PSU Dorm of Representatives

Countering the Commercialization Of Animal Cloning in America

Nicole Kirchner April 2014

Cloning, a mere fantasy some 50 years ago, has now expanded into the area of commercialized cloning, threatening the welfare of animals and humans, alike. Commercialized animal cloning is a dangerous process that is unethical, violates animal rights, and can have indirect negative health implications for humans. Historically, cloning has been viewed as a rare scientific marvel. In reality, though, cloning has grown drastically in America, moving into the field of commercialized cloning. This field has taken two considerably different approaches to commercialization: producing cloned livestock for human consumption and cloning deceased pets for grieving pet owners. Both approaches have shown that animal cloning has many negative health implications for clones, often resulting in miscarriage or early death. To prevent further animal and human welfare violations through cloning, Congress needs to set legislation in place to prohibit commercialized cloning in the United States.

Current State of Animal Cloning in America

Animal cloning is no longer restricted to a laboratory setting and is rather an increasingly commercialized process. Farmers and pet owners can already have cloned copies of their livestock and deceased pets respectively produced, at high costs and large health risks for their animals. While animal cloning, costing around $15,000 per animal, still costs too much to currently be affordable for most pet owners or be implemented at large for human consumption, research is being done to facilitate this process.1 Commercialized animal cloning must be prohibited, through the implementation of legislation, before cloning costs decrease and commercialized cloning grows. While 66% of Americans are uncomfortable with animal cloning, federal legislation seems to be promoting rather than prohibiting cloning.2 For instance, in 2008, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deemed that products from cloned animals and their offspring could be sold without labels.3 Consumers are blinded from the truth, unknowingly consuming milk, eggs, and meat from cloned animals and their offspring. This deception committed by food

Public Comfort with Animal Cloning packaging companies occurs in spite of the fact that 67% of Americans Comfortable, strongly oppose consuming animal clones. Furthermore, Comfortable, no so strongly 88% of individuals who Uncomfortable, no so strongly are informed of the health Uncomfortable, strongly problems that cloned Don't know/no opinion animals face oppose the consumption of cloned Figure 1. Recreated from Cloning, Polling the Nations, Pew Initiative on animals.4 Food and Biotechnology, Even though this http://poll.orspub.com/document.php?id=quest06.out_4879&type=hitlis t&num=7 (Sept. 28 2006) opposition exists, animalcloning research has only increased. Pet cloning has grown particularly prevalent, as pet owners struck with grief after the loss of their pets have turned to pet cloning companies for help. Pet cloning companies have been criticized for taking advantage of families grieving over pet loss, producing unhealthy pet clones in unsafe conditions.5 For these reasons, pet clones face many health problems and have drastically shorter lives than other animals. Pet cloning is opposed by 80% of Americans, even though the extent to which pet clones suffer from health issues is still unclear.6 The public must be informed of this growing issue, and legislators must, at the very least, restrict commercialized cloning. Only through active opposition from the masses, though, will the government recognize that they need to work toward outlawing pet cloning and cloned animal consumption indefinitely. Currently no legislation exists limiting pet cloning, and the only piece of legislation that remotely opposes animal cloning consumption is the Cloned Food Labeling Act, which was introduced to Congress by Representative Rosa L. DeLauro of Connecticut on February 12, 2007. This act was referred to the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture on March 2, 2007 and has had no further developments in the past 7 years.7 Although there exists opposition to animal cloning for consumption and pet cloning, the urgency of this issue needs to be exposed, and Congress needs to set legislation in place to restrict animal cloning and further outlaw commercialized cloning.

Animal Rights and Health Violations

Cloned animals face drastically shortened lives, with higher probability of disease and genetic mutation.8 Most clones, though, never reach birth, due to high rates of miscarriage and still birth.9 In fact, the efficiency of animal cloning is currently around 1-2% with high rates of early death in the first few days following birth. A study conducted in 2002 found that live cloned pigs had a 50% mortality rate between their first 3 and 130 days of life.10 Another study conducted in 2002 compared the life span of naturally conceived mice, cloned mice, and mice produced by way of spermatid injection. The results showed that

