FDA has approved the use of cloned animals for human meat and milk consumption. FDA felt it would be easier for producers to copy a superior animal than breeding one, so cloning should improve products and product prices. The FDA will not require producers to label cloned products.

Advocates against cloned meat and milk products state that mass use of unstable clones will result in less genetic variety (lower long term health of species) and could put product prices at greater risk if the clones become susceptible to a parasite/virus/bacteria/genetic mutation. The long term effects of eating cloned cells are not known. As well, there is a general fear that this will open the door to more human cloning.

Rick Weiss at the Washington Post described the FDA’s 968-page risk assessment:
    "agency scientists decided to use the same simple but effective standard used by farmers since the dawn of agriculture: If a farm animal appears in all respects to be healthy, then presume that food from that animal is safe to eat."

FDA deemed sheep excluded from the acceptable animal list.

related articles
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/16140/1066/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22667305/
http://www.ethicurean.com/2008/01/15/cloned-food-passes/
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9699.cfm

Every cloned creature I've read about in studies has lived a limited life-span.  Something about clones doesn't match the original.  So how can they, without understanding the cause of that fundamental problem, okay such meat for consumption?  "It looks okay," doesn't exactly instill me with a lot of faith.
Between the Genetically Modified fruits and vegetables, and now cloned meat, and drugs in our drinking water, we might not have to wait for global warming to kill us all.  We're going to render our species impotent by ourselves.

The 'looks OK' test is wonderful if all we ate was the skin and eyes of the animal.