Transgenics

COMP 2000
31 March 2014
The Human-Animal Relationship Within Transgenics
The pigs, pale pink and bristly, trot around the pen, stopping every so often to root in piles of bedding. They grunt and squeal and wag their short curlicue tails. All three like a hard scratch on the rump. In almost every way, these broad-backed oinkers are just like the other Yorkshire pigs at the opposite end of the barn. All except for the brackish green muck that oozes from their backsides. And the snippet of mouse DNA that has been slipped into their piggy chromosomes. These are Enviropigs, developed by researchers at the University of Guelph to excrete out more environmentally friendly waste. The trademarked pigs are just one of dozens of genetically engineered animals at research institutions around the world whose genes have been altered for human benefit. And, due to a recent move in the U.S., the Enviropig may be the first to arrive on your dinner plate.
A transgenic, or genetically modified, organism is one that has been altered through recombinant DNA technology, which involves either the combining of DNA from different genomes or the insertion of foreign DNA into a genome. This paper will examine this study in particular, altering in both genetically modified organisms and transgenic animals. This paper will show how this science is beneficial, yet detrimental to our growing population and for future populations ahead.

Transgenic Animals
As the guidelines stand now, companies do not have to conduct human trials to test the safety of transgenic meats. Nor do they have to specially label products made from genetically engineered animals. Many consumers are outraged that transgenic meats could end up in their grocery cart without their knowledge. Despite concerns, experts say the FDA’s much anticipated document, which would regulate the what can be preformed with this research, will be the catalyst for moving genetically engineered livestock from the experimental farmyard to the supermarket. Proponents of transgenic animals – whether faster-growing fish, special-milk-producing cows and goats or healthy-for-you-pork producing pigs – say they herald a new era of food production. FDA officials say genetically engineered animals hold “great promise” for improving human medicine and the environment. The made-in-Canada Enviropig, for example, could clean up hog farms around the world by drastically reducing a major pollutant, hydrogen sulfide, found in pig waste.
Scientists who develop transgenic animals say the FDA’s proposed guidelines are strict, which should help boost consumer confidence in the products. They point to the government’s successful regulation of genetically engineered plants, which have been on the market for more than a decade, and the fact that the FDA declared meat from cloned animals safe to eat in January 2009. Health Canada, however, has not approved the sale of meat from cloned animals. Although, critics say the proposed guidelines are too lenient and the approval process too secret. They also contend the FDA does not have the expertise or resources needed to properly evaluate the new technology, especially when it comes to environmental protection. “There are some safety issues that are not well covered,” says Gregory Jaffe, the biotechnology project director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group based in Washington, D.C. “They may not be an expert on all of the animals or have the legal authority to address some concerns. Their statute does not give them any environmental legal process” (Jaffe 2013).
A key concern with transgenic animals is they will escape captivity, breed with their conventional cousins and pass on the engineered genetic trait. Transgenic faster-growing salmon, for example, could out-compete wild salmon for food and mates, endangering native fish stocks. Amid the swirling scientific concerns, perhaps the biggest question of all is whether or not consumers want genetically engineered animals in grocery stores at all. Surveys show the majority of Americans are wary of genetically engineered animals. That guardedness is reflected in a growing trend that sees consumers looking for more organic locally sourced or non-industrially farmed products.
Currently, governments don’t consider any of the ethical, social and religious issues with genetically engineered animals, says Sarah Hartley, an adjunct professor of political science at Simon Fraser University who is co-editing a book on perceptions of animal biotechnology. Many people, she says, are concerned about animal welfare, the intensification of industrial agriculture and general reach of biotechnology into their home and onto their dinner plate.
“For some religions, taking a pig gene and putting it into a fish would be problematic” (Hartley, 103). Instead of joining in the ethical debate, regulators have decided to leave those tough questions up to consumers in the marketplace. The problem with that philosophy, Hartley says, is that the U.S. – and likely Canada, when they release their guidelines – will not require companies to label foods made with genetically engineered animals. “It’s almost impossible for the public to make those value choices without labels,” she says. “They want to know which meats, what milk and what cheese is developed from genetically engineered animals and what is through conventional. That will be the biggest issue and I think it’s entirely justified” (Hartley 109).
