Theriogenology
Volume 67, Issue 1 , Pages 188-197 , 1 January 2007

Current status of regulating biotechnology-derived animals in Canada—animal health and food safety considerations

  • H.P.S. Kochhar

      Affiliations

    • Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 159 Cleopatra Dr, Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1A 0Y9
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 613 221 7313; fax: +1 613 221 7082.
    • ,
  • B.R. Evans

      Affiliations

    • Government of Canada, CFIA, 59 Camelot Cr, Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1A 0Y9

References 

  1. Kapuscinski AR, Goodman RM, Hann SD, Jacobs LR, Pullins EE, Johnson CS, et al. Making ‘safety first’ a reality for biotechnology products. Nat Biotechnol. 2003;21:599–601
  2. Howard TH, Homan EJ, Bremel RD. Transgenic livestock: regulation and science in a changing environment. J Anim Sci. 2001;79(Suppl.):1–11
  3. Carriere C. Regulatory affairs in biotechnology: optimal statistical designs for biomedical experiments. Biotech Ann Rev. 1998;4:215–238
  4. Palmiter RD, Brinster RL, Hammer RE, Trumbauer ME, Rosenfeld MG, Birnberg NC, et al. Dramatic growth of mice that develop with eggs microinjected with matalotheonein–growth hormone fusion genes. Nature. 1982;300:611–615
  5. Kochhar HPS, Adlakha-Hutcheon G, Evans BR. Regulatory considerations in biotechnology-derived animals in Canada. Rev Sci Tech (Int Off Epizootics). 2005;24:117–125
  6. Nottle MB, Nagashima H, Verma PJ, Du ZT, Grupen CG, Mellfatrick SM, et al. Production and analysis of transgenic pigs containing a metallothionein porcine growth hormone gene construct. In:  Murray JD,  Oberbauer AM,  McGloughlin MM editor. Transgenic Animals in Agriculture. New York, USA: CABI Publ.; 1999;p. 145–156
  7. Pursel VG, Wall RJ, Mitchell AD, Elsasser TH, Solomon MB, Coleman ME, et al. Expression of insulin-like growth factor-I in skeletal muscle of transgenic pigs. In:  Murray JD,  Oberbauer AM,  McGloughlin MM editor. Transgenic Animals in Agriculture. New York, USA: CABI Publ.; 1999;p. 131–144
  8. Golovan SP, Meidinger RG, Ajakaiye A, Cottrill M, Wiederkehr MZ, Barney DJ, et al. Pigs expressing salivary phytase produce low-phosphorus manure. Nat Biotechnol. 2001;19:741–745
  9. Williams JL. The use of marker assisted selection in animal breeding and biotechnology. Rev Sci Tech (Int Off Epizootics). 2005;24:379–389
  10. Maga EA, Anderson GB, Murray JD. The effects of mammary gland expression of human lysozyme on the properties of milk from transgenic mice. J Dairy Sci. 1995;78:2645–2652
  11. Maga EA, Murray JD. Mammary gland expression of transgenes and the potential for altering the properties of milk. Biotechnology. 1995;13:1452–1457
  12. Cowan PJ, Aminian A, Barlow H, Brown AA, Chen CG, Fisicaro N, et al. Renal xenografts from triple-transgenic pigs are not hyperacutely rejected but cause coagulopathy in nonimmunosuppressed baboons. Transplantation. 2000;69:2504–2515
  13. Weissmann C, Enari M, Klohn PC, Rossi D, Flechsig E. Transmission of prions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99(Suppl. 4):16378–16383
  14. Neimann H, Kues W, Carnwath JW. Transgenic farm animals: present and future. Rev Sci Tech Int Off Epizootics. 2005;24:285–298
  15. Evans BR. The prospects for international regulatory interventions in embryo transfer and reproductive technologies in the next century. Theriogenology. 1999;51:71–80
  16. Moreau P, Jordan LT. A framework for animal health risk analysis of biotechnology-derived animals: a Canadian perspective. Rev Sci Tech Int Off Epizootics. 2005;24:51–59
  17. Evans BR, Doering RL, Clarke RC, Ranger C. The organisation of federal Veterinary Services in Canada: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epizootics. 2003;22:409–421
  18. Pace MM, Augenstein ML, Betthauser JM, Childs LA, Eilertsen KJ, Enos JM, et al. Ontogeny of cloned cattle to lactation. Biol Reprod. 2002;67:334–339
  19. Walsh MK, Lucey JA, Govindasamy-Lucey S, Pace MM, Bishop MD. Comparison of milk produced by cows cloned by nuclear transfer with milk from non-cloned cows. Cloning Stem Cells. 2003;5:213–219
  20. National Academy of Science . Safety of genetically engineered foods: Approaches to assessing unintended health effects sub-report on methods and mechanisms of genetic manipulation and cloning of animals. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press; 1998;p. 217–235
  21. Office International des Epizooties. International Animal Health Code–Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Chapter 131, General considerations. 2004 (http://wwwoieint/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_131htm).
