Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Feature
  • Published:

Dolly for dinner? Assessing commercial and regulatory trends in cloned livestock

Nature Biotechnology volume 25, pages 47–53 (2007)Cite this article

As cloning technologies become more widely established, will products enter the food chain sooner than regulatory agencies and the public might be prepared for?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2: Publications relating to cloning in mammals (excluding rodents), birds and fish.
Figure 3
Figure 4

References

  1. Animal cloning and genetic modification: a prospective study. Institute for Prospective Technologies Studies, European Commission, Final report to be published in 2007. http://safh.jrc.ed/l_study7.html.

  2. Clark, J. & Whitelaw, C.B.A. A future for transgenic livestock. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4, 825–833 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A.E., McWhir, J., Kind, A.J. & Campbell, K.H.S. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385, 810–813 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schnieke, A.E. et al. Human factor IX transgenic sheep produced by transfer of nuclei from transfected fetal fibroblasts. Science 278, 2130–2133 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McCreath, K.J. et al. Production of gene-targeted sheep by nuclear transfer from cultured somatic cells. Nature 405, 1066–1069 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Weiss, R. FDA is set to approve milk, meat from clones. The Washington Post, October 17, 2006 page A01.

    Google Scholar 

  7. World Trade Organization. European Communities—Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products: Reports of the Panel. WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R. September 29, 2006. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm.

  8. Zarrilli, S. International Trade in GMOs and GM Products: National and Multilateral Legal Frameworks (UNCTAD, Geneva, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Suppan, S. The WTO's EC-Biotech Products Ruling and the Cartagena Protocol (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Marris, C. et al. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (PABE): Final Report to the European Commission FAIR CT98–3844 (DG12-SSMI) (www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/docs/page_finalreport.pdf) (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gaskell, G. Agricultural biotechnology and public attitudes in the European Union. AgBioForum 3, 87–96 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Overview of Findings: 2004 Focus Groups and Poll (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Washington, DC, 2004).

  13. Gaskell, G. et al. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trade. Report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research (London School of Economics, London, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Einsiedel, E.F. Cloning and its discontents—a Canadian perspective. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 943–944 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. DTI/MORI. Science in Society (Department of Trade and Industry, London, 2005).

  16. Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer 229, Wave 63.2 (European Commission, Brussels, 2005)

  17. MacNaghten, P. Animal Futures: A Report for the Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission (Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster, UK, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jasanoff, S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41, 223–244 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. National Research Council. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, (National Academies Press Washington, DC, 1996).

  20. Sagar, A., Daemmrich, A. & Ashiya, M. The tragedy of the commoners: biotechnology and its publics. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 2–4 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Grove-White, R. et al. Wising Up: The Public and New Technologies (CSEC: Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gamborg, C. et al., Regulation farm animal cloning: Recommendations from the project “Cloning in public”, Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Frederiksberg, Denmark, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tian, X.C. et al. Meat and milk compositions of bovine clones. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 6261–6266 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Norman, H.D. & Walsh, M.K. Performance of dairy cattle clones and evaluation of their milk composition. Cloning Stem Cells 6, 157–164 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tomé, D. et al. Nutritional value of milk and meat products derived from cloning. Cloning Stem Cells 6, 172–177 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Takahashi, S. & Ito, Y. Evaluation of meat products from cloned cattle: biological and biochemical properties. Cloning Stem Cells 6, 165–171 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. US Food & Drug Administration. Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment, Draft Executive Summary (2003). <http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/cloning/CLARES.pdf>

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the European Commission through the European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO). The authors wish to thank the many interviewees and participants of workshops organized throughout this project. Joyce Tait, Innogen, was instrumental in the earlier phases of the project. Moyra Forrest, University of Edinburgh, made a substantial contribution to the bibliometric analysis. The authors are also grateful to Dolores Ibarreta, Kai-Uwe Sprenger and Päivi Mannerkorpi, European Commission, and David Carlander, EFSA, for their valuable inputs. Furthermore, the writing up and analysis of this project has benefited from the support of the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Social Economic Research on Innovation in Genomics (Innogen) and the ESRC Genomics Policy & Research Forum. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESRC Genomics Policy & Research Forum, University of Edinburgh, St. John's Land, Edinburgh, Scotland

    J Suk

  2. Innogen (ESRC Centre for Social and Economic Research on Innovation in Genomics), University of Edinburgh, High School Yards, Edinburgh, Scotland

    A Bruce

  3. Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian, Scotland

    A Bruce & A Braun

  4. AHRC Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, Edinburgh, Scotland

    R Gertz

  5. Genesis Faraday Partnership, Roslin BioCentre, Roslin, Midlothian, Scotland

    C Warkup & C B A Whitelaw

  6. Future Technologies Division of VDI Technologiezentrum GmbH, Duesseldorf, Germany

    C Oram

  7. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Seville, Spain

    E Rodríguez-Cerezo & I Papatryfon

Authors
  1. J Suk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A Bruce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R Gertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C Warkup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C B A Whitelaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C Oram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. E Rodríguez-Cerezo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. I Papatryfon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suk, J., Bruce, A., Gertz, R. et al. Dolly for dinner? Assessing commercial and regulatory trends in cloned livestock. Nat Biotechnol 25, 47–53 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0107-47

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0107-47

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing