FOOD
Animal cloning
The future of how food is produced may involve controversial processes such as cloning
genetically superior animals – is this the way forward or a step too far?
A discussion on cloning often includes a
mention of Dolly the sheep. Why would
long as this. She didn’t enjoy the health
of the average ewe either. She suffered
Some have suggested that a clone’s body
starts off at the age of the animal they are
we diverge: the issues often centre
around those that Dolly’s life highlights.
After many failed attempts, Dolly was
the first animal successfully cloned from
an adult cell. Dolly was cloned in 1996
and died in 2003. She has now found her
final resting place as a stuffed animal on
display at the National Museum of
Scotland, Edinburgh, close to her
birthplace at the Roslin Institute, also in
from arthritis and a lung disease, which
more commonly occurs in older animals.
Dolly did not die of natural causes, but
was put to sleep because of her
deteriorating state of health. Dolly’s
‘parent’ was aged six when the cells were
taken from her and used to make Dolly.
Clones, strictly speaking, don’t have
parents as they are not created by normal
sexual reproduction, which requires a
cloned from. This view seems to be
supported by Dolly’s case, as sheep can
live to age twelve and Dolly died aged six.
Scotland. Dolly lived a short life of six
years. The average sheep can live twice as
female egg and a male sperm. Clones are
essentially a copy of an adult animal.
Copy–cat, calf, pig…and banana?
There has been much development in
cloning technology since Dolly’s debut.
Other animals have since been cloned,
such as cattle, pigs and goats. Although
AT A GLANCE
clones have been successfully bred, this
does not mean the technology is
without fault.
Food safety.
FOOD JULY 2008
consumer choice
Animal welfare.
Clones.
245
Useful contacts
UNANSWERED CLONING ISSUES
Food Safety Authority
of Ireland
Abbey Court
Lower Abbey Street
Dublin 1
Advice 1890 336 677
tel (01) 817 1300
fax (01) 817 1301
email [email protected]
www.fsai.ie
Useful websites
European Food Safety
Authority
www.efsa.europa.eu
European Group on
Ethics in Science and
New Technologies
www.ec.europa.eu/
european_group_ethics
Food Standards
Agency
www.food.gov.uk
US Food and Drug
Administration
www.fda.gov/cvm/
cloning.htm
There are many unanswered questions
and issues when it comes to cloning.
We highlight a few here:
Relatives of clones
If the parent of an animal is a clone, how
is the offspring classified - conventional,
clone or in some other way?
More research needed
It seems contradictory to conclude, based
on limited available data, that something is
safe. The characteristics of animal produce
(e.g. meat, milk, eggs) from clones and the
long term implications of their
consumption must be investigated. EFSA’s
draft opinion states that neither clones nor
their progeny have yet been studied for
their full natural life.
Traceability is vital
The same traceability rules should apply to
clones that apply for conventionally bred
Some organisms naturally reproduce
by asexual reproduction, such as the
starfish and some bacteria and fungi. The
product of asexual reproduction has the
same genetic make-up as the parent and
has been compared with clones. Identical
twins also have the same genetic makeup. But twins occur naturally in sexual
reproduction when the egg splits soon
after it is fertilised. The end product of
cloning has an identical genetic make-up
in the same way identical twins or other
organisms that reproduce by asexual
reproduction can have, but the process is
very different.
When we take a cutting from a plant
and grow another one from it, the
genetic make-up is the same, so the
plant is essentially a clone. Bananas and
potatoes are commonly produced in
this way. It can take up to 30 years to
grow a banana from seed, which is why
they are often grown from plant
cuttings. The same for potatoes, they are
commonly grown from ‘seed’ potatoes,
but not potato seeds.
This looks like a nice comparison that
justifies the extension of cloning from
the plant to animal kingdom. But plants
Report by
Aisling Murtagh cc
246
and animals are a different class of
organism that makes human
interference in their reproductive
processes throw up very different issues.
The same problems and ethical
dilemmas do not arise when cloning is
consumer choice
JULY 2008 FOOD
animals. Questions exist over the ability of
meat or milk from cloned animals to be
distinguished from other food on the
market. There is currently no reliable test
that can distinguish between them, but
suggestions have been made that a similar
test identifying GMOs could be used to
distinguish food that is genetically
identical.
