Something of a strange objection here to milk and meat from cloned animals entering the food chain:

Decrying the ruling, consumer groups gave warning that cloned food
would enter the food chain untested on humans, and from a field of
science in which cloned animals are often born sick or with severe
abnormalities. “Consumers are going to be having a product that has
potential safety issues and a whole load of ethical issues tied to it,
without any labelling,” said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the
Washington-based Centre for Food Safety.

It’s this "untested" bit that gets me really. We are continually told, usully by the very same activist groups, that we should not have genetically modified foods, for we’re worried about what the effect of new and unpredictable  gene combinations might have. Very well, then we want to have food that doesn’t have new and unpredictable gene combinations then, we want to not just not accelerate evolution, but stop it in its tracks. That means cloning, rather than reproduction by sex, which, after all, uses unpredictable new gene combinations. Indeed, that’s the very purpose of sex in the reproductive process.

As to the untested: well, we’re cloning from only the finest animals, those who have already proven to be just what we want, that’s really the point. So what’s untested?

So could people please make up their minds? New gene combinations or not new gene combinations? GM or cloning?