GRADUATE SCHOOL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
* * *
FDA FOOD ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING
* * *
FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE FOOD ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION
CENTER FOR FOOD AND APPLIED NUTRITION
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
J.W. Marriott Hotel
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
The meeting convened,
pursuant to notice
at 8:36 a.m., before Acting Chairman Francis F.
Busta.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
JONATHAN ARIAS, Ph.D.
Associate Research
Scientist
Department of Biological
Sciences
University of Maryland,
Baltimore County
1000 Hilltop Circle
Baltimore, Maryland 21250
Tel: 410-455-3470
Fax: 410-455-3875
Arias@umbi.umd.edu
BOB B. BUCHANAN, Ph.D.
Professor
University of California
Department of Plant and
Microbial Biology
111 Koshland Hall
Berkeley, California 94720
Tel: 510-642-3590
Fax: 510-642-7356
view@nature.berkeley.edu
FRANCIS FREDERICK BUSTA,
Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor
University of Minnesota
Department of Food
Science and Nutrition
1334 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108-6099
Tel: 612-624-3086
Fax: 612-625-5272
DOUGLAS GURIAN-SHERMAN,
Ph.D.
Science Director,
Biotechnology Project
Center for Science in the
Public Interest
1875 Connecticut Avenue,
N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20009
Tel: 202-332-9110 Ext.
377
Fax: 202-265-4954
dgurian-sherman@espinet.org
MEMBERS PRESENT (Continued):
ANNE R. KAPUSCINSKI,
Ph.D.
Professor, University of
Minnesota
Department of Fisheries
& Wildlife
180 McNeal Hall
1985 Buford Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
Tel: 612-624-3019
Fax: 612-625-8153
ark@fw.umn.edu
ABIGAIL A. SALYERS, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Department of
Microbiology
University of Illinois at
Urban-Champaign
B103 CLSL
601 S. Goodwin Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Tel: 217-333-7378
Fax: 217-244-8485
Temporary Voting Members:
DENNIS GONSALVES, Ph.D.
Center Director
Pacific Basin
Agricultural Research Center
99 Apuni Street, Suite
204
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Tel: 808-932-2100
Fax: 808-969-6967
Dgonsalkves@pbarc.ars.usda.gov
STEPHEN BENEDICT, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular
Biosciences
University of Kansas
1200 Sunnyside Avenue
Lawrence, Kansas
66045-7534
Tel: 785-864-4007
Fax: 785-864-5294
sbene@ku.edu
MEMBERS PRESENT (Continued):
CALVIN QUALSET, Ph.D.
Genetic Resources
Conservation Program
DANR Building, Hopkins
Road
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Tel: 530-754-8502
Fax: 530-754-8503
coqualset@ucdavis.edu
NINA FEDOROFF, Ph.D.
519 Wartik Laboratory
Huck Institute for Life
Sciences
Penn State University
University Park,
Pennsylvania 16802
Tel: 814-863-5717
Fax: 814-863-1357
Industry Representative:
JAMES ASTWOOD, Ph.D.
Director, Food and Feed
Safety Policy
Monsanto
800 North Lindbergh
Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63167
Tel: 314-694-8396
Fax: 314-694-8562
james.d.astwood@monsanto.com
ALSO PRESENT:
MR. BOB LAKE
MS. JEANETTE GLOVER GLEW,
CFSAN
MR. MICHAEL HANSON
(Public Comment)
DR. JAMES MARYANSKI,
CFSAN
DR. THOMAS CEBULA, CFSAN
C O N T E N T
S
AGENDA ITEM PAGE
Welcome and Introductions 6
Acting FBS Chair
Conflict of Interest Statement 9
Welcome from FDA 13
Charge and Questions 23
Acting FBS Chair
FDA's Biotech Food Safety Assessment 29
Ms. Jeanette Glover Glew, CFSAN
Questions of Clarification 43
FBS Members
Codex Approach 74
Dr. James Maryanski, CFSAN
Questions of Clarification 92
FBS Members
FDA's Discussion Paper — Molecular
Characterization 103
Dr. Thomas Cebula, CFSAN
Questions of Clarification 122
FBS Members
Public Comment 153
Summary and Review of Charge and
Questions 172
FDA
Discussion 179
FBS Members
Response to Questions 194
FBS Members
Concluding Comments 334
Acting FBS Chair
P R O C E E D
I N G S
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: The meeting is called to
order. And welcome, all of the
committee members, guests, and the members of FDA to the--this Biotechnology
Subcommittee meeting of the Food Advisory Committee.
My
name is Frank Busta. I'm a professor
emeritus at the University of Minnesota.
I'm a member of the, let's see, the term is full committee. I'm--that is not implied that I'm full of
it, but some people would say it. And
I've been asked to chair this meeting as an acting chair.
In
front of you, you have an agenda, and, as you see, in addition to welcoming
you, we'd like to have our introductions so that everybody knows who everyone
is, and we have it on the record.
I
believe that we're asked always to talk into the microphones because it is
being recorded, and that gives us a record, as well as someone taking notes.
So,
if we could start with introductions, telling us basically who you are and
your--the
committee. Douglas, would you start?
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Doug
Gurian-Sherman. I'm with Center for
Science in the Public Interest.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: And you are a member of the--the
regular member?
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Yes, I'm a member of
the subcommittee.
DR.
QUALSET: I'm Cal Qualset, professor
emeritus, University of California at Davis.
I'm a member--a temporary member of the subcommittee.
DR.
BENEDICT: Steve Benedict, University of
Kansas, and I'm a temporary member.
DR.
ARIAS: Jonathan Arias, University of
Maryland. I'm a subcommittee member.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Nina Fedoroff, Penn State
University. I guess I'm a temporary
member.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Abigail?
DR.
SALYERS: Abigail Salyers, University of
Illinois, and former President of the American Society for Microbiology. And I'm not sure what kind of member I am.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: You are a member of the
subcommittee.
DR.
SALYERS: Oh, okay.
DR.
BUCHANAN: Bob Buchanan, University of
California at Berkeley, and I believe I'm member.
DR.
GONSALVES: Dennis Gonsalves. I'm at Pacific Basin and Agriculture
Research Center, and I'm a temporary member.
DR.
ASTWOOD: I'm Jim Astwood. I'm with Monsanto, and, I'm the industry
liaison.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: And Mike?
DR.
WATSON: Mike Watson, the Food and Drug
Administration.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: And Mike does all the work.
All
right. To get this organized and
straight, I would like you to refer to our agenda. You see estimated times to accomplish what we need to do today on
the agenda.
We
hope that we can stay fairly close to that.
I will try to be as firm a chair as possible so that we do not diminish
our opportunities for discussion and summaries in the afternoon.
Mike,
we're five minutes ahead of time, but I'd like--I don't mind that at all.
DR.
WATSON: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I will turn over the conflict of
interest statement, et cetera, to Mike Watson.
DR.
WATSON: Good morning, again. I'm Mike Watson. I'm the Acting Executive Secretary for the Biotechnology
Subcommittee of the FDA Food Advisory Committee.
First,
I would like to read the temporary voting member appointment and conflict of
interest statements into the record.
By
the authority granted under the Food Advisory Charter of July 2002, the
following individuals have been appointed as temporary voting members by Joseph
A. Levitt, Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition:
Dr.
Steven Benedict;
Dr.
Nina Fedoroff;
Dr.
Dennis Gonsalves; and
Dr.
Calvin Qualset.
With
regard to the issue of conflict of interest, committee members, both permanent
and temporary, were screened for interest in bioengineered food
developers. As a result of this review,
in accordance with 18 U.S.C., Section 208 (b)(3), Dr. Robert Buchanan and Dr.
Dennis Gonsalves have been granted a particular matter of general applicability
waiver that permits them to participate fully in matters at issue.
Copies
of their waiver statements may be obtained by submitting a written request to
the Agency's Freedom of Information Office, Room 12A-30 of the Parklawn
Building.
We
would also like to note that Dr. James Astwood is participating in this meeting
as the acting industry representative, and is a non-voting participant.
With
respect to all other participants, we ask that, in the interest of fairness,
that they address any current or previous financial involvement with any firm
that develops or sells bioengineered food crops.
Finally,
FDA received a letter on Monday this week, September 22, 2003, from the Center
for Science in the Public Interest, CSPI, related to the work of this
subcommittee. This letter was signed by
Dr. Gurian-Sherman, a consumer representative on this subcommittee, on behalf
of himself and two other subcommittee members, Drs. Arias and Kapucinski.
The
letter expresses concern about FDA's management of the subcommittee, selection
of agenda topics, and other issues. FDA
has provided copies of this letter to the subcommittee members, and copies are
available to the public.
FDA
appreciates receiving suggestions for enhancing the work of the
subcommittee. Since this letter was
submitted too late for FDA to fully consider its contents and suggestions for
changes for this meeting, we intend to examine the letter carefully and respond
following this meeting.
For
today, we intend to focus on the agenda that we have prepared. Mr. Chairman, we note that one of the issues
raised in the CSPI
letter dealt with future agenda items
for the subcommittee.
We
leave it to your discretion; but, if time permits, FDA will be interested to
hear any suggestions that subcommittee members may have on future agenda items.
I'll
turn it back over to Dr. Busta.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Well, thank you, Mike.
I'm
not sure if we got a copy of that letter by e-mail before this meeting. I'm not sure how many of you are in a
position to see your
e-mail en route. The--we'll have an opportunity to look at
that in case you hadn't seen it earlier; and, as Mike indicated, we will do our
best to get through the agenda. And we
will place that at the end of the agenda for comment, and we can expand that
for other comments beyond the letter as for future agenda items.
All
right. Now, we're going to have a
welcome from FDA. And I assume that's
Bob Lake?
MR.
LAKE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: They're really neglecting
you this morning, Bob. They didn't give you a name card.
MR.
LAKE: Well, that's all right.
Let
me--well, again, I am Bob Lake. I'm the
Director of Regulations and Policy at the Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition. I report directly to Joe
Levitt, and one of the things in my portfolio is policy issues relating to
bioengineered foods. Jim Maryanski, Dr.
Maryanski, who will be talking to you later, and who I think is--most of you
know very well--has been my technical advisor for probably 15 years.
He
is the biotech coordinator, but we established that position back in the late
'80s; and his title and mine have changed a little bit over the years. But we have worked very closely together
throughout that time.
I
want to officially, on behalf of SISAM management, welcome you here to this
meeting. I know everyone has very busy
schedules, and it's certainly hard to find a time where we can get everyone.
But
we very much appreciate all of you being here.
You are important to us. We very
much appreciate your time, your consideration; and will value whatever advice
we get from you.
I
thought I would take a little bit of a moment to just sort of update you on
sort of what's been going on, or, in some cases, not going on. Just to give you a little bit of a backdrop,
I'm going to try to do this very quickly.
As
you all I think know, FDA is only one of the agencies in the Federal Government
that is involved in issues that relate to bioengineered foods. The Department of Agriculture, most notably. The Animal, Plant, Health and Inspection
Service has responsibility for, you know, the planning of bioengineered
plants. EPA has responsibility for
genetically engineered pesticides that are genetically engineered into new
plant varieties. And then FDA, of
course, has the responsibility for the safety of foods, and, you know, again,
that's--we're talking about what happens to the person who eats the food.
Also,
we have the responsibility for animal feeds, and so we have a concern about
that, as well.
Since
the StarLink episode of a few years ago, there's been a sense across the
agencies that there has been a need for greater interaction. And, indeed, there have been numerous
meetings among the agencies, these agencies, also others, from time to time, to
deal with a couple of sort of cross-cutting issues. These, by the way, have generally been held under the auspices of
the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP.
One
of these issues that we have grappled with in an interagency context has
related to the potential for new plant varieties that are still in the
developmental stage perhaps inadvertently contaminating traditional food
crops. And the OSTP, after numerous
interagency discussions, published a document setting out some tentative
thoughts about that and invited public comment.
Following
that, the--there was a recognition that there's a growing concern about
the use of food crop plants to produce
pharmaceutical, industrial chemicals.
We generally refer to these as pharm plants, spelled P-H-A-R-M, as a
convenient shorthand for talking about these kinds of crops.
As
some of you know, we did have an episode last year. Nothing got into food.
But it sort of heightened the concerns within the government about the
potential for contamination of food with non-food producing crops, such as corn
used to produce pharmaceuticals.
Those
discussions are ongoing. They have not
come to closure yet. When they do, I expect that there will be something
similar coming out of that to the OSTP publication that I mentioned a moment
ago.
Of
course, throughout all of these discussions, FDA is going to the meetings,
participating in the meetings, with the recognition that our primary
responsibility really is about the safety of the food; and we try to stay
focused on that as we go through these discussions,
recognizing there are many other
issues.
But
the one that is primary importance to FDA, and that we like to stay primarily
focused on is the safety of the food itself.
We--as
you all know, we published a proposal to make our current consultation process
mandatory. We have not taken final
action on that. Any of you who read the
proposal will know that we raised in that proposal an issue about whether we
actually had the legal authority to make the process mandatory. That has continued to be an issue.
The
other thing that has come along is the events of September 11th of 2001, and a
need to focus a lot of attention on bioterrorism. I can tell you personally that that issue has largely taken over
my life since I head the office that is responsible for developing FDA's
regulations to implement that new law that was passed by Congress and signed
President Bush June a year ago.
The
other thing, of course, that we always face is that there are a large number of
very
important issues before the agency at
any given time, and we can't deal with all of them all at once.
When
our Center Director, Joe Levitt, came back in 1998, one of the practices he
instituted was a process, a priority-setting process, that results in something
that we normally refer to as the Yellow Book, that articulates the Center's
priorities.
And
the A-list things are things we are going to do within the current, you know,
fiscal year. B-list are things that are
being worked on, and anything that's not on either of those two lists is not
going to be done for a while.
We
have--again, one of the other things that Mr. Levitt instituted was a process
of seeking public input on what these priorities are. And we can't make everybody happy. We can't deal at any instant with anything--with everything that
is deemed by even us to be important; but we do try to have this orderly
process for setting priorities. And one of the things you will note is that the
mandatory proposal is not an A-list
item.
The
other thing that we are continuing to work on, but have not come to completion
on yet, is allergenicity. This
subcommittee considered some of those issues at your first meeting. We still intend to come back to the
subcommittee with allergenicity issues, but we have not, you know, we were not
ready to do that for this meeting.
We
generally are trying to keep up with the science, though, we certainly see this
subcommittee as helping us in that process.
And, as you will hear more about a little later, we have, over the last
four years, participated actively in the Codex Alimentarias effort at the
international level to develop principles and guidelines for the assessment of
bioengineered plants and also bioengineered microorganisms used in food
production. And Dr. Maryanski will talk
about some of that as it relates to the agenda before you today.
In
the meantime, FDA is still following the guidance that we issued in 1992. We--it
continues to be our belief that all of
the foods that are in the marketplace in the United States today have gone
through that process; and, also, so far as we know, none of the foods that have
successfully completed that consultation process is presenting any kind of
public health problems to American citizens.
Nonetheless,
we recognize that science changes. We
want to assure that our guidance remains current. And that is one reason why
this--in fact the primary reason--why
this subcommittee was created.
We
want to use the very best science in all of the work we do, but I think
particularly in this area where there's so much noise that is not about
science. We want to be sure, and we
understand people disagreeing on matters of policy et cetera. But we want to be sure that we are following
the best science possible.
And
with that in mind, we will be seeking your advice at this meeting, and in
future meetings. And today, we're
asking you to look at
some things on molecular biology--I
can't even pronounce it, and I can assure you I know nothing about it, so I'm
not going to say anything more about that other than to return the meeting back
to the Chair, who will explain what it is we are asking for advice on today.
So
with that, I will close.
Thank
you very much. We are looking forward
to your deliberations today, and to the advice you give us at the end of the
day. And, if there's anything we can do
to help, let us know. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Thank you, Bob.
I
know there--you have a busy schedule, and you'll be with us for--until the
break at least?
MR.
LAKE: Yes. I'll be here through the break; though, again, the other BT, that
is, bioterrorism, as opposed to biotechnology, it causes to me leave at the
break to go to some other meeting.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Okay. So, if we have
some questions or clarification for Bob
before--
MR.
LAKE: Yeah, and, in fact, I can stay
through the break if anyone has anything they want to ask me privately; though,
I will take any questions other than anybody might have now.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Dr.
Gurian-Sherman. Bob, maybe you could
clarify a couple of things: one is I think you mentioned that the mandatory
process is not on the A-list. Is it on
the B-list? You mentioned that things
that are not on the
A-or B-list are probably not going to
get looked at very closely.
The
other is, do you have any kind of timeline, or rough timeline, on your progress
on the allergenicity issue, as well?
MR.
LAKE: Yes. Yeah, I guess I should have clarified. It not only is not on the A-list, but I've been--okay.
DR.
WATSON: It's on the B-list for '03.
MR.
LAKE: Okay. Well, it is still on the B-list.
The '04 is still I think not finalized.
The--but
there's a good chance that simply
because of everything going on, that it
may not even be on the B-list for the next issue, though we have not yet issued
the '04 plan.
With
regard to the allergenicity, I don't know that I can give you a specific time
frame, other than to note that that continues to be something that we consider
to be very important; and we do, indeed, intent to come back to this
subcommittee. But I'm not prepared to
give you a time frame for that. I just
don't know.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Thank you. We'll I'm on line now to talk about our
charge, and questions that we have for today.
You
all should have received in the mail a discussion paper and a draft guidelines
of Codex; and this morning, in front of you, you have the charge and questions.
I'd
like to go through this slowly and try and paraphrase it somewhat, but as
you've heard this is an area that is of interest and activity with FDA.
And,
as it states in the introduction, FDA
believes that it's important to the
developers of products to characterize the genetic modifications introduced in
those food plants.
Developers
using molecular biological data to assess whether these new substances,
intended or unintended, are likely to be expressed as a consequence of the
inserted genetic material. There have
been many advances in the field, as you've heard many times and are well aware. And FDA is seeking to determine whether any
of these new advances would enhance FDA's food--FDA's safety assessment of
bioengineered food plants.
So,
our charge, specific charge for today is to consider the current FDA approach
for the molecular characterization of bioengineered food plants, and to provide
suggestions regarding additional information the FDA subcommittee believes
would enhance the safety assessment.
This is an assessment of the science.
Now,
there's three items, issues that are listed below, and these are some. Our
discussion and questions and issues are not limited to those,
but they are questions that have been
put forth with our charge from FDA.
Number
one: the molecular biology data provide
information that assists in identifying new substances. Techniques like Northern or Western Blot
have been useful in identifying newly expressed substances.
The
question here is: to what extent does sequencing information contribute to the
identification of newly expressed substances?
And if sequencing information is important for the purpose of FDA's
safety assessment, what sequence information should be reviewed? For example, the entire sequence of inserted
genetic material or the sequence of the surrounding region of the plant genome
et cetera.
If
so, how does this information contribute to the safety assessment? The science behind that, and we've got a lot
of experts here that should be able to give us some insight into that after we
hear what FDA is doing.
Number
two: current approaches to safety
assessment recommend certain kinds of
molecular biology data. There are four
that are listed
here--the number of insertion sites,
number of gene copies inserted into each insertion site, the information on the
organization of the DNA within the inserts, and the potential reading frames
that could express unintended proteins.
The
question here is: are there other data that would be useful to safety
assessment? And, if so, what data, and
how would safety assessment be enhanced?
The
third item on the issues is: there have been many advances. Are there new advances that could be used to
enhance the safety assessment? And, if
so, what and how?
I'll
open end, as we said, as I said at the beginning, these are some of the
items. It's not limited to these, but
these are considerations. From my
vantage point, it seems like there's--that could keep us here for a week and a
half. It's plenty open-ended. So, that is our charge.
The
approach that I hope that we'll be
able to do is we will listen to the
presentations on FDA's current food safety assessment and the Codex approach,
and the discussion paper; and we'll have questions for clarification at
the--after each of those presentations, but not significant debate at that
point, or extensive discussion; but questions of clarification.
And
then, we will have an opportunity for public comment. Has any public comment been submitted? One? Okay.
And
then, we will, again, look at this issue and have some real opportunity for
discussion and evaluation, getting into greater depth that need from the
participants of the experts that are here.
And then, in the middle of the afternoon, I would like to see us go
round, one by one, and succinctly--I love that word--succinctly summarize our
thoughts in response to the charge and the issues.
At
that point, and, hopefully, we're on time or even a little ahead of time, we
then--there is a little bit of agenda on the back--concluding
remarks. But then I would like to address the letter and future guidance,
future agenda items, at that point.
But
we will have addressed our charge, and then we can move on to the future.
That's
all right? We'll move on.
Well,
I'm quite proud that we're running about 10 minutes ahead of time, and since no
one else has his timing agenda, no one else is sort of coming 10 minutes late,
so I'm very pleased.
So,
if our next presenter, Jeanette Glover Glew is ready to go, we will--oh, Mike
Watson has a statement.
DR.
WATSON: I'd just like to ask if there's
any questions for Mr. Lake, please do them before the break so they can be part
of the record?
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Oh. All right. So we have it
on--
DR.
WATSON: On the public record.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: All right. You have copies of the presentation,
PowerPoint, so that you only have to take notes and not write what's on the
slides.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: I'm going to give a little
caveat up front, as they showed me how to work this device, but I was not very
successful in the rehearsal earlier.
So, we'll see how we do right now.
Good
morning. As I said, I'm Jeanette
Glover-Glew. I work in the Office of
Food Additive Safety in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition; and
I'm going to be talking to you, in general terms, about our policy for
evaluating bioengineered foods. I will
also touch on parts of our molecular biology review for these types of
foods. However, I'll just do a little
foreshadowing here, and let you know that Dr. Tom Cebula will be going into
some more detail about the type of molecular biology evaluation we do, a little
bit later this morning.
Do
I have to point to that? To give you a
quick outline of what I'm going to cover in my presentation, I'll start out
talking about the Federal Government's regulatory framework, then
talk specifically about FDA's policies
and procedures. And I'll wrap up
talking about some recent initiatives we've made in light of public input we've
received.
In
1986, the Federal Government proposed a coordinated framework for regulating
genetically engineered foods. There
were three primary players: the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration.
Two
of the primary principles based on this coordinated framework were that it
would be the product that would be evaluated, not the process of its
development; and that the products would be evaluated under existing
frameworks. The United States
Department of Agriculture evaluates agricultural food safety, doing field
trials; and EPA evaluates the food safety and environmental safety of products
that have, well,
pesticidal--insecticides inserted; in
other words, if BT proteins have been inserted into a crop that is EPA's
responsibility to evaluate.
That
brings us to FDA. Our statutory
authority derives primarily from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. I'll be calling that the "Act"
through the rest of my talk.
Under
the Act, we're responsible for the food safety and proper labeling of all foods
and food substances, except for meat and poultry products, which are evaluated
by USDA.
That
means that we have oversight over cereals, fruits, vegetables, plant
by-products, such as starch and oil, milk, seafood, and other substances added
to food, such as flavorings and preservatives.
There
are two provisions of the Act that are particularly important in ensuring food
safety. One of them is our post-market
adulteration provision in Section 402.
This is our primary legal tool for regulating the safety of whole
foods. It means that if a food enters
the marketplace, and we find it to be adulterated, for example, if it had a
level of toxicant that was outside of the normal range, or if it had an
unlabeled food allergen, then we could
take action to remove that product from the market using our post-market
adulteration authority.
We
also have the Section 409 authority, which means that an additive that is going
to be added to food must undergo pre-market review and approval by FDA before
it can enter the marketplace, that is, unless the product has been demonstrated
to be generally recognized as safe.
If
we see a product that is not substantially similar to products that have been
consumed in food, then we could ask that it come in under our pre-marked
approval authority.
I'll
next talk to you about FDA's policies and procedures.
In
1992, FDA published a policy stating how we believed the foods derived from new
plant varieties should be regulated. It
was developed for genetically engineered foods, but it described how we would
apply our authority under the Act to ensure the safety of all foods under our
authority.
It
was, as I said, derived primarily for
developers who, at that time, were
using recombinant DNA technology in crop production. And those are primarily the users that have operated under that
policy statement.
Let
me go over some of the basic principles in the policy statement.
First,
we consider the nature of the food, not primarily the method of
development. Any food, including
genetically engineered foods that enter the market place, must meet the same
stringent safety standards as convention foods. And those traditional counterparts are the foods that we compare
the bioengineered food to.
Some
other basic principles in the policy statement. We recommended guidance on particular scientific and regulatory
issues, and we also recommended a voluntary consultation with FDA. The purpose of that consultation was to make
sure that any questions that might arise of a scientific or regulatory nature
would be resolved before the developer went to market.
The
core of the guidance document was a
series of flow charts related to the
safety and the nutritional values of genetically engineered foods. You could see if you were a developer, you
would walk yourself through this flow chart, and you would--could end up
eventually in one of two boxes. The box
at the bottom says no concerns, and the boxes off to the side say consultant
FDA. There is also in the flow charts a
third box that says basically don't even think about going in that direction;
but that's not on this particular slide.
What
happened, practically speaking, is most developers, when they go through the
flow charts, end up in the no concerns box.
However, because of our desire to encourage the voluntary consultation
process, we believe that all of the people have come in to us to demonstrate
what they think are the issues that, once they go through our flow charts, and
to make sure we agree that they fall into the no-concerns box.
The
frequency and level of consultation that we carry on with the developers is
really dependent upon the complexity and the novelty of
the crop and the insert.
We
encourage them to come in early and often.
This is an iterative process. We
believe that, by coming in early, it benefits both the developer and FDA. We're aware of what's being done in terms of
the research, and they're aware of the kinds of issues that we might find of
concern.
We--in
our 1990 policy, we did not publish a suite of testing regimes that people
could go and say, okay, I've got a tomato or I've got this type of insert,
therefore, I need to do these types of testing.
We
wanted this to be done on a
case-by-case basis. And so what happens is the company comes
in. They say, okay, this is the
information we've developed in the lab or in the greenhouse or in our field
trials. And, we say, okay, well, based
upon what you're demonstrating to us, we have these kinds of questions. And the company will use the input FDA gives
them to go back to their lab or the greenhouse or the field trial, and develop
the data to answer those
questions.
So
we have an iterative process, where FDA has credible input about the kind of
testing regime. It's done on a
case-by-case basis.
Prior
to commercialization, the notifier will come in to us with a final data package
that summarizes the information they've developed, and FDA will respond to them
with a letter saying either we have--still have remaining questions or we have
no further questions.
The
approach in these consultations is multidisciplinary. We have teams of individuals who review these submissions. They include molecular biologists, several
of which are here today, microbiologists, chemists, nutritionists, food
scientists of various kinds; and we cover a broad spectrum that's provided,
everything from the agronomic characteristics to the compositional
characteristics of the crop.
In
this next slide, I've just presented the information in this way to emphasize
that we look at both at the intended changes and the
unintended changes to the crop. In the intended changes, of course, we're
going to be looking at information about the trait--desired trait that was
inserted and to the kinds of alterations that might make. And we look at information about the
background of the crop, and the exposure.
However,
we're also looking for unintended changes, because this tells us whether or not
cryptic pathways have been turned on.
We'll look and see whether or not there's been changes in known
toxicants or nutrients to see if there's something that lets us know that a
genetic pathway has been interrupted by the insertion, and that there's
something that we need to be paying special attention to. And another way that we do that is to look
at the genetic stability over time.
I've
added these next four slides just to go over real quickly because it gives you
the elements of the safety evaluation, including what we look at in terms of
the molecular biology evaluation. But
Dr. Cebula is going to be going into some more detail later on; so this is a
just a
skim to prepare your minds for what
we're going to be talking about.
In
the host plant, we'll look at the taxonomy, history of safe use, the presence
of any naturally occurring harmful constituents, and important nutrients. If we were going to be looking at an orange,
we'd expect Vitamin C to be there.
In
the donor organism, we're going to be looking at similar characteristics, but
we're also going to be looking through--whether or not any baggage has been
picked up due to passage through microbial host. And, of course, most importantly for the donor organism, we're
going to want to know about the identity and function of the introduced
material.
For
that introduced material, we're going to look at concentration, so we know what
dietary exposure is.
