Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

SHERRY BUNTING
Published in Farmshine (December 21, 2007 issue)

The purpose of this column is to discuss news affecting dairy marketing and prices. Before digging in, let’s reflect on the season and the yearend state of the dairy business…

New and value-added products in the dairy case are receiving good demand from consumers. Record exports brought record prices to overseas markets. And dairy farmers received record prices for their milk. 2007 has been a good year: particularly welcome after the abysmal losses of 2006.

But there’s something else 2007 will be known for: unease and potential division based on differences in production practices.

The milk labeling issue – and the uncertainty and controversy it brings to technologies like rbST – are overshadowing what would otherwise be a banner year.

The holiday season is a time of sharing, caring and reconciliation. With that in mind, a possible New Year’s resolution for the dairy industry is to focus on the core principles all dairy farmers can agree on.

Everyone – no matter how modern or old-fashioned their production practices – can strive to put the focus back on quality products and the promotion of the wholesomeness of all milk. This industry is too vital to let a few words on a label distract us from what is really important: providing an affordable, quality supply of nutritious, delicious milk for America’s families… and the world, for that matter.

Milk is one food item mothers should not have to think twice about purchasing for their families – whether because of fear or because of cost.

Here’s a label idea: “no artificial costs added” or better yet “fear-free” milk.

Affidavit Questions?

Producers who are concerned or have any questions about the legal risks and fairness of the “rbST-free” affidavits – whether signed or unsigned – are encouraged to send them to Washington, D.C. for possible evaluation. This, according to Lebanon, Pennsylvania dairy farmer Tom Krall. Krall is on the executive committee of the new nationwide grassroots dairy farmer organization: AFACT.

AFACT stands for “American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology.” The core leadership is currently involved in strategic planning.

Dairy farmers who do not still have a copy of their affidavit, can request a blank copy from their cooperative or marketing service field representative. The affidavits, along with the producer’s written concern or question, should be mailed as soon as possible to:

Citizen Complaint Center
Anti-Trust Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Room 3322
Washington, D.C. 20530.

“More and more dairy farmers are becoming concerned about possible legal risks associated with the affidavits they have been asked to sign,” said Krall. “AFACT is urging producers to act quickly in sending them to Washington. If many affidavits are received all at once, the Citizen Complaint Division will be more likely to look at them.”

AFACT co-chairs Carrol Campbell of Kansas and Liz Doornink of Wisconsin also are meeting with members of Congress.

AFACT membership includes individual dairymen, allied industry representatives, and regional associations of dairy farmers from the Southwest, Pacific Northwest, Midwest, Southeast and Northeast.

For example, Pennsylvania Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania (PDMP) is a member, openly supporting the efforts of AFACT, and the Wisconsin Dairy Business Association recently indicated its plan to get involved in AFACT’s effort to keep technological advances available to dairy producers.

The core leadership of AFACT communicates weekly by nationwide teleconference – open to all members – and via email. For information about AFACT, contact PDMP at 877-362-5773, or email Tom Krall at krallfarm@verizon.net.

Farmer-to-Consumer Connections

Over the past four weeks, consumer focus groups have examined dairy labels in four metropolitan areas (Chicago, Seattle, Columbus, and Philadelphia), and more are planned for early 2008. Observers, describe the process as a roller coaster of opinions being formed.

The “up” side of the opinion roller coaster during the focus group in Philadelphia last Thursday evening (Dec. 13), occurred when the moderator brought dairy producer Liz Doornink into the room at the end of the session. She made an immediate connection with the eight consumers, mostly mothers ranging in age from 25 to 40, with two of the eight indicating a prior preference for organic milk.

Liz and her husband Todd Doornink have three daughters, and they are part owners of Jon-De Farm, Inc., a 1,700-cow dairy operation in Baldwin, Wisconsin. Liz is also a co-chair of AFACT.

She fell right into that group (of consumers). It was neat to see their faces when the moderator told them a dairy farmer would come in and join them. There was a collective sigh in the room because Liz was not at all who they had anticipated,” observed Lori Connelly, director of communications for PennAg Industries. Connelly was one of about 25 dairy industry representatives and farmers viewing the activity.

“It was amazing to see how they immediately connected with Liz as they shared stories about their families and she talked about their farm operation at home,” Connelly added during a phone interview after the event. “That wasone of several ‘light bulb’ moments throughout the evening and something to keep in mind in promoting our products.”

Connelly also noted that in the beginning, the process was a “free-for-all. It was really striking how much influence one consumer peer can have over others in the group,” she said, noting one leader emerged – a consumer who did a lot of research online and assumed the role of educating the other seven consumers. “Once Liz came in and talked about the facts, the group turned quickly back to feeling okay about buying conventionally produced milk.”

A description of Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff’s recent action on milk labeling guidelines, was also shown to the Philadelphia focus group. They were asked: reading this now and knowing what you know now, what do you think of this? Seven out of the eight consumers said they support what Secretary Wolff has done.

Dairyman Tom Krall described the Philadelphia group as a discovery of consumers’ preconceived ideas: their feelings about what they have been reading and hearing in the media, their milk purchasing decisions, and their reactions to the factual information provided to them.

“It was a very good session, very revealing,” said Krall. He also noted the important role of Liz Doornink as the “face” of dairy farmers to those eight consumers. “The most important thing is, we are keeping this positive, not being negative. What is being conveyed is that there are a lot of choices in the marketplace, and that all of these choices are healthy, good choices.”

The Philadelphia exercise began with milk purchased from a nearby supermarket. Consumers were allowed time to fully express their impressions about price and labeling before follow-up discussion with the moderator.

The four half-gallon price breaks were: conventional milk $1.99 per half-gallon; “rbST-free” $2.19; Farmland milk carrying a “hormone-free and antibiotic free” label as well as extra dry milk solids added sold for $3.99; and organic at $4.19 per half-gallon.

Krall said there was a ‘fear factor’ voiced in both focus groups he has observed, coupled with concerns from some of the consumers, indicating they can’t afford the higher prices.

Will Ohio Join PA?

Ohio Agriculture Director Robert Boggs is expected to announce a decision on the state’s milk labeling guidelines after Jan. 1, 2008, according to reports from the second of two meetings this week. The Ohio Department of Agriculture’s (ODA) Dairy Labeling Advisory Committee had their final meeting Wednesday (Dec. 19).

“Some of us on the committee were hoping a decision would be made before 2008 since all DFA and DMS producers in our state are being asked to sign affidavits pledging non-rbST use by December 31. A decision by ODA would impact whether some of them sign or not,” said Lyle Ruprecht during a phone interview after Wednesday’s meeting.

Ruprecht is a member of the ODA Dairy Labeling Advisory Committee. He is a nutrition consultant with Gerber Feeds and is also involved in his parent’s 100-cow dairy farm in Butler, Ohio.

“During the first hearing in November, we saw a lot of people come out who were opposed to putting any restrictions on labeling,” Ruprecht reported. “Then at our first advisory committee meeting on December 6, we had 80% of the crowd as dairy farmers and others speaking about the issue from the side of producers. During our final meeting this week, we had a lot of activist-type groups represented.”

Ruprecht noted the advisory committee is made up of 20 people, representing a mix of opinions. The meetings included 30 to 45 minutes of public comment and then discussion among the committee members. This week, the committee and the audience broke into three groups and rotated through stations to examine three different label styles.

“Our group did a lot of debating at each of the three stations, and I’m not sure how much we accomplished,” Ruprecht concluded.

Enough is Enough

Attorneys for the California Milk Processor Board have sent a letter to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) demanding they end the “Got Pus? Milk does” Publicity campaign, according to reports from Western United Dairymen. The milk board indicates it will sue the animal-rights group for trademark violation, among other things, if the campaign continues.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Lyle Ruprecht
20009 Mishey Road
Butler, Ohio 44822

I am writing this letter as a concerned member of the dairy industry regarding misinformation surrounding the topic of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). As a member of the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Dairy Label Review Committee, I have done a large amount of research on the topic of rBST and the FDA’s guidance on labeling relating to the use of rBST.

According to the Code of Federal Regulations and the Ohio Revised Code, any label that is false or misleading is not allowable.

In relation to the use of rBST in the production of milk, the FDA views any label claims that imply a compositional difference or imply that one type of milk is safer or higher quality is misleading. However, a label that conveys a difference in production methods such as “from cows not treated with rBST” that is accompanied by such language as “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows” is not misleading and allowable.

For a processor to make an allowable claim on a label they must first substantiate that claim. The FDA makes several suggestions on how to potentially do that, including “States may decidethat affidavits from individual farmers and processors are adequate to document that milk or milk products received by the firm were from untreated cows.”

This method is currently the industry’s standard to verify claims. The FDA also suggests several other steps to help verify the accuracy of label claims but falls short of definitively requiring any system. The FDA also states that they are not going to police these labeling guidelines but rather “intend to rely primarily on the enforcement activities of the interested States to ensure that rBST labeling claims are truthful and not misleading.”

Since the approval of rBST thirteen years ago, the enforcement of FDA’s guidelines across the nation has been spotty at best. Recently, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture(PDA) has announced that due to the growing prevalence of misleading labels in the dairy industry they will begin enforcing these guidelines as outlined by the FDA.

This action is completely defendable and long overdue. The only item that is controversial about their decision is their statement that production-related claims, which are approvable, will not be approved if they are supported solely by sworn statements, affidavits or testimonials. The PDA’s position is that the affidavits commonly used in the industry are not an effective system to guarantee that milk labeled as coming from cows not treated with rBST is actually such.

I agree completely. If we based other regulatory decisions on the honor system like dairy labeling, do you think everyone that pays income taxes would pay accurately if there was no IRS. Do you think that no one would break the speed limit if there were no police. The affidavit system is a joke.

However, processors love it because it allows them to make claims on their label without having to do much work. That is why the International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the processors, is opposed to the PDA’s guidelines. PDA’s stance is that firms that want to make rBST related claims need to come up with a better system to verify that their label claims are accurate.

Currently in Ohio, all of the major processors for fluid milk are on a schedule to force dairy farmers to quit using rBST by February 1, 2008 so that they can make rBST-related claims. In response to this movement the Department of Agriculture in Ohio has scheduled two meetings to discuss Ohio’s stance on the labeling of these products. Enforcement of the FDA’s guidelines in Ohio at this point in time has also been spotty because the rBST issue has not been as large as it is now becoming. I urge that Ohio adopts a policy similar to Pennsylvania’s so that dairy labels are accurate.

