Study: No Evidence Clone Products Unsafe

WASHINGTON — Top scientists have advised federal officials that there is “no evidence yet” that products from cloned animals are unsafe for human consumption, in a report released Tuesday that reduces the roadblocks now keeping such products off supermarket shelves.

At the same time, experts warned that genetically altered animals capable of escaping and breeding with wild populations could devastate ecosystems--a possibility the current regulatory system is not equipped to prevent, the study’s authors said.

Food and Drug Administration officials said the much-anticipated report, which they requested from the National Academy of Sciences, provides a “sound basis” to create regulations for allowing the rapidly emerging industry of cloned and genetically altered animals to enter the food supply.

“We know that obviously these animals exist today, so the technology is already upon us,” said Dr. Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Sundlof said FDA officials are still reviewing the report and emphasized that current policy prohibits genetically altered or cloned animal products from being marketed or sold as food.

But he said questions raised by scientists about cloned animal food products appeared straightforward. Asked what that meant for consumers, Sundlof said the likelihood was that cloned animal food products entering the market “may not be that far down the road.” It is a prospect the industry has anticipated. Cloned cows at the University of Connecticut and a private company in Wisconsin have been producing nearly four times the milk of the average dairy cow since last year--milk currently being destroyed under federal regulations.

Researchers have used viruses to target the growth hormones of fish, creating salmon that grow as much as four times faster than already fast-growing farm-raised products.

The 179-page report, described as the first big-picture look at the implications of animal biotechnology on the food supply, was released by the National Research Council, a private organization made up of top researchers who regularly advise the government on scientific issues.

Panel members studied dozens of scientifically reviewed articles to identify and explore concerns raised by the alteration of food through animal biotechnology. Still, the report’s authors cautioned that rapid growth and advances in the field made it difficult to draw conclusions.

“As is the case with any new technology, it is almost impossible to state there is no concern, and in certain areas of biotechnology we did identify some legitimate ones,” said the panel’s chairman, John G. Vandenbergh, a North Carolina State University zoology professor.

Vandenbergh said most of the serious identifiable risks came not from concerns about people consuming genetically manipulated animal products but from the potential effect of such animals on the environment.

The report identifies potential hazards facing consumers who eat cloned and genetically altered animal products but describes the risks as minimal. For example, there is a likelihood of allergic reactions to such products because genetically manipulating the animals will create new proteins. However, until people begin to consume the products, it is impossible to predict what the reactions will be.

Vandenbergh also said scientists working on the report found little cause for fears that genetic alterations made to animals could somehow transfer to humans who eat them. But there may be exceptions. Infants and people suffering from severe gastrointestinal illness in which the stomach lining is not normal could potentially absorb the altered proteins into their bloodstreams.

He said the committee concluded there is far greater risk of illness from traditional sources such as E. coli in beef or salmonella in chicken.

At the same time, the panel said there were gaps in the research available to them that need to be filled in by the FDA and other regulatory agencies. For instance, the committee said it was difficult to identify all possible concerns because it lacked complete information about the food composition of cloned products--analysis it said could be done using available tests.

Critics of the animal biotechnology industry said Tuesday that concerns raised by the report underscored their calls for tighter federal oversight.

Rebecca Goldburg, a scientist with Environmental Defense, a nonprofit organization, called the hazards connected to genetically engineered fish “especially troubling” because the FDA is considering approval of a genetically altered fast-growing Atlantic salmon. Approval, however, likely is still years away.

Goldburg and others said Congress should act immediately to protect the environment. Asking the FDA to handle the entire animal biotechnology industry was “like asking the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to regulate food safety using only environmental laws,” Goldburg said.

The FDA’s Sundlof said his agency has no desire to go it alone when it comes to regulating animal biotechnology.

“The issues are quite different with live animals,” he said. “And that’s where we are going to need additional expertise outside of the FDA to develop the appropriate policy.”