We're
going to look at the potential for it to be an allergen or a toxin. I already mentioned that we're going to be
looking at
similarity to other substances in the
food supply. Talked about looking for
changes in metabolic pathways.
We're
going to find out if there's
post-relational modification, such as
glycosylation of a protein. And
something that I'll throw out here.
Other countries have been concerned about the presence of antibiotic
resistance marker genes. And we also
evaluate those.
And
this comes to the information that is more the basis of what we're going to be
talking about and getting input from you on today is the inserted genetic
material. And here, we're going to look
at the method of transformation, what the regulatory sequences are, the
promoters, the terminators, how those are working, whether there's the chance
of open reading frames that might read through into the indigenous genome, how
many inserts they are, where they are, if they, you know, flipped or they
inserted into a site that may create problems; and then we're going to be
looking at Mendelian inheritance, so whether or not it's
genetically stable.
I'm
going to switch gears here, and just for a few minutes talk about some of the
recent initiatives that we've taken as a result of a public outreach.
We
know that the biotechnology field is rapidly changing. That's why you're here. That's why we want your advice. But also, in 1999, we decided to hold a
series of three public meetings. And we
said, we're going to look at our 1992 policy to see if it needs to be modified
in any way. And, as a result of soliciting
that input, we received over 50,000 comments.
Excuse me a moment.
We
were pleased to find that, as a result of those comments, that we really hadn't
received new data to question the safety of bioengineered foods that are on the
market today. However, we heard concern
from public, academics, public policy groups about the future, of whether or
not the products that were going to be coming down the research pipeline were
such that we had either the regulatory or scientific framework and background
to address the safety of these
products.
So,
as a result of that solicited input, we have taken several initiatives. One of them is you guys. That's why we're here today. We established the Food Biotech
Subcommittee, and we hope to be using you for this purpose quite a bit in the
near future.
We
have committed to support research on allergenicity, and we have combined with
USDA and EPA to support a study by the National Academy of Science on potential
unintended effects in bioengineered foods.
Before
I wind up, I'm just going to give you a snapshot of the types of products we've
seen. The corn, cotton, and soybean are
the primary commodities that we've seen in.
We've seen other minor crops.
The kinds of traits that have been introduced have been primarily
agronomic traits that are of interest to the farmer, either pest resistance or
herbicide tolerance. Though we expect,
in the second and third generation of crops, to see more complex physical
traits, such as
salinity, tolerance, or drought resistance;
and also traits that would be of interest to the consumer, such as increased
nutritional value.
The
goal of us at CFSAN and here today in talking with you is to make sure that
we're prepared to meet our scientific and regulatory responsibilities in the
future. So we're really looking forward
to you looking at the charge and the questions and advising us as to where we
can to specifically in the arena of molecular biology techniques.
And
I just wanted to let you know that I've given you our website. If you want to look at any of the documents
that I've mentioned today, either our 1992 policy statement or the proposed
rule that Mr. Lake mentioned, or a list of the products we've developed,
including our scientific memos evaluating those products, you can go to the
website and find that information.
But
I think we're running ahead of schedule, so I have time to answer any questions
you might have before we go on to the next speaker
at the break I guess.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Jeanette, I had two
questions, clarification. One is
concerning the website. That doesn't
have, as far as I know, any of the more detailed aspects of the consultations,
in other words, the data summaries, which I found very useful to look at to
kind to get a better idea of what is actually submitted and what you're
actually doing with it.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: That. That's a--
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: So one question is: if
committee members want to see any of those, could they be made available and
how could that be done?
And
the second question is: If you could clarify a little bit kind of the
case-by-case approach. How do you
determine kind of what the baseline minimum assessment should be? And to put that in context, for instance,
when I looked at some of those studies, just as one example, two of the BT
crops, looked at whether phytate levels and known anti-nutrient in the corn had
changed, two
did not. You know, so how do you determine what's enough? Which anti-nutrient should be looked
at? Which allergens, you know, et cetera,
under the current system?
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Okay. Try and remove the first question before I
get to the second.
The
first question has to do with the fact that I mentioned that at the end of the
consultation process, we receive a data package that summarizes the material,
and this is what we use when we are completing our evaluation.
That
information is not currently available on our website. It is available by Freedom of Information
Act request, which is how Dr. Gurian-Sherman got it.
We--I
did not go into all of the efforts that we have committed to make as a result
of the public meetings. I wanted to
focus primarily on the scientific nature of some of the concerns that were
expressed, particularly the ones that you can address today in the molecular
biology discussion.
However,
we have made some commitments to
try and have increased
transparency. Those are something that
we have to balance with our obligations to protect confidential business
information. But we have--our ongoing discussions. I honestly don't know, Doug, whether or not
the Food Advisory Committee can get copies of those documents outside the FOI
process, and perhaps one of the people on the FAC Committee can help us with
that a little bit later.
The
second question: how do we get a baseline?
That's a good question, and the thing is it's like mini-targets as it
moves. And I'll use your phytate
example; is that when some of the earlier consultations, we would talk about
the areas of concern--the nutrients, or the toxicants, or the
anti-nutrients--and the company would go away; and they would develop that
information. And, this is in addition
to general principles, which we outlined in the 1992 policy, about looking for
allergenicity, examining whether it's a potential for it to be a toxin.
So
we have the general principles, and
then we have some of the more specific
give and take on the case-by-case basis.
And the answer about the phytate is that it does--the target moves.
As
we've been involved with Codex, as we've been involved with our European
counterparts, particularly Dr. William Price, who is in the audience today, has
been participating in committees that are laying out some of the known
important nutrients, anti-nutrients, and toxicants; and we're able to now use
these kinds of materials to give clearer, better, more particular information.
So,
you can look at earlier submissions, and you'll find that they're missing
information that perhaps are in more current submissions. And that's because, as the science advances,
as we are more aware of the types of information that are important for us to
look at, we would be
giving--tailoring our information.
Does
that answer your question?
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Yeah, I guess the only
follow up I would have is, if you're
developing some of this internal
guidance or guidelines, is there any plan on making them publicly
available? Are they just still in the
development stage?
I
think in 2000, NAS recommended that you do that with, you know, come up with a
database of known toxicants and anti-nutrients. So, you know, is that something that's going to be made public?
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: We're working internally
on guidance. It suffers from the same
resource problems that Mr. Lake referred to earlier, but one of the things
that, if everything works out in terms of our resources, and how productive we
think this would be for industry, we might use the information that we develop
today for a molecular biology guidance.
The
compositional guidance we have held off a little bit on because we're waiting
to see what the NAS says about the unintended effects. So, guidance documents are something that we
constantly have it in the back of our head in order to give guidance to
industry.
But,
as we've just talked about the phytate issue, we weren't--we didn't know that
that was something that we probably be asking for perhaps early in the
process. We know now. So, if we have guidance and it's hard and
fast, that leaves us a little less flexibility in order to look at these on a
case-by-case basis. So there's
advantages and disadvantages to having written guidance.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Abigail.
DR.
SALYERS: I have a question for you, and
for Mr. Lake, both. It has to do with
priorities.
If
I were prioritizing issues on your A-, B-, C-lists, I would put bioengineered
foods on the E-list, and I'd put bioterrorism on the F-list. You know, as in forget it, you know.
And
I would put on the A-list things like probiotics and functional foods that have
been largely un--not looked at; and also just good old early detection of
microbial, unintentional microbial contamination of foods. And so that we don't have to pull things
back after they've
appeared on grocery shelves.
And
so my question is, and I understand why you've had to put bioengineered foods
and bioterrorism on the A-list, but so I'm going to
be--this question is kind of
pessimistic. I know you're stuck with
that because of political considerations, but are you thinking about ways that
you might use whatever money you're pouring into those areas to also address
some of these other issues, the real, which in my opinion, the real public
health issues, the things that sicken and kill people at still somewhat
horrifying level; that there are ways to divert some of this attention and finances
into doing something in those areas.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: I'm going to let Mr. Lake
answer the part about dealing with substances that might kill people.
DR.
SALYERS: I'm not, I'm not--this is not
a hostile question.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: I'll answer something that
perhaps is underlying your question, and you
may not have intended this to underlie
your question, is that we have for bioengineered foods a process that is
working, and that we believe is protective of the public health.
So,
there are many ways that we would like to expand our abilities to be responsive
to industry in giving them guidance about molecular biology. That's why we're here. That's why we're interacting with the
National Academy of Science. There are
things that we would like to do to make certain that our regulatory framework
and our scientific background is what we need in order to evaluate these
things. And I think that we have that, and we'll continue to have that in terms
of Center priorities.
DR.
SALYERS: Well, let me just give you an
example. This is one of these things
that happens to me accidentally. It
makes me even more unpopular than I am already.
But
I happen to think probiotics is a good idea, but I found out, sort of
accidentally, that most of the strains of bacteria that are used for
probiotics are resistant to vancomycin,
which is one of our less antibiotics for treatment of certain types of
diseases.
And
so I said to them, to these people, I said, have you--now are you talking about
markered antibiotic resistance genes in transgenic plants, which are for, you
know, effective against antibiotics that basically are not a problem any more;
but here's some vancomycin resistance in these probiotic strains.
And
so I got this storm of anger out of that.
And I said, but you really ought to ask yourself is this just some
metabolic thing or some, you know, could possibly pose a public health
risk. And that, as far as I could tell,
was not under investigation anywhere.
And
I just wonder how many more examples of that kind are out there in the
probiotics, the functional foods area; and then, of course, we have the problem
of is there some way that we could try to detect contamination of foods before
the food actually gets on the grocery shelves.
So that's
the reason I was asking this question.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: And I'm being very good on
chairing this, and letting you ask these questions before we lose Bob. But that wasn't a terribly expansive
question on clarification. Bob.
MR.
LAKE: Nonetheless, I think it was a
good question, so let me comment to the extent that I can.
Though
we try to do priorities in a way that we think is rational from our
perspective, you know, there are a lot of forces out there, including
congressional mandates that are, you know, in the case of bioterrorism, very
explicit.
And
one of the things that's driving my life now is that Congress, and the law that
I mentioned earlier, the new bioterrorism law has a couple of regulations, a
couple of requirements, that will go into effect on December 12th of this
year--one on registration and one on prior notification on imported foods--that
will go into effect whether FDA has regulations on the street or not. However, we have been mandated to write
regulations, and it is our strong
belief, and I think the belief of everybody we're hearing from in other
governments and the industry and whatnot, that, if we fail to have regulations
on the street, that there will be chaos; that everybody needs those regulations
in order to implement this law in an orderly way.
So,
whether we or anyone else, you know, necessarily would have chosen those as
being a top priority, it is certainly clear that the events of September 11,
2001 have altered the state of play in a very significant way for FDA and for,
frankly, all of the Federal Government.
But
also, I think aside from the very real issues, which I personally believe need
to be addressed in the area of bioterrorism, I think we're facing a situation
with the registration and prior notice activities, and I will be going
here--from here to a meeting about
those because we really need to publish those by October the 10th if we are to
have an adequate lead time. And we've
had a huge effort ongoing, and hopefully we'll meet
that date.
So
that's one thing that's kind of out of our control. But also, it's just one of the realities that, you know, the
world sometimes gives us things that we didn't expect.
With
regard to--when you talk about probiotics, I assume you're tying that back to
genetic engineering. And I guess my
general comment about that is that we try to keep up with products that are
actually entering the marketplace. And
that, of necessity, I think sometimes means maybe we're lagging a bit on things
that are under development that are not quite close to being marketed.
I
should, however, note a couple of other things with regard to genetic
engineering. We do have, you know, on
the pharmaceutical side of the house, a lot of activity that has been ongoing
for a number of years. And I'm not, you
know, qualified to speak about all of that.
But just keep in mind that bioengineered products are not just about
foods; they're about other things. And
the Agency has people heavily involved
in many of those areas.
The
other thing is, just to comment on your issue of methodology. That is something that is receiving
attention here and internationally, as well.
But, you know, what we are really focusing on here is our job of
evaluating the safety of in particular new plant varieties, and being sure that
we're doing that in the right way. And that's why we're seeking the advice that
we're seeking here.
DR.
SALYERS: Well, the reason I asked that
question, which our esteemed Chairman obviously thinks is not germane to the
issue at hand, and I think you sort of don't either.
But
my point is that, if we're going to talk about technology for evaluating
safety, fortunately because of the new types of technology that are available,
many of the things that we would talk about here today have broader
implications; and maybe we should be aware of those possible broader
implications; that there are broader uses.
And that was the only reason I
raised the issue.
MR.
LAKE: Well, no, I think, you know, I
mean you're raising an important point, and the Chair has added to the agenda,
if I'm understanding it, the issue of what are topics that this subcommittee
perhaps might address in the future; and maybe, at that time, you could, you
know, put some of those thoughts on the table.
And we're certainly anxious to hear from all of you on your thoughts,
and we'll certainly consider them.
By
the way, in my thing earlier, I did fail to mention the one thing that Jeanette
did briefly touch on. And after I'm
gone, if you have any further questions, Dr. Maryanski can address them; and that's
the National Academy of Sciences study on unintended or unexpected
effects. And, as Jeanette pointed out,
that is being co-sponsored by USDA and EPA, as well. And we are certainly looking forward to that input. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Anne?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Thank you. Thank you, Jeanette. That was a really nice, clear overview
presentation.
My
question has to do with when you talk about that you are using the language we
look at, for example, when you were showing the slide about intended modifications
and unintended modifications, I'd like to just get a better sense of how the
look at process really works. When--if
you're going into a consultation with a developer, are you primarily going to
look at what that developer on their own has though is necessary to do to look
for both the effects of the intended modifications and possible unintended
modifications? Or, to what extent are
you--and are you going to basically look at what they provide to you as they
think is the information and the issues they should be asking about. Or, to what extent are you going in with a
set of things that you think should be asked about, given their specific case.
And then, I guess, as a follow up to that question, how do you envision that
might change after the National Academy report on unintended modifications
comes out? And I'm sort of focusing
on the unintended modifications,
because that's clearly, I mean, from my perspective, that's sort of the main
bug-a-boo in this area. And,
personally, I'm interested in, you know, helping the agency come up a way that
those unintended modification issues can be addressed in a way that's not going
to completely paralyze the Agency. I
don't think it's realistic for the Agency to be the one that actually carries
out the risk studies and all the assessments.
I think the burden of that has to be on the developers. But I'm interested in helping the Agency
figure out what's a good balance so that, you know, there is some kind of
independent--if it's not a standard checklist, which may not be always useful,
at least some kind of independent process of sort of going through, an
eliciting of, you know, have we thought of this. Have we thought of A, B, C, and D to make sure that the developer
has done an adequately thorough job.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Okay. Excellent.
For a while there, I was going, yes, yes, no, yes, to
your various questions. But since I've
lost track of which are yes and nos, I'll try to answer it in a more global
sense.
As
I mentioned earlier, there are specific principles and flow charts in our 1992
guidance document that walk the developer through the types of considerations
they should be evaluating toxicity, allergenicity, is there a marker gene, is
the marker gene expressed for an antibiotic that, you know, is valuable
clinically. So we have principles in
general in our 1992 policy.
Then,
when the company comes in for the early part of their consultation, this
iterative process, we develop collaboratively what they're going to be
doing. They usually will bring us some
early data, and we'll look at it. And
in terms of unintended effects, we may be looking at a Western Blot, and see
that there's a protein that, you know, doesn't belong. It's the wrong shape, size, and it's showing
up on--and then we'll be going, what's that?
And why is it there? And what's
your explanation for that?
And
so, they'll go, okay, well, we, you know, sequenced this little piece, and we
found out that this happened.
So--it--we have--so what
I'm--I guess I'm trying to say, we have
principles that people follow using our 1992 policy, and our 1996 consultation
procedures, which are also on the web.
Then we have an iterative case-by-case discussion; it's a chat that we
have with these people. They tell us
what they're doing. We tell them the
kinds of regulatory and scientific questions we think arise based upon what
they're doing. And they will go out and
develop the data that answer those questions, come back to us with a data
package, and we'll say, okay, these are the questions we asked. Did they address them? Are more questions raised by the information
that they developed? Do we need to go
back again?
And
so it's a collaborative, iterative process based upon established principles,
plus a case-by-case interaction.
And--has
that answered at least a piece of your question?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Yeah, the second piece I
guess is I was just wondering how you envision the, you know, the
recommendations you get from the NAS?
Do you envision that, at this point, changing this process in some ways
and?
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: I just don't have a good
picture in my crystal ball about that.
We're real excited about the potentialities for what we can get, and how
we might use that. We're hoping that
they will do something similar to what you're doing today, and say, okay, the
technology has changed enough that we can recommend that you ask for this type
of information or that they develop this type of data, because this will
provide valuable information. But I'm
not sure what's going to happen with that.
But we're looking forward to it.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Nina?
DR.
FEDOROFF: My question is partly
historical and partly contemporary. It
has always puzzled me that the EPA was approving or not approving StarLink corn
based on the potential for allergenicity of the cryonide seed. That seems to
be your bailiwick, because it's
environmental.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Your confusion is
understandable. I didn't spend a lot of
time at the very beginning talking about the regulatory framework because I
wanted to speed through into FDA's part.
EPA is responsible for evaluating both the environmental and the human
food safety for pesticidal proteins, for plant incorporated protectants. And so this is mostly BT products. It's the way the framework of the law is
divided up. We will look at the product
and see if there are any considerations in terms of compositional changes that
might require, like, different labeling.
So we do evaluate the product from FDA's perspective, only we love the
fact that on StarLink, we can do this huge burden shift. It wasn't our responsibility.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Pardon?
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: It wasn't our
responsibility.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Yeah, I noticed, though--on
the other hand.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Because of—
DR.
FEDOROFF: On the other hand, is there
any effort to make the criteria uniform?
Is there any effort to reconcile your criteria and theirs?
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Absolutely. Mr. Lake mentioned the fact that we have
collaborative efforts that are ongoing.
We are right in the middle of discussions with EPA and USDA about what
our requirements--I say requirements loosely since it's a voluntary
program--but what types of information we look at in the data packages that we
get. Mr. Watson, Dr. Watson is working
on that right. He developed this table,
and we pay very close attention to the kinds of information that EPA developed
in terms of allergenicity detection for the StarLink, because that's something
that's real pertinent to us. Those of
you who were on the previous meetings, subcommittee meeting, you know, heard
about what we're doing about allergenicity, and the kinds of considerations
we're taking. A lot of that came from
our interaction with our counterparts at EPA and their experience with
StarLink.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Bob?
DR.
BUCHANAN: A general question: how many
new conventional foods and genetically engineered foods do you approve per year
approximately?
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: I'm sorry. I didn't.
DR.
BUCHANAN: How many new conventional
foods, for example, a new type of nut that existed somewhere, and it's sought
to have approval in the U.S., and how many genetically engineered foods do you
approve per year?
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Per year. Okay.
We have since 1994, when we first started receiving these biotech
notification files, or BNFs, evaluate a little over than 50. If you're talking about do we have some
brand new novel, never-before-seen food on the marketplace, I don't think that
you could characterize it that way.
It's mostly people who have taken maize, soybean, cotton, and they have
added an herbicide tolerant, or a pest-resistant chain to it. So it's something that, if
you drove by the field at 55 miles an
hour, you'd look out there and say, that's cotton.
So--just--an entirely novel crop isn't
something that we see. We see mostly
modifications to existing commodity crops.
DR.
BUCHANAN: So there's no new macadamia
nut or something like that?
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: No, not at this point in
time.
DR.
BUCHANAN: Thanks.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: That could be coming down
the research pipeline. Who knows?
DR.
FEDOROFF: I think your question was
whether your approve, when someone brings in a new whole food from a different
part of the world that has not been marketed here before, wasn't that the
nature of your question?
DR.
BUCHANAN: Right. Yes, right.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Okay, so it's like--
DR.
FEDOROFF: I misunderstood your
question. Do a kiwi fruit--
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: --If I showed up from
New Zealand.
DR.
BUCHANAN: Yeah, kiwi is a great
example.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Okay. If--I mentioned that our post-market
adulteration provisions were the primary legal tool for evaluating whole
foods. If something came on the market
today, and we didn't have any information indicating that it
was--had toxicant, or wasn't allergic,
we probably would have no need to take action; and so we would not utilize our
post-market authority to take action against that crop. However, if something came on the marketplace
that was just totally novel for the American food supply, we have our authority
under the Act, totally aside from the bioengineered food process.
DR.
BUCHANAN: Yeah, that was the--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: That's separate from the
biotechnology activity. So I'm not sure
that--
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I'm trying to keep us obviously
focused--
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Well, I'm trying to
explain is that we still use our authority under the Act for bioengineered
foods. If we needed to see something
that was adulterated or, you know, if we saw that something needed to come
through the petition process, we would do that for a bioengineered food. So the Act applies uniformly. We have the same safety standards for all
foods the FDA evaluates.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: First of all, before I call on
Doug again, are there others who have not asked a question that want
to--clarification questions?
Or,
last call for Bob Lake.
Doug?
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Yeah, I want to make
two points of clarification. They're
not actually questions, but they're both points of clarification. In terms of new foods, I know of at least
one that's come on the market in the last few years in the U.S. It's called Kworn. It's made with fusarium finatum.
It's a soil fusarium. It
was never the food supply before; was
marked in Europe, and did go through the grasp process at FDA that did have
some toxicity studies, animal studies, et cetera that that was subjected
to. That was, again, grasp studies,
voluntary.
To
Anne' question, I would just like to venture, and I know the committee isn't
really privy to this, but when we did our study looking at FDA, we FOIAed not
only the actual data packages that FDA looks at, but also the communications
between the developers and FDA. And I
won't say that it's impossible that I missed anything, but only found about six
examples where FDA, on record, asked the company, let's say for more data or
for clarifications. And three of those
went unanswered or were not, we felt, adequately answered. So, there certainly is give and take. Maybe some of it isn't on the record. It should be. But there's not, from our perspective of what we saw, a lot of
information to indicate that FDA is pushing the companies for more data.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Doug, to keep us--
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: So that's—
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: On line that's good discussion
comment, but not in the presentations.
We have this afternoon to get into discussion. We're still in the clarification--questions for
clarification. Dennis?
DR.
GONSALVES: Well, I just was going to
add, you know, the question on the whether FDA asked questions that had an
impact. Well, when we were deregulating
the transgenic papaya, we actually were moving two lines through the
process. And when we hit the FDA,
another line had some other inserts in it, and because of the questioning that
we needed more data, basically we withdrew that line, because we did not have
enough information. So the point here
is that--the experience that I had was that the questions that FDA did ask had
an impact on our actions to withdraw one of the papaya lines.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Just a quick remark. I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to say that FDA, along with all
the other regulatory agencies,
occasionally struggles with the do we
want to know this or do we need to know this.
And occasionally, we do err on the want to know, but primarily believe
that when we ask questions, it's in the need to know area. And if a company or developer did not
provide us with the information that we needed to know to evaluate the safety
of that product, we would not give them a letter saying that we had no more
questions.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Any more clarification. James?
DR.
ASTWOOD: Thank you. I have one question, and it kind of relates
to Dr. Fedoroff's earlier question.
Would you agree that, although it appears complex that both the EPA and
the FDA share jurisdiction over plant incorporate protectants, or BTs in
particular, that when you look at the history of the regulation of pesticides
and the experience that the EPA has with food-feed environmental safety of
chemical pesticides, and then the subsequent history that they have had
regulating and evaluating the safety of microbial
pesticides, including BTs, that it
makes sense, in fact, for the FDA and the EPA to collaborate and share
responsibility for the evaluation of those kinds of products.
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: Yes, I think the way the
roles are laid out right now has been working very successfully.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I have one last question. If the use of biotechnology has developed
to, let's say, double a specific nutrient--
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: I'm sorry. I'm not hearing
you.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: If one uses a biotechnology to
double a nutrient, a given vitamin or whatever, this is arbitrary, would that
be in the same consideration?
MS.
GLOVER GLEW: As I just mentioned
briefly is we believe that some of the products that are going to be coming
down the research pipeline are going to be products that are targeted to
consumers who want to have increased levels of, you know, a fancy nutrient or
something. And
certainly a product that was
bioengineered and had an alteration in its nutrients would--we would request
that they come to FDA during our--are part of our consultation process. And if there was a substantial change in
nutrients, we would probably have to consider whether or not the product would
need different labeling or a different common unusual name.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: We're at break time. I just would like to--before we come back
say that what I'm trying to do is keep us on focus. Our charge is to consider the current FDA approach to the
molecular characterization of bioengineered foods and make suggestions for
additional information that will be needed.
We'll try to stay with questions of clarification for the next three
presenters. And then we can get, and
after public comment, get into depth of discussion and where we want to--what
we want to tear apart and put together.
Let's take 15 minutes. Let's
start promptly at 10:14 on my watch.
[Whereupon,
the meeting went back on the
record at 10:15 a.m.]
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: May we reconvene, please. The next presentation is on the Codex
Approach, by Dr. James Maryanski. I
have been negligent in my chairing to remind you all--I've just been calling
you by your first name, and it's appropriate that individuals give their name
before you make your comments or you ask your questions so that it's in the
official record. I think the
stenographer, being that no one has the same first name, we're all right. But if would be appropriate that everyone
give their name as they speak. And with
my voice, I rarely have to do that.
Most people, whenever I talk, people know who I am. I'm--I guess I've stalled long enough. We're about ready to--
DR.
FEDOROFF: Almost everyone's back.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Almost everybody's back.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Not quite. She's still getting coffee.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Yeah, and we will have Dr. Anne
Kapuscinski read her name into the record
when she returns, because she wasn't
here on our initial round. But she is
here for the record.
Dr.
Maryanski?
DR.
MARYANSKI: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
I
have the pleasure to tell you a real success story in biotechnology this
morning. You know, we hear so much
discussion that's often seems either difficult or even contentious; and you
often hear of differences between our country and other countries around the
world on biotechnology.
I
want to tell you a really different story, a story where everybody actually
came to agreement at the end of the day.
So this is really a pleasure to be able to tell you about the new
guidelines that have been developed on the--in the international community for
assessing the safety of foods developed by biotechnology, and one which we at
the Food and Drug Administration have participated in.
But
let me first tell you who Codex is.
Many of you, I'm sure, know, but, in case you don't
know, the Codex Alimentarias Commission
is the body that has been established under the U.N. system by the parent
organizations--the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture
Organization. Codex Alimentarias is
Latin. It means food code. And, as such, it is a collection of
internationally adopted food standards and guidelines, and those are intended
to ensure consumers' health, as well as to facilitate free trade. And, so, this is a body that has been in
existence since 1962. There are about
169 member countries, so this organization has global representation around the
world in both developed and developing countries, as well as NGO
representatives that include public interest groups, as well as industry. And so it's a very broad organization.
Woops. Wrong way.
Sorry. In 1999, the Codex
decided that it would take on some work in the area of food biotechnology, and
it established a temporary committee.
Codex has lots of committees that work on various things. But it
also occasionally establishes temporary
committees for specific purposes; and these are often called ad hoc task
forces; and, in this case, with the long title of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental
Task Forces on Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology was established by the
Commission in 1999. It was given a
four-year charter, and Japan was selected as the host country to facilitate
this committee. And the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare was the
part of the Japanese government that ran the secretariat, essentially helped
organize the meetings for this.
The
task force was chaired by Dr. Ushikora, who is world renowned virologist, and
is fluent in both English and French, and Japanese, of course; and did a superb
job of negotiating through various complex issues during discussions. And I think everyone involved recognized
that the Government of Japan deserves a great deal of credit for the success of
this work.
Japan
did host four meetings of the Task Force that just concluded this past March in
Yokohama. And the recommendations that came out of that work then were
presented to the Commission at its meeting this summer.
The
Task Force was given, in terms of reference by the Commission, which you see
here, very general terms, consideration for the elaboration of standards,
guidelines, or other principles for foods from biotechnology. So a very broad mandate. The Task Force, at its first meeting, in
looking at this mandate, felt that there are many things in the word of food
biotechnology, and it would have to somehow identify work that it could
accomplish within four years so that it would have something finished at the
end of that time; and do that in a way--on a priority basis. And they felt that since foods derived from
crops were already in the marketplace that that should be the top priority; and
that they would focus their work on developing guidelines for assessing the
safety of those foods for human consumption.
