ReporTwitters Blog

‘bioethics@kvl.dk’
Dear Sir,

I wrote to you yesterday with questions pertaining cloning and your recently concluded project Cloning in Public. Since, two more issues have arisen which I am also in need of researching. These are;

-Your assertion that the appetite by European farmers for commercial cloning is not big. You indicate that European farm animal breeder organisations reaffirmed that they do not see any use in the foreseeable future for agricultural cloning and that the European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders is of the same opinion. In the next line you say ‘however, a more favorable evaluation of the future awaiting agricultural applications has been reached in the USA.’

Are advisors like CeBRA taking the US pressure as a given assumption that it will lead to changes here?

-Your report fails to analyse the scope for competition that cloning appears to bode, but of which you must be quite aware.

A report http://pewagbiotech.org/newsroom/summaries/display.php3?NewsID=961 in the Washington Post clearly cites the advantages and the commercial opportunities of cloning and what’s more, carries interviews with US farmers that say that the price of clones is already way lower than the price of prize winning cattle. Apparently, ViaGen sells clones of top of the range cattle for USD 6000 – which compares to around $43,000 for a top Hampshire boar. The farmers also told WP that it is standard practice to kill off prize winning animals and that it’s typically these killed animals that are being ‘revived’ now. In the same report, the FDA denies all knowledge of ongoing sales.

If public bodies involved in (advising on) regulation ignore what’s going on in the field, how can they carry out their task of regulating properly (ie, you can’t analyse trade impacts of a market that presumably doesn’t exist). Your referring to the more favorable FDA is in part due to these law breakers, don’t you agree?

- Critics out in Europe say that your organization was created to arrive at a policy induced conclusion of ’substantial equality’, just like the FDA. Is this right (in the long run)?

Regards,

Angelique van Engelen