after 800 days 10 of 12 cloned, 2 of 6 produced by spermatid injection, and 1 of 7 naturally conceived mice had died.11 Furthermore, cloned pets and livestock face high risk of chronic disease and genetic abnormalities. In fact, 50% of cloned cows are born with Large Offspring Syndrome, contrasting the mere 6% of normal cows born with this often-fatal disease. Hydrops, a rare fatal disease for normal cows, is diagnosed in 28% of cloned cows.12 Additionally, a group of clones all have the same genetic immunity, which means that they will all generally react to a virus the same way. This lack of genetic diversity could lead to the death of a farmers entire herd of cattle, if those cattle are all clones of each other.13 This makes spreading disease between cloned animals much easier, which Figure 2. Constructed from Autumn Fiester, Creating Fido's Twin: Can Pet Cloning Be Ethically Justified, Hastings Center can have a large negative impact on Report. Center for Bioethics Papers. 35.4 (2005): 34-39. the food industry.

Cloned Animal Consumption

Due to the multitude of health problems that animal clones face, the use of cloned animals for consumption is unsafe and should be prohibited. Beyond the serious diseases and early death that many cloned animals endure, those clones which reach maturity have much more subtle defects that can have large implications on the health of humans. For instance, surrogate mothers of clones are given an immense amount of hormones to try to keep the clones from being spontaneously aborted. These hormones can have health implications for clones once they are born. Also, newborn clones are treated with a massive amount of antibiotics to reduce the chances of early death. This results in a large amount of drugs and hormones in the milk, eggs, or meat that the clone may later produce.14 The FDA has even confessed that the vast majority of cloned animals would be too unhealthy for consumption, yet the FDA still supports that food products derived from animal clones should remain unlabeled. In response to the FDAs opinion on the health of cloned animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has suggested that food products from cloned animals should remain off the market for the meantime. This suggestion, though, holds no legal weight and does not pertain to imported meat from foreign countries, which may have been produced by way of cloning.15 In fact, the majority of meat that is imported to the U.S. comes from pro-animal cloning countries. This imported meat requires no record of its origin, reinforcing the importance of labeling food produced from cloned animals.

Figure 3. Created from James Andrews, Imports and Exports: The Global Beef Trade, Food Safety News, http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/11/imports-and-exports-the-beef-trade/#.UzdfZFxefwI (Nov. 18, 2013) Animal & Veterinary FAQs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/ucm055518.htm (Aug. 2, 2010) U.S. Food Imports, United States Department of Agriculture, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/us-foodimports.aspx#.UzdiVVxefwI (Mar. 27, 2014)

Pet Cloning
Another factor that has unfortunately encouraged the commercialization of animal cloning is pet cloning. This concept was first introduced in 2004, with the cloning of a deceased 17-year-old Maine Coon cat named Nicky. Nickys owner, a grief-struck 40-year-old woman, paid $50,000 to have Nickys genetic duplicate, Little Nicky, produced by Genetic Savings & Clone Inc. This cloning outraged many animal rights groups, particularly the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The HSUS often counters pet cloning by claiming that the $50,000 spent on average when cloning a pet is enough money to pay for the neutering of over 1,400 cats.16 Rightly so, this money could be used to support struggling shelters and work towards animal welfare for pets that are already naturally born not cloned into the world. Regardless of these arguments, pet cloning is becoming increasingly prevalent in the United States. Pet cloning has expanded from merely cats to dogs and other domestic animals, as families desire to reconnect with their lost pets. This solution to pet loss, though, is not healthy for the grieving family or the cloned pet. With 1-2% efficiency, it may take pet cloning companies tens to hundreds of attempts to produce a deceased animals clone, resulting in tens to hundreds of dead duplicates of that animal.17 Additionally, these clones do not always look identical to their genetic duplicates, since coat color is determined by an animals environment, as well as their genetics.18 Pet clones also often live much shorter, disease-ridden lives than their original genetic duplicate, experiencing many of

the diseases and mutations mentioned in the Animal Rights and Health Violations section of this issue brief.19 Clearly, pet cloning needs to stop for the sake of both cloned pets and their owners.

