Статья из Ecoomist о клонировании для intermediate learners и выше (с подсказками на русском)

Son of Frankenfood (генетически модифициорванной пищи)?

О происхождении слова Frankenfood и многих других "модных словечек" можно прочитать здесь - http://www.wordspy.com/words/Frankenfood.asp


Produce (сельскохозяйственные продукты) from cloned animals has won regulatory approval (разрешение контролирующего органа). Now companies must persuade (убедить) consumers to buy it.
“IT IS beyond our imagination (невозможно вообразить/за пределами воображения) to even find a theory that would cause the food to be unsafe.” With that ringing (зычной) endorsement (публичной поддержкой), Stephen Sundlof, the chief food-safety expert at America's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Управление по контролю за продуктами и лекарствами), this week declared food derived from (полученную из/от) the offspring (потомства) of cloned cows, pigs and goats to be safe for human consumption. The decision came just days after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) publicly reached the same conclusion (пришло к такому же заключению).
At first blush (на первый взгляд) this seems likely to lead to a repetition of the controversies (споров/полемики) that surrounded the arrival of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture more than a decade ago. Back then (уже тогда) an over-zealous (слишком ретивая/рьяная) industry touted (расхваливала/рекламировала) the benefits of a novel (новейшей) food technology. Activist groups and parts of the media said GMOs were dangerous and unethical (неэтичны). Scientific bodies on both sides of the Atlantic agreed that GMOs could be used safely, but politics halted (приостановила) their advance in Europe.
Could the same saga unfold (развернуться) with cloning? Once again the biotechnology firms sound a bit brash (дерзко/нахально/нагло. James Greenwood, head of BIO, the lobbying arm (перен.: инструмент) of the American biotechnology sector, bragged (хвастал) this week to reporters that, thanks to his industry's efforts, animals have now been successfully cloned on six continents.
To activists opposed to cloned food, meanwhile, the FDA and EFSA decisions mean only one thing: Frankenfoods are on their way. Since the creation of Dolly, a sheep cloned by researchers in Scotland in 1996, they have rallied (сплотили) many thousands to sign petitions and attend protest marches dressed as cloned cows and the like (и тому подобное). And on the heels of (следом за) this week's two big decisions, the anti-cloning crowd is kicking into high gear («переключилась на более высокую передачу»). Friends of the Earth lost no time in declaring it was organising a boycott of grocers (продуктовые магазины) who carry cloned products.
Spot the difference (найди отличие)
So far it all sounds like an identical copy of the fight over GMOs, which remain suspended (приостановленными/во взвешенном состоянии) in controversy in Europe even as they have taken off spectacularly (эффектно «стартовали») in America, Brazil, India and other countries. The European Commission may well decide to overrule (отклонить/аннулировать) the scientific advice offered by the EFSA for political reasons, particularly if its expert committee, charged with (которому вменено в обязанность) considering the ethical aspects of cloned food, declares the technology objectionable (вызывающей возражения).
But there are three reasons to think that food from clones need not meet the same fate (не постигнет та же участь) as GMOs. First, despite all the wild-eyed claims, cloning for food is not an especially radical procedure. Drinking a glass of milk from the offspring of a cloned cow is unlikely to inspire you to (едва ли вдохновит вас на) clone your children.
It is true that cloning can be used as a step in the creation of transgenic animals, but the procedures approved this week do not involve transgenics: no foreign DNA (ДНК) is introduced. “It's just like having an identical twin (это аналогично наличию идентичного близнеца), born at a different time,” says one researcher. This suggests that cloning can plausibly be thought of as just another tool (это наводит на мысль, что, возможно, к клонированию можно отнестись как к очередному инструменту) used by animal breeders (животноводами) alongside artificial insemination (искусственным осеменением), in vitro fertilisation (экстракорпоральным оплодотворением) and so on. Cloning has long been commonplace (обычным) in plant breeding.
Moreover, only the milk and meat from the offspring of clones—not food from the clones themselves—will be sold. This matters (это имеет большое значение) because cloning remains a difficult process, and many attempts fail (попытки оборачиваются неудачей). Since only the successful clones go on to reproduce normally, any food produced from the progeny (потомства) is reckoned (считается/признается) by the FDA to be indistinguishable from (неотличимой от) normal meat and milk.
The second reason cloning may not fall into the GMO trap (ловушку) lies in the simple fact that the food industry appears to have learned some lessons. Today's genetic pioneers emphasise (подчеркивают/акцентируют) their desire to build up stocks (наращивать стада) of cloned animals slowly (only about 600 exist in America, for example), and emphasise their scheme for tagging (маркировки) and tracking (отслеживания) all clones.
The third reason to think cloned food may take off, even in places like Europe where GMOs have fallen flat («упали плашмя» = потерпели неудачу), is the most straightforward (прямая/ясная) one. Early GMO products helped to reduce pesticide use and increase yields (урожайность), which benefited producers (обусловило выгоду для производителей) but offered no compelling (привлекательной) benefit to consumers. In contrast, if the industry's claims are to be believed (если верить заверениям производителей), food from clones can be tastier, of higher quality and perhaps even healthier. That is because breeders will be able to use cloned animals to produce meat that is reliably leaner, more tender (мягкое), as customer whims (прихоти/капризы) dictate.
Despite these advantages over GMOs, cloned foods may yet hit a needless snag (могут столкнуться с ненужным затруднением/заминкой/помехой). Eager to avoid any stigma (запятнанной репутации/бесчестья), the industry has persuaded America's regulator not to require any special labels on food from the progeny of clones. Instead, it says it will label only food that comes directly from clones, should it ever be allowed on sale (если ее когда-нибудь позволят продавать).
Critics of cloning are predictably (как и ожидалось) displeased (недовольны). Andrew Barker of Ben & Jerry's (ice-cream firm) complains that the FDA's decision on labelling “has really created headaches for us with our supply chain (цепочкой поставщиков)”. His customers and some foreign markets will reject (откажутся от) cloned foods, he says, but he is not sure how he will be able to verify (убедиться/проверить) that his dairy products (молочные продукты) do not contain milk from the progeny of clones.
Yet advocates (сторонники) of cloning could also come to regret the lack (отсутствии) of labels. If steaks made using cloning really do turn out (окажутся) to be healthier or tastier, punters (покупатели) who wish to buy them may not be able to identify them in the shops. If the industry is so confident (уверена) about the merits (заслугах/достоинствах) of its products, it should not be afraid to label them.