Consumers Union statement on new long term study of feeding GE grains to pigs

LINK

June 11, 2013

Statement of Michael Hansen, PhD, Senior Scientist, Consumers Union on New Long Term Study of Feeding GE Grains to Pigs 

The new peer-reviewed long-term pig feeding study just published raises important concerns about possible health impacts of consuming genetically engineered (GE) corn and soy. There have been very few animal feeding studies of GE food to date, and extremely few that lasted longer than 90 days. This new study looked at pigs fed GE corn and soy under commercial production conditions over a 22.7 week period. Compared to a control group that was fed conventional corn and soy, the GE-fed pigs showed significant increases in severe stomach inflammation and thickening of the uterus. The study in online here:  http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, has long been concerned about the impact of GE crops and thinks these effects are a red flag and deserve further study.  We also believe this study underlines the need for labeling of GE food, since there still much to learn about their health effects. Consumers Union urges state legislatures, as well as Congress, and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to require labeling of GE foods.

This new long term study, which looked at pigs over their normal commercial lifetime of five months, reinforces concerns prompted by the highly controversial Seralini study, which looked at rats fed GE food over a two year period, compared to rats fed a non-GE diet. That study also found differences in health outcomes, including higher rates of certain tumors, and liver and kidney problems, among rats fed a GE diet.

This new study of pigs, published in the Journal of Organic Systems is valuable because it used a relatively large study sample size (168 pigs including controls), and was conducted at a U.S. pig production facility in Iowa. The research was led by an Australian scientist.

The study found that the uteri of GE-fed pigs was significantly larger (weighed 25 percent more) than those of non-GE-fed pigs. In addition, the rate of severe stomach inflammation was more than 2.5-fold higher, on average, for GE-fed pigs compared to non-GE-fed pigs (32 percent vs. 12 percent, respectively).  Indeed, for male pigs, the rate of severe stomach inflammation was four times higher for GE-fed males to non-GE fed males, and for females, the rate was more than 2-fold higher.

As the authors conclude: “The results indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked GM crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects.”

Contact: Naomi Starkman, 917.539.3924, nstarkman@gmail.com

Long-term Toxicology Study on Pigs Fed A Combined GM Soy and GM Maize Diet

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=977

June 14, 2013

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Dear friends and colleagues

Re: Long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined GM soy and GM maize diet

New research published in the Journal of Organic Systems raises serious questions over the long-term health impacts of GM food and feed. In a long-term toxicology study, pigs were fed over 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter) on a mixture of GM soy and GM corn, and compared to pigs fed an equivalent non-GM diet. 

The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM-fed females had on average a 25% heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, a possible indicator of disease that requires further investigation. The level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet. Male pigs were more strongly affected.  

For some years now farmers and veterinarians have reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn. The study lends scientific credibility to the anecdotal evidence.  

The results also provide clear evidence that regulators need to assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture.

With best wishes,

Third World Network

131 Jalan Macalister

10400 Penang

Malaysia

Email: twnet@po.jaring.my

Website: www.biosafety-info.net and www.twn.my

Animals Raised on Genetically Engineered Feed Are Different

"There is compelling evidence that animals provided with feed containing GM ingredients can react in a way that is unique to an exposure to GM plants. This is revealed through metabolic, physiological or immunological responses in exposed animals."

Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed, Prepared for the Commerce Commission of New Zealand by Professor Jack A.Heinemann, PhD, 24 July 2009

Read More...

GE meat in our food supply?

September 21, 2010

Contact: Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director, (202) 547-9359
George Kimbrell, Senior Staff Attorney, (571) 527-8618
Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst, (703) 231-5956

MISGUIDED FDA OPPOSITION TO LABELING COULD LEAVE
PUBLIC PERMANENTLY IN THE DARK ON GE ANIMALS

Recent Polls Shows 91% of Americans Oppose GE Animals; CFS calls for clear, mandatory labeling

Rockville, MD (September 21, 2010) - After a two-day public hearing on the approval of the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption, the AquAdvantage GE salmon, FDA held a public hearing today to discuss whether or not these GE fish should be labeled as such should they be approved. A 60-day public comment period on the labeling issue will be open until November 22, 2010.