Conclusion
The brutal truth of animal cloning is evident, but action needs to be taken to protect humans and animals, alike, from the health violations committed in commercialized cloning. The public, advocacy groups, and the federal government must take the following steps in order to restrict animal cloning and outlaw commercialized cloning in America: 1. UNCOVER DECEPTIONS: Through advocacy groups and campaigns, the public must be informed of how the food labeling industry, FDA, and federal government are blinding the public about food labeling. The public must be allowed to see the corruption of pet cloning companies and given the chance to take a stand. 2. RESEARCH AND EXPOSE: Universities and advocacy groups need to increase research and analysis of the negative implications of animal cloning to target and expose companies selling cloned animal products and pet clones. 3. OUTLAW COMMERCIALIZED CLONING: Congress must outlaw animal cloning for consumption and commercial pet cloning in America to protect the health of both animals and humans. 4. IMPLEMENT LABELING AND RESTRICTIONS: Congress must enact legislation forcing imported food products derived from clones to be labeled and enforce strict regulations prohibiting individuals from purchasing pet clones from foreign countries. Lawmakers need to see the opposition felt by their constituents, so, as an individual, stand up for this cause and campaign for change. Even though it may be far off, together strong Americans and legislators, who care about the health and rights of animals and humans, must work towards the goal of one-day outlawing commercialized animal cloning indefinitely.

Endnotes
1 Your Burger on Biotech, Popular Science, http://www.popsci.com/environm ent/article/2008-03/your-burgerbiotech (March 17, 2008) 2 Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Cloning, Polling the Nations, http://poll.orspub.com/document. php?id=quest06.out_4879&type=h itlist&num=7 (Sept. 28, 2006) 3 Cloning Legislation, End Animal Cloning, http://www.endanimalcloning.org/ cloninglegislation.shtml (2010) 4 Fast Facts About Animal Cloning, End Animal Cloning, http://www.endanimalcloning.org/ factsaboutanimalcloning.shtml (2010) 5 Autumn Fiester, Creating Fido's Twin: Can Pet Cloning Be Ethically Justified, Hastings Center Report. Center for Bioethics Papers. 35.4 (2005): 34-39. 6 Pet Cloning: Separating Facts from Fluff, American AntiVivisection Society, http://www.aavs.org/atf/cf/%7B89 89C292-EF46-4EEC-94D843EAA9D98B7B%7D/SeparatingF actsfromFluff.pdf (Feb. 16, 2005) 7 Bill Summary & Status 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) H.R.992CRS Summary, Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00992:@ @@D&summ2=m& (2007) 8lhttp://www.aavs.org/atf/cf/%7B8 989C292-EF46-4EEC-94D843EAA9D98B7B%7D/SeparatingF actsfromFluff.pdf 9 Autumn Fiester, "Ethical Issues in Animal Cloning," University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics Papers, June 1, 2005 (http%3A%2F%2Frepository.upen n.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi %3Farticle%3D1034%26context% 3Dbioethics_papers) 10 Fiester, "Creating Fido's Twin: Can Pet Cloning Be Ethically Justified," 34-39. 11 Hilary Bok, "Cloning Companion Animals Is Wrong," Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5.3 (2002): 233-38. Animals and Society. (http://www.animalsandsociety.or g/assets/library/148_jaws050308 .pdf) 12lhttp://www.endanimalcloning.or g/factsaboutanimalcloning.shtml 13 Cloning Fact Sheet, End Animal Cloning, http://www.endanimalcloning.or g/images/cloningfactsheet.pdf 14 Animal Cloning & Human Health, Center for Food Safety, http://www.centerforfoodsafety.o rg/issues/302/animalcloning/human-health-257

15 Government Regulation of Animal Cloning, Center for Food Safety, http://www.centerforfoodsafety.o rg/issues/302/animalcloning/government-regulation 16 Alok Jha and Suzanne Goldenberg, The World's First Cloned Pet (cost $50,000), The Guardian: Guardian News and Media, http://www.theguardian.com/wor ld/2004/dec/24/sciencenews.gen etics (Dec. 24, 2004) 17 Fiester, "Creating Fido's Twin: Can Pet Cloning Be Ethically Justified," 34-39. 18 Cloning Fact Sheet, National Human Genome Research Institute, http://www.genome.gov/250200 28 (Feb. 28, 2014) 19lhttp://www.aavs.org/atf/cf/%7B8 989C292-EF46-4EEC-94D843EAA9D98B7B%7D/SeparatingF actsfromFluff.pdf