They
also felt that foods developed using
organisms modified using recombinant
DNA, using microorganisms modified with recombinant DNA techniques, would also
be on the frontier and of a priority.
Animals,
of course, were well understood to be in research, but they felt they were not
quite ready to discuss animals yet at this time.
So
that was the order of work that was set out by the Task Force.
And
the work that was accomplished I'm really showing you here the final product,
and then I'll tell you what it means.
But the Task Force, within its four years of work, developed three
documents.
One
was a--the principles for risk analysis you see here. That's really an umbrella document that talks about how risk
assessment and risk analysis can be carried out within the existing framework
of the Codex. And it's thought to be
sort of an umbrella for the guideline documents, but the real crux of the
matter, the important work, are the two guideline documents.
The guideline on foods derived from
plants, and the guideline on foods derived from microorganisms. Both of these guidelines have an appendix to
them as well that deals with assessing the possibility for allergenicity for
new proteins that would be in the foods derived from the plants or
microorganisms. And so those also are
important documents that go with and are part of these guidelines documents.
These
documents were presented to the Codex full body at its meeting this summer, and
were adopted unchanged. And they are
available, at least in their draft form, on the Codex website. They will be published simply taking off the
draft. So they are the texts that--I
believe we have given you the texts for the guidelines for foods derived from
plants, because that's the one we'll be focusing on for the discussion today.
Now,
I want to talk about one of the principles that the Codex felt was
important. The Codex system has a
number of defined terms--risk analysis, risk assessment, risk management, and
so
forth--that are all well understood
withing the food safety system and Codex to deal with things like pesticides
and food additives and contaminants in food, essentially single chemical
substances. And often times, certain of
those substances will have some hazard associated with them and how to manage
that in terms of tolerance setting, for example, for pesticides. But it was recognized early in the
discussion that we're dealing with food crops when we're talking about foods
derived from crops, and trying to establish guidelines for safety
assessment. But these are crops we're
well familiar with--corn, potatoes, soybeans, and so forth--that are modified
in some way, using recombinant DNA techniques; and that often when we go
through the process of evaluating these, we don't find a hazard. In fact, that has been in the case in the
50-some varieties has looked at.
And
so we felt that there really was a new term that was important here. And so we established the term "safety
assessment" as a way of having something to focus on that really takes
the emphasis on making sure that this
food is as safe as other foods, but doesn't necessarily find a hazard or a
risk. So, if a hazard is identified,
and, of course, there's always the possibility that that could be the case,
then that hazard, then, would be treated as it is in the Codex system. You wold have to decide does this food have
to be removed from the marketplace, or are there conditions by which the food
can be marketed, recognizing the nature of the hazard; for example,
establishing a tolerance for a pesticide as a way to manage a risk. And so, if there's a hazard identified, then
the system would work just the Codex systems normally operates. But the focus that we're going to talk about
is really on safety assessment.
So
safety assessment, then, is something that the Task Force felt was important,
recognizing that it does fit within the Codex framework. But it's--this safety assessment process is
really a comparative process. It is one
we recognize that the standard that we have are the crops that are
already out there. The foods that we have accepted in the
marketplace are the gold standard.
That's what we consider to be safe, recognizing that no food is
perfectly safe or necessarily safe for all individuals all of the time. But, in fact, the process, then, is to
compare the new food with what has gone before, with its counterpart. And the purpose of that is to try to
identify whether there are any differences in the new food derived from this
newly modified plant that would have any effect on health; and where those
differences are identified, to make sure that those differences are also safe
for the consumer.
So
the idea is to look at what's new; make sure that that's safe for the consumer;
make sure that the food is still what it's expected to be, because this is food
that we have consumed and have a history of consuming. And this comparison should take into account
both the intended changes that have been made in the plant, as well as, to the
best that one can, to look for any unintended changes that may have occurred;
and make sure that
if they have occurred and can be
identified, that they are also safe.
This
is what we call substantial equivalence, a big, long term that is often
confusing, but a very simple concept.
We don't decide at the end of the day that the food is substantially
equivalent. That's not the
decision. This is the tool at the
beginning of comparing what's new; what's different about this new product, if
anything, and making sure those differences are safe. That's what we mean by substantial equivalence.
The
Codex has adopted a number of definitions so that they would have terms to use
in the documents that would be understood by all the countries. Modern biotechnology was adopted as the
general term, and that was adopted because it had already been defined in the
Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, so there was a large agreement on the definition
by many countries, and so it was felt that there was no need to create a
different definition and that would work for the purpose of
this work of elaborating food safety
guidelines.
The
Codex also did something that I think was very useful. They avoided all the terms that cause
everybody a great deal of angst, such as genetic engineering, genetic modification,
GMOs, and other kinds of terms that would be difficult to get consensus. And, so, they simply referred to recombinant
DNA plant or recombinant DNA microorganism where they needed to refer to the
modified plant.
And
then they did, of course, design--or define conventional counterpart because we
have a comparator, they wanted to make clear what we mean by the
comparator. The comparator is a food or
a component of food for which there is a safe history of use. And the Task Force recognized that, in some
case, there might have to be more than comparator used in a particular
assessment.
But
those are the definitions. I don't want
to spend much time on those, just to make you aware of them.
And
I'll quickly just go through some of
the elements of food safety assessment
that are laid out in the Codex guidelines.
These will be no surprise to you, but it is, of course, asking what the
plant is. What's known about the plant
in terms of its use for producing food?
How has it been modified? What
are the new techniques that have been used?
The
Codex guidelines use a method of first describing what the developer intends to
do, and then going on to characterize what was actually done. So you will see paragraphs that start
description of molecular characterization, for example, or genetic modification
rather; and then characterization of the same thing. That's the reason for the difference. The idea is, well, they intended to do this. This is what they started to do. Now, what did they actually do? What do you find actually occurred. So that's how the document is set up.
In
terms of safety assessment, of course, use for substances that would be in the
food are really one of the major keys to safety assessment,
and are those substances likely to have
any impact on public health, including toxicity or allergenicity. As I've said, there is a separate guidance
that deals with allergenicity. I think
that today that annex represents the best consensus that there is
internationally on how to approach the question, is a new protein likely to be
an allergen.
The
compositional analyses are part of addressing unintended effects, a part of
answering the question, is the food still what we expect it to be?
Evaluation
of metabolites: if there are new substances of food that break down into other
metabolites, obviously one wants to be sure that any other substances are also
safe.
Effects
on food processing may be taken into account.
In some cases, of course, such as a refined oil, there may be no protein
in the food. Or there may be other
cases where the processing may concentrate things in the processing of the
food.
Nutritional
modifications. Obviously, if the food
is modified in a nutritional sense, it has to be looked at in terms of the
overall diet of what people eat, not necessarily just the modification of this
particular food, but how does that affect the diet and what are its
implications; and other considerations, such as the use of selectable marker
genes and so forth.
Now,
to get more to the topic of today, the guidelines do set out, in a number of
paragraphs, first, as I said, describing what the developer has done in terms
of a genetic modification, what is the host plant that's being modified, what
are all the materials that are contributing to that modification, in terms of
the source of the organism; the genetic material that's obtained from those
organisms and how that's combined and introduced into the plant; what is
introduced; what its size is; what its function is and so forth; and then going
to what actually happened in the plant, characterizing the plant in terms
of--at the molecular level, what are the
genes that have been inserted; how many
sites; how many copies.
Using
sequence data to identify open reading frames, for example, so that one can get
a sense of what likely substances are--can be expected, and will those be
present in the food.
The
Codex discuss the sequencing of the inserted region and the border sequences,
as well. And they also recognize that
there are other ways to get at the question of expressed substances, looking at
transcripts and expression products as a way of keying in to what might be new
substances that would be present in the food.
So
I think in terms of looking at new substances, the molecular data being used to
both establish what is the function of this substance; what's the phenotype of
the plant; what is the level of expression.
In other words, one of the common food safety questions is always how
much do we eat. So are these metabolic
enzymes or are these substances that are seed-storage proteins. What will this mean in terms of actual
consumption.
In
some cases, we can think back to the old flavor saver tomato. We may be actually not adding genes, but
modifying the genes.
[Reporter notes that main tape deck stopped
here due to a sticky tape.]
inclined to modification. So that is here in the guidelines, as
well. And there are other things that
are taken into account when this genetic material has been inserted. Have there been rearrangements in the DNA,
and is there any consequence of those in terms of safety for health.
Post-translational
modifications of the proteins that may have occurred as a result of changes in
protein sequencing and so forth. And is
this material inserted in a way that it will be heritable, stable, over several
generations.
So
I think that these are things that are not of any surprise to you.
So
what is the goal of these guidelines?
First of all, that the food should be safe; that it should not, when
it's used as it's intended to use, it should be as safe as other foods on the
market.
And that's important. We're not trying to show that this food is
absolutely safe or guarantee that the food is safe. We're comparing it to foods that are already on the market. We're not accepting foods that would be of a
lower standard with respect to safety, so they should be as safe as their
conventional counterparts, taking into account any changes in dietary patterns
that may occur, if there have been nutritional modifications. And the idea of these safety standards within
the Codex system is then to allow risk managers to have information that if
there are hazards identified or other considerations that have to be taken into
account, that they have this information that is based on sound science that
they can use then to make their decisions about allowing these products to
enter the marketplace.
So
this is--these are the new guidelines that have been adopted in the Codex
system, and represent an international guideline and, basically, yardstick for
countries to look at to see whether a food has been evaluated in a manner
that has been accepted in the
international community. One of the
things that these guidelines do note is that while this is all focused on
recombinant DNA and was designed to answer questions about recombinant DNA, no
one knows any other way to evaluate the safety of a whole food if we were asked
to do so. So if someone came to FDA and
said, well, we didn't use recombinant DNA, we used some other method, how should
we go about evaluating the safety of this food.
We
would point to similar guidelines. Our
own or these guidelines, because we don't know any different way. Some of the questions might be different,
just as some of the questions might be different for recombinant DNA product
that might present different characteristics than have been laid out in this
general framework. But while this focus
is on our DNA, you should really think of this as way to evaluate the safety of
a whole food using a scientific approach.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Thank you. Abigail?
Abigail Salyers. Say your name, and then we'll have it in the
record.
DR.
SALYERS: Abigail Salyers. Okay.
So my question is I don't know if any industries are getting ready to do
this, but, in theory at least, one could produce foods that are safer. Take the peanut, for example, if you could
produce a peanut that didn't make peanut allergic people sick, and you used
recombinant DNA to do that, would proving that that is a--I mean, how would you
evaluate something like that?
DR.
MARYANSKI: I would actually--
DR.
SALYERS: Casava also has been brought
up as a possible case--
DR.
MARYANSKI: Right.
DR.
SALYERS: Where they might use
recombinant DNA to--
DR.
MARYANSKI: No, and actually, of course,
the Japanese did some early work using antiscents, trying to suppress the
allergenic proteins in rice, and, you know, it was partially successful. The problem with allergenicity is that
there are a number of proteins within
any given food that are allergens, and some are more allergenic to some
individuals than others. Dr. Astwood is
much more of an expert in this, and Dr. Jones, who works with me, is also much
more knowledgeable about this. But I
think the potential is there for--
DR.
SALYERS: I'm just asking in terms of
the Codex, do you think that the basic principles there would apply to cases--
DR.
MARYANSKI: Well, I think that one of
the things that Codex recognized is that these guidelines were set up to assess
the safety of food. They--we--they
can't really address that question in the sense that you would have to look at
clinically, probably, whether the food still can cause clinical reactions. In other words, have you eliminated all of
the allergenic potential, or at least sufficient allergenic potential that that
food is going to be safe for consumers. That's going to be a difficult standard
to meet, at least as far as we know technically now. No reason not
to try, of course.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Benedict?
DR.
BENEDICT: Steve Benedict. The previous question actually raised
another thing. Isn't it true,
though--this isn't my question. Isn't
it true, though, that if someone did attempt to eliminate an allergen, it would
still have to go, the product would still have to go through the Codex for
changes in safety and unintended effects and other sorts of things? Exclusive of what you talk about proving no
longer allergenicity, you still have to take it through all the recombinant
questions; would you not?
DR.
MARYANSKI: Yes. I think if you're asking would--for the
product to be acceptable in various countries, and it's, you know, modified
using these techniques, I think that today at least most countries would expect
that it would also
be--you know, these other issues would
also be taken into account.
DR.
BENEDICT: Yes. So actually my question is fairly trivial;
and that is at the
meeting, did anyone discuss the range
of sequence, border sequences up and downstream? How many KB that people thought should be sequenced in order to
determine that you're really not near an opening reading frame you could
influence?
DR.
MARYANSKI: I think that certainly one
of the questions that was raised was whether there could be any fusion
proteins. In other words, is the insert
done in a way that there's not
read-through into the plant DNA; and if
there is, then can you identify that.
But there certainly wasn't any boundaries given in terms of how far out
one should look. And, quite honestly,
some countries were interested in that more for methods of detection than
actual, you know, safety considerations.
So there were various reasons why people are interested in border
sequences. So, but our focus here, of
course, is on the safety assessments.
So, but the issue of whether that insert leads to any fusion proteins or
read-through into the plant genome that would express different proteins than
what the plant normally expresses, I
think is the sort of fundamental
question about the region surrounding the insert.
DR.
BENEDICT: Yeah, one of the things I
recall that we sort of discussed in 1994 was insertion into a gene, which you
would pick up with just a short distance, inactivation of a host gene. But the other possibility is that if you're
bringing in regulatory sequences, the possibility of some sort of downstream
promotion, having not so much to do with fusion, but just is there an opening
reading frame nearby that, for some esoteric and maybe unpredicted reason, you
can, in fact, activate or inactivate an adjacent gene. And so that was why I asking how many KB
downstream you should go to say, well, there's a low probability we're going to
influence a host gene in its expression.
DR.
MARYANSKI: Well, I think that's a very
good question for you to come back with after Dr. Cebula gives his talk.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Other questions of
clarification?
DR.
ARIAS: Jonathan Arias. James, I'm--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Could you? Why don't you pull the mike in front of you?
DR.
ARIAS: Is that better? Okay.
I'm concerned about the issue of substantial equivalence in regard to
characterizing the meat food as being no more unsafe perhaps than conventional
derivatives. Does this include
long-term studies, or just acute, sort
of toxicology biochemistry?
DR.
MARYANSKI: No, we have taken
long-term effects into account at FDA,
and in the Codex, because long-term effects are, of course, a question and a
difficult one. But we know a lot about
the foods that we eat. There are also a
lot of things about foods we don't know.
I don't know what consuming carrots over my life time does for me, other
than my mother told me it was good for my eyesight. But whether it has any other effect on my health over consuming
that, or any food does, we know very little about long-term effects of most of
the foods that we consume beyond the nutritional
kinds of things that are, you know, we
know about saturated fat and so forth.
But we don't really know much about consuming foods to begin with.
What
we do know about foods is that they do contain certain nutrients, certain
toxicants, and so forth, and that we have accepted the foods that we have in
spite of the toxicants that certain crops have; that at the levels those occur,
we've accepted those as safe. What we
believe about the foods that we've seen so far with bioengineering is that the
modifications that we see are fairly small modifications of the genome. And
most of these, of course, produce metabolic proteins in the case of the
proteins that FDA looks at or the BT proteins or viral proteins that EPA has
been seeing. And we know a lot about
protein toxicity, and we know that the proteins that we're seeing do not lead
to
long-term effects. So we know at least the introduced proteins
do not lead to long-term effects. And we're not aware of any reason why these
foods would produce long-term effects any differently than foods developed by
other methods
of plant breeding.
DR.
ARIAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Are there other questions. Dr. Benedict?
DR.
BENEDICT: Since there's open air--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: It's Steven Benedict.
DR.
BENEDICT: Steve Benedict, again. One of the things that, as I read through
this, clearly, you're dealing heavily with allergenicity, and the thing that
came to mind, and I'm an immunologist, and I'm not sure I have the definition
correct, even though I am an immunologist; but, as we all know, there are
billions of epitopes going through the system daily, and their toleringenized
[ph]. And so we've been tolerant,
immunologically speaking, to all of those.
And the lack of tolerance may lead to an allergenic response. But lack of tolerance might not necessarily
be allergenic, but it might, in fact, lead to something that was immunogenic,
and I'm not sure that there--this is where I'm not sure that there's a
distinction between the two, because
I haven't thought it through for more
than five minutes. But the possibility
seems to me that that checking for immunogenicity exclusive of allerogenicity
[sic] might be something that someone should think about other than me. And I'm wondering whether that came up at
the Codex discussions.
DR.
MARYANSKI: Yeah. I would say yes that it did in the sense
that there was certainly a recognition that there is more to allergenicity and
immunogenicity than IGE responses. I
think that what was felt to be important is that we do our best to address the
issue of the IGE kind of response because we know that certain proteins are
allergens through that mechanism, and that the idea of transferring genes from
one source to another, and obviously the expression of those proteins, raises
the question of whether there could be an IGE-type response.
I
think that your question is one that's much more appropriate when we get to the
issue of allergenicity as opposed to the molecular subject
today.
But I just want to recognize that, yes, there is--we don't just simply
put blinders on; that we only look at IGE.
But these guidelines are focused on IGE because of the need to address
the safety of the new proteins.
DR.
SALYERS: Just a brief question. Abigail Salyers. The--we have people who are today who are living a lot longer
than in the past, and we also have people who are alive today, like cystic
fibrosis patients, who were not alive in the past, and so did the Codex
consider the fact that we've got these new populations of people, especially
I'm thinking especially about the geriatric population, where our previous
experience may not be as good a guide as we tend to think it is as to effects
that foods, even conventionally used foods, might have.
DR.
MARYANSKI: Yeah. I'm becoming much more interested in the
geriatric population.
[Laughter.]
DR.
SALYERS: So am I.
DR.
MARYANSKI: Actually, the Codex didn't
address the geriatric population
specifically, but it did discuss the fact that there are basically subgroups
within the population that one needs to take into account, including the
elderly, pregnant women, infants and so forth.
And so, yes, while not addressing that in detail, the guidelines do
generally recognize that in thinking about the safety of a new product, you do
have to think about subgroups in the population as well as the population as a
whole.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Thank you very much.
DR.
MARYANSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: We'll continue on. Dr. Thomas Cebula on FDA's approach.
DR.
CEBULA: Thank you. I'm Tom Cebula. I'm the director of the Office of Applied Research and Safety
Assessment. I'm also the lead scientist
for molecular biology for the Center, and those that know me in the room know
that I never give a scripted talk. I'm
taking out a crib sheet because I was taking notes.
The
first thing I'd really like to say
about the process that FDA uses is that
it's an evolutionary one. And, since
joining the Center, I've interacted with Jim Maryanski, Bob Lake, others in
this room since about 1987, so, like Jim, I'm also worried about the geriatric
population.
In
that process, we saw a number of people come to us with a lot of ideas about
what they were going to do, and I think Dennis made a very valuable point when,
early in a consult, some advice might be given, the company goes back, and we
don't hear anything more about it. So
there is a lot of oral history perhaps that should have been captured, and
I--the point that you make earlier about how do we see those numbers. Early in the process, it was an evolutionary
one. I think Jeanette made a very good
point about after a series of discussions, clearly, we're trying to make that a
very much more transparent process to really capture how many times the sort of
advice that's given from this side out has influenced.
The
other point I'd like to make before going into my talk: I think Abigail Salyers
made a
very credible point about connecting
dots in the scientific community. All
science is interconnected and interwoven.
Jim Maryanski talked about R-DNA and the subject for transgenic
plants. Clearly, we've taken cues from
R-DNA in microorganisms. I serve as one
of the experts for WHO for the microorganisms in R-DNA. But Abigail's point
about probiotics. I'd just like to
extend probiotics, counter terrorism, and our budgetary process called
OMB. I do believe that what we have
heard is that there is a real need to really take some of the counter terrorism
dollars and move them into other areas of food safety.
I
believe something that FDA is doing, and our laboratories within CFSAN are
actively engaged in. My office, for
example, has the mission to ensure, to do research that ensures food
safety--microbiological food
safety--and we also have a team of toxicologists.
Post
9-11, that mission changed somewhat, and it became food security and food
safety. It's a very valuable point,
because the research that
we're doing for food safety could be
immediately applied to food security.
And, of course, those dollars that are coming in, we're using as a
twofer. So if we're developing methods
for the intentional contamination, those serve for methodologies for
accidental. So, again, we're trying to
be very proactive, recognizing that it's a zero-sum game. There's only a certain number of budgetary
dollars out there; and if it's applied to counter terrorism, we have to get the
most bang for the buck.
The
point about Vancomycin is a very important one. And I'm just going to say that probiotics in the genomic era, as
people have looked to sequence total genomes, people have looked at probiotic
organisms; FDA, in contributing to the genomics project, has often emphasized
it is nice to know that a bacillus cereus that is being used a probiotic, we
can know the entire genome. But isn't
it more important to know about a bacillus cereus that causes disease. So, again, FDA is trying to move in the
direction of saying if
we're going to use those dollars, let's
get some information about food safety from that.
I
just want to make sure that I've covered some of those points.
The
final thing I would say is that since 1987, we have served in a way as internal
consultants for some of the process that you've been hearing. We are primarily the laboratory portion of
the Center, and since our hands are the wettest on the techniques, we're often
called in to say how would you evaluate this.
So there's a very responsible team, and we interact with that
responsible team to offer some advice and also do the consult--also do a
review, as well. So there is, if you
might say, there is some partial duplication, but it's a very important
duplication, I believe.
With
that said, I'm really going to take some of the slides that Jeanette gave and
Jim gave and kind of put our wrinkle on it.
Jeanette
pointed out that really we're asking for companies to come in to provide the
documentation that assures us that
there's a reasonable certainty of no harm.
But I think the important caveat is this is the real opportunity to find
out what's in the pipeline and what's coming down in the future so that we can
be proactive rather than reactive.
We
neither prescribe or proscribe specific tests up front. We're there to hear what industry has to
offer, and somebody said, well, how much input do we have. Clearly, the input is we are going to offer
advice, but we're going to be focused on the characteristics of the food
product, as you heard Jim say, as you heard Jeanette say.
We
are there for scientific evaluation.
Our intent is really obviously the food safety question. But, as scientists in this room, as you
heard around the room, often we get off on a tangent. We talk about the strengths, and that should say limits of a
particular technique that might be used, because this helps us in future
deliberations. But our primary focus is
food safety, and that's the important thing to remember
for our evaluation here.
Again,
borrowed from Jeanette, we do take a multidisciplinary approach, but I want to
point out that the duplication is very important, because we're going to be
really focused on the molecular analysis and really talking about the genetics
of a particular manipulation or a particular plant.
We
often get clues from the chemical and nutritional analysis about stability and
genetic stability, so we're looking at pretty much the same thing that a
chemist might be looking at, a nutritionist, but perhaps from a different
slant.
Clearly,
as you've heard, we want to know about the identity and source of introduced
genetic materials because that will tell us a lot about what are the potential
food safety concerns. For example, in a
sidebar during the break, we were talking about transferring genetic material
from one microorganism to another. I
point out that the nomenclature has changed over the years, and something that
is streptococcus a few years ago and may have been considered commensal is now
enterococcus and is a pathogen. So we definitely ask people to identify the
organism, but to trace the nomenclature of that organism to ensure that we have
taken into consideration that nomenclature changes haven't affected our
assessment.
And,
again, the intended changes of the composition of the food--clearly, we're
always concerned about the intended effect, but, as you heard from all of the
discussions, clearly, in evaluating food safety, it is often the unintended
effects--allergenicity, toxins, and I should add the toxicants that Jeanette
mentioned--because in a manipulation, as you heard, if you happen to insert and
get downstream expression, you might get the expression of a toxicant. We want to know that.
The
allergenicity, as you've heard, will be a separate discussion, but I would
point out in our evaluation, since we are seeing sequenced data, the
bioinformatics tools are there to say what sites could be potentially
glycosylated; and these days, with the glycosylation kits, we're often seeing
the data for whether those sites are,
indeed, glycosylated.
The
nutrient levels. Again, you've heard
why we look at that, but I would just like to take a digression, and say when
we talk about natural foods, and we're looking at a nutritional status of
anything be it a nutrient and this is also true for a toxicant, you would
expect a normal distribution from the natural varieties over time. When you're looking at a R-DNA plant, since
the manipulations are among one variety, we would expect that distribution to
be much tighter, and the sort of data that we see says that. And so, if we're looking for toxicant
values, which might also be this value, where this is low to high, clearly the
data that we have been seeing up until now is that can fall on the low side of
the toxicant. So, when we're
considering an R-DNA plant versus a natural variety, we find that all of the
data, thus far, seems to follow the strength; that you're getting nutrients
that you expect, with a narrow distribution, and lower toxicant values. And I would say that's a fairly general way
of stating
the sort of data that we have been
looking at.
And
finally, something I neglected to say that our laboratories are very interested
in DNA repair and effects on the emergence of antibiotic resistance, and the
penetrants of virulent straits. We are
very interested in evaluating antibiotic resistance. And, again, from an evolutionary perspective of the process, as
you are all aware, the primary marker that was used early was antibiotic
resistance, and we now see a drift away from antibiotic resistance.
Now
stealing some of Jim Maryanski's slides and the Codex slides, I would really
like to emphasize some points, but I'm not going to reiterate all the
points. When we're describing the
genetic modification, the sort of data that we have been seeing is people are
showing you the nucleotide sequence of the material that they're starting with.
They're
telling you about the promoter set they're using. They're telling you about the terminator set they're using. That's a very
important piece of data, because that's
direct information, and now you can use indirect methods; and there's a host of
indirect methods that could be used to evaluate the construct once it's inside
the plant. And that's a very important
point as we consider do we need sequence data and how much sequence data do we
need.
What
I'm establishing here--if you know the sequence, you then can do a restriction
map and ask does--is the restriction map consistent with the sequence that was
delivered to the plant. You can look at
restriction maps. You can look at expression. Northerns.
We actually--or expressions of the protein, Westerns. Now, clearly, there's a distinguishing
factor here. If you look at expression,
Western analysis of the protein, you're usually looking at the intended
effect. The Northerns, however, give
you a lot of information, because, if there are other transcripts made, that's
something that we would be looking for as an unintended effect. So unless it is stated that the intended
effect is, any Northern
expression that would be aberrant, we
would be questioning what is the significance of this RNA, this extra RNA.
Again,
I've already made the point about marker genes and the nutritional
modification, so I'm just going to skip this slide and talk about the
transformation process that Jim alluded to.
Again,
when you are talking about a ballistic method of random insertion, we might
have a number of things that we're looking at.
You know, how many sites does this randomly insert. If we're talking about site-specific
recombination, if it is a site-specific recombination, it's a more tailored
type of mechanism. So, again, in making
the point that it is a case-by-case analysis, it's important that if you
prescribe the tests too soon, scientifically some of those tests would not make
sense or some of the questions would not make sense. So we're very interested in the DNA to be introduced--the genes,
the markers, the regulatory sequences.
But Steve Benedict mentioned a point about regulatory sequences and
sequencing, and I
really would like to make the following
points right here.
We
are consistent, I think, with Codex, we're talking about size, identity, and
location. If we're saying we know that
there is material inserted into a genome, say, the tomato genome. We are also consistent in saying we would
like to know orientation of that insert.
However, the location down to the nucleotide is something that we
personally don't ask for. And the
reason is, and I should state it up front: all of the effects that we're
looking at are SIS proximal because you can sequence 10 KB, 20 KB versus a
trans effect from another chromosome, you're going to miss it anyway. So I would really view them as a--up until
now, we have said that we are looking at SIS proximal effects and the integrity
of the genome in the intended and unintended effects the researcher has
inserted into a gene.
As
far as the data that we've been seeing, basically, there have been times over
the years, I can remember where people have provided inside-out
PCRs as to tell us some
conference. Okay so I will leave it at
that to say that the location to us is that it is inserted and that it is
stably inserted.
The
number of sites and organization.
Clearly, we all know that when the material goes in, that you have
duplication. Okay, so at the same site,
you can have many inserts lined up or you can have many inserts lined up at
different sites in the chromosome. One
is more important in our evaluation than another. If you have multiple copies at different locations, the chance
for recombination, reassortment, rearrangement, and ultimately effects on
genetic stability are much more of a concern than if you have a single
insert. So that's why talk about
wanting to know how many inserts and how are they located. And, of course, as Jim emphasized, we are
definitely interested in any open reading frame and insertions the possibility
of fusion proteins.