“This transgenic salmon is the first GE animal intended for food, yet the human health impacts of eating these GE fish are completely unknown,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director at the Center for Safety (CFS). “These GE fish also pose unacceptable risks to wild salmon and the marine environment.” These “unknowns” were raised repeatedly at yesterday’s Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) hearing, and the Committee was unable to come to any conclusion as to the safety or efficacy of the GE salmon. The hearing on labeling is premature given that the VMAC has not approved this salmon for human or animal consumption.

The public has not been quiet about the possible approval of GE salmon. In fact, over 300 environmental, consumer, health, and animal welfare organizations, along with salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants signed joint letters to the FDA opposing the approval of AquaBounty’s GE salmon. CFS and a coalition of allied groups also submitted 172,000 comments from individuals opposing the approval and urging clear, mandatory labeling should the fish be approved despite overwhelming public opposition (CFS comments to the VMAC and the joint letters can be found on our website).

Announcements by FDA officials and speakers today suggest that the Agency may not require labeling of GE salmon should it be approved. While FDA is operating under the fiction that transgenic animals are “new drugs,” the Agency does not feel that they need to be labeled in the same way that drugs are.

A Lake Research Partners poll commissioned by Food & Water Watch and released yesterday found that 91 percent of Americans believe FDA should not allow genetically engineered fish and meat into the marketplace; 83 percent felt strongly that it should not be allowed. Additionally, a 2008 Consumers Union nationwide poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they thought food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled, and 78 percent strongly agreed with this.

In his comments today, CFS Senior Staff Attorney George Kimbrell asserted that “labeling in the 21st Century cannot be based on 20th Century policy decisions.” The FDA currently uses its 1992 interpretation of “material” to inform its decisions on labeling, an interpretation that occurred prior to commercialization of any transgenic animal.

CFS and others have also criticized the process established by FDA. “After the numerous concerns raised by the VMAC yesterday, it is inappropriate to hold a hearing on the labeling of a product the Agency has yet to approve,” said George Kimbrell. To ensure meaningful public comment and confidence in the Agency’s processes, the agency should have separately convened the labeling hearing, after any initial decision on approval. “This is a backwards process at best and a dog and pony show at worst - labeling is not an adequate substitution for proper regulation and safety assessments,” added Kimbrell.

Apparently heeding public outcry about the lack of a public comment period on the approval of GE salmon itself, FDA announced yesterday that after the VMAC meetings, the Agency plans to publish the final environmental assessment (EA) as well as issue a notice in the Federal Register establishing a 30-day public comment period on the EA.

“It is totally unacceptable for GE fish not to be labeled if approved for commercial use,” said Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center. “Consumers want more information about the foods they buy and feed to their families, not less. Leaving consumers in the dark not only prohibits them from making informed choices, but without mandatory tracking and labeling of these GE fish we may be putting public health at risk as well.”

“We strongly oppose FDA approval of GE salmon,” said Andrew Kimbrell. “Should FDA decide to approve the AquAdvantage GE salmon despite overwhelming consumer opposition and potential threats to the environment, human health, and native salmon populations, we urge that clear, mandatory labeling be unconditional.”

# # #

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS currently represents over 125,000 members across the nation. Materials about GE fish including fact sheets, sign-on letters and testimony delivered to the VMAC are available on the web at: www.ge-fish.org

*CFS has worked with many states to pass laws and regulations on GE fish: California, Washington, Oregon, Maryland, Michigan, Florida and Alaska have all passed laws or rules regulating GE salmon, and Alaska requires labeling for any GE fish product.

Heather Whitehead
True Food Network Director, the Center for Food Safety
hwhitehead@icta.org
t 415/826-2770 f 415/826-0507 c 510/501-8092
truefoodnow.org | ge-fish.org | centerforfoodsafety.org

Material transgénico en productos de carne

Huellas de maíz transgénico y la soja en cabras, peces y cerdos

Tomado del boletín RALLT

Munich - Un estudio reciente hechos por Testbiotech muestra que son cada vez más frecuente la presencia de fragmentos de ADN de plantas transgénicas en tejidos de origen animal como la leche, los órganos internos y en los músculos. Más recientemente, en abril de 2010, un grupo de científicos de Italia informaron la presencia de secuencias de ADN derivada de soja genéticamente modificados en la leche de cabra. Estos fragmentos de ADN presumiblemente, entran en el flujo de sangre desde el intestino y de allí llega a la ubre y la leche. Huellas de ADN específica fue también identificada en niños alimentados con leche de cabra. "

Estos resultados no son primero en los que se informa la presencia de fragmentos de ADN en el tejido de animales alimentados con plantas transgénicas. Hace unos años, el ADN de maíz transgénico fue encontrado en muestras de cerdos. Más recientemente, una investigación encontró rastros de plantas transgénicas en los órganos de los peces, a saber, la trucha arco iris y tilapia. En los peces, las secuencias de genes se encontraron en "casi todos los órganos internos.

