Genetically Modified Animals - Hypoallergenic Milk?
The Struggle with Genetically Modified Food
|Recently there have been several stories highlighting the FDA and its struggle with genetically altered animals. This subject reaches
into a variety of areas including health, environmental, and ethical. For allergy sufferers, there are a few interesting prospects, with the
most written about being reduced-allergen milk. No matter how you feel about this subject, there are many sides to this very complicated issue.
Though it's not as widely publicized as genetically modified crops, there is a wide range of projects that have begun in the last two decades.
From cows with hypoallergenic milk and salmon that are three times the size of the natural counterpart to hogs that digest plants more efficiently
and other pigs that are bred to develop muscular diseases so effective treatments can be tested, there are genetically modified (GM) animals being
created across the globe. For many the most basic question is, just because we can, should we?
The Risk/Reward with GMO
|In addition to regulations, which are almost non-existent at this point, there are many concerns with genetically modified animals. The long
term impact of genetically modified animals is not known. There has simply not been enough time and research devoted to potential environmental implications.
Their interaction and impact on the ecosystem are not understood at this point. The same argument can be made for their impact on human health.
While in the short term allergen-free milk sounds like a wonderful idea, only time and research will show any long term effects of consuming that product.
Beyond this, there are moral and ethical implications that many struggle with. While few would argue against testing new treatments to fight
genetically modified animals complicate this issue. Is it ethical to produce and raise an animal that has been modified
to develop muscular dystrophy, solely for the purpose of testing treatments of that disease on it? This is just one example, but questions like these
raise concerns and blur the moral and ethical lines.
Genetically modified organisms in the food supply is not necessarily new. Corn and soybeans that are genetically modified to be resistant to pests have
been in use for years and are commonly found in most processed foods. One advantage of these crops is that they are surprisingly "eco-friendly". Because a seed is
genetically modified to produce naturally create an insecticide, growers spend less money and time on spraying their crops. This means, at least theoretically, that
there is less pesticide or insecticide residue and runoff leaching into the soil and water table. That's a win for the environment right? Since the
level of this natural pesticide would be elevated, what is the long term effect on consuming higher quantities of it? A negative human health impact?
No impact at all? We simply do not know. Despite these questions, likely one of the most frightening aspects is that at this point more than 3/4 of
all the corn grown in the U.S. has been modified. Cotton and canola are also two crops where the vast majority that is grown in the U.S. is genetically modified.
Genetically Modified to be Allergen Free!
the case of the "hypoallergenic" milk, the benefit of producing an allergen-free diary product could be enormous. The study, done in New Zealand
(a leader in genetic modification), showed a complete absence of beta-lactoglobulin (BLG), a protein found in milk that can trigger an allergic reaction.
Unfortunately, that same milk showed elevated levels of casein, another common culprit in diary allergies. Casein is important in the production of cheese, so
while this discovery may be good in that regard, there is still much to learn.|
It is relatively unknown how the different protein compounds found in
diary milk interact and what role each plays, but this is another important step in drilling down on how the complex elements in something as simple as milk
interact with each other and with the human body. Though the milk is ultimately not "hypoallergenic", this is promising for those who suffer
from food allergies. Could you imagine, an allergy free peanut or shellfish? With an increasing number of parents across the U.S. struggling with
potentially life-threatening food allergic children, is this endeavor not worth the time and effort?
To Label or Not to Label, That Is the Question
|The FDA has been slow to approve genetically modified animals. The best known example of this is a salmon produced by AquaBounty Technologies.
Initially approved a couple years ago, they are still awaiting final FDA approval. In a new area, regulations and rules can be difficult to create.
There is a balance that regulatory agencies, like the FDA, try to strike between protecting the well being of the public and not stifling innovation and growth
or preventing helpful products from reaching market. The delay in final approval of these salmon is not out of the ordinary though. Though GM crops have
been in use in the American food supply for years, there is yet to be any consensus of whether or not the products even need to be labeled as GM.
In California a battle is brewing
over the labeling of food that has GM ingredients. Major food producers and companies like Monsanto, Kellog's,
PepsiCo and Dupont have poured tens of millions into fighting the labeling initiative, Proposition 37. They argue that the expense is burdensome
and that this type of regulation is not necessary. On the other side are consumer groups and independent organic food producers that favor the
"right to know". It is worth noting that dozens of countries that do use genetically modified food have regulations in place that require labeling
of products that contain these ingredients. With a U.S. food market that surpasses $1 trillion spent annually, there is a lot at stake, both for
food producers and for the consuming public. And while the debate over GM animals is receiving attention, why have GM crops largely been ignored,
particularly when many of the same pros and cons that spring from the animal debate also hold true for plants?
One possible reason why plants have largely been ignored is because quite simply, they are plants. The perception of genetically altering a plant is much
different than doing the same for an animal. We fundamentally think of plants differently than we do animals, and for many, the leap from
genetically altering a plant vs. human is a bigger stretch than the gap between genetically modifying an animal vs. a human. Lastly, GM plants are processed and
turned into food that is largely unrecognizable. It's not often that someone opens a box of cereal and thinks of wheat. This helps to keep the thought
of genetically modified ingredients, particularly when coupled with a lack of labeling, out of mind.
Regardless of where you stand on this very complex issue, there are countless factors to consider. The health effects can be far reaching, but both
immensely positive and negative. For those who suffer from disease or severe allergies, the upside can be transformative - a possible cure to
debilitating or degenerative conditions. On the other side is unknown negative consequences, severe damage to the environment or rise in new health
problems to replace those that might be solved. The debate will continue, and while many of these issues may never be resolved, traditional methods of
allergy relief remains an effective alternative.
Author: Kevin Gilmore