|
|
|
|
|
Playing God -- The case against GMF and Cloning
by Ellen Gooch
Wondering what to get the kids for Christmas? How about a glow-in-the dark Zebra Fish? Available in Starfire Red, Electric Green and Sunburst Yellow, these completely bio-engineered swimmers will provide hours of genetically modified fun for the whole family!
GloFish, as these pets are called, were created using technology developed by the three 2008 winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The first Nobelist, Osamu Shimomura, discovered that a North American jellyfish called Aequorea victoria contained a protein that allowed it to glow florescent green under ultraviolet light. The second Nobelist, Martin Chalfie, developed methods to use this protein to connect to other proteins, allowing scientist and doctors to view biological processes that were before invisible. The final Nobelist, Roger Y. Tsien, extended the color palette, allowing multiple processes to be viewed simultaneously. For example, these colored proteins can tag nerve cells to enable doctors to track deterioration in Alzheimer's patients, or can be attached to cancer cells to see how malignancies spread.
GloFish were created by adding these colored proteins to Zebra fish eggs and forcing these eggs to accept the foreign protein into the genetic structure - into the DNA. In effect, this created a new, man-made breed of fish which pass on these colored proteins to their offspring. The original purpose of the fish was to aid in the detection of contaminated waterways, like a canary in a coal mine. Theoretically, the biologically engineered fish would fluoresce only in the presence of environmental toxins. Right now they fluoresce all of the time.
The Future of the Food Supply
Such genetic engineering (GE) is becoming commonplace, and not just for scientific study or dubious entertainment. Genetic engineering is the future of the food supply.
Some would argue that it also the past. Human beings have been modifying the plants and animals around them for at least 12,000 years. It was at this point that humans realized that plants that had been inedible became edible when cooked. This gave rise to the agrarian revolution, which in turn led former nomadic people to breed animals for food. Sheep, goats, cows, pigs, and dogs, to name a few, were all created via crossbreeding, so, in essence, they are all man-made.
Bioengineering companies like to claim that there is little difference between crossbreeding and directly modifying the genetic characteristics of an animal. As the Biological Industry Organization (BIO) puts it:
"Using biotechnology to increase the productivity of our animals is a variation on the age-old practice of selective breeding. Genetic modification of animals by humans has already created all of our domesticated livestock and companion animals, from Rhode Island Reds and Holsteins, to Chihuahuas and Great Danes."
Breaching Natural Boundaries
This statement is ingenuous: genetic engineering today goes far beyond the natural boundaries of crossbreeding. Animals are crossed with genes from wildly different species. For example, a group of scientists from the Harvard Medical School, the University of Missouri and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center came up with the idea of making pig meat "healthier" by larding the fat with Omega 3, a fatty acid typically found in fish. Mammals do not have the gene that produces Omega 3; it is found instead in microorganisms, plankton, algae and worms. Fish get Omega 3 by eating algae. The researcher's pigs got it by having a foreign gene forced into their DNA.
Another modified pig was touted as the answer to the excessive, phosphorus-laden manure created by factory farms. Called the Enviropig, it was crossed with a mouse gene that allowed it to produce manure with 60-75 percent less phosphorus. And researchers at the US Department of Agriculture genetically engineered dairy cows that resist a disease called mastitis caused by a common bacterium, S aureus. Using gene-transfer technology, the researchers produced cows that had lysostaphin, an antimicrobial protein, in their milk. The gene was taken from a bacteria called Staphylococcus that uses the protein to repel S aureus.
There's more. Two professors at the University of California at Davis spliced human genes into a herd of dairy goats which allowed the goats to produce high levels of a human antibiotic-like protein in their milk. On a similar note, researchers at the China Agricultural University developed a transgenetic cow this past August that produces CD20 antibodies in its milk. CD20 antibodies are used to treat B cell lymphomas, leukemia and some auto-immune diseases. The development is expected to reduce the costs of CD20 antibody production. Today it is made using Chinese hamster ovary cells.
For the truly weird, consider Nexia Corporation's goat/spider hybrid. Researchers at this Canadian company along with the US Army Solider Biological Chemical Command have been working on a goat that can produce spider silk fibers in its milk. Called BioSteel, researchers claim that these fibers are stronger and lighter than Kevlar. Then there are Mighty Mice. Case Western Reserve University researchers have bred a line of mice that can run five to six kilometers at a speed of 20 meters per minute on a treadmill for up to six hours before stopping. These GE mice also eat 60 percent more than their natural cousins, but remain fitter, trimmer and live and breed longer than wild mice.
