• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

New FDA rules - The Future of GM Animals Today

tropical

Well-known member
The Poultry Site News
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/16400/the-future-of-gm-animals-today

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

The Future of GM Animals Today

US - Amidst the chaos of the presidential race, new rules were passes by the US Food and Drug Administration that allow the marketing of foods from genetically engineered farm animals.



TheBostonGlobe reports that unlike clones - which are weirdly procreated from a single parent but are otherwise conventional creatures - engineered animals have had their DNA codes rewritten to endow them with traits never before seen in those species.

Among the gene-altered animals angling to appear on our dinner tables are farmed salmon with novel DNA that makes them grow faster; pigs with bacterial genes that make their manure less environmentally damaging; and perhaps even cattle bearing fish genes for omega-3 fatty acids, says TheBostonGlobe. Imagine filet mignon as healthful as fillet of sole.

The news team says that the good news is that the agency wants to regulate gene-altered animals under its strict "new animal drug" provisions. Usually novel foods can be introduced into the food supply without restrictions, and the FDA does not get involved unless problems arise. But under the new animal drug provisions, each new kind of animal produced through genetic engineering would have to get FDA approval before being commercialized, the way new drugs are approved. That's the right approach for dealing with the biological complexities and cultural sensitivities of allowing gene-altered animal products on supermarket shelves.

The bad news is that the drug approval process in this country is extremely secretive. Under its provisions it would be illegal for the FDA (without a company's permission) to reveal that it had even received an application for a new gene-altered food animal until after the agency had approved it for marketing. Once approved, there would be virtually no recourse available to consumers.


ThePoultrySite News Desk</B></B></B></B></B></B>
 
Genetically engineered animals and the FDA

Genetically engineered animals and the FDA

The agency has decided to categorize genetically engineered farm animals, also called transgenic animals, as an "animal drug." They will be held to the same requirements already existing for conventionally bred animals treated with hormones or antibiotics. (In the case of transgenic animals, the "drug" is a snippet of DNA.) Products derived from them or containing them as an ingredient will not necessarily require labeling.

How is an animal genetically engineered?
An extra piece of genetic material (DNA) is inserted into the animal's genome at the earliest stages of development. Sometimes the method involves manipulating a fertilized egg that is then implanted into a surrogate mother; other times, it alters a cell from which an animal will be cloned. As the embryo grows, the DNA splice is replicated with the rest of the genetic material so that it ends up in every cell of the individual.

Companies must show that their genetic manipulation is safe to the animal and that any food or animal-feed products derived from the animal are safe for the consumer and safe for the environment. Companies must also demonstrate that their claims about the gene-carried traits do occur.

Why did the FDA decide that food from genetically engineered animals doesn't have to be labeled?
The FDA labels food based on nutritional content, not manufacturing process, says the agency's DeLancey.

"So, if the food product is 'materially different' from a conventional product, then FDA can require that it be labeled. But the FDA doesn't require that a pork chop label specify whether it came from a pig produced through artificial insemination versus conventional breeding."

And similarly, now, if it came from genetically engineered animals. "We understand that consumers want transparency and labeling, but we are constrained by the regulations put in place by Congress," DeLancey says.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-he-closer26-2009jan26,0,5627032,full.story
 
Re: New FDA rules - The Future of GM Animals Today

Here's what the FDA has to say:

WASHINGTON ? Federal health officials Thursday pledged a new, open process for approving drugs and foods from genetically engineered animals.

Consumer groups complained the policy won't do enough to tell people if they're eating gene-altered animals and fails to protect the environment. They urged the incoming Obama administration to reconsider it.

In issuing its long-awaited final policy, the Food and Drug Administration said it will not allow any products from genetically engineered animals to be sold without first submitting them to scrutiny by independent advisers at a public meeting. The government will allow exceptions for research animals, such as lab rats, and the FDA will post those on its Web site.

"We will not approve any application until we are convinced of the safety and effectiveness," said FDA biotechnology expert Larisa Rudenko, who has been working on the complex issue since 1989. "The public should rest assured that we are not going to be rushing any decisions."

Drugs and foods from GE animals will become increasingly common in the next five to ten years. For example, an FDA advisory committee last week considered approval of an anti-clotting drug produced from the milk of GE goats. The scientific advisers concluded that the drug ? ATryn ? appears to be safe and effective. A final FDA decision is pending. And a Massachusetts company hopes to win FDA approval this year for a faster-growing salmon.

(Why does my bolded part not instill confidence in me?)
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_he_me/gene_altered_animals
 
Re: New FDA rules - The Future of GM Animals Today

#2:
"Why did the FDA decide that food from genetically engineered animals doesn't have to be labeled?
The FDA labels food based on nutritional content, not manufacturing process, says the agency's DeLancey.