Benefit – risk analysis
Cloning’s potential benefit is clear, but the
actual benefit is not. Do regulators need to
apply the precautionary principle?
Communication of new technology
Experts have expertise. But what is also
crucial is effective communication of their
knowledge. Polar debates are a feature of
discussions on new technologies. The
consumer needs honest and clear
information to construct informed opinions
and make informed choices.
“Eurobarometer
surveys in 1996 and
1999 have shown
that many
Europeans see
cloning as risky
and morally
unacceptable.”
applied in animals and plants. If a plant
produced from a clone develops
significant abnormality it does not
suffer in the same way an animal would.
Animal health and welfare
Animal welfare groups, such as
Compassion in World Farming, have
concerns about cloning. The health of
clones is often less than that of
conventionally bred animals and they
often live shorter lives. Clones have
been found to have abnormalities in the
liver, brain and immune system. The
cloning process involves placing the
nucleus of an adult animal cell into an
unfertilised egg from which the nucleus
has been removed. This forms an
embryo and is known as somatic cell
nucleus transfer. The embryo is then
placed in a surrogate mother where it
develops as a normal pregnancy should.
Problems often occur with clones at this
stage where the foetus develops too
rapidly and is more frequently aborted
than in sexual reproduction.
Animal welfare concerns don’t just
arise with the clone, but also its
surrogate mother. Clones can be up to
25% heavier than a normal foetus,
which can lead to birthing difficulties
requiring a caesarean section.
Opinions
Cloning recently emerged on the
political agenda in Europe and the US.
The US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA, see Useful websites) conducted a
risk assessment of cloning reviewing
scientific research. The FDA has stated
that food from cloned animals is no
different than food from conventionally
bred animals. It assessed evidence in
relation to cattle, pigs and goats, but
not sheep as insufficient research was
available to assess this species. The
FDA concluded that milk and meat
from cloned animals and their
offspring are as safe to eat as food
from conventionally bred animals.
Clones are not expected to be used for
food themselves, but the offspring of
cloned animals reproduced in the
normal way, through sexual
reproduction. Such produce is not
expected to enter the US market for two
or three years.
The European Commission has asked
the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA, see Useful websites) and the
European Group on Ethics in Science and
New Technologies (EGE, see Useful
websites) to issue advice to the
Commission on animal cloning. EFSA is
currently drafting an opinion on the
topic, based on available scientific
evidence. Its Scientific Committee is to
consider the second draft opinion in July.
The current draft opinion recognises
there is limited data and uncertainties
exist. It also recognises there are health
and welfare issues. But currently, the
general conclusion is that food from
clones or their offspring are unlikely to
introduce new food safety issues.
The EFSA draft opinion is based on
food safety from a scientific perspective. It
does not evaluate if cloning is beneficial
or cannot evaluate moral or ethical issues
as it is a scientific body. This is the
responsibility of the EGE, which has
issued its opinion on the topic.
The EGE doubts if animal cloning is
ethically justified based on the level of
suffering and health problems with
animal clones. It does not see
convincing arguments to justify the
production of food from clones and
their offspring. Recommendations are
also made in case food from clones is
introduced to Europe in the future.
engineering changes the genetic makeup
of the animal by altering the DNA.
Cloning copies the genetic makeup to
produce another organism that is the
same as the original, but does not alter
genes. But this does not mean that both
technologies could not be applied in
tandem in the future. How does a
cloned GM steak sound? The real
apprehension comes when we think of
its application in humans – but this is
the stuff of science fiction.
Why clone?
What benefits does cloning bring that
conventional breeding cannot? Cloning
animals could reproduce breeds that
have greater resistance to disease. The
best animals selected for their positive
traits could be consistently reproduced
with top quality meat and milk the
outcome. Cows have been bred, using
conventional techniques, with
preference for animals that produce
more milk. Cloning takes this idea a
little further. Conventional breeding for
improved traits is more uncertain and
takes longer to perfect than cloning for
similar traits. Cloning can achieve more
quickly what conventional breeding
aims to do. However, cloning is a
completely different process that brings
other accompanying problems and the
benefits of cloning are still very
much at the ‘potential’ stage.