Super Fish
Another food supply area targeted by genetic engineers is aquaculture. According to the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, aquaculture is the fastest growing food producing sector in the world, accounting for over 50% of the world fish supply. Like factory farming, aquaculture often has a detrimental impact on the environment. When so many living things are confined in close quarters, feces can build up. Feces add nutrients to the water that induces algae growth, limiting oxygen in the water. Uneaten fish feed can accumulate on the seafloor, which is then decomposed by bacteria. This also depletes oxygen. Certain species of farm fish eat wild fish that stray into the enclosure, effecting wild fish stock, leading to a drop in biodiversity. Further, many fish farms use large quantities of drugs, pesticides and other chemicals. Some also use antibiotics. In June 2008, the United Kingdom destroyed a consignment of shrimp from India because it contained antibiotic residues. Chinese aquafarms have historically had a problem with antibiotic residues. However, the Chinese authorities seem, for now, to be doing something about this. In July, 2008 only 6% of all seafood shipments to the US tested positive for antibiotics, down from about 25%, according to Don Kraemer, deputy director of the FDA's Office of Food Safety. But despite the intensive use of antibiotics and pesticides, the crowded conditions of a fish farm foster the proliferation of parasites and disease, which can spread to wild marine species.
And then there are the escapees - farm fish that break out into the wild. In just Scotland, between 2005 and 2007, as self-reported by fisheries there, over 1.5 million farm salmon escaped. At least they were natural salmon. What if they were genetically engineered?
AquaBounty Technologies of Massachusetts, has been developing a new breed of super salmon. These salmon reach market size twice as fast and convert feed into body mass 10% - 30% more efficiently than traditional salmon stock. The salmon grow so fast because they are embedded with genes from the Ocean Pout, also known as the Congo Eel. This fish is highly resistant to cold temperatures. Salmon normally only produce growth hormones during the summer months. Using this anti-freeze genetic trait from the Pout allows the super Salmon to make growth hormones all year round. The company promises that all its stock will be sterilized females, so, even if fish do escape, they won't compete with wild salmon.
Aqua Bounty is in the final stages of a five-year battle to get the product approved by the Food & Drug Administration. Such approval could pave the way for other companies wishing to sell genetically modified animals. As a matter of fact, on September 18th, the FDA unveiled an approval process for GE animals that would treat the modified creatures like drugs. The guidelines make explicit the types of information it would need to green light a new product. Such information could include a complete description of the transgene, a map of exactly where it fits in the animal's chromosome, and proof that the location of the added gene won't change as it's passed down to offspring.
Weak Regulations?
Many experts feel that the proposed regulations do not go far enough to protect the public. The process would be secretive to guard commercial interests, so no peer review would be possible. As Michael Hansen, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union puts it, "Perhaps more important, the F.D.A. proposal has one glaring defect: there is no requirement to label food that comes from genetically engineered animals." Jean Halloran, the director for food policy at the same institute adds, "They are talking about pigs that are going to have mouse genes in them, and this is not going to be labeled? We are close to speechless on this."
Dave Schubert, a cell biologist at the Salk Institute in California, points out another problem. "We've seen that there's no mechanism to control the unwanted distribution of transgenic plants. So if this happens with transgenic animals in our food supply, then that's a big problem. If products are not labeled, they will be untraceable."
If you think this is a solely American problem, think again. While the EU does not allow European companies to produce genetically modified products, Europe does import American products. It will be impossible to tell whether or not these products contain GM food from either plant or animal sources.
China Threat
Then there is the problem of how much oversight the FDA, or any other governmental regulatory agency, can provide. Imports from China are a particular issue. This past April, the FDA concluded that a shipment from China of heparin, an important blood thinner, was deliberately contaminated. Food and Drug Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach claimed the contamination was done "by virtue of economic fraud." 81 people died so a company called Changzhou SPL could make a little extra money (actually, a lot of extra money). There have also been recent controversies surrounding tainted pet food and toothpaste. Needless to say, the Chinese government routinely denies that any fault lies with their citizens, though they did execute - EXECUTE - the official in charge of their version of the FDA for taking bribes and allowing unsafe drugs on the market.
Now imagine that Chinese scientists continue developing transgenic animals. Especially concerning is fish farms. Asia accounts for 90% of the world's fish farms, with China in the lead. Would you trust them to protect wild fish from their genetically modified brethren? More to the point, what are the odds that Chinese GE products will be subject to rigorous review? The regulatory environment in China is fragmented, with the central government only able to control larger companies. The Chinese Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) industry - the industry most associated with GE - is dominated by small and medium sized companies. These are "regulated" by municipal or provincial governments. The FDA is trying to open a field office in China to address this problem, but whether it will be successful (or even has a chance of being successful) remains to be seen.