Despite ethical concerns, Ronald Stotish, the CEO and president of Aqua Bounty Technologies, based in Waltham, Mass., is confident genetically engineered animals will make the leap from the lab to the farm – and soon. “It’s the way of the future,” he says. “This technology has the capability of making beneficial changes in production agriculture” (Hepple, 204). Aqua Bounty Technologies has spent more than 10 years developing a salmon that can grow to market size in half the time of conventional farmed salmon. Their AquaAdvantage salmon is an Atlantic salmon that has been engineered to carry an extra growth-hormone gene from a Chinook salmon. That extra gene makes the AquaAdvantage salmon grow year round, unlike conventional Atlantic salmon, which only grow during warmer months. It is believe that engineered salmon will make fish farming more efficient, a boon to producers and to consumers, who can continue to buy cheap salmon. “It is an opportunity that we have to take if we want to maintain our current quality of life,” Hepple says. Yet even as the seventh generation of Enviropigs jostle in their pen – healthy and likely just months away from being declared safe for the dinner table – Forsberg knows the animals aren’t out of a research facility yet. It will be up to the consumer to unlock the barn door.
The big question transitioned from ‘Can we do it? Now, it is ‘If we produce it, will they eat it?’
Genetically Modified Organisms
A genetically modified organism, or GMO is the term commonly used for crops that have been genetically engineered (GE) to produce some desired trait. The first GE crops were tobacco plants modified in 1986 to be resistant to direct application of herbicides. The following year, tobacco plants were engineered to resist insects. There followed a host of field trials to also develop plants resistant to viral and fungal diseases and to modify traits such as ripening, starch content and so on. In 1995 the FDA approved GE corn, soy, cotton, canola, potato, squash and tomato for commercialization and the amount of GE crops since then has been steadily increasing. Most often the genes are altered to render the plant resistant to either insects or herbicides.
Today there are some 800 million people (18% of the population in the developing world) who do not have access to sufficient food to meet their needs (Pinstrup-Anderson and Pandya-Lorch 2000; Pinstrup-Anderson et al. 1999), primarily because of poverty and unemployment. Malnutrition plays a significant role in half of the nearly 12 million deaths each year of children under five in developing countries (UNICEF 1998). In addition to lack of food, deficiencies in micro-nutrients (especially vitamin A, iodine and iron) are widespread. Furthermore, changes in the patterns of global climate and alterations in use of land will exacerbate the problems of regional production and demands for food. Dramatic advances are required in food production, distribution and access if we are going to address these needs. Some of these advances will occur from non-GM technologies, but others will come from the advantages offered by GM technologies.
GM technology has been used to produce a variety of crop plants to date, primarily with “market-led” traits, some of which have become commercially successful. Developments resulting in commercially produced varieties in countries such as the United States and Canada have centered on increasing shelf life of fruits and vegetables, conferring resistance to insect pests or viruses, and producing tolerance to specific herbicides. While these traits have had benefits for farmers, it has been difficult for the consumers to see any benefit other than, in limited cases, a decreased price owing to reduced cost and increased ease of production (Nelson et al. 1999; Falck-Zepeda et al. 1999). There is clearly a benefit to farmers if transgenic plants are developed that are resistant to a specific pest. For example, papaya-ringspot-virus-resistant papaya has been commercialized and grown in Hawaii since 1996 (Gonsalves 1998). There may also be a benefit to the environment if the use of pesticides is reduced. Transgenic crops containing insect-resistance genes from Bacillus thuringiensis have made it possible to reduce significantly the amount of insecticide applied on cotton in the United States. One analysis, for example, showed a reduction of 5 million acre-treatments (2 million hectare-treatments) or about 1 million kilograms of chemical insecticides in 1999 compared with 1998 (U.S. National Research Council 2000). However, populations of pests and disease-causing organisms adapt readily and become resistant to pesticides, and there is no reason to suppose that this will not occur equally rapidly with transgenic plants. In addition, pest biotypes are different in various regions. For instance, insect resistant crops developed for use in the United States and Canada may be resistant to pests that are of no concern in developing countries, and this is true both for transgenic plants and those developed by conventional breeding techniques. Even where the same genes for insect or herbicide resistance are useful in different regions, typically these genes will need to be introduced into locally adapted cultivars. There is need, therefore, for more research on transgenic plants that have been made resistant to local pests to assess their sustainability in the face of increased selection pressures for ever more virulent pests.
