Gene-altered animals
and food safety
Author: Rick Weiss
Publication:
Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Via: AgBios
PERHAPS you're still getting used to the idea that some of
the meat, milk, and cheese you are eating may come from cloned cows or their
offspring, a controversial culinary advance that the Food and Drug
Administration green-lighted in January after deeming food from clones to be
safe. Well, hurry up and swallow, because the next course is on its way.
Largely unnoticed due to the mayhem of the markets and the
presidential race, the FDA recently proposed rules that would allow, for the
first time, the marketing of foods from genetically engineered farm animals as
well. Unlike clones - which are weirdly procreated from a single parent but are
otherwise conventional creatures - engineered animals have had their DNA codes
rewritten to endow them with traits never before seen in those species.
Among the gene-altered animals angling to appear on our
dinner tables are farmed salmon with novel DNA that makes them grow faster;
pigs with bacterial genes that make their manure less environmentally damaging;
and perhaps even cattle bearing fish genes for omega-3 fatty acids. Imagine
filet mignon as healthful as fillet of sole.
The good news is that the agency wants to regulate
gene-altered animals under its strict "new animal drug" provisions.
Usually novel foods can be introduced into the food supply without restrictions,
and the FDA does not get involved unless problems arise. But under the new
animal drug provisions, each new kind of animal produced through genetic
engineering would have to get FDA approval before being commercialized, the way
new drugs are approved. That's the right approach for dealing with the
biological complexities and cultural sensitivities of allowing gene-altered
animal products on supermarket shelves.
The bad news is that the drug approval process in this
country is extremely secretive. Under its provisions it would be illegal for
the FDA (without a company's permission) to reveal that it had even received an
application for a new gene-altered food animal until after the agency had
approved it for marketing. Once approved, there would be virtually no recourse
available to consumers. And although the agency would ultimately release a
summary of safety data, details could remain hidden forever as
"confidential business information."
Most of us accept this approach for new medicine approvals,
but such a closed-door system is inappropriate for new foods. For one thing,
patients understand that medicines carry both benefits and risks, and we count
on trusted intermediaries - our doctors - to sort through those details. With
no such experts to help with our grocery shopping, we deserve more information
on gene-altered food.
A good start would be to require that applications for
gene-altered food animals get an initial public review, perhaps through the
FDA's veterinary medicine advisory committee, which publically advises the
agency on animal drug issues. FDA also needs to take seriously consumer demands
that DNA-doped foods be labeled as such. And it should strengthen its system of
post-marketing surveillance to watch for unanticipated outcomes.
Beyond human health concerns, rapid commercialization of
engineered animals risks disrupting trade with countries not ready for future
food. There may also be environmental issues (what happens when gene-enhanced
salmon escape their offshore cages and mate with their wild cousins?). And
there may be legitimate concerns about the welfare of some engineered animals.
In a transparent system, citizens could at least weigh in on industry
priorities and shoppers could vote with their pocketbooks.
The
The proposed FDA rules, open for public comment through Nov.
18, could speed the advancement of these and other innovative endeavors. But
they will do more harm than good if they don't also promise transparency and
accountability. As demonstrated by this year's Korean riots over
SOURCE:
agbios.com