Keane++Research+Abstract

Consuming the products from the clones of crops and livestock are not only safe, but may also be an efficient and effective way to feed the world better. Cloned foods will eventually present the world with the constant product of high quality foods, specifically meats. My paper mostly dealt with the process, the positives, negatives, and misconceptions that people have against cloned food. In the 10 pages I wrote, I tried to include everything I could that would help misinformed people that cloning is safe. I tried to divide my paper in to 6 parts, with the intro and conclusions at the beginning and the end. The first part is my intro, while the second part described the common misconceptions that a regular person may have on cloned foods and cloning in general. It also includes the a short history and I try to describe the cloning process in a simple way. The third part describes cloned food in the present, specifically the manufactures, buyers, and the people who maintain them. The fourth part describes the different benefits, while the fifth part describes the cons of cloned foods. The final part is my conclusion and how I feel I proved my thesis.

__**Eat More Clones**__ //Why the World can Eat Better with Cloned Foods//

As prominent British biological theorist and author, Richard Dawkins, states, “Cloning may be good and it may be bad. Probably, it's a bit of both. The question must not be greeted with reflex hysteria but decided quietly, soberly and on its own merits. We need less emotion and more thought” (1997). Richard Dawkins was saying that when the controversial issue of cloning in the food industry is brought up, emotions will be stirred, but we can’t let emotion influence a decision that logical thinking should make instead. People in opposition to cloning may become disturbed with the thought that they may be eating a piece of meat that was “made in a lab”, or cringe at the thought of biting into an apple that has many harmful chemicals in it. In actuality, consuming the products from the clones of crops and livestock are not only safe, but may also be an efficient and effective way to feed the world better. To better understand what cloned foods are, especially the meats and milk from cattle, goats, and pigs, one must understand how cloning of animals came to be and what the cloning technology process is. There are three types of cloning technology, which scientist have been working on for the past century. First there is, DNA cloning, also known as Recombinant DNA cloning or Molecular cloning, it mostly deals with the cloning of genes from one organism to a self-replicating element such as a bacterial plasmid (Human Genome Project). DNA cloning is more of the copying of genes rather than cloning actual organisms that can be used for human consumption. However, this it is still important considering that creating a clone has to be made on a molecular level first. Second is Reproductive cloning, which is the process of cloning an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another or pre-existing animal (Human Genome Project). Reproductive cloning is the type of cloning used to make the organisms that humans can use and eat, such as livestock. Note that reproductive cloning is also the type of cloning that brings the most controversy when the media talks of cloning. The third and final type is Therapeutic cloning, has more to do on the level of embryo cloning and stem-cell research, then the cloning of food. Although there is a deep history in the science of cloning technology, starting from 1885, I will only cover the significant dates starting from 1944. In 1944 Oswal Avery found that a cell’s genetic information was carried in Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA (About.com). Then in 1952, northern leopard frogs, were successfully cloned by Robert Briggs and Thomas J. King, they were the first animals ever cloned. Briggs and King were the first to successfully use the nuclear transfer technique of cloning, which is still the main technique used in cloning mammals. The process of nuclear transfer begins with the removal of original DNA from an unfertilized zygote, also known an embryo or an egg. Then scientists take the DNA that is to be cloned, and inject it into the “DNA empty egg”. Once the egg is fertilized with the new to-be-cloned-DNA, the scientist will then shock it with an electric current. The electric current “tricks” the egg into accepting the new DNA and it also stimulates cell division, which is the first step in gestation. Finally, the newly fertilized egg will then be placed in the uterus of a surrogate mother. Although rare, the egg will then come to term and the clone will hopefully be born as planned. Continuing the timeline, in 1963 the term “clone” was coined by biologist J.B.S. Haldane in his speech, “Biological Possibilities for the Human Species of the Next Ten-Thousand Years.” Subsequently, in 1972 Paul Berg combined the DNA of two different organisms, which led to the creation of the first recombinant DNA molecules. Then the following year Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer created the first recombinant DNA organism using the techniques pioneered by Berg, the technique is also known as gene spicing. Afterward, using the techniques mastered by Berg, Cohen, and Boyer, Steen Willadsen, cloned the first mammal using the nuclear transfer technique; a sheep. Throughout the eighties Willadsen would use his revolutionary technique to duplicate prize cattle embryos, sheep, and a cow. Then on July 5, 1996 Dolly, the first organism ever to be cloned from adult cells, was born. Before Dolly, organisms were cloned using DNA from embryos, but with Dolly, the scientist at Roslin Institute claimed that she was born from the cells of two adult sheep. Dolly would go on to birth, six healthy