Proposed US regulation of gene-edited food animals is not fit for purpose

被引:27
|
作者
Van Eenennaam, Alison L. [1 ]
Wells, Kevin D. [2 ]
Murray, James D. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Anim Sci, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[2] Univ Missouri, Div Anim Sci, Columbia, MO USA
[3] Univ Calif Davis, Sch Vet Med, Dept Populat Hlth & Reprod, Davis, CA 95616 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1038/s41538-019-0035-y
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
Dietary DNA is generally regarded as safe to consume, and is a routine ingredient of food obtained from any living organism. Millions of naturally-occurring DNA variations are observed when comparing the genomic sequence of any two healthy individuals of a given species. Breeders routinely select desired traits resulting from this DNA variation to develop new cultivars and varieties of food plants and animals. Regulatory agencies do not evaluate these new varieties prior to commercial release. Gene editing tools now allow plant and animal breeders to precisely introduce useful genetic variation into agricultural breeding programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it has no plans to place additional regulations on gene-edited plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding prior to commercialization. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed mandatory premarket new animal drug regulatory evaluation for all food animals whose genomes have been intentionally altered using modern molecular technologies including gene editing technologies. This runs counter to U.S. biotechnology policy that regulatory oversight should be triggered by unreasonable risk, and not by the fact that an organism has been modified by a particular process or technique. Breeder intention is not associated with product risk. Harmonizing the regulations associated with gene editing in food species is imperative to allow both plant and animal breeders access to gene editing tools to introduce useful sustainability traits like disease resistance, climate adaptability, and food quality attributes into U.S. agricultural breeding programs.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [11] Get ready for gene-edited pigs and other animals
    Erickson, Britt
    [J]. CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS, 2021, 99 (04) : 38 - 38
  • [12] Japan may OK gene-edited food
    Brainard, Jeffrey
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2019, 363 (6433) : 1254 - 1254
  • [13] Consumer acceptance of gene-edited food products in China
    Ortega, David L.
    Lin, Wen
    Ward, Patrick S.
    [J]. FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2022, 95
  • [14] A comparison of EU and US consumers' willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples
    Marette, Stephan
    Disdier, Anne-Celia
    Beghin, John C.
    [J]. APPETITE, 2021, 159
  • [15] Canadian Consumer Preferences Regarding Gene-Edited Food Products
    Vasquez, Oswaldo
    Hesseln, Hayley
    Smyth, Stuart J.
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN GENOME EDITING, 2022, 4
  • [16] Gene-edited animal creators look beyond US market
    Heidi Ledford
    [J]. Nature, 2019, 566 (7745) : 433 - 434
  • [17] EU regulation of gene-edited plants-A reform proposal
    Voigt, Brigitte
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN GENOME EDITING, 2023, 5
  • [18] The Media's Taste for Gene-Edited Food: Comparing Media Portrayals within US and European Regulatory Environments
    Dahlstrom, Michael F.
    Wang, Zhe
    Lindberg, Sonja
    Opfer, Kasey
    Cummings, Christopher L.
    [J]. SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 2023, 48 (06) : 1393 - 1420
  • [19] Public Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of Gene-edited Food Crops: An International Comparative Study between the US, Japan, and Germany
    Kato-Nitta, Naoko
    Tachikawa, Masashi
    Inagaki, Yusuke
    Maeda, Tadahiko
    [J]. SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 2023, 48 (06) : 1360 - 1392
  • [20] Drawing Lines in the Sand? Paths Forward for Triggering Regulation of Gene-Edited Crops
    Nawaz, Sara
    Kandlikar, Milind
    [J]. SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, 2021, 48 (02) : 246 - 256