The
important thing here I wanted to emphasize un-translated RNA. Jim mentioned one possibility. If the intent is to make antiscents
RNA, it's not going be translated. We want to know about that. But there's another--it seems every journal
you pick up at least there are two articles in each of the journals talking
about un-translated small RNAs. That is
not our intent. We're not asking for
people to tell us about every small RNA that's produced in the plant, because I
don't know what those data would tell us.
But I leave that to you. That is
a very burgeoning field right now, the un-translated small RNAs that act as
regulatory molecules.
And,
again, the intended effect and heritable stability. I've mentioned a couple of ways we measure genetic stability or
we assess genetic stability. One of
them is the Mendelian inheritance.
Clearly, if the insert is unstable and is hopping, the mosaicism rather
than the Mendelian inheritance pattern would be seen. So that's a very important thing. But some of the other data that we've been talking about, the
expression data et cetera, are also measures of stability also.
And,
again, these should read strengths and limits rather than limitations, because
from the perspective of an R-DNA, it's important to realize that one or only a
few genes are being incorporated into the plant. There's a limited number of manipulations. One can talk about unintended effects, and
we'll get to that in a moment.
But
it's also important to remember that, as genes have been introduced by R-DNA
techniques, those genes will become the docking points for traditional
breeding, and those sites, then, will be now the conventional traditional
breeding that we're all used to. So,
again, as people talk about propagation of R-DNA, the R-DNA will be propagated
by traditional breeding also.
So
the questions that I took from this were what tests are necessary and are there
tests that should be required. I think
those are all the questions in your minds, and you will be discussing this
afternoon.
I'd
really like to point out that Mendel
did a nice experiment many, many years
ago, talking about round and wrinkled peas.
And that experiment was reproduced in the molecular era about a decade
ago or so. And basically, if you do
traditional breeding, and you get round or wrinkled peas, and then subject it
to some proteomics, you find that 62 of the 636 protein spots are qualitatively
different. The R-locus, of course, now
we know affects sugar content, lipid content, storage protein composition. But the round pea is safe to eat, and so is
the wrinkled pea. Okay.
The
way I would like to look at this is as we were musing about this in Paris at a
meeting, I went off to the Monet exhibit at the Musee Marmite, and there's some
wonderful water lilies, canvases that just dominate. For those that have seen, this is definitely Monet. Everybody knows the blues, the greens, the
purples. This one happens to be the
blues and the greens and the whites, but this is also Monet. It looks more like a Jackson Pollard. And this is about 1917. The other one was 1880. Okay.
But they're Monet, and I submit
to you that they're safe to consume.
[Laughter.]
It's
also important that Gottlieb and de Vienne in '88 did an experiment also that
found that if you take the AF mutants, you'll see that tendrils can replace the
leaflets. So it's something that you
wouldn't want to see in a plant. Weeding this is not a good characteristic,
but, basically, the protein profiles were absolutely identical. So, again, the tests would not reveal a
difference, whether it was a food safety issue or not. I'd leave that for
discussion.
I
said I'd return to unintended effects, because, again, I think we have to
recognize that, as the techniques get better and better, pleiotropy will be a
universal trait of any mutation. We
know how much cross-talk is going on in the cell, and within an organ, and
within an organism so that there will be always cross-talk anytime a mutation
is introduced; and now I'm talking about a point mutation, be it an insert of a
couple of genes or a point mutation, a base substitution.
So,
again, not to argue that pattern recognition can't work, okay. We are believers and users of technologies
like genomics, like DNA arrays, like proteomics. But, again, I'll borrow from the impressionists and say that
pattern recognition works Seurat proved that points of paint on a canvas can be
recognized. It can look like a
lighthouse, or it can look like an afternoon on the island of the Grand Jatte.
However,
in a regulatory setting, I want you to concentrate on the dog, because that dog
is very docile, at least captured at this moment. So when we are doing expression profiles, if that dog changes to
green, red, polka dot but remains docile, it is not a food safety
question. If that dog happens to bit
that individual in front, it becomes a food safety question.
I
submit to you that we're at a stage to recognize that expression arrays do,
indeed, work, but it's not at a point where we can find and isolate the genes
that define safety. And so, as people
are talking, I would suggest that we talk
about the new technologies as they
relate to food safety. And with that,
I'll stop.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I just want to make a
comment. You didn't need your entire 55
minutes.
DR.
CEBULA: That was intentional. I really wanted this to be a conversation,
and, as I had pointed out, I would--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Salyers.
DR.
SALYERS: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Please identify yourself.
DR.
SALYERS: Oh, Abigail--Abigail
Salyers. I have a question about the
extent to which or how you see your group's position vis a vis advising
industry about what it should do. I'm
struck, as I talk to various, especially the small biotech companies, but even
the bigger--people at the bigger companies like Monsanto is the extent to which
they have a very narrow range of expertise.
And even in the big companies, where they might have a broader range of
expertise, the components don't necessarily communicate freely with each other.
You're
a world renowned scientist with a lot of contacts, and I'm sure that you've--so
you're the sort of person I wish we had more of in industry, but we don't. And I'm sure you've assembled a group that
is--has outstanding representation of the various sciences; and that you are
probably more like to the many people in industry to become aware of changes in
the basic science technology. So my
question is one would hope that the FDA somehow could serve in an advisory capacity
to industry; and yet, of course, you see the other side of it, which is the
conflict of interest side I guess. But
how do you see your role as an advisor of people in industry?
DR.
CEBULA: I believe the--when I said that
we were serving a consulting role, I meant within the context of FDA.
DR.
SALYERS: No, I understand that.
DR.
CEBULA: Oh, okay.
DR.
SALYERS: So I'm just asking you to
expand on the outreach part of it.
DR.
CEBULA: In the outreach, I believe,
as I said since '87 or thereabouts,
everybody time somebody has decided to talk to Jim or Bob Lake, Jim Maryanski
has graciously said, well, why don't we get Tom involved. He may have some ideas. When we're out at meetings, we are
scientists; and, clearly, if there's a technique out there, you know, we're
doing that right with pyrosequencing.
Pyrosequencing is a very valuable technique. Some people haven't heard about it. We're using it. We're
saying how about this. So it is scientist
to scientist. We're trying to exchange
information and the technologies as we see it, and we're welcoming the input
the opposite way. We're getting
fantastic input from academia and from industry; and we're working collegially
I think--is the important thing. And if
I might say something about the whole process, again, over time, let's start
when we first consulted, if we said, do you have data. The first response was why. I believe now it is, you know, developed to
a point where people are saying, well, these are the sort of data, and this
is--there's scientific reasons for
the data. So, I believe there is a trust in its finest sense of the word, a
mutual trust, that questions aren't being asked for it would be nice to know,
but as was stressed in the two talks here, there is a need to know because it
may impact a safety decision.
And
so I think there's been a good rapport built up over time.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Nina Fedoroff. I was very struck by your cogently pointing
out that you can have many differences, and the foods are still safe. I think if people had suggested that we
would knock out starch genes and get sweet corn, somebody would haven't
objected to the religious grounds or ideologically grounds.
In
any event, the other point that you made that I'm struck by, and that leads to
my question, is that, so far, your assessments have indicated that the
distributions are narrower and that none of these unintended effects have
surfaced. My question is: how many
instances do you have to assess before you can evolve your
guidelines to say, okay, this is not a
major problem, we don't have to collect all of these data.
DR.
CEBULA: Well, I think one thing you've
heard from the two speakers before me, we are clearly waiting to hear what the
National Academy has to say. We're
awaiting what the input of your group will say. But, clearly, I wanted to point out there will be unintended
effects. The question is, will those unintended effects affect the quality or
food safety of--
DR.
FEDOROFF: Sure.
DR.
CEBULA: Okay.
DR.
FEDOROFF: But the other thing is that
there are--in--in-those of us who work on little experimental plants have been
making insertions left, right, sideways, hundreds of thousands of them. And the information that comes back is that
plenty few of them make a huge difference.
In fact, people struggle to identify insertions that change how the
plant grows, flowers, reproduces. It's
a very small fraction of them. And the
ability of insertion--even when people
set out to activate genes by pointing a promoter out, that doesn't even work
much of the time. It does work
occasionally, but not--certainly not as frequently as you'd expect. And it seems to me that there's a large
volume of information, not just new techniques, but accumulating information
from actually insertions done for mutagenic purposes that one could bring to
bear to increase the amount of information that you have available to you in
making judgments about how frequently there are unintended consequences.
DR.
CEBULA: Those data, indeed, would be
very helpful. I think when we were
talking about CalGene, I think that you were on the committee then, and I was
giving a talk. And I--you said the
problem is that the negative experiments are seldom, or can't be published, and
we're saying that we need that database, whether that database is in the
published literature or available, we would like to see the number of cases so
that that can really help us.
DR.
FEDOROFF: That's a real challenge
because people frequently don't--you know, they put a lot of effort into
identifying mutants. They don't put a
lot of effort into quantifying the frequency of those mutants.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Doug.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Doug
Gurian-Sherman. I think that whole
issue brings up a discussion that we should, you know, probably take up at some
point. But, with time limited, I wanted
to focus on a whole other issue.
You
mentioned several instances of types of data that you look for, so you--you
know, you talked about stability, and, you know, differences in nutrient
levels, and all that kind of stuff. One
concern that I have that maybe you could address is, what the level or type of
analysis that you consider to be acceptable, because, again, and I have to put
this in context of the studies that I looked at that you folks looked at, and
often found there was limited methodology described, limited statistical
analysis. You know, stability is one
thing brought up. Half the cases we looked at--a lot of them
did look at Mendelian analysis.
Probably half of them didn't do any statistical, like the chi square
analysis to tell you--I mean, you're not going to get a perfect four to one
ratio in most cases, so you have to have some kind of analysis that tells you
how much of a deviation you get, and then try to figure out what that means.
So,
I mean, I think a whole other issue the quality of the data, and the expected
level of analysis, and how--I mean, you know, one standard could be comparable
to what goes into a peer review journal.
To be frank, I don't think that, on average, that was the case. So how do you decide what the quality is
that's acceptable?
DR.
CEBULA: I think it's very important to
recognize that I said several times that one way of measuring genetic stability
is Mendelian inheritance. As I said, if
it weren't Mendelian inheritance, there would be a large deviation. However, if those were the sole data that we
were looking at, I would say yes, you would have to do a
very sophisticated statistical
treatment to unequivocally say it's Mendelian inheritance. But there's a body of other evidence that
says, the material is still where it is because on the second generation, we've
done, you know, a map that has provided us other data that supports it's
sitting in the same site that it started out with. It's also being inherited at almost, or, I mean, I'm taking your
word. You know, I don't know which data
you are speaking to. But if it's almost
Mendelian, and it's sitting at the same place, it's likely to be Mendelian
rather than some runaway jumping gene.
And that's so--you use the different techniques. I would rather see the company offer three
different techniques to verify it rather than working on the statistics to come
up unequivocally to come up with a Mendelian inheritance.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: I think that's a good
point, but, again, you know, addressing that issue: you know, when we looked at
this, some companies did do things like expression analysis for a bunch of
plants that, you know, the F-3 generation or F-4
generation, but many of them
didn't. And similarly, you know, some
companies did bioassays, but at levels of expression that might be, you know,
20 times over the lethal dose, so variations that could be fairly substantial
wouldn't even necessarily show up.
So,
I think, you know, what it comes down to often is a lot of times the devil is
in the details, as we'd all expect, you know, in empirical science. And I'll just raise it and leave it as a
concern that there need to be sufficient analytic standards, redundancy if you
want in tests, but then they need to be there.
And I didn't find that that kind of redundancy was there in many cases.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Jim.
DR.
ASTWOOD: This is Jim Astwood. Dr. Cebula, thank you for the thoughtful
presentation and interesting art. In
thinking about it, I was wondering if you could comment on, what seems to be in
this presentation, an analysis at the genotype level, you know, fundamentally,
if you think about it as a geneticist.
What importance should be
placed on the phenotype, the agronomic
evaluations, the compositional analyses, which can be thought of as biochemical
sampling--these other factors. How do
you, as a molecular biologist, how do you sort of think about the weight of
those different aspects?
DR.
CEBULA: Well, the agronomic issue I
believe is away from my bailiwick. I'm
expecting a company to make a decision if there's, I hate to say it, but
there's a different bottom line. If
it's going to be developed and marketed, there has to be one bottom line.
The
molecular analysis, by the time somebody has made the decision that they're
going to bring something forward, I believe they've already done some of the
routine analysis that impinges upon molecular biology; and that is the genetic
stability, the ease of manipulation, and when I say stability, I mean it on two
different levels: the internal rearrangements that could occur, the possibility
of methylation and silencing--all of those have been done by the time
they came in. So, in that sense, by the agronomic consideration that a company
might do, I feel that a lot of experiments have been done that we haven't seen
the data for. But, again, the data that
we're analyzing supports the notion that you have a stable insert; and it
supports the notion that it is constantly being expressed.
I
presume, again as Nina Fedoroff said, those data are to come by, but within the
notebooks, they are probably a lot of failures to come forth simply because a
methylation pattern decided to silence a gene or something. But those are the data that we don't see, so
we can't give statistics on those. But,
by the time we're seeing the data--
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Thank you, Dr. Cebula.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Identify yourself.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Anne Kapuscinski. I also appreciate your presentation, and, by
the way, I'm a lover of that art, and I was born in Paris, so it kind of got
under my skin a little bit.
But
I have a question. It seems to me
that the question about these genomic and proteomic methods for
the committee should really be, and I assume, therefore, for the FDA, should
really be how could using those help to improve sort of strategic searching for
the few cases where something unanticipated might cause a real food safety
problem, rather than asking about those techniques alone.
So,
I would like to get your feedback on that.
What I'm really getting at is I think I want to ask sort of what Dr.
Astwood asked but a little bit differently.
Isn't it better for us to think about how can we direct the use of these
techniques in combination with information at the level of biochemistry, and
then at the level of the whole plant, phenotype, et cetera, rather than ask to
only look at those techniques alone. I
think if we just look at those techniques alone, we're kind of barking up the wrong
tree. And I fully appreciate, you know,
your concern that the status of the technology right now is you could generate
tons of data about transcripts and expressed proteins and
not really know what it means. But I think it seems to me what we need to
do is figure out how can we, knowing that there's that limit, how can we direct
the Agency, and maybe even direct recommendations for research, to improve the
use of that technology in a very strategic, focused way so that it could add to
the toolbox that you have right now.
Because it seems like the bottom line challenge in this area is that,
yes, the large majority of the time, there isn't going to be a problem. We just want to make sure that that doesn't
make us complacent so that it becomes hard to proactively detect the few cases
where there will be problem. And we all know that coming down in the future,
this technology is becoming more and more powerful, and there's going to be
chances to make much larger scale changes as we get into gene stacking and
genes that we know will have major effects on composition because you actually
want them to have major effects. So,
that definitely raises the question that they might also have some major
unanticipated effects. So, we have to
be
looking at the future. So, what's your reaction to what I'm saying?
DR.
CEBULA: I think these technologies are
wonderful technologies to do just what you said, search and discovery. If I could read into your question and say,
what could you do to help, the first message that I would do--ask you to send
is to ensure that any of the technologies being used have been validated,
because there are a number of these expression chips out there, and you read
the same literature that I do.
Recently, one of the major manufacturers of a particular chip, there was
an article in Nature, called "When the Chips are Down." The company in their quality control missed
the fact that they put the wrong strand, and, even then, 30 percent of their
sequences were aberrant sequences. And
this was sent out, and people are using them, and flooding the literature with
array papers.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Trash.
DR.
CEBULA: The rush to public a new
technique has often showed us that there are lot of
holes in the technique. So, I would say that what you could do is
make sure that we don't damn a technology because we got started with the
technology prematurely.
So,
for expression, there are some very good examples. David Bottstein teamed up with Stanford to come up with a
lymphoma chip, very predictive. But to
get to using a lymphoma chip, they had to go back and show that the repository
for the sequences were cluttered with about 24 percent of the sequences that
had the wrong sequence.
So,
everybody's using these chips, and it takes a couple of scientists to say,
well, let's not rush to publish. We'll
just go ahead and find out what's going on first.
So,
my first message would be could you carry back and say, let's go slowly but
very together on making sure that the chips we're going to use to evaluate
biotechnology, natural foods, or any other is the best chip to make sure that
it's right. We don't repeat
mistakes. I mean, we saw
the same thing with the emerging PCR
technology. Everything gets exponential
the first few years, and that's where the mistakes are buried. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: But I think that's missing
the point. In order to make a lymphoma,
and you've made the point earlier, in order to make a lymphomas chip, it's not
only important to have accurate sequences, but it's important to have the
lymphomas.
DR.
CEBULA: That's right.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Okay. And that's really the whole point--is that
we're--we need to avoid focusing on the technology when we don't know what
we're measuring. There is a huge range
of permissible compositions that are perfectly good foods, okay? We seem to slip off that over and over and
over again. And I think it's extremely
important because some of the notorious incidents that have hit the press
worldwide have been based on the lack of recognition that the very processes
of transformation, the culturing of
cells, which has been used to generate variation, does generate variation. And, so, people attribute variation to
somehow this terrible recombinant DNA when it has to do with tissue culture.
But
it's not an unexplored territory. And
so the question is one of connecting the limits of variation with
permissible--and I think that we're going about it the wrong way. Instead of saying what is--characterizing
the entire range of variation for every component of foods, we need to collect
the information on what has proven to be problematic health
wise--glycoalkaloids in potatoes, sugar binding proteins, which are lectins,
which are under characterized as yet in both plants and animals.
But
it's not an infinite variety. One
doesn't have to look at everything.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: That was why I was asking
about, to kind to get your input, on how your thinking about potentially
directing the use of these new technologies for strategic searching
for the things that might go wrong,
sort of playing off of what Nina is saying.
So, I just wanted to get a sense of whether you, as a molecular
biologist, are thinking in those terms and whether you realize that or to what
extent you're thinking on drawing on information from the biochemistry and
other levels of the phenotype to guide, then, how you would use, for example, a
DNA chip.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: That the first comment there was
Dr. Fedoroff. The second one was Dr.
Kapuscinski.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: We'll let you respond, and then
we've got two more over here.
DR.
CEBULA: I apologize. Nina, thank you for bringing me back. You're absolutely right. That is the major point.
The
one thing that I think would be very helpful, and this is something that we've
discussed internally, is that narrow distribution versus the broad distribution
is, in a way, comparing apples and oranges, because that is the gamut of
varieties
versus one variety.
DR.
FEDOROFF: But only for one component.
DR.
CEBULA: No, I know. And no, no.
And what I meant to imply is if we are going to use the new
technologies, it might be important to really do counterpart, the natural
counterpart to, the variety from whence it came compared to the transgenic and
then ask, because I've looked at some data where clearly there are differences
in expression, but I don't know what it means; because I don't know what the
variety used, how that compared to the manipulated variety.
So
I think first of all we have to do some fundamental genetics. If you're going to approach it, approach the
new technology, take the new technology and combine it with some good genetics. That's all I'm saying. And, there, I would say that we would like
to see, you know, again,
data--if you're doing it strategically,
as you're suggestion, I would say that any gene that you see from an array
would be verified by another technique, a more sensitive technique.
To
say, if you have a knockout, do you get the expression that you expect or the
non-expression. It's what's going on in the field right now
in array technology everywhere else.
So, if it's going to be applied, and I'm not saying I'm recommending it,
I'm saying if it's going to be applied, it should be applied in a very
structured way to follow the sound scientific principles.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: First Jonathan, then Calvin.
DR.
ARIAS: Jonathan Arias. Thank you for the very interesting and
informative presentation. I had two
points, or questions, actually, to address.
One is in regards to the overall view of risk assessment and safety.
And
it seems to me that one of the difficulties intrinsic in these more
computational biological approaches of genomics and such is ultimately how to
interpret all of this data. Genes will
go up. Genes will go down. And are those changes in ways--or confer
changes in the plant that would be significant in terms of health.
And I think that's a real challenge,
that maybe the answer isn't quite known at present.
The
second point is related to more global issues, and that is, the input of safety
analysis. You mentioned that, and I
commend, that the FDA has a consultative process with developers, and, as part
of that, wants to get heads up about new products in the pipeline. Likewise, does the FDA also communicate what
they would perceive as recommendations to minimize risk intrinsic in the
state-of-the-art technologies, for example, the use of strong viral promoters
that can activate genes at distances might be, for instance, less preferred
than using more tissue of targeted promoter systems. Obviously, if a product is expressed in non-food components, it
may be less of a concern than if it's generically expressed in the plant,
including in the food component. So, is
that dialogue also two ways?
DR.
CEBULA: I'll answer the second
first. I believe it is. I think over the years, there have been a
number of times when, in a very
interactive discussion, FDA scientists
have made some suggestions, and that has led to a shift in the thinking of what
was going to be used. There have been
cases where we suggested an experiment, and I keep on saying it was an
evolutionary process; so these are earlier times, where the very technique,
there was a concern that there may be read-through through a border sequence,
and we suggested some experiments that ultimately turned out to be a very nice
publication for the company. I noticed
that in the acknowledgment that FDA scientists weren't acknowledged.
[Laughter.]
You
know those things happen, but it was a good experiment. It was a nice experiment. So, I mean, I think it happens, but again
it's part of that consultative nature: that somebody comes forward and shows
you the data. I think I said in the
sidebar, I almost treated it as an academic, you know, show me what you've done
in the lab lately. And over the first
few consultations, it was why do you want to know this. And, over time,
people said, I did this experiment
but. And, you know, that's how you find
how people are thinking. You know, we
really--it was more collegial, and people were opening up to say we were trying
this. It didn't work. We were trying this. It did work. That's the process that I'm trying to define, and I'm probably
not doing a good job of it. But it is a
learning process on both parts.
DR.
ARIAS: I think we recognize that in
very few cases are we going to find clearly demonstrable risks associated with
a particular transgenic plant. I mean,
those would be probably be quite evident in the range of studies that are done
to date. And it's the more subtle ones
that we would obviously be--considered as problematic. Thus, using new to change the overall level
of risk or probability of risk would seem to be also intrinsic in this
process. And I gather that's what I'm
hearing, as well.
DR.
CEBULA: I would just like to return to
your first question of combinatorial. I
actually should have put a slide in here, because I
usually keep the yeast genetics--the
yeast array up there. Brown, out at
Stanford, now has looked at 20 different strains of yeast, using a chip that
has about 2,000 pieces of DNA down there, so 2,000 reporting groups for each
experiment. And he's done it under
seven different environmental conditions.
So, you have 2,000 to the 20 times 7, 2,000 to the 140th power, bits of
information coming in. And so that's
why I'm saying, let's be careful what we ask for because that information
cannot be sorted through. And we will
always see genes go up and genes go down, but the question, again, remains is
it a food safety concern.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Qualset. You've been very patient. I appreciate that.
DR.
QUALSET: This is Cal Qualset. I've sort of forgotten what I was going to
talk about--
[Laughter.]
Because
I'm intrigued with this discussion. I'm
a old-fashioned plant breeder. And I
see us drifting quite a ways from the 1992 policy; that is, product versus
process issue.
What
I understand is that FDA will receive a product--is that not on?
DR.
FEDOROFF: I think it's not close enough
to you.
DR.
QUALSET: Okay. Anyway, I think that we are drifting away
from the discussion of approval of a product versus discussion of all the
academic issues of process. So, I think
we need to, as a committee or a group, needs to slow down on this and decide
what is important to know about a product.
And it's a--the developer is already obligated to product a product that
is stable; that demonstrates the functionality of a gene or segments being
introduced; and to show how they established the stability, the genetic
stability as well as the performance stability, over environments in which a
plant will be grown.
So
I think it will be nice to know about these various kinds of molecular things
that can happen with genes jumping around and all that. But the issue is, is the product produced
and is it stable. We cannot understand
every genetic thing
that could happen. But if the product is as advertised, and it
does not have any risks with human food safety as a whole food or as a
processed food, I think that we are thinking steps further than are necessary
for the evaluation process. So that's
just my comment. I'm throwing that out
as a point for detailed discussion I think by the people who understand both
product marketing, development; and they understand whether they're on the
right track.
So,
I like the idea that there's consultative process with FDA, so they can kind of
get a clue of where the product--what the targets are for a new product. But the developers really have to provide
the information to support the claims.
So, I hope we can discuss that further.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Bob. Identify yourself.
DR.
BUCHANAN: Bob Buchanan. I was intrigued by your discussion of Mendel
and the proteomic analysis. Of the 62
proteins that differ, did any, would any raise eyebrows as to whether the
product might be a problem? We know
the peas are safe. Do any of the
protein changes look suspicious?
DR.
CEBULA: Well, I gave you some
classes. Some affected sugar
content. Some affected sugar
storage. But none of those changes
said, you know, there's an unknown toxicant, cryptic toxicant peas that came
up. That answer is--yeah.
DR.
BUCHANAN: That's good to know.
DR.
CEBULA: Right.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Just--did they actually
look for--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Ah, yeah—
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Doug Gurian
Sherman. I'm sorry. Just for
clarification in that study, did they look for those kinds of changes? I mean, we assume they're safe, and they're
probably safe, you know. But in terms
of specific new anti-nutrients, you know, toxicants, were those looked at in
that study or they looked at just general classes, like protein, starches, et
cetera?
DR.
CEBULA: What they did was they
resolved over 600 proteins on a two-D
gel, found approximately 10 percent changed, and then went about to
characterize all 10 percent qualitative changes, and showed that, you know, it
was sugar storage. It was lipid
storage. So, they would have--if there
were a toxicant, they would have had an unknown protein, but it didn't show up
in their analysis. Sixty-two of them
were fully characterized. So.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Well that's--just again
to follow up. Doug Gurian-Sherman. I mean, most--many products, especially
legumes do have toxicants and anti-nutrients, and they're often removed through
the process, and through cooking, they're not--for instance, they're not heat
stable. So, you know, if there's a
change in levels, some of them could theoretically have been, you know,
toxicants and anti-nutrients. I guess
what I was getting at was were they trying to identify whether those proteins
were, you know, trypsin-inhibitors, or amylase-inhibitors, or, you know,
whatever things that--maybe it wouldn't be problematic
anyway, because they may be removed
through processing; but others that if the level was increased--I mean, some
allergens are also, you know, some of these types of proteins that might have
an effect, and that's what I was getting at.
DR.
CEBULA: I really don't know if the
wrinkled peas in that experiment were consumed by the investigators. I am sure they went a lot of blood, sweat,
and tears to get it published in Genetics, but that was the standard.
DR.
FEDOROFF: What does conventional
alleles work? That wasn't recombinant
DNA anything.
DR.
CEBULA: It wasn't. No, no.
DR.
FEDOROFF: It was just round peas and
wrinkled peas.
DR.
CEBULA: It was a natural. Right.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: You know the conversation is
rolling toward lunch. Any other
questions for clarification? The
speakers will be around this afternoon, correct, as we go to discussion for
additional expansion if we need it?
DR.
CEBULA: I will be on a conference call,
but I said I would be available.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Okay.
DR.
CEBULA: I will be on a conference--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: But, if we have to, we can drag
you in; right?
DR.
CEBULA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Any--immediately after lunch, we
will have the public comment. Is that
one? Is that correct? And we will have that public comment--it's
generally set for 10 minutes, and then we will go directly into the summary and
discussion. Anne?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: I was reminded that you
need to read my name.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I was going to do that right
after lunch, but do it right now. We
have the time.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Okay. So, my name is Anne Kapuscinski, and I'm
from the University of Minnesota; and I'm on the subcommittee, and I'm really
here.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: And she showed up immediately
after we went through that activity this morning.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Twice.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Twice.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: That's because I have to
get some good coffee. It's my one
weakness. One of my weaknesses.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Thank you all. I'd like to thank all the speakers this
morning--and for your tenacity and the group.
I look forward to an exciting discussion after the public comment this
afternoon.
[Whereupon,
the meeting went back on the record at 1:05 p.m.]
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: We have one public comment, and
Mike Watson will introduce it.
