Clone Meat? The FDA is Unavailable for Comment
According to CNN and other sources, the FDA has now declared that clone meat is safe to eat and they are moving swiftly towards approving the sale and distribution of such meat. Currently the FDA is suggesting that clone meat does not merit any special labeling, not even a label that would announce to consumers that it is clone meat, despite the fact that 64% of Americans say they are uncomfortable with such meat.
As a quick aside, I think this is an issue that does not neatly align with political parties or the left/right continuum. A lot of very traditional conservatives will be weary of clone meat, as will many liberals.
I think this issue merits comment. So I went to the FDA's website. The press release is available from the home page. In a key quote, Stephen F. Sundlof, director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine says "Because the release of the draft risk assessment and proposed risk management plan marks the beginning of our interaction with the public on these issues, we are continuing to ask producers of clones and livestock breeders to voluntarily refrain from introducing food products from these animals into commerce so that we will have the opportunity to consider the public's comments and to issue any final documents as warranted" (emphasis mine). The press release specifies that the FDA wants public comment and offers a link for those who would like to send such comments online.
But if any of you can figure out where or how to make these comments, please let me know, because the link goes to a long list of documents that are available for comment. That list goes on for several pages and I couldn't find the clone document anywhere. It offers a search option, so I searched for "clone" but the search engine turned up nothing. The press release refers to 3 different documents for this subject and identifies them as HFA 305. Again, a search for HFA 305 turned up nothing.
Then I called the consumer inquiry phone number, 888-INFO-FDA, and clicked through to speak to an FDA representative. An automated voice said it was tranferring me, but then I heard 10 minutes of silence followed by a click. The line went dead.
I am bothered by the swift movement on the clone meat, but I am equally bothered by the FDA's incapacity to actually gather the public comments that it seeks. If any of you have more luck getting through, please send a post to tell us about your experience.
Technorati Tags: 
Watch what people do, not so much what they say
Perhaps 64% of Americans would say they are uncomfortable with cloned meat when asked by a pollster, but the percentage who are genuinely concerned will buy only from distributors who voluntarily mark their products with "cloned" vs. "non-cloned". Why does the FDA need to regulate this at all?
A List of Reasons
Why does the FDA need to regulate cloned meat?
1. If there's no regulation, then there will potentially be no labeling at all, in which case those who genuinely care have no options.
2. If there's no regulation, then any voluntary labeling is not necessarily trustworthy, just as much of today's "organic" labeling is not trustworthy.
3. If it is unfair to imply that most people do not genuinely care or that those who do care will go out of their way to buy marked products. All of us genuinely care about a lot of things but have insufficient time and resources to ensure the safety or source of everything we buy. We still care a lot but we're overwhelmed by the all the bad products that are out there.
4. We don't know actually know anything about the longterm effects of this meat. It is potentially dangerous and the role of the FDA is to regulate food.
5. As a government agency, the FDA is accountable to the public. If Americans express discomfort with cloned meat the FDA should respond, either by regulating the meat or by holding more open forums for exchange with the public.
6. Despite my disagreement with Marc, his comment and his opinion are completely legitimate. Both of us should have the capacity share our comments with the FDA.
I received an anonymous email that offered the following information about contacting the FDA:
(240) 276-9300
clones@cbm.fda.gov
"This is a government address which often crashes. If you receive an "undeliverable" notice from your postmaster please try again later."
I am traveling today, but will try to use this contact information early next week. I'll report back any new findings or experiences. Thanks to the person who sent it to me although I would love to actually know who you are.
Dustin Kidd
A Counter List
Core Beliefs
Marc,
I think our two lists highlight the fact that we have some very different assumptions about markets and about the government. I don't trust markets at all and I don't think for a second that they are accountable to the public. You seem to think that my trust in the government is naive. In keeping with the spirit of this blog, I'll acknowledge that complete trust in government agecies is naive. But I still feel that as a democratic citizen that is the appropriate place for me to take action. I'll also acknowledge that it is unfair for me to completely discount and distrust markets. But surely there must be a way for the two to check and balance one another. I don't think that's happening right now because there's a revolving door between the FDA and the food lobby. I think the industry likes the FDA and relies on the agency to persuade Americans that food is safe. The question is whether Americans can trust the FDA. For very different reasons, I think you and I would both say no.
Dustin Kidd
Two Kinds of Trust
Dustin,
Your assessment of the differences of our core beliefs is accurate, but I will add that I don't trust the markets in the manner or degree that one might trust the government. The "market" is a convenient reification for a spontaneous order of individual actions. The government is an intentionally ordered institution with legitimized coercive power. Trusting the government is trusting sinful people to be essentially good. Our separation of powers and the system of checks and balances is predicated on the Founders' distrust of government. Trusting the market is trusting a beneficial order will result from individual action despite sinfulness.
Marc
Key difference in the nature of accountability
Markets and government regulators are both accountable, but the difference is in structure of accountability: markets are backward-looking, and their accountability stems from past mistakes. In other words, problems will be addressed once they've already occurred. Regulators, on the other hand, are prospective: they look to prevent problems from arising in the first place.
