Banner
    Genetically Engineered Animal Regulation: Mooooving Along
    By Becky Jungbauer | September 18th 2008 02:20 PM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Becky

    A scientist and journalist by training, I enjoy all things science, especially science-related humor. My column title is a throwback to Jane

    ...

    View Becky's Profile

    People who believe eating genetically modified organisms will turn them literally into what they eat are in for a new nightmare - genetically engineered animals.

    Highly ironic case of misinformed alarmist sprouting antlers, snout reported to FDA

    The Food and Drug Administration issued a draft guidance on the regulation of genetically engineered animals today. (For those not well versed in the parlance of regulation, this is a document that describes FDA's current thinking on an issue. The agency alerts the relevant stakeholders that they can comment on the guidance, and then a final guidance is developed. This is not regulation, it's guidance - as the name implies, the document guides stakeholders in what actions they should take.)

    cowsOn certain issues FDA wants the public in particular to weigh in and releases a consumer update. The press release says, "Although the guidance ... is aimed at industry, FDA believes it may also help the public gain a better understanding of this important and developing area. The guidance explains the process by which FDA is regulating GE animals."

    They attempt to stave off arguments that genetic engineering is crazy futuristic voodoo by stating, "Genetic engineering is not a new technology. It has been widely used in agriculture, for example, to make crops like corn and soy resistant to pests or tolerant to herbicides. In medicine, genetic engineering is used to develop microbes that can produce pharmaceuticals. And in food, genetic engineering is used to produce enzymes that aid in baking, brewing, and cheese making."

    FDA also notes that conventional engineering has been around for a while: "Although conventional breeding methods have been used for a long time to select for desirable traits in animals, genetic engineering is a much more targeted and powerful method of actually introducing specific desirable traits into animals."

    Not just a better burger

    GE animals, originally developed in the 1980s, can make all aspects of human and animal life better, FDA says. Animals themselves may be more resistant to harmful diseases (the udderly awful infection mastitis in cows, for example). Medicines can be produced in large quantities through engineering animals - egg-based vaccines, anyone? Animal parts can be used for transplantation. GE animals are also more 'green' than their conventional counterparts, requiring less feed. Finally, animals that produce food products - meat, milk, etc - can be engineered to produce healthier products, like omega-3 fatty acids in pork.

    GE animals can benefit humans indirectly as well. Check out the picture of a USDA research proejct - these adorable GE baby goats, little furry marvels of scientific progress, will express spider silk proteins in their milk. Spider silk proteins, you say? Yes, proteins produced in these goats' milk can be used to create silk fibers for use in artificial ligaments, bulletproof vests, and more.

    What else can these little guys do? Well, FDA says in the draft gudiance, in addition to the uses listed above, GE animals can be used to"enrich or enhance the animals’ interactions with humans (e.g., hypo-allergenic pets) [and] develop animal models for human diseases (e.g., pigs as models for cardiovascular diseases)."

    labradoodle So, you pet lovers who vehemently oppose genetic engineering but have pet allergies - what to do? Provide a loving home to Lassie the Labradoodle and swallow your pride, or live a long, lonely life sans pet?

    And what about Atkins diet followers, or steak lovers? Do you go vegan, if GE animals take over the market, or do you fire up the grill?

    Some of these quandaries are years away, of course. But the sooner the public educates itself on the benefits of genetic engineering - and how GE has already benefited their lives without their knowing it - the faster I can sit down to a delicious dinner of GE steak and potatoes.

    FDA Q&A for consumers: click here.

    FDA GE Fact sheet: click here.

    Fancy FDA graphic showing how GE animals can produce human drugs: click here.

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam

    But the sooner the public educates itself on the benefits of genetic engineering - and how GE has already benefited their lives without their knowing it - the faster I can sit down to a delicious dinner of GE steak and potatoes.

