US science academy finds real risks in transgenic animals
21 August 2002 15:15 EST
by Larry O'Hanlon, BioMedNet News
Washington DC - The food is fine, but the environment and animals themselves may be at risk from animal biotechnology, according a newly released report, from the US National Academy of Sciences.
Compiled at the request of the Center for Veterinary Medicine within the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the 179-page report, Animal Biotechnology: Identifying Science-Based Concerns, weighs the science-based risks of animal biotechnology, not its benefits or policy matters, said the report committee's chair John G. Vandenbergh, a zoologist at North Carolina State University.
Vandenbergh also cautioned that the report could be outdated already, because animal biotechnology is advancing so rapidly. "This report is a snapshot in time," he said at a press conference today.
Among the areas identified in the report as being of the most scientific concern are food safety, xenotransplantation, environmental impacts, animal welfare, and whether there was adequate regulatory capacity to address the issues.
Regarding food safety, the report concludes that the risk of allergenicity is very low. But because a small number of people could have severe symptoms, allergenicity should be considered a matter of moderate concern, Vandenbergh explained. So far there is no evidence that any somatic cell cloned animals can cause allergic reactions, he said.
On the matter of xenotransplantation, recipients of genetically modified tissues or organs will be exposed to "considerable risk" of novel infectious diseases, according to the report. The risk is not greater than that of other medical procedures, however, and so it may well be worthwhile for recipients. But there is also the larger danger of an infectious agent harmful to another species gaining an opportunity to evolve into a contagious human pathogen.
The area of most scientific concern regards the possibility that genetically modified (GM) animals could escape into the wild and either mate with or compete against their wild counterparts. While large animals like cows and goats pose almost no hazard in this way, insects, shellfish, fish, mice and rats pose high risks, the report concludes. Even the escape of sterile female GM salmon can still have a potential negative impact on wild salmon which compete for the same resources, says report committee member Eric Hallerman, a fisheries and wildlife science professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
There is also the very real matter of potential physical and psychological pain and distress among cloned and GM animals. Biotech alterations to animals can create behavioral abnormalities, physiological abnormalities, and health problems. At the same time, the same technology could help provide solutions to these problems. Just the production of larger ruminant offspring, for example, can require caesarian sections and a lot more veterinary care.
Although the report was not intended to confront policy matters, Vandenbergh said there were some policy matters the committee simply could not escape if it was to address the scientific issues thoroughly. Among these are the need for public participation and the recognition of how social, political, and ethnic factors influence the nature of scientific research and the interpretation of data.
"Public participation - it is a concern," said report committee member Michael Taylor, a director for the Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future. Currently the FDA's New Animal Drug regulations, which govern the development of biotech animals, do not allow for public participation, says Taylor. "So obviously the issue is there."
:hehe: :laugh:
462
276
223
173
164
162
158
155
117
111
93
92
91
91