“Las publicaciones recientes podrían respaldar a los que están a favor del etiquetado de productos como la carne, leche y huevos procedentes de animales alimentados con plantas genéticamente modificadas. Si los métodos de muestreo de ADN mejoran, se podrá encontró más huellas en el futuro”, dice Christoph Then de Testbiotech. "Hasta ahora la detección no es posible en todos los caso. Parece que estas trazas son más frecuentemente en el pescado”.

En el pasado, varios expertos y también La Autoridad Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria EFSA dictaminaron que eso fragmentos específicos de ADN relacionados con el material transgénico no pudo ser detectado en los animales. Desde hace años se sabe que en general, el ADN de las plantas no se degrada completamente en el intestino, y se puede encontrar en los órganos internos, el torrente sanguíneo e incluso en las crías de ratones.

En opinión de Testbiotech, el etiquetado obligatorio de estos productos es importante para los consumidores interesados en tener más información sobre cómo las plantas genéticamente modificadas se utilizan. Cada año se suministra millones de toneladas de soya genéticamente modificados a animales como cerdos, aves de corral y ganado en Europa.

La mayoría de los expertos consideran que los productos derivados de estos animales no suponen un riesgo para la salud. Sin embargo, existe la necesidad de profundizar las investigación sobre este tema, ya que se encontró que por alguna razón desconocidas, algunas actividades enzimáticas eran desencadenas en los niños alimentados con leche de cabra que contiene ADN transgénico específico

Alguna literatura reciente sobre el tema:

Cabras:
Tudisco R., Mastellone V., Cutrignelli1 M.I, Lombardi P, Bovera1F., Mirabella N., Piccolo1 G., Calabro1, S., Avallone L., Infascelli F. (2010). Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings

Peces:
Chainark, P. (2008) Availability of genetically modified feed ingredient II: investigations of ingested foreign DNA in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Fisheries Science, 74(2): 380-390(11).
Ran,T, Mei, L., Lei, W., Aihua, L., Ru, H., Jie, S (2009) Detection of transgenic DNA in tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus, GIFT strain) fed genetically modified soybeans (Roundup Ready). Aquaculture Research, Volume 40 (12): 1350-1357.

Chanchos:
Mazza, R., Soave1,M., Morlacchini M., Piva, G., Marocco, A. (2005) Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues, Transgenic Res. 14: 775-784
Sharma R., Damgaard D., Alexander T.W., Dugan M.E.R., Aalhus J.L., Stanford K., McAllister T.A. (2006) Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in tissues of sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready canola meal. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 54: 1699–1709.

Investigaciones anteriores en ratones (rastros de ADN de plantas transgénicas en ratones y su descendencia)
Schubbert R., Hohlweg U., Renz D., Doerfler W. (1998) On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus, Molecular Genetics and Genomics 259: 569-576.

Opinión de la EFSA
EFSA (2007) Statement on the fate of recombinant DNA or proteins in the meat, milk or eggs of animals fed with GM feed, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/744.htm

Homogeneous horror
A handful of companies now dominate world farming, with profound implications for genetic diversity
Sue Branford The Guardian, February 6 2008

A couple of years ago I visited a small cooperative in the south of Brazil which was rearing chickens for Sadia, Brazil's largest poultry producer. Pointing to the tens of thousands of chicks crowded together in a battery, one of the co-op members, Oney Zamarchi, said they reared the chickens just as the company decreed, even poking the chicks day and night to keep them awake and eating all the time. When the chickens reached 45 days old, they were big enough to be slaughtered - some were so fat they couldn't stand - and were sent to the slaughterhouse. A colleague visiting a poultry farm in Thailand a few months later described an identical process. But how could this synonymous operation be happening in different parts of the world?