"So, if the food product is 'materially different' from a conventional product, then FDA can require that it be labeled. But the FDA doesn't require that a pork chop label specify whether it came from a pig produced through artificial insemination versus conventional breeding.""



But the above is doubtfull, because the "food product" can be "materialy different" if produced with gen. altered artificial insemination.

Seems an consumers brainwashing.

The FDA and other wordlwide fed/nat institutions must control ALL of the food and food chain going to the consumers/..., and if it exist some law loop which disabled such control, it must be reinstaurated by new laws.

As for the lifeboat ship question, the first line regulators are the law-makers.

Especialy in labeling, for have an democratic right to choose (and We pay to buy that labeled food) is to have an clear (and with RAISED font) concise label (of ALL of the aditives/etc), but also an clear sign of the main thing: is that an original natural food source, or an MAN-MADE gen. hybreed.

Escaping that logic would additionaly harm the same food/market industry by an deminished consumption/buying of such new age food.

For the ones who loves the human "SF mode" vision, I remember the multi-breas. Mars girl and frends in the Schwarzi movie "Total Recall".

Bon apeti'.
 
Re: New FDA rules - The Future of GM Animals Today

I have little faith in the FDA and lawmakers. How loud do we have to speak before they hear us?

Remember the country of origin labeling laws that went into effect several months ago? my beef now is labeled: Mexico, Canada, U.S.
 
Re: New FDA rules - The Future of GM Animals Today

I agree.

#5:
"... my beef now is labeled: Mexico, Canada, U.S."

:rolleyes: - be content - the next batch would be labeled:

"Earthlab, ISS, Mars" :D


The fact is that if the society wants to give the possibility to choose, it can do it easily by labeling GMO in bold letters for all the source organisms, food and derivatives containing it or be modified versus the genuine natural version (and not only if containing >1%).

Alternatively, it can be applied an label GMO FREE to the genuine ones ...

The present laws which inserted an mandatory labeling of the various food components provenience, supported such above way.
 
Re: New FDA rules - The Future of GM Animals Today

Hopefully, if enough consumers spend their dollars on clearly labeled "organic" products, the producers will get the message via their profit margin.

Recently I was looking for a source of organic powdered milk and discovered its low availability is due to the fact that demand is badly outstripping supply. Cows producing truly organic milk cannot be created overnight.

.
 
Re: New FDA rules - The Future of GM Animals Today

The economy probably won't help the organic producer. In the past, I've paid $3.89 per dozen for free range organic eggs from a local farmer, sold at the grocery store. He didn't do so well competing with $.99 eggs and the store no longer carries his eggs.

Regarding organic milk, I think I read it takes several years just to have the pasture designated pesticide free?

We have a butcher shop here and I went in to buy locally grown beef. No luck! All his beef was from Iowa; he said he couldn't buy locally because he couldn't buy the cheaper cuts in the amounts he needed and buying the whole sides would price hamburger out of reach.
 
Re: New FDA rules - The Future of GM Animals Today

Yep, it's quite a process to produce organic milk - many hoops, many years, many suppliers to deal with. I just paid $5.98/gallon at Fred Meyers - and they sell a lot at that price. Regular milk here runs $2.50-$3.00/gallon at large stores. Most milk is shipped from out of state.

Some people here get their local mostly-organic beef by buying directly from the producer. One sells only the entire animal. YOu must reserve it and make a "down payment" to guarantee the sale. You can do the initial slaughter on his site, then take it home for the final hanging and cut-up. BTW - it tastes really good. :D He's small rancher who pre-sells every animal he produces. His sheep go to muslims for do-it-yourself halal slaughter.

.
 
Re: New FDA rules - The Future of GM Animals Today

#7-8-9

Exactly.

Now we can see what innatural feed loop was created in last 100 years.

What was the explanation, uhm ..., "there are not enaugh grass/... on Earth to forage the demand", or maybe it is only "this way is faster and cheaper".

But the above is an already old problem in front of the one debated here previously.

The new problem is that the plants and animals will not have the rights to be natural as they did for eons because of artificial instant genetic "improovements", and the consumers will not have (as now for the non-pesticide "organic" food) even the right to got geneticaly not altered vegetables and meat, and because of what?

What is the main argument now for the need of "chymerize" the human food sources?

Feeding Africa and the needest?

...

The same old story, but it now became total dependency.

No possibility for the consumer to make a choice.

Another scientificaly strayed outcome ...


Maybe we must switch to Solar Yoga for escaping this ... :cool:
 
Back
Top