Would you eat a clone?

Would you eat a clone?  What about the offspring of a clone? Food companies are sensing that many of us won't, and are positioning themselves accordingly. A survey conducted by the Center for Food Safety, a group that opposes cloned and genetic engineered food, reports that 20 food companies have pledged that no meat or milk from a clone will end up in their products. Among those companies: giants Kraft Foods, General Mills, Gerber/Nestle and Campbell Soup Co.

At least for meat, this is a bit of an easy promise. For economic reasons, nobody would slaughter a cloned animal for meat (except at the end of their lives) because clones are far too pricey and difficult to produce. First you have to manipulate eggs in the lab -- fish out the DNA they contain and insert the DNA from the animal you want to replicate. Then you have to nudge these cells to begin growing into embryos -- and, at a certain point, implant them in a surrogate mother. The clones have to develop and survive to birth -- and be born healthy. It takes many failed attempts to get one clone that far.

That's why it cost $60,000 for Limousin cattle rancher Larry Coleman of Charlo, Mont., to create three clones of his prize bull First Down, according to a Jan. 16  L.A. Times article by Karen Kaplan. (He did it to be able to sell the clones' semen.)

What about the offspring of clones? According to a Wall Street Journal article about the survey, Kraft's pledge did not yet extend to such offspring: "The company says it will continue to monitor consumer acceptance" of these. Other companies that have pledged to eschew clones haven't done the same for clone offspring, the article notes. Eight of the 20 companies in the survey did said they'd avoid using clone offspring if they knew, but since meat and milk from these offspring aren't tracked anyway (even clones are only tracked on a voluntary basis) you might say that was an easy promise, too!

The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, examined hundreds of scientific studies on clones and their offspring and concluded in January that they and their milk are as safe to consume as regular meat and milk.

In Europe, the European Food Safety Authority released a "scientific opinion" in July stating that, "There is no indication that differences exist in terms of food safety for meat and milk of clones and their progeny compared with those from conventionally bred animals. " But the report did note uncertainties because the number of studies are limited, and expressed concerns about the welfare of animals. Another EC advisory group, the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, stated that “considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones, the EGE has doubts as to whether cloning animals for food supply is ethically justified."

Now the European Parliament is calling for a European Union ban on animal cloning for food.

Why would clones not be safe to eat? Unlike GMOs -- where one could make a case that the physical essence of a creature has been changed in a way that might conceivably cause allergies or something -- there is no genetic material added. It's an entire genome, moved from one cell to another. There are some slight alterations in the activity of a few genes, similar to that seen with in vitro fertilization and which don't seem to persist to the clones' offspring. The animals do get their start with in vitro culture, of course, for several days. And they gestate in the wombs of surrogate mothers. But those practices are used elsewhere in modern animal husbandry, which is a far cry from "natural." (Let none of us imagine that the bird we bite into on Thanksgiving is progeny of anything other than a tryst between a turkey hen and a syringe or straw.)

As for the offspring of clones -- well, they're the products of natural reproduction -- or as natural as things in modern agriculture get (as noted above). Why should they be harmful to eat?

Even the "yuck" factor I don't quite get, personally: Would this be the same yuck factor one gets from seeing twins (devil spawn!) or from Louise Brown and the 1 million IVF babies that followed in her wake? (Not that I would eat these people, mind you.)

Would you eat a clone -- or the progeny of a clone? Why? Why not?

-- Rosie Mestel

Photo Credit: Thomas Terry / Associated Press

E. coli, ground beef -- making headlines again

On Friday, the Nebraska Beef meat plant recalled 1.2 million pounds of beef after it was linked to illnesses in 12 states and Canada.

And it turns out that some of it has been lurking in ground beef sold at Whole Foods Market. After learning that several people had been sickened after eating beef bought at the store, Whole Foods recalled all the beef.

"The meat Whole Foods recalled came from Coleman Natural Foods, which unbeknownst to Whole Foods had processed it at Nebraska Beef of Omaha. One of the nation's largest meatpackers, Nebraska Beef has a history of food-safety and other violations," explains a Washington Post report.