For most of us, our current system, with both forms of accountability structures in place, is far preferable to an entirely deregulated world.
Why the FDA Exists?
The global nature of our food supply dictates it. I'm with Marc--I'd rather see less government, but since we can't always see our food sources (because they are thousands of miles away), we need something better than the market to keep an eye on things. If we tighten the circles of our food supplies (something that will likely be necessary sooner rather than later if folks like James Kunstler are even remotely correct), the FDA becomes completely superfluous because the market becomes more personalized and de-centralized.
We need something better....what is it?
If we understand the market as a spontaneous order of individual human action, would the necessity for something better require coercive intrusion into the market, or could we say the market must develop means to accommodate the needs for food safety? Given your self-identification as a "anarcho-communitarian Neocalvinist", I'm assuming you would agree that these needs can be fulfilled without coercion because there is an economic incentive to fulfill them.
The only real advantage the State has is a legitimated confiscatory power in taxation and a legitimated use of violence in its monopoly on police power and the military. What is it about global standards that requires this power?
Well, You're Correct...
Though I tend favor distributism over plain ol' capitalism, as I agree with Chesterson when he says "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." My view of the State has been influenced by Illich, who favors anarchism (in the classical sense) but realizes given the global nature of things, the State can (and should) do what it can to protect a convivial way of life.
I think we could talk about economics for a long time and realize that we are talking about a similar situation in different terms. The Market, as many capitalists see it, is a collection of individuals looking out for themselves. There are times, obviously, when the individual and collective goods intersect, but that is not the aim. I would tend to see the Market as a community, and therefore it would consider the good of the community first. But as I said, I think we would agree that intervention would always come ultimately from consumers, rather than a third party.
Corrected Email Address
The email address above should be clones@cvm.fda.gov. The anonymous email I received with contact information had said cbm rather than cvm. He or she also said it was likely to returned an "undeliverable" message which slowed down the process of figuring out that it was a wrong address. Bizarre.
Dustin Kidd
Doing Our Homework
Personally, I don't have a horse in this race, because the meat we eat comes from local farmers/ranchers who are quite transparent in their methods (which, I guess, in the end, validates Marc's comments). Labeling is rather imprecise, especially with organics. Most people think that "organic" means no herbicides or pesticides, but the FDA permits the use of certain chemicals. Generally, if you want chemical-free produce, you need to go through local producers, since you can discuss their methods with them.
Ultimately, if you care about the quality of food you eat, it is up to you to do the research. I wouldn't trust the State or even the markets (as in, the food markets) to guide my choices. Local food co-ops, bastions of hippy-dom as they are, tend to be good sources for such information, however. From our local co-op I learned that a local milk producer, who does not label their product as organic, using sustainable methods and avoid the use of hormones and other drugs for their animals. The producer only labels their products as "All Natural."
That's fine, but what about restaurants
bjanaszek-
I totally agree with you, but one thing that has been overlooked is the role of meat in restaurants. Certainly at the supermarket/co-op, our meat will be labeled, but what about when it is part of another meal?
Will McDonald's tell us their hamburger is from cloned meat?
Will Applebee's let me know that the rib-eye is cloned or from a real cow?
It probably isn't in their interest to tell the consumer because it just isn't something people would think about when going out for dinner. To label is to remind the consumer about their health. That rarely sells dinners, deserts or drinks.
I support labeling because I can't see a downside to anyone. How much will it cost the producers to label? Virtually nothing. What are the potential benefits to consumers? Virtually endless.
Another alternative
Another alternative is to vote with your forks, and skip eating meat altogether. The whole cloning thing is a very valid concern, and, unfortunately, so is a healthy mistrust of industries that will cut corners and put margins before individuals.
http://www.celsias.com/blog/2006/11/22/save-the-world-with-your-fork/
http://www.celsias.com/blog/2006/12/11/the-cow-public-enemy-number-one/
What's the fuss?
Is cloning such an inexpensive husbandry method that cloned meat will hit the market and undercut the price of meat farmed in the traditional way? Won't this, rather, be a high-end product, at least for some years to come? The market will be in prime beef cattle, Kobe beef, that sort of thing. Who would bother cloning the average steer?
And what difference does it make if cattle are cloned? It's not as if you, a human, are ever effected by the genetics of the beef you eat.
Kate Pitrone
I would never eat cloned
I would never eat cloned meat or drink milk from clones cows.
Bobby
Commenting on Cloned Meat Docket
It took me a while to find out how to comment, too. I finally got it by searching the docket number. The email and phone # appear to be options too - I just left a phone message, but now I can' find where I got them. I'll borrow your info for the informational email I'm sending out. Meanwhile, this link may help you. You may have to paste it, since I think the "?" in it breaks the line. Thanks for posting about this.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/getDocketInfo.cfm?EC_DOCUMENT_ID=1509&SORT=&MAXROWS=15&START=1&CID=&AGENCY=FDA
Thanks
My comment eventually made its way to the FDA docket and I was able to verify that through a google search when the docket was published. I never heard from anyone at the FDA to confirm that the comment was received.
But the link you give looks like a good way to submit new comments.
Dustin Kidd
Post new comment