www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

Facing the possibility of food from cloned animals ending up on supermarket
shelves within a few years, consumer groups and lawmakers are sounding the
alarm about potential dangers and looking to put new restrictions on the
sale of such products in California.
There are several bills pending in the Legislature that would place new
regulations on food created as a result of cloning or genetic engineering
by Harrison Sheppard .

One such bill, SB 63, by Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, would require
meat and milk produced from cloned animals to carry a label identifying it
as having a cloned origin. The bill received its first legislative hearing
Wednesday in the Senate Health Committee, where it passed on a 6-4 vote.

"Consumers want to know what they're feeding their children," Migden said.
"We don't like the notion of fake food. We ought to know that our food is
fresh and authentic. And we certainly don't want to wrestle with moral
issues when we're grocery shopping."

Migden appeared at a press conference Wednesday with a West Marin organic
food producer, who said cloned food represents a threat to his livelihood.

Albert Straus, president of Straus Family Creamery in Marshall, said cloning
threatens the nation's food supply and is an economic threat to his farm and
other organic farmers. If cloned animals are not labeled, he said, they
could be used in breeding his dairy cows, rendering them not organic under
federal law.

He said cloning remains "untested" and "unnatural."

"Today we're facing a major crisis," Straus said. "Cloning is endangering
the American food supply. I've been a dairy farmer all my life and I stand
here today because cloning poses a threat to the future of my farm."

Industry representatives oppose cloned food labels, saying they would
unnecessarily frighten consumers when studies have indicated food from
cloned animals poses no added risk.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December issued a preliminary
opinion indicating that food from cloned animals is safe to eat.

The FDA has not yet formally approved the use of cloned animals for food,
though it also does not have specific regulations banning it. The agency
instead has called for a voluntary moratorium from the food industry as the
issue continues to be studied.

The farm industry has said it generally does not expect cloned animals to
directly be used in food. Instead, the expensive technology would be used in
breeding, and the offspring of clones would then be used in food.

But Migden, consumer groups and other critics of the process think it could
be only a year or two before cloned food ends up on the shelves of stores
across the country. They believe that if they cannot ban the practice
altogether, at least they can give consumers the knowledge to decide for
themselves whether to purchase such products.

Food producers are resistant to the idea of labels, saying it will panic
consumers.

"The reason that we are concerned with labeling is it creates unnecessary
fear in consumers' minds," said Noelle Cremers, a representative of the
California Farm Bureau Federation. "Until the industry has an opportunity to
educate why we want to use this technology and the value of the technology,
we don't feel that consumers just having a warning label will help them.

"We think the market is the correct place to have that, not a mandatory
requirement. If consumers demand it, let companies voluntarily choose to
label."

Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, called the labeling proposal a
"hysterical reaction" based on no evidence of danger.

"I have spent nine years now in this Legislature trying to convince this
body that emotional knee-jerk reactions to pseudo-science like this bill
represents, and putting a ban on something before the testing is done, is
not the way we should be doing public policy," Aanestad said. "There is no
risk. The FDA has said that."

But supporters of the label said it should be a matter of consumer choice
and education. Migden noted that the FDA has been wrong before in finding
certain drugs to be safe and then later recalling them after consumers
reported problems.

A separate bill has also been introduced to address food that is genetically
engineered, a process that is different from cloning.

AB 541, by Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, allows farmers who do
not use genetic engineering to seek damages in court if their crops
accidentally become contaminated by genetically-engineered crops. Such
contamination can harm the farmers' business if they specifically sell to
consumers who are looking for nongenetically engineered food, Huffman
argues.

Similarly, the bill also seeks to protect farmers who grow crops that have
been accidentally contaminated by genetically-engineered crops, because such
farmers have been sued in the past for patent infringement.

The biotechnology industry and groups representing cattlemen and some
segments of the agricultural industry oppose Huffman's bill, saying it could
expose manufacturers to inappropriate liability and endanger methods used to
produce crops that are more resistant to disease and pests.

[www.marinij.com]