The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
Over the past 20 years, transgenic or genetically engineered (GE) plants have been routinely approved for human consumption, with close to 80 varieties successfully navigating the regulatory process. This is in stark contrast to GE animals, where only one has been approved for human consumption. . . The different regulatory trajectories for GE plants and GE animals for food raises the following questions: Why are the two regulatory tracts so different in outcome? Are the differences between GE plants and animals for use as food more significant than the similarities? We suggest that the two situations are more similar than different, that their regulatory paths should be harmonized, and that the regulations for genetically modified animals should be altered on multiple fronts.
. . . .
. . . .The regulatory process in place should assure . . . the general population, that their food is safe and wholesome. At the same time, the regulatory process should make scientifically defensible decisions in a timely manner. Right now, we have neither. . . .Regulating based on the process, in the absence of any scientifically defined risks, is not useful and dilutes the scrutiny required for truly novel GE products designed for use as food.
Read full, original post: Opinion: A new paradigm for regulating genetically engineered animals that are used as food
