Bioethicist Art Caplan writes on msnbc.com that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision yesterday (see my
earlier post below) is not nearly enough to persuade consumers to accept cloned food products:
There is no reason to doubt the FDA's science. It is as careful a review as possible. The agency reviewed dozens of studies from around the world without finding any evidence that meat or milk from cloned animals is in any way biologically distinguishable from meat and milk from any other animal.
So is the debate over the use of cloned animals for food now over? Hardly.
We don't choose what we eat based on science. If we did, we would not be in the middle of an obesity epidemic.
Food is about emotion. Food producers, manufacturers and sellers know that very well. That is why cookies are sold by elves, biscuits by a doughboy and oatmeal by an 18th century Quaker.
The food industry is not going to like the emotions surrounding cloning.
A survey conducted last year by the International Food Information Council found that only 22 percent of U.S. consumers had a favorable view of animal cloning. The proportion of people who said they would eat cloned animals if it were approved by the FDA rose to 46 percent. Still, not a number likely to bring a smile at Hormel, Jimmy Dean, Dannon, Kraft, Von's, Giant or Nestle.
Cloning has gotten a bad rap in American society. It is the best means for scaring the daylights out of the American public short of making a movie or TV show about terrorism. ...
All of this fear-mongering about clones has made Americans forget that cloning is nothing more than artificially creating twins. It has made us forget that every drop of wine we drink comes from cloned grapes. It has made us ignore the fact that if you want to worry about what you are eating, you'd be better off wondering if the FDA has enough inspectors at meat plants looking for salmonella and E. coli.
When you consider the FDA's track record on approving substances...
