Regulation blocking genetically engineered food animal development, report finds

June 30, 2011, UC Davis
The time-consuming regulation of genetically engineered plants and animals has serious long-term implications for agriculture and food security in the United States.

( -- A cumbersome and time-consuming federal regulatory process is stifling commercial investment in the development of genetically engineered animals for food and has serious long-term implications for agriculture and food security in the United States, reports a task force of experts led by a UC Davis animal scientist.

“Although humans and animals have been consuming genetically engineered food from plants for years, images of genetically engineered animals open new and often contentious debates about the issue,” said Alison Van Eenennaam, the report’s lead author and a UC Davis Cooperative Extension specialist in animal genomics and biotechnology.

“Some of the controversy regarding GE animals stems from issues of regulatory oversight of research, development, and post-approval marketing,” she said.

In the report, various stakeholders point out strengths and weaknesses in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory approach. The task force members address:

• thoroughness of the premarket product review process for safety and efficacy;
• potential for withdrawing FDA endorsement after a product has been approved;
• need for public transparency in the review process;
• the FDA’s lack of authority to consider ethics and other social concerns;
• reliance on data produced by the corporation seeking approval; and
• lack of provision for environmental review.

The also determined that the issues are clouded by the potential for opposition groups to delay or obstruct approval by co-opting regulations and concerns about labeling requirements. At this time, the FDA cannot require that food labels include information about production methods, such as genetic engineering, unless that process results in a material difference in the product.

The report, published by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, examines a proposal by the private firm AquaBounty to raise and sell genetically engineered salmon as a test case. The “AquaAdvantage” salmon carry a Chinook salmon gene, which enables them to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon.

The report, The Science and Regulation of from Genetically Engineered , is available free of charge on the council’s website at .

Explore further: FDA considering whether to label engineered fish

Related Stories

Consumer groups push for label for modified salmon

September 21, 2010

(AP) -- Consumer advocates urged the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday to ensure that salmon engineered to grow twice as fast as the conventional variety are labeled in the grocery store as genetically modified.

Fish or frankenfish? FDA weighs altered salmon (Update)

September 20, 2010

(AP) -- Fish or frankenfish? A Massachusetts company wants to market a genetically engineered version of Atlantic salmon, and regulators are weighing the request. If approval is given, it would be the first time the government ...

US mulls approval of genetically engineered salmon

September 6, 2010

US authorities have begun to consider approval for the first time the sale of genetically engineered salmon, a move that some say could open the door to more transgenic animals on American dinner tables.

FDA review on transgenic salmon too narrow: study

November 18, 2010

The review process being used by the Food and Drug Administration to assess the safety of a faster-growing transgenic salmon fails to weigh the full effects of the fish's widespread production, according to analysis by a ...

Recommended for you

Cells lacking nuclei struggle to move in 3-D environments

January 20, 2018

University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers have revealed new details of how the physical properties of the nucleus influence how cells can move around different environments - such as ...

Microbial communities demonstrate high turnover

January 19, 2018

When Mark Twain famously said "If you don't like the weather in New England, just wait a few minutes," he probably didn't anticipate MIT researchers would apply his remark to their microbial research. But a new study does ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2011
The article quotes a scientist claiming that we have been eating genetically modified plants for years. Sorry buddy but ydeliberately misconstruing the truth here. The food plants that we have been consuming were not genetically modified by the same techniques that the biotechs currently use. Transgenic modifdication is not the same, even remotely, as traditional cross breeding of plants.
As for animals we have already bred about as many species as there needs to be for species survival in terms of robustness and disease resistance but you crackpots think that playing god with species is necessary. Its not. It will never be appropriate or needed. The sole purpose for this extravagant waste of time and money (we have some serious climate problems which couyld use a buck or two to resolve them) is to insert a patent gene into every food commodity and therefore give the ownership of all food to the corporations who then dictate the price as they see fit. That is the truth behind the lies.
not rated yet Jul 01, 2011
As a lifelong family farmer and livestock producer driven out of both by the rapid spread and growth of exceedingly powerful, transnational agricorporations, I would warn that we are in serious danger of two things, both having to do with loss of genetic diversity:

1. Destruction of habitat-- and with it the ancestral or wild relatives of our domestic crops and livestock which might have otherwise been valuable to natural breeders for conferring various desirable characteristics such as drought resistance, disease resistance, or some other particular aspect or characteristic.

2. Wholesale replacement of various "breeds" or strains of crops and livestock in the rush to create a consistant, more highly-marketable product based purely on consumer tastes and demands without regard for the longterm ability to maintain hybrid vigor by mixing the genetics of various un-related purebreed strains, as corporately marketed, homogeneous genetic lines drive the others from the market.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.