Ethics Of Cloning In 2008 The Food And Drug Administration

Ethics Of Cloningin 2008 The Food And Drug Administ

Assignment Details Ethics of Cloning In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved food derived from cloned animals. In addition, these products did not need to be labeled as "cloned" or "from clones" (Black, 2008). The FDA explained that you would not be eating the clone itself. It takes thousands of dollars to clone a food animal such as a cow or pig. Animals that are cloned for improved food production are used for a breeding program to produce many offspring with the desirable traits for increased meat or milk yield.

These offspring of the clones are fair game for food. Recommended: Click on the following link to review material to enhance your knowledge biotechnology, and to support your opinion of the benefit, difference or safety of food from cloned animals. Clones as Food In your discussion post, respond to ALL of the following questions: Based on research and evidence relating to DNA or the process of cloning a mammal, did you find that there are differences between a clone and a "normal" animal? Explain your personal opinions about eating a cloned animal. Is your opinion of eating a cloned plant different?

Paper For Above instruction

Cloning technology, as developed and refined over recent decades, has prompted significant debates within scientific, ethical, and consumer spheres. Particularly, the use of cloned animals for food production introduces complex questions regarding biological differences, food safety, ethics, and consumer acceptance. This paper examines whether clones are biologically different from their non-cloned counterparts, the ethical considerations involved, and personal perspectives on consuming cloned animals versus plants.

Biological Differences Between Clones and Normal Animals

Cloning, especially through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), produces genetically identical organisms from a single somatic cell, such as an udder cell in cows (Wilmut et al., 2002). In theory, cloned animals share the same DNA sequence as their donor animal. However, studies have shown that clones can exhibit physiological differences owing to epigenetic factors, prenatal environment, and developmental variability (Cheng et al., 2014). These differences can influence traits such as growth rates, reproductive health, disease resistance, and even behavior, indicating that clones are not entirely identical in phenotype to their original donor or to genetically similar animals born through natural reproduction.

Furthermore, clones often demonstrate higher rates of congenital anomalies and health problems, which some suggest are consequences of incomplete reprogramming during the cloning process (Lanza et al., 2010). Consequently, although genetically nearly identical, clones can differ in various biological aspects that impact their overall health and productiveness.

Personal Perspectives on Consuming Cloned Animals

From an ethical standpoint, many individuals express concern about the integrity of the cloning process and the potential for unforeseen health issues in animals used for food production. Nevertheless, the FDA’s decision in 2008 to approve food derived from cloned animals was grounded in scientific evidence indicating that meat and dairy products from clones are as safe as those from conventionally bred animals (Black, 2008). The FDA clarified that consumers would not be eating the clone itself but the offspring of clones used for food, which are biologically similar to traditional livestock.

Personally, I am inclined to accept the consumption of food products derived from cloned animals, contingent upon transparent labeling and rigorous safety assessments. Scientific research supports that the genetically identical nature of clones does not inherently pose significant risks to human health, especially when the animals are healthy and meet safety standards (Lusk & McFadden, 2020). However, ethical concerns about animal welfare and the long-term ecological impacts necessitate cautious regulation.

In contrast, my opinion on consuming cloned plants is less conflicted. Cloning plants, such as cuttings or tissue cultures, is a common agricultural practice used to preserve desirable traits like disease resistance and high yield. Since plants are inherently different from animals biologically, and cloning methods are well established and considered safe, my acceptance of cloned plant-based foods is higher. They do not evoke the same ethical reservations related to animal welfare, and their cloning procedures are more transparent and predictable (Meyer & Verbruggen, 2019).

Conclusion

While clones share nearly identical genetic makeup with their donor animals, biological differences arising from epigenetic and environmental factors can affect their health and traits. The safety and ethics surrounding the consumption of cloned animal products are complex but largely supported by scientific evidence, provided safety standards are maintained. Personally, I see fewer ethical obstacles to eating cloned plants, given their widespread use and safety profile. As cloning technology advances, clear labeling, rigorous safety assessments, and ongoing ethical discussions will be vital to ensure consumer confidence and animal welfare.

References

• Black, R. (2008, January 15). U.S. approves animal clones as food. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/
• Cheng, K., et al. (2014). Epigenetic differences between cloned and fertilized cattle embryos. Reproductive Toxicology, 46, 129-138.
• Lanza, R. P., et al. (2010). Embryo cloning and the health of cloned animals. Nature Biotechnology, 28(8), 774-776.
• Lusk, J. L., & McFadden, B. R. (2020). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified organisms and cloning: A review. Food Policy, 95, 101935.
• Meyer, J., & Verbruggen, N. (2019). Cloning of plants: Methods and applications. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 17(8), 1380-1392.
• Wilmut, I., et al. (2002). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult fibroblasts. Nature, 385(6619), 810-813.