Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

Terry Etherton

The U.S. Food System is a remarkable infrastructure that many in the U.S. take for granted. As shown in Figure 1, the Food System is complex, ranging from agricultural production to the many steps that take place to process, package and move food to the shelf in the grocery store and food service outlets. The left column in Figure 1 presents the various steps in the Food System ending in consumption. The arrows depict flow from one channel to another. Local assemblers are companies that collect agricultural products from producers and the redistribute them to other firms in the marketing channel. Grain elevators would be an example of a local assembler; they buy grain from local producers and usually sell this to processors. Terminal processors are companies that buy products from producers and/or from local assemblers. Typically terminal processors are larger than local assemblers and usually are situated at terminal markets that are involved in exporting agricultural commodities.

The processing and marketing components of the Food System are steps that many consumers have a better understanding of since they are purchasing many processed food products. The marketing piece is ever-present in the various media outlets, and is used effectively by subsequent components in the Food System to manage and grow market share, i.e., sell more product. It is remarkable that this level of food production and processing has evolved and done soin a way where people living in developed countries have the safest food supply in recorded history. This is a luxury that is under-appreciated by many.

The Food System in the U.S. is a major sector of the U.S. economy. One measure of this is the sales at grocery stores and convenience stores. In 2005 this was approximately $582 billion! The food and fiber system (FFS) added $1.24 trillion to the Nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the Nation’s wealth, and provided jobs for more than 23 million workers. The FFS share of total GDP represents about 12 to 15% of the total U.S. GDP.

The evolution of the Food System has been associated with many changes at the grocery level of the Food System. In 2005, the ten largest U.S. food retailers (see Table 1) had sales of $427 million, which accounted for than 73% of total market share. Wal-Mart now accounts for approximately 26% of all food sold in the grocery category in the U.S. The top three companies sell about 44% of all food sold in grocery stores and supermarkets in the U.S. The trend towards fewer and larger retail enterprises corresponds to the trend seen in farm number and size.

What does the future look like for the U.S. Food System? The continued development of new technologies and science will likely allow food production to keep pace with society needs. As robust as the food system is in the context ofproducing food, it is remarkable fragile (see Blog: Impact of Bioterrorism on Animal Agriculture in the U.S.). In the absence of a large-scale attack on the Food System, people living in the U.S. will continue to enjoy the impressive number and selection of food that available at grocery stores and food service outlets.

Figure 1.

Table 1.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

The U.S. Food System is a remarkable infrastructure that many in the U.S. take for granted. As shown in Figure 1, the Food System is complex, ranging from agricultural production to the many steps that take place to process, package and move food to the shelf in the grocery store and food service outlets. The left column in Figure 1 presents the various steps in the Food System ending in consumption. The arrows depict flow from one channel to another. Local assemblers are companies that collect agricultural products from producers and the redistribute them to other firms in the marketing channel. Grain elevators would be an example of a local assembler; they buy grain from local producers and usually sell this to processors. Terminal processors are companies that buy products from producers and/or from local assemblers. Typically terminal processors are larger than local assemblers and usually are situated at terminal markets that are involved in exporting agricultural commodities.

The processing and marketing components of the Food System are steps that many consumers have a better understanding of since they are purchasing many processed food products. The marketing piece is ever-present in the various media outlets, and is used effectively by subsequent components in the Food System to manage and grow market share, i.e., sell more product. It is remarkable that this level of food production and processing has evolved and done so in a way where people living in developed countries have the safest food supply in recorded history. This is a luxury that is under-appreciated by many.

The Food System in the U.S. is a major sector of the U.S. economy. One measure of this is the sales at grocery stores and convenience stores. In 2005 this was approximately $582 billion! The food and fiber system (FFS) added $1.24 trillion to the Nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the Nation’s wealth, and provided jobs for more than 23 million workers. The FFS share of total GDP represents about 12 to 15% of the total U.S. GDP.

The evolution of the Food System has been associated with many changes at the grocery level of the Food System. In 2005, the ten largest U.S. food retailers (see Table 1) had sales of $427 million, which accounted for than 73% of total market share. Wal-Mart now accounts for approximately 26% of all food sold in the grocery category in the U.S. The top three companies sell about 44% of all food sold in grocery stores and supermarkets in the U.S. The trend towards fewer and larger retail enterprises corresponds to the trend seen in farm number and size.

What does the future look like for the U.S. Food System? The continued development of new technologies and science will likely allow food production to keep pace with society needs. As robust as the food system is in the context of producing food, it is remarkable fragile (see Blog: Impact of Bioterrorism on Animal Agriculture in the U.S.). In the absence of a large-scale attack on the Food System, people living in the U.S. will continue to enjoy the impressive number and selection of food that available at grocery stores and food service outlets.

Figure 1.

Table 1.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

The U.S. Food System is a remarkable infrastructure that many in the U.S. take for granted. As shown in Figure 1, the Food System is complex, ranging from agricultural production to the many steps that take place to process, package and move food to the shelf in the grocery store and food service outlets. The left column in Figure 1 presents the various steps in the Food System ending in consumption. The arrows depict flow from one channel to another. Local assemblers are companies that collect agricultural products from producers and the redistribute them to other firms in the marketing channel. Grain elevators would be an example of a local assembler; they buy grain from local producers and usually sell this to processors. Terminal processors are companies that buy products from producers and/or from local assemblers. Typically terminal processors are larger than local assemblers and usually are situated at terminal markets that are involved in exporting agricultural commodities.

