Consumers,Clones and Concerns

The Food Standards Agency research findings that consumers do not support animal cloning for food have been widely reported, (apart from in the farming press, bizarrely), and both the findings themselves and consumer reactions to the reports merit pause for thought. The research is thorough, and the reports on it were confined to the facts, with no hysterical headlines. Media commentators reactions were also well balanced, with a couple of commentators coming out in support and one asking for a reasoned debate on the subject. The facts are though that consumers are unlikely to buy food from cloned animals.
In the research itself, people were worried about the animal welfare implications of cloning for both the mother who, because of the high failure rate risked becoming a breeding machine, and for offspring who in most instances are born with disease and deformity. People vividly remember BSE and CJD, and so were concerned about whether the food would be safe to eat; and they doubt whether those involved can be trusted, be they biotech companies, breeders, farmers, or retailers. All the worries were compounded by an inability to see any benefits from cloning apart from more profit to those in the cloning chain.
I don't think that this research can be dismissed as the views of a tiny number of people who may have particularly strong views about animal welfare or food safety or the ethics of cloning.Those taking part were screened to ensure they had no extreme ideas about any aspect of food, and findings are in fact very similar to those from America where they have carried out extensive research on the topic.
Reaction to media commentators columns also showed resistance from the public, but with a sizable minority being open minded. Melanie Reid in the Times came out strongly in favour of cloned food. 29 people were moved to respond to her views, of whom 8 said it sounded ok to them. The rest were strongly against, with some saying her piece was an illogical and factually incorrect piece of journalism. The Observer's Tim Haywood sat on the liberal fence saying that whilst he did not like the idea himself, there should be a reasoned debate about it, a point of view endorsed by 6 out of nine people commenting on his article. Hannah Strange also of the Times concluded that the animal welfare issues associated with cloning would mean that UK consumers would not support it.She drew one response saying that cloning needed the same animal welfare safeguards as ant other animal related activity, and one feeling that there was no cause for concern.Many of those reponding to articles, whether for or against,called for clear labelling so that consumers knew what they were buying and could avoid if they wished. The Mail, mouthpiece of middle England, reported the research and of the people who commented half were open minded, particularly if cloning would help feed the world.
At first sight therefore, public response seems more favourable than the FSA research might indicate. However there are two major findings which lead to the conclusion that UK consumers just will not buy cloned food.First, the research shows clearly that the more consumers know about cloning the more alarmed they get. As yet the cloning debate is still in its infancy in the UK, but anxiety will grow with more publicity. Second, there is a striking attitude difference between men and women. 60% of women reject outright the idea of buying cloned food, compared with one third of men. Conversely, about a third of men are prepared to buy cloned food, but only 14% of women.The key point here is that its still women who do most of the food shopping.
So, there are major drawbacks in consumers minds already about cloned meat, and as the debate unfolds there will be alot who will not accept it.
But this consumer unease won't come as a surprise to farmers, many of whom instinctively understand the public's feelings.

Cloned Food

I'm surprised there's been so little fuss in the UK about cloned food.

On 11th January the European Food Standards Authority (Efsa) announced its conclusion that products from cloned pigs and cattle are unlikely to be a threat to food safety or the environment but that products should be labelled as cloned. It admitted that cloning has significant animal health and welfare issues. It was silent on the ethics of cloning. Comments from the public are requested by 25th February.

The next day the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technology, reporting to the European Commission said "considering the level of suffering and health problems (to animals) EGE has doubts as to whether cloning animals is ethically justified". It went on to say that it does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring.

But where is the outcry to get cloning stopped? Yes, the Soil Association, RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming and Friends of the Earth have spoken out against the practice, the media have reported the factual news, and supermarkets has said that they will not sell cloned products.To date though, there have been no questions raised in Parliament, no newspaper editorials providing a view, no surveys done among the public to see what they feel about the issue. The NFU say they will be guided by the science, which sidesteps the ethics, and see no need for labelling. Major food processors do not appear to have commented.


Contrast this with what has happened in America where the FDA announcement on 14th January that food from cloned cattle, pigs and goats is safe to sell into the food chain has caused outrage. The ruling was made in the teeth of four years of furious opposition from consumers, around 60% of whom have consistently said in research polls that they oppose cloned food on ethical and safety grounds, and from Congress for reasons of ethics and lack of robust data. Fury has been heightened by the decision not to require specific labelling, leaving the public with no idea whether they are eating cloned food or not. Big food processors and retailers have declared that they will not sell cloned foods. Even the NFU has said that if cloned food is to be sold then it needs to be labelled saying "consumers have a right to know if their food comes from cloned animals". The continued outcry has had an effect. The US Department of Agriculture has asked for the moratorium on cloned food sales to be continued to "allow sufficient time to prepare so that a smooth and seamless transition can occur". Which has been translated as buying time so that consumers can be educated.


It all raises the question of how on earth cloning animals for food has got as far as it has in the US. Clearly there are issues of ethics, unease, and compassion, meaning that consumers don't want to buy the products, food companies don't want to process them, and retailers don't want to sell them.

Getting back to the UK, why is it all so quiet here? Perhaps an announcement from Europe does not have the same impact as one from here at home. Perhaps people think it will never happen. Perhaps a short news report in the brain dead days just after Xmas isn't sufficient to raise awareness.Hopefully its just that it's early days in the process, and when the penny drops the UK public will spring into action with widespread and spirited campaigning. It worked on GM foods.