Consumers opposed to the PDA’s position think that free speech is being limited and that their right to know how the milk they consume is produced is being thwarted. I am in complete support of free speech and the consumer’s right to know. I am not in support of processors and retailers being allowed to make misleading claims or claims that are not verifiable because they stand to gain economically if they can make them.

I also know that there is already a system of verification in place for production related claims, which enable consumers to buy milk that has been produced without the use of rBST. It is called USDA Certified Organic.

Other arguments against PDA’s position have been that dairy farmers need to respond to consumer demand. The problem is that consumer demand is not driving this issue, it is processor and retailer driven. I know that stores such as Meijer, Giant Eagle and Buehlers have sold conventional milk directly next to milk with rBST related claims.

These stores know that sales of the milk with rBST related claims, many of which have been unapproved and misleading, is less than ten percent of total milk sales. Despite this fact, Meijer and Giant Eagle are among the retailers that have requested that their milk supply be 100% from cows not treated with rBST.

The truth is that unless Ohio adopts a policy similar to Pennsylvania’s, as of February 1st virtually all of the fluid milk available for sale in Ohio will be labeled with an rBST related claim. This milk will bemore expensive and means that the vast majority of consumers that want to buy the cheaper, conventionally labeled milk will no longer have that option. I think their right to purchase what they want should also be protected.

My last concern is misinformation surrounding the safety of rBST. I do not have enough room here for a complete dialogue about the safety of rBST but will summarize by saying that milk from cows treated with rBST has been shown time and time again to be completely safe for consumers and for cows. If you do not believe me just ask a reputable science based organization such as the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the joint World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization Committee of the United Nations, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Dietetic Association, the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office or the European Union’s Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.

The unbiased science behind this issue is 100% supportive of rBST’s safety. Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of misinformation regarding rBST. I have spent the last two months viewing it all over the internet. Suffice it to say that in searching the internet I also found information proving that the earth is flat.

Again, I urge that Ohio adopts a policy ensuring that dairy labels are truthful and accurate and that my right asa consumer that wants to buy the cheaper, compositionally identical milk is protected.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Summary

Since the onset of the modern era of biotechnology in 1973, scientists have made impressive strides in developing new biotechnologies for agriculture (reviewed in Metabolic Modifiers, 1994; Etherton et al., 2003). Biotechnologies that enhance productivity and productive efficiency (feed consumed/unit of output) have been developed and approved for commercial use. Technologies that improve productive efficiency will benefit both producers and consumers because feed provision constitutes a major component (about 70%) of farm expenditures. Advances in biotechnology research have allowed impressive improvements to be made in diagnostic approaches, increasing microbial safety of food and improving animal health (reviewed in Etherton et al., 2003). The application of genomics, or the study of how genes (DNA) are organized and expressed, and bioinformatics in animal agriculture will provide new genetic markers for improved selection of all livestock species. The advent 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 for transplantation or products with biomedical application (The National Academies, 2004). 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.

Advances in plant biotechnology also have had a huge positive impact on society. An impressive number of genetically modified (GM) plant varieties have been developed with improved qualities including enhanced tolerance of herbicides, and protection against viruses and insect pests, and beneficial modifications in nutrient profile (visit AGBIOS for additional information about GM crops, and a listing of approved biotech crops in the U.S). Presently, 74 different biotech crops have been approved for use in the U.S.

To reinforce the reality of how widely GM crops are being adopted it is useful to look at the database. These varieties have been adopted rapidly by American farmers, and the United States accounted for approximately 53% of the global area of transgenic crops in 2006 (James, 2006). Approximately 10.3 million farmers from 22 different countries planted GM crops in 2006 (James,2006). The 22 countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Columbia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Honduras, India, Iran, Mexico, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, United States, and Uruguay. Another important measure of adoption is that acreage planted with GM crops in 2006 (250 million acres) is 13% higher than that planted in 2005 (James, 2006). This growth rate in global area planted in GM crops is impressive in that this is the tenth consecutive year that the increase has been in the double-digits!

The discovery and development of new animal and plant biotechnologies are part of a continuum leading to the commercialization of agricultural biotechnology products. In order to enter the marketplace, new animal biotechnologies are evaluated rigorously by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies to ensure efficacy, consumer safety, and animal health and well being (FDA, 2006). To benefit agriculture and society, products of biotechnology must be accepted by consumers. Central to consumer acceptance is the need to provide effective population-based education programs to enhance public understanding of the safety and benefits associated with technological advances enabled by agricultural biotechnology. Despite some of the most remarkable advances in biological research, a public discussion still continues about the need for, and safety of agricultural biotechnology that is fueled by misinformation campaigns funded by some anti-ag and anti-biotech activist groups. As we progress towards 2050, the scientific and agricultural communities must be more proactive in developing and delivering biotechnology and agriculture education campaigns for public and policy makers that clearly articulate the merits of current production practices used in animal agriculture. Moreover, the benefits of investing in discovery research that improves animal agriculture must be championed, and the return on this investment clearly communicated. The agricultural community is going to navigate a period over the next few decades during which we will likely witness growing challenges, especially increased regulatory oversight in addition to the misinformation campaigns funded by activist anti-ag groups. For the full benefits of agricultural biotechnology to be realized regulatory policy that evolves must be guided by the scientific evidence base, not vocal anti-ag activist groups.

Human Health: Uses of Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture to Decrease Morbidity and Mortality from Disease

Advances in recombinant DNA technology, animal embryology, immunology, and other disciplines give rise to the prospect that animals will become important sources of highly sophisticated biopharmaceuticals and biological products. A number of biopharmaceutical products are being developed in which the ultimate production system will be a genetically modified (GM) animal. In such instances, the gene for the desired molecule is designed and constructed to be expressed only in a specific tissue. Several companies focusing on these activities are targeting the production of specific animal proteins in milk (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs) and in eggs (poultry). These new approaches will allow for more economical production of certain pharmaceuticals that currently are expensive to produce. Biotechnological production methods thus may allow for a more widespread distribution and application of pharmaceuticals, including in developing countries. Another type of biotechnology under development involves using animals to produce donor organsfor human transplant. There is a great shortage of transplant organs from human donors. Heart valves from pigs have been used for many years to replace heart valves in humans, and several private-sector companies and numerous university scientists are investigating ways in which to use biotechnology to develop pigs as a source of transplant organs. One key advantage of this approach is that it is possible that genetic engineering can be used to produce rejection-free organs. In each instance just described, a vital basic health need is being fulfilled by the use of animals, and no foreseeable alternatives exist.

Food Production: Uses of Biotechnology in Animal Production

Feeding Livestock

Health and safety are priorities in the development of new food and feed products, including those developed through biotechnological means. Evaluation by governmental regulatory agencies is required for each new biotech plant used for feed or food. 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 (Alewynse 2000; Beever and Kemp 2000; Faust 2002). Evaluations have shown uniformly that feed components derived from GM plants commercialized thus far are substantively equivalent in terms of nutrient composition and are similar in terms of nutrient digestibility and feeding value. Overall, feed components of GM plants result in growth rates and milk yields not different from those derived from non-genetically enhanced feed sources (Clark and Ipharraguerre 2001; Faust 2002; Flachowsky and Aulrich 2001). Studies have reported that when corn has been altered genetically for protection against the corn borer, under certain growing conditions GM plants can have lower mycotoxin contamination, resulting in safer feed for livestock (Munkvold et al., 1999).

Metabolic Modifiers

Advances in understanding the regulation of nutrient use in agricultural animals have led to the development of technologies referred to as 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 production, productive efficiency (weight gain or milk yield/unit of feed consumed), improving carcass composition (lean:fat ratio) in growing animals, increasing milk yield in lactating animals, and decreasing animal waste/production unit (NRC 1994).

Two classes of compounds have received major focus—somatotropins (STs) and ß-adrenergic agonists. The most commonly discussed ST is bovine somatotropin (bST), which has been commercially used since 1994 for administration to dairy cows to achieve increased milk yield, improve milk/feed, and decrease animal waste (Etherton and Bauman, 1998; Bauman, 1999).

Supplements of ß-adrenergic agonists to growing animals improve feed utilization and increase rate of weight gain, carcass leanness, and dressing percentage (National Research Council, 1994). Research has established the mode of action involves changes in endocrine and cellular mechanisms (National Research Council, 1994). The net effect is that these repartitioning agents improve productive efficiency by modifying specific metabolic signals in a coordinated manner to increase nutrient use for lean tissue. Ractopamine is the only ß-adrenergic agonist currently approved in the United States—in this instance, for finishing pigs; commercial use began in 2000.

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, and cloning of livestock and laboratory animals has resulted from transferring a nucleus from a somatic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed (Wilmut et al., 1997; Westhusin et al., 2001).

Somatic cell nuclear transfer also can be used to produce embryonic stem cells, which are undifferentiated, and matched to the recipient for research and therapy that is independent of reproductive cloning of animals. The progeny from cloning using nuclei from either blastomeres or somatic cells are not exact replicas of an individual animal due to cytoplasmic inheritance of mitochondrial DNA from the donor egg, other cytoplasmic factors which may influence “reprogramming” of the genome of the transferred nucleus, and subsequent development of the cloned organism (Jaenisch and Wilmut, 2001).

Cloning by nuclear transfer from embryonic blastomeres (Willadsen, 1989) or from a differentiated cell of an adult (Wilmut et al., 1997; Polejaeva et al., 2000; Kuhholzer and Prather, 2000) 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 offspring will be identical to their siblings and to the original donor animal in terms of their nuclear DNA, but will differ in their mitochondrial genes; variances in the manner nuclear genes are expressed are also possible. Although the word clone is descriptive for multiple approaches for cloning animals, in this article clone is used as a descriptor for somatic cell nuclear transfer.

On December 28, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft risk assessment (RA) on whether cloning affects food safety or animal health, and whether food products from livestock should be sold for consumption. The draft, “A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny - Draft” concludes that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats. Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.” Publication of the FDA Risk Assessment is an important next step in the process leading to the release the final regulatory guidelines that will allow food from cloned animals to enter the food system.