The processing and marketing components of the Food System are steps that many consumers have a better understanding of since they are purchasing many processed food products. The marketing piece is ever-present in the various media outlets, and is used effectively by subsequent components in the Food System to manage and grow market share, i.e., sell more product. It is remarkable that this level of food production and processing has evolved and done so in a way where people living in developed countries have the safest food supply in recorded history. This is a luxury that is under-appreciated by many.

The Food System in the U.S. is a major sector of the U.S. economy. One measure of this is the sales at grocery stores and convenience stores. In 2005 this was approximately $582 billion! The food and fiber system (FFS) added $1.24 trillion to the Nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the Nation’s wealth, and provided jobs for more than 23 million workers. The FFS share of total GDP represents about 12 to 15% of the total U.S. GDP.

The evolution of the Food System has been associated with many changes at the grocery level of the Food System. In 2005, the ten largest U.S. food retailers (see Table 1) had sales of $427 million, which accounted for than 73% of total market share. Wal-Mart now accounts for approximately 26% of all food sold in the grocery category in the U.S. The top three companies sell about 44% of all food sold in grocery stores and supermarkets in the U.S. The trend towards fewer and larger retail enterprises corresponds to the trend seen in farm number and size.

What does the future look like for the U.S. Food System? The continued development of new technologies and science will likely allow food production to keep pace with society needs. As robust as the food system is in the context of producing food, it is remarkable fragile (see Blog: Impact of Bioterrorism on Animal Agriculture in the U.S.). In the absence of a large-scale attack on the Food System, people living in the U.S. will continue to enjoy the impressive number and selection of food that available at grocery stores and food service outlets.

Figure 1.

Table 1.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

First published as: Etherton, TD. IMPROVING ANIMAL AGRICULTURE THROUGH BIOTECHNOLOGY. In Economic Perspective, an electronic journal of the U.S. Department of State. Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2003

Access at:
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0903/ijee/toc.htm

Over the past 20 years, biotechnology has lead to the development of new processes and products that have benefited agriculture and society. Between 1996 and 2002 there was a 35-fold increase in acreage planted globally with genetically modified (GM) crops (from 1.7 to 58.1 million hectares) and more than a quarter of GM crops are grown in developing countries. While there has been considerable discussion about the benefits of GM crops in the grains and fruits humans consume, less public debate has been forthcoming about GM crops’ profound effects on improving the health of livestock grown for meat products and on reducing some of the environmental costs of livestock wastes.

Adoption of products produced by modern biotechnology will be important to enable the production of food sufficient to feed a growing world population. Biotechnologies that enhance productivity and productive efficiency — feed consumed per unit of milk or meat produced — have been developed and approved for commercial use in many countries. New biotechnology products have enabled improvementsto be made that increase food safety and improve animal health. Biotechnology also offers considerable potential to animal agriculture as a means to reduce nutrients and odors from manure and volume of manure produced. Development and adoption of these biotechnologies will contribute to a more sustainable environment.

In order to be approved for commercial use in the United States, new agricultural biotechnologies are evaluated rigorously by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies to ensure efficacy, consumer safety and animal health and well being. Successful development and adoption of emerging biotechnologies for agriculture require improved public understanding of scientific, economic, legislative, ethical and social issues. The objective of this paper is to provide a brief overview of some of the existing and emerging modern agricultural biotechnologies that affect animal productivity and discuss their current or potential food safety and environmental benefits.

Feeding Livestock

Scientific studies evaluating feed components derived from GM plants have focused on beef cattle, swine, sheep, fish, lactating dairy cows and broiler and layer chickens, and have included nutrient composition assessments, digestibility determinations and animal performance measurements. These studies have shown that feed components derived from GM plants are equivalent in terms of nutrient composition to non-GM plants. Feeding components derived from GM plants, such as grain, silage and hay also show results in growth rates and milk yields that are equivalent to those food components derived from non-genetically enhanced feed sources. Studies have reported that GM corn altered for protection against the corn borer can have lower contamination by mycotoxins — toxic substances produced by fungi or molds — under certain growing conditions, resulting in safer feed for livestock.

Metabolic Modifiers

Metabolic modifiers are a group of compounds that modify animal metabolism in specific and directed ways. Metabolic modifiers have the overall effect of improving productive efficiency (weight gain or milk yield per feed unit), improving carcass composition (meat-to-fat ratio) in growing animals, increasing milk yield in lactating animals and decreasing animal waste.

The first modern biotechnology to be approved for animal agriculture in the U.S. was bovine somatotropin (bST) for use in the dairy industry. Application of recombinant bST to dairy cows (by injection every 14 days) increases milk yield and productive efficiency (milk/feed) and decreases animal waste. Milk yield response to bST in the U.S. is typically 10-15 percent (approximately 4 to 6 kilograms per day), although larger increases may occur when the management and care of the animals are excellent. Commercial sales of bST began in 1994 in the United States and use has increased in the industry. Presently in the United States, more than 3 million dairy cows are receiving bST supplements. Bovine somatotropin is being used commercially in 19 countries worldwide.

