Moreover, Dolly was euthanized in 2003, well short of her normal lifespan, because of a lung disease that raised questions about how cloned animals will age.

The FDA’s report acknowledges that, “Currently, it is not possible to draw any conclusions regarding the longevity of livestock clones or possible long-term health consequences” for the animal.

But the agency concluded that cloned animals that are born healthy are no different than their non-cloned counterparts, and go on to reproduce normally as well.

“The FDA says, ’We assume all the unhealthy animals will be taken out of the food supply,”’ said Joseph Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety, a consumer advocacy group that opposes FDA’s ruling. “They’re only looking at the small slice of cloned animals that appear to be healthy. ... It needs a lot further study.”
Logged

No pork for one week makes a man weak!!!
Baboy= Barako, inahin, fattener, kulig
Pig feeds=Breeder/gestating, lactating, booster, prestarter, starter, grower, finisher.
Swine Manual Raffle
mikey
FARM MANAGER
Hero Member
*
Posts: 4361


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2008, 08:45:28 AM »

Wednesday, April 09, 2008Print This Page
European Initiative Will Develop Livestock Health Technologies
EU - A range of new technologies including genetic modification (GM) and RNA Interference are being deployed to improve the health of farm animals in a series of European and global initiatives.



The ground was laid for a European platform to develop new treatments that exploit these technologies at a recent workshop organised by the European Science Foundation (ESF).

The workshop highlighted the interlocking themes underlying the debate over livestock disease research, following a series of high profile epidemics and pandemics over the last two decades, including BSE, foot and mouth disease, bird flu, and PRRSV (Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus) in pigs, coupled with the public relations problems facing GM technologies.

It was clear that new technologies under the banner of GM have the potential to provide disease resistance with huge benefits for human health, animal welfare, and the agricultural sector, but only if public confidence can be restored. The ethical and societal dimension therefore featured strongly during the ESF workshop, according to convenor Bruce Whitelaw, Head of Developmental Biology at the Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies in Scotland.

"There was a very thought provoking presentation by Kenneth Boyd (from Environmental Research Institute in UK) on 'what our conscience wants'. This was one of the scene setting talks and was intended to make us consider up-front the ethical debate," said Dr Whitelaw.

A major issue with GM was that it was deployed too soon with inefficient, inaccurate technology, and often for the wrong reasons, to benefit farmers and pharmaceutical companies rather than consumers.

But the technical limitations are being overcome through new methods highlighted at the ESF workshop.

"There was a very exciting presentation by Chamsy Sarkis (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in France) indicating the amazing new technologies and methods for gene transfer. The take home message is that soon we will be able to engineer the animal genome efficiently and in a precise manner," said Dr Whitelaw.

GM Directions
At the same time GM technologies are being redirected towards animal health and welfare, according to Dr Whitelaw.

"The use of GM in farm species has been to-date focussed on high value products (e.g. animal bioreactors producing pharmaceuticals in milk). In the future much more effort will be applied to improve the health and welfare of animals through GM technology, with a second important topic being the generation of more appropriate animal models of human disease to enhance the development of better disease intervention strategies."

There has already been some success employing GM techniques to engineer disease resistance in animals. It is now possible to produce cattle lacking the gene that makes the prion protein responsible for BSE. Calves produced this way appear to be completely healthy, suggesting that the prion protein is not necessary, or that it has back up proteins that perform its functions. Either way, there is a real prospect of eliminating BSE from cattle livestock.

In the case of viral disease, other techniques apart from GM may be appropriate. The huge potential of RNA Interference was discussed at the conference, whereby the ability of viruses to produce the proteins they need for replication from the genetic information encoded in their RNA is blocked. This could help prevent pigs from contracting the deadly PRRSV, or chickens from getting bird flu.
More Research Needed
But much more research is needed, and the ESF workshop helped bring together researchers with the relevant expertise in Europe. The workshop identified Europe’s leading position in livestock disease research, spearheaded by the Scottish Network of Excellence 'Development of Novel Technologies to Fight Viral Diseases in Farm Animals', which is a model for a possible Europe-wide consortium.

The ESF Exploratory Workshop on Genetic Models of Disease Resistance in Livestock was held in Edinburgh, UK in October 2007. Each year, ESF supports approximately 50 Exploratory Workshops across all scientific domains. These small, interactive group sessions are aimed at opening up new directions in research to explore new fields with a potential impact on developments in science.
 

Logged
mikey
FARM MANAGER
Hero Member
*
Posts: 4361


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2008, 10:46:39 AM »

Animal Cloning and Implications for the Food Chain
This report examines the potential issues involved with cloning animals for commercial industry, prepared for COI, on behalf of their client, The Food Standards Agency.


Executive Summary
Background
Animal cloning is an emerging technology in the EU (although already more established in the US), and there is potential that, if its use becomes economically viable, food derived from cloned animals will enter the food chain across the world.

It is thought that this topic is likely to encounter a significant amount of consumer interest as the technology develops. For this reason, the Food Standards Agency commissioned research to explore initial public perceptions of animal cloning and to identify what the key issues and areas of concern/uncertainty are, particularly in relation to food.

Research Objectives
The overall aims of the research were to inform the development of the Agency’s communication around this issue, to ensure that the consumer is fully informed of all aspects of the technology and to ensure that all areas of potential public concern are addressed when the acceptability of cloned animals for food production is being assessed in the EU and therefore becomes an issue more visible to the general public.

