| Dear
EarthTalk: What’s the story with animal
cloning? Is the meat industry really cloning animals now
to “beef up” production?
-- Frank DeFazio, Sudbury, MA
| |
In
January 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approved the sale of cloned animals and their
offspring for food, despite opposition from animal
and consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations,
some members of Congress, and many consumers. Many
major food producers say they won't use cloned animals
in their products.
© Getty Images |
Cloning
has been controversial ever since Scottish scientists announced
in 1996 that they had cloned their first mammal, a sheep
they named Dolly. While Dolly lived a painful, arthritic
life and died prematurely, possibly due to the imperfections
of cloning, industry nonetheless began seeking out ways
to capitalize on the new technology. Meanwhile, critics
bemoan cloning as immoral and a potential health and safety
risk, given the as-yet-unknown consequences of eating foods
generated in this way.
In
January 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approved the sale of cloned animals and their offspring
for food, despite fierce opposition from animal welfare
and consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations,
some members of Congress, and many consumers.
“Our
evaluation is that the food from cloned animals is as safe
as the food we eat every day,” said Stephen Sundlof,
the FDA’s chief of veterinary medicine. Meanwhile,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture has asked that producers
withhold cloned animals, but not their offspring, from the
food supply while farmers, processors, grocery stores and
restaurants decide how they will respond to the FDA’s
landmark decision.
Unsurprisingly,
industry groups also argue that beef and milk from cloned
animals is safe to consume. They cite a 2005 University
of Connecticut study, which concluded that beef and milk
from cloned cows did not pose any health or safety threats
to people consuming it. But critics say that the oft-cited
single study was far too limited to yield any meaningful
conclusions: Milk and beef was taken from just six cloned
animals, and the study did not take into account whether
clones were more susceptible to infection or other microbial
problems, as many scientists suspect. Other researchers
have noted severe deformities in many cloned animals, as
well as a higher incidence of reproductive, immune and other
health problems.
The
Washington, DC-based Center for Food Safety, in a petition
it filed in late 2006, declared: “The available science
shows that cloning presents serious food safety risks, animal
welfare concerns and unresolved ethical issues that require
strict oversight.” The group announced on September
2, 2008 that 20 leading U.S. food producers—including
Kraft Foods, General Mills, Gerber/Nestle, Campbell’s
Soup and Ben and Jerry’s—will not use cloned
animals in their products. “The move by these companies
represents a growing industry trend of responding to consumer
demand for better food safety, environmental and animal
welfare standards,” the group said in making the announcement.
Given
the FDA’s green light, consumers’ only hope
of avoiding cloned animal products may be to appeal to businesses
directly not to peddle such items. The Pennsylvania-based
American Anti-Vivisection Society, which opposes all forms
of animal research and testing, has mounted a campaign to
urge McDonald’s to forego cloned animals in its 30,000
restaurants worldwide.
CONTACTS:
U.S. Food
& Drug Administration; Center
for Food Safety; American
Anti-Vivisection Society.
Dear
EarthTalk: I’ve read that household cleaners
contain cancer-causing toxic ingredients. What should I
do, then, to keep my house clean but also safe for my kids?
-- Christine Stewart, via e-mail
| |
Many
household cleaners contain potentially dangerous ingredients.
But there's no need to panic: Many safer and greener
alternatives are now available from manufacturers
like Gaiam, Earth Friendly Products, Citra-Solv, Ecover,
Mrs. Meyers, Sun and Earth, SimpleGreen, Method, and
Seventh Generation, among others.
© Getty Images |
While much of
the research is mixed or inconclusive, a variety of human
and animal studies have linked chemicals common in household
cleaning products with a wide range of health risks.
The most offensive
common ingredients, according to a 2006 study by the University
of California Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
are ethylene-based glycol, used commonly as a water-soluble
solvent in cleaning agents and classified as a hazardous
air pollutant by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and terpenes, a class of chemicals found in lemon,
pine and orange oils that can morph into carcinogenic compounds
when they mix with ground-level ozone.
Also, chlorine,
often labeled as “sodium hypochlorite” or “hypochlorite,”
is almost ubiquitous in household cleaners, unfortunately
for the inhabitants of many homes. Breathing in its fumes
can irritate the lungs, and as such poses a serious health
risk to those with pre-existing heart or respiratory problems.
According to
the non-profit Cancer Prevention Coalition, some other problematic
chemicals found in many household cleaners include crystalline
silica, an irritant to the eyes and lungs and a likely carcinogen,
and butyl cellosolve, which has been linked to kidney and
liver problems and is reportedly toxic to forming cells.
The group lists dozens of other potentially dangerous ingredients
in household products on the “Hazardous Ingredients
in Household Products” PDF available for free on its
website.
Gaiam, a leading
purveyor of green household and lifestyle items, reports
that the average American household contains between three
and 25 gallons of toxic materials, mostly in the form of
household cleaners filled with petrochemical solvents designed
to dissolve dirt. The company bemoans the fact that no law
requires cleaning products manufacturers to list ingredients
on their labels or to test their products for safety, leaving
it up to consumers to make sure their homes are not only
clean, but also non-toxic.
Luckily there
are plenty of “greener” alternatives now widely
available from manufacturers like Gaiam, Earth Friendly
Products, Citra-Solv, Ecover, Mrs. Meyers, Sun and Earth,
SimpleGreen, Method, and Seventh Generation, among many
others. Even big players are getting in on the act. Clorox
recently released a new line of home cleaning products under
the Green Works label to attract a greening clientele.
For those so
inclined, making your own green cleaning solutions is easy
and cheap. According to The Green Guide, consumers can “circumvent
the armada of commercial cleaners” by keeping handy
an ample supply of eight ingredients for nearly every do-it-yourself
cleaning job: baking soda, borax, distilled white vinegar,
hydrogen peroxide, lemons, olive oil, vegetable-based (liquid
castile) soap, and washing soda.
CONTACTS:
Cancer
Prevention Coalition; Gaiam;
Earth Friendly
Products; Citra-Solv;
Ecover;
Clorox Green
Works; Mrs. Meyers;
Sun and Earth;
Seventh Generation;
SimpleGreen;
Method Green Home Care
Products. |
A
SYNDICATED COLUMN ONLY ON AMERICAJR.COM
|