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER: We have one public comment from Dr. Michael Hanson, from Consumers'
Union, and he asked for 10 minutes to present to the committee.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Yes, please. Use the
microphone, so it's recorded.
DR.
HANSON: Thank you. My name is Dr. Michael Hanson. I work for Consumers' Union. They're the people that publish Consumer
Reports magazine. And we've been very
interested in genetic engineering issues; have actually been commenting on all
the--ever since 1992, on the FDA's various bio tech proposals. And I should also point out that Consumers'
Union is part of the international network called Consumers International,
which is composed of 270 consumer organizations in 117 countries. And we have observer status at the U.N., and
we've also been very actively involved in the whole Codex process. We went to all the meetings of the Task
Force on Biotechnology. And we would
actually agree with Dr. Maryanski that that was a very positive process.
What
I'd like to do here today is very quickly just make a few comments about
molecular characterization. And these
are the few points that I want to make.
First,
we think that it's a very good idea that the FDA is now talking about requiring
a lot of molecular characterization data, as is laid in these Codex
documents. But we have a basic
question, and that is, whether this will be mandatory and not voluntary, and
also to what extent data is going to be required post transformation. Because, in what you were told earlier
today, it made it seem like the FDA has sort of been requiring this data all
along. But that's not really true. That was a new requirement that came in with
this 2001 policy. And I'll tell you
about three years ago, I was on a State Department Committee, this Trans
Atlantic Policy Project, and it was focusing on biotechnology; and the idea was
to try to get the U.S. and Canada and the European Union to work toward
harmonization. There was a lot of
debate within the subcommittee, because, first, they wanted to look at full
biotechnology, like a--and they argued about should we require, should we look
at a human data package or environmental issues. And they couldn't decide
on anything, so the one thing that they
decided on in this working group was to focus just on molecular
characterization. And what happened, this was I think in 2000, late '99, early
2000; when we finally met, data had come in from both the U.S. and Canada
saying here is the molecular characterization data that's required. And the European Union, because I guess the
data is different in different countries, they actually never submitted
anything. So, this subcommittee has
only met twice. We still haven't gotten
any data from the European Union. But
it should be pointed out that the data that was submitted by the U.S. and
Canada, the molecular characterization that they said they were requiring, was
functionally complete maps of the vectors and plasmids and what you were going
to insert. But post insertion, it was
just information to show that the transformation had been complete; that is,
that the gene was in there and was active.
But there was no requirement in terms of the data that they were showing
us to do this--these nice maps of
how many insertion sites, what the
structure is at each insertion site.
So, that's what caused us some concern, and we really think that all
that information needs to be in there.
I would also point out that, in the 2001 pre-market biotech notification
proposed rule, it says in this paper that was handed out today that it's just
an extension of the 1992 policy. But it
really isn't because there's, in the Federal Register Notice, they said for the
first time they will be requiring data, and the data that they--part of the
reason that they said that they were going to be requiring data is they said
that the unintended effects that come from the random insertion, they called it
insertional mutagenesis, because that can differ between different
transformation events, the Agency said that they would require data on each
separate transformation event, even if the vectors and plasmids used were the
same, and the genetic background used was the same; that they would require
separate data.
We
think this is a very positive thing,
but we wonder whether the FDA is
actually going to move forward with those rules, because I should point out
that the molecular characterization data, for example, for the BT crops that
EPA used in their safety assessment, they actually bridged, they allowed
companies to use data from separate transformation events and have it go
collectively.
And--so,
we think that the data that should be required is that there should be complete
molecular characterization of each line with respect to identity, stability,
and unintended positional and pleiotropic effects. And the agency--the components of a complete molecular
characterization should, for molecular identity, would include for each
transgenic or transformed line the total number of inserts; the location of
each insert, whether organelle, chloroplast, mitochondria, et cetera, or
chromosomal; the exact chromosomal position of each insert; the structure of
each insert, whether duplicated, deleted, rearranged, et cetera; the complete
genetic map of each insert, including all the elements--the coding
region, non-coding regions, marker
gene, promoters, enhancers, enterons, leader sequences, terminators, T-DNA
borders, plasmid sequences, linkers, et cetera, including any truncated
incomplete sequences; also the complete nucleotide base sequence of each
insert. And we also suggested that the
base sequence of at least 10 kilobase pairs of flanking post-genomic DNA on
either side o the insert, including changes in methylation patterns. The reason for this is because the prominent
use of hyper-promoters, such as the CAMV-35S promoter.
And
the other main point I wanted to make is for determining molecular stability,
we think there needs to be data on both functional and structural
stability. And the functional stability
should be the level of expression remains constant over time and over
successive generations. And I would
point out that just requiring Mendelian data is not good enough. For example, with the BT crops, there's a
high dose strategy, and the high dose is defined as 25 times the LD-99. And so, if all you're doing, in some of the
data that was submitted to the EPA, they would just say to show that
something's stable, you just had to show that the trait still worked; that is,
that it still had activity against these insects. Well, if you're talking about a high does being 25 times the
LD-99, you could have variability, and one trait could be 20 times lower and
only have 5 times the LD-99 of the cryoprotein in there. But if you did a simple bioassay with
caterpillars, you would find that 99 percent of them still die. That is, you couldn't see the variability
there.
So,
that's why we think that for structural stability that the FDA would need data
on the physical location of the insert in the genome, as well as on the
structure of the insert throughout the lifetime of the plant and over
successive generations, say, three to five generations. And, particularly, to look at that
structural stability, we think there needs to be data on the flanking
sequences, so you can see whether it's moving around inside the plant or not,
because we noticed that those kind of
data were not submitted for the majority of crops that have gone through this
process. Of the 54 crops that--54
things that have gone through the FDA's process, I believe only two of them
have gone through since 2001.
And
finally, for the other form of stability, we think that the FDA--I'm sorry--to
look at the tests for unintended positional effects, we believe the FDA could
carefully look at methylation patterns of genes in the flanking host genome
DNA. And that's, again, 10,000 or 10
kilobase pairs upstream and downstream of the insertion site.
So,
in sum, we think this is a very positive movement that the FDA is proposing,
but we do have the question of whether these data, which they say are going to
be required through the PBN, since we hear that that's going to fall off the
radar screen, not be on category list A or B, whether the FDA will be requiring
all these data that they said they will in the future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Thank you. Any burning questions? Just one.
DR.
SALYERS: I just want to make a comment
about this. Monsanto must love you,
because if that grocery list is actually enacted as obligatory, it's going to
make it even harder for small companies to get into the biotech; and for
developing countries who follow our lead, even though they're not bound by our
requirements to develop their own products.
So,
I just think that we need to be careful about--it's always appealing to add on
another item to the long list of existing ones. But the question is, is there a reason to do it? And are we doing anything but further
increasing the power of the big companies in this area?
DR.
HANSON: Well, my response to that is I
think that all we're asking for is the kind of data that has now been agreed
upon internationally; that are actually--it's in paragraphs 30 to 33 of this
Codex document that was agreed upon.
And the reason that this is important is, written into the
GAT agreement, which set up the World
Trade Organizations, if there is disputes between countries, they'll look,
written into the GAT agreement is, indeed, Codex Alimentarias is considered the
neutral, scientific standard. So the
concern we have is that some other countries could pass laws saying that they
require all the data that is mentioned in here, and then they could turn
around, and since this data is not required in the U.S., they could exclude
products coming from the U.S., saying that they don't meet this standard.
So,
we're not suggesting that further data should be added. We're asking that the FDA require the level
of data that has now been agreed upon internationally so that there is not a
problem with trade, potential trade impacts with products that come from the
U.S. Because you should know, most of
the world did agree that these safety assessments should be required. The U.S. does not require that at this
point. So, that's why--we're not asking
for extra data that will overly burden
developing countries. It's just the data that has been agreed upon
globally.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Now, it's Dr. Salyers.
DR.
SALYERS: Abigail Salyers. Sorry, I didn't hear--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Qualset. Go ahead.
DR.
QUALSET: Okay, it's Cal Qualset
speaking. It seems that if the
developers are developing a product for U.S. markets, then why would they be
required to get data that isn't essential to the evaluation of the efficacy of
the product in terms of food safety? If
the developers want to go to international markets, they can follow the
international standards. But why make
everybody fall into this, whether it's a small university, a small company, or
large company? I think it should be
clear that we have to evaluate for the product safety, and not necessarily all
the ins and outs of its development.
DR.
HANSON: Well, but I think a response to
that is the main crops are engineered right now, corn and soybeans and cotton,
are actually used a
lot in international commerce and are
submitted--if this is only something used within the U.S., then that could be a
different story.
DR.
QUALSET: What I'm thinking is that
there are people considering doing modifications to minor crops that may not
ever get into the export stream, and they can't afford to go through all of
this for a crop that will be sold to small farmers, for example.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Nina Fedoroff. I guess my question is, could you say
there's data from the literature that would suggest that this information that
you think should be made mandatory is predictive of--is useful in predicting
unintended consequences that affect food quality?
DR.
HANSON: I can get back to you on
that. There is--all I can say is that
there was a lot of data that was talked about at these Codex meetings, and part
of the problem is you have to know what you're dealing with before you can
start to figure out what the safety implications are,
right?
And so, with the unintended effects, since that's actually a new field,
and there was a huge discussion at Codex.
There's quite a number of paragraphs on that. They're talking about these metabolomics and the use of genome
arrays. And I think that's useful, but
I agree with the other scientists here.
The basic problem is how do you take, once you've identified all those
differences, how do you then figure out what the safety implications of them
are. But before you can figure them
out, you have to know what they are.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Yeah, but my question to you
was how does accumulating all of these sequences and methylation patterns help
you identify what the safety--that the food quality implications are?
DR.
HANSON: Well, I can point to studies in
the scientific literature with yeast and actually with tobacco where there have
been unexpected effects that have led to toxins that were not previously
present in the plants or to
things that have an--would have an
adverse effect on DNA or other things, I mean.
DR.
FEDOROFF: That's what I'm asking
for. Could you cite those references?
DR.
HANSON: Yeah, I can get those. One of them is Enos and Eurata. I mean, we can talk afterwards. I mean, I do have a list of those various
studies that I can get to you--
DR.
FEDOROFF: Please do.
DR.
HANSON: And I will submit them.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Gurian?
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Yeah, I guess one issue
in terms of--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Introduce yourself. No, introduce yourself.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Doug Gurian-Sherman. I think the economic issues kind of go
beyond, you know, what we're supposed to be talking about here, and I don't
think we're qualified to really even talk about them, because there's--you
know, we could get into all kinds of sidetracking to discuss those. For instance, you
know, for pesticides, where there's a
minor crop issue to getting pesticides for minor crops comparable to this with
biotech, there's a set-up system that is not as effective as it could be but
could be stronger called IO4 that probably a lot of your are familiar with to
help small companies and minor crops get through the system. So I think we're just getting into areas
that are way beyond what we need to be talking about here, which is the safety
issue.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: We'll take one more
question. Go ahead.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: I'd like to ask a
question.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Would you give your name?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Anne Kapuscinski. It might be actually be better to ask this
of Dr. Maryanski and of Dr. Hanson. I'm
assuming when I got this Codex document that these guidelines on paper here are
the outcome of a very rigorous and intensive scientific discussion, and that
there is science backing these up. So
I'd just like to get
a sense of whether that's a reasonable
assumption.
In
other words, when I read, you know, Item 30 in this, "in order to provide
clear understanding of the impact on the composition and safety of foods
derived from recombinant DNA plants, a comprehensive molecular and biochemical
characterization of the genetic modification be carried out." And then when I read the stuff below it, I
mean it looked to me like a lot of thought had gone into figuring out what
should be considered and what is not that crucial to consider. And I think it would be useful if our
committee doesn't try to second guess another scientific process that was, you
know, broadly viewed as being scientifically based. So I'd just like to get a sense from Dr. Hanson and Dr. Maryanski
about that.
DR.
HANSON: Yeah, I'll point out first and
Dr. Maryanski say anything else he wants.
But as part of the Codex process, what they did is the first year there
was a request for five questions on safety.
And they asked that an expert
consultation be set up, and one was set
up and happened in June of 2000. And
so, a big technical report came out of that.
They then at the end of that technical report said, well, there's
actually the question of allergenicity.
There is new data which suggest that the present methods aren't good
enough. And so they suggested holding
another expert consultation on allergenicity.
That was held in January of 2001, and came up with an excellent report
and recommendations. And then there was
a third joint expert consultation that happened in October of 2001 that looked
at safety assessment for foods derived--produced using recombinant DNA
microorganisms. And those you
can--all of those expert consultations,
the papers that fed into them, and the reports, they're all up on Codex's and
FAO's and WHO's website. And yes, there
was a huge amount of scientific consultation that went into those, and that
ultimately is showing up in this Codex document. So I would say look at the results of those three expert
consultations.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Maryanski, anything to add
to that?
Dr.
Maryanski will respond when he gets to the summary statement.
DR.
ASTWOOD: Thank you. This is Jim Astwood. I have a question for Michael. When I read the discussion paper from the
FDA, they basically concluded that, in the FDA's opinion, that their proposals
and guidelines were--and practices--were consistent with the Codex
guidelines. And listening to your list
of suggestions, it was not completely clear to me which suggestions you had
that were above and beyond the FDA practice.
I did detect two, and I wanted to be sure I had those two correct. And if there are others, I'd like to know
them. The one I detected was your
suggestion that the methylation pattern should be determined. And the second was you suggested that there
should be 10 KB of flanking sequence determined. Were there others?
DR.
HANSON: No, those are basically the
two. Although I have a basic question.
Since a few
months ago, Dr. Lester Crawford got up
on the Hill and basically said that they thought that the old, the 1992 policy,
is fine, and they don't really need this new one. So I don't know what the status of this 2001 PBN is. If this is now going to be the new thing at
the FDA, and all these data will be required, then those are the only two
modifications that we would have to that.
But I think it's still an open question since that hasn't been
finalized, and we had heard 12 months ago that it was going to be finalized in
18 months, and now it appears to have moved off, and who knows if it's going to
be finalized. So I don't know what the
FDA is going to be actually whether they're going to be requiring this. If it's true, then we applaud that, and, if
it's consistent with Codex, then that's fine.
But that's the one question I have to the FDA.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I think, or it sounds like we're
moving right into the discussion ahead of the discussion. So thank you, Dr. Hanson.
DR.
HANSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: And we will now have the summary
and review of the charges and questions by Dr. Maryanski.
DR.
MARYANSKI: Oh, I'm sorry. Just a moment. Mike just needs to make a statement.
DR.
WATSON: Dr. Hanson was the only person who asked for public comment in time
either before the meeting or on a sign-up sheet outside. So we're just going to move to the next
agenda item at this point.
DR.
MARYANSKI: Jim Maryanski from FDA. Thank you.
I just will take a couple of minutes here to provide a little bit of
clarification. And I would like to
thank Dr. Kapuscinski for raising that question about the information in the
Codex, and what supported it, and Dr. Hanson's response because I realize
that's something I need to add to my presentation are the expert consultations
that FAO and WHO conducted that were--that served as background material for
the consultations. And those were very
important; and, as Dr. Hanson pointed out, there were a number of them. There
was one in 2000 that dealt with the
question of overall safety assessment and the application of substantial
equivalence. And then there was a
session on allergenicity. And there was
a session on the use of microorganisms to produce foods that Dr. Cebula and I
actually did by video conference from Washington in the middle of the night for
a week because of 9-11. But those
consultations were part of the information.
Now countries also brought forward information on their own part, based
on their own experience, so they were not the only information that was behind
the Codex guidelines.
But
the basic answer to your question is, at least from my perspective is I do
believe that those guidelines are based on what the Codex member countries that
participated in developing, understand, were the best science available at the
time.
I
would also like to point out that the Codex guidelines are just that. They are
guidelines. The Codex guidelines are
not binding
on any country, so they're not
requirements. And they're guidelines in
the sense that you should use them as they're appropriate. If certain
information is applicable, it should be used.
If, in some particular case, it's not, it would not. I mean, that's how--that's the intent of
guidelines. It's to provide a
framework, to provide a general direction, always recognizing that some
questions may be applicable and sometimes there may be questions that aren't
within the guidelines that need to be added because there's some difference
about the question at hand. So we
always want to think of these not as a checklist that you go down, but as a
tool that you use in the process.
And
in terms of requirements, whether the data is required or not, in our view at
FDA, is not the question for this subcommittee, because what we're asking you
to think about is if we're assessing the safety of a food, and, in this case,
we're looking at specifically the use of molecular biology data, what data can
contribute to answering the question about safety. So whether it's
required by FDA or somebody else, or
not required, is not the question. What
scientifically will help us do our job.
That is the question that we're asking you to think about in the context
of how one can use molecular data to support safety assessment.
Now,
the question was raised earlier of how much is enough, which, of course, we're
always asked. How much is enough, which
is a difficult question. But that's why
we've established this safety standard that we're not trying to prove absolute
safety. We're trying to get at the
question is this new variety as safe as what went before it. Now, we don't expect the molecular biology
piece of the safety assessment that you're talking about today to fully resolve
that, because we're going to be taking into account all of the information that
we have in front of us in reaching that final decision. But in thinking about how much is enough,
how is this going to help put the pieces of the puzzle together so that
ultimately you have that level of standard is I think what
we're asking you to think about.
The
other thing we take into account, and it goes to some of the discussion this
morning about the wrinkled pea, and the fact that you can see all kinds of
changes in the plant, in the food, and they're not always relevant to
safety. We, of course, ask companies to
compare the new, modified variety with its parent or some comparable
counterpart in terms of doing the analysis at various steps. But that's not the end of the game, because
they often see differences between the modified and the parent plant at what
the statistician would tell you is the 95 percent confidence limit.
What
we do ask, though, what's important is are those changes within the range
that's typically of that plant, when that plant is produced commercially, has
been accepted as a commercial food product.
That's what's important, because we've recognized that genetic
background and differences in weather patterns and growth and stages of growth,
and all of these things affect
the composition of the food in
different ways. So we have to ask the
question is there a change that's outside the pattern that's been accepted as
safe. So that's how we really look at
the data in terms of food composition, which, of course, again is not the
question we're posing for you today, which brings me to the study of the
Academy.
DR.
FEDOROFF: You can start singing.
[Laughter.]
DR.
MARYANSKI: Which brings me to the study
of--yes, I'm sorry I don't have that kind of voice at all. But we have a study with the Academy on
unintended effects, and that's a much broader study than what we're asking you
to think about today. They are there
thinking about the overall question of long-term effects and unintended effects
on human health as a result of genetic modification. So today, to come back to what we're asking you to think about is
this part of the safety assessment that deals with the molecular biology data,
and how that data can help us better understand questions related to the safety
of the
food as part of the overall safety
assessment process. And that would
include, for example, how can this data be used to generate--to identify new
substances that may be in the food, because one of the questions we'll ask is
if there are new substances in the food, are they safe. The obvious question. But you may also be thinking about the fact
of gene insertion in the genome, and at the molecular level. Is there data that will help us understand? To what extent can we get at the question of
other effects in addition to the introduced substances that may be important to
safety assessment.
So,
we're not asking you to take on the whole issue of unintended effects, but
really it is how can molecular biology help in this process. That's what we've asked you to do
today. I'm just looking at the
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: You could help us.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Nina Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Nina Fedoroff. Sorry.
You
could help us a lot by telling us how
these different kinds of data have helped you so far, if they have helped
you. In other words, you've collected,
if not all of this--these different flavors of data, some of them; right?
DR.
MARYANSKI: Mm-hmm.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Have, in any case, they
helped you assess the food safety?
DR.
MARYANSKI: Well, I think I can give you
an example I think that Dr. Cebula referred to this morning. Early on, you know, that--there was a basic
mantra that what you used the TI insertion process; that the information--the
region between the borders is what goes into the plant, and the region outside
does not. And when we actually asked
CalGene to look closer--you may recall from the flavor-saver meeting, when they
actually did the PCR outside the region, where there is an antibiotic resistant
marker on the backbone of the plasma, they found that actually an insignificant
proportion of transformation events that material from the backbone--in other
words, the biology was
not as precise as just the
borders. It was--were occasions when
that material would be transferred.
And, so, then, companies then did begin to look at the inserted material
to be sure that it was introducing the material that was intended.
So
this information can be very helpful in that sense, because that allowed us
then to eliminate the question of having to look at that other antibiotic
resistant marker; and, you know, did that need to be considered.
And,
so, there are certainly examples where this helps. We found it very helpful, for example, using some of the blotting
techniques to identify the presence of transcripts, as you heard this morning,
to find out are they the transcripts that are expected or are we also seeing
other transcripts, and then have to sort of ask the question of are those
meaningful or not. Or Westerns to get
at the question of how much protein or what proteins are being produced.
So,
there certainly is information at the molecular level. And one of the things I have told
people in many talks around the world
is that, you know, we often hear about plants being developed by R-DNA as new
plants, a new technology, and these new things are coming. But, in fact, it's the molecular biology
techniques that have given us much more powerful tools in terms of safety
assessment. In other words, being able
to understand the changes that have been made at the molecular level so that we
can identify the new substances in the food, so we can decided whether or not
they pose any safety problem.
I
think, and certainly if any our other colleagues here, you know, feel there's
another point, they can put up their hand.
But I think that's the crux of, you know, what we've been seeing in the
molecular biology data.
Now,
I would add to that we have also asked companies to look at the stability. And the stability, as I understand it has
been to address the question of unintended effects down the line, as these
plants are--you know, will be bred, of course, by conventional means and
further
developing the cult of ours, the idea
being if the initial insertion event has been done in a way that that's stable
in the chromosome, that once that plant then is put into the normal breeding
process and, as breeders do, and bred into a number of different lines, that
any changes that will then take place afterwards will not be due to that
insertion event, but will be the normal kinds of changes that take place through
the other methods of plant breeding.
I'd
suppose one of the other things we've looked for is how many insertion sites
there are, just to get at the question of what's the likelihood of
recombination events occurring, as well.
So,
that's--so, yes, we have found some of this.
We felt some of this information has been useful. But, again, you know, we're not here to tell
you what's useful. We're really asking
you, from your perspective, what do you think will continue to help us.
DR.
FEDOROFF: I guess what I'm hearing is
that you found that the T-DNA
transformation or whatever transformation is messier than you thought it
was. But what I didn't hear you say is
how any of those things have actually helped you identify a food hazard, a
problem. Okay? A real problem that you said, okay, like the
potatoes with--high
glyco--high solanine potatoes. Okay, that's a real problem. You don't want it to get out in the
marketplace. And I guess what I'm asking
is, in all of the cases that you have analyzed, did this information allow you
to identify some such problem coming up the pike?
DR.
MARYANSKI: It kind of gets to the
question we're often asked of how many times did we say no to a company. How many times did we, you know, reject a
submission because there was some problem with it.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Well, there's probably--
DR.
MARYANSKI: And we really haven't done
that, and the reason is because the guidelines and these questions that we set
out really help the companies to, you know, basically make sure that
the products that they have don't raise
any of these questions.
So,
I think it's not so much a matter of FDA finding the problem, but everyone now
understanding what the questions are so that the problems can be avoided, and
generally are avoided. I mean, we did
have the one example of the Brazil nut in soybean that, of course, turned out
to be an allergen. But, otherwise, no,
I don't know of any cases where we have identified a problem.
DR.
FEDOROFF: A problem.
DR.
MARYANSKI: Yes.
DR.
FEDOROFF: By using those particular
molecular markers.
DR.
MARYANSKI: Right.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Okay.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Arias.
DR.
ARIAS: Jonathan Arias. I think perhaps the answer to that question
was given earlier by the number of applications that have been submitted so far
to the Agency, which I believe were about 50 over the last several years
for safety assessments of transgenic
plants. Most likely, there are just too
few examples to get a sense of the probabilistic issues of safety, and I assume
companies and developers as good stewards are already screening those that show
potential problems in terms of agronomic traits right off the board. So, you wouldn't likely see examples of
those.
I
do want to also point out there is, of course, one highly contentious example
in the public and the scientific literature in regards to the safety of
genetically modified foods that would, I think, impact our discussion: that is,
of course, the study by I think it's Rowers and Hustive in the Lancet a number
of years ago. The conclusions of that
study, of course, have been highly debated, and I'm not going to redress them
here. But they do raise the potential
issue, and I think that's what we're really dealing with
today--is the potentialities for risk,
given that certain processes may be mutagenic or altered the metabolic profiles
of plants. And there are
also--the other fact is that there's
clearly an end point to this, which is predicated on time, money, and other
issues in relationship to the public safety concern.
And,
so, I think those have to be factored into this, as well; that the discussion
hopefully will focus on the fact that what are the potential risks that might
be likely given certain circumstances implicit in genetic engineering.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Gurian.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Doug
Gurian-Sherman. I guess I'd have to ask
a further question in terms of the kind of data that we're being asked to look
at today, and further on Nina's question is, of the submissions that you've
actually looked at, what percentage of them actually looked at the
specific--some of the specific kinds of
data that, let's say, Michael Hanson mentioned or that are mentioned in the
Codex, such as potential for fusion proteins, potential insertion mutagenesis
into an open reading frame--that kind of thing. Because, again, my awareness is that, at most, a
very small minority of the submissions
actually had that kind of data. So, I'm
not sure that there's a very--much of a data set on those specific
questions. And I think, you know, to go
a little further, I think the general potential issues are just that--are we
inserting something into a gene that may have an effect. And, again, it's a potential risk, and I
think part of what we have to think about is what, you know, what kind of
potential risk is there from an insertion mutagenesis, or for activating
several upstream or downstream genes.
It's a, you know, that's the potential risk that I think we have to
address is how much should be done; how much is it worth, you know, pursuing.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Jim.
DR.
ASTWOOD: Jim Astwood. I have a comment or an observation based on
Dr. Maryanski's response that of the 50 or so petitions that have been reviewed
by the FDA, certainly there have been no cases of safety issues being raised on
the basis of molecular information. And
he indicated that
that's not surprising because there are
a lot of screening activities done by companies, and surely that's the case.
But
as a matter of safety, I would say that, as a practical matter, the molecular
characterization has led to very few decisions, at least in my company, about
moving a product forward or not forward to the FDA. And the reason for that is that those unexpected effects, those
pleiotropic effects that Dr. Gurian has mentioned are readily apparent when you
do agronomic evaluations and compositional analyses by chemical evaluations,
nutritional studies in animals. That is
the way you pick up the unexpected effects.
And so, it's not surprising that nothing has come to the FDA. Likewise, companies really are not using
that as a criteria from a safety assessment point of view. And that's--that gets to a comment about
whether we need--whether we're operating at a phenotype level or a genotype
level, and is the characterization of the insert a matter of responsible
information or is it truly a decisive study in terms of is the
product safe or not safe. I think it can be decisive, but it's--so
far, it has not been our general experience that it has been a decisive study
or a pivotal study.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Kapuscinski.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Yeah. Dr. Maryanski, I have a question that I
think--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: This is Anne Kapuscinski.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Anne Kapuscinski. We have a--I think actually will follow from
what Dr. Astwood was just saying. I
wanted to ask a really elementary question.
When you're asking us in our charge about molecular biology data, are
you using molecular biology in the narrowest sense to just asking us for data
at the level of DNA and RNA? Or are you
including the expression, expressed protein?
Because I guess the way I'm looking at this is that I would want to
start with some level of the phenotype of the organism, ideally, knowing what's
useful about the proteins expressed, and then higher level organismal traits,
people often refer to those as agronomic traits; and then maybe
use that to guide me. If I see something that raises a red flag,
to guide me and to try and figure out if I need to get more information to
figure out if it's really a risk. And
maybe, at that point, some of the DNA- and RNA-level information might be
useful. And I'm saying might because in
some cases, it might not be that useful.
I seems like down the road, if we got the point that we knew that every
time we noticed a certain class of proteins being expressed, that it gave us a
certain kind of signal on a DNA chip, then, in the future, you could maybe just
rely on the DNA chip data early on in your production of a engineered plant to
quickly identify that. But we're not
really at that point yet, because we haven't yet been able to do those kinds of
correlations. So, I'm trying to get a
better sense of really what you're charging us to do, because I feel that it's
not going to be very useful for us to limit our discussion only to DNA and RNA
information. It feels to me like that's
just looking at that stuff in a vacuum.