    I agree that conceptually genetic engineering can be quite useful, however there are some concerns that also need to be addressed. Regarding the animals themselves, there is still alot of unanswered questions regarding food safety with respect to steroids in the food chain and the production problems that give rise to E. Coli outbreaks and "mad cow" disease. While I realize that these are not commonplace occurences, they do make the public question how conscientous producers are when choices are made against profitability. I also think that there is a concern that much of the genetic engineering isn't to solve problems intrinsic in the animals but to escalate the maturation process and allow worse conditions for the animals to maximize production. In addition, there is a legitimate concern about granting patents on engineered animals. In the past, anyone could have a cow or steer by the simple act of reproduction, but if animals aren't naturally produced, they become patentable products that may require licensing. The concern is that this places more and more control of life's basic necessities into the hands of business and reduces the options available to individuals. As an example, I can currently raise a steer and provide my own beef without a problem, but I would be quite concerned if I might be legally prevented from raising a non-genetically engineered steer, because some company holds the patents or some government agency has determined that only engineered cattle are legal. This may sound like a far-fetched concern, but in my experience whenever profitability and money are involved, there is always someone looking to corner the market and control competition. In this case, it could be more detrimental than beneficial if choices are removed.
    Becky Jungbauer
    Hi, Gerhard -
    I also think that there is a concern that much of the genetic engineering isn't to solve problems intrinsic in the animals but to escalate the maturation process and allow worse conditions for the animals to maximize production.
    I completely agree with you; there are definitely concerns that must be addressed, and precautions put in place to safeguard first and foremost the animals, and then those of us using or consuming the products. My intention was not to diminish those very real concerns, and they are not far-fetched at all, but just to point out that people should educate themselves first before the villagers call for torches and pitchforks over the issue. Something as simple (or complex) as corn, which is mind-boggling in its pervasiveness in our economy, wouldn't be consumable if it weren't for the manipulation of edible corn versus wild, inedible corn. Yet a lot of people don't think about that (or know about it). Little examples like that cause me to wonder whether the mob mentality is out of conviction after truly studying an issue, or just out of fear of the unknown, and they hope that the ringleader knows what he or she is talking about. And yes, I agree people should be able to choose whether they eat GE meat or conventional meat.
    Gerhard Adam

    Yet a lot of people don't think about that (or know about it). Little examples like that cause me to wonder whether the mob mentality is out of conviction after truly studying an issue, or just out of fear of the unknown, and they hope that the ringleader knows what he or she is talking about.

    I think that many people feel overwhelmed by the general state of society and all the demands that are made of them. Everywhere you turn there's someone telling you that YOU as the consumer have to beware, or scrutinize claims, or investigate to protect yourself. In short, there aren't enough hours in the day to monitor all the stimulus being thrown at me if I were to seriously investigate every claim made. So I think the majority of people simply shut down and become cynical or distrustful. They basically take the position that anything new needs to prove itself and that the onus is on the newest claim, rather than them to be convincing.
    Becky Jungbauer
    Definitely - the point you make is one that is critical to consider for anyone communicating information. Our 24/7 news cycle is a double-edged sword - an onslaught of information, but no one teaching us how to filter or analyze. I worked on a web site that tried to provide that help to consumers of health/medical reporting - www.healthnewsreview.org - and I can't believe people aren't demanding more sites like that. I actually had this very conversation this weekend with a neighbor, about the 'green' revolution and how people just shut down because they're told they can make a difference by doing all these little things - changing light bulbs, etc - but how do you know if you're listening to a real expert? How do you know if your contribution, however small, is truly making a difference? We muddle through and hope for the best, I guess.
    Gerhard Adam

    but how do you know if you're listening to a real expert? How do you know if your contribution, however small, is truly making a difference? We muddle through and hope for the best, I guess.

    Unfortunately I suspect its more along the lines of doing what feels right. Many people participate in animal protection groups, despite the fact that everyone acknowledges that protection is meaningless without habitat. Similarly, we can't really save a forest by saving one tree at a time, it's an "all or nothing" proposition. In the end, we hope for the best but expect the worst. Despite the claims of modern leaders, society is far too large and disconnected to truly feel that there is any bond for which we can respond as a group. People recycle for the same reasons that they donate to charities at the office. Not because they necessarily have any real knowledge of what will happen (although I realize some people have some experiences), but because this is the accepted way to do these things and in the end people feel they have done their part.