GM hens and cloned animals

Posted by Andrew Wadge on January 17th 2007 in Science, safety and health

One of the things that excites me as a scientist is seeing how new scientific developments can lead to applications that bring great benefits to us all. A great example of this is the success of scientists at the Roslin Institute in creating a line of genetically-modified hens capable of producing drugs to fight cancer and other life-threatening diseases.

What really struck me about the story is the importance and complexity of making sure that we all get the benefits from new technology without any of its potentially harmful consequences. As new technology develops, it brings possibilities of producing foods (as well as drugs) in novel ways, as we have seen with GM foods, recent stories about the cloning of animals, and the use of nanotechnologies in food production and packaging. This can lead to very polarised debates about whether we are 'for' or 'against' a new type of food, while I would argue that we should be 'for' an open and transparent regulatory system that puts consumer interests first, and considers each issue on a case-by-case basis.

Before any novel food is approved for use, our starting point is to ask independent scientists about its safety and to seek assurance that any new food is as safe as its conventional counterpart. But as we have seen in the organics debate, there are important cultural, ethical and emotional issues which influence people's choices of food, and these factors need to be part of the mix when reaching decisions on the approval of new foods.

We're currently strengthening our social science capacity in recognition of the important role these disciplines can play in helping us understand what consumers want and need to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

add new comment

Cloned Animals

Posted by Anonymous Charles (not verified) on 14/02/2008 - 09:01

Hi,

The argument you put forward looks good, and infers that GM and cloned animals are OK. With the greatest respect, there are still many seriously unanswered questions about these issues and again I find it very unfortunate that we are talking or indicate as if these foods are safe. The scientific reports behind these issues is very industrial bias and most reports are anyway industrial written, any independent work done which finds problems is quickly put down. This is one serious reason why this issue will not go away, and it brings with it a serious problem, to quote ‘…academic institution have all but given up all pretence of being the citadels of higher learning and disinterested enquiry into the nature of things: least of all, of being guardians of the public good. [We are seeing] the corporate take over of science, which is the greatest threat to our survival and the survival of our planet.’ Geneticist Dr Mea-Wan Ho and GM watch editor Jonathan Matthews.
Kind Regards,

Cloned animals

Posted by Anonymous Charles (not verified) on 14/02/2008 - 07:47

Steve H,
Well said. Remember that one letter does not say enough, write more expressing the things you have said to MP(s), MEP and even the EU Commissioner for Environment Stavros Dimas with respect I find that he is supportive at stoppping GMO,his web site is found by just typing in his title and name. GOOD LUCK.
Regards

Cloned animals

Posted by Anonymous Charles (not verified) on 13/02/2008 - 22:56

Hi,
The title 'Cloned animals in the food chain’ I was the only one to respond to this article; with respect no answer was forthcoming. I have since looked seriously at the EFSA draft option on cloned animals (sorry for the short title), and I found it seriously wanting. A strong reliance on the FDA report which has come under increasing criticism from the public, and various organizations, for its lacking in valid assessment, it has been argued that the FDA’s conclusion on the animal health risks posed by cloning grossly misrepresents the nature of the risks.
It is difficult for an individual to look at all the literature supporting the report and it looks impressive, but how does one tell which commercial cloning companies have submitted, and who are most likely to report positive findings (skewed distribution) that is have a vested interest in the outcome of EFSA decision-making process.
What does surprise me is the lack of (none) statistical analysis (even basic statistics) put forward which would allow proper interpretation of certain factors, for example, reproductive health of bull clones, large offspring syndrome occurrence over time.
What I have done is put together a short report three pages, my reference is based on one, shown below because the EFSA report has a serious biased to FDA.
The reference used AAVS. USA (2007) it covers a lot of scientific ground and has basic statistics attached and puts some very strong arguments forward, and has far as I am aware have not been answered to any degree of satisfaction either by EFSA or FDA.
I was considering just sending you the report, but there is no attachment facility (footnotes are present). With respect if you are interested please let me know how this can be done and any constructive comments gratefully received.
I am now considering seriously whether to present this to my MP, MEP, DEFRA and the Commissioner for Environment Stavros Dimas in a letter format.

Regards

Labelling GM

Posted by Andrew Wadge on 24/01/2007 - 12:38

Thanks, Charles – that's exactly what we are aiming to do: first, to make sure that any GM food approved for use is as safe as its conventional counterpart, and, second, to give consumers the information they need to be able to make informed choices.

"The key, surely, is open debate"

Posted by Steve_H (not verified) on 22/01/2007 - 19:06

Unfortunately the public do not have the time or resources to keep up with the debate: while the business interests, usually employing the scientists, are utterly relentless in keeping up the pressure to get their way.

Eventually they wear governments and Agencies down, even if they are never successful in convincing the public.

Witness the relentless efforts to get GM foods into the country despite general hostility to them from the public. The public are not allowed to simply say that, whatever the science, they do not want them, and that's an end to it. As their elected representatives the government should honour their comittment to the public: not the business lobby.

The question is not "Are such and such products safe?" and if so we have to have them: it is "Why is the Agency and the business lobby empowered to force the public to accept things they simply don't want?"

I have always been interested in science, but I never in my wildest dreams expected to ever read a report that the FSA was looking into possible rules for the consumption of cloned animals!

The very idea leaves be totally cold and fills me with dread, and I am sure that I will be far from alone in this, whether 'scientists' 'prove' it is 'safe', or not.

When are the public ever going to be able to say simply NO?

Please make sure they label GM foods as such.

Posted by Charles Teton (not verified) on 22/01/2007 - 18:17

Pretty simple request, please make sure they label GM foods as such, and then we can also have a choice.

Anodyne neutrality

Posted by Andrew Wadge on 19/01/2007 - 16:47

Hi anon,

Thanks for the comment, although you might not be surprised that I take issue with the description of anodyne neutrality! I do try to take a neutral approach to science, weighing up risks and benefits in an objective way, rather than acting as an advocate for new technologies. But I never been called anodyne by those who know me and I would be concerned to think this might equate with a lack of passion for getting the science right and putting the consumer first on important issues such as food safety.

You ask how we get a truly independent view? I suspect you recognise, like me, that when talking about issues such as independence and safety we are not dealing with absolutes. The key, surely, is open debate. Scientists that advise us adhere to strict codes of conduct; they declare any interests that might influence their opinions and most importantly you can follow the debate - and comment on it - because they carry out their work in an open and transparent manner.

So much to say on this but I

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 18/01/2007 - 22:39

So much to say on this but I think the overriding impression of this blog entry is anodyne neutrality covering a very personal approval of all things "scientific". Your first paragraph reveals all - a belief that there can be no argument over a scientific development that is of benefit to man (but not to chickens). Let me tell you, that ain't necessarily so.

Can you be sure your scientists are truly 'independent'? Will you select them on the basis of their objectivity or will you assess their fitness for your task by how closely they accord with the Agency's own views on what makes an effective scientific investigator?