When, really,
what's going to drive whether the thing
is safe or not is the actual phenotypic consequence of changes in the DNA
that's being transcribed and actually then what happens with those RNA
transcripts.
So,
how narrow or broad would you like our discussion to be of your charge?
DR.
MARYANSKI: Well, I think we don't want
to--
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: You see what I'm getting
at?
DR.
MARYANSKI: Well, we--what we would like
to do is have you focus on the part of the safety assessment that can be
gleaned from molecular data. So, in
other words, we're not asking you to take on all the pieces of safety assessment
and evaluation. For example, we're
certainly interested in what happens at the gene level and the expression of
message in protein. We feel confident
about evaluating the safety of substances once we know they're components of
food. If a protein is identified as
it's going to be in food, then we feel that we have the capability
today to do that. That's not the question that we're posing to
you of how do you ultimately, then, determine if that protein is safe, for
example.
So,
yes, the expression of the message, the expression of the protein, there's
certainly some things that we would hope that you would talk about. But, you know, I don't want to place limits
on what you, this subcommittee, might decide are issues that you think are
important for FDA to think about from data that can be gleaned at the molecular
level. I would prefer to leave that to
your deliberations.
We've
put down a set of questions as a way of giving you some of the things we've
been thinking about. They are not
intended to be things that we absolutely need answers to or the only things
that you should think about. But this
is intended to be guidance so as to get you started at least in an area that we
have some question about.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: You know we could keep you up
there for the next two hours, and see how--
DR.
MARYANSKI: No. No.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: To see how resilient you are.
DR.
MARYANSKI: I appreciate the
opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I think I'm
done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: But what I'd like to propose is
that we go around the entire group--it's been a normal group technique of each
one expressing some of their thoughts.
This is not the final discussion, but limiting it to no more than maybe
about five minutes of where you see us at this point. How you would suggest we address our charge, and your thoughts on
some of the issues that we've been given.
That--knowing how time slips, that will probably take us to at least a
bio break. And then we can come back
and do a conclusion-type discussion of one-by-one, sometimes called the vote,
of where you see the committee's comments should be going. If it appears that there's a significant
consensus, at that point, we can try and summarize then. If it looks like it's a number of individual
comments, they will go in as
that.
Is
that acceptable for an approach?
All
right. I've always had a problem. Those of you that know Meyers-Briggs, I'm at
the
E-level, at about 99 percentile on
E. And, so if you lose me every once
and while because of the laughter next store, these external inputs really
distract me. I'm trying to focus real
hard, but I just want to go over to see what's funny.
[Laughter.]
We
can start in one way. I've started one
there, one time there. Jim, would you
like to start?
DR.
ASTWOOD: Gosh. I can start. I mean, I've made a couple of comments. I think that in reacting to the issues that's presented in the
charge from the FDA, I would say that certainly I would agree that the FDA's
proposals and practices are consistent with the Codex guidelines. One of the things that I continue to
struggle with in the safety assessment realm is really this question of how
impactful molecular characterization is to the
safety assessment. We can talk about theoretical fusion
proteins. We can talk about theoretical
rogue transcripts, a lot of things.
What I tend to come back to is the overall risk assessment and all the
other tools that we bring to bear. And
whether or not that we lose sight of those tools when we are thinking about
molecular characterization. I mean,
specifically, Dr. Arias brought up the Pustai example. And for those who aren't too familiar with
the Pustai example, Dr. Pustai and colleagues in Scotland evaluated a number of
transgenic potato lines that were transgenic for lectins. And they showed, and there's some debate about
this, but superficially they showed that these potatoes were, in fact, toxic to
rats. Toxicologists debate that point,
but let's accept that as a fact; that they were, for the sake of argument.
Can
one predict on the basis of the molecular characterization of those potatoes
that those potatoes would have been toxic?
Probably not. Except to say that
a lectin was expressed in potatoes, and lectins are known to regulate gene
expression of plants; and, so, perhaps
it could have affected other genes. It
turns out, in that case, that those potatoes were not compositionally
equivalent to traditional potatoes.
And, so, in this case, those potatoes would have failed a key test in
the Codex guidelines or the FDA process, which is that those potatoes fall
outside the range that one would expect for the composition and nutritional
profile for potatoes. And that would
raise concerns that would have to be addressed in the FDA process or in the
Codex process. You could not have
predicted that knowing the molecular arrangement of the lectin gene in the
potato plants. And, so, for examples
that we know about from the literature and from our own experience as producers
of this technology, those tend to be highly pivotal studies versus the
molecular characterizations.
So,
when we think about the broader debate, there's probably no end to the amount
of characterization one can do. One has
to make a decision about how much risk you leave on the table
in terms of the compositional analytes
you measure. How much molecular
characterization you do. How many
animal feeding studies you do. How many
toxicology studies you do. You're
always leaving a little bit of risk on the table; and the key question,
therefore, is when do you meet the standard of reasonable certainty of no harm
for the FDA. And I think the FDA has done a very good job of describing
scientifically backed internationally supported lists of criteria for molecular
characterization that I think is rational.
But someone needs to articulate exactly I think, or in some more precise
ways, when you will need to do actually more than that. It's not clear to me that you do.
And,
so, it's a question to ponder. It's
probably bigger than this one meeting, but I'm sure as we move forward, we'll
have opportunities to ponder it in the future.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Gonsalves.
DR.
GONSALVES: In analyzing the papaya, we
actually maybe have some unique experience in
that we went to the FDA guidelines back
in 1996; and we actually have also--are moving through the guidelines for
Japan, which, more or less, follows these Codex rules. And so, we've had to analyze in much more
detail the papaya than we--now than we did in 1996. And my general conclusion is that more or less what we knew
about--what we knew in 1996 based on previous history of viral coat protein and
so forth--what we analyzed in getting more data did really not add much more to
what we knew back in 1996. And it's not
surprising to me. Like either the
question of allergenicity, I know there was a report saying that this papaya
ring spot may be allergenic and so forth.
But with all the history of eating virus-infected papaya for years, and
we deliberately instantly inoculated millions of trees with a mild strain of the
virus and sold those papaya commercially with no impact on allergenicity. I was almost certain that our transgenic
papaya was not going to be allergenic.
Now,
should I have, at that time back in 1996, sequenced the--analyzed the amino
acids and
then checked the susceptibility of the
co-protein to pepsin or other stuff.
Well, that remains debatable. We
did not do it. But I think the
preponderance of data was such that we really did not have to do it.
Now,
getting back to another tack, I think there's obvious areas in which we have to
pay attention to alkaloids and so forth.
But I also think that sufficient data have come forth that there are
areas in transgenic plants--for example, viral coat protein resistance. Well, that is a major thing to many people
that produce crops. It appears to me
that in that kind of case, it might be a lot of the data that have been
accumulated, we may be able to recommend just a few maybe key tests or analysis
of the protein that might suffice so that you don't have to go through a lot of
all of these other tests.
Now,
with a lot of the other stuff, I would think you definitely want to go through
that, because they are definitive, well-documented things that could happen.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: A compliment. Two people have automatic timers. They were in four minutes, four minutes
apiece. I'm impressed.
Dr.
Kapuscinski.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Thank you. I would actually. I would appreciate having more time to reflect on this, like, you
know, and speak again after hearing everyone.
But my thoughts right now are the following: first of all, when
resources and time are limited I guess I'd rather see more effort into
characterizing the proteins than in to the DNA and the RNA, because I think
that alone is not--if we focus only on that level, I'm just really worried about
losing the forest for the trees, if we focus only on that level.
And
it seems like the big challenge is looking for pleiotropic effects. That's where our level of understanding,
whether you're a quantitative geneticist and have done traditional breeding or
a molecular geneticist, that's where our level of understanding is really very
poor. And I don't see right now how
only doing stuff at
the DNA level is going to really
increase our chances of detecting pleiotropic effects. So, if someone comes up with a way that
combining those methods with some protein-level analysis and even higher level
phenotype analysis that might hint at a pleiotropic effect, if they find that
using DNA methods could help in screening for that, then that would be great. But I'm personally not aware of some kind of
screening like that right now that's helpful.
So, and I don't have a really detailed advice about what FDA could do to
do a better job of looking for pleiotropic effects, but I think that would be a
really good topic for this committee to maybe examine in more detail. And, again, you don't want to look for
pleiotropic effects just ad infinitum and for ever. You would want to be very targeted and strategic in searching for
that by using the kinds of ideas that Dr. Gonsalves just talked about. There are clearly certain kinds of
organisms, such as potatoes and tomatoes, or we know already there are some
metabolic pathways that might cause some problems
if they get upregulated, for
example. So, especially if a developer
is using a construct that does not have tissue-specific expression, you know,
then that might raise the desire to look more proactively for pleiotropic
effects. And, if they're putting it in
a kind of plant that there is some history of knowing that there are some
chemicals, biochemicals in that plant that might cause a health risk. So, in other words, you'd want to combine
things like that. So I guess I'm more
interested in taking a more integrated approach to it.
My
final thought, just to reemphasize something I said earlier in the
question-and-answer period, is I could see that maybe five years from now if
there's some well targeted research that's conducted to help this, that you
might reach a point where you could find some DNA signals that would be
strongly positively correlated with evidence of something at the protein level
that is a problem. So then it--maybe
five years from now, you could use the DNA-level screening as a first
cut kind of early on way of
testing. So it wouldn't be if a DNA
itself is the problem, but it's positively correlated with some levels of
changes in protein expression or even secondary, no probably not secondary
metabolites, but changes in the levels of expression or certain genes getting
turned on that, you know, turn out to pose problems. But I don't have a sense that we're at that point today.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Three out of three. Timing is great. Dr. Buchanan.
DR.
BUCHANAN: Yes, I'm willing to follow
that perhaps in a little different way.
First of all, there are far greater experts in DNA, the area of DNA
stability than I am, and DNA rearrangements. But I have, in the past few years,
our group has embarked on studies with proteomics, and I'm very impressed with
the power of proteomics. I hope we're
not in the formative stage that half of what we've found turn out to be
artifacts, as referred to earlier.
But
we've discovered things that would
have taken years before the advent of
proteomics. That's why I was interested
in the Mendel, the pea experiment, with proteomics.
And,
I think as time goes on, we will have maps of major crops called proteome, as
we now have for arabidopsis. There's a
group in France that's developed that, and it's a very nice website with many
of the proteins. We are developing the
same in collaboration with the USDA laboratory in Albany for the endosperm, the
wheat endosperm. And one can see with
great precision when a protein is different.
And I think with time, whether the time is right for this now, whether
the technology is at that stage, but one can compare the genetically engineered
plant with the null segregant, the protein content of the organ or tissue of
question.
And
I think one can see the differences, as we've seen with the Mendel peas. And 62 proteins is not a great number now to
identify with the common methods.
And
I think one might pick up interesting candidates, and it's not a great expense
for most
companies, either, or will not be.
And
then one, I would have to think it about it more, but one could go further and
look at subsets of proteins like gylcosylated proteins, populations within the
null segregant and within the genotype of interest. And I think with this, it would be reassuring without undue labor
and undue costs to convince one of the safety of the particular product. But, as I say, I think with the--in the
future, this is going to become very common, and we're going to have proteome
maps of certainly the major food crops.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Salyers.
DR.
SALYERS: Well, basically, I don't have
to take much time because I'm going to--this is Abigail Salyers. I'm going to
underscore what Dr. Kapuscinski said. I
think that it's important to--at least as I interpret--as interpreted through
me, I think it's very important that there is some flexibility in this, in the
FDA's response to new products that come through the pipeline. I think it's a very bad idea to have a
shopping list that
is applied uniformly to everyone for
the simple reason that there are some cases in which there are problems that might
be missed that way. And, for example,
we know the cases--all of these come from traditional practices, where we have
seen people produce foods that actually made it to the supermarket that were
toxic at some level--have been. The
alkaloids have been the problem.
So,
it makes sense in certain foods where we know that that is a potential problem
to look at the alkaloid levels in anything that people mess around with
genetically. And, so, I try--I guess
there are those of us who trust the FDA, and those of us who don't.
I
trust the FDA, their intentions and the abilities of their scientists; and,
therefore, I'm willing to accord them a certain amount of flexibility. I think it's a big mistake to--I think we're
fooling ourselves if we talk about taking DNA sequence information at our
current level of understanding and extrapolating too far from that, because I
don't think that we right now
have the information that would allow
us to do that. And, so, you get
yourself the illusion of safety when actually it's not there.
So,
I argue for an approach that is one that has a certain amount of commonsense,
based on knowledge about the individual type of plant and the way it will be
consumed, the uses of which it will be produced; and structures a regulatory
program for that particular areas. And
I wish we could build that kind of flexibility into anything that is done
rather than having certain set lists of things that are applied uniformly to
every example.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Thank you. Dr.
Gurian-Sherman.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Yeah, I'd like to build
on a couple of the comments here. I
think the comment that Jim Astwood made was a good one that, you know, these
things all have to be looked at in a broader context of the overall risk
assessment, and I think Dennis also addressed that. There's differences between types of genetically
engineered organisms and probably the
inherent risk in them.
And
I guess I would also agree with Abigail that there needs to be some flexibility
to address those differences.
I
guess the concern I have is that, in part, that I'd like to see more of a
system that does both, that tries to, where possible, and where there is an
issue with the types of tests and the protocols, that there is some guidance,
some specific guidance given, but in the context of broader assessment of the
risk of the plant. I mean we certainly
do know that some of the protocols--there's been experimental data, and I don't
think the characterization issue is necessarily the best one to address
this--but where differences in protocols make differences--result in
differences, practical differences in the result, and probably in genetic
engineering the best one, at this point, is with pepsin digestion, which is
part of the allergenicity assessment, where an FDA scientist varied the
conditions of the
experimental protocols, and came up
with very different results in terms of how you might interpret the
allergenicity of a GE protein based on its stability.
So,
I think it is important that there's some--in some cases, some uniformity.
On
the specific issue here, I guess I'm going to go back a little bit on what I
said before in terms of economics.
The--there's a lot we don't know, and it's not predictive about sequence
data. But, on the other hand, we're
developing more and more, through genomics, databases of proteins that have, to
some extent, known functions. And I
think that has to be weighed with the, again, in part how difficult is it to
get this data, and I guess I agree, although on a slightly different issue,
with Bob that some of this data is not that difficult to get. The sequence--DNA sequence, which then can
be translated in the protein sequence of the inserted DNA in the plant is not
very difficult or expensive to acquire.
Now, is it going to tell us everything?
No. There's a lot of things it's
not
going to tell us, and there's always
the risk that when somebody sees a difference, that they're--you know, that
they're going to interpret that as being a significant difference in terms of
safety, which will often not be the case.
I think we have to have a little more confidence that when we have that
kind of data, that we get what we can out of it in terms of looking at
homologies with allergen epitopes or looking at homology in toxin databases or
allergy databases to see if potential changes through the transformation of
that or insertional mutagenesis or fusion proteins do, you know, tell us
anything. But again, I think that has
to be weighed with, against, you know, how difficult is it to get this
data. And I do share the concern that,
you know, this kind of analysis could go on forever, ad infinitum, and I'm
certainly not pushing that. But I think
in this particular case, you know, some of the types of data we're talking
about--getting Northern blots, you know, to look at expression of flanking
sequences, that kind of thing is not, you know, that difficult; and may,
may, in some cases, reveal some useful
information.
So,
again, I think, you know, the point that's been brought up before. You have--it does make sense to weigh how
difficult is this data, and then how useful is it.
I
guess the final point I'd want to make is that, you know, Nina had a good point
earlier I think that, you know, there is often a lot of data floating out there
that can be useful if we try to gather it together. I haven't seen enough.
I'd like to see more of what we might be able to find out with some of
this data. In other words, how
predictive are secondary protein structure models. Or, you know, that if you see a difference in the structure
of--the sequence and structure of the protein how much can we, you know, derive
from that.
So,
I think we're also, you know, working a little bit blind here, and working at
the last minute trying to digest a lot.
And I think it would be useful to try to pull together some of that data
before we make any kind of substantive
decision on this, or recommendation.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Qualset.
DR.
QUALSET: Yeah, I'm Cal Qualset, the
token plant writer, to emphasize my point.
The
issue I am hearing is what I would call mostly dealing with development stage
information. It's molecular data that's
useful in the development of the product, and maybe not so useful after it's
into the evaluation stage for FDA.
That
doesn't mean it's not important, because I believe it's useful in developing
the guidelines and the protocols that the developers are using to know that
they should be looking for certain inserts and that sort of thing. So
that--what I am hearing is that I'm not
sure that that information can be translated into safety and risk.
Now,
Bob talks about proteomics, and once we know what a protein does and
structurally, that it might be related to some undesirable effect, then we can
use that information. But we need that
kind of trait-based linkage to the
molecular structure.
So,
what is safe and what is not safe? What
do you know about that question when you are doing molecular
characterization. So that's a question.
I'd
like to think we are talking about consumer oriented evaluation of safety, food
safety, and that we should be looking at, very carefully, the ways the product
can be used, whether it's in traditional food preparations or unusual food
preparations. And some of the products
may be targeted to specific components of the population.
If
that's the case, then we need some post-release identity issues, and there may
be, Bill, some molecular characterizations there that can be very quick and
prove that you, in fact, are looking at the variety as it was released. Labeling it comes up in that context,
however.
So,
those are the issues I think we have to think about if we're talking about
molecular,
value molecular characterization in
evaluation of food safety. I think the
connection is tenuous in many respects, I think.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Thank you. Dr. Benedict.
DR.
BENEDICT: Steve Benedict. I have sort of in front of me some fairly
hastily scribbled airplane notes that, as I was reading the documents on the
way out here, and they turn out to be for me, anyway. And I want to agree with almost everybody--what they said. It seems to me that genomic evaluation has a
couple of values, but they're fairly limited.
And one thing I don't think can help us is any kind of array
technology. I really can't see how the
effort and expense we have to go through to get that analysis is going to tell
us anything at this point. And what
everyone has said is, yeah, ten years from now, we might be able to know some
things.
I
also agree that the real relevance here with respect to safety is something a
toxin. Is something an allergen, or is
something doing something odd that we can't predict. And, as a
couple of people have said, except for
things that I don't understand, like, non-proteinaceous materials, which have
to be done by compositional analysis.
The proteins that we're putting in, we're going to know going in, based
on databases is this an allergen, is this a toxin, or is it related to them,
and so that will require considerations.
But if it doesn't do any of those things, then we have to ask questions
about changes in the proteome. And I
agree with Dr. Buchanan, this is a powerful way to go.
And,
so, I think that we could end up with an iterative process, a decision tree
where FDA asks before the projects begins even, is your gene of interest an
allergen or a toxin or a related sequence, 80 base pairs or 80 amino acids,
whatever that thing is. If it isn't,
well, go thou forth because you don't have a problem yet.
And,
so, then we ask questions based on the proteome. If you put your protein into a cell, a tissue culture cell just
to find out will the presence of that protein change the proteome in any
way.
And, again, you're only talking--you're not talking about looking at
wrinkled versus turgid peas. You're
really asking--you've got an organism.
You're changing one protein in it.
So, does that have secondary effects on other proteins. You can ask that quickly with a two-D gel,
and if you don't see anything, okay, now you go engineer your organism. And, so, you ask these questions back and
forth, and none of this, I think, is particularly expensive with the possible
exception of tissue culture, which I don't understand in plants. And, so, looking--following the changes in
the protein seems to me the place to go, and there are always places to bail out.
Then
when you get to the point of analyzing the vector, that's already been
said. The real question for me there is
how strong is your promoter, and are you doing, as Dr. Arias said, have you
selected some tissue-specific promoters like we do in animals. And if you can do that, then that helps you
also. And so, this can be part of a
list. And then, once you're
transfecting--I'm one of the early 1994
proponents of learning about upstream and downstream sequences. But that was before we could look at
proteomes and determine what's going on.
And so, again, if you have no problems, then we don't need to I think
ask many of the questions. The relevant
question with the genome to me is, how many insertion sites are there, because
that gives you the chance of homologous cross-over, and that could mess up your
plant, big time, I guess.
So,
if you ask that question, and the answer is you don't have that, then again,
you could go forward. It seems to me
that we don't to apply everything all at once. We can apply them at the
stepwise, logical fashion, but always based on what proteins are being
expressed, not necessarily what data we can get. But what's possibly going to cause the problem.
And
I think I have one other point. Give me
a second. How am I doing?
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: You're doing fine.
DR.
BENEDICT: Oh, you're so gracious.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Everybody's doing so fine, I can
hardly stand it.
[Laughter.]
DR.
BENEDICT: So to sum it up, I think we
have to concentrate on the proteins or some compositional analysis that tells
us that something has been changed; and if, as we go through the steps nothing
has been changed, and if FDA works with the producers all along, then it could
be a very painless process. And Dr.
Gonsalves brought up a question at lunch, and that is what about the small guy
who maybe can't afford to do this.
There can be a cut-off, an economic cut-off, the size of your company,
and why not have FDA, as he suggests, do a simple two-D gel and analyze it
with--I can't use a company name--with a series of database, and send it back
to them. Help them out.
I
think you can do it, and I don't think it's such a big deal.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Okay. Dr. Arias.
DR.
ARIAS: Jonathan Arias. It's wonderful being at the end of a long
line of
distinguished speakers because I can be
truly brief and say I concur. I just
will add a few additional points.
I
think, really, all of the comments that have been made are right on the mark,
and, in particular, we need to recognize a couple of things that is that the
state of the art is intrinsically flawed.
Most of the techniques, even in measuring changes in gene expression,
may not predict deleterious effects for human health. That's the state of the art.
Yet,
we still have to deal with the risk management aspects of that. And so it to be prudent, clearly some of the
specifics that have been outlined in the draft guidelines that we've received
for this subcommittee make good sense.
Looking
at changes in the gene itself, the transgene, its insertion site, and any
attendant effects, like translocations of the genome in which it's inserted,
would be prudent, because, clearly, we want to avoid any untoward effects that
are not anticipated.
And,
so, I would say that the state of the art still precludes many advanced
analytical techniques, which have been raised by various members of this
subcommittee, such as functional proteomics, which I do believe, in the future,
will probably provide enormous insight, yet currently lack the predictive power
to tell us about what, again, are the risks that changes in protein expression
would engender to the consumer.
Given
that, I would like to propose a slightly different tact in this, and that is, a
proactive one taken by the FDA and the developers. And some of my points, perhaps my thunder has already been stolen
by various subcommittee members, and I welcome that; but I think some of the
points that I'm about to make seem very prudent indeed.
As
we know, in certain cases, expression of the recombinant protein in the food or
edible portion of the plant raises red flags in and of itself. As the state of the art in plant gene
expression has advanced enormously over the years,
as evidenced by numerous publications,
the use of tissue-specific promoters, as Dr. Benedict mentioned, would seem a
very good prospect for redirecting expression in those cases where it can be
done of a recombinant protein to those tissues that it needs to be targeted to,
preferably those that may be outside of the human food chain.
However,
we also recognize that coming through the pipeline, no doubt, are modifications
which will affect the sort of nutriceutical portion of the plant, the edible
portion of the plant. And, in those
cases, clearly a different level of analysis may have to be done. So, we could see a decision tree that would
readily distinguish, just on the basis of the promoters that drive expression
of the product, different types of decision trees. And, so, that would give a different type of balance entirely.
The
second point is related, in a sense, to the first, or as a consequence of that;
and that is that most of the promoters that are currently used to drive
expression of recombinant proteins
inplants are strain viral enhancers,
which drive very high expression often of the recombinant protein and do so
typically in a somewhat constitutive manner throughout the plant. Again, more targeted approaches I think
would be prudent for the future, would alleviate concerns by consumers, as well
as scientists to review the expression patterns of these, and would at least
take up, perhaps in many cases, the problem out of the food chain, which is the
strict focus of this committee.
So,
I would also encourage us to think proactively in terms of what types of
technologies are in hand now that could be recommended to developers in the
future to help them in creating a better, safer product that would conceivably
raise less problems and less red flags.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Last, but not least. I am an expert in genome rearrangements,
having worked on transposed lines.
T-DNAs don't move. And some of
the problems we're taking, we're suggesting are
the purview of FDA are really the
problem of the developer. It's a
problem for the developer if there are genomic rearrangements and recombination
events, which, by the way, are quite rare in plants; that is, ectopic
recombination events between homologous sequences located on different
chromosomes. If that messes up the
chromosomes, the developer will see that and throw that away long before that
plants gets to the point at which it's ready to come here.
So,
I think that already the amount of information that is being required about the
inserts is probably more than we really need given that they have so little
predictive value. I can tell you--I
probably couldn't quantify it. I could
quantify it, more or less, from people who have put together insertional
databases in arabidopsis. But the
bottom line there is that rather few of the insertions affect the way the plant
develops and reproduces, which is what plants do.
So,
the probability that there will be a huge accumulation of insertions that
happen to
affect just that part that we use as
food is very low. I think there are
other places we should be looking. I
think at the biochemical level, we know what the problem compounds, whether
they're proteins, alkaloids, lipids, or secondary metabolites, we know a lot
about that for different kinds of foods.
That's where we should be looking.
Sometimes it's at the--at the level of proteins, but it certainly isn't
always at the level of proteins. So,
the tests should be relevant to what's known about the history of toxic
compounds or allergenic compounds in the food.
Okay. Something that Dr. Gonsalves I thought would
bring up but didn't bring up is asking for information that's relevant to the
particular modification. The RNA-based
inactivation processes minimize the effect of the protein. So, if you have a viral coat protein gene,
basically what you're doing is shutting down the translation of that gene,
because you're destroying the RNA. We
didn't know that 10 years ago. We know
that today. You will see on the web
lots of commentaries about how terribly
allergenic the--what is it--the papaya ring spot viral coat protein is. But the fact of the matter is that the
mechanism by which the coat protein gene confers immunity to the papaya
minimizes the production of that coat protein gene. And, by the way, the evidence that it's allergenic is so
thin. I've just been reviewing some of
those papers, and it's simply approximally [sic] eight amino acid homology
between it and another coat protein.
And someone was commenting, I think it was James at lunch, that we now
have a very large database of allergenic proteins, and the probability that two
homologous--two proteins will cross
react that are not homologous, with the same IGE, is pretty small at this
point.
So,
those are the kinds of data we should be incorporating into our
assessments. But I think at the level
of DNA characterization, there maybe isn't much to be gained. There's not any indication that I've heard
from anybody that you can even point to one instance where the particular
site of insertion passed through all of
the tests that the developers put the plant through, whether it's back crossing
or simply growing out, and then suddenly a problem was revealed when one looked
at the food.
The
probability that you will uncover food issues at the DNA level is much smaller,
it seems to me, than looking at either specific proteins or the biochemical
composition of the food.
So,
I would strongly urge us not to extent the amount of molecular evidence that
we're asking for at the moment, but to ask that the kinds of data that the FDA
requires be relevant to the kinds of compounds that have proven problematic in
those foods.
And
my final comment-I'm probably way over my time--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: That's all right. But you're doing a nice job of
summarizing. Keep going.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Okay, the one thing that I
wanted to add to Dr. Astwood's summary of the
Pustai problem is that it's really
important for people who have an animal background and a plant background to
come together on these issues. I think that's what went wrong in that case,
because what he saw was nutritionally different potatoes, never mind that rats
didn't like them, but. And he concluded
that it was something about the recombinant DNA that was different because his
control was potato plus lectin, okay.
And that was the wrong conclusion--what--that--but--probably. I mean, you wouldn't know that unless you
went back and did the experiments, which are hard experiments. And that is, to ask why kind of variability
comes out of tissue culture. And that's
something that many animal biologists don't know. But in plants, most of the processes that we use currently, not
all of them, but most of them for introducing genes, involve a
de-differentiation of the plant tissue into something that doesn't even look
like a plant, and then regeneration of that.
Now, that changes methylation patterns.
That changes things, both transiently and stably.
All the different kinds of stable
genetic mutations--single-base changes, insertions, deletions, translocations--have
all surfaced in those regenerated cells.
That's one of the first things that happens in a breeding program. You throw them--and that's actually been
used. It's called somaclonal variation.