Conservation of the Environment

Meeting environmental challenges in agriculture is one of the major issues facing animal agriculture. Most swine and poultry manure is produced in confinement units for which the nearby land base often is insufficient to accommodate waste in an environmentally sound manner. Animal manure, especially swine and poultry manure, is high in nitrogen (N) (4.7 to 5.1%) and phosphorus (P) (1.6 to 3.0%), both of which can contribute to surface and groundwater pollution. In addition, ammonia and other nitrogenous and sulfurous gasses contribute to poor air quality and offensive odors. Several GM crops have been developed or are being developed to address the environmental issues related to N, P, and total manure excretion and odors (Etherton et al., 2003).

Phosphorus 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%) P is bound organically as phytic acid or phytate. Because of the lack of phytase in their digestive tract, nonruminants are unable to degrade phytate, and most P from these feed ingredients is excreted in the feces. In addition, relatively large amounts of inorganic P must be fed to pigs and poultry to meet their P requirements; consequently, fecal P excretion is increased further. Ruminants use phytate quite efficiently because of the abundance of phytase produced by rumen microorganisms.

It is exciting that opportunities are now available to decrease P content of manure (reviewed in Knowlton et al., 2004). These new strategies are based on a more accurate interpretation of P requirements (to not over-feed P), more precise diet formulation, and utilization of exogenous phytase or low-phytic acid grains in monogastric diets. The availability of microbial expression systems has made large amounts of the recombinant enzyme available for use in animal feed at relatively low costs (reviewed by Lei and Porres, 2003). Collectively, these strategies can lower P content of manure by 40-60% in pigs and poultry and 25 to 40% in ruminants (Knowlton et al., 2004).

A Look to the Future

The impressive growth in the science of biotechnology and the many products of biotechnology is one of the most impressive achievements in the history of science. Predicting what scientific discoveries will occur between the present and 2050 will, as always, be more than a bit challenging. Scientific advances will give us a better understanding of how genes work, and how they can be manipulated to achieve an optimal production outcome that benefits both the producer and consumer. Valuable animals that arise from conventional breeding or genetic manipulation can be propagated forever by cloning. I anticipate that we will be able to do large-scale modification of a large number of genes that will further enhance a variety of target production traits, production efficiency, and profitability.

Before we in the agricultural community get carried away anticipating scientific advances in biotechnology over the next 40 years, there are several key points that must be considered and addressed. First, funding for discovery and applied research in agriculture must be increased. Second, the discoveries made require a viable private sector to commercialize new products of biotechnology. This is becoming more challenging for a variety of reasons. The process of moving a product through the regulatory approval process is becoming more complex, costly and lengthy. This growing burden makes it challenging for private sector to recover their investment costs from product sales. This is particularly important for agricultural biotechnologies where the margins on products sold are lower than biomedical biotechnology products (using comparable scientific methods for production).

The last point pertains to the activist groups that are actively advocating use of biotechnology-derived products be halted. This is an ever-present reality. Many of these groups are well funded (visit Guidestar to see the IRS returns that all non-profits are required to place in the public domain), and attack animal agriculture on many fronts that range from animal welfare to biotechnology to environmental issues. It is simple to scare the public in 30 seconds; however, we can not educate them about science, agriculture, and biotechnology in 30 seconds. While it is a proven fact that biotechnology-derived (GM) crops are economically viable, environmentally sustainable, and are as safe as, if not safer, than their conventional counterparts, the debate over these agricultural biotechnologies and its applications continues. This is similar to the ongoing public discussion about rbST-free milk. Myencouragement to animal agriculture is to passionately engage in developing and implementing consumer education programs that effectively frame the importance of animal agriculture and promote the need for and benefits of biotechnology in the barnyard.

References

Alewynse, M.G. 2000. Regulation of genetically modified plants in animal feed. FDA Vet. 15:1–2.

Bauman, D. E. 1999. Bovine somatotropin and lactation: From basic science to commercial application. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 17:101–116.

Beever, D.E. and C.F. Kemp. 2000. Safety issues associated with the DNA in animal feed derived from genetically modified crops. A review of scientific and regulatory procedures. Nutr. Abstr. Rev. B: Livestock Feeds Feeding. 70:175–182.

Clark, J.H. and I.R. Ipharraguerre. 2001. Livestock performance: Feeding biotech crops. J. Dairy. Sci. 84:E9–E18.

Cummins, J.M. 2001. Cytoplasmic inheritance and its implications for animal biotechnology. Theriogenology. 55:1381-1399.

Etherton, T.D. and D.E. Bauman. 1998. The biology of somatotropin in growth and lactation of domestic animals. Physiol. Rev. 78:745–761.

Etherton, T.D., D.E. Bauman, C.W. Beattie, R.D. Bremel, G.L. Cromwell, V. Kapur, G. Varner, M.B. Wheeler and M. Wiedmann. 2003. Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture: An Overview. CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology) Issue Paper, No. 23.

Faust, M. 2002. New feeds from genetically modified plants: the U.S. approach to safety for animals and the food chain. Livestock Prod. Sci. 74:239–254.

FDA. 2006. A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny – DRAFT. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm

Flachowsky, G. and K. Aulrich. 2001. Nutritional assessment of feeds from genetically modified organism. J. Anim. Feed. Sci. 10:181–194.

James, C. 2006. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2006. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Brief Number 35-2006. ISAAA, Ithaca, New York.

Jaenish, R. and I. Wilmut. 2001. Developmental biology. Don’t clone humans! Science. 291:2552.

Knowlton, K.F., J.S. Radcliffe, C.L. Novak and D.A. Emmerson. 2004. Animal management to reduce phosphorus losses to the environment. J. Anim. Sci. 82(E. Suppl.):E173-E195.

Kuhholzer, B. and R.S. Prather. 2000. Advances in livestock nuclear transfer. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 224:240-245.

Lee, X.G. and J.M. Porres. 2003. Phytase enzymology, applications, and biotechnology. Biotechol. Lett. 25:1787-1794.

Metabolic Modifiers: Effects on Nutrient Requirements of Food-Producing Animals. 1994. T.D. Etherton (Ed.). Board on Agriculture, National Research Council, National Academy of Science Press, Washington, D.C.

Munkvold, G.P., R.L. Hellmich, and W.B. Showers. 1999. Reduced fusarium ear rot and symptomless infection in kernels of maize genetically engineered for European corn borer resistance. Phytopathol. 87:1071–1077.

National Research Council (NRC). 1994. Metabolic Modifiers: Effects on the Nutrient Requirements of Food-producing Animals. The National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Polegaeva, I.A., S.H. Chen, T.D. Vaught, R.L. Page, J. Mullins, S. Ball, Y. Dai, J. Boone, S. Walker, D.L. Ayares, A. Colman and K.H. Campbell. 2000. Cloned pigs produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells. Nature. 407:86-90.

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

Westhusin. M.E., C.R. Long, T. Shin, J.R. Hill, C.R. Looney, J.H. Pryor and J.A. Piedrahita. 2001. Cloning to reproduce desired genotypes. Theriogenology. 55:35-49.

Wilmut I., A.E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A.J. Kind and K.H. Campbell. 1997. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature. 385:810-813.

Willadsen, S.M. 1989. Cloning of sheep and cow embryos. Genome. 31:956-962.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

SHERRY BUNTING
Published in Farmshine (December 21, 2007 issue)

The purpose of this column is to discuss news affecting dairy marketing and prices. Before digging in, let’s reflect on the season and the yearend state of the dairy business…

New and value-added products in the dairy case are receiving good demand from consumers. Record exports brought record prices to overseas markets. And dairy farmers received record prices for their milk. 2007 has been a good year: particularly welcome after the abysmal losses of 2006.

But there’s something else 2007 will be known for: unease and potential division based on differences in production practices.

The milk labeling issue – and the uncertainty and controversy it brings to technologies like rbST – are overshadowing what would otherwise be a banner year.

The holiday season is a time of sharing, caring and reconciliation. With that in mind, a possible New Year’s resolution for the dairy industry is to focus on the core principles all dairy farmers can agree on.

Everyone – no matter how modern or old-fashioned their production practices – can strive to put the focus back on quality products and the promotion of the wholesomeness of all milk. This industry is too vital to let a few words on a label distract us from what is really important: providing an affordable, quality supply of nutritious, delicious milk for America’s families… and the world, for that matter.

Milk is one food item mothers should not have to think twice about purchasing for their families – whether because of fear or because of cost.

Here’s a label idea: “no artificial costs added” or better yet “fear-free” milk.

Affidavit Questions?

Producers who are concerned or have any questions about the legal risks and fairness of the “rbST-free” affidavits – whether signed or unsigned – are encouraged to send them to Washington, D.C. for possible evaluation. This, according to Lebanon, Pennsylvania dairy farmer Tom Krall. Krall is on the executive committee of the new nationwide grassroots dairy farmer organization: AFACT.

AFACT stands for “American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology.” The core leadership is currently involved in strategic planning.

Dairy farmers who do not still have a copy of their affidavit, can request a blank copy from their cooperative or marketing service field representative. The affidavits, along with the producer’s written concern or question, should be mailed as soon as possible to:

Citizen Complaint Center
Anti-Trust Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Room 3322
Washington, D.C. 20530.

“More and more dairy farmers are becoming concerned about possible legal risks associated with the affidavits they have been asked to sign,” said Krall. “AFACT is urging producers to act quickly in sending them to Washington. If many affidavits are received all at once, the Citizen Complaint Division will be more likely to look at them.”

AFACT co-chairs Carrol Campbell of Kansas and Liz Doornink of Wisconsin also are meeting with members of Congress.

AFACT membership includes individual dairymen, allied industry representatives, and regional associations of dairy farmers from the Southwest, Pacific Northwest, Midwest, Southeast and Northeast.

For example, Pennsylvania Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania (PDMP) is a member, openly supporting the efforts of AFACT, and the Wisconsin Dairy Business Association recently indicated its plan to get involved in AFACT’s effort to keep technological advances available to dairy producers.

The core leadership of AFACT communicates weekly by nationwide teleconference – open to all members – and via email. For information about AFACT, contact PDMP at 877-362-5773, or email Tom Krall at krallfarm@verizon.net.

Farmer-to-Consumer Connections

Over the past four weeks, consumer focus groups have examined dairy labels infour metropolitan areas (Chicago, Seattle, Columbus, and Philadelphia), and more are planned for early 2008. Observers, describe the process as a roller coaster of opinions being formed.

The “up” side of the opinion roller coaster during the focus group in Philadelphia last Thursday evening (Dec. 13), occurred when the moderator brought dairy producer Liz Doornink into the room at the end of the session. She made an immediate connection with the eight consumers, mostly mothers ranging in age from 25 to 40, with two of the eight indicating a prior preference for organic milk.

