Animal Agriculture Alliance Responds to JAS publication of the article "Trait selection and welfare of genetically engineered animals in agriculture.”

Dear ASAS,

This letter is in response to the article by Michael Greger on October 9, 2009, entitled “Trait selection and welfare of genetically engineered animals in agriculture.” This strikingly one-sided article by Greger implies that the use of biotechnology in animal agriculture invariably increases animal suffering. Given the author, this statement should come as no surprise. Greger serves as the medical advisor for a powerful organization that is working to eradicate modern agricultural practices. Although the Journal of Animal Science review committee should be commended for striving to include a wide range of viewpoints in the publication, several fallacies purported by Greger must be addressed.

Greger begins by acknowledging the increased public interest in the “ethical, consumer, and regulatory implications” of using biotechnology in livestock and poultry production. He fails to mention the consequences of rejecting modern technology, something the public would also surely be interested in. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that 1.02 billion people worldwide are undernourished. By USDA calculations, 13 million households—36.2 million people—were food insecure in the United States during 2007. The United Nations has stated that global food production must increase by 50% in 20 years, despite mounting concerns over climate change. Fast-growing animals selected to efficiently convert feed to protein consume fewer resources, thereby enabling agriculture to lessen its impact on the environment while providing safe, affordable food. This is important if we hope to continue to offer affordable options for consumers in the supermarket.

Although Greger states that biotechnology is harmful to animals, studies have shown the contrary. Scientists are finding that many aspects of disease susceptibility are determined by genetics and can be prevented. For example, transgenic cows that carry a special lysostaphin-triggering gene are not susceptible to mastitis. This simultaneously prevents unnecessary animal suffering and increases productivity. Other areas of investigation include resistance to parasites, viral diseases, and genetic disorders. Currently, no treatments are available for one-half of all diseases that affect animals. Genetic modification to resist such diseases is in the best interest of the animal. It also allows farmers to reduce the amount of antibiotics and the number of vaccinations used to combat diseases with known treatments. In all instances, farmers and ranchers are expected to follow national animal welfare guidelines to ensure that their animals are properly cared for because animal well-being is the top priority of food producers, whether the animal is transgenic or not.

Today, one farmer provides enough food for 144 people. It would not be logical to expect farmers and ranchers to return to “old fashioned” methods—and if that were done, it would be impossible to meet the current demand for food. The American Farmland Trust has calculated that we lose 2 acres of US farmland every minute of every day. Ninety-eight percent of Americans are not involved in food production, living far away from a cornfield or pasture. Indeed, farmers represented just 4% of respondents to the Ohio State University survey used by Greger to conclude that 81% of people feel that farm animal well-being is as important as that of pets. This statement shows the tremendous disconnect between consumers, food, and farmers. Greger uses confusion about food production to imply that the public is not receptive to biotechnology in agriculture.
Greger did make one good point. Additional agricultural research is needed if we are to achieve the breakthroughs he suggests, such as transgenic sex selection in egg production. As an industry, those in agriculture are incredibly receptive to adopting new technologies, but funding for research has declined sharply. California alone has suffered a 24% reduction in agricultural experiment station scientists and cooperative extension specialists over the past 20 years. To meet the future demand for food, the United States needs to reinvest in agricultural research. Farmers and ranchers cannot be blamed for failing to adopt technologies that have not yet been developed.
Ultimately, the article by Greger fails to arrive at any definitive conclusions about how best to use biotechnology in animal agriculture. The bias of the author is apparent in his writing and in his choice of sources. It is disappointing to see such misleading information published in a respected journal. In response to these claims, the agricultural community must put forward accurate information about the role that biotechnology plays in food production.

Respectfully submitted,

Animal Agriculture Alliance
2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 916-B
Arlington, VA 22201
www.animalagalliance.org