Cloning supporters hope the FDA's respected imprimatur, along with a growing appreciation that the technology doesn't involve genetic modification, will persuade most consumers to view cloning as simply the latest farm technology. Yet liberal interest groups, which had been urging the government to delay a decision given the public's unease, showed no signs of backing off their opposition on scientific and animal welfare grounds.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, urged Congress to pass legislation requiring the labeling of food from clones and further study of the long-term safety.
Perhaps most angered by the FDA's decision were congressional opponents, including Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski. The Maryland Democrat has been pushing legislation to delay action.
"If we discover a problem with cloned food after it is in our food supply, and it's not labeled, the FDA won't be able to recall it like they did Vioxx - the food will already be tainted," Mikulski said in a statement, referring to the drug removed from the market in 2004 after reports of serious side effects, including deaths, among users.
Cloning would be a boon to dairy farmers looking for the best milk producers and slaughterhouses seeking cows, goats and pigs yielding the highest quality meat.
Up until now, industry has used other reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, to obtain prized traits. Through cloning, they would get identical copies of the most valuable animals.
Carol L. Keefer, an animal sciences expert at the University of Maryland who helped the FDA make its determination, said scientific studies didn't find safety problems from cloning, and the country's food inspection system would be able to sort out any unhealthy animals derived from cloning just as it does for conventionally bred animals.
"The issue of food safety is being brought up by some groups because they object to the process, but that's a separate issue. They should focus on those concerns and not on that of the safety," Keefer said.
Once the FDA indicated in December that it would give the go-ahead, biotechnology companies squared off against opponents behind the scenes. While opponents whispered in the ears of Mikulski and other lawmakers, biotechnology companies waged a public relations campaign aimed at changing public perceptions of "Frankenfoods."