Here's the statement from Whole Foods. The recall involves fresh ground beef purchased at the market between June 2 and Aug. 6, and the recall's only effective in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, where people may have been sickened after eating Whole Foods beef, a variety of other states and Canada --California's not on the list.

It's been quite the year for Escherichia coli O157H7 and its microbe friends, hasn't it? A recap of the recalls, from the L.A. Times news clips.

January: 188,000 pounds of ground beef patties recalled after five illnesses in Wisconsin and one in California.

February: The 143 million pounds of beef recalled after inhumane practices were uncovered at the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. was made partly out of E. coli fears but more because sick cattle too weak to walk that were included in the meat could potentially have "mad cow" disease and contaminate it.

April and onward: Don't be blaming E. coli on the tomato (or was it pepper?) scare that sickened close to 1,000 Americans. That was salmonella. (Quite different, as you can see.) These may both be minuscule, rod-like blobs, but we're talking 140 million years of evolutionary divergence here.

June: Unspecified amounts of ground beef recalled from stores in Michigan and Ohio.

July: Nebraska Beef recalls 5 million pounds of beef after people sicken in seven states.

Aug: 153,630 pounds of ground beef recalled from Azusa-based S&S Foods after outbreak sickens at least 22 at a Virginia Boy Scouts camp.

Of course, huge volumes of beef and produce are moved around daily in this country, so the chance of getting sick is rare, though -- naturally -- the reports are unsettling. I'm glad I am a Brit and like burgers and steak cooked so well done I get ragged for it. (This won't save me from the cancer-causing heterocyclic amines, though.)

To read all about E. coli O157:H7 go here. To read all kinds of documents on safe food handling and preparation, go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

-- Rosie Mestel

Tomatoes may have had an accomplice -- peppers

Photo: Raw serranos (above) and raw jalapenos have been added to the FDA's don't-eat list for the very young, the elderly and those with compromised immune systems. Credit: Tim Boyle / Getty Images

Those red romas, red plums and red rounds, it seems, did not act alone. The relatively uncommon strain of Salmonella that has sickened 1,017 people in 41 states, the District of Columbia and Canada has now been linked not just to tomatoes but to fresh jalapenos, as well.

Investigators are having a hard time identifying a sole culprit for the outbreak of the Saintpaul strain. Some of the illnesses have been traced to food containing tomatoes and jalapenos, some to just jalapenos, says the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health officials stress that jalapenos aren't the sole fall guy. Tomatoes are still suspect -- as are fresh serranos and cilantro.

The CDC notes that, in the suspect cases, these foods were "commonly, though not always" consumed together. And if you're particularly slow on the uptake today and wondering what these foods have in common, the agency adds: "Consumers should be aware that raw jalapeno peppers are often used in the fresh preparation of salsa, pico de gallo, and other dishes."

Great. Sandwiches without tomatoes were bad enough. But chips without salsa?

The FDA has added raw jalapenos and raw serranos to its don't-eat list for the very young, the elderly and those with compromised immune systems. (The rest of us can take our chances, I suppose.) The deaths of two Texas men may be linked to the outbreak. One was in his 80s, another (in his 60s) had cancer.

Interestingly enough, Texas and New Mexico have been hit especially hard, with 384 and 98 cases respectively. Illinois has had 100 cases. California -- no slouch in the salsa-consumption department -- has had only nine cases. Here's a map of the outbreak.   

The CDC has plenty of basic information, with responses to typical questions such as "What is salmonellosis? What are the symptoms? How do people get infected?" Short answers: An illness caused by a specific type of bacteria; diarrhea and abdominal cramps; and ... just read it yourself.

Cherry tomatoes, grape tomatoes and romas and rounds grown in certain states are OK. Here's the FDA's list of safe areas.

Meanwhile, if anyone has a recipe for salsa without peppers or cilantro, pass it along.

And if you're thinking (like some people I know) that by simply drinking enough tequila you can kill any lurking Salmonella, let me know how that works for you.

-- Tami Dennis