‘Frankenstein’ Warnings Our Ministers Ignored

WARNINGS that ‘Frankenstein Farming’ could be introduced to this country without proper controls were ignored by the government.

Three years ago, the Farm Animal Welfare Council identified loopholes in the monitoring regime covering cloning and genetic modification.

It called for the setting up of an independent committee with legal powers to oversee the introduction of ‘laboratory livestock’.

A key section of its report read: ‘FAWC recommends that the Government consider methods to close potential loopholes that would allow GM or cloned animals, their gametes (sperm/eggs) or embryos to enter UK commercial agriculture uncontrolled.’ However, Defra rejected the advice of its experts.

It argued that it would stifle British science and impose unnecessary burdens on the industry. As a result, the fears of members of the FAWC committee and food and animal welfare groups are now being realised.

The FAWC report, published in 2004, was concerned that welfare problems seen in the past as a result of selective breeding could be escalated through cloning or genetic modification.

For example, selective breeding means that chickens now grow so fast that their legs, lungs and hearts struggle to cope.

Many suffer painful leg deformities or die on the floor of their sheds.

The race to produce bigger cows, yielding more milk, has led to an increase in udder conditions such as mastitis, and problems with their legs and feet.

Turkeys have been bred to have such a huge breast they can no longer mate naturally and the increased muscle mass of Belgian Blue cattle has had the same effect. Their calves are so large that many have to be born through caesarean section.

FAWC stressed that there were also important ethical considerations associated with creating farm animals in a laboratory.

It said: ‘Animals are kept for various purposes and, in return, their needs should be provided for.

‘They are recognised as sentient beings. . . thus FAWC considers that we have a moral obligation to each individual animal we use.

‘This includes never causing certain serious harm to animals.’ The idea of having an independent Standing Committee was central to FAWC’s proposals.

Specifically, it would advise on ‘ possible gaps’ in the way technology was introduced and any harm to animal welfare that could result.

It would also be responsible for implementing a ‘robust surveillance system’ that would follow any of the animals involved for five years to identify any problems.

But Defra effectively junked the recommendations. It offered no new laws and simply told FAWC it would have to monitor this complex area itself.

The department suggested the issue should be passed on to the EU effectively kicking it into the long grass.

Responsibility for assessing the safety of ‘novel’ foods, which includes meat or milk from farm clones or their offspring, lies with the Food Standards Agency. But the fact that Defra does not have a regime to monitor such animals means the FSA and its experts are in the dark.

They would have no way of telling whether meat and milk from these sources was on supermarket shelves.

(c) 2007 Daily Mail; London (UK). Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.