Joined
·
13,118 Posts
Los Angeles Times
May 14, 2003 Wednesday
Main News; Part 1; Page 1; Metro Desk
It Came From the Gene Lab;
Faster-growing salmon? Aquarium fish that glow in the dark? Regulators are
at a crossroads over bioengineered animals.
Kenneth R. Weiss, Times Staff Writer
One newly bioengineered salmon, endowed with a gene from an eel-like fish,
grows five times faster than its natural cousins. Another genetically
modified salmon produces antifreeze in its blood so it can survive icy
waters that swirl through oceanic fish farms.
A tropical zebra fish, infused with the green fluorescent gene of a
jellyfish, glows in the dark -- a living novelty that promoters hope will be
a must-have for the home aquarium.
These experimental superfish are more than laboratory curiosities. They are
the progeny of genetic engineers whose skill at mixing and matching genes is
outpacing laws and regulations meant to protect the food supply and the
environment.
None of these designer fish, being pushed by biotech entrepreneurs as
potential lucrative ventures, have yet reached the market. But the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration has initiated a review of the souped-up salmon, a
process that could lead to the first approval of a "transgenic" animal --
one that has genetic material transplanted from another.
Although the human health implications of eating bioengineered animals
remain unknown, a panel of scientists last August reported it had "a
moderate level of concern" that new species could trigger allergic
reactions. What might happen, the scientists asked, if a gene from a
shellfish were implanted into a fish? Could it cause a reaction in consumers
hypersensitive to shellfish?
The National Academy of Sciences panel, assembled at the FDA's request, said
its primary concern was the potential for ecological havoc should highly
mobile, fast-breeding transgenic species escape into the wild.
"It is possible," the panel reported, "that if transgenic salmon with genes
engineered to accelerate growth were released into the natural environment,
they could compete more successfully for food and mates than wild salmon."
That means these "Frankenfish," as critics have labeled them, could squeeze
out their wild cousins, driving them to extinction through interbreeding or
by eating them.
Alarmed by the potential risks, Washington, Oregon and Maryland have banned
genetically enhanced fish to protect the native fish populations.
California's Fish and Game Commission, trying not to hinder scientific
research or the state's burgeoning biotech industry, plans to grant permits,
based on its own reviews, for each new transgenic species as it emerges
under new rules that take effect today.
"We could have put up a stop sign and said, 'No,' " said Michael Flores,
president of the Fish and Game Commission. "But then we would have crippled
our university researchers and other research and development. We will look
at every single species and make sure safeguards are in place."
West Coast commercial fishermen are pushing California to ban genetically
altered fish, arguing that the potential threat to wild salmon and other
native species is too great.
"Once this genie escapes, can we put it back in the bottle?" asked Zeke
Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Assns. "I doubt it.
"So what happens when these fish get out in the wild? Will they spread
disease? Will they be predators of our native fish or interbreed with them?
How can we assure the public the fish we catch are safe if transgenic fish
are mixed in?
"It's all unknown," Grader said.
It's the FDA's job to answer those questions. But "marine ecology is not
historically an area of FDA scientific strength," said Michael Taylor, a
National Academy of Sciences panel member and senior fellow at the nonprofit
Resources for the Future.
Taylor and others also fault the agency for closing its reviews to the
public to protect trade secrets.
Lester M. Crawford, deputy FDA commissioner, said the agency is
reconsidering its secrecy policy when weighing the food safety and
ecological impact of newly designed species.
"We certainly have a framework to deal with environmental risks," Crawford
said.
But new breeds of transgenic animals have prompted some internal
soul-searching. "We are evaluating whether we need new regulations or new
money or congressional authority to tweak the law," Crawford said.
He said the agency may never approve a transgenic fish or any other kind of
genetically modified animal for the marketplace. But the pressure is
mounting to do so, with a menagerie of them expected to arrive at the FDA's
offices soon.
Researchers at biotech companies and universities have redesigned the genes
of freshwater catfish and tilapia to make them grow faster, and those of
shrimp and abalone to help them resist disease.
Scientists in Singapore are designing ornamental fish -- such as the zebra
fish -- that glow green when spliced with a jellyfish gene or red when
infused with the gene of a sea anemone.
Those same researchers are devising a fish that changes color when it passes
through different temperatures. Such gene-splicing is being extended to
goldfish and koi, stirring excitement in the $1-billion annual home aquarium
trade.
Genetic manipulations are becoming so routine that an artist in Chicago has
put a pair of florescent green zebra fish on public display, along with
assorted glow-in-the-dark rodents and other creatures he calls "transgenic
art" in an exhibit called "The Eighth Day."
"We're adding one day to the seven days of creation," said Eduardo Kac, a
self-described "biotech artist" at the School of the Art Institute of
Chicago.