Liz and her husband Todd Doornink have three daughters, and they are part owners of Jon-De Farm, Inc., a 1,700-cow dairy operation in Baldwin, Wisconsin. Liz is also a co-chair of AFACT.

She fell right into that group (of consumers). It was neat to see their faces when the moderator told them a dairy farmer would come in and join them. There was a collective sigh in the room because Liz was not at all who they had anticipated,” observed Lori Connelly, director of communications for PennAg Industries. Connelly was one of about 25 dairy industry representatives and farmers viewing the activity.

“It was amazing to see how they immediately connected with Liz as they shared stories about their families and she talked about their farm operation at home,” Connelly added during a phone interview after the event. “That wasone of several ‘light bulb’ moments throughout the evening and something to keep in mind in promoting our products.”

Connelly also noted that in the beginning, the process was a “free-for-all. It was really striking how much influence one consumer peer can have over others in the group,” she said, noting one leader emerged – a consumer who did a lot of research online and assumed the role of educating the other seven consumers. “Once Liz came in and talked about the facts, the group turned quickly back to feeling okay about buying conventionally produced milk.”

A description of Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff’s recent action on milk labeling guidelines, was also shown to the Philadelphia focus group. They were asked: reading this now and knowing what you know now, what do you think of this? Seven out of the eight consumers said they support what Secretary Wolff has done.

Dairyman Tom Krall described the Philadelphia group as a discovery of consumers’ preconceived ideas: their feelings about what they have been reading and hearing in the media, their milk purchasing decisions, and their reactions to the factual information provided to them.

“It was a very good session, very revealing,” said Krall. He also noted the important role of Liz Doornink as the “face” of dairy farmers to those eight consumers. “The most important thing is, we are keeping this positive, not being negative. What is being conveyed is that there are a lot of choices in the marketplace, and that all of these choices are healthy, good choices.”

The Philadelphia exercise began with milk purchased from a nearby supermarket. Consumers were allowed time to fully express their impressions about price and labeling before follow-up discussion with the moderator.

The four half-gallon price breaks were: conventional milk $1.99 per half-gallon; “rbST-free” $2.19; Farmland milk carrying a “hormone-free and antibiotic free” label as well as extra dry milk solids added sold for $3.99; and organic at $4.19 per half-gallon.

Krall said there was a ‘fear factor’ voiced in both focus groups he has observed, coupled with concerns from some of the consumers, indicating they can’t afford the higher prices.

Will Ohio Join PA?

Ohio Agriculture Director Robert Boggs is expected to announce a decision on the state’s milk labeling guidelines after Jan. 1, 2008, according to reports from the second of two meetings this week. The Ohio Department of Agriculture’s (ODA) Dairy Labeling Advisory Committee had their final meeting Wednesday (Dec. 19).

“Some of us on the committee were hoping a decision would be made before 2008 since all DFA and DMS producers in our state are being asked to sign affidavits pledging non-rbST use by December 31. A decision by ODA would impact whether some of them sign or not,” said Lyle Ruprecht during a phone interview after Wednesday’s meeting.

Ruprecht is a member of the ODA Dairy Labeling Advisory Committee. He is a nutrition consultant with Gerber Feeds and is also involved in his parent’s 100-cow dairy farm in Butler, Ohio.

“During the first hearing in November, we saw a lot of people come out who were opposed to putting any restrictions on labeling,” Ruprecht reported. “Then at our first advisory committee meeting on December 6, we had 80% of the crowd as dairy farmers and others speaking about the issue from the side of producers. During our final meeting this week, we had a lot of activist-type groups represented.”

Ruprecht noted the advisory committee is made up of 20 people, representing a mix of opinions. The meetings included 30 to 45 minutes of public comment and then discussion among the committee members. This week, the committee and the audience broke into three groups and rotated through stations to examine three different label styles.

“Our group did a lot of debating at each of the three stations, and I’m not sure how much we accomplished,” Ruprecht concluded.

Enough is Enough

Attorneys for the California Milk Processor Board have sent a letter to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) demanding they end the “Got Pus? Milk does” Publicity campaign, according to reports from Western United Dairymen. The milk board indicates it will sue the animal-rights group for trademark violation, among other things, if the campaign continues.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Lyle Ruprecht
20009 Mishey Road
Butler, Ohio 44822

I am writing this letter as a concerned member of the dairy industry regarding misinformation surrounding the topic of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). As a member of the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Dairy Label Review Committee, I have done a large amount of research on the topic of rBST and the FDA’s guidance on labeling relating to the use of rBST.

According to the Code of Federal Regulations and the Ohio Revised Code, any label that is false or misleading is not allowable.

In relation to the use of rBST in the production of milk, the FDA views any label claims that imply a compositional difference or imply that one type of milk is safer or higher quality is misleading. However, a label that conveys a difference in production methods such as “from cows not treated with rBST” that is accompanied by such language as “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows” is not misleading and allowable.

For a processor to make an allowable claim on a label they must first substantiate that claim. The FDA makes several suggestions on how to potentially do that, including “States may decidethat affidavits from individual farmers and processors are adequate to document that milk or milk products received by the firm were from untreated cows.”

This method is currently the industry’s standard to verify claims. The FDA also suggests several other steps to help verify the accuracy of label claims but falls short of definitively requiring any system. The FDA also states that they are not going to police these labeling guidelines but rather “intend to rely primarily on the enforcement activities of the interested States to ensure that rBST labeling claims are truthful and not misleading.”

Since the approval of rBST thirteen years ago, the enforcement of FDA’s guidelines across the nation has been spotty at best. Recently, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture(PDA) has announced that due to the growing prevalence of misleading labels in the dairy industry they will begin enforcing these guidelines as outlined by the FDA.

This action is completely defendable and long overdue. The only item that is controversial about their decision is their statement that production-related claims, which are approvable, will not be approved if they are supported solely by sworn statements, affidavits or testimonials. The PDA’s position is that the affidavits commonly used in the industry are not an effective system to guarantee that milk labeled as coming from cows not treated with rBST is actually such.

I agree completely. If we based other regulatory decisions on the honor system like dairy labeling, do you think everyone that pays income taxes would pay accurately if there was no IRS. Do you think that no one would break the speed limit if there were no police. The affidavit system is a joke.

However, processors love it because it allows them to make claims on their label without having to do much work. That is why the International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the processors, is opposed to the PDA’s guidelines. PDA’s stance is that firms that want to make rBST related claims need to come up with a better system to verify that their label claims are accurate.

Currently in Ohio, all of the major processors for fluid milk are on a schedule to force dairy farmers to quit using rBST by February 1, 2008 so that they can make rBST-related claims. In response to this movement the Department of Agriculture in Ohio has scheduled two meetings to discuss Ohio’s stance on the labeling of these products. Enforcement of the FDA’s guidelines in Ohio at this point in time has also been spotty because the rBST issue has not been as large as it is now becoming. I urge that Ohio adopts a policy similar to Pennsylvania’s so that dairy labels are accurate.

Consumers opposed to the PDA’s position think that free speech is being limited and that their right to know how the milk they consume is produced is being thwarted. I am in complete support of free speech and the consumer’s right to know. I am not in support of processors and retailers being allowed to make misleading claims or claims that are not verifiable because they stand to gain economically if they can make them.

I also know that there is already a system of verification in place for production related claims, which enable consumers to buy milk that has been produced without the use of rBST. It is called USDA Certified Organic.

Other arguments against PDA’s position have been that dairy farmers need to respond to consumer demand. The problem is that consumer demand is not driving this issue, it is processor and retailer driven. I know that stores such as Meijer, Giant Eagle and Buehlers have sold conventional milk directly next to milk with rBST related claims.

These stores know that sales of the milk with rBST related claims, many of which have been unapproved and misleading, is less than ten percent of total milk sales. Despite this fact, Meijer and Giant Eagle are among the retailers that have requested that their milk supply be 100% from cows not treated with rBST.

The truth is that unless Ohio adopts a policy similar to Pennsylvania’s, as of February 1st virtually all of the fluid milk available for sale in Ohio will be labeled with an rBST related claim. This milk will bemore expensive and means that the vast majority of consumers that want to buy the cheaper, conventionally labeled milk will no longer have that option. I think their right to purchase what they want should also be protected.

My last concern is misinformation surrounding the safety of rBST. I do not have enough room here for a complete dialogue about the safety of rBST but will summarize by saying that milk from cows treated with rBST has been shown time and time again to be completely safe for consumers and for cows. If you do not believe me just ask a reputable science based organization such as the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the joint World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization Committee of the United Nations, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Dietetic Association, the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office or the European Union’s Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.

The unbiased science behind this issue is 100% supportive of rBST’s safety. Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of misinformation regarding rBST. I have spent the last two months viewing it all over the internet. Suffice it to say that in searching the internet I also found information proving that the earth is flat.

Again, I urge that Ohio adopts a policy ensuring that dairy labels are truthful and accurate and that my right asa consumer that wants to buy the cheaper, compositionally identical milk is protected.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Summary

Since the onset of the modern era of biotechnology in 1973, scientists have made impressive strides in developing new biotechnologies for agriculture (reviewed in Metabolic Modifiers, 1994; Etherton et al., 2003). Biotechnologies that enhance productivity and productive efficiency (feed consumed/unit of output) have been developed and approved for commercial use. Technologies that improve productive efficiency will benefit both producers and consumers because feed provision constitutes a major component (about 70%) of farm expenditures. Advances in biotechnology research have allowed impressive improvements to be made in diagnostic approaches, increasing microbial safety of food and improving animal health (reviewed in Etherton et al., 2003). The application of genomics, or the study of how genes (DNA) are organized and expressed, and bioinformatics in animal agriculture will provide new genetic markers for improved selection of all livestock species. The advent 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 for transplantation or products with biomedical application (The National Academies, 2004). 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.

Advances in plant biotechnology also have had a huge positive impact on society. An impressive number of genetically modified (GM) plant varieties have been developed with improved qualities including enhanced tolerance of herbicides, and protection against viruses and insect pests, and beneficial modifications in nutrient profile (visit AGBIOS for additional information about GM crops, and a listing of approved biotech crops in the U.S). Presently, 74 different biotech crops have been approved for use in the U.S.