The answer lies in the fact that a handful of poultry breeders now control the chicken industry. They have been instrumental in the creation of a few types of chicken that have the characteristics that global supermarkets require: they grow quickly and have a lot of tender white meat. The breeders supply tens of thousands of poultry companies throughout the world with the genetic material, the DNA, of the animals. One German company, Erich Wesjohann Grupp, supplies the genetic stock for an estimated 68% of all the world's white-egg layer hens, and a Dutch company (Hendrix Genetics) provides a similar proportion of the stock for brown-egg layer hens. Poultry companies then furnish this material to 'multipliers', who produce tens of thousands of chicks. It is these chicks that go to the farmers to be fattened.

This technological revolution in poultry farming has occurred at a time of other far-reaching changes. New intensive methods of agriculture have made it possible for farmers to produce massive soya and maize harvests. This, in turn, has allowed the production of millions of tonnes of concentrated chicken feed, which is needed to rear poultry in confined spaces. Meanwhile, market reforms, backed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have ruined hundreds of thousands of smallholders in the developing world, forcing peasant farmers - such as Zamarchi - to sacrifice their independence and sign contracts with the poultry companies.

Taken together, these changes have meant that the poultry companies can provide supermarkets throughout the world with huge quantities of cheap chicken. And lower prices and intensive advertising campaigns mean people are eating far more of it.

Developing countries have become the leading worldwide suppliers of this cheap chicken because land and labour cost less. Brazil is the world's leading exporter - the industry, which is still growing, already employs some 4 million people. As the agricultural frontier marches north into the Amazon basin, the poultry industry - with its feed production plants, hatcheries, slaughterhouses and processing plants - is following in its wake. It is possible that some of the chickens consumed in the UK have been reared on land that just a generation ago was tropical forest.

These changes are not only confined to the poultry industry, however. Cattle and pig rearing are also experiencing rapid change - although on a smaller scale. A rapid process of concentration has occurred, with the breeders becoming integrated with the meat processors, creating agro-industial giants. Today, just as a handful of companies supply the genetic material for poultry, increasingly other big groups control the material for pigs, cattle and fish.

Gene technology

Agro-giants have realised that the same principles of gene technology can be applied across a broad spectrum of farming, both livestock and arable. It makes sense, they say, for a single vast group to operate in all sectors. So a new form of horizontal concentration is under way. After a series of takeovers, a new gene giant, headed by the UK's Genus plc, has brought together the largest breeding companies in the cattle, pig and aquaculture sectors.

Monsanto, the US company that dominates the genetic modification of seeds, has moved into swine genetics. Within a few years, a tiny group of huge companies will almost certainly control the genetics of all commercial farming, from Argentina's soya plantations to Thailand's poultry farms and Canada's wheat prairies. With the support of a rigid system of patenting, these gene giants will be the new lords of global farming.

Other more significant processes are gaining momentum. The agro-giants that have emerged are confident that, despite current consumer resistance, gene technology will dominate global livestock farming in the near future. A transgenic salmon that takes half the normal time to grow will probably be launched on the US market next year. Avigenics, a US pharmaceutical company, has been producing genetically engineered chickens for more than four years, though none has yet been marketed. And we will soon be eating meat from cloned animals, since the EU has announced that no special approval procedures are necessary.

Does this matter to us, the consumers? Yes, because some of the consequences are serious and unplanned. Local animal breeds throughout the world, which are of no interest to the big companies, are becoming extinct, to the tune of one breed a month. Many of these animals are resistant to disease and able to survive on little food and water, characteristics that will be needed as the world moves into an era of unprecedented climatic change.

Disease

Genetic breeds are less hardy and the genetic uniformity of industrial livestock creates the perfect breeding ground for the evolution of highly pathogenic strains of disease. Outbreaks of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs is already occurring, for example, as well as avian flu. The official response to these outbreaks is almost always to ban freerange livestock, with the argument that tighter biosafety measures are required. So, the big companies, which created the conditions for disease in the first place, end up profiting from it, because competitors are forced out of business.

What is particularly scary is the likelihood that one of these diseases will mutate into a deadly human disease. The authorities should be insisting on wholesale changes in the way that industrial farming is organised but, instead, they are taking measures that deepen the structural problems.

