So the FDA says food clones are safe.
Everything sounds well and good if cloned animals have been found as safe as ordinary animals. but the end of the article becomes problematic. Particularly, how are these findings compiled, and what is the methodology behind determining wellness? Can we use the same methods for both ordinary and cloned animals?
The 600 animals that the FDA tested were:
"made by scientists scattered among various universities and companies using different methods that in many cases were difficult to compare."
"many of those animals were not just clones but also had genes added to them for projects unrelated to food production."
So there is no standard cloning procedure--and by the way, standard procedures create regulations which create compliance which create enforcement which create stability and functionality--and some animals have different shit added to them than others.
And here is the real kicker: the study overlooks epigenetics, which are subtle alterations in gene activity in cloned animals due to one parent, because such factors are not considered in ordinary animals.
If epigenetics are the difference between cloned and ordinary animals, wouldn't that be the first place to look in comparing factors of health?
It was found that:
"newborn cattle are often unhealthy, probably because of epigenetic changes. They are usually extremely overweight and have respiratory, gastrointestinal and immune system problems. (Cloned pigs and goats are mostly healthy from the start.)"
These problems allegedly disappear after the first months of life--but it is all a bit peculiar to me. I don't eat animals or animal products anymore, but for me to theoretically accept cloned animals as equally healthy as ordinary animals (which, due to hormones and treatment, aren't so ordinary), I need to see some hard and multi-faceted research. Not just some vitamin measurements.