"From the technical point of view, the technology is here and part of
society. I'm saying, 'What are we going to do with it?' "
May 14, 2003 Wednesday
Main News; Part 1; Page 1; Metro Desk
It Came From the Gene Lab;
Faster-growing salmon? Aquarium fish that glow in the dark? Regulators are
at a crossroads over bioengineered animals.
Kenneth R. Weiss, Times Staff Writer
One newly bioengineered salmon, endowed with a gene from an eel-like fish,
grows five times faster than its natural cousins. Another genetically
modified salmon produces antifreeze in its blood so it can survive icy
waters that swirl through oceanic fish farms.
A tropical zebra fish, infused with the green fluorescent gene of a
jellyfish, glows in the dark -- a living novelty that promoters hope will be
a must-have for the home aquarium.
These experimental superfish are more than laboratory curiosities. They are
the progeny of genetic engineers whose skill at mixing and matching genes is
outpacing laws and regulations meant to protect the food supply and the
environment.
None of these designer fish, being pushed by biotech entrepreneurs as
potential lucrative ventures, have yet reached the market. But the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration has initiated a review of the souped-up salmon, a
process that could lead to the first approval of a "transgenic" animal --
one that has genetic material transplanted from another.
Although the human health implications of eating bioengineered animals
remain unknown, a panel of scientists last August reported it had "a
moderate level of concern" that new species could trigger allergic
reactions. What might happen, the scientists asked, if a gene from a
shellfish were implanted into a fish? Could it cause a reaction in consumers
hypersensitive to shellfish?
The National Academy of Sciences panel, assembled at the FDA's request, said
its primary concern was the potential for ecological havoc should highly
mobile, fast-breeding transgenic species escape into the wild.
"It is possible," the panel reported, "that if transgenic salmon with genes
engineered to accelerate growth were released into the natural environment,
they could compete more successfully for food and mates than wild salmon."
That means these "Frankenfish," as critics have labeled them, could squeeze
out their wild cousins, driving them to extinction through interbreeding or
by eating them.
Alarmed by the potential risks, Washington, Oregon and Maryland have banned
genetically enhanced fish to protect the native fish populations.
California's Fish and Game Commission, trying not to hinder scientific
research or the state's burgeoning biotech industry, plans to grant permits,
based on its own reviews, for each new transgenic species as it emerges
under new rules that take effect today.
"We could have put up a stop sign and said, 'No,' " said Michael Flores,
president of the Fish and Game Commission. "But then we would have crippled
our university researchers and other research and development. We will look
at every single species and make sure safeguards are in place."
West Coast commercial fishermen are pushing California to ban genetically
altered fish, arguing that the potential threat to wild salmon and other
native species is too great.
"Once this genie escapes, can we put it back in the bottle?" asked Zeke
Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Assns. "I doubt it.
"So what happens when these fish get out in the wild? Will they spread
disease? Will they be predators of our native fish or interbreed with them?
How can we assure the public the fish we catch are safe if transgenic fish
are mixed in?
"It's all unknown," Grader said.
It's the FDA's job to answer those questions. But "marine ecology is not
historically an area of FDA scientific strength," said Michael Taylor, a
National Academy of Sciences panel member and senior fellow at the nonprofit
Resources for the Future.
Taylor and others also fault the agency for closing its reviews to the
public to protect trade secrets.
Lester M. Crawford, deputy FDA commissioner, said the agency is
reconsidering its secrecy policy when weighing the food safety and
ecological impact of newly designed species.
"We certainly have a framework to deal with environmental risks," Crawford
said.
But new breeds of transgenic animals have prompted some internal
soul-searching. "We are evaluating whether we need new regulations or new
money or congressional authority to tweak the law," Crawford said.
He said the agency may never approve a transgenic fish or any other kind of
genetically modified animal for the marketplace. But the pressure is
mounting to do so, with a menagerie of them expected to arrive at the FDA's
offices soon.
Researchers at biotech companies and universities have redesigned the genes
of freshwater catfish and tilapia to make them grow faster, and those of
shrimp and abalone to help them resist disease.
Scientists in Singapore are designing ornamental fish -- such as the zebra
fish -- that glow green when spliced with a jellyfish gene or red when
infused with the gene of a sea anemone.
Those same researchers are devising a fish that changes color when it passes
through different temperatures. Such gene-splicing is being extended to
goldfish and koi, stirring excitement in the $1-billion annual home aquarium
trade.
Genetic manipulations are becoming so routine that an artist in Chicago has
put a pair of florescent green zebra fish on public display, along with
assorted glow-in-the-dark rodents and other creatures he calls "transgenic
art" in an exhibit called "The Eighth Day."
"We're adding one day to the seven days of creation," said Eduardo Kac, a
self-described "biotech artist" at the School of the Art Institute of
Chicago.
"From the technical point of view, the technology is here and part of
society. I'm saying, 'What are we going to do with it?' "