Even in a perfectly regulated world, GE is a radically new technology with several known risks. For example, genetic engineering routinely places proteins from inedible organisms into the food supply. Almost all known food allergens are proteins, so GE could introduce mankind to some new ones. But the scariest risks are the ones we are unable to assess. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists "As with any new technology, the full set of risks associated with genetic engineering have almost certainly not been identified. The ability to imagine what might go wrong with a technology is limited by the currently incomplete understanding of physiology, genetics, and nutrition."
Hello Dolly, Again
Another emergent technology, one that doesn't hope to create a new species but rather hopes to keep a species the same - exactly the same - is cloning. Cloning is the act of creating an exact genetic replica of an existing animal. To achieve this, a nucleus is extracted from an animal's cell. This contains the genetic material; the complete blueprint of a specific animal. This is inserted into an egg that has had its nucleus removed. This egg is then coaxed to develop into an embryo. Then the embryo is implanted into the womb of a surrogate animal mother and birthed in the natural way.
Some animal breeders like the idea of cloning because it allows them to make duplicates of star animals - for example, an excellent milk cow or a meaty pig. The claim is that most of these duplicates will be used to breed in the normal way, in the hopes that they create more and better offspring.
A herd of star animals may sound like a good idea, but such a herd may have a detrimental impact on food supply. According again to Dave Schubert, a genetically exact or similar herd could have difficulty fending off epidemics. Usually in an epidemic some animals die and some survive, due to variations in their immunological make-up. This is called herd immunity; the ability of a herd to survive though some animals die. When the herb population is the same, i.e. clones, herd immunity is lost.
An example of this, from the plant world, is the Cavendish banana. There are hundreds of the different types of bananas, but since the 1950's by far the most commercialized banana is the Cavendish. As of 2008, these bananas are under serious attack from a fungal infection. In other words, the lack of genetic variety puts the species at risk.
As for the safety of consuming meat or milk from cloned animals or their offspring, the FDA has concluded this past January that the risks are minimal:
"After years of detailed study and analysis, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine, and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. There was insufficient information for the agency to reach a conclusion on the safety of food from clones of other animal species, such as sheep."
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) agrees with the FDA's assessment. It issued a draft opinion that concluded that cloned pigs, cows and their products were as healthy and nutritious as their natural-born kin.
Not everyone agrees that it is safe for humans to eat cloned products. Says the Center for Food Safety: "Defects in clones are common, and cloning scientists warn that even small imbalances in clones could lead to hidden food safety problems in clones' milk or meat. There are few studies on the risks of food from clones, and no long-term food safety studies have been done." How about the safety of the animal? Today, over 90 percent of cloning attempts fail. Those that survive have more health problems and higher mortality rates than sexually reproduced animals. For many breeders this makes the issue about cost efficiencies rather than cruelty to animals. If cruelty to animals really was widespread issue among humans, there would be an uproar over factory farming, in which animals are packed together under truly grotesque conditions, stuffed with hormones to make them grow as fast as possible, treated with antibiotics to keep them from dying too soon and then slaughtered and fed to the hungry, uncaring masses.
The Law of Unintended Consequences
Who could have imagined that a revolutionary theory developed by a young clerk at the Swiss Patent Office would lead to the absolute destruction of two cities in Japan? For it was Einstein who first proposed that a large amount of energy could be released from a small amount of matter; he was also a co-signer of a letter in 1939 urging President Roosevelt to develop the Atom Bomb. It was an act he came to regret.
Such is the law of unintended consequences. As far as genetic engineering and cloning are concerned, we really do not know what their outcomes will be. By the time we do know, it will be too late - and not just because of problems that might arise in the food chain. In the end, GE and cloning are not entirely about creating "better animals". It is also about creating better human animals (or spare parts - talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater). Remember Mighty Mice? These were a first step in creating mighty people. Molecular biologist Lee Silver, Ph.D., of Princeton University speculates that there will eventually emerge two biological classes: the "Gen Rich" and "Naturals." The Gen Rich, which he estimates will reach about 10% of the world's population, will include businessmen, musicians, artists, athletes, and intellectuals, all of whom have been enhanced with genes that allow them to outperform those who are merely human. I wish the Ancient Greeks had cloned Sophocles. He would have known how treat such hubris.
|
