Consumer Wariness May Stifle US Biotech Animal Research

 

4:57 PM, September 18, 2008

By Bill Tomson

   Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

Agriculture Online

 

  WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--U.S. scientists have been toiling for years to

improve cows by modifying their genetic structure and then cloning them, but

industry fears over public reaction and government regulation has dampened the

prospects of some of the initial success.

 

  U.S. Department of Agriculture scientist Robert Wall, in an interview with

Dow Jones Newswires, said a government project was completely successful in

creating cows impervious to bacterial infections that lead to mastitis, a

costly bovine illness for the dairy industry that cripples milk production.

 

  "It absolutely does work," Wall said. "It worked exactly like it was supposed

to."

 

  Even if the science is an initial success story, said Rob Byrne, a senior

vice president for the National Milk Producers Federation, neither the public

nor the U.S. government is ready for it.

 

  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Thursday unveiled its plan to

regulate the eventual entry of genetically modified livestock to the commercial

market, but promised a rigorous approval process. The "draft guidance" released

by FDA is an initial step in the process, but the regulatory framework isn't

yet complete, FDA officials said.

 

  Wall and other scientists created cows to secrete lysostaphin, an

antimicrobial protein, to fight the mastitis-causing bacteria. The genetically

modified cows were created to produce varying amounts of lysostaphin and,

therefore, fought off mastitis to varying degrees.

 

  To gauge the results, both conventional and the transgenic cows created by

scientists at USDA's facility in Beltsville, Md., were injected with bacteria.

Among the traditional, non-engineered cows, 79% became infected. Only 9% of the

transgenic cows became infected.

 

  But the scientists also separated the cows that were engineered to produce

especially high amounts of lysostaphin and those were "100% protected" from the

bacteria, Wall said.

 

  Wall was pleased with the success and hoped to follow it up on new fronts,

but dairy industry fears of public reaction to genetically modified cows as

well as concerns over government regulation has damped demand for new research.

 

  "The consensus from the farm community was: 'It's great technology; make it

even better, but don't give me an animal that I have to deal with on my farm,'"

Wall said.

 

  The dairy industry is interested in science that can improve milk and the way

it's made, but it may be quite some time before producers will be willing or

able to accept the technology, Byrne said.

 

  "At the end of the day, you have to make a product that the consumers are

willing to purchase," Byrne said. "The first step is having regulations in

place. The second step would be having the technology there...The third step

would be having consumer acceptance."

 

  That third step - consumer acceptance - is likely the most important, Byrne

said. And for that to happen it's imperative the government decide if it will

be safe to drink milk or eat meat from genetically modified livestock.

 

  The USDA project to genetically modify cows for mastitis resistance is

essentially complete and success was declared, but the testing is not over. The

cows are being put to death this week in Beltsville, USDA's Walls said, and

their bodies will continue to provide new insight to how their bodies reacted

to genetic manipulation.

 

  Wall and other scientists will "take them apart and examine every piece of

tissue," he said, looking to find out: "Did the gene turn on and only in the

right places where we expected it to be, and did it cause any other part of the

body to do anything weird that we didn't expect?"

 

  Some possible side effects that scientists should be looking for from

genetically modified animals include new proteins that could trigger allergies,

said Jaydee Hanson, a policy analyst for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety.

 

  "While (genetic manipulation) may confer resistance to one organism, does it

make (the animal) more susceptible to others?" he asked.

 

 

  -By Bill Tomson, Dow Jones Newswires

 

agriculture.com