· Sue Branford helped edit a study of livestock farming published in the January edition of Seedling, a magazine produced by Grain.

Food from cloned animals - a bait and switch?
Osagie K. Obasogie & Pete Shanks
San Francisco Chronicle, 5 October 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/10/05/EDAOSK7VF.DTL&type=politics

Osagie K. Obasogie directs the project on Bioethics, Law, and Society at the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland (www.genetics-and-society.org) and writes for the blog Biopolitical Times (www.biopoliticaltimes.org). Pete Shanks, a writer living in Santa Cruz, is the author of Human Genetic Engineering: A Guide for Activists, Skeptics, and the Very Perplexed (Nation Books, 2005).

Californians should be allowed to know what they're eating. That's the simple reason why Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should sign SB63, the nation’s first law requiring food from cloned animals to be labeled. But there are other reasons to go slow on this unproven technology, some of which have not received the attention they deserve.

Meat and milk from cloned animals are not yet available. But the Food and Drug Administration is about to allow them into America's food chain, contrary to both scientific evidence and public sentiment. The FDA issued a draft risk assessment in December 2006 that suggested food from cloned animals presents no serious safety issues. But this was discredited by a March 2007 report by the Center for Food Safety that exposed embarrassing inadequacies in the FDA's review; there are no peer-reviewed safety studies on meat from cloned cows, pigs or goats and only three inconclusive ones on milk. Even the National Academies of Science - the government's science adviser - has said that it's just not possible to adequately assess this foods' safety.

People find food from cloned animals rather unappetizing. A December 2006 Pew poll showed that nearly half of all people think it's unsafe while another 36 pecent are unsure. Not surprisingly, the FDA received well over 100,000 public comments that were overwhelmingly opposed to their rosy-eyed assessment.

What's more, food from cloned animals is probably not even commercially viable. Cloning is expensive and unreliable; according to a recent survey, the livestock industry views its commercial prospects as 'low' or 'medium to low.' So, how did we get to the point where California needs a law to protect its food supply from the federal agency charged with ensuring food safety? The push for producing food from cloned farm animals comes largely from one small sector of the biotech industry, not from meat and dairy producers. Two companies - Cyagra and ViaGen - provided data that fills more than a quarter of the FDA's 678-page report. These companies are not impartial experts; they are for-profits with a stake in the FDA's approval. And their track record is less than stellar. Cyagra is a spin-off from Advanced Cell Technology, a struggling biotech company that is infamous for science-by-press-release: causing a splash by exaggerating claims and hoping rebuttals get less attention. ViaGen is part of the Exeter Life Science Group owned by billionaire John Sperling, who also founded the now defunct pet-cloning operation Genetic Savings and Clone.

These companies' narrow economic interests are obvious. But why is the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) - the industry's lobbying arm - supporting them when the vast majority of its members will not directly benefit? This partly comes from their central creed: science is a commodity to be sold without restrictions. Even when BIO agrees that some limits are appropriate - such as disallowing human reproductive cloning - they advocate self-regulation over public oversight.

Perhaps less obvious is the full extent of the industry's push to genetically manipulate living organisms. Agribusiness has adopted genetically modified crops, and worked hard to suppress attempts at labeling these unpopular products. But food isn’t the only thing on the agenda. For instance, more than 20 percent of human genes are privately owned through patents, affecting such things as when and at what cost women can find out if they have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Such patents have drawn much criticism, but the industry seems determined to push forward.

What's happening here is that food from cloned animals might pave the road for a bait and switch: the more cloned products that reach the market, the more likely it is that the public will accept other questionable biotech applications aimed literally right at them. And that is a road that could lead in directions most people reject, such as designer babies with genetically tailored attributes. If cloning became as much a part of daily life as the meat we eat and the milk we pour in our coffee, wouldn't it become easier to imagine applying similar technologies to enhance ourselves?

The bill that is on the governor's desk does not ban milk or meat from cloned livestock; all it stipulates is that these products have labels. That's more than reasonable. SB63 is a small step in the right direction and might help slow this issue long enough for the country to have the thorough debate it needs. The public interest demands a far deeper assessment of these technologies' impacts, both in themselves and in their future implications.