Porcine somatotropin (pST) has been developed for the swine industry. Administration of recombinant pST to growing pigs increases muscle growth and reduces body fat deposition, resulting in pigs that are leaner and of greater market value. Pigs treated with pST use dietary nutrients more efficiently which improves feed utilization. In the United States, pST is undergoing testing required for FDA evaluation. Worldwide, pST is approved for commercial use in 14 countries.

GM Crops that Decrease Phosphorus and Nitrogen Excretion

Phosphorus (P) from manure run-off can significantly impact the quality of fresh lakes and streams. P content in swine and poultry manure is high because these species consume diets consisting of cereal grains and oilseed meals in which most (60 to 80 percent) P is not absorbed in the digestive tract and is excreted in the feces. Consequently, relatively large amounts of dietary P must be fed to pigs and poultry to meet their dietary P requirements. This problem is not observed in ruminants (cattle, sheep and goats) because their digestive tract is more efficient in utilizing dietary P. To solve this problem for pigs and poultry, a special variety of GM corn has been developed that makes the dietary P more available to the animal. Thus, this variety of GM corn offers the potential to further decrease excretion of P by pigs and chickens. A similar GM soybean variety has been developed. Soybean meal derived from this variety of GM soybeans provides more dietary P to pigs and poultry than meal from conventional soybeans. Studies have shown that diets containing GM corn and meal from GM soybeans decrease P excretion in manure by 50 to 60 percent in pigs and chickens. Inclusion of these special varieties of GM corn and soybeans in the diets fed to pigs and chickens offers great potential to dramatically reduce P excretion into the environment.

GM crops with improved amino acid profiles have great potential to decrease nitrogen (N) excretion, especially in pigs and poultry. Nitrogen can contaminate ground and surface waters, contribute to “acid rain,” which increases the acids in soils, and be the source of odors. Increased levels of the amino acids lysine, methionine, tryptophan, threonine and other essential amino acids in grains would mean that the essential amino acid requirements of pigs and poultry can be met with lower-protein diets. Such diets contain fewer excesses of other amino acids that eventually must be degraded to urea N and excreted in the urine. Feeding these GM varieties to pig and poultry would greatly reduce the amount of N — such as urea — from being excreted into the environment.

In the United States, there is long history of assessing the safety of foods introduced into the marketplace. The assessment of GM plants and animal biotechnologies is science-based and rigorous. The discovery and development of new animal and plant biotechnologies are part of a continuum leading to the commercialization of agricultural biotechnology products. Historically, equivalence of composition GM plants, GM animals or animals treated with biotechnology products, such as bST, has been an important component of the regulatory process. Establishing equivalence of composition is evidence that substantive changes did not occur in the plant or animal as the result of the genetic modification event. One endorsement to the robust nature of comparative safety assessment process used with GM plants is that more than 223 million hectares of GM crops have been commercially grown over the past 10 years with no documented effects to humans, animals or the environment. Likewise, there have been no documented adverse effects of meat and milk derived from cows supplemented with bST, the most rapidly adopted animal biotechnology to date.

Conclusion

Agriculture is transiting a remarkable scientific era with respect to the myriad of processes and products that have been developed using biotechnology that have already provided benefits to agriculture and society. Moreover, many new products of biotechnology are being developed that will benefit the food sector. Implicit to approval of these new products is a robust safety assessment process. To date, the approved GM plants and animal biotechnologies have been judged to be as safe as conventionally produced counterparts. Development and adoption of new biotechnologies will be crucial in meeting the challenge of producing enough food for a growing world population while minimizing and reducing impacts on the environment. The impact these technologies have on society in the future, however, will be largely dependent on the extent to which they are adopted by producers and the agricultural community and accepted by consumers. Questions about societal impacts and safety often arise as the result of technological change. Inherent to the successful development and adoption of new biotechnologies for agriculture is the need to increase public understanding of the scientific, economic, legislative, ethical and social issues associated with emerging agricultural biotechnologies.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

First published as: Etherton, TD. IMPROVING ANIMAL AGRICULTURE THROUGH BIOTECHNOLOGY. In Economic Perspective, an electronic journal of the U.S. Department of State. Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2003

Access at:
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0903/ijee/toc.htm

Over the past 20 years, biotechnology has lead to the development of new processes and products that have benefited agriculture and society. Between 1996 and 2002 there was a 35-fold increase in acreage planted globally with genetically modified (GM) crops (from 1.7 to 58.1 million hectares) and more than a quarter of GM crops are grown in developing countries. While there has been considerable discussion about the benefits of GM crops in the grains and fruits humans consume, less public debate has been forthcoming about GM crops’ profound effects on improving the health of livestock grown for meat products and on reducing some of the environmental costs of livestock wastes.

Adoption of products produced by modern biotechnology will be important to enable the production of food sufficient to feed a growing world population. Biotechnologies that enhance productivity and productive efficiency — feed consumed per unit of milk or meat produced — have been developed and approved for commercial use in many countries. New biotechnology products have enabled improvementsto be made that increase food safety and improve animal health. Biotechnology also offers considerable potential to animal agriculture as a means to reduce nutrients and odors from manure and volume of manure produced. Development and adoption of these biotechnologies will contribute to a more sustainable environment.

