Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - [Homestead] Biotech food, Page One of TNYT article

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>
  • To: Homestead <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Homestead] Biotech food, Page One of TNYT article
  • Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:23:18 -0700

Without U.S. Rules, Biotech Food Lacks Investors
Paul Darrow for The New York Times

Even though these Atlantic salmon are roughly the same age, the big one was genetically engineered to grow at twice the rate of normal salmon.

*
E-Mail
* Print
* Single Page
* Reprints
* Save
* Share
o Digg
o Facebook
o Newsvine
o Permalink

Article Tools Sponsored By
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: July 30, 2007

This little piggy’s manure causes less pollution. This little piggy produces extra milk for her babies. And this little piggy makes fatty acids normally found in fish, so that eating its bacon might actually be good for you.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Farming With Borrowed GenesGraphic
Farming With Borrowed Genes
Enlarge This Image
Jim Ross for The New York Times

Meet the Enviropigs. They have cleaner manure and healthier meat, say their developers, at left, Dr. John Kelly of MaRS Landing of Ontario and Dr. Cecil Forsberg of the University of Guelph near Toronto.

The three pigs, all now living in experimental farmyards, are among the genetically engineered animals whose meat might one day turn up on American dinner plates. Bioengineers have also developed salmon that grow to market weight in about half the typical time, disease- resistant cows and catfish needing fewer antibiotics, and goats whose milk might help ward off infections in children who drink it.

Only now, though, do federal officials seem to be getting serious about drafting rules that would determine whether and how such meat, milk and filets can safely enter the nation’s food supply.

Some scientists and biotechnology executives say that by having the Food and Drug Administration spell out the rules of the game, big investors would finally be willing to put up money to create a market in so-called transgenic livestock.

“Right now, it’s very hard to get any corporate investment,” said James D. Murray, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who developed the goats with the infection-fighting milk. “What studies do you need to do? What are they looking for?” he said, referring to government regulators. “That stuff’s not there.”

But some experts caution that even if the F.D.A. clears the regulatory path in coming months, investors and agribusiness companies might still shy away. Many fear that consumers would shun foods from transgenic animals, sometimes referred to as genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.’s.

“The companies we have spoken to have gone organic, and they are very concerned, at least up to the present time, of having G.M.O. associated with their name,” said Cecil W. Forsberg, a professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who helped developed the “Enviropig” with the cleaner manure. Smithfield Foods, for one, the world’s largest hog producer and pork processor, says it is doing no research on genetically engineered animals.

Critics say changing the genes of animals could lead to potentially harmful changes in the composition of milk or meat, like the introduction of a protein that could cause allergic reactions. They say there could also be risks to the environment if, for example, extra-large salmon were to escape into oceans and out-compete wild salmon for food or mates. Some also say that some of the processes used to create transgenic livestock can harm the animals themselves.

The federal guidelines would come after more than 15 years of talks and false starts at the F.D.A., a delay irking not only developers of the transgenic animals but also critics of biotechnology.

“The fact that the agency has sat there for years staring this problem in the face and really hasn’t come up with a clear way to regulate this is abdicating its responsibilities,” said Joseph Mendelson, the legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group.

Even now, the F.D.A. will not say when the rules will be ready.

“We want to get it out, but we also want to get it right,” said Julie Zawisza, a spokeswoman for the agency, which declined to make any other officials available for comment.

Some industry executives and former and current government officials say one reason for the delay was that some government officials, in part because of a preference for fewer regulations, wanted less stringent rules than the F.D.A. is considering.

Meanwhile, the biotechnology industry is actually pushing for the tougher standards.

“Our overarching goal is to have public confidence in our products,” said Barbara Glenn, the managing director for animal issues at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group. “We won’t have that unless we have a very strong review process.”

The F.D.A. is turning to transgenic animals after having tentatively declared in December that milk and meat from livestock that is cloned — but not otherwise genetically manipulated — was safe for people to eat.

The F.D.A. considers clones to be less biologically radical than genetically engineered animals — which instead of being mere replicas of naturally occurring animals are given foreign DNA, usually from another species.




  • [Homestead] Biotech food, Page One of TNYT article, Gene GeRue, 07/30/2007

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page