Potential Environmental Problems With
Animal Biotech Raise Some Concerns;
No Evidence Cloned Animals Are Unsafe to Eat, But Data Still
Lacking
WASHINGTON -- The possibility of certain genetically
engineered fish and other animals escaping and potentially
introducing engineered genes into wild populations tops the
list of concerns associated with advances in animal biotechnology,
says a new report from the National Academies' National Research
Council. On the other hand, no evidence yet exists that products
from cloned livestock are unsafe for human consumption, although
the committee that wrote the report found it difficult to
identify concerns without additional information about food
composition, which could be collected using available analytical
tests.
The report was requested by the Food and Drug
Administration as it prepares to rule on the safety of certain
animal-biotechnology products, particularly cloned cattle.
The committee was asked only to identify science-based concerns;
it was not asked to identify potential benefits from animal
biotechnology or to make policy recommendations.
"As is the case with any new technology,
it is almost impossible to state that there is no concern,
and in certain areas of animal biotechnology we did identify
some legitimate ones," said committee chair John G. Vandenbergh,
professor of zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
"By identifying these concerns, we hope we can help this
technology be applied as safely as possible without denying
the public its potential benefits."
The committee said the greatest concern is the
ability of certain genetically engineered organisms to escape
and reproduce in the natural environment. Genetically engineered
insects, shellfish, fish, and other animals that can easily
escape, that are highly mobile, and that become feral easily
are of particular concern, especially if they are more successful
at reproduction than their natural counterparts. For example,
it is possible that if transgenic salmon with genes engineered
to accelerate growth were released into the natural environment,
they could compete more successfully for food and mates than
wild salmon.
By creating transgenic animals with genes from
another species, or by removing or "turning off"
genes, animals can be produced to grow bigger and more rapidly,
or possess traits beneficial to humans, such as meat with
more protein and less fat, eggs with less cholesterol, milk
containing pharmaceutical products, or even tissues and organs
suitable for human transplantation. And through somatic cell
nuclear transfer -- the technique used to clone Dolly the
sheep -- scientists can create an almost identical copy of
an adult animal with desirable traits. The owners of a few
hundred cows cloned this way in the United States have been
asked by FDA to hold off selling the cows' milk and meat,
or breeding them, pending regulatory approval.
In transgenic animals developed for human consumption,
there is a low probability that a few new proteins expressed
when genes are inserted from another species may trigger allergic
or hypersensitive reactions in a small, but unknown, percentage
of people. The potential for allergenicity is difficult to
gauge, however, since it can only be detected once a person
is exposed and experiences a reaction. While a reaction will
be recognizable, as it is with well-known allergens like peanuts
and shellfish, the uncertainty surrounding new proteins and
potential impact on consumers who may be allergic is serious
enough to elicit a moderate level of concern, according to
the committee.
Animals genetically engineered to produce non-food
products, such as cows that produce drugs in their milk, are
not intended to enter the food supply. But the committee said
there are grounds for concern that adequate controls be in
place to ensure restrictions on the use of carcasses from
such animals. In at least one instance, meat from the carcasses
of such animals was used to make a food product.
The applications of biotechnology may someday
reduce the number of animals needed for food and fiber production,
but they also can have adverse effects on the welfare of animals,
the committee noted. For example, calves and lambs produced
through in vitro fertilization or cloning tend to have higher
birth weights and longer gestation periods, which leads to
difficult births often requiring caesarian sections. In addition,
some of the biotechnology techniques in use today are extremely
inefficient at producing fetuses that survive. Of the transgenic
animals that do survive, many do not express the inserted
gene properly, often resulting in anatomical, physiological,
or behavioral abnormalities. There is also a concern that
proteins designed to produce a pharmaceutical product in the
animal's milk may find their way to other parts of the animal's
body, possibly causing adverse effects.
Although the committee was not asked to make
any policy recommendations, it suggested that the current
regulatory framework may not be adequate given that the responsibilities
of federal agencies for regulating animal biotechnology are
unclear in some respects.
The study was sponsored by the Food and Drug
Administration. The National Research Council is the principal
operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit
institution that provides science and technology advice under
a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.
Read the full text of Animal Biotechnology:
Science-Based Concerns for free on the Web, as well as more
than 1,800 other publications from the National Academies.
Printed copies are available for purchase from the National
Academy Press Web site or by calling (202) 334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242.
[This news release and the report are
available at http://national-academies.org]
|