Food Biotechnology : Part 2

by Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

(Page 2 of 2)

What is the individual to make of these fears? Is the new biotech following in the steps of the pioneer Mendel or the crackpot Beazeley? For example, bST (bovine somatotropin), a pituitary hormone produced in cattle, was recognized to increase milk production when injected into dairy cows as early as the 1930s. The recombinant technology of the 1980s allowed production of large amounts of pure bST, which could be used to increase milk yield and efficiency of production during part of the cow's lactation period.

Because it is a protein, bST is digested and inactivated when eaten. Furthermore, bST is inactive in humans. People produce human somatotropin, but it is considerably different in structure from bST.

Since cows produce bST naturally, it is and has always been present in their milk. Treating the animals with the proposed levels of bST doesn't increase the level of bST in milk above the levels occurring naturally. Nor does bST treatment alter the nutrient composition of milk. While FDA is still evaluating the animal and environmental safety of bST, the agency has determined that the milk from treated animals is safe for humans.

Recently, five U.S. supermarket chains publicized their refusal to buy dairy products from cows treated with bST. They curtailed purchases under pressure from a coalition of groups concerned with issues ranging from animal rights to an alleged current milk surplus and the survival of the small family farm. Uneasiness about the safety of consuming dairy products from experimental animals also apparently influenced the decision.

When it comes to farm crops, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and its parent, the National Research Council (NRC), have not found any difference between the environmental safety of old and new biotech-derived plants. In 1989, NRC reported that crops modified by molecular and cellular methods [i.e., the new biotechnology] pose risks no different from those modified by classical genetic methods for similar traits. It also noted that no adverse effects have developed from introductions of genetically modified organisms.

Moreover, some scientists argue that the precisely directed alterations of recombinant-DNA technology might in fact be far safer than the random shuffling of characteristics inevitable under more traditional techniques. As the NRC puts it, because the new molecular methods are more specific, users of these methods will be more certain about the traits they introduce into plants? than those using traditional methods. Many projects now in the works to promote food safety (from displacing chemical pesticides or preservatives to improving food sanitation) are possible only through the new methods.

New Challenges for FDA

In insuring a safe, nutritious food supply, FDA can't be complacent about the implications of the new biotechnology or any technology. Old biotechnology occasionally posed regulatory puzzles, and FDA recognizes that the products of genetic technology give new twists to old regulatory questions.

Take the concept of food adulteration, for instance. The traditional idea of adulteration was that of impurities being added to a food for instance, when milk might be exposed to Salmonella bacteria or in the case of fillers added to cereals. The new biotechnology, however, makes it possible to remove properties as well as to add them: the long-lasting tomato, for example. There are many exciting possibilities like engineering cows or hens to eliminate the properties some people are allergic to in milk or eggs?but these undeniably raise questions about changes in quality.

The ultimate question may be how many properties can be changed in an organism before it becomes something else. A tomato improved in one specific way seems obviously to be still a tomato, but does it remain one if you alter it in 10 ways, or 20 When traditional methods crossed the tangerine with a grapefruit, the new genetic structure was clearly something else, now sold as a tangelo. The new biotech questions are far more subtle. FDA must grapple with concepts of this sort as it considers the many new biotech food applications now being developed.

Biotechnology on Your Table

Markedly different or even novel foods probably won't appear on the grocery shelves any time soon. In less spectacular form, however, the new biotechnology is already keeping its dinner date. For instance, Canadian salmon have been treated for most of this decade with a hormone that allows them to mature three times faster than normal, without changing the fish in any other way.

Most of the new biotech projects now in the works would do little to affect the taste or appearance of the food on the plate, although a few promise to improve the flavors and consistency of some vegetables or reduce the fat content of some meats. Most address foods in ways that can't readily be seen by improving nutrition content, preventing spoilage, or even eliminating the need for chemical pesticides. Gene probes to detect rapidly the source of food-borne illnesses have already proven their worth to health authorities. For example, a synthetic DNA probe recently was used to detect a shellfish-related disease when other detection methods failed.

FDA recently surveyed more than 100 experts from government, business, and the universities to find out what sorts of developments in food biotechnology to expect in the near future. The survey made clear that the floodgates of innovation are opening. Nearly 800 different developments were reported as technically feasible, three-quarters of them potentially ready for commercial applications in a few years.

Prospects include meats with lower sodium and cholesterol content and longer shelf life, as well as weather-resistant crops with more abundant yield and nutritional content. Methods to better detect Listeria species or other food-borne germs are coming, to join the valuable gene probes already in use for detecting Salmonella and other bacteria. Plants engineered to do without chemical pesticides are beginning to sprout. Potatoes might some day be raised to last without preservatives. To the consumer's eye and palate, these first fruits of the new biotechnology will seem only subtly different, but the benefits should be substantial.

Biotech Burgers won't be available at the drive-in any time soon. Apples the size of pumpkins aren't right around the corner. And don't hold your breath waiting for Beazeley's turnip vines. But there may soon be the option of buying low-fat, low-cholesterol steaks, long-lasting, nutritionally superior vegetables, and pesticide-free fruits abundant because of an extended growing season, all courtesy of the new biotechnology.

About the Author

www.fda.gov
FDA is A United States government body that oversees medical devices, including contact lenses, intraocular lenses, excimer lasers and eyedrops. In the US, these products must be approved by the FDA before they can be marketed.