In order to be approved for commercial use in the United States, new agricultural biotechnologies are evaluated rigorously by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies to ensure efficacy, consumer safety and animal health and well being. Successful development and adoption of emerging biotechnologies for agriculture require improved public understanding of scientific, economic, legislative, ethical and social issues. The objective of this paper is to provide a brief overview of some of the existing and emerging modern agricultural biotechnologies that affect animal productivity and discuss their current or potential food safety and environmental benefits.

Feeding Livestock

Scientific studies evaluating feed components derived from GM plants have focused on beef cattle, swine, sheep, fish, lactating dairy cows and broiler and layer chickens, and have included nutrient composition assessments, digestibility determinations and animal performance measurements. These studies have shown that feed components derived from GM plants are equivalent in terms of nutrient composition to non-GM plants. Feeding components derived from GM plants, such as grain, silage and hay also show results in growth rates and milk yields that are equivalent to those food components derived from non-genetically enhanced feed sources. Studies have reported that GM corn altered for protection against the corn borer can have lower contamination by mycotoxins — toxic substances produced by fungi or molds — under certain growing conditions, resulting in safer feed for livestock.

Metabolic Modifiers

Metabolic modifiers are a group of compounds that modify animal metabolism in specific and directed ways. Metabolic modifiers have the overall effect of improving productive efficiency (weight gain or milk yield per feed unit), improving carcass composition (meat-to-fat ratio) in growing animals, increasing milk yield in lactating animals and decreasing animal waste.

The first modern biotechnology to be approved for animal agriculture in the U.S. was bovine somatotropin (bST) for use in the dairy industry. Application of recombinant bST to dairy cows (by injection every 14 days) increases milk yield and productive efficiency (milk/feed) and decreases animal waste. Milk yield response to bST in the U.S. is typically 10-15 percent (approximately 4 to 6 kilograms per day), although larger increases may occur when the management and care of the animals are excellent. Commercial sales of bST began in 1994 in the United States and use has increased in the industry. Presently in the United States, more than 3 million dairy cows are receiving bST supplements. Bovine somatotropin is being used commercially in 19 countries worldwide.

Porcine somatotropin (pST) has been developed for the swine industry. Administration of recombinant pST to growing pigs increases muscle growth and reduces body fat deposition, resulting in pigs that are leaner and of greater market value. Pigs treated with pST use dietary nutrients more efficiently which improves feed utilization. In the United States, pST is undergoing testing required for FDA evaluation. Worldwide, pST is approved for commercial use in 14 countries.

GM Crops that Decrease Phosphorus and Nitrogen Excretion

Phosphorus (P) from manure run-off can significantly impact the quality of fresh lakes and streams. P content in swine and poultry manure is high because these species consume diets consisting of cereal grains and oilseed meals in which most (60 to 80 percent) P is not absorbed in the digestive tract and is excreted in the feces. Consequently, relatively large amounts of dietary P must be fed to pigs and poultry to meet their dietary P requirements. This problem is not observed in ruminants (cattle, sheep and goats) because their digestive tract is more efficient in utilizing dietary P. To solve this problem for pigs and poultry, a special variety of GM corn has been developed that makes the dietary P more available to the animal. Thus, this variety of GM corn offers the potential to further decrease excretion of P by pigs and chickens. A similar GM soybean variety has been developed. Soybean meal derived from this variety of GM soybeans provides more dietary P to pigs and poultry than meal from conventional soybeans. Studies have shown that diets containing GM corn and meal from GM soybeans decrease P excretion in manure by 50 to 60 percent in pigs and chickens. Inclusion of these special varieties of GM corn and soybeans in the diets fed to pigs and chickens offers great potential to dramatically reduce P excretion into the environment.

GM crops with improved amino acid profiles have great potential to decrease nitrogen (N) excretion, especially in pigs and poultry. Nitrogen can contaminate ground and surface waters, contribute to “acid rain,” which increases the acids in soils, and be the source of odors. Increased levels of the amino acids lysine, methionine, tryptophan, threonine and other essential amino acids in grains would mean that the essential amino acid requirements of pigs and poultry can be met with lower-protein diets. Such diets contain fewer excesses of other amino acids that eventually must be degraded to urea N and excreted in the urine. Feeding these GM varieties to pig and poultry would greatly reduce the amount of N — such as urea — from being excreted into the environment.

In the United States, there is long history of assessing the safety of foods introduced into the marketplace. The assessment of GM plants and animal biotechnologies is science-based and rigorous. The discovery and development of new animal and plant biotechnologies are part of a continuum leading to the commercialization of agricultural biotechnology products. Historically, equivalence of composition GM plants, GM animals or animals treated with biotechnology products, such as bST, has been an important component of the regulatory process. Establishing equivalence of composition is evidence that substantive changes did not occur in the plant or animal as the result of the genetic modification event. One endorsement to the robust nature of comparative safety assessment process used with GM plants is that more than 223 million hectares of GM crops have been commercially grown over the past 10 years with no documented effects to humans, animals or the environment. Likewise, there have been no documented adverse effects of meat and milk derived from cows supplemented with bST, the most rapidly adopted animal biotechnology to date.

