UK food board suddenly reverses position, approves cloned food without labels despite lack of safety studies
Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Caving to what appears to have been immense pressure from other UK government agencies, as well as the various companies that stand to benefit from cloning, the FSA and its flip-flop decision have caused a significant uproar. After all, FSA's previous claims are true that proper safety studies are lacking, how can the agency suddenly claim there is no evidence that cloned food is any different than natural food?
Back in February, UK Minister of State for Agriculture and Food Jim Paice expressed his opinion that cloned food is no different than natural food, and suggested that no restrictions be applied to its sale. Such statements, of course, have no scientific backing whatsoever, but the European Commission has also expressed the very same sentiments (http://www.naturalnews.com/031528_c...).
On the contrary, all available evidence shows that cloned animals are, in fact, very different from natural animals. A 13-year research project involving cloned animals in New Zealand was actually ended because virtually all the cloned animals involved were deformed, became gravely ill at an early age, or they flat-out died (http://www.naturalnews.com/031573_c...). So how can anyone push food made from such creatures on the public?
Purely from the perspective of popular opinion, roughly 80 percent of UK shoppers surveyed indicated they oppose cloned food. So FSA's new policy is nothing but a slap in the face to consumers who will now have no choice in deciding the foods they eat, just like Americans have no choice in consuming unlabeled genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).
Numerous organic and consumer groups, including the UK Soil Association, have expressed outrage over FSA's policy reversal. And responding to consumer outcry, most major UK grocers have already pledged not to use cloned materials in any of their store-brand products.
Sources for this story include:
June 4, 2011