Inside D.C.

Biotech – Good, bad?

This is a week filled with the regulatory and public schizophrenia over biotechnology. Lawmakers at a House Appropriations Committee hearing hammered regulators on when/how USDA is going to speed up the process of “deregulating” genetically modified (GM) plant traits so that new varieties designed to withstand drought, disease, pests, etc. can be moved into farmers’ fields. At the same time, the Associated Press published a story about the future of GM food animals and the hurdles that segment of biotechnology faces.

Full disclosure: I lobby for a developer GM animals; I lobbied for FDA completion and approval of the animal cloning food safety risk assessment a few years back. For a lay person, I know relatively a lot about animal biotechnology, what it is, what it isn’t, what it can do and what it can’t. I support biotechnology and its promise and did before I worked for the companies mentioned above.

Two points in the AP story jump out at me. First is the statement by a representative of Friends of the Earth, a staunch opponent of all things biotech. “Where is all of this going to end up? Where do we draw the line?” she says. The article’s author says GM animals are an “ethical” issue.

As to whether genetic modification of an animal is an ethical issue, I agree. However, to me the ethical issue goes to the professionalism and transparency with which the technology is applied. I contend if the modification is objectively vetted by FDA and/or USDA, is based on sound, replicable science, poses no risk to the animal, man or the environment, and brings benefits and solutions to challenges confronting the same three targets, then there is no ethical dilemma worth discussing.

That there is “visceral” reaction to genetic modification of food animals that doesn’t exist with GM plants is obvious – plants don’t have identities. However, the need to evangelize your personal reaction or that of your group using propaganda or half-truths creates an “ethical” confusion where none need exist if the discussion over the biotechnology and its benefits is moderate. Reasonable people can disagree; name calling, vilification and scaremongering have no place in this arena. Consumers lose in these battles.

The second point in the AP story that struck me was the lack of a predictable U.S. regulatory pathway – on that is objective and science-based – is sending this American-born technology overseas, costing U.S. tax dollars and jobs. A GM goat producing milk to fight childhood diarrhea in developing nations is no longer under development in California, but is now at home in Brazil. “You can’t get (investor) funding in this country because you can’t get regulation,” says the goat’s developer. The “enviropig” modified to be “cleaner in its environment” lives in Canada because the company’s investors are concerned about the length of FDA’s approval process. The GM salmon has been under FDA review for nearly 15 years.

According to international development, hunger and food security expert, Dr. Calestous Juma, Harvard University, the role of biotechnology represents “one of the key tools that could enable humanity to expand protein production in a sustainable way.” He chastised those who try to politicize the FDA review/approval process, saying to not protect FDA’s from political pressures is to surrender our global reputation and leadership.

I have a friend who’s a PhD biotech wizard. He was asked by a critic of the technology if “the industry” is trying to clone humans. His response was “not that I’m aware of. I’m not interested in doing that.” The critic’s challenge continued, and finally my friend asked the gentleman, “Do you eat meat?” The critic acknowledged he was a carnivore. My friend amended his question, “Do you eat human meat?” The critic was dumbstruck.

This is the metaphorical answer to where do we draw the line. It has to do with standards and ethics. As my friend concluded, “There are many things we can do in a lot of different areas. However, we have moral compasses. Just because we can do it, doesn’t mean we would do it.”

 

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published.


 

Stay Up to Date

Subscribe for our newsletter today and receive relevant news straight to your inbox!