Vaccination News Home Page

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/21/national/21BIOT.html

Panel Urges Caution in Producing Gene-Altered Animals

By WARREN E. LEARY

ASHINGTON, Aug. 20 — Although there is no evidence that cows, sheep and other animals reproduced through cloning are unsafe to eat, more caution is needed on animals engineered to contain genes from other species, a panel of scientists said today.

The National Research Council committee, asked by the Food and Drug Administration to examine the safety concerns of applying biotechnology to animal products used for food, said it had reservations about food from some gene-altered animals. However, the committee said, there also appear to be many benefits if the technology is applied and regulated carefully.

"We were asked to focus on safety concerns, but we don't want to inhibit the progress of biotechnology, because of its many potential benefits," said Dr. John G. Vandenbergh of North Carolina State University, chairman of the panel. "We are saying, If you use this technology, do it in a safe manner."

The 12-member committee of scientists, doctors and other experts said its biggest concern about the new technology was the potential of certain genetically engineered organisms to escape and reproduce in the natural environment. Modified insects, fish, shellfish and other animals could easily escape and threaten their natural counterparts. For example, the panel said, gene-altered salmon given the ability to grow at an accelerated rate might compete more successfully for food and mates than natural varieties, causing wild salmon to die out.

The food and drug agency asked for the review as it prepared to rule on the safety of selling food products from animals manipulated through biotechnology, particularly cloned cattle. With techniques similar to those used to clone Dolly the sheep, scientists can create almost an identical copy of an adult animal with certain desirable traits. Owners of hundreds of cows cloned this way want to sell milk or meat from them but have been warned to wait for regulatory approval.

The panel said it found no data indicating the products of cloned animals were unsafe, nor did it identify a way something was likely to go wrong to make such cloned animals the source of unsafe food.

But the committee said it had reservations about food from transgenic animals, those that are changed by adding genes of other species or by having existing genes removed or deactivated. Such animals could produce meat with less fat or more protein, eggs with less cholesterol, or milk that contains drugs or vaccines that could fight disease.

One potential risk of food from transgenic animals is that some new proteins produced because of adding genes from other species might prompt hypersensitive or allergic reactions in a few people. The panel said that predicting such allergic potential was hard, and that some adverse reactions might not show up until products were on the market.

Dr. Vandenbergh said in an interview that people accepted a certain level of risk in everyday life, but that risks from foods needed to be kept as low as possible. Between 1 percent and 2 percent of adults, and 5 percent of children, have allergies, he said.

"There are a number of things that have an extremely low probability of risk, but if they occur, the consequences can be serious, as with an allergic reaction," he said.

The committee said that animals engineered to produce nonfood products, like drugs in their milk, should not enter the food supply. However, it said, it is unclear whether adequate controls are in place to ensure that carcasses from such animals do not yield food.

The National Research Council, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, was asked to look only at scientific concerns about biotechnology and food, and not for policy recommendations. But the committee said that regulation of the technology now spanned several federal agencies, and that this arrangement might not be adequate.

The committee said in its report that it had "concern about the legal and technical capacity of the agencies to address potential hazards, particularly in the environmental area."

Michael R. Taylor, a committee member and senior fellow with Resources for the Future, a study group based in Washington, said the panel was not criticizing a particular agency but saying that Congress and other policy makers should give regulators the tools they needed to deal with nontraditional technology that crossed traditional agency lines. "Does the F.D.A., for instance, have adequate authority to deal with issues such as the environmental consequences of a transgenic fish getting out?" Mr. Taylor asked.

Joseph Mendelson, the legal director for the Center for Food Safety, which has criticized genetically modified food, said regulatory uncertainty was enough in itself to keep these foods off the market.

"There are still serious issues concerning safety and regulation that should keep these things from endangering human health and the environment," Mr. Mendelson said.

Vaccination News Home Page

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.