Bioengineered Animals Subject of National Research Council Warnings

[Guest guest]

From page A1 of this morning's Chron:

 

SCIENTISTS SEEK MORE CONTROL OVER BIOENGINEERED BEASTS

 

Report warns of risks to gene pool, humans' health

 

Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, August 21, 2002

 

 

 

Warning that bioengineered animals could escape into the wild and muddy the

gene pool, a new scientific report calls for more oversight of the entire

field, including assessments of whether biotech meat or dairy products might

cause allergies if eaten.

 

The report released Tuesday by the National Research Council offers the

first comprehensive look at the potential environmental and health risks of

using gene-splicing and cloning to create animals that could not have been

bred through traditional means.

 

The National Research Council report was requested by the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration, which is fashioning new rules to govern the many ways in

which corporate and academic scientists are redesigning animals.

 

Some firms hope to create fish that grow faster or cattle that have an extra

copy of the genes that make meat lean. Drug companies are bioengineering

cows to produce medicines in their milk. A Dutch scientist hopes to use

flies in a similar fashion. Other scientists are modifying pigs to, one day,

transplant their hearts into human patients. A Canadian firm is growing

superstrong spider silk in goats.

 

Looking at this range of activities, the report questioned whether federal

rulemakers were up to the task.

 

" The current regulatory framework might not be adequate to address unique

problems and characteristics associated with animal biotechnologies, " the

report said.

 

 

SENATE CONSIDERS SEAFOOD LABEL

Meanwhile, one biotech firm's bid to sell a fast-growing salmon has already

provoked a legislative reaction in Sacramento.

 

The state Senate could vote as early as today on a bill that would require

California stores to label genetically engineered seafood -- even though

Aqua Bounty of Massachusetts says its biotech salmon is still about a year

away from final FDA review.

 

Although it trod controversial ground, the National Research Council report

drew praise from proponents and opponents of biotechnology.

 

" We were quite pleased to see the NRC report, " said Joseph McGonigle, vice

president of Aqua Bounty. " It clearly identifies the scientific areas of

risk and leaves aside the wild claims. "

 

For instance, although the council's top concern was that " highly mobile "

biotech animals, like the salmon, might escape, McGonigle said the panel

noted that they would need an evolutionary advantage to hurt wild fish -- a

caveat that he said cleared his firm's sexually sterilized salmon.

 

Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the Center for Food Safety in

Washington, D.C., and a leading opponent of biotech agriculture, also took

comfort from the study.

 

" With all the issues the report raises, the FDA clearly has to act now to

create mandatory safety and environmental reviews, " he said.

 

Joy Mench, a professor of animal welfare at UC Davis and one of the 12

scientists on the panel, said it was up to the FDA and other federal

agencies to beef up the rules and systems to manage this burgeoning effort

to bioengineer animals.

 

" This report raises issues that people are going to have to look at and make

risk-based recommendations, " Mench said.

 

 

MAJOR POINTS OF REPORT

Among the key findings:

 

Cats, goats, fish and other animals that can easily go feral pose the

greatest risk of escaping and cross-breeding with unforeseen consequences

for the genetic future of these species.

 

Current rules seem to completely overlook efforts to bioengineer insects,

which would be particularly difficult to quarantine or capture if problems

arose.

 

The panel found moderate concern that animals bioengineered for food

purposes might produce proteins that would cause allergies or other

reactions and said this " will have to be assessed. "

 

The study found no evidence that food from cloned animals was any different

from the classic variety but noted an absence of comparative studies.

 

The panel noted " the theoretical possibility " that bioengineering pigs for

use as transplant donors could lead to the creation of a new infectious

agent that might spread through the human population.

 

 

CAN'T MAKE EXACT ASSESSMENTS

Mench said the panelists found it difficult to make blanket statements about

the safety of eating bioengineered animal products because there are so many

different approaches.

 

" This is all so new that we don't have the data yet to make precise risk

assessments, " Mench said.

 

Meanwhile, academic and commercial scientists pushing the biotech envelope

are running up against regulatory roadblocks.

 

At UC Davis, animal scientist James Murray is raising genetically engineered

goats to test techniques he hopes to introduce in dairy cows. When the goats

reach the end of their research life, he destroys them because the FDA

doesn't want them turned into food.

 

" We want to know what the FDA is going to require to put these animals in

the food chain, " he said. " They should be eaten. There is no reason not to. "

 

 

 

----------

----

On the Web

The National Research Council report is available at national-academies.org.

 

E-mail Tom Abate at tabate.