- WASHINGTON (Reuters Health)
- Genetically engineered fish, insects, shellfish and other highly mobile
animals pose a risk to the environment as they may escape from their labs
or pens and displace species in the wild, an expert scientific panel said
Tuesday.
-
- The report by a National Academy of Sciences committee
was hailed by groups opposed to bioengineered organisms used for consumption
or in crop management.
-
- "This study effectively ends the debate in this
country over whether genetically engineered animals pose a risk to human
health and the environment," said Matt Rand, biotechnology campaign
manager for the National Environmental Trust in Washington, DC.
-
- "This really raises the red flag," he told
Reuters Health, adding that he thought the report would give his and other
groups ammunition to push for further safety studies and a more comprehensive
national policy on genetically modified organisms.
-
- The panel said bioengineered organisms escaping into
the wild is of great concern, but that currently, there is no great harm
posed to humans who eat genetically modified animals, vegetables or grains,
with the exception of the potential for allergic or hypersensitivity reactions.
-
- But the committee said that since bioengineering and
cloning techniques are developing so rapidly, its report is just a snapshot.
There is a need for more research, and caution, the panel said.
-
- "As is the case with any new technology, it is almost
impossible to state that there is no concern, and in certain areas of animal
biotechnology, we did identify some legitimate ones," said John Vandenbergh,
chairman of the National Academy panel and a zoology professor at North
Carolina State University.
-
- The panel identified two specific areas of concern with
bioengineered animals, insects, and crops: organisms that are engineered
for deliberate release into the environment; and those engineered with
the intention of being farmed or confined, but that escape or are inadvertently
released.
-
- If an animal, insect or fish gets into the wild, it "might
eventually replace its relative or become established in that community
if the genetically engineered organism is more fit than its wild relatives
in that environment," the panel wrote in its report.
-
- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested the
panel's input, as the agency is considering whether cloned cattle and other
genetically modified organisms are safe for human consumption or use as
animal feed.
-
- In May, 60 environmental and consumer organizations petitioned
the FDA and four other federal agencies for a moratorium on the sale or
use of genetically modified fish. The groups acted when Aqua Bounty Farms
of Waltham, Massachusetts, filed for FDA approval of a genetically engineered
salmon.
-
- The National Academy panel said it was concerned that
if a salmon designed to grow faster and larger was released into the wild,
it could compete more successfully for food and mates than wild salmon.
-
- A spokeswoman for the trade group BIO said that Aqua
Bounty had taken "redundant" precautions to ensure that no salmon
from its farms could escape or mate, if it did find its way into wild waters.
-
- The National Academy committee also said biotech companies
should make sure that animals grown to produce pharmaceuticals are not
introduced into the food supply, and that they are not adversely harmed
by being used essentially as a manufacturing facility.
-
- The BIO spokeswoman said that the industry supports regulations
that ensure the animals' welfare.
-
-
-
-
- Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited
without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable
for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance
thereon.
|