lambs before she was euthanized on February 14, 2003. Also, note that her health problems were not due to cloning. During her short life, she developed severe arthritis and progressive-lung dieses, so the scientist decided to put her down at the age of seven. Dolly is probably the best known clone to date because her infamous birth made animal cloning “mainstream”. After she was successfully cloned, different companies and universities began more extensive research on cloning. Their research would then lead to more animals being cloned and eventually, animals would go on to be commercially cloned for farmers. While it seems cloning was invented by science-fiction, it is actually a natural part of life, take monozygotic human twins for example. Monozygotic twins originally come from a single egg, but two weeks after conception, the embryo splits into two separate embryos. These two embryos are now exact copies of each other, in other words, clones of one another. In addition to humans, there are many types of natural cloning in the animal world also. One in particular is, Parthenogenesis, which is also known as asexual reproduction. Parthenogenesis is when only one parent is needed to make a copy or offspring of itself. Mostly single-celled organisms like, yeast germs and protozoa, reproduce using parthenogenesis. Invertebrates do also, such as sea urchins, ants, and aphids. Some vertebrates can also asexually reproduce such as reptiles, fish, and sometimes birds, like female turkeys (NATURAL CLONING). In agriculture, especially horticulture, cloning fruits and vegetables is called vegetive propagation. Vegetive propagation in horticulture has been in historical use since the time of Alexander the Great, but to the plants, the act of cloning itself is a form of survival that may date back to the dawn of time. The process of cloning a plant such as a blueberry tree is simple, and one may go about it in two ways. First there is “cutting”, where the growers will cut-off a branch of a mature blueberry tree, then root the cut-off branch into the ground. With the help of a rooting powder or liquid that contains hormones, the branch will then grow to be an exact clone of its “parent”. The second way is called grafting. This is the process of taking a bud of the plant, then grafting it onto the plant’s stem, and when the stem grows, it will be an exact copy of its “parent”. Many fruits and vegetables are created, sold, eaten, and improved upon from the result of horticulture cloning. Some examples of cloned food are apples, avocados, bananas, figs, grapes, and pineapples. The actual clones of fruit and vegetables are safe and edible, but they are not considered as taboo as the clone of livestock. It may be due to the erroneous belief that cloning using the nuclear transfer process is unnatural, but it is technically similar to what horticulturist do to clone their plants. In summary, Parthenogenesis, DNA cloning, and Reproductive cloning are, in theory, all the same methods used to clone food. With so many different ideas of cloning coming from film, books, and television, it’s easy to understand why there are numerous misconceptions of what cloning actually is. The first common misconception is the ability to create “instant clones”, or clones that can be created out of thin air. Creating instant clone is impossible because as explained above, a clone must be born, then it must take time to grow into what it was cloned out of. The second common misconception is the ability to create an exact carbon copy of something or someone. This is also nearly impossible because even though a clone may have the same genetic trait of its “parent”, they will grow in an entirely different time, environment, and will not have the same experiences as its parent. A third misconception is that people believe that they will actually be eating the actual cloned animals. In fact, clones are not eaten at all; they may be the best treated animals on the farm, but their offspring and products are eaten. On the other hand, cloned fruit and vegetables are eaten. The Fourth and most important misconception that the general public has about cloning is that they may confuse cloning food with genetically engineering food. For instance take an apple tree that has been genetically engineered, to an apple tree that has been cloned. Although similar in the process both involving, gene splicing and DNA recombinant technology, the noteworthy difference is genetic modification/manipulation. A cloned apple tree will not have any difference from the source apple tree, other than the time it was planted. On the other hand, a genetically engineered apple tree will have had a manipulation done to its DNA via gene splicing. This manipulation can be anything from changing the color of the apple tree’s fruit, having the apple tree creates its own pesticide, or anything that the engineer desires to change in the tree’s DNA. Hence, Cloning only copies DNA to make a clone, while genetic engineering will alter DNA to meet a certain need or desire. The best example that shows two misconceptions of instant and carbon cloning at once is the Christopher Nolan film, __The Prestige__. In this movie, a scientist gets asked by a magician to build a machine for him that can produce an instant carbon copy of the magician for his final trick. Subsequently the scientist builds this machine, and when the magician steps into it, an instant and exact copy of himself will appear which he can then use for his trick. Although Nolan’s film wasn’t exclusively based on cloning, it did a poor job on portraying how cloning real organisms actually works. On the other hand, a film that does a great job portraying how real DNA and Reproductive cloning actually works is Steven Spielberg’s, __Jurassic Park__. Although Spielberg added genetic engineering to the dinosaurs in the