Genetically engineered fish, insects, shellfish and other highly mobile animals pose a risk to the environment as they may escape from their labs or pens and displace species in the wild.

The report by a National Academy of Sciences committee was hailed by groups opposed to bioengineered organisms used for consumption or in crop management.

This study effectively ends the debate in this country over whether genetically engineered animals pose a risk to human health and the environment.

This really raises the red flag. The panel said bioengineered organisms escaping into the wild is of great concern, but that currently, there is no great harm posed to humans who eat genetically modified animals, vegetables or grains, with the exception of the potential for allergic or hypersensitivity reactions.

But the committee said that since bioengineering and cloning techniques are developing so rapidly, its report is just a snapshot. There is a need for more research, and caution.

As is the case with any new technology, it is almost impossible to state that there is no concern, and in certain areas of animal biotechnology, we did identify some legitimate ones.

The panel identified two specific areas of concern with bioengineered animals, insects, and crops:

• Organisms that are engineered for deliberate release into the environment, and
• Those engineered with the intention of being farmed or confined, but that escape or are inadvertently released.

If an animal, insect or fish gets into the wild, it might eventually replace its relative or become established in that community if the genetically engineered organism is more fit than its wild relatives in that environment.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested the panel's input, as the agency is considering whether cloned cattle and other genetically modified organisms are safe for human consumption or use as animal feed.

In May, 60 environmental and consumer organizations petitioned the FDA and four other federal agencies for a moratorium on the sale or use of genetically modified fish. The groups acted when Aqua Bounty Farms of Waltham, Massachusetts, filed for FDA approval of a genetically engineered salmon.

The National Academy panel said it was concerned that if a salmon designed to grow faster and larger was released into the wild, it could compete more successfully for food and mates than wild salmon.

A spokeswoman for the trade group BIO said that Aqua Bounty had taken "redundant" precautions to ensure that no salmon from its farms could escape or mate, if it did find its way into wild waters.

The National Academy committee also said biotech companies should make sure that animals grown to produce pharmaceuticals are not introduced into the food supply, and that they are not adversely harmed by being used essentially as a manufacturing facility.

Reuters Washington September 23, 2002