To reinforce the reality of how widely GM crops are being adopted it is useful to look at the database. These varieties have been adopted rapidly by American farmers, and the United States accounted for approximately 53% of the global area of transgenic crops in 2006 (James, 2006). Approximately 10.3 million farmers from 22 different countries planted GM crops in 2006 (James,2006). The 22 countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Columbia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Honduras, India, Iran, Mexico, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, United States, and Uruguay. Another important measure of adoption is that acreage planted with GM crops in 2006 (250 million acres) is 13% higher than that planted in 2005 (James, 2006). This growth rate in global area planted in GM crops is impressive in that this is the tenth consecutive year that the increase has been in the double-digits!

The discovery and development of new animal and plant biotechnologies are part of a continuum leading to the commercialization of agricultural biotechnology products. In order to enter the marketplace, new animal biotechnologies are evaluated rigorously by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies to ensure efficacy, consumer safety, and animal health and well being (FDA, 2006). To benefit agriculture and society, products of biotechnology must be accepted by consumers. Central to consumer acceptance is the need to provide effective population-based education programs to enhance public understanding of the safety and benefits associated with technological advances enabled by agricultural biotechnology. Despite some of the most remarkable advances in biological research, a public discussion still continues about the need for, and safety of agricultural biotechnology that is fueled by misinformation campaigns funded by some anti-ag and anti-biotech activist groups. As we progress towards 2050, the scientific and agricultural communities must be more proactive in developing and delivering biotechnology and agriculture education campaigns for public and policy makers that clearly articulate the merits of current production practices used in animal agriculture. Moreover, the benefits of investing in discovery research that improves animal agriculture must be championed, and the return on this investment clearly communicated. The agricultural community is going to navigate a period over the next few decades during which we will likely witness growing challenges, especially increased regulatory oversight in addition to the misinformation campaigns funded by activist anti-ag groups. For the full benefits of agricultural biotechnology to be realized regulatory policy that evolves must be guided by the scientific evidence base, not vocal anti-ag activist groups.

Human Health: Uses of Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture to Decrease Morbidity and Mortality from Disease

Advances in recombinant DNA technology, animal embryology, immunology, and other disciplines giverise to the prospect that animals will become important sources of highly sophisticated biopharmaceuticals and biological products. A number of biopharmaceutical products are being developed in which the ultimate production system will be a genetically modified (GM) animal. In such instances, the gene for the desired molecule is designed and constructed to be expressed only in a specific tissue. Several companies focusing on these activities are targeting the production of specific animal proteins in milk (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs) and in eggs (poultry). These new approaches will allow for more economical production of certain pharmaceuticals that currently are expensive to produce. Biotechnological production methods thus may allow for a more widespread distribution and application of pharmaceuticals, including in developing countries. Another type of biotechnology under development involves using animals to produce donor organs for human transplant. There is a great shortage of transplant organs from human donors. Heart valves from pigs have been used for many years to replace heart valves in humans, and several private-sector companies and numerous university scientists are investigating ways in which to use biotechnology to develop pigs as a source of transplant organs. One key advantage of this approach is that it is possible that genetic engineering can be used to produce rejection-free organs. In each instance just described, a vital basic health need is being fulfilled by the use of animals, and no foreseeable alternatives exist.

Food Production: Uses of Biotechnology in Animal Production

Feeding Livestock

Health and safety are priorities in the development of new food and feed products, including those developed through biotechnological means. Evaluation by governmental regulatory agencies is required for each new biotech plant used for feed or food. 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 (Alewynse 2000; Beever and Kemp 2000; Faust 2002). Evaluations have shown uniformly that feed components derived from GM plants commercialized thus far are substantively equivalent in terms of nutrient composition and are similar in terms of nutrient digestibility and feeding value. Overall, feed components of GM plants result in growth rates and milk yields not different from those derived from non-genetically enhanced feed sources (Clark and Ipharraguerre 2001; Faust 2002; Flachowsky and Aulrich 2001). Studies have reported that when corn has been altered genetically for protection against the corn borer, under certain growing conditions GM plants can have lower mycotoxin contamination, resulting in safer feed for livestock (Munkvold et al., 1999).

Metabolic Modifiers

Advances in understanding the regulation of nutrient use in agricultural animals have led to the development of technologies referred to as 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 production, productive efficiency (weight gain or milk yield/unit of feed consumed), improving carcass composition (lean:fat ratio) in growing animals, increasing milk yield in lactating animals, and decreasing animal waste/production unit (NRC 1994).

Two classes of compounds have received major focus—somatotropins (STs) and ß-adrenergic agonists. The most commonly discussed ST is bovine somatotropin (bST), which has been commercially used since 1994 for administration to dairy cows to achieve increased milk yield, improve milk/feed, and decrease animal waste (Etherton and Bauman, 1998; Bauman, 1999).

Supplements of ß-adrenergic agonists to growing animals improve feed utilization and increase rate of weight gain, carcass leanness, and dressing percentage (National Research Council, 1994). Research has established the mode of action involves changes in endocrine and cellular mechanisms (National Research Council, 1994). The net effect is that these repartitioning agents improve productive efficiency by modifying specific metabolic signals in a coordinated manner to increase nutrient use for lean tissue. Ractopamine is the only ß-adrenergic agonist currently approved in the United States—in this instance, for finishing pigs; commercial use began in 2000.

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, and cloning of livestock and laboratory animals has resulted from transferring a nucleus from a somatic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed (Wilmut et al., 1997; Westhusin et al., 2001).

Somatic cell nuclear transfer also can be used to produce embryonic stem cells, which are undifferentiated, and matched to the recipient for research and therapy that is independent of reproductive cloning of animals. The progeny from cloning using nuclei from either blastomeres or somatic cells are not exact replicasof an individual animal due to cytoplasmic inheritance of mitochondrial DNA from the donor egg, other cytoplasmic factors which may influence “reprogramming” of the genome of the transferred nucleus, and subsequent development of the cloned organism (Jaenisch and Wilmut, 2001).

Cloning by nuclear transfer from embryonic blastomeres (Willadsen, 1989) or from a differentiated cell of an adult (Wilmut et al., 1997; Polejaeva et al., 2000; Kuhholzer and Prather, 2000) 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 offspring will be identical to their siblings and to the original donor animal in terms of their nuclear DNA, but will differ in their mitochondrial genes; variances in the manner nuclear genes are expressed are also possible. Although the word clone is descriptive for multiple approaches for cloning animals, in this article clone is used as a descriptor for somatic cell nuclear transfer.

On December 28, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft risk assessment (RA) on whether cloning affects food safety or animal health, and whether food products from livestock should be sold for consumption. The draft, “A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and TheirProgeny - Draft” concludes that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats. Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.” Publication of the FDA Risk Assessment is an important next step in the process leading to the release the final regulatory guidelines that will allow food from cloned animals to enter the food system.

Conservation of the Environment

Meeting environmental challenges in agriculture is one of the major issues facing animal agriculture. Most swine and poultry manure is produced in confinement units for which the nearby land base often is insufficient to accommodate waste in an environmentally sound manner. Animal manure, especially swine and poultry manure, is high in nitrogen (N) (4.7 to 5.1%) and phosphorus (P) (1.6 to 3.0%), both of which can contribute to surface and groundwater pollution. In addition, ammonia and other nitrogenous and sulfurous gasses contribute to poor air quality and offensive odors. Several GM crops have been developed or are being developed to address the environmental issues related to N, P, and total manure excretion and odors (Etherton et al., 2003).

Phosphorus 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%) P is bound organically as phytic acid or phytate. Because of the lack of phytase in their digestive tract, nonruminants are unable to degrade phytate, and most P from these feed ingredients is excreted in the feces. In addition, relatively large amounts of inorganic P must be fed to pigs and poultry to meet their P requirements; consequently, fecal P excretion is increased further. Ruminants use phytate quite efficiently because of the abundance of phytase produced by rumen microorganisms.

It is exciting that opportunities are now available to decrease P content of manure (reviewed in Knowlton et al., 2004). These new strategies are based on a more accurate interpretation of P requirements (to not over-feed P), more precise diet formulation, and utilization of exogenous phytase or low-phytic acid grains in monogastric diets. The availability of microbial expression systems has made large amounts of the recombinant enzyme available for use in animal feed at relatively low costs (reviewed by Lei and Porres, 2003). Collectively, these strategies can lower P content of manure by 40-60% in pigs and poultry and 25 to 40% in ruminants (Knowlton et al., 2004).

A Look to the Future

The impressive growthin the science of biotechnology and the many products of biotechnology is one of the most impressive achievements in the history of science. Predicting what scientific discoveries will occur between the present and 2050 will, as always, be more than a bit challenging. Scientific advances will give us a better understanding of how genes work, and how they can be manipulated to achieve an optimal production outcome that benefits both the producer and consumer. Valuable animals that arise from conventional breeding or genetic manipulation can be propagated forever by cloning. I anticipate that we will be able to do large-scale modification of a large number of genes that will further enhance a variety of target production traits, production efficiency, and profitability.

Before we in the agricultural community get carried away anticipating scientific advances in biotechnology over the next 40 years, there are several key points that must be considered and addressed. First, funding for discovery and applied research in agriculture must be increased. Second, the discoveries made require a viable private sector to commercialize new products of biotechnology. This is becoming more challenging for a variety of reasons. The process of moving a product through the regulatory approval process is becoming more complex, costly and lengthy. This growing burden makes it challenging for private sector to recover their investment costs from product sales. This is particularly important for agricultural biotechnologies where the margins on products sold are lower than biomedical biotechnology products (using comparable scientific methods for production).

The last point pertains to the activist groups that are actively advocating use of biotechnology-derived products be halted. This is an ever-present reality. Many of these groups are well funded (visit Guidestar to see the IRS returns that all non-profits are required to place in the public domain), and attack animal agriculture on many fronts that range from animal welfare to biotechnology to environmental issues. It is simple to scare the public in 30 seconds; however, we can not educate them about science, agriculture, and biotechnology in 30 seconds. While it is a proven fact that biotechnology-derived (GM) crops are economically viable, environmentally sustainable, and are as safe as, if not safer, than their conventional counterparts, the debate over these agricultural biotechnologies and its applications continues. This is similar to the ongoing public discussion about rbST-free milk. My encouragement to animal agriculture is to passionately engage in developing and implementing consumer education programs that effectively frame the importance of animal agriculture and promote the need for and benefits of biotechnology in the barnyard.

References

Alewynse, M.G. 2000. Regulation of genetically modified plants in animal feed. FDA Vet. 15:1–2.

Bauman, D. E. 1999. Bovine somatotropin and lactation: From basic science to commercial application. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 17:101–116.