It has been used to evoke more variability, but then you have to sort
through the garbage and throw away the garbage.
So,
the point is that you can't simply transform a gene into a tissue culture cell,
analyze the protein composition, because that isn't necessarily what you're
going to get out of it.
One,
and the plant that you get out to begin with, if you begin to backcross it, you
will get rid of the other junk you've accumulated, which we've actually never
worried about when we used radiation to induce variation. That is very much more less specific, and
introduces a lot more damage. And, yet,
the whole breeding process, and its multiple generation--I don't think it's
been--it's probably reduced to--how
many generations do you typically do
now?
DR.
ASTWOOD: I'm sorry.
DR.
FEDOROFF: In your breeding programs?
DR.
ASTWOOD: Before going to the
marketplace?
DR.
FEDOROFF: Correct.
DR.
ASTWOOD: It could be as many as 10.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Okay. So, it's not really much less than was
classically used.
There's--there's ten generations of
backcrossing, which gets rid of other junk, okay, that might have happened.
And,
finally, rearrangements, is the basic stuff of plant change. Even closely related varieties differ from
each other by insertions, deletions, rearrangements. That's a constant process.
So, the notion that we have a genome that can't be disturbed is an
illusion. It's an illusion in
people. It's an illusion in
plants. The phenotype is what's
important, whether you're looking at the biochemistry or the way the plant
grows and reproduces.
End
of lecture.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: As the ultimate novice here,
compared to the rest of this panel, in
my--not sufficiently alert or listening
to the singing next door, I'm not sure what it was. But there seems like there's a great deal of consistency here, a
great deal of agreement. Did I miss
something?
Gee,
it's going to be sort of dull.
[Laughter.]
DR.
FEDOROFF: You can make a difference.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: As I was listening through this,
I'm hearing that as we looked at our charge, and as some of the things have,
saying scientifically what will help FDA do their job, what I'm hearing is that
they shouldn't put a lot more effort into the genetic assessments sequencing,
et cetera, than currently going on. And
what I heard was that no changes in the genetics may not really indicate--may
not identify a possible food safety issue if it might exist, but that an awful
lot of food safety issues that might occur in the biotechnology never get very
far
because they disappear in the
development; that the development takes care--rules out essentially all of
that.
DR.
FEDOROFF: It depends on the plant.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Depends on the plant.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Some are crossed, and some
are not.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Okay. The changes in proteins, and I heard proteomics a lot, and these
new techniques get awfully exciting.
Now, I heard that we're on the edge of that yet, and we still got a lot
to learn. We may not--don't want to get
the chip upside down.
DR.
BUCHANAN: That hasn't happened.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: That hasn't happened yet. But did I hear that if you detected a change
in the proteins in some way, it wouldn't necessarily be allergenic; it wouldn't
necessarily be a food safety issue. But
if there weren't any changes in the protein array, if you would, that we're
fairly sure that there isn't a potential food safety issue.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Oh, I think we need to
talk about that a little more.
DR.
ARIAS: Are we talking about the
complement of plant proteins encoated by the genome, in addition to changes in
the recombinant protein or apart from?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: I think in addition to. I
mean, and that's part of why I was stressing pleiotropic effects. You know, or things such as the promoter
ending up driving the expression of another gene that's somewhere
downstream. And, you know, rather than
trying to deal with that by figuring out how to look at it at the DNA level,
which is fraught with problems. My
understanding is that through the kinds of techniques you're using, if it
really did drive the expression of a protein that either is not expressed
otherwise or at much lower levels that your methodologies have the potential to
reveal that.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: In sequence that was
Arias--
DR.
ARIAS: Arias, again. My concern is
there isn't enough information yet,
except in a well few well characterized conditions or states to identify a
change in the expression of an endogenous protein with a specific effect. In fact, you know the metabolomics of plants
is still in its infancy, even in the model plant arabidopsis has a lot to go
before a full characterization occurs.
So, perhaps that's something that when we get to that level, it can be
done.
But
I'm concerned about the issue of
post-translation changes in the plant
of the recombinant protein as a more significant issue; and that this is
something I think that can and should be perhaps be readily addressed by
developers because of the potential for changes in plant due to
post-translation modifications that might conceivably alter the biochemical properties
of the recombinant protein. So, in most
cases, when recombinant proteins are expressed and tested, they're done so in
heterologous systems, like yeast or in bacteria, frequently.
And,
in that sense, their bioactivity
might differ significantly from that
expressed in the plant because of intrinsically different metabolic reactions
that lead to post-translational modifications in different plant cells and
tissues.
So,
I think a complete characterization at the biochemical level of the recombinant
protein in plant is probably just as important as looking at changes in gene
insertion and mutagenesis events, because those changes in post-translational
effects could, at least, act as a red flag for thinking about what the
bioactivity properties might be. And
this is certainly not beyond the realm of current technology, such as mass
spectroscopy, where proteins that have been purified can be completely
sequenced in many cases, and their
post-translational modifications can be
analyzed.
So,
I think that it would behoove us to think specifically as well about those
effects as they relate to bioactivity.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Astwood.
DR.
ASTWOOD: This is Jim Astwood. I wanted to reinforce and agree completely
with what
Dr. Arias just said about the importance
of full characterization of the protein as it's expressed and manifested in the
plant. Although it's basically out of
the scope from the questions we ask here, conventionally what developers do is,
in fact, a complete characterization of the protein as produced in plants. They typically purify from the plants,
sequence it, look for post-translational modifications, the good glycosylation,
if present, look at bioactivity, if it's an insecticidal protein, look at
enzyme activity and enzyme kinetics, if it's an enzyme, and carefully compare
that to the e-coli material, which is typically used in safety studies. So there's usually a significant investment
in the characterization of the actual transgenic protein. And so I think that's an extremely important
point. But I also think that is what we
are doing.
DR.
ARIAS: I'm sorry just one additional
comment. I believe that is true, but I
think that the realm of analysis still needs to go that extra step. I know glycosylation is looked. I don't
believe phosphorylation, for example,
is typically done so, although I may be wrong on this. And there are other post-translational
modification states, as well as proteins, that may be equally relevant. Given the high analytical capabilities of
mass spec these days, it seems like this would be a technology that is already
available for applications for these types of things. And it's also highly sensitive.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: One, two, three.
DR.
BUCHANAN: Bob Buchanan. Yes, I just wanted to add one minor point,
and that is I think proteomics has the capability to pinpoint unintended
effects. For example, if we see new
proteins, we don't know what all of them are, we don't know what all of the
secondary products, or natural product pathways are, which might form
toxicants. We know many of them, and,
with time, we'll know most of them.
But
I think we can identify potential problems.
I think it's very unlikely that they'll arise. But the capability to identify them is
present or soon will be.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Gurian?
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Doug
Gurian-Sherman. Yeah, I wanted to
reiterate Dr. Arias' point about the importance of post-translational
modifications. I think his laying out
the testing kind of protocols and using bacterial surrogates is very
accurate. And, but I'm not, again, you
know, I hate to keep harping on this point, but I have looked at a number of
the actual studies. And there's a lot
of variation in the extent of analysis of post-translational effects. And that was one of the issues that came up,
for instance, with StarLink, which was a major protein, and the committee of
allergists and immunologists and others that looked at StarLink concluded that
they were uncomfortable about Aventis is the company that produced that crop. Their analysis of the glycosylation state or
the cryo 9 C protein. So, there's an
example where, you know, there as a group of scientific experts that have a lot
of experience with that, and glycosylation can be
importance for a number of reasons,
especially immunological reasons. It
has, you know, there is some association between glycosylation and
allergenicity, among other things.
So,
again, you know, I think all the specific points about the issues that we're
dealing with and discussing are important.
But, again, you know, I have to come back to the point about how studies
are actually done; what's actually looked at in practice; or what's at least
what's submitted to the agencies--maybe, you know, companies are doing more
than what they submit--and the bearing that that has on the rigor of the
results.
So,
it's a little bit different issue. But
I--you know, I think it's still very important that that be considered more
carefully.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Benedict?
DR.
BENEDICT: Steve Benedict. Just a couple of loose comments. One is that with a properly done two-D gel,
and other associated things, you can pick up post-translational modifications
pretty readily. And I come back to
this.
It's not that I would advocate that the
two-D gel could tell us everything
that's going on. They could pick up the
difference between the parent plant and the progeny plant. And that's all I was sort of suggesting,
which was to echo what Dr. Buchanan said; and, that is, if you find the
difference, then you go to mass spec, you find out what that protein is, and
you ask yourself, is this likely to be a problem. It will be a problem either because it's a toxin or an allergen,
or it will be a problem because it's misdirecting some metabolic pathway that
you can now learn about because you know what the protein is. And so that's why I'm pounding on this a
little harder.
We
can tell phosphorylation differences with a Western blot and the right
antibody. That's trivial almost.
The
other thing for Dr. Fedoroff is, when I mention plant tissue culture, the sort
of statement I didn't make clearly was that my argument was that if you have a
tissue culture, and you put a protein in there, if there is a change in
the proteome there--admittedly, you
can't predict anything about the plant, you can't predict anything else, but
you can ask the question whether that protein that you've introduced can alter
gene expression levels, can alter the pathway of some expression pathway. And if the answer is no, then you have good
information that that protein itself introduced into the plant that it's going
to be in is not by some way likely to soak up some metabolic pathway protein
and cause a shift in gene expression.
That was sort of the question that I was trying to address.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: That's actually a harder
question to answer than you might think because it's not impossible, but,
basically, it's a given that different tissue culture lines have different
modifications. It'll shut down genes
methylation at exchange. Lots of junk
happens, okay? So, in order to ask
whether it's that protein that you introduced that's doing whatever it is that
you picked up with your proteomics, you really have to
use one of these site-specific
recombination systems so you can excise the particular gene and say, okay, is
it still there.
So,
that's doable, but, again, the criterion of the plant growing it back, and then
asking the questions after you've cleaned up your background, which is
basically what breeders have always done, is more relevant to the food safety
issues than asking whether tissue culture messes up stuff.
DR.
BENEDICT: But I think I'm still not
being clear. I really didn't care, in
my question, what happened to the plant at that point. The question is, is the introduced protein,
all by itself, regardless of future phenotypic changes, is that protein capable
of doing something to the metabolic milieu that causes a rearrangement of gene
expression.
DR.
FEDOROFF: And what I'm trying to tell
you is that it's harder to tell, to distinguish that from random changes that
happen as a result of tissue cultures, than you might think, because the
tissue culture itself is evolving. So, if you culture cells for long enough,
you can't even regenerate plants from them.
DR.
BENEDICT: Really, we're only talking
about a few hours, you know.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Well, no.
DR.
BENEDICT: A day or so.
DR.
FEDOROFF: We're not talking about a few
hours. This is getting very technical,
but we're not talking about a few hours.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I'm going to take two more, and
then we're going to take a
biological--three more--and then we'll
take a biological break.
DR.
ASTWOOD: Jim Astwood. I wanted to pick up on the proteomics
conversation, because it's a fascinating one, and share with you a bit of my
own experience. I have a Ph.D. student
who actually is at a proteomics conference tomorrow presenting data from
arabidopsis, Twelve Different Varieties of Arabidopsis, with a View to Can You
Detect Differences from One Variety to the Other. And, of course, you can.
Of the 850 proteins
identified, over 300 vary from one
accession really of arabidopsis to another.
And, so you start getting a sense of the variability in the
proteome. And that really gets to Dr.
Maryanski's comment early. When we do
compositional analyses, it's actually insufficient in a risk assessment context
to do a head to head comparison between the
so-called isoline and the actual
transgenic product precisely for the reasons that Dr. Fedoroff mentioned, which
is that, because of somaclonal variation and the actual underlying genetics of
most crops, you can very rarely find a true genetically thing to do the
comparisons from. So, you actually have
to do a comparison to a population, and so you have to understand what's the
range in the population before you can actually do these kinds of
experiments. And so, at a technical
level, I think we're at the frontier, and that there's some opportunity that
proteomics could be of value. I'm not
sure when that will be, but, as we talk about applying proteomics, it seems to
that before we apply such technology, in addition
to all the ground work we got to lay in
terms of understanding it, we also need to ask ourselves, what incremental
public health protection are we actually achieving by the application of that
technology or a different technology or a new kind of toxicology study.
Usually, in a regulatory context when you apply a new methodology, it's because
you're attempting to address a risk that your current assessment does not
address. So, as we contemplate those
technologies, I think we need to understand what risks we are not currently
addressing by the range of studies that we're already using. Until we know what those are, I think it's
premature to really talk seriously about applying proteomics or any other kind
of technology until we understand that safety context. So, it is two things. There's when is the technology really ready
to use, and then what is the public health benefit of using the
technology. And for me, proteomics
isn't there yet, but I think it's an attractive area to work, as Bob mentioned
and others. And, in fact, we're working
on it, and I
know others are.
So,
it's a tough area.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Gurian-Sherman.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Yeah, I think getting
back to--those are some good points that Jim makes that, you know, may be
something that requires further development to be able--and I think there's
been--this point has been made a number of times to interpret changes that are
very likely to be seen. I think
addressing both, you know, Nina--Nina's point and Dr. Benedict's point that it
seems to me that what we're concerned about is the risk of the plant, you know,
both the genetic material, its products, and the overall--the whole plant.
And
there would probably be--certainly be more appropriate to look at it after
whatever backcrossing has been done for the last, you know, maybe whatever is
typical--one centimorgan of DNA, flanking DNA, that will remain after
backcrossing. But, be that as it may,
it's still, even at that point, whatever risk still remains from both the
insert, any linked mutations that might still be
there is really, you know, ultimately
the point. And can we get at that, and
how much marginal risk is there. And
that, I think, goes to Jim's point about what is the purpose or what would be
the value of that. And I think, again,
it goes back to the whole issue of pleiotropic effects and how much we do and
don't know or what is predictable and not predictable about the safety of the
plant and changes that can occur in the plant that may have deleterious
effects. I think, again, you know, echoing
what Ann said earlier, that's where there's a certain amount of lack of
understanding. You know, without--I'm
reluctant to even say this because I don't want to sound like I'm looking for
that infinite risk, which is really not the point I want to make. But, certainly, if we can improve the safety
of the crop, looking at a genetically engineered crop, by new knowledge, and I
go back to what Jim said earlier, you know, he--we eat carrots all our life and
maybe there's some incremental risk from eating carrots. We don't want to be paranoid about eating
carrots. But, as we do find
out new issues that can improve the safety
of crops, I think, you know, even if we did not know them before, it's relevant
to consider them, and there may be, you know, issues that we learn about
pleiotropic effects that can have relevance.
And
I'll just bring up two, and there punitive cases, so, you know, again, I'm
bringing this up in the context of, you know, not real well established
science. But there have been recent
examples with corn, for instance, where some studies have been done with
rodents, and I think it was ovarian, human ovarian cells, that discovered a new
compound; and I don't remember the chemical compound. But it seems to have some estrogenic effect. Well, that wasn't known five years ago. How important is it? I don't know. It may be very irrelevant.
There
have been some recent compounds in wheat proteins that have been associated
with the development of Type-II diabetes.
The
point I'm getting at is there's still a lot we don't know, and that by, you
know,
improving our analysis of pleiotropic
effects, we may be able to improve the safety of these crops, because there are
compounds that may be expressed at very low levels now that we don't know much
about that could--that we shouldn't.
I'm not suggesting that we should be paranoid about those or not--or
overly concerned about those. But those
are the kinds of things that proteomic analysis, you know, can ultimately get
it. So, what I'm trying to do is answer
Jim's question. I don't think we're quite there yet. But there are, you know, questions that this technology could be
relevant for. And, so, you know, I
think it is something that needs to go forward and continue to be developed.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Buchanan. You can conclude this portion of the--
DR.
BUCHANAN: Oh, that's a rare
opportunity. Yes, I just wanted to add
one point to what Jim, and when I described what we were doing, I said we had
compared the nulsegregant with the transgenic; and I think that's the best
control. That's the--it's gone through all the tissue culture
treatment. It's just that the gene at
point has segregated out.
And
when we have compared our plants in that way, we've looked at seeds, we don't
see differences other than the gene of interest, not great differences,
anyway. We see very interesting
developmental differences because of the protein we're looking at. But if we look at the chromosomal product,
it's kind of like the twins. It's hard
to tell one from the other. Go for
it. Identical twin.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: A true geneticist. Yes.
Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: This came up at lunch, and I
think it's a point worth making. Corn
breeders look at agronomic traits. They
never worried about the corn and the edibility of the corn. They never analyzed it, never looked at
it. And as far as I know, they didn't
do much damage.
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER: They didn't eat it.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Huh?
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER: They didn't eat it.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I--we will take a
15-minute break, and then we're going
to come back, and we're going to try and come up with some conclusions and
recommendations of this discussion. And
then we will, after that summary, look at some of the future and the letter
that Trudy generated, and look at other recommendations and future agenda
items.
[Whereupon,
the meeting went back on the record at 3:23 p.m.]
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Our next challenge of the
afternoon is to come up with a summary of what we've discussed and what we feel
we want to conclude on our charge.
And
I think as I was listening to this apparent consensus to me, that when we're
talking about the molecular characterization of bioengineered food plants, and
suggestions regarding additional information, I tended to hear that the genetic
characterization that's being done right now is sufficient; that it's--for the
purposes of specifically food safety
and our charge of scientifically how can we help FDA scientifically do their
job, that identifying any more genetic information, any more sequencing, any
more information than is already there would not enhance the assessment of food
safety. Okay, I've got two hands. So, that--at least we started the
conclusion.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Okay. Doug
Gurian-Sherman. I'm not entirely clear on what we may have
consensus about, but I think I dissent from that. And so, I just want to be clear about what I'm dissenting from. I basically would agree with the Codex
analysis. I certainly would also agree
that, you know, potential unintended effects, such as changes in known
toxicants, allergens, anti-nutrients, are probably, you know, more important on
a risk assessment basis than the characterization of the gene. But I also have to put that in the context
of, again, how difficult it is to acquire the sequence of the transgene and
possibly some of the flanking sequences, at least
whether there's an open reading frame
that's been interrupted. So--and I
think while, you know, there are certainly a lot of limits in terms of how
valuable that data is or can be, it can be of value. And, again, I just want to give one potential example. Small changes in--we know--most changes that
may occur with the insertion of a gene are going to be deleterious. They are probably more likely than not to
significantly reduce the effect, the intended effect, of the gene and gene product. And it's going to be the minority of the
cases where there's going to be some change that causes some safety issue. But I think that has to be weighed against,
again, the cost and the ease of getting that data and some of the kinds of
things that can happen. We do know there's consensus sequences for, at least
for M-glycosylation. I don't know if we
know enough about O-glycosylation, the sequences involved.
But
some of these sequences are fairly small. Allergen epitopes can be, you know,
four to five, six amino acids. So,
sometimes small changes
can be meaningful. Most of the time, these changes are
not. But if we have the data, we can
eliminate those issues where they're non-issues. If there seems to be an issue, then there can be further
exploration. So, I guess what I'm
saying is I agree with the Codex assessment, and I think that has to be, again,
put in the context of what FDA is actually getting. And, from what I've seen, they rarely, if ever, get the sequence
of the inserted gene in the plant or expression analysis of surrounding
flanking regions, open reading frames or a sequence of those flanking
regions. They may get it sometimes, but
that's not the norm from what I have seen.
So I think I need to be more clear on what there may or may not be
consensus about.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Thank. Kapuscinski.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Yeah, I, during the break,
looked again at the specific points on
our--in our questions and realized that
one of the bullets under number two I wasn't sure I understood clearly. And that was a bullet about information on
the organization of the DNA within the inserts.
So, I was assuming that that meant that
FDA is currently recommending, when a developer comes to them, that the
developer provide information on the sequence, the complete sequence of the
inserted construct. And, during the
break, I ask Jim, and he seemed to indicate, Jim Maryanski seemed to indicate
that they haven't specifically asked that from the past. So, if that's really true, then the one
thing I would recommend is that that information would be useful because it
seems like, today, it's fairly easy to get that data; and it's at least a first
cut. If you think about taking the kind
of iterative approach that Dr. Benedict was recommending earlier, and I really
endorse that kind of approach, the sequence data would be a first cut at
whether there are any predicted amino acid changes could then raise a flag or
they might not raise a flag. You do
have to then ask the next question: are any of those amino acid changes
problematic? But this gives you at
least a first cut at knowing whether you need to even ask that.
So,
I want to make sure that the people
realize that the comments I made
earlier when we went around the table, I was focusing my comments on the issue
of should FDA go beyond this list to, you know, go into that whole universe of
all this DNA array stuff and genomic stuff; and that's what I was sort of
wanting, suggesting we sort of hold back on, and place the effort more at the
biochemical and protein level. But that
was with my assuming that they're presently encouraging developers to present
complete data on the sequence of the inserted constructs.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: And how does--without me
looking, what is Codex say on that?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: I think Codex recommends
doing that.
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER: They recommend the sequence.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: The full sequence?
DR.
BENEDICT: I think so.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Let's see--
DR.
BENEDICT: I shouldn't say that, nodding
because I think so, no, because I know so.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Well, it says the
characterization--item 31 big "A" says the characterization and
description of the inserted genetic materials.
It's not really clear about--
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: "C" says the
organization of the inserted genetic--this is Doug Gurian-Sherman. The organization of the inserted genetic
material, at the insertion site, including copy number and sequence data--
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: And sequence data.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: And sequence data of
the inserted material and the surrounding regions sufficiently to identify, but
then it also says or where more appropriate other information, such as analysis
of transcripts, expression products, to identify any new substances that may be
in the food. And then it goes on to
"D." So, yeah, and I would agree. If you have expression data that's more
appropriate or can be shown to be more appropriate--but it seems to encourage
the sequence data of the insert.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: But what I also heard was
that there was a lot of agreement with
the decision tree approach of looking at a number of other things as well as
the genetic composition.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Yeah, my sense is that
everyone's agreeing.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Right. Yeah. Right. I guess I should have started with that,
but, to me, that results in not really expanding what FDA is currently doing on
the gene work.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Well, but I think the
devil is in the details. It would
depend on what kind of information they're actually requesting or encouraging
on the organization of the DNA within the inserts. If it's compatible with what's laid out here in the Codex
guidelines, then fine. And if that is
one of the steps on the decision tree, that's great. But if it's not compatible with what's in the Codex, then
that's--then I'm not sure I would agree.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: What would you like to say
there? I'm just--
DR.
SALYERS: Abigail Salyers. Just very,
very brief. What I heard, and what I think is something that is very strongly
to be recommended is that the full characterization of the gene product--I
mean, I think the sequence data may be nice, but I think it's an illusion to
think that's going to give you the information you really want. And, so, that's--Steve, you may have been
the person who brought that up or Bob, I've forgotten who. But that the protein product, if there is a
protein product of the gene, needs to be very thoroughly characterized. I think that's being done or my assumption
is that's being done already. Because
that's where you'll see the glycosylation, phosphorylation and other, you know,
any abnormalities that might have occurred during the cloning process.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Arias.
DR.
ARIAS: To add on to the scope of the
discussion relevant to the Codex document, I wanted to just get some
clarification on the statement about--under 31 C, where sequence data of the
inserted material and of the surrounding region
sufficient to identify any substances
expressed as a consequence of the inserted material. There's another issue that is also relevant to the flanking
region of the insertion of T-DNA, and I discovered that doing a literature
search last week in preparation for this meeting, in which I found several
papers that imply that T-DNA insertion itself, in addition to potentially being
mutagenic by inserting into intergenic promoter regions or coding sequences can
also induce fairly large, in this case up to 40 kilobase region, translocations
between chromosomes. And, in the
particular example cited here in Plant Physiology 2001, by Tax and Vernon, they
show, using arabidopsis daliana as the model, that a significant region of one
chromosome, five, was induced to translocate next to the transgene in response
to the insertional event on a different chromosome. So, my question is--I have no idea about the frequency of these
events. This is a deported case. They were a couple of other papers that have
suggested also translocation events may occur in response to T-DNA
insertion. So, I'm wondering whether or not it would be prudent to consider
at least having some marker genes that are comparative in terms of their
chromosomal distribution in the progenitor lines versus the transgenic lines to
at least confirm that, you know, large scale translocation events may have
occurred as an untoward consequence of the T-DNA insertion. I have no idea whether this specific case or
others might pose a risk for safety or health.
But it certainly would be a concern if large regions of chromosomes are
relocating to new sites, which may result, as we all know, in a number of cases
that have been document in animal and plant literature in dramatic changes in
phenotype.
So,
I just raise for discussion, and I have no particular suggestion, whether or
not it would be advantageous to consider including some marker analysis to show
that genes that are identified flanking the T-DNA insertion events are in the
appropriate chromosomal location.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: This is a problem with T-DNAs
that's been known for a long time. Not
only do they insert in multiple places, but they can induce translocations.
But,
again, is it a food safety issue? Or
are we just disturbed by it, and, therefore, asking for data? If you want to know that the same
sequences--that the sequences that were originally together are at each end of
the T-DNA, all you have to do is amplify and sequence the two flanking
sequences. They should be together in
the original DNA and not.
But
that's a problem for the developer.
Unless you can point to a case where it's a food safety issue, I think
it's going to be more of a problem.
It's not the case that translocations and various rearrangements don't
affect plant growth and development, but if they have a major effect, you're
going to throw it out in the field. Or
it's going to mess up your backcrosses.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Gonsalves. Gurian and three--one, two, three.
DR.
GONSALVES: Yeah, it's Dennis
Gonsalves. As I listen to a lot of
this, I think we're in danger of becoming too academic. You know, it's easy to say, if you put
markers, and you're going to change the non-antibiotic resistance markers, but
you know to go through, and I've been through this, so I know, to go through
the process of deregulation and AVIS, EPA, and FDA, and all what we have to go
through is not a trivial thing. And it
takes time.
So,
I think that the decisions that we make could theoretically have tremendous
impact on whether products even go through.
And this is why I really think we have to look at food safety issues,
and I heard, I thought I heard, that Dr. Fedoroff said that in many of all the
things that have been studied, very few insertion events make a
difference. And I see, Dr. Sherman's
concern about, you know, he want more systematic information; and I really
think we might want to come back and just look at the charges and questions
that were asked here and maybe just try
to answer some of these questions; that
one was: to what extent does sequencing information contribute to the
identification of newly expressed substances?
If sequence information is important for the purpose of FDA assessment,
what sequence information, should be reviewed, for example, border sequences?
You
know, I think if we address some of these things more specifically, we might be
able to address some of these charges, but, you know, we can go on and on and
talk about all these possibilities that might happen.
DR.
ARIAS: I'd like to interject and say
this would fall under the domain of information on the organization of the DNA
within the inserts. This is an
organizational issue at the chromosomal level.
And I'm not saying that this has any implications for food safety, but
this is a mutagenic event. It will also
result in altered junctions, presumably between the translocated chromosome
into the new site. Does this engender
concern? That's my question.
DR.
GONSALVES: Yeah, for food safety.
DR.
ARIAS: For food safety, exactly.
DR.
GONSALVES: Right. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Gurian-Sherman.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Doug
Gurian-Sherman. I guess there's a
couple of points, and I definitely with Abigail's point that the protein is
ultimately, and the phenotype after that, is more important than the gene. But I think a thorough characterization of
the protein would include the protein sequence. And, again, I have to go back to the--a few examples that we do
have where there's been characterization of the protein. I think some of these points have been
brought up. There have been problems
that have been identified with the characterization of the bacterial surrogate
compared to the inserted DNA or inserted consequent protein, where there's a
protein involved. And I think we just
have to be careful about what a thorough characterization of the protein really
is, and certainly sequence is a good part, I think, a good part of that. I mean, either, you know,
certainly the protein sequence would
ultimately be probably better than the DNA sequence, the mature protein
sequence. But you can also obviously
translate the DNA sequence, with some caveats.
So,
you know, again I think that that's right, but--and, again, I think the devil's
in the details about what's actually done, and how it's done, and how effective
it is. You know, the point was made
several times before: bioassays are sometimes done. But how those bioassays are done are going to determine the
sensitivity of the expression data that you're looking at.
So,
I think that really, again, whether it's the protein or the DNA, it's not that
big a deal and the data can be useful in terms of getting at some of the
structure and function relationships of the protein and the plant.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Astwood.