Conclusion

Agriculture is transiting a remarkable scientific era with respect to the myriad of processes and products that have been developed using biotechnology that have already provided benefits to agriculture and society. Moreover, many new products of biotechnology are being developed that will benefit the food sector. Implicit to approval of these new products is a robust safety assessment process. To date, the approved GM plants and animal biotechnologies have been judged to be as safe as conventionally produced counterparts. Development and adoption of new biotechnologies will be crucial in meeting the challenge of producing enough food for a growing world population while minimizing and reducing impacts on the environment. The impact these technologies have on society in the future, however, will be largely dependent on the extent to which they are adopted by producers and the agricultural community and accepted by consumers. Questions about societal impacts and safety often arise as the result of technological change. Inherent to the successful development and adoption of new biotechnologies for agriculture is the need to increase public understanding of the scientific, economic, legislative, ethical and social issues associated with emerging agricultural biotechnologies.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

First published as: Etherton, TD. IMPROVING ANIMAL AGRICULTURE THROUGH BIOTECHNOLOGY. In Economic Perspective, an electronic journal of the U.S. Department of State. Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2003

Access at:
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0903/ijee/toc.htm

Over the past 20 years, biotechnology has lead to the development of new processes and products that have benefited agriculture and society. Between 1996 and 2002 there was a 35-fold increase in acreage planted globally with genetically modified (GM) crops (from 1.7 to 58.1 million hectares) and more than a quarter of GM crops are grown in developing countries. While there has been considerable discussion about the benefits of GM crops in the grains and fruits humans consume, less public debate has been forthcoming about GM crops’ profound effects on improving the health of livestock grown for meat products and on reducing some of the environmental costs of livestock wastes.

Adoption of products produced by modern biotechnology will be important to enable the production of food sufficient to feed a growing world population. Biotechnologies that enhance productivity and productive efficiency — feed consumed per unit of milk or meat produced — have been developed and approved for commercial use in many countries. New biotechnology products have enabled improvementsto be made that increase food safety and improve animal health. Biotechnology also offers considerable potential to animal agriculture as a means to reduce nutrients and odors from manure and volume of manure produced. Development and adoption of these biotechnologies will contribute to a more sustainable environment.

In order to be approved for commercial use in the United States, new agricultural biotechnologies are evaluated rigorously by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies to ensure efficacy, consumer safety and animal health and well being. Successful development and adoption of emerging biotechnologies for agriculture require improved public understanding of scientific, economic, legislative, ethical and social issues. The objective of this paper is to provide a brief overview of some of the existing and emerging modern agricultural biotechnologies that affect animal productivity and discuss their current or potential food safety and environmental benefits.

Feeding Livestock

Scientific studies evaluating feed components derived from GM plants have focused on beef cattle, swine, sheep, fish, lactating dairy cows and broiler and layer chickens, and have included nutrient composition assessments, digestibility determinations and animal performance measurements. These studies have shown that feed components derived from GM plants are equivalent in terms of nutrient composition to non-GM plants. Feeding components derived from GM plants, such as grain, silage and hay also show results in growth rates and milk yields that are equivalent to those food components derived from non-genetically enhanced feed sources. Studies have reported that GM corn altered for protection against the corn borer can have lower contamination by mycotoxins — toxic substances produced by fungi or molds — under certain growing conditions, resulting in safer feed for livestock.

Metabolic Modifiers

Metabolic modifiers are a group of compounds that modify animal metabolism in specific and directed ways. Metabolic modifiers have the overall effect of improving productive efficiency (weight gain or milk yield per feed unit), improving carcass composition (meat-to-fat ratio) in growing animals, increasing milk yield in lactating animals and decreasing animal waste.

The first modern biotechnology to be approved for animal agriculture in the U.S. was bovine somatotropin (bST) for use in the dairy industry. Application of recombinant bST to dairy cows (by injection every 14 days) increases milk yield and productive efficiency (milk/feed) and decreases animal waste. Milk yield response to bST in the U.S. is typically 10-15 percent (approximately 4 to 6 kilograms per day), although larger increases may occur when the management and care of the animals are excellent. Commercial sales of bST began in 1994 in the United States and use has increased in the industry. Presently in the United States, more than 3 million dairy cows are receiving bST supplements. Bovine somatotropin is being used commercially in 19 countries worldwide.

Porcine somatotropin (pST) has been developed for the swine industry. Administration of recombinant pST to growing pigs increases muscle growth and reduces body fat deposition, resulting in pigs that are leaner and of greater market value. Pigs treated with pST use dietary nutrients more efficiently which improves feed utilization. In the United States, pST is undergoing testing required for FDA evaluation. Worldwide, pST is approved for commercial use in 14 countries.

GM Crops that Decrease Phosphorus and Nitrogen Excretion

Phosphorus (P) from manure run-off can significantly impact the quality of fresh lakes and streams. P content in swine and poultry manure is high because these species consume diets consisting of cereal grains and oilseed meals in which most (60 to 80 percent) P is not absorbed in the digestive tract and is excreted in the feces. Consequently, relatively large amounts of dietary P must be fed to pigs and poultry to meet their dietary P requirements. This problem is not observed in ruminants (cattle, sheep and goats) because their digestive tract is more efficient in utilizing dietary P. To solve this problem for pigs and poultry, a special variety of GM corn has been developed that makes the dietary P more available to the animal. Thus, this variety of GM corn offers the potential to further decrease excretion of P by pigs and chickens. A similar GM soybean variety has been developed. Soybean meal derived from this variety of GM soybeans provides more dietary P to pigs and poultry than meal from conventional soybeans. Studies have shown that diets containing GM corn and meal from GM soybeans decrease P excretion in manure by 50 to 60 percent in pigs and chickens. Inclusion of these special varieties of GM corn and soybeans in the diets fed to pigs and chickens offers great potential to dramatically reduce P excretion into the environment.

