Rare steak is not so “rare” with the marketing of cloned cattle
By Nicki Crisci
Opinion Editor
Just when I thought that society couldn’t become more engrossed in genetic scientific studies and DNA replication, it pushed itself over the edge with the emergence of the cloning of beef cattle.
While cloning is by far not an old idea (recall Dolly the sheep), it is now being used for purposes such as those you might find in a sci-fi, futuristic society: cloning animals for nationwide consumption.
Before, it was sad enough to learn that in order to create our veal, a calf is enclosed in a dark room, unable to move or develop muscle. This is done just so that we could have so-called better, tender meat.
Now science has subjected us to the cloning of cows, pigs and goats so that we have more milk and meat on the market. We are molding animals to our eating purposes in a cruder way than in-vitro fertilization in order to increase food production.
According to a Feb. 17 article in Time magazine written by Tiffany Sharples, cloning “enables the livestock industry to do in a fraction of the time what breeders have been doing throughout history, narrowing the gene pool to its most desirable genes.”
In this sense, cloning is like we have become gods—producing life for our own purposes, picking and choosing traits we find desirable and most profitable.
At the same time, who is to say if the traits that are chosen are safe for the public to consume? Picking and choosing which animals are good to clone could mean a less diverse cattle population and an eventual decline in the meat industry.
It’s possible that the cattle chosen to clone could, later down the line, be susceptible to some disease.
If the animals were natural, able to adapt through non-genetically enhanced birth, it could have built up immunity.
But having the same animal, photocopied in a sense, can mean the dying out of the population if it’s exposed to something that wasn’t accounted for at the time of birth, like environmental or dietary considerations.
Another problem with this situation is the possibility that maybe something health-related could happen to the people who consume the meat.
Picture, for instance, a super genetically superior cow. It has been enhanced to be fatter and has stronger capacity to produce milk. But because of these changes to its DNA, it could be unsafe to eat and the population could unknowingly face a widespread epidemic.
While these are worst-case scenarios, messing with the basic genetics and natural creation of things can lead to some bad consequences.
Thankfully the cloned meats and milk are not out in the stores yet. But they will be on the store shelves in a Wal-mart near you in a few months.
And, these products will not be labeled, giving no indication whether the meat is natural or cloned.
According to the same Time article, the FDA doesn’t make companies add labels telling consumers the difference unless a “food-safety issue” is involved. The FDA, having already deemed the meat safe, has no problem selling it.
Underlying the main issue is the consciousness of the consumers. Will people want to buy these products knowing what was done to obtain them?
I’m not sure of the answer, but I don’t want to have to turn vegetarian anytime soon.
I can’t go to PETA either because I still like meat. The most I can do is feel a general sadness for the cattle.
So before these meats find their way into the market, I’ll take my steak well-done, and not genetically enhanced.
