To the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or TO THE PEOPLE.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Is Cloned Meat Immoral? Let The Market Answer

The FDA will apparently soon report that cloned meat is safe to eat and contains the same or similar levels of vitamins and other goodies as conventionally bred animals. Ron Bailey has reported on this issue for a while and has always suspected as much. After all, besides the "eww gross" factor and sanctity of life arguments against cloning, there has never really been any scientific reason to believe that cloned food would be any different nutritionally.

Today CNN has of course reported the FDA results, but - I guess for the sake of "balance" - still seems to dwell on the questions of morality and "grossness." However, I am yet to hear any scientific or safety objection to cloned meat.

If it's safe, there's no reason the meat shouldn't go on the market as soon as it's available and profitable. For those who are freaked out by the whole idea of eating a clone, don't eat it. For those who think that the cloned meat industries will be infringing on God's turf, don't patronize them.

That said, this is the one sentence of Bailey's post that I found surprising:
The FDA may allow food produers [sic] to label their products as deriving from non-clones.
May allow? Why the hell wouldn't they allow it? And what gives the FDA the authority to prevent such labeling, anyway? It seems like voluntary labeling is the only option besides either banning cloned meat outright or not letting people know where the fuck their steaks come from.

I'm with Bailey: I'm ready to grill up a cloned-beef steak when available. I bet it will taste a lot like... steak.