GM crops with improved amino acid profiles have great potential to decrease nitrogen (N) excretion, especially in pigs and poultry. Nitrogen can contaminate ground and surface waters, contribute to “acid rain,” which increases the acids in soils, and be the source of odors. Increased levels of the amino acids lysine, methionine, tryptophan, threonine and other essential amino acids in grains would mean that the essential amino acid requirements of pigs and poultry can be met with lower-protein diets. Such diets contain fewer excesses of other amino acids that eventually must be degraded to urea N and excreted in the urine. Feeding these GM varieties to pig and poultry would greatly reduce the amount of N — such as urea — from being excreted into the environment.

In the United States, there is long history of assessing the safety of foods introduced into the marketplace. The assessment of GM plants and animal biotechnologies is science-based and rigorous. The discovery and development of new animal and plant biotechnologies are part of a continuum leading to the commercialization of agricultural biotechnology products. Historically, equivalence of composition GM plants, GM animals or animals treated with biotechnology products, such as bST, has been an important component of the regulatory process. Establishing equivalence of composition is evidence that substantive changes did not occur in the plant or animal as the result of the genetic modification event. One endorsement to the robust nature of comparative safety assessment process used with GM plants is that more than 223 million hectares of GM crops have been commercially grown over the past 10 years with no documented effects to humans, animals or the environment. Likewise, there have been no documented adverse effects of meat and milk derived from cows supplemented with bST, the most rapidly adopted animal biotechnology to date.

Conclusion

Agriculture is transiting a remarkable scientific era with respect to the myriad of processes and products that have been developed using biotechnology that have already provided benefits to agriculture and society. Moreover, many new products of biotechnology are being developed that will benefit the food sector. Implicit to approval of these new products is a robust safety assessment process. To date, the approved GM plants and animal biotechnologies have been judged to be as safe as conventionally produced counterparts. Development and adoption of new biotechnologies will be crucial in meeting the challenge of producing enough food for a growing world population while minimizing and reducing impacts on the environment. The impact these technologies have on society in the future, however, will be largely dependent on the extent to which they are adopted by producers and the agricultural community and accepted by consumers. Questions about societal impacts and safety often arise as the result of technological change. Inherent to the successful development and adoption of new biotechnologies for agriculture is the need to increase public understanding of the scientific, economic, legislative, ethical and social issues associated with emerging agricultural biotechnologies.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Animal cloning has generated much public discussion about the need for, and safety of this scientific method. In this Blog I present information that the biotechnology is safe for both animals and consumers. In addition, it provides many benefits which is why so many scientists and livestock producers are excited about the technology being approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The discovery and development of techniques to propagate animals by nuclear transfer (cloning) offers many important applications to animal agriculture, including reproducing highly desired elite sires and dams. Animals selected for cloning will be of great value because of their increased genetic merit for increased food production, disease resistance, reproductive efficiency, or will be valued because they have been genetically modified to produce organs that can be used for transplantation into humans. Cloned animals (or twins) are often more efficient in their use of feed, and consequently, will produce less waste which will reduce the impact of animal agriculture on the environemtn. In addition, there is great potential to develop cloned animals that produce bioproducts that have important biomedical applications.

What is Cloning?

Cloning, a term originally used primarily in horticulture to describe asexually produced progeny, means to make a copy of an individual or, in cellular and molecular biology, groups of identical cells, and replicas of DNA and other molecules. For example, monozygotic twins are clones. Animal cloning in the late 1980s resulted from the transfer of nuclei from blastomeres of early cleavage-stage embryos into enucleated oocytes. The cloning of the sheep, Dolly, was the result of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) by Wilmut and colleagues (Wilmut et al., 1997). This was a landmark scientific discovery because it demonstrated that it was possible to clone an animal by removing the nucleus (which contains the genetic information in the form of DNA) from a cell of an adult animal, inserting this into an enucleated oocyte (an egg from which the nucleus has been removed), and then activating the “reconstructed” embryo. The resulting cloned embryos are cultured for a period of time to reach the optimal stage for embryo transfer where they are transplanted into a “mother” animal. Cloning by SCNT transfer requires that the introduced nucleus be reprogrammed by the cytoplasm of the egg and direct development of a new embryo, which is then transferred to a recipient mother for development to term. The resulting offspring will be identical to their siblings and to the original donor animal in terms of their nuclear DNA.

Are There Compositional Changes and Adverse Health Effects of Foods Derived From Cloned Animals?

Historically, equivalence of tissue (food) composition has been an important component of the regulatory process to evaluate food safety. For genetically modified plants and the animal biotechnologies reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration, the evaluation has included comprehensive compositional analyses of plants, tissues, and milk (when appropriate). A committee convened by the National Academies (2004) (of which I was a member) found that a comparable approach for animal products, primarily meat and milk, from cloned animals would be an appropriate, scientifically-based approach to assess compositional equivalence. Implicit to assessing compositional equivalence is that no increased health risk would be expected if the compositional analyses of animal products from cloned and non-cloned animals were substantially equivalent.