Beever, D.E. and C.F. Kemp. 2000. Safety issues associated with the DNA in animal feed derived from genetically modified crops. A review of scientific and regulatory procedures. Nutr. Abstr. Rev. B: Livestock Feeds Feeding. 70:175–182.

Clark, J.H. and I.R. Ipharraguerre. 2001. Livestock performance: Feeding biotech crops. J. Dairy. Sci. 84:E9–E18.

Cummins, J.M. 2001. Cytoplasmic inheritance and its implications for animal biotechnology. Theriogenology. 55:1381-1399.

Etherton, T.D. and D.E. Bauman. 1998. The biology of somatotropin in growth and lactation of domestic animals. Physiol. Rev. 78:745–761.

Etherton, T.D., D.E. Bauman, C.W. Beattie, R.D. Bremel, G.L. Cromwell, V. Kapur, G. Varner, M.B. Wheeler and M. Wiedmann. 2003. Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture: An Overview. CAST (Council for AgriculturalScience and Technology) Issue Paper, No. 23.

Faust, M. 2002. New feeds from genetically modified plants: the U.S. approach to safety for animals and the food chain. Livestock Prod. Sci. 74:239–254.

FDA. 2006. A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny – DRAFT. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm

Flachowsky, G. and K. Aulrich. 2001. Nutritional assessment of feeds from genetically modified organism. J. Anim. Feed. Sci. 10:181–194.

James, C. 2006. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2006. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Brief Number 35-2006. ISAAA, Ithaca, New York.

Jaenish, R. and I. Wilmut. 2001. Developmental biology. Don’t clone humans! Science. 291:2552.

Knowlton, K.F., J.S. Radcliffe, C.L. Novak and D.A. Emmerson. 2004. Animal management to reduce phosphorus losses to the environment. J. Anim. Sci. 82(E. Suppl.):E173-E195.

Kuhholzer, B. and R.S. Prather. 2000. Advances in livestock nuclear transfer. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 224:240-245.

Lee, X.G. and J.M. Porres. 2003. Phytase enzymology, applications, and biotechnology. Biotechol. Lett. 25:1787-1794.

Metabolic Modifiers: Effects on Nutrient Requirements of Food-Producing Animals. 1994. T.D. Etherton (Ed.). Board on Agriculture, National Research Council, National Academy of Science Press, Washington, D.C.

Munkvold, G.P., R.L. Hellmich, and W.B. Showers. 1999. Reduced fusarium ear rot and symptomless infection in kernels of maize genetically engineered for European corn borer resistance. Phytopathol. 87:1071–1077.

National Research Council (NRC). 1994. Metabolic Modifiers: Effects on the Nutrient Requirements of Food-producing Animals. The National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Polegaeva, I.A., S.H. Chen, T.D. Vaught, R.L. Page, J. Mullins, S. Ball, Y. Dai, J. Boone, S. Walker, D.L. Ayares, A. Colman and K.H. Campbell. 2000. Cloned pigs produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells. Nature. 407:86-90.

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

Westhusin. M.E., C.R. Long, T. Shin, J.R. Hill, C.R. Looney, J.H. Pryor and J.A. Piedrahita. 2001. Cloning to reproduce desired genotypes. Theriogenology. 55:35-49.

Wilmut I., A.E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A.J. Kind and K.H. Campbell. 1997. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature. 385:810-813.

Willadsen, S.M. 1989. Cloning of sheep and cow embryos. Genome. 31:956-962.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

SHERRY BUNTING
Published in Farmshine (December 21, 2007 issue)

The purpose of this column is to discuss news affecting dairy marketing and prices. Before digging in, let’s reflect on the season and the yearend state of the dairy business…

New and value-added products in the dairy case are receiving good demand from consumers. Record exports brought record prices to overseas markets. And dairy farmers received record prices for their milk. 2007 has been a good year: particularly welcome after the abysmal losses of 2006.

But there’s something else 2007 will be known for: unease and potential division based on differences in production practices.

The milk labeling issue – and the uncertainty and controversy it brings to technologies like rbST – are overshadowing what would otherwise be a banner year.

The holiday season is a time of sharing, caring and reconciliation. With that in mind, a possible New Year’s resolution for the dairy industry is to focus on the core principles all dairy farmers can agree on.

Everyone – no matter how modern or old-fashioned their production practices – can strive to put the focus back on quality products and the promotion of the wholesomeness of all milk. This industry is too vital to let a few words on a label distract us from what is really important: providing an affordable, quality supply of nutritious, delicious milk for America’s families… and the world, for that matter.

Milk is one food item mothers should not have to think twice about purchasing for their families – whether because of fear or because of cost.

Here’s a label idea: “no artificial costs added” or better yet “fear-free” milk.

Affidavit Questions?

Producers who are concerned or have any questions about the legal risks and fairness of the “rbST-free” affidavits – whether signed or unsigned – are encouraged to send them to Washington, D.C. for possible evaluation. This, according to Lebanon, Pennsylvania dairy farmer Tom Krall. Krall is on the executive committee of the new nationwide grassroots dairy farmer organization: AFACT.

AFACT stands for “American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology.” The core leadership is currently involved in strategic planning.

Dairy farmers who do not still have a copy of their affidavit, can request a blank copy from their cooperative or marketing service field representative. The affidavits, along with the producer’s written concern or question, should be mailed as soon as possible to:

Citizen Complaint Center
Anti-Trust Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Room 3322
Washington, D.C. 20530.

“More and more dairy farmers are becoming concerned about possible legal risks associated with the affidavits they have been asked to sign,” said Krall. “AFACT is urging producers to act quickly in sending them to Washington. If many affidavits are received all at once, the Citizen Complaint Division will be more likely to look at them.”

AFACT co-chairs Carrol Campbell of Kansas and Liz Doornink of Wisconsin also are meeting with members of Congress.

AFACT membership includes individual dairymen, allied industry representatives, and regional associations of dairy farmers from the Southwest, Pacific Northwest, Midwest, Southeast and Northeast.

For example, Pennsylvania Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania (PDMP) is a member, openly supporting the efforts of AFACT, and the Wisconsin Dairy Business Association recently indicated its plan to get involved in AFACT’s effort to keep technological advances available to dairy producers.

The core leadership of AFACT communicates weekly by nationwide teleconference – open to all members – and via email. For information about AFACT, contact PDMP at 877-362-5773, or email Tom Krall at krallfarm@verizon.net.

Farmer-to-Consumer Connections

Over the past four weeks, consumer focus groups have examined dairy labels infour metropolitan areas (Chicago, Seattle, Columbus, and Philadelphia), and more are planned for early 2008. Observers, describe the process as a roller coaster of opinions being formed.

The “up” side of the opinion roller coaster during the focus group in Philadelphia last Thursday evening (Dec. 13), occurred when the moderator brought dairy producer Liz Doornink into the room at the end of the session. She made an immediate connection with the eight consumers, mostly mothers ranging in age from 25 to 40, with two of the eight indicating a prior preference for organic milk.

Liz and her husband Todd Doornink have three daughters, and they are part owners of Jon-De Farm, Inc., a 1,700-cow dairy operation in Baldwin, Wisconsin. Liz is also a co-chair of AFACT.

She fell right into that group (of consumers). It was neat to see their faces when the moderator told them a dairy farmer would come in and join them. There was a collective sigh in the room because Liz was not at all who they had anticipated,” observed Lori Connelly, director of communications for PennAg Industries. Connelly was one of about 25 dairy industry representatives and farmers viewing the activity.

“It was amazing to see how they immediately connected with Liz as they shared stories about their families and she talked about their farm operation at home,” Connelly added during a phone interview after the event. “That was one of several ‘light bulb’ moments throughout the evening and something to keep in mind in promoting our products.”

Connelly also noted that in the beginning, the process was a “free-for-all. It was really striking how much influence one consumer peer can have over others in the group,” she said, noting one leader emerged – a consumer who did a lot of research online and assumed the role of educating the other seven consumers. “Once Liz came in and talked about the facts, the group turned quickly back to feeling okay about buying conventionally produced milk.”

A description of Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff’s recent action on milk labeling guidelines, was also shown to the Philadelphia focus group. They were asked: reading this now and knowing what you know now, what do you think of this? Seven out of the eight consumers said they support what Secretary Wolff has done.

Dairyman Tom Krall described the Philadelphia group as a discovery of consumers’ preconceived ideas: their feelings about what they have been reading and hearing in the media, their milk purchasing decisions, and their reactions to the factual information provided to them.

“It was a very good session, very revealing,” said Krall. He also noted the important role of Liz Doornink as the “face” of dairy farmers to those eight consumers. “The most important thing is, we are keeping this positive, not being negative. What is being conveyed is that there are a lot of choices in the marketplace, and that all of these choices are healthy, good choices.”

The Philadelphia exercise began with milk purchased from a nearby supermarket. Consumers were allowed time to fully express their impressions about price and labeling before follow-up discussion with the moderator.

The four half-gallon price breaks were: conventional milk $1.99 per half-gallon; “rbST-free” $2.19; Farmland milk carrying a “hormone-free and antibiotic free” label as well as extra dry milk solids added sold for $3.99; and organic at $4.19 per half-gallon.

Krall said there was a ‘fear factor’ voiced in both focus groups he has observed, coupled with concerns from some of the consumers, indicating they can’t afford the higher prices.

Will Ohio Join PA?

Ohio Agriculture Director Robert Boggs is expected to announce a decision on the state’s milk labeling guidelines after Jan. 1, 2008, according to reports from the second of two meetings this week. The Ohio Department of Agriculture’s (ODA) Dairy Labeling Advisory Committee had their final meeting Wednesday (Dec. 19).

“Some of us on the committee were hoping a decision would be made before 2008 since all DFA and DMS producers in our state are being asked to sign affidavits pledging non-rbST use by December 31. A decision by ODA would impact whether some of them sign or not,” said Lyle Ruprecht during a phone interview after Wednesday’s meeting.

Ruprecht is a member of the ODA Dairy Labeling Advisory Committee. He is a nutrition consultant with Gerber Feeds and is also involved in his parent’s 100-cow dairy farm in Butler, Ohio.

“During the first hearing in November, we saw a lot of people come out who were opposed to putting any restrictions on labeling,” Ruprecht reported. “Then at our first advisory committee meeting on December 6, we had 80% of the crowd as dairy farmers and others speaking about the issue from the side of producers. During our final meeting this week, we had a lot of activist-type groups represented.”

