Turning My Back on FDA Approved Cloned Meat

If there were ever a time when I was considering going vegan, now would be the time. Environment correspondent, Richard Black, reported for BBC News, that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the production and marketing of foods derived from cloned animals. It is also reported that the FDA will not require any special labeling for food from cloned animals.

I'm not a big advocate for cloning, nor am I a fan for consuming genetically modified or enhanced food. Call me peculiar, but I am very leery about what I put into my body. I understand that the FDA based their conclusions on a six year study, but I also know that the data was provided by cloning companies, standing in the shadows, eager to push this technology onto American consumers.

Am I disappointed in the FDA's hasty move to fill our belly's with under-studied, test-tube meat? Why should I be? The FDA's decision to approve such a practice falls right in line with their decisions on the drugs they choose to and not to approve.

In 2000, The Los Angeles Times reported how a new policy led to seven deadly drugs - all approved by the FDA, including the antibiotic, Raxar. Raxar was cited as a suspect in the deaths of 13 patients. It was approved in November of 1997 in spite of the evidence that it may have caused several fatal heart-rhythm disruptions (ventricular arrhythmia) in clinical studies. Characteristically, FDA officials decided to exclude any mention of the deaths from the drug's label; however, the maker of the pill, Glaxo Wellcome, withdrew it in October 1999.

Just to give you an idea, I won't even eat farmed fish. I am an avid label checker, and unless my fish is from the wild, it won't meet my mouth. Am I a stickler about my food? Very much so, but I'm not the only one with major concerns.

Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety has been quoted to say, "The FDA's bull-headed action disregards the will of the public and the Senate and opens a literal Pandora's Box."