According to a poll taken two weeks ago by the Huffington Post, 82% of Americans think that GMOs should be labeled, 9% believe they don 't need to be labeled and 8% aren 't sure. The poll also showed that, while most people think that GMOs should be labeled, many people don 't really know too much about GMOs. To date, over 30 million hectares of transgenic crops have been grown and no human health problems associated specifically with the ingestion of transgenic crops or their products have been identified. However numerous potential concerns have been raised since the development of GM technology in the early 1970s. Such concerns have focused on the potential for allergic reactions to food products, the possible introduction or increase in production of toxic compounds as a result of the GM technology, and the use of antibiotic resistance as markers in the transformation process. Every effort should be made to avoid the introduction of known allergens into food crops. Information concerning potential allergens and natural plant toxins should be made available to researchers, industry, regulators, and the general public. In order to facilitate this effort, public databases should be developed which facilitate access of all interested parties to data. To fix insecurity, public health regulatory systems need to be put in place in every country to identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants, as for any other new variety. Such systems must remain fully adaptable to rapid advances in scientific knowledge. The possibility of long-term adverse effects should be kept in view when setting up such systems. This will require coordinated efforts between nations the sharing of experience and the standardization of some types of risk assessments specifically related to human health; also information should be made available to the public concerning how their food supply is regulated and its safety ensured.

Works Cited
Gonsalves, D. 1998. Control of papaya ringspot virus in papaya: a case study. Annual Review of Phytopathology: 415-37.
Hepple, Bob. "The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries." Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics (2004). Print.
Jaffe, Gregory. "Genetic Engineering Risks and Impacts." Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., 7 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
Nelson, G. C., A. De Pinto, D. Bullock, E. I. Nitsi, M. Rosegrant, T. Josling, J. Babinard, C. Cunningham, L. Unnevehr, and L. Hill. 1999. The economics and politics of genetically modified organisms in agriculture: implications for WTO 2000. Bulletin 809. Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., R. Pandya-Lorch, and M. W. Rosegrant. 1999. World food prospects: critical issues for the early twenty-first century. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
UNICEF. 1998. The state of the world 's children 1998. New York: Oxford University Press for UNICEF.
U.S. National Research Council. 2000. Genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation . p. 33-35. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Cited: Gonsalves, D. 1998. Control of papaya ringspot virus in papaya: a case study. Annual Review of Phytopathology: 415-37. Hepple, Bob. "The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries." Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics (2004). Print. Jaffe, Gregory. "Genetic Engineering Risks and Impacts." Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., 7 Nov. 2013. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. Nelson, G. C., A. De Pinto, D. Bullock, E. I. Nitsi, M. Rosegrant, T. Josling, J. Babinard, C. Cunningham, L. Unnevehr, and L. Hill. 1999. The economics and politics of genetically modified organisms in agriculture: implications for WTO 2000. Bulletin 809. Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Pinstrup-Andersen, P., R. Pandya-Lorch, and M. W. Rosegrant. 1999. World food prospects: critical issues for the early twenty-first century. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. UNICEF. 1998. The state of the world 's children 1998. New York: Oxford University Press for UNICEF. U.S. National Research Council. 2000. Genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation . p. 33-35. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.