Ruprecht noted the advisory committee is made up of 20 people, representing a mix of opinions. The meetings included 30 to 45 minutes of public comment and then discussion among the committee members. This week, the committee and the audience broke into three groups and rotated through stations to examine three different label styles.

“Our group did a lot of debating at each of the three stations, and I’m not sure how much we accomplished,” Ruprecht concluded.

Enough is Enough

Attorneys for the California Milk Processor Board have sent a letter to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) demanding they end the “Got Pus? Milk does” Publicity campaign, according to reports from Western United Dairymen. The milk board indicates it will sue the animal-rights group for trademark violation, among other things, if the campaign continues.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Lyle Ruprecht
20009 Mishey Road
Butler, Ohio 44822

I am writing this letter as a concerned member of the dairy industry regarding misinformation surrounding the topic of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). As a member of the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Dairy Label Review Committee, I have done a large amount of research on the topic of rBST and the FDA’s guidance on labeling relating to the use of rBST.

According to the Code of Federal Regulations and the Ohio Revised Code, any label that is false or misleading is not allowable.

In relation to the use of rBST in the production of milk, the FDA views any label claims that imply a compositional difference or imply that one type of milk is safer or higher quality is misleading. However, a label that conveys a difference in production methods such as “from cows not treated with rBST” that is accompanied by such language as “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows” is not misleading and allowable.

For a processor to make an allowable claim on a label they must first substantiate that claim. The FDA makes several suggestions on how to potentially do that, including “States may decide that affidavits from individual farmers and processors are adequate to document that milk or milk products received by the firm were from untreated cows.”

This method is currently the industry’s standard to verify claims. The FDA also suggests several other steps to help verify the accuracy of label claims but falls short of definitively requiring any system. The FDA also states that they are not going to police these labeling guidelines but rather “intend to rely primarily on the enforcement activities of the interested States to ensure that rBST labeling claims are truthful and not misleading.”

Since the approval of rBST thirteen years ago, the enforcement of FDA’s guidelines across the nation has been spotty at best. Recently, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture(PDA) has announced that due to the growing prevalence of misleading labels in the dairy industry they will begin enforcing these guidelines as outlined by the FDA.

This action is completely defendable and long overdue. The only item that is controversial about their decision is their statement that production-related claims, which are approvable, will not be approved if they are supported solely by sworn statements, affidavits or testimonials. The PDA’s position is that the affidavits commonly used in the industry are not an effective system to guarantee that milk labeled as coming from cows not treated with rBST is actually such.

I agree completely. If we based other regulatory decisions on the honor system like dairy labeling, do you think everyone that pays income taxes would pay accurately if there was no IRS. Do you think that no one would break the speed limit if there were no police. The affidavit system is a joke.

However, processors love it because it allows them to make claims on their label without having to do much work. That is why the International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the processors, is opposed to the PDA’s guidelines. PDA’s stance is that firms that want to make rBST related claims need to come up with a better system to verify that their label claims are accurate.

Currently in Ohio, all of the major processors for fluid milk are on a schedule to force dairy farmers to quit using rBST by February 1, 2008 so that they can make rBST-related claims. In response to this movement the Department of Agriculture in Ohio has scheduled two meetings to discuss Ohio’s stance on the labeling of these products. Enforcement of the FDA’s guidelines in Ohio at this point in time has also been spotty because the rBST issue has not been as large as it is now becoming. I urge that Ohio adopts a policy similar to Pennsylvania’s so that dairy labels are accurate.

Consumers opposed to the PDA’s position think that free speech is being limited and that their right to know how the milk they consume is produced is being thwarted. I am in complete support of free speech and the consumer’s right to know. I am not in support of processors and retailers being allowed to make misleading claims or claims that are not verifiable because they stand to gain economically if they can make them.

I also know that there is already a system of verification in place for production related claims, which enable consumers to buy milk that has been produced without the use of rBST. It is called USDA Certified Organic.

Other arguments against PDA’s position have been that dairy farmers need to respond to consumer demand. The problem is that consumer demand is not driving this issue, it is processor and retailer driven. I know that stores such as Meijer, Giant Eagle and Buehlers have sold conventional milk directly next to milk with rBST related claims.

These stores know that sales of the milk with rBST related claims, many of which have been unapproved and misleading, is less than ten percent of total milk sales. Despite this fact, Meijer and Giant Eagle are among the retailers that have requested that their milk supply be 100% from cows not treated with rBST.

The truth is that unless Ohio adopts a policy similar to Pennsylvania’s, as of February 1st virtually all of the fluid milk available for sale in Ohio will be labeled with an rBST related claim. This milk will be more expensive and means that the vast majority of consumers that want to buy the cheaper, conventionally labeled milk will no longer have that option. I think their right to purchase what they want should also be protected.

My last concern is misinformation surrounding the safety of rBST. I do not have enough room here for a complete dialogue about the safety of rBST but will summarize by saying that milk from cows treated with rBST has been shown time and time again to be completely safe for consumers and for cows. If you do not believe me just ask a reputable science based organization such as the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the joint World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization Committee of the United Nations, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Dietetic Association, the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office or the European Union’s Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.

The unbiased science behind this issue is 100% supportive of rBST’s safety. Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of misinformation regarding rBST. I have spent the last two months viewing it all over the internet. Suffice it to say that in searching the internet I also found information proving that the earth is flat.

Again, I urge that Ohio adopts a policy ensuring that dairy labels are truthful and accurate and that my right asa consumer that wants to buy the cheaper, compositionally identical milk is protected.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Summary

Since the onset of the modern era of biotechnology in 1973, scientists have made impressive strides in developing new biotechnologies for agriculture (reviewed in Metabolic Modifiers, 1994; Etherton et al., 2003). Biotechnologies that enhance productivity and productive efficiency (feed consumed/unit of output) have been developed and approved for commercial use. Technologies that improve productive efficiency will benefit both producers and consumers because feed provision constitutes a major component (about 70%) of farm expenditures. Advances in biotechnology research have allowed impressive improvements to be made in diagnostic approaches, increasing microbial safety of food and improving animal health (reviewed in Etherton et al., 2003). The application of genomics, or the study of how genes (DNA) are organized and expressed, and bioinformatics in animal agriculture will provide new genetic markers for improved selection of all livestock species. The advent 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 for transplantation or products with biomedical application (The National Academies, 2004). 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.

Advances in plant biotechnology also have had a huge positive impact on society. An impressive number of genetically modified (GM) plant varieties have been developed with improved qualities including enhanced tolerance of herbicides, and protection against viruses and insect pests, and beneficial modifications in nutrient profile (visit AGBIOS for additional information about GM crops, and a listing of approved biotech crops in the U.S). Presently, 74 different biotech crops have been approved for use in the U.S.

To reinforce the reality of how widely GM crops are being adopted it is useful to look at the database. These varieties have been adopted rapidly by American farmers, and the United States accounted for approximately 53% of the global area of transgenic crops in 2006 (James, 2006). Approximately 10.3 million farmers from 22 different countries planted GM crops in 2006 (James,2006). The 22 countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Columbia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Honduras, India, Iran, Mexico, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, United States, and Uruguay. Another important measure of adoption is that acreage planted with GM crops in 2006 (250 million acres) is 13% higher than that planted in 2005 (James, 2006). This growth rate in global area planted in GM crops is impressive in that this is the tenth consecutive year that the increase has been in the double-digits!

The discovery and development of new animal and plant biotechnologies are part of a continuum leading to the commercialization of agricultural biotechnology products. In order to enter the marketplace, new animal biotechnologies are evaluated rigorously by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies to ensure efficacy, consumer safety, and animal health and well being (FDA, 2006). To benefit agriculture and society, products of biotechnology must be accepted by consumers. Central to consumer acceptance is the need to provide effective population-based education programs to enhance public understanding of the safety and benefits associated with technological advances enabled by agricultural biotechnology. Despite some of the most remarkable advances in biological research, a public discussion still continues about the need for, and safety of agricultural biotechnology that is fueled by misinformation campaigns funded by some anti-ag and anti-biotech activist groups. As we progress towards 2050, the scientific and agricultural communities must be more proactive in developing and delivering biotechnology and agriculture education campaigns for public and policy makers that clearly articulate the merits of current production practices used in animal agriculture. Moreover, the benefits of investing in discovery research that improves animal agriculture must be championed, and the return on this investment clearly communicated. The agricultural community is going to navigate a period over the next few decades during which we will likely witness growing challenges, especially increased regulatory oversight in addition to the misinformation campaigns funded by activist anti-ag groups. For the full benefits of agricultural biotechnology to be realized regulatory policy that evolves must be guided by the scientific evidence base, not vocal anti-ag activist groups.

Human Health: Uses of Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture to Decrease Morbidity and Mortality from Disease

Advances in recombinant DNA technology, animal embryology, immunology, and other disciplines give rise to the prospect that animals will become important sources of highly sophisticated biopharmaceuticals and biological products. A number of biopharmaceutical products are being developed in which the ultimate production system will be a genetically modified (GM) animal. In such instances, the gene for the desired molecule is designed and constructed to be expressed only in a specific tissue. Several companies focusing on these activities are targeting the production of specific animal proteins in milk (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs) and in eggs (poultry). These new approaches will allow for more economical production of certain pharmaceuticals that currently are expensive to produce. Biotechnological production methods thus may allow for a more widespread distribution and application of pharmaceuticals, including in developing countries. Another type of biotechnology under development involves using animals to produce donor organs for human transplant. There is a great shortage of transplant organs from human donors. Heart valves from pigs have been used for many years to replace heart valves in humans, and several private-sector companies and numerous university scientists are investigating ways in which to use biotechnology to develop pigs as a source of transplant organs. One key advantage of this approach is that it is possible that genetic engineering can be used to produce rejection-free organs. In each instance just described, a vital basic health need is being fulfilled by the use of animals, and no foreseeable alternatives exist.

Food Production: Uses of Biotechnology in Animal Production

Feeding Livestock

Health and safety are priorities in the development of new food and feed products, including those developed through biotechnological means. Evaluation by governmental regulatory agencies is required for each new biotech plant used for feed or food. 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 (Alewynse 2000; Beever and Kemp 2000; Faust 2002). Evaluations have shown uniformly that feed components derived from GM plants commercialized thus far are substantively equivalent in terms of nutrient composition and are similar in terms of nutrient digestibility and feeding value. Overall, feed components of GM plants result in growth rates and milk yields not different from those derived from non-genetically enhanced feed sources (Clark and Ipharraguerre 2001; Faust 2002; Flachowsky and Aulrich 2001). Studies have reported that when corn has been altered genetically for protection against the corn borer, under certain growing conditions GM plants can have lower mycotoxin contamination, resulting in safer feed for livestock (Munkvold et al., 1999).