There is a long history of assessing the safety of foods introduced into the marketplace. The approach involves an integrated multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates molecular biology, protein chemistry and biochemistry, food chemistry, nutritional sciences, and toxicology. It is important to appreciate that absolute safety is not the objective with respect to any methodology or combination of methodologies used to evaluate complex substances such as food. The standard that has been applied is that the food under evaluation should be as safe as an appropriate counterpart that has a long history of safe use. This comparative evaluation process is the foundation of establishing substantial equivalence of the food being evaluated. It also is important to emphasize that it is the food product itself, rather the biotechnology process used to generate genetically modified animals and cloned animals, that should be the focal point of the evaluation. The primary objective of the safety review is to assess food safety; embedded in this is whether the process might affect the food. In addition, it is important to recognize that a statistically significant difference in one or more compounds in the food evaluated and the appropriate comparator does not necessarily imply an outcome with respect to human health. This must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of the regulatory framework. The National Academies Report found that there is no scientific evidence that cloning is associated with any unintended compositional change(s) that results in an unintended health consequence in humans. Since there is no evidence that food from cloned animals poses any increased health risk to the consumer it can be concluded that food from cloned animals should be approved for consumption.

Summary

It is important to appreciate that animal cloning is another example of an assisted breeding technology. Farmers have long used artificial insemination and split embryos to improve the health and quality of their herds. A cloned animal is a genetic twin of the donor animal. Cloning is not a transgenic procedure because there is no change in the orginal genome (genetic information stored as DNA in the nucleus) through addition, deletion or movement of the genes. Decades of research have demonstrated that cloned animals are just as healthy and normal as non-cloned animals.

References

Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of The National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 2004.

Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH. 1997. Viable offspring, derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385:810-813.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Animal cloning has generated much public discussion about the need for, and safety of this scientific method. In this Blog I present information that the biotechnology is safe for both animals and consumers. In addition, it provides many benefits which is why so many scientists and livestock producers are excited about the technology being approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The discovery and development of techniques to propagate animals by nuclear transfer (cloning) offers many important applications to animal agriculture, including reproducing highly desired elite sires and dams. Animals selected for cloning will be of great value because of their increased genetic merit for increased food production, disease resistance, reproductive efficiency, or will be valued because they have been genetically modified to produce organs that can be used for transplantation into humans. Cloned animals (or twins) are often more efficient in their use of feed, and consequently, will produce less waste which will reduce the impact of animal agriculture on the environemtn. In addition, there is great potential to develop cloned animals that produce bioproducts that have important biomedical applications.

What is Cloning?

Cloning, a term originally used primarily in horticulture to describe asexually produced progeny, means to make a copy of an individual or, in cellular and molecular biology, groups of identical cells, and replicas of DNA and other molecules. For example, monozygotic twins are clones. Animal cloning in the late 1980s resulted from the transfer of nuclei from blastomeres of early cleavage-stage embryos into enucleated oocytes. The cloning of the sheep, Dolly, was the result of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) by Wilmut and colleagues (Wilmut et al., 1997). This was a landmark scientific discovery because it demonstrated that it was possible to clone an animal by removing the nucleus (which contains the genetic information in the form of DNA) from a cell of an adult animal, inserting this into an enucleated oocyte (an egg from which the nucleus has been removed), and then activating the “reconstructed” embryo. The resulting cloned embryos are cultured for a period of time to reach the optimal stage for embryo transfer where they are transplanted into a “mother” animal. Cloning by SCNT transfer requires that the introduced nucleus be reprogrammed by the cytoplasm of the egg and direct development of a new embryo, which is then transferred to a recipient mother for development to term. The resulting offspring will be identical to their siblings and to the original donor animal in terms of their nuclear DNA.

Are There Compositional Changes and Adverse Health Effects of Foods Derived From Cloned Animals?

Historically, equivalence of tissue (food) composition has been an important component of the regulatory process to evaluate food safety. For genetically modified plants and the animal biotechnologies reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration, the evaluation has included comprehensive compositional analyses of plants, tissues, and milk (when appropriate). A committee convened by the National Academies (2004) (of which I was a member) found that a comparable approach for animal products, primarily meat and milk, from cloned animals would be an appropriate, scientifically-based approach to assess compositional equivalence. Implicit to assessing compositional equivalence is that no increased health risk would be expected if the compositional analyses of animal products from cloned and non-cloned animals were substantially equivalent.

There is a long history of assessing the safety of foods introduced into the marketplace. The approach involves an integrated multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates molecular biology, protein chemistry and biochemistry, food chemistry, nutritional sciences, and toxicology. It is important to appreciate that absolute safety is not the objective with respect to any methodology or combination of methodologies used to evaluate complex substances such as food. The standard that has been applied is that the food under evaluation should be as safe as an appropriate counterpart that has a long history of safe use. This comparative evaluation process is the foundation of establishing substantial equivalence of the food being evaluated. It also is important to emphasize that it is the food product itself, rather the biotechnology process used to generate genetically modified animals and cloned animals, that should be the focal point of the evaluation. The primary objective of the safety review is to assess food safety; embedded in this is whether the process might affect the food. In addition, it is important to recognize that a statistically significant difference in one or more compounds in the food evaluated and the appropriate comparator does not necessarily imply an outcome with respect to human health. This must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of the regulatory framework. The National Academies Report found that there is no scientific evidence that cloning is associated with any unintended compositional change(s) that results in an unintended health consequence in humans. Since there is no evidence that food from cloned animals poses any increased health risk to the consumer it can be concluded that food from cloned animals should be approved for consumption.

