State of the World Week began with the issue of ethics and eating. The same debate has recently emerged between the most important institutions of the European Union. Different from the discussion opening State of the World Week, which centered on the ethics of eating animals in the first place, the EU finds itself confronted with an issue that goes even beyond the State of the World Week discussion, namely the consumption of cloned animals and their byproducts.

The European Parliament advocates a complete ban on such items while the Commission, as the more pragmatic institution that has to balance the interests of many in its decision-making, is willing to put only a temporary and limited ban on such items. The Commission wants to ban directly cloned animals and exclude meat and milk that comes from the offspring of these cloned animals. The debate is extremely current and both institutions discussed the issue on Tuesday, February 15th.

In addition to its context of ethical and consumer rights issues, this conflict takes on additional importance with respect to the new legislation on new and unusual food that the EU aims to pass this March. Therefore it seems that the final decision will probably be influenced by more than just ethical arguments on the matter at hand, although it is interesting to point out that an ethical verdict on this issue has already been given.

The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies has concluded that the consumption of products from cloned animals cannot be justified. This decision seems to have been echoed by a large part of EU’s citizens as well, where 58% consider cloning for food production unjustifiable and 61% not moral, although the measuring categories seem to provide for another topic of discussion — what is to be understood by justified and what by moral?

Although this may be a tempting topic to discuss, the practical figures show that regardless of the particular meaning of justifiable or moral, cloning is not approved of by the EU’s citizens. In this regard then one can say that the European Parliament is doing its job well in representing the people.

Therefore the final outcome of such discussion could be perceived as a political example of the success of democracy. However the opponents are far from being insignificant, since the Commission in addition to its own accord is paradoxically (based on the above-mentioned figure it would seem as though the national governments are not following their people.) being supported by many Member States.

The position of the Commission and Member States concurs with the statement of the European Food Safety Authority as well as that of the European Livestock and Meat Trading Union. The latter advocates the consumption of cloned animals and their products in the name of sustainability of production. As to what this sustainability means, one can only wonder. Is it sustainability of our never ending needs and appetite because in this case although the literal meaning of the word sustainability fits, the context in which it is used turns it rather into supply of demand.

To be a vegetarian or not is a personal choice and as such has a direct effect only on the practitioner regardless of the conversation of ethics that surround it. Can the same thing be said about the current issue – cloning – which is expected to affect all of the EU’s citizens and probably many others around the world as well?

If these cloned products pass the test and find their way in the nearest supermarket, are we still speaking of personal choice? It is worth wondering what kind of classification system will keep track of the offspring of the cloned animals, if any at all. Could we at some point find ourselves consuming a product derived from the offspring of a cloned animal, and if so what would be wrong with it? What would make the consumption of such products morally wrong, if wrong at all? Do we start from our own health when making this conclusion or rather from the morality of life creation?

The moral dimension of the discussion of such a topic also makes me to think of the necessity of such a phenomenon. Why exactly is it that we need to clone these animals? If our technology was not this advanced maybe we would be required to come up with other creative options of feeding the world, if indeed this was the actual purpose. Meat becomes the sub-product of another product which contrary to tradition does not owe its existence to nature but to science. Less effort is required in finding the solution to a problem when you try to work around the problem then when you try to understand the reason behind the existence of the problem in the first place. We need more so we make more. This certainly says something about the state of the mind of the world.

Entry by Blerina Fani
Academy Year 2010-2011

Comments are closed.