Opinion: What’s in a name?

Barbecue season is in full swing and most Canadians take advantage of warmer weather to cook meals outside. It keeps houses cooler and it just seems to make food more delicious.

Meat is by far the most popular food item to barbecue, and hamburgers top lists compiled by research firms and foodie websites, followed closely by pork ribs and chicken.

I often wonder whether people think about food in the same way as those who work in the agriculture and food sectors think they will. In the summer months, people just like to barbecue whatever they want to eat and enjoy it with their families. Do they stop and think about how the meat was raised or made?

Many do, or there wouldn’t be so many meat options available with labels such as “free from” and “non-GMO”, for example.

When plant-based proteins first became popular, many in the agriculture sector didn’t think plant-based burgers, sausages and chicken should be called “meat” because the word is reserved for flesh that comes from an animal.

If I were a vegetarian, I think the word “meat” would be unappealing. If it looks like a burger, call it a burger or a bean burger or whatever fits, but don’t call it meat, which is contrary to vegetarianism.

However, many plant-based options are not created for vegetarians, but for flexitarians — those who want to reduce their meat consumption for health reasons. For them, the word “meat” makes them feel as though they are eating the real thing.

Food companies know this, and use it to their advantage. But how will food companies market meat from cloned animals, if that becomes an option?

Recently, Health Canada closed consultations on a proposed policy change for cloned animal products; those from animals conceived through somatic cell nuclear transfer and their offspring.

One of the changes proposed would eliminate requirements to report whether hog or cattle products come from cloned animals, or to have risk assessments beyond what is expected of other, established hog or cattle products.

Meat from healthy cloned animals is no different than that from sexually reproduced animals, the agency says, and there are no health concerns with consuming meat from a cloned animal.

The main reason to clone animals is to enhance breeding programs. The technology is expensive and not worthwhile for every animal, only a select few. However, those few will eventually end up in the food chain.

Will products from these animals be labelled as “from a cloned animal” or something similar?

Under current rules, animal clones and their offspring are considered new living organisms and are subject to pre-manufacture and import assessment requirements. If the proposed policy change proceeds, they would be considered novel foods, which do not have those requirements.

It will be interesting to see how Health Canada handles this. If the proposed changes occur, consumers can still be sure that meat from cloned animals will, in fact, be meat.

The post Opinion: What’s in a name? appeared first on Farmtario.

Source: Farmtario.com