The research objectives addressed the following key areas:

Perceptions of current farming practices including breeding practices and views on cloning as an assisted reproductive technology
Levels of knowledge and perceived benefits of animal cloning
Animal welfare issues and other ethical concerns
Safety concerns in relation to food derived from clones and their offspring
Views on the need for, and nature of, regulation of animal cloning
Views on labelling of foodstuffs linked to cloned animals
Views on the role of the FSA in relation to this new technology.
Research Method
Given the complex nature of the topic and the evidence from previous research that public awareness and understanding of the issues are limited, a deliberative approach was adopted based on reconvened workshops, with participants taking part in two three hour sessions as well as carrying out their own background reading and research. The first workshop focused on current livestock breeding methods, an explanation of how clones are produced, how this technique can be applied to animal livestock breeding and the implications of this for the food chain. The second workshop focused on participants’ views on buying and eating food derived from clones and their offspring as well as the steps they thought should be taken if such food went on sale in the UK.

Four sets of workshops were conducted, one in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.


Key Findings
Current Animal Livestock Breeding

It was accepted that livestock breeders actively manage the process in order to ensure they breed from their ‘best’ animals. With the exception of artificial insemination, most people had not heard of the various forms of assisted reproductive technologies currently in use
In this context, most participants felt animal cloning represents a quantum leap from ‘giving mother nature a helping hand’ to ‘interfering with mother nature’ .
Understanding of Cloning and Perceived Benefits
Initial levels of knowledge about, and understanding of, cloning varied widely.
Participants struggled to identify any convincing benefits of the technique. They felt the only ‘winners’ were likely to be biotech companies, livestock breeders, farmers or food retailers and they were concerned that the main motive for introducing animal cloning was a pecuniary one. They questioned whether consumers would derive any tangible benefits.
Animal Welfare and Other Ethical Issues
As participants learned about the current low efficiency rates of the cloning method they became increasingly concerned about the implications for animal welfare. This became a significant factor behind their reluctance to accept food derived from clones and their offspring.
The research highlighted a number of other concerns that the public are likely to voice in relation to the use of animal cloning for food production. These included concerns about where the technology might lead (in particular, to human cloning) and whether mankind has the moral right to pursue such a course.
Underpinning many of their concerns was a lack of trust in the various players involved including biotech companies, scientists, livestock breeders, farmers, government, food manufacturers and retailers.
If the FSA, or any other body, wishes to be a credible and reliable source of independent advice in this area, it is essential that it is seen to transcend the needs and aspirations of these different players .
Safety Concerns in Relation to Food Derived from Clones
Opinions were shaped by previous events especially in relation to BSE/vCJD and GM food.
Many participants were concerned that cloning could result in food that was unsafe for human consumption. This was partly a function of the perceived high incidence of miscarriages and deformed and short-lived offspring resulting from the process. It was also because of a fear that the process of cloning might somehow create new diseases or affect the food in some way that will be harmful to humans.
There were also concerns that cloning might impact on food quality, consistency, uniformity and price.
There is a major mismatch between the methods used by regulatory authorities to assess food safety and the public’s perception of what is needed. Participants wanted to see methods for assessing food safety that were analogous to the approach used in clinical drugs trials.
If the efficiency of cloning can be greatly improved, this will lessen the idea that the resulting offspring may pose food safety concerns. However, unless the mismatch in perceptions about the required method of assessing food safety can be addressed, the public are likely to harbour major concerns that such food is unsafe to eat.
The Need for Regulation of Animal Cloning
If food derived from clones and their offspring were to go on sale in the UK, the research has provided a clear steer in terms of the steps that would help to increase consumer confidence. Irrespective of how participants felt about buying and eating such food, there was a high level of agreement about how it should be introduced and regulated.

This included:


regulations that address the entire process from animal breeding and welfare to food production and human health, including the import and export of clones, their offspring and semen/embryos, and food derived from such
some form of licensing not only of the process of cloning animals but also covering how such animals enter the food chain
an agreed set of standards and procedures coupled with proactive monitoring and enforcement
traceability of clones and their offspring.


Informing and educating the public about current regulations may help increase consumer confidence when coupled with (possibly) new controls on who can clone, how they do it and how such animals end up in the food chain.
Views on Labelling
There was a call for all food derived from cloned animals and their offspring to be clearly labelled - not just from a food safety perspective but to enable consumers to make an informed choice. The greatest challenge lies in working out how far removed an animal needs to be from a cloned ancestor before it is considered ‘normal’ .
Role of the Food Standards Agency
The FSA – possibly in partnership with other bodies - was seen by most as having a key role to play in the debate about food derived from clones and their offspring both in terms of setting and policing the rules as well as informing and educating the public.
Whatever its role, it is crucial that it is perceived to be independent and trustworthy.
Gender Differences
There was evidence of a clear gender divide. Men often took a more rational approach, were somewhat less concerned about, and more willing to consider buying and eating, food derived from clones and their offspring. Women seemed to engage at a more emotional level, often as mothers/grandmothers, and were more worried about animal welfare and food safety. As a result, they were more likely to reject the idea of buying/eating such food. Given the fact that women tend to be the main food shoppers in many households, their views on such food are likely to have the greatest impact on any future uptake.
Conclusions
The key areas of concern that participants expressed are summarised below:



Based on this research, if the general public are to accept the idea of buying and eating food derived from clones and their offspring, each of these concerns would need to be addressed.


Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

< >

Privacy Policy
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.3 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!