http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0102-01.htm
Published on Tuesday,
January 2, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
Gene-Modified Plants and Animals Could
Wipe Out Other Species, Experts Fear
Oversight is 'full of holes.'
by Aaron Zitner
AUBURN, Alabama -- A few miles outside this college town,
down a gravel road that runs through rolling woodlands,
Rex Dunham has turned a set of muddy ponds into a
high-security prison for fish.
Electric wire keeps
the raccoons at bay. Netting blocks
the herons from swooping in. Filters stop the fish from
slipping out with the waste water.
Federal officials asked
Dunham to protect the local environment
from the catfish he grows here because nothing like them has
ever cut the waters of the Earth. These catfish have been laced
with DNA from salmon, carp and zebrafish, which makes them
grow as much as 60% faster than normal. That could help
farmers feed more people for less money and boost efforts
to end world hunger.
But there also is a
chance that fast-growing fish might
touch off an environmental disaster, according to scientists
who have studied the matter. Their greatest fear is that
Dunham's catfish will escape and wipe out other fish species,
as well as the plants and animals that depend on those fish
to survive.
And now, some scientists
and government officials are raising
a second and equally troubling concern: that the federal
government has limited legal authority to protect the
environment from Dunham's catfish--or from some of the
dozens of other genetically modified plants and animals
now being readied for market.
"Here we are on
the brink of remaking life on Earth through
genetic engineering, and we do not have a thorough process
for reviewing the environmental impacts," said William Brown,
science advisor to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.
"The system is full of holes."
"My sense is that
the current system is not going to be
OK and that there are going to have to be changes--or a
whole new system put in," said Bill Knapp, a senior
fisheries official with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
This view is far from
universal. But concerns about
the government's legal authority are significant enough
that President Clinton ordered federal agencies in May
to review the relevant laws and probe for holes.
The review is due to be completed early this month.
Americans already eat
modified corn, potatoes and
other crops. Soon to come are the first such animals:
disease-resistant shrimp, meatier chickens and
fast-growing salmon. Thanks to mouse DNA, a new pig
produces a less harmful manure. New crops include a
rice, mixed with daffodil DNA, that includes more nutrients.
Dunham, an Auburn University
researcher, already has
started seeking federal approvals to sell his fish.
And he could be among the first to win approvals
to sell a genetically modified animal to American
consumers.
Although there has
been great attention paid to whether
these foods are safe to eat, Brown and others say the
potential risk to the environment could be an even bigger
concern. And, the government is stretching outdated laws
to cover the gene revolution, they say, as if using
19th century railroad laws to regulate airlines.
Some warn that genetically
modified plants and animals
could move into the wild and breed disruptive traits
into local species, similar to the way African "killer bees"
escaped a Brazilian research facility in 1957 and spread
their aggressive traits. Others fear an opposite scenario:
that instead of thriving, the modified plant or animal
could interbreed with its natural cousins in ways that
would destroy the species entirely.
Scientists call this
the "Trojan gene" effect, because
the modified organism is undermined by the new genes
that it takes in. William M. Muir, a geneticist at Purdue
University, has used a mix of laboratory observation and
computer modeling to show that it could happen with
gene-altered fish.
Fast-growing fish might
enjoy a mating advantage in the
wild, Muir says, yet produce young that are ill-equipped
to survive. "This could locally take a population to
extinction," he said.
And yet, federal officials
say that no law requires
people who alter fish genes to keep the fish isolated
and away from local waters. The Agriculture Department
was able to ask Dunham to build his "fish prison" only
because his research is backed by federal funds.
Moreover, officials
said, it is unclear whether any
federal law penalizes a person who releases genetically
modified animals into the wild.
More troubling to some
critics is that certain species
may escape federal regulation entirely.
For example, at least
one company is altering the genes
in creeping bentgrass, a common golf course turf, so that
it is more resistant to weed killers. That would allow
lawn managers to use herbicides without harming the turf.
But it could also make the grass, which already invades
lawns and gardens, harder for homeowners to control.
Officials are divided
over whether the government has
the authority to regulate genetic changes to the grass.
The Agriculture Department claims authority over all
"plant pests" and potential pests, and it is using that
authority to supervise the company working on creeping
bentgrass genes. But Brown and others disagree, saying
that the legal definition of plant pests clearly excludes
the grass. The department has overstepped its legal
authority, Brown says.