Summary

It is important to appreciate that animal cloning is another example of an assisted breeding technology. Farmers have long used artificial insemination and split embryos to improve the health and quality of their herds. A cloned animal is a genetic twin of the donor animal. Cloning is not a transgenic procedure because there is no change in the orginal genome (genetic information stored as DNA in the nucleus) through addition, deletion or movement of the genes. Decades of research have demonstrated that cloned animals are just as healthy and normal as non-cloned animals.

References

Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of The National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 2004.

Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH. 1997. Viable offspring, derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385:810-813.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Animal cloning has generated much public discussion about the need for, and safety of this scientific method. In this Blog I present information that the biotechnology is safe for both animals and consumers. In addition, it provides many benefits which is why so many scientists and livestock producers are excited about the technology being approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The discovery and development of techniques to propagate animals by nuclear transfer (cloning) offers many important applications to animal agriculture, including reproducing highly desired elite sires and dams. Animals selected for cloning will be of great value because of their increased genetic merit for increased food production, disease resistance, reproductive efficiency, or will be valued because they have been genetically modified to produce organs that can be used for transplantation into humans. Cloned animals (or twins) are often more efficient in their use of feed, and consequently, will produce less waste which will reduce the impact of animal agriculture on the environemtn. In addition, there is great potential to develop cloned animals that produce bioproducts that have important biomedical applications.

What is Cloning?

Cloning, a term originally used primarily in horticulture to describe asexually produced progeny, means to make a copy of an individual or, in cellular and molecular biology, groups of identical cells, and replicas of DNA and other molecules. For example, monozygotic twins are clones. Animal cloning in the late 1980s resulted from the transfer of nuclei from blastomeres of early cleavage-stage embryos into enucleated oocytes. The cloning of the sheep, Dolly, was the result of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) by Wilmut and colleagues (Wilmut et al., 1997). This was a landmark scientific discovery because it demonstrated that it was possible to clone an animal by removing the nucleus (which contains the genetic information in the form of DNA) from a cell of an adult animal, inserting this into an enucleated oocyte (an egg from which the nucleus has been removed), and then activating the “reconstructed” embryo. The resulting cloned embryos are cultured for a period of time to reach the optimal stage for embryo transfer where they are transplanted into a “mother” animal. Cloning by SCNT transfer requires that the introduced nucleus be reprogrammed by the cytoplasm of the egg and direct development of a new embryo, which is then transferred to a recipient mother for development to term. The resulting offspring will be identical to their siblings and to the original donor animal in terms of their nuclear DNA.

Are There Compositional Changes and Adverse Health Effects of Foods Derived From Cloned Animals?

Historically, equivalence of tissue (food) composition has been an important component of the regulatory process to evaluate food safety. For genetically modified plants and the animal biotechnologies reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration, the evaluation has included comprehensive compositional analyses of plants, tissues, and milk (when appropriate). A committee convened by the National Academies (2004) (of which I was a member) found that a comparable approach for animal products, primarily meat and milk, from cloned animals would be an appropriate, scientifically-based approach to assess compositional equivalence. Implicit to assessing compositional equivalence is that no increased health risk would be expected if the compositional analyses of animal products from cloned and non-cloned animals were substantially equivalent.

There is a long history of assessing the safety of foods introduced into the marketplace. The approach involves an integrated multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates molecular biology, protein chemistry and biochemistry, food chemistry, nutritional sciences, and toxicology. It is important to appreciate that absolute safety is not the objective with respect to any methodology or combination of methodologies used to evaluate complex substances such as food. The standard that has been applied is that the food under evaluation should be as safe as an appropriate counterpart that has a long history of safe use. This comparative evaluation process is the foundation of establishing substantial equivalence of the food being evaluated. It also is important to emphasize that it is the food product itself, rather the biotechnology process used to generate genetically modified animals and cloned animals, that should be the focal point of the evaluation. The primary objective of the safety review is to assess food safety; embedded in this is whether the process might affect the food. In addition, it is important to recognize that a statistically significant difference in one or more compounds in the food evaluated and the appropriate comparator does not necessarily imply an outcome with respect to human health. This must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of the regulatory framework. The National Academies Report found that there is no scientific evidence that cloning is associated with any unintended compositional change(s) that results in an unintended health consequence in humans. Since there is no evidence that food from cloned animals poses any increased health risk to the consumer it can be concluded that food from cloned animals should be approved for consumption.

Summary

It is important to appreciate that animal cloning is another example of an assisted breeding technology. Farmers have long used artificial insemination and split embryos to improve the health and quality of their herds. A cloned animal is a genetic twin of the donor animal. Cloning is not a transgenic procedure because there is no change in the orginal genome (genetic information stored as DNA in the nucleus) through addition, deletion or movement of the genes. Decades of research have demonstrated that cloned animals are just as healthy and normal as non-cloned animals.

References

Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of The National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 2004.

Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH. 1997. Viable offspring, derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385:810-813.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Read the full text of this letter…

Permalink

Comments are closed.