movie, he showed that the process of cloning an organism takes time. Consider that in the movie, the characters are told that these massive dinosaurs were cloned from the genetically altered and restored DNA of dinosaur eggs, and then raised by the scientist. Concisely, not many forms of media have portrayed cloning in the most accurate way; this is most likely where all the misconceptions, fear, and slow acceptance of it come from. Most people, who are badly informed on the process of cloning, illogically presume that it’s unsafe and unnatural. However on December 28, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration declared that food from cloned animals are safe and in January 2008, FDA scientist concluded that cloned food is as safe as the food we eat every day (Dell'amore). Considering that commercial cloning is still fairly new, the announcements were met with mixed reactions from scientist, politicians, farmers, and the general public. A December 2007 poll by Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology shows that 64 percent of those polled were uncomfortable by cloned meats, while 22 percent are completely fine with the technology (Weiss, FDA Is Set To Approve Milk, Meat From Clones). Even the Union of Concerned Scientist is concerned with the possibility of the FDA not doing enough research to make the conclusion that clones are safe. The Union claims that, “a small possibility remains that some harbor subtle genetic defects that could render them safe for consumption” (The Union of Concerned Scientists ). These concerns are similar to most of the publics’ because many people still believe that introducing cloned products into the food supply is still too early due to the lack of research in the possible long term effects. However, to further support the FDA’s announcement of the safety of cloned meat products, the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine observed over 100 studies of cattle, pigs, and goats, and concluded that they see nothing that suggest any human harm. Nevertheless, much of the general population is still uncomfortable with the fact that they are eating products from a clone. After the FDA made their initial announcement in 2006, a bill was introduced to congress on January 26, 2007. The bill states that any food from cloned food must be labeled. The bill has been referred to committee, but has not been passed. Since the bill has not even been reported by committee, this allows producers of food from cloned livestock to be sold without any labeling. In contrast, the FDA doesn’t require retailers to label if their meat is a cloned product or not. This means that any beef, pork, goat, sheep, and milk, that has been bought since 2006 could possibly be from the offspring of clones. The actual meat will not be a cloned mammal, but clone possibly an offspring of one. On the other hand, any fruit or vegetable bought in the past fifty or so years may be a massed produced plant clone via horticulture, but they don’t need any labeling. As a result, cloned food is most likely in every persons system, whether it be from natural or nuclear transfer. While it is important to know if cloned food is safe and if it’s in the food supply, I think it’s just as important to know who is supplying, buying, and maintaining clones. First, there are many small companies involved in cloning, often in collaboration with university researchers. Eventually they go on to mature in the field, and start up their own major animal cloning companies (S.Kendell). Some of the major companies producing clones are, Advanced Cell Technologies - based in California, Cyagra - based in Pennsylvania, The Roslin Institute - based in Scotland, and ViaGen - based in Texas. Farmers and breeders alike use these companies to their advantage. For instance Victoriano del Rio, a Spanish bull breeder, hired ViaGen to clone his prized bull Alcalde. Alcalde is a prized bull that sires up to 40 calves a year, and most of them become top-grade fighters (Woolls). I must mention that fighting-bulls, after killed in a match, as tradition will be sold, and eaten by the crowds in attendance to the bull fight. In addition to del Rio, a farmer in Oklahoma, Barry Pollard, owns one of the most productive cattle farms in the world. Out of his four-hundred plus cows, twenty-two are clones. Therefore, major cloning companies make clones, but farmers and breeders will buy them individually and raise the same as normal cattle. Now that I have explained how, who, where, when, and what a cloned food product is, I must explain why cloned foods may benefit humanity. First of all, Cloning food has to do with guaranteeing quality meats, fruits, and vegetables. In other words, cloning food allows for control over uncertainty. Horticulturist have known for centuries that cloning their best plant is much more efficient than planting a numerous amount of seeds, and hoping that some of those seeds will grow with the same quality as their best plant. Farmers and breeders alike, view cloning technology the same way. Consider a breeder’s standpoint with Victoriano del Rio’s stud Bull, Alcalde. As mentioned before, Alcalde is a fine specimen of a bull, del Rio even said, “He [Alcalde] has given us tremendous satisfaction”. However, with Alcade being 16 years old, or 80 in human terms, del Rio isn’t sure if he will ever be blessed with another bull such as Alcalde. Although del Rio can just inseminate another prize cow with Alcalde’s preserved semen, the resulting offspring’s quality in genetic traits, from both parents, will still be uncertain. Instead of taking the risk of uncertainty, del Rio will invest in a clone of Alcalde. The clone may or may not produce like Alcalde did, but it will at least it will be a genetic copy of Alcalde which could bring many different options for del Rio. Along the same lines