EMPRESAS DE GENÉTICA GANADERA - Livestock Genetics Industry Study now in Spanish

Los consumidores normalmente no reciben información sobre la raza o la línea genética híbrida de los animales que han producido los huevos, la leche y la carne que se venden en los supermercados o en las carnicerías.

Sin embargo, deberían interesarse por ello, puesto que están contribuyendo al desarrollo de una producción global basada en la uniformidad genética. La industria de procesamiento de productos cárnicos y las granjas industriales demandan animales uniformes. Imperceptiblemente, se está dando un proceso de concentración no sólo en la producción y en el procesamiento del ganado, sino también en la industria dedicada a la “mejora genética” y a la reproducción animal, agravando los problemas de contaminación ambiental y de bienestar animal y provocando una grave pérdida de diversidad biológica, cultural y alimentaria.

La concesión de derechos de patente sobre animales y demás estrategias de apropiación genética están permitiendo a las empresas de “mejora” ganadera aumentar su poder, actuando como si los consumidores de todo el mundo deseasen cantidades crecientes de carne, de leche y de huevos cada vez más baratos, sin tener en cuenta los impactos ambientales, sociales y culturales de este modelo de producción.

La Alianza por los Pueblos Pastores ha publicado un estudio sobre la industria ganadera mundial y su influencia sobre las razas animales criadas por los ganaderos de todo el mundo: Empresas de genética ganadera. Estrategias de Apropiación y Concentración de un Poder Emergente en la Economía Alimentaria Mundial.

Susanne Gura

League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development (LPP)

www.pastoralpeoples.org

Skype: gurasusanne

Tel: +49 228 – 948 06 70

Fax: +49 228 – 976 47 77

Email: gura@dinse.net, susanne@pastoralpeoples.org

Clone Burgers- Minneapolis Star Tribune article

Editorial: Why 'cloneburgers' are a bad way to go
The danger isn't about food safety; it's about food security.

Published: January 16, 2007

If beef is what's for dinner at your house, you undoubtedly know the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is preparing to approve the sale of cloned meat and milk to U.S. consumers.

But a related and potentially more significant announcement probably escaped your notice: Researchers for a United Nations agency reported last month that livestock breeds around the world are disappearing at alarming rates, with as many as one-fifth of cattle, hog, goat, horse and poultry varieties facing extinction. Some 190 breeds have vanished in the last 15 years, and perhaps another 1,500 are already thought to be at risk.

These extinctions are driven by agricultural practices that perpetuate the most profitable breeds and neglect the rest. The results are a shrinking gene pool and, potentially, threats to global food security. The connection to cloning is that this high-tech practice is likely to make matters worse, not better.

Those issues don't really concern the FDA, whose OK for cloned animal products will be based on their safety for human health, a conclusion based in turn on tests showing that meat and milk from clones are identical to those from animals born naturally. But they ought to concern Congress -- and they ought to prompt consumers to think more broadly about how their food is produced.

For American consumers, at least, the advancing globalization and industrialization of agriculture have made many foods plentiful, cheap and available in every season. But there have been tradeoffs, too, perhaps the most noticeable being the increasing flavorlessness of mass-produced chicken, beef, pork and salmon.

Among some shoppers there is growing awareness that factory-like livestock operations produce animals in conditions ranging from misery to torture, while promoting the extinction of small-scale farming and farm-dependent rural communities. But most find it easy to look the other way.

When biotech food issues occasionally make the headlines, it is nearly always for a wrong reason. The big risk posed by genetically engineered crops isn't that they'll poison people, it's that they may transfer their new traits to other plants, with catastrophic consequences. The problem with irradiation isn't that consumers will get radiation poisoning, it's that signs of declining freshness are masked.

And the big problem with the coming use of cloned livestock on production scales is not that "cloneburgers" will be dangerous to human health, nor even the uncomfortable reality that animals produced this way are much likelier to be defective at birth.

It's that this way of engineering foods, like so many previous production-oriented manipulations, will continue to narrow the diversity of food sources and thereby enlarge their vulnerability to disease, pests or other causes of collapse. Such is the unavoidable high price of cheap food.

Carnes transgénicas

GM Food Animals Coming

Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Foods derived from genetically modified animals are likely to be contaminated by potent vaccines, immune regulators, and growth hormones, as well as nucleic acids, viruses, and bacteria that have the potential to create pathogens and to trigger cancer