  22. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO). Expert consultation on the safety assessment of foods derived from GM animals including fish. Rome: November 17–21; 2003. pp. 36.
  23. Scientist's Working Group. Biosafety manual for assessing ecological and human health effects of genetically engineered organisms. Washington, DC: The Edmonds Institute; 1998 (http://wwwedmonds-instituteorg/manp1ospdf).
  24. United States National Academy of Sciences. Animal biotechnology: science-based concerns, Chapter 6. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2002.
  25. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Biotechnology and food safety report of a joint FAO/WHO consultation, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 61. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1996.
  26. Kleter GA, Kuiper HA. Considerations for the assessment of the safety of genetically modified animals used for human food or animal feed. Livestock Prod Sci. 2002;74:275–285
  27. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology, Concepts and principles OECD. Paris; 1993.
  28. World Health Organization (WHO). Strategies for assessing the safety of foods produced by biotechnology report of a joint FAO/WHO consultation. Geneva WHO, Geneva, Switzerland: November 5–10; 1991.
  29. Kelly L. The safety assessment of foods from transgenic and cloned animals using the comparative approach. Rev Sci Tech (Int Off Epizootics). 2005;24:61–74
  30. National Academy of Science (NAS) . Animal biotechnology: science-based concerns. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2002;
  31. National Academy of Science (NAS) . Safety of genetically engineered foods, approaches to assessing unintended health effects. Subreport on methods and mechanisms of genetic manipulation and cloning of animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004;p. 217–235
  32. Rudenko L, Matheson JC, Adams AL, Dubbin ES, Greenlees KJ. Food consumption risks associated with animal clones: what should be investigated?. Cloning Stem Cells. 2004;6:79–93
  33. World Health Organization (WHO). Application of the principles of substantial equivalence to the safety evaluation of foods or food components from plants derived by modern biotechnology Report of a WHO workshop, Copenhagen, WHO/FNU/FOS/951 WHO, Geneva: 31 October–4 November, 1994.
  34. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Consultation on regulating livestock animal and fish derived from biotechnology Session report 1999. Website: http://wwwinspectiongcca/english/sci/biotech/tech/aniconsulteshtml (accessed on 02 August, 2006).
  35. Kochhar HPS, Gifford GA, Kahn S. Regulatory and biosafety issues in relation to transgenic animals in food and agriculture, feeds containing GMO and veterinary biologics. In: Makkar HPS, Viljoen, editors. Applications of gene based technologies for improving animal production, health in developing countries. 2005. p. 479–498.
  36. Environment Canada/Health Canada (EC/HC). Guidelines for the notification and testing of new substances: organisms Pursuant to ‘the new substances notification regulations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999’ Environment Canada and Health Canada. Website: http://collectionnlc-bncca/100/200/301/environment_can/guidelines_notif_organi-e/epsm_455pdf (accessed on 30 August, 2006).
  37. Health Canada Novel Foods Regulations. Division 28 of the Food and Drugs Regulations. 1999. Website: http://wwwhc-scgcca/food-aliment/mh-dm/ofb-bba/nfi-ani/e_division28html (accessed on 26 April, 2005).
  38. Department of Justice Canada (1999). Health of Animals Act. Website: http://lawsjusticegcca/en/H-33/64369html (accessed on 26 August, 2006).
  39. Department of Justice Canada (1999). Health of Animals Regulations. Website: http://lawsjusticegcca/en/H-33/CRC-c296/131364html (accessed on 26 August, 2006).
  40. Department of Justice Canada (1983). Feeds Regulations. Website: http://lawsjusticegcca/en/F-9/SOR-83-593/fulltochtml (accessed on 25 April, 2005).
  41. Department of Justice Canada (1985). The Feeds Act. Website: http://lawsjusticegcca/en/F-9/indexhtml (accessed on 25 April, 2005).
  42. Houdabine LM. Risks and benefits related to cloning applications. 2004 http://wwwafssafr/Objectasp?IdObj=33772&Pge=0&CCH=060909:26:4&cwSID=7909DA1A098440259C1DD740F6F7EB5A&AID=0. (accessed on 02 August, 2006).
  43. SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity Montreal. 2000.
  44. Sendashonga C, Hill R, Petrini A. The Cartagena protocol on biosafety and its relevance to the World Organisation for animal health. Rev Sci Tech Int Off Epizootics. 2005;24:19–29

PII: S0093-691X(06)00516-4

doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.09.021

Theriogenology
Volume 67, Issue 1 , Pages 188-197 , 1 January 2007

Article Tools