Metabolic Modifiers

Advances in understanding the regulation of nutrient use in agricultural animals have led to the development of technologies referred to as 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 production, productive efficiency (weight gain or milk yield/unit of feed consumed), improving carcass composition (lean:fat ratio) in growing animals, increasing milk yield in lactating animals, and decreasing animal waste/production unit (NRC 1994).

Two classes of compounds have received major focus—somatotropins (STs) and ß-adrenergic agonists. The most commonly discussed ST is bovine somatotropin (bST), which has been commercially used since 1994 for administration to dairy cows to achieve increased milk yield, improve milk/feed, and decrease animal waste (Etherton and Bauman, 1998; Bauman, 1999).

Supplements of ß-adrenergic agonists to growing animals improve feed utilization and increase rate of weight gain, carcass leanness, and dressing percentage (National Research Council, 1994). Research has established the mode of action involves changes in endocrine and cellular mechanisms (National Research Council, 1994). The net effect is that these repartitioning agents improve productive efficiency by modifying specific metabolic signals in a coordinated manner to increase nutrient use for lean tissue. Ractopamine is the only ß-adrenergic agonist currently approved in the United States—in this instance, for finishing pigs; commercial use began in 2000.

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, and cloning of livestock and laboratory animals has resulted from transferring a nucleus from a somatic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed (Wilmut et al., 1997; Westhusin et al., 2001).

Somatic cell nuclear transfer also can be used to produce embryonic stem cells, which are undifferentiated, and matched to the recipient for research and therapy that is independent of reproductive cloning of animals. The progeny from cloning using nuclei from either blastomeres or somatic cells are not exact replicas of an individual animal due to cytoplasmic inheritance of mitochondrial DNA from the donor egg, other cytoplasmic factors which may influence “reprogramming” of the genome of the transferred nucleus, and subsequent development of the cloned organism (Jaenisch and Wilmut, 2001).

Cloning by nuclear transfer from embryonic blastomeres (Willadsen, 1989) or from a differentiated cell of an adult (Wilmut et al., 1997; Polejaeva et al., 2000; Kuhholzer and Prather, 2000) 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 offspring will be identical to their siblings and to the original donor animal in terms of their nuclear DNA, but will differ in their mitochondrial genes; variances in the manner nuclear genes are expressed are also possible. Although the word clone is descriptive for multiple approaches for cloning animals, in this article clone is used as a descriptor for somatic cell nuclear transfer.

On December 28, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft risk assessment (RA) on whether cloning affects food safety or animal health, and whether food products from livestock should be sold for consumption. The draft, “A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and TheirProgeny - Draft” concludes that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats. Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.” Publication of the FDA Risk Assessment is an important next step in the process leading to the release the final regulatory guidelines that will allow food from cloned animals to enter the food system.

Conservation of the Environment

Meeting environmental challenges in agriculture is one of the major issues facing animal agriculture. Most swine and poultry manure is produced in confinement units for which the nearby land base often is insufficient to accommodate waste in an environmentally sound manner. Animal manure, especially swine and poultry manure, is high in nitrogen (N) (4.7 to 5.1%) and phosphorus (P) (1.6 to 3.0%), both of which can contribute to surface and groundwater pollution. In addition, ammonia and other nitrogenous and sulfurous gasses contribute to poor air quality and offensive odors. Several GM crops have been developed or are being developed to address the environmental issues related to N, P, and total manure excretion and odors (Etherton et al., 2003).

Phosphorus 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%) P is bound organically as phytic acid or phytate. Because of the lack of phytase in their digestive tract, nonruminants are unable to degrade phytate, and most P from these feed ingredients is excreted in the feces. In addition, relatively large amounts of inorganic P must be fed to pigs and poultry to meet their P requirements; consequently, fecal P excretion is increased further. Ruminants use phytate quite efficiently because of the abundance of phytase produced by rumen microorganisms.

It is exciting that opportunities are now available to decrease P content of manure (reviewed in Knowlton et al., 2004). These new strategies are based on a more accurate interpretation of P requirements (to not over-feed P), more precise diet formulation, and utilization of exogenous phytase or low-phytic acid grains in monogastric diets. The availability of microbial expression systems has made large amounts of the recombinant enzyme available for use in animal feed at relatively low costs (reviewed by Lei and Porres, 2003). Collectively, these strategies can lower P content of manure by 40-60% in pigs and poultry and 25 to 40% in ruminants (Knowlton et al., 2004).

A Look to the Future

The impressive growthin the science of biotechnology and the many products of biotechnology is one of the most impressive achievements in the history of science. Predicting what scientific discoveries will occur between the present and 2050 will, as always, be more than a bit challenging. Scientific advances will give us a better understanding of how genes work, and how they can be manipulated to achieve an optimal production outcome that benefits both the producer and consumer. Valuable animals that arise from conventional breeding or genetic manipulation can be propagated forever by cloning. I anticipate that we will be able to do large-scale modification of a large number of genes that will further enhance a variety of target production traits, production efficiency, and profitability.

Before we in the agricultural community get carried away anticipating scientific advances in biotechnology over the next 40 years, there are several key points that must be considered and addressed. First, funding for discovery and applied research in agriculture must be increased. Second, the discoveries made require a viable private sector to commercialize new products of biotechnology. This is becoming more challenging for a variety of reasons. The process of moving a product through the regulatory approval process is becoming more complex, costly and lengthy. This growing burden makes it challenging for private sector to recover their investment costs from product sales. This is particularly important for agricultural biotechnologies where the margins on products sold are lower than biomedical biotechnology products (using comparable scientific methods for production).

The last point pertains to the activist groups that are actively advocating use of biotechnology-derived products be halted. This is an ever-present reality. Many of these groups are well funded (visit Guidestar to see the IRS returns that all non-profits are required to place in the public domain), and attack animal agriculture on many fronts that range from animal welfare to biotechnology to environmental issues. It is simple to scare the public in 30 seconds; however, we can not educate them about science, agriculture, and biotechnology in 30 seconds. While it is a proven fact that biotechnology-derived (GM) crops are economically viable, environmentally sustainable, and are as safe as, if not safer, than their conventional counterparts, the debate over these agricultural biotechnologies and its applications continues. This is similar to the ongoing public discussion about rbST-free milk. My encouragement to animal agriculture is to passionately engage in developing and implementing consumer education programs that effectively frame the importance of animal agriculture and promote the need for and benefits of biotechnology in the barnyard.

References

Alewynse, M.G. 2000. Regulation of genetically modified plants in animal feed. FDA Vet. 15:1–2.

Bauman, D. E. 1999. Bovine somatotropin and lactation: From basic science to commercial application. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 17:101–116.

Beever, D.E. and C.F. Kemp. 2000. Safety issues associated with the DNA in animal feed derived from genetically modified crops. A review of scientific and regulatory procedures. Nutr. Abstr. Rev. B: Livestock Feeds Feeding. 70:175–182.

Clark, J.H. and I.R. Ipharraguerre. 2001. Livestock performance: Feeding biotech crops. J. Dairy. Sci. 84:E9–E18.

Cummins, J.M. 2001. Cytoplasmic inheritance and its implications for animal biotechnology. Theriogenology. 55:1381-1399.

Etherton, T.D. and D.E. Bauman. 1998. The biology of somatotropin in growth and lactation of domestic animals. Physiol. Rev. 78:745–761.

Etherton, T.D., D.E. Bauman, C.W. Beattie, R.D. Bremel, G.L. Cromwell, V. Kapur, G. Varner, M.B. Wheeler and M. Wiedmann. 2003. Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture: An Overview. CAST (Council for AgriculturalScience and Technology) Issue Paper, No. 23.

Faust, M. 2002. New feeds from genetically modified plants: the U.S. approach to safety for animals and the food chain. Livestock Prod. Sci. 74:239–254.

FDA. 2006. A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny – DRAFT. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm

Flachowsky, G. and K. Aulrich. 2001. Nutritional assessment of feeds from genetically modified organism. J. Anim. Feed. Sci. 10:181–194.

James, C. 2006. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2006. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Brief Number 35-2006. ISAAA, Ithaca, New York.

Jaenish, R. and I. Wilmut. 2001. Developmental biology. Don’t clone humans! Science. 291:2552.

Knowlton, K.F., J.S. Radcliffe, C.L. Novak and D.A. Emmerson. 2004. Animal management to reduce phosphorus losses to the environment. J. Anim. Sci. 82(E. Suppl.):E173-E195.

Kuhholzer, B. and R.S. Prather. 2000. Advances in livestock nuclear transfer. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 224:240-245.

Lee, X.G. and J.M. Porres. 2003. Phytase enzymology, applications, and biotechnology. Biotechol. Lett. 25:1787-1794.

Metabolic Modifiers: Effects on Nutrient Requirements of Food-Producing Animals. 1994. T.D. Etherton (Ed.). Board on Agriculture, National Research Council, National Academy of Science Press, Washington, D.C.

Munkvold, G.P., R.L. Hellmich, and W.B. Showers. 1999. Reduced fusarium ear rot and symptomless infection in kernels of maize genetically engineered for European corn borer resistance. Phytopathol. 87:1071–1077.

National Research Council (NRC). 1994. Metabolic Modifiers: Effects on the Nutrient Requirements of Food-producing Animals. The National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Polegaeva, I.A., S.H. Chen, T.D. Vaught, R.L. Page, J. Mullins, S. Ball, Y. Dai, J. Boone, S. Walker, D.L. Ayares, A. Colman and K.H. Campbell. 2000. Cloned pigs produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells. Nature. 407:86-90.

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

Westhusin. M.E., C.R. Long, T. Shin, J.R. Hill, C.R. Looney, J.H. Pryor and J.A. Piedrahita. 2001. Cloning to reproduce desired genotypes. Theriogenology. 55:35-49.

Wilmut I., A.E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A.J. Kind and K.H. Campbell. 1997. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature. 385:810-813.

Willadsen, S.M. 1989. Cloning of sheep and cow embryos. Genome. 31:956-962.

Permalink

Comments are closed.