Similarly, several
teams are working to modify algae
as a food and laboratory substance, said Anne Kapuscinski,
a fish geneticist at the University of Minnesota. Algae
is not a plant pest, she said, "so who is going to have
authority over it? There's been no public statement on that."
The confusion arises
because the government, starting
with the Reagan administration, decided that decades-old
food and agriculture laws could be stretched to cover
genetically altered species.
For example, some corn
and potato varieties already
on the market have been genetically modified to produce
their own insecticide. Because the Environmental Protection
Agency has jurisdiction over insecticides, it takes a
lead role in regulating these crops.
For other crops, the
Agriculture Department claims a
leading role because scientists commonly use bacteria
and viruses to modify the crop genes. The agency already
regulates those bacteria and viruses as plant pests, and
it claims jurisdiction over the crops as well.
Jane Rissler, senior
staff scientist with the Union of
Concerned Scientists, called this rationale "an awkward
stretch of the laws" that does not cast a broad net over
all gene-altered plants. The mere fact that genes have
been engineered should be enough to bring a plant or animal
under federal scrutiny, she said.
Besides, scientists
now are modifying genes in ways that
do not rely on bacteria or viruses but that should not
release them from federal regulation, Rissler said.
In regulating fish,
some people believe the laws are being
stretched in equally awkward ways.
Dunham had spent years
using traditional breeding techniques
to modify the channel catfish, which is by far the most
farmed fish in the United States.
Then, in 1982, American
scientists created one of the
first transgenic animals--mice that grew to twice their
normal size, thanks to rat and human genes that produce
growth hormone. The mouse experiment prompted other
scientists to start manipulating traits in a range of
species. Many researchers saw the new technology as a
way to help farmers produce more food with less resources.
"If we can grow
more fish in less space, that decreases
pressure on the environment," Dunham said. "And we will
never be able to catch more fish than we do now from the
natural environment. Yet world demand for fish is increasing."
Normally, catfish stop
growing in the winter, when the
genes that produce growth hormone all but shut down.
Dunham and his team began producing catfish that had
an extra copy of a growth hormone gene. They also added
a piece of DNA from salmon, carp or other species that
acts like a year-round "on" switch for the gene.
The result: Dunham's
catfish grow to their market size
of about 2 pounds within 12 to 18 months, rather than
the normal 18 to 24 months.
Dunham and his research
partner, Zhanjiang "John" Liu,
hope to turn the fish into a commercial product. Several
fish geneticists believe the Auburn catfish could be the
second genetically modified animal to reach American
consumers. A/F Protein Inc., a Massachusetts firm,
is expected to be first. It is seeking approval for
a fast-growing salmon that it is developing in indoor
tanks in Canada.
Dunham and Liu also
have begun researching how their
fish would behave in the wild. So far, they say, they
have found no cause for concern.
One published study
found that the fish have slightly
less ability to avoid predators than do native catfish.
Two other studies, not yet published, determined that the
Auburn catfish do not have a competitive edge over native
fish for food and have equal reproductive ability.
"What it points
to is that these fish have no environmental
advantage, or maybe are a little handicapped in the natural
environment," Dunham said. "But the principal point
is that
we need more research to determine what the environmental
risk is."
If Dunham and Liu commercialize
the catfish, the lead
regulator would be the Food and Drug Administration
--but not because the fish would be a food. Instead,
the agency considers the fish's extra growth hormone
to be a drug.
But some wildlife experts
say that, although the FDA
is well-equipped to assess drugs, it is the wrong agency
to rule on whether genetically modified fish pose a risk
to the environment. "People understand intuitively that
this is asking a lot of the FDA, asking it to become
a wildlife regulatory agency," Brown said.
FDA officials say they
are routinely called on to consider
environmental effects. John Matheson, senior review scientist
for veterinary medicine, noted that, when the agency recently
reviewed a growth hormone for cows, it studied potential
changes in land-use patterns, soil erosion and methane levels.
Critics of the system
raise another complaint about the
FDA's role: It operates under a federal law that aggressively
protects company trade secrets, and an often anxious public
cannot learn what genetically modified plants and animals
are on the road to winning federal approvals.
"If there was
a chance to look at the process and contribute
to the decision-making, it would be a lot easier to win over
the trust of the public," Kapuscinski said. "You'd still
have some criticism, but you'd have more trust."
Copyright 2001 Los
Angeles Times
###
