What You Eat, Pt. 2

In the process of researching this whole GM food topic, I took a look at the news on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website.

One of the hot topics on that site is the regulation of animal clones and cloned animal products. A closer look at some of the documentation revealed some interesting things.

1. The risk assessments - and of course, subsequent regulations - will subject any clones and their products "to the same local, state, and federal laws and regulations as conventional food animals and their products.

2. Cloning, or, in the scientific parlance, "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), is the next technological step in the time-honored tradition of assisted reproductive techologies (ARTs).

On the timeline of human assisted reproduction of animals is included:

"Natural Service" (this is old-fashioned fucking between two animals introduced to each other by the breeder - the right time, right place scenario),

Artifical Insemination and Synchronized Estrus (the make it the right time scenario),

Embryo Transfer or 'MOET' (collected and inseminated eggs taken from each animal to prevent lost productive capacity - the stop the progression of time scenario),

In Vitro Feritilization (same as with humans, except they can use dead animals to farm immature eggs - the time is irrelevant scenario),

Embryo Splitting (self-explanatory), and

"Blastomere Nuclear Transfer" (the replacement of egg chromosomes with complete sets from another source - the place is irrelevant scenario).

What sort of definitions of "natural" and "conventional" are they using here? Only the first case, or "Natural Service", does not directly manipulate the biological or physical process of reproduction. It's something closer to introducing a woman who wants to get married to get her aging parents off her back and a man who needs a green card. Right place, right time, right partners. Sure, it's a setup, but most people don't fall in love across a crowded room. And most industrial agriculture doesn't just allow the cows to hang out, socialize, and eventually fuck in a natural setting. But at least there's no genetic or hormonal manipulation.

3. The reproductive capacity of dairy cattle has "declined significantly in the last 20 years" and the response in the document is to claim that this makes ARTs more attractive. But do they wonder why these animals may be responding to their environment in such a way?

4. And I quote: "Because the field is relatively new, and the scientific community has not identified all of the mechanisms involved in epigenetic remodeling, with few exceptions (e.g., X chromosome inactivation), the direct links between any one mechanism (or a series of mechanisms) and the health outcomes in live animals are not clear. Animals produced by non-SCNT ARTs, including natural mating, may have different epigenetic profiles, and even exhibit developmental abnormalities, but are not considered to pose unique food consumption risks."

But even though this is the case, the industry and the FDA is still pursuing methods of formally regulating this sci-fi scenario the same as conventional reproduction. Huh?

Part One