EGE’s opinion clearly states there are
health and welfare issues with clones.
EFSA also acknowledges this. It does not
seem that this technology has been
perfected and getting it right is likely to
result in mistakes, creating animals with
health problems and deformities in the
process. The FDA assessment of cloning
acknowledges that there are animal
welfare issues, but says the technology
appears to be improving. However, this
doesn’t suggest the technology has been
mastered. Animals with unexpected
problems are not the outcome of a
technology that can produce
consistently better quality animal
products. Is it acceptable to experiment
until the technology is perfected? While
we may not like to face facts, when it
comes to food production, animals are
a commodity. But does this technology
take our manipulation of animals for
human benefit that bit too far?
What’s next: GM clones?
Cloning can be associated with genetic
engineering, but it is a different
technological process. Genetic
Informing consumers
The US FDA does not see food from
cloned animals as different to food from
conventional animals. Therefore, it
doesn’t see the need for labelling.
In the EU, food derived from cloned
animals would currently fall under the
novel food regulation as there is no
specific legislation in this area. This
regulation governs the introduction of a
food, ingredient, or a novel production
process that does not have a history of
use in the EU. Authorisation of a novel
food involves a risk assessment. Special
labelling requirements are sometimes
required if a novel food is approved, but
this is on a case by case basis.
Labelling should not mislead
consumers as to the production,
Overall, there is no law in Europe on
cloning, which does in one sense mean
that there is nothing to stop clones from
entering our food supply. But the issue is
on Europe’s agenda. Denmark is the only
EU country that has banned animal
cloning (except in specific circumstances
where it is beneficial)-no other member
state has taken a strong position either way.
The issue also creates new
considerations when it comes to trade. If
the EU bans cloning, how will it restrict
food with links to this origin entering
the EU from the US? Imports to the EU
can only be restricted if they are
considered unsafe for consumption or
for the environment.
What do consumers think?
On the GM issue, consumer polls have
suggested most consumers don’t want to
eat GM food. Consumer attitudes on
cloning have not been investigated to any
great degree. There has been little public
debate on how the people really perceive
cloning. The research that does exist has
found a negative attitude. Eurobarometer
surveys in 1996 and 1999 have shown that
regulation will require food derived from
cloned animals to be distinguished by
many Europeans see cloning as risky and
morally unacceptable.
The UK Food Standards Agency
published research in June 2008
investigating the UK public’s views on
cloning. The researchers found that
knowledge and understanding of cloning
varied widely, and that many participants
had animal welfare, ethical and food
additional labelling requirements. There
are a number of ways food with some
link to cloned animals can enter the food
supply. The food can come directly from a
cloned animal, but this is unlikely as
cloning is an expensive process. Their
offspring are the likely sources, according
to the FDA. This has implications for the
approval of foods from clones and their
regulation. The offspring of a clone may
not be seen as a novel food.
safety concerns. In the context of current
animal breeding practices, it was felt that
cloning took a quantum leap from:
‘giving nature a helping hand’ to
‘interfering with nature’. Finding any
benefits was a struggle and it was
questioned whether cloning would bring
any real advantages for the consumer.
The opinions of the Irish public have not
been surveyed, and similar research in
Ireland is not planned.
composition, nutritional value or
characteristics of the food. GM food must
be labelled. It’s unclear if current
choice comment
Clones are genetically identical organisms and have been described as a copy of the
original animal the cloned cells were taken from. Simplifying the description of cloning
to the extent that it is called a copy misses vital differences that aid our understanding
of the process. Cloning is a novel process in animal reproduction that raises new ethical
issues. Consumers should be informed if food is derived from cloned animals, regardless
of the fact that it is considered safe and equivalent to food derived from conventional
breeding. If cloning does become a reality, labelling and traceability are vital to protect
the consumer’s right to choice. This is the very least that consumers deserve, and the
CAI demands that it be prioritised for the safety and consideration of all consumers.
FOOD JULY 2008
consumer choice
247