as the breeders, cloned livestock are an effective investment for farmers also. These cloned livestock are usually the most productive cows of the heard, and as said before, they are not the same cows to be sent to the slaughterhouse to be sold to the public. In addition to cattle farming, a dairy farmer may want to clone his most productive cows multiple times to increase profit and sale of good quality milk. In theory, cloning the best cow many times over may also prevent inbreeding, which can lead to less rejected, deformed, and sick offspring (Plume). In short, it is a much smarter to invest in a clone of a valued organism with proven supreme genetics, than to arbitrarily hope for another organism to take its place and produce the same results. In addition to better quality food, the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization has said that food production must double by mid-century to meet the rising world population. They also said that seventy percent of the growth in production will come from efficiency-improving technologies, such as cloning (Plume). As cloning becomes more widely accepted and the technology improves, cloning organisms will most likely become cheaper and abundant. This means that, cheaper and better quality cattle may be provided to places that could not afford them before such as third world countries. Although the world will not be eating mass-produced cloned meat any time soon, we will be eating quality clone offspring and quality clone products, such as milk, fruit, and vegetables for the time being. Every new technology also brings along issues, opposition, and dangers, all which cloning technology isn’t exempt from. As stated before, cloning is a new technology, consider the fact that the breakthrough of Dolly the sheep isn’t even fifteen years old. Furthermore, cloning is highly inefficient; in fact it actually took Roslin Institute scientist 277 tries until Dolly could be successfully made. In addition to the 90 percent failure rate of cloning, also come the expensive costs. For example, ViaGen’s cattle cloning starting price is usually around $17,500, which is cheaper than the $20,000 average for other companies. The high expensive cost and inefficient rate are the main reasons why the actual clones are not slaughtered, sold, and eaten. Another problem that comes with cloned food, especially meat, is the ethics involved. Many people believe that we should not try to “play god” by creating clones. These same people also believe that cloning animals could eventually lead to the cloning of humans for organ farms. Although human cloning will be inevitable, I don’t think scientist will be immoral enough to allow the mass cloning of humans for cloning farms. This is an extreme and far-away scenario though; animal cloning hasn't even been close to being perfected, so the cynics can relax in the coming years. Another problem that may arise is the effect on current non-cloning farmers. I actually don’t think that farmers will be affected in a negative way at all. Farmers will most likely be the people who buy and clone their animals, so just like every new agricultural technology that came to be in the past hundred years, such as the combine harvester, farmers will most likely accept this technology and use it to their advantage. In conclusion, cloning technology isn’t perfected yet, so the problems will seem to outweigh the rewards. As time moves forward and the technology gains more acceptance, I think the problems and doubts of cloning will wane as scientist learn to become more efficient with cloning foods. In summary, I think cloning will follow in the footsteps of computer. The first computers were the size of rooms and could only be used by the technicians and engineers that built them. They had many problems dealing with size, a steep learning curve, and they could only do a few calculations at a time. As time moved on, computer technology became more advanced, smaller, and user friendly. Eventually more and more people took the time out to learn about how the computer worked and how it could help them in their lives and now; it is a common technology that has become a necessity in everyone’s lives. As Richard Dawkins said, if cloning wasn’t met with so much emotional bias and people took time to learn the process, than the acceptance of cloned food would come faster. Like the computer, it will become a common technology used to improve the quality of life around the world. Consider that, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, over 1.02 billion people suffer from being undernourished (ScienceDaily). Note that the U.N. defines being undernourished as having a deficiency in protein in a daily diet. As cloning technology improves and gains acceptance, then maybe the U.N.’s Food and Agricultural Organization will have new statistics that don’t show that 1/6th of the world is starving, but instead eating better quality foods. With more research and support in cloned foods, the world might not be able eat more per-se, but we will eat better quality foods with much more consistency. Through my research I found that the opposition usually comes from ignorance of the technology, I’m sure if these same people did their own research; they too would agree that cloned food is the future of the food industry and the future of feeding the world better. In truth, the most common theme I found through my research was fear; people were scared of what could happen to them or how it can affect their bodies. I too was scared of cloned food when I first heard of it a few years ago, but after my research I am much more comfortable with the idea. I learned to take Richard Dawkins advice, and use less emotion and use more logical thinking. When everyone else in the opposition to the technology does the same, then the world may prove my thesis correct.