DR.
ASTWOOD: This is Jim Astwood. Back to the question of consensus, Anne and
others have suggested that we may have consensus that the FDA approach is
consistent with Codex. And the one
sort of unresolved issue was whether
that also implied that the DNA insert itself was sequenced. It's conceivable that you can have enough
information without the sequence, but certainly the general interpretation internationally
would likely be that you need to have the DNA sequence of the insert.
From
a U.S. perspective, what you would need to judge is whether you need to meet
that international standard for all products.
I can envision that, for a small academic project, that might not be
necessary at all to establish the safety of the product. And I'm not sure that the FDA is explicitly
suggesting that you have the DNA insert sequence or not. From the organization that I represent, we
always do. For a large corporation,
this is routine, because it meets international standards. But you may need a different standard
locally to meet the local needs, and, so, I kind of put that on the table.
As
for the suggestion that we need to also characterize and fully understand the
extent, if
any, of potential chromosomal
rearrangements, that is actually a fairly large question. And going back to first principles, does the
knowledge that there is a chromosomal rearrangement in and of itself become
criteria for the safety, or do we have this battery of other tests that really
gets at that question through finitive compositional analysis and other
things. If that
rearrangement--it's not that a
rearrangement is a priority, a concern.
It is rearrangements that cause the phenotype to be different. And we have a lot of ways of measuring the
phenotypic properties with respect to food safety. So, I would be reluctant to support a criteria that said you
couldn't have rearrangements. In fact,
we know most inserts do create rearrangements.
So,
it's not clear that the knowledge and the specific knowledge of how large it
is, and what genes were deleted actually informs you about the safety of the
product.
And
that has been a question mark, a question that has been raised and debated
internationally many, many times. And you'll see that's actually not in the
Codex document.
What
is also suggested in the Codex document is the need to have some sort of
flanking sequence DNA, DNA sequence from the flanks, which kind of gets at the
question of did you create that novel fusion protein at the junction of the
insert. So, I'm not sure if the FDA
intended that also to be implicit in what they're proposing, and in their
argument that the discussion paper is consistent with Codex, but if it is, I
suspect we would have consensus there, too.
But if it's not, then we probably need to have more discussion about
why.
Sorry,
I missed three topics into that. I
apologize, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Very good. That moves us along.
DR.
ARIAS: May I make comment. Jonathan Arias, again. It seems that the differences I noted
between the committee members can fall into sort of two categories: the obvious
differences in the transgenic coded product itself, such as
splicing and untoward effects, and the
unintentional, more speculative nature, of what insertion does, and I can well
appreciate how a number of us have different levels of concern for this. I think, at least from my standpoint, it's
only to raise these issues as perhaps preliminary devices by which developers
might consider ways of reducing their own risk. I would think it would be in the developers best interest, when
they make 200--thank you, Nina--independent transgenic lines of the particular
recombinant DNA that they would do some preliminary screening to look at things
like large-scale translocations, insertional events that obviously result in
changes in the plant phenotype, et cetera, et cetera. And so these are more, from my standpoint, perhaps suggestions by
which the developers should start thinking about how to minimize the ultimate
risk so that when they come down to their application to the FDA, they've
already assumed that many of these things are no longer an issue; that we're
not looking at a plant whose genetics are not characterized or are really
up in the air. And I do think, though, however, that
chromosomal translocation should be looked at rather carefully by developers in
their process, because we know that they can result in significant potential
for mutagenesis that may or may not result in obvious or perhaps subtle effects
that we can't currently characterize, but that, nonetheless, would represent a
potential risk.
So,
I, again, mention I brought this up only to help advance the issues of risk
safety and for no other reason.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I, as Chair, I like Dr.
Gonsalves' suggestion that to try in the next half hour to wrap this up; that
we look at the issues and get some, you know, objective--it's like the
objective quiz at the end of the lecture.
Get some consensus, if we can, to these issues. And I see number three as a place where
the--one of the recommendations on proteomics, ischemics, and come in. Yes, Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: I think one of the most
important things to add is the one that I added
based on the recent work on the
mechanism of inactivation of viral coat proteins; and that is that the
advancement that has happened in the last 10 years is the recognition that
viral coat protein genes work at a post-transcriptional level. So that kind of data really should be
collected, because the implication is immediately that the protein level is
very low, and that means you have to worry less about allergenicity of the
protein, if you have a mechanism that doesn't increase, but massively decreases
the expression level.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Did everybody follow what she
said?
DR.
ARIAS: Yeah, I think that is a very
good point, and there's other mitigating parts to the risk analysis that deal
with these issues; so, you know, if you have a protein that's being expressed
in food and being consumed in the level of the transgene, it is expressed at a
similar level or lower. That's a
mitigating issue to FDA. So, again, you
know, we're not looking at these things in a vacuum. And I think that's a very good
point.
If there's no protein being expressed, then that's a whole risk issue
that is basically eliminated.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Right.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Gonsalves. And I think that's a good point. I didn't bring it up about, you know, the
mechanism, but for viral resistance, which there's many cases of that, it
essentially come down to post-transcriptional gene silencing. And even now, we can induce resistance with
a
200-base pair segment of the coat
protein that is
non-translatable. Well, do we have to go through all of these
other aspects on the food safety issue.
That's a point I was getting at, where, you know, there's certain kinds
of things that you do that you probably don't need to look into detail in that
aspect. But there's other aspects of
alkaloids and other things that you have to look into much more detail because
the dangers are much more evident than, let's say, a non-transmittable viral
coat protein.
DR.
ARIAS: Jonathan Arias. That's a very good point, Dr. Gonsalves, and
it reminds me of a comment made by Dr. Fedoroff earlier about looking at the
various metabolites, the proteins that are expressed in the plant as really an
indicator of potential risk and safety.
But one of the limitations that I see with that approach is that we
really don't what a lot of the proteins and metabolites are of many agronomic
plants. Certainly, some of the cereal
grain crops have been well studied, but I think FDA envisions that there'll be
many new plants. In using transgenic
technologies, I think saw a slide earlier today that suggested that there, in
fact, is quite a wide range in the pipeline than these highly studied
crops. And their metabolic and
biochemical properties, I surmise, are probably much lesser well known.
So,
our ability to predict risk is only going to be as good as our knowledge base,
which is rather poor in the case, I suspect, of cantaloupe, for instance, or
kiwi in terms of what could be
potential secondary metabolites.
So,
just one point, and then I'd like to just add my two cents on number three
about new technological advances. As I
indicated earlier, I'd like to really look at this as a proactive process for
recommendations for developers in the future to enhance their safety of their
products.
I
mentioned earlier several examples.
Using tissue-specific promoters is one.
Another, which I'd like to also put on the record, is to use homologous
recombination, either through a variety of constructs, such as the Creelocks
system that's been developed, which might minimize some of the potential risk
associated with the random mutagenesis or insertional events that are
engendered by use of T-DNA itself. And
so, as the technologies are evolving, and have matured, I think the developers
should certainly be encouraged to try to integrate these to lower the potential
risks of the products that will ultimately be seen by FDA.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: As long as we're on
number three. Let's deal with it. We've
gotten one on the viral coat, and we've gotten this one that I wouldn't try to
reiterate, anyway. And we will keep
talking--
DR.
ARIAS: Targeted gene expression.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Yeah, targeted gene expression.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: And I think that the
discussion before the--this is Anne
Kapuscinski--the discussion before the
break that especially Dr. Buchanan was saying about proteomics and the fact
that it's--we're getting close to being able to use that well would also fit
in--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Number three.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Number three.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: That the proteomics and
the--that the decision tree aspect seems like it's appropriate for number three
to rethink that approach of looking at the whole variety of situations that Dr.
Benedict talked about. I think you're
the one who's had the decision tree; right?
DR.
BENEDICT: Yeah. Excuse me.
Yeah,
I--what I was hoping to convey is that
we don't have to apply everything to every situation, and that if we invoke the
decision tree, there will times when we'll need genetic information. There will be times when we--most times we
won't. But what we most likely might
need would be the proteomics information.
And, although I'm sensitive to whatever has said, that we're not ready,
I don't care in the sense that we weren't ready to do the genome sequence based
on sequencing 300 bases a day, and then money came, and now we can sequence a
lot more. And my point would be that if
we as a group say the way you need to go is proteomics, find a way to do it,
then that gives strength to FDA to go somewhere and say, look, we got all these
people telling us we've got to ramp up proteomics. That was all I wanted to say.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: And number three--
DR.
BENEDICT: That's number three.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Yeah. And did--do we have agreement with that statement?
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER 1: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER 2: No.
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER 3: No.
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER 4: No.
DR.
FEDOROFF: I agree with that statement.
DR.
ARIAS: Eventually, the statement is
whether research and development should be done in the field of proteomics to
facilitate it in the future; is that correct?
DR.
FEDOROFF: Yeah, I agree with that.
DR.
SALYERS: We're talking about food
safety.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Well, for food safety
purposes.
DR.
ARIAS: Yeah, I don't think it's--
DR.
FEDOROFF: I mean, I assume that's what
she meant as an additional tool to help identify food safety issues. I mean, it seems to me like that is possibly
one of the most useful ways to be able to anticipate ideally pretty early on in
the development process pleiotropic effects that you really didn't have any way
of predicting
otherwise. And I think the more we can encourage this kind of searching and
also proactive approach to design transgenic plants that won't raise safety
problems upstream, the better everybody is off. And I think it's appropriate for our subcommittee to be thinking
about that, not only thinking about the point at which the developer comes to
the FDA. The ideal is by the time they
come to the FDA, they've actually resolved those safety issues. And it seems like proteomics, encouraging
research and development in proteomics, would be extremely helpful for
that. So, I strongly support that, with
the understanding that it's to help guide food safety assessment, not just
proteomics for the sake of proteomics.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Is that all right?
DR.
SALYERS: No, it's not all right with
me, but he had his hand up.
DR.
ASTWOOD: Well--this is Jim
Astwood. I don't disagree that there's
a high degree of value in exploring the potential utility of proteomics as it
could apply to safety assessment,
food safety of genetically modified
foods. In fact, I have a research
program in that, so I'm very interested in it and support that.
It
is a different thing to recommend back to the FDA that they should be looking
for proteomics data in dossiers that we submit today. So, as long as we're very clear about what it is that we're
recommending, my comfort level goes up.
DR.
SALYERS: I agree with that.
DR.
BENEDICT: I thought this one was--
DR.
ASTWOOD: I understand that, and--
DR.
QUALSET: I think you said the
future. That was--
DR.
ASTWOOD: But I--you might not even pin
it to proteomics. It could be--it could
turn out that after a couple years of research, we find out that metabolomics
is really the business end of pleiotropy, and that's a much more powerful and
sensitive to detect things that we're missing today. So, so--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Is it all right to expand that?
DR.
ASTWOOD: So, you need to be a
little--if you're going to be
prospective and create some language-- and I suspect the Chairman is tasked
with creating that language--but create language that induces that flexibility
and that prospective nature. And all the suggestions that Professor Arias has
made are very good suggestions as things for us to evaluate and consider, et
cetera.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: So we're talking about future
being prepared.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Right. But we're asking what new advances could be
used to enhance the safety assessment. And I think the issues is that the connections
between changes in protein composition have not been correlated with food
safety today. Nor is the variability
that's tolerable in perfectly safe foods known. So, as long as there's--it's a little bit, again, looking, you
know, using the technique that you have in hand, but I would not support its
invocation today. I would support a
recommendation that says that
linkages between food safety and
protein constitution should be explored with the most contemporary tools. But I would also include other metabolites,
not just proteins.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Is that--are we restoring the
role? Is that all right?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: This is Anne Kapuscinski.
I'm okay with that, and I think really I understood Dr. Benedict, and what I
was supporting is encouraging research and development in this area so that
we're at a better position maybe two years from now or five years from now to,
you know, maybe revisit this and see if there are certain aspects of those
technologies, the proteomics and the metabolomics, that, you know, would be
particularly useful. But if we don't
start encouraging that that work be done as research and development; it can be
done in academia; the research and development can be done in industry, but for
it to be useful, it's got to end up in the public scientific literature
somewhere. And I agree with Nina,
research needs
to be done to link that kind of data to
food safety data. But we have to get
going on that; otherwise, we'll be having the same discussion five years from
now.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Actually, I think there's
more activity in that area than you can give either companies or researchers
credit. There's a--
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Yeah, and I realize that,
but I'm trying to respond to as subcommittee member how--what we should say
about item three.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Are you doing anything in FDA
right now in that area?
DR.
CEBULA: They don't do research.
[Laughter.]
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Let's ask doctor, let's
ask the--what the--lab guy.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: He's back.
DR.
CEBULA: Within FDA, we do not have an
active program in proteomics directed at this.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Okay. The answer was
that--it's right now there's not an
active program in the areas that we are talking about. So, the
recommendation would not be redundant
or what they might be doing. Finally,
you are the most patient person--
DR.
QUALSET: I don't have that much to
say. I think a consensus we could come
to is that we have already is the decision tree framework that's in the 1992
thing, and we saw it again this morning.
But that leads to the specificity of the recommendations for food
safety. For example, if you knock out
the allergenicity of peanuts, it would be a very bad thing if that was a
repressed gene that got de-repressed, and people were eating it, and they were
having reactions. So, what is your
protocol? The developer could use, the
evaluators could use, to ensure that that is a stable action, that the
repression if that what is it or whatever the mechanism is, that that is a
stable one that we can confidently put it on the shelf. So, as we go through the series, the
co-proteins and virus resistance in the
flavor enhancement, vitamin enhancement, amino acid enhancement, all those--if
you have an enhanced
lysine, for example, and that character
is lost, nobody gets sick, probably. So there's different levels of risk based
on the trait and the gene. And I think
that's where I think we should come to some organizational sense of how would
FDA proceed. What are the potential
types of genes and traits, and then develop the assessment based on this
framework for our decision tree.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: That was Dr. Qualset.
DR.
QUALSET: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: No, I should have called that at
the beginning.
Could
that statement be added as something that FDA should be doing, is putting that
sequence of assessment together?
DR.
QUALSET: Well, it follows to me that
it's just a restatement of their decision tree idea. So I just think that maybe put some flesh on it, and illustrate
with some ideas of potential value-added traits, and toxicities and that sort
of thing.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Are there--as long as
we're trying to beat number three, are there other items in number
three that should be recapped from our earlier comments?
It
doesn't stop us from adding. Let's back
up to number one, and if we ask the question, to what extent does sequencing
information contribute to the identification of newly expressed substances. I'm going to get beat down on this, but what
I heard was when it comes to the food safety issue, and if I could add in there
newly expressed substances that influence food safety, I heard that it doesn't
do us much good. Is that correct? Is that what I heard?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: If you stop only at that,
it doesn't do much good.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Right.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: This is Anne Kapuscinski,
again. But if you're going to follow
the iterative decision tree approach that Dr. Benedict talked about and that I
understand FDA espouses its using, it only makes sense that this would be a
starting point. Now, you don't
necessarily have to require everybody
to do this. If some parties want to
immediately go to the detailed compositional analysis, let them do that, and
that would be another way to get at it.
But some people might decide it's more strategic and perhaps even more
cost effective to start with sequencing the inserted DNA construct, and if they
find some dramatic changes in the sequence due to rearrangement or whatever,
that then gives them a hint as to whether they should do some additional
looking. If they don't find something,
it also tells them maybe that there's a bunch of further testing that they
don't need to do.
So,
I don't see any reason to discount that, and I think, in some cases, it might
very useful. But with the understanding
that none of these techniques is very useful standing by itself. That's why you do need a decision tree kind
of approach to any kind of risk assessment, and it's also why you want it to be
iterative. What you want to try to do
is gather information from different sources, but do that in a smart,
strategic way. So that's where the decision tree comes in,
because you don't want to have everybody to do all of them. You want to start with a couple leading
questions, as Dr. Qualset was saying, then use that to guide you--and okay, I'm
going to gather this type of info.
Based on what you learned from that, then decide if you should gather
another type of info. Then you look at
the two types of info, and you decide if you have to revisit something or not.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Is that a satisfactory answer to
number one's last, the remainder of that question--if sequencing information is
important for the purpose of FDA's food safety assessment, what sequence
information should be reviewed, and, if so, how does this information
contribute to the safety assessment.
What you're saying is, if you see something, well, it's a starting
point--
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: That's basically what I'm
saying.
DR.
BENEDICT: Yeah, Steve Benedict. If circumstances warrant it, based on the
decision
tree, you may need to know flanking
sequences. You may need to know the
sequence of the input series of genes.
There will be occasions where it won't be necessary, so the answer to
this is not a yes or no. It's a
when. And the--
DR.
ARIAS: Jonathan Arias. It's clear that because of our relative
ignorance about events that affect gene expression is fairly profound, we're
not going to be able to predict in many cases what the sequence information
that we derive from an insert is going to entail in terms of risk and safety
assessments. As far as I know, there
are no quantitative indices for those.
But, again, to err on the side of prudence, it would seem to me that
because this is a mutational event, the insertion of T-DNA, that at least
knowing where it is would be a good potential for identifying the subsequent
probability of any risk. Not asking
that question and addressing it is only opening us up to the potential errors
of ignorance, when we didn't have to be ignorant. And, so, knowing the identity of the gene and its insertion would
at least give us a
level of comfort as to whether any
additional information needs to be derived.
And, so, I would agree with Anne that it's a preliminary device to
determine whether there is the potential for any further risk in a risk
assessment tree.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: So we're really answering number
two here; right?
DR.
ARIAS: My sense it's number one,
because there is no answer to that question, because there isn't enough data as
far as I know--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: For number one.
DR.
ARIAS: For number one.
DR.
ASTWOOD: Well, except for the
parenthetical question, which is--this is Jim Astwood. The parenthetical question was do you need
to have the entire sequence of the inserted genetic material, and it's almost a
yes/no question. And I daresay it seems
to be yes most of the time. And Anne's
suggestion that perhaps
or--no I think Dr. Benedict is
suggesting there may be times when you might not need it, but it's hard to define
when they might be.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Doug
Gurian-Sherman. I would, you know,
basically agree with Jim that it should be part of the analysis, unless there's
some good reason not to; and there may be in specific cases good reasons not
to.
The
way it's used, I mean, typically what's done now, my understanding is the
sequences of the gene, and usually now before the insertion of them, is used to
search databases, allergen databases, toxin databases to look for matches, for
homology.
Clearly,
if there's a change during the insertion, a small, you know, percent, you know,
the chances are fairly small, but that change may show you some homology that
you wouldn't see prior to the insertion event, where there's no change in the
gene. So, again, you know, I've got to
go back to the point that the chances probably in any given case that there's
going to be a change, that the change is going to have a health effect are
pretty small. But it's pretty easy to
do these informatics, and it's pretty easy to do the
sequencing; and why leave ourselves, as
Dr. Arias put it, in that state of ignorance, when it's fairly easy to do.
There
may be a change, and you may not see any change in, you know, in your database
searches or anything else that raises a red flag, and then you say that these
changes are--don't apparently have any meaning. But that's how they're generally used now. I mean, that's how the sequences are
generally used is to do homology searches.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: I think maybe we could bring
this discussion to a close by acknowledging that if we strictly answer the
question, the answer is no. But we
should do it anyway? Just in case.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: I don't totally agree with
that. This is Anne Kapuscinski. I think the challenge we have in this food
safety of recombinant DNA products is that we're primarily going to be dealing
with rare events that could have big consequences; and that's the most tricky
aspect of the universe of risk assessment.
But the
very nature of risk assessment is that
it's very hard to have total yes or no answers. So, I'd rather word it sort of in the way that other commentors
were wording, which is that, in some cases, this information could be very
useful. It's fairly easy now to get
that information, so unless there's a good reason for your specific case to
argue that it's not useful information, it's probably a good idea to get this
information, and then go on from there.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Okay. I do want to close up in a
couple or few minutes so that we can discuss the comments and the letter with
review, and also future agenda items; and guaranteed at five o'clock, we are
done, because that was guaranteed to adjourn at five because some of you
are--have to get the METRO or something.
Some of us are catching planes.
Let's
go to number two, and see if we can conclude that one.
Current
approaches. This is--now, what I was
hearing before was that if we do what Codex
says we should do, everything is
copasetic.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: We should do everything
that's what?
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: If we follow the Codex
operation, everything is fine. Is that
what I heard before?
DR.
ARIAS: Yeah. Jonathan Arias, again.
Yeah, I agree. I just want to
again raise the issue of whether or not under the subheading of information on
the organization of the DNA within the inserts, whether any mapping data on
potential translocation events should be included as part of that
characterization. I would welcome other
comments if anyone feels one way or the other about it.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Let's make sure--here, again,
and presumably Codex is food safety.
That's--and you keep saying that.
And the--and that this is addressed at food safety.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Can I venture something
on Jonathan's point? You know, I think
he makes a very good point. I think it
also points
up part of the problem of trying in
this forum kind of on the spur of the moment to consider fairly complicated
issues, new issues and come to some conclusion about it without time to consider
and look at it. And I would suggest
that on that issue--I mean, I'm not prepared to say how important it is. I would follow, you know, Dr. Arias' lead on
that.
But
as a matter of kind of procedure, maybe it's something that we should consider
further as an addendum on to this at more length, where we have more time to
consider how important it is to the risk assessment, what's the
frequency--you know those kinds of
things, which we, I mean, I have not had a chance to think about before this
meeting. And, again, I think it gets to
the point of having time prior to the meeting to be able to consider these
issues thoroughly, which we haven't done.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Benedict.
DR.
BENEDICT: Steve Benedict. Jonathan, doesn't number four address your
question a bit,
because if you're going to look at
potential reading frames, you'll sequence around, and you'll know essentially
what the environment of the gene is?
DR.
ARIAS: Perhaps. Actually, it depends on how the
translocation event occurs, and what distance from the actual T-DNA insertion
event it has brought in. I don't know
specific examples cited, but the allogenic recombination event that was
characterized appeared to imply that a large region of one chromosome was
brought into a region adjacent to I think it was a hundred base pairs from the
T-DNA left border. So, again, if you
sequenced, for instance, both directions, you might be expected to pick that
up. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Again, I will tend to resist
this. There are lots and lots of
rearrangements that distinguish even closely related organisms, be they animals
or plants, and that make no difference in the phenotype. So, I think the phenotype has to be the
primary focus of
your examination. If it's a plant that is genetically
propagated, it's going to be backcrossed.
If it doesn't, if it's selfed and the arrangement is highly deleterious,
it's not going to survive in the breeding program. If it's somatically propagated, some of our most valuable food
plants, are somatic sports that are carefully maintained, and if you propagate
them genetically, they fall apart. So, I think it has to be the food safety
issue that has to be primary. The
genetic rearrangement underlying it is not a good indicator of either the
benefit, the upsides or the downsides.
It's--the whole evolution of plant genomes is one of scrambling.
DR.
ARIAS: I'll have my say on this. Jonathan Arias, again. I agree entirely with Dr. Fedoroff that
mutations can be both, you know, beneficial to human agriculture, but we also
know examples where they're not. I
think one of them was cited earlier about traditional genetics resulting I
think it was in higher psoralen content of celery, which went to market, I'd
point out,
before it was recalled.
So,
we do know that there are examples that are both beneficial and not. Again, here, not having any quantitative
indices for risk assessment of any of these parameters, I think it behooves us
to err on the side of prudence and conservation.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Benedict.
DR.
BENEDICT: Steve Benedict. When, Dr. Fedoroff, when you talk about the
backcrossing and stuff weeding out the bad ones, I fully understand that. But is it a circumstance where the insertion
merely activates expression of an allergen, and you could learn that by
sequencing a little bit. Would your
process of genetics and backcrossing point this out?
DR.
FEDOROFF: If I were worried about an
allergen, I would look for the allergen, not look at the DNA. The insertional activation--okay, so that in
arabidopsis, we have special T-DNA constructs that are designed for
activation. The general T-DNA
constructs don't activate genes. The
activation constructs rarely activate genes.
But looking for ancillary rearrangements, which is what the conversation
is about, is--seems to me to have a much, much lower probability of
identifying, for example, a change in psoralen level than looking at psoralen
levels. I--what I keep trying to come
back to is that--is--we keep shifting to say let's do this because this is what
we can do right now. Okay. And there are lots of things that we can do
biochemically and looking for specific allergens using serum from allergic
patients that are much more relevant to diagnosing the presence of allergens
than looking at rearrangements that move whole pieces of chromosomes that, in
fact, are bloody difficult to even identify sometimes. So, the question is using the tool that is
most likely to identify the problem that you want to identify.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: I think to kind of
rephrase--this is Doug Gurian-Sherman--rephrase that issue, and it has been
brought up before, is where the uncertainties lie in terms of unintended
effects and how much we do and don't know about potential deleterious, you
know, genes and their products in the plant.
And, so, where we have a targeted means of addressing one of those
issues, such as where we have serum banks for known allergens, that does make,
you know, often more sense, although not a trivial issue. We don't have those serum banks right
now. They should be developed. But the problem is where we don't know and
how much effort should be put into those areas where we don't know what the
changes are or what their importance are.
So, I mean, I would agree with Dr. Fedoroff that where we do know to
look for something, it makes more sense to look at the specifics. But that still leaves open the question of,
if you have a large change in the genome that might affect many genes, doesn't
it make some sense to have some awareness of that.
And
I just want to add one thing: you know, it's certainly the agronomic traits
that might be affected are--may, you know, screen that out before. But one question that was brought up in at
least one of the FDA studies that was never answered was--where agronomic
traits were looked at--and FDA asked this themselves in one of the BT cases:
can you correlate the agronomic traits with health safety traits? And that was
never answered. And, so I mean I think
looking at agronomic traits by themselves is not necessarily going to get at
some of the changes in the plants that might have health effects. So, you know, again, the problem I'm having
with this particular is not having a lot--had a lot of time to consider it, but
it certainly seems like something that we should consider further, because I
see the potential there for, you know, fairly large rearrangements to affect
the number of genes, you know, at once.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Salyers.
DR.
SALYERS: Abigail Salyers.
The--something about this that bothers
me is--and, I--ordinarily, I would say, you know, more information is better
than less information. But, in this
case, suppose you did sequencing out at the ends. Now, if you sequence within the gene, and you saw that there had
been changes in that gene, then that would motivate you to take a really close
look at the gene product. If you see,
if you get DNA sequence to go to the trouble to get DNA sequence from the
sides, and you see that there might have been a rearrangement, what are you
going to do with that information? Does
that mean you're going--you're not going to go forward with the product? I don't think so. I just think it's information
that if any--that you--there will be time spent to get it. And then there would
be a temptation to say, oh, well, there's a rearrangement, and so, you know, we
don't want you to go forward with that product. And I just think it's kind of useless information for purposes of
food safety.
DR.
ARIAS: Jonathan Arias. I'd just like to respond to that.
It's
an excellent question, and I think the answer is embedded in the discussion
that we were having before; and that, typically, a large number of independent
transgenic lines are generated containing the recombinant DNA of interest. And those are then, we know, down to a few
that are going to be fully characterized.
I sort of envision this as a very early analytical tool for the
developers to use, to determine which of those several hundred perhaps--perhaps
Dr. Astwood could tell exactly how many lines might be generated. It's a secret. Thousands perhaps. But
the point is that it is not a final analytical tool of when the product is
developed. This is something that would
be done to screen out potential risk very upstream in the process, at fairly
low cost, I would surmise.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Astwood.
DR.
ASTWOOD: I mean, think that's an
attractive concept, too. This is Jim
Astwood. How do you codify that in a
recommendation back to the FDA, who wants to give us specific guidance in terms
of what they require in a dossier?
That's the struggle. I mean, you
can imagine that that might be useful a lot of times or not. But to acquire it in every single case is a
matter of the data requirements for the food safety assessment, I tend to agree
with Dr. Salyers, that as a--it's not clear to me how a risk assessor would use
that information. That's the bottom
line.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Doctor.
DR.
SALYERS: Abigail Salyers.
I'm
beginning to realize that we're talking about two kinds of food safety. There's safety of the food producer from
lawsuits, and there's safety of the consumer.
And, so, this probably goes in the first--as the first kind of food
safety rather than safety of the consumer.
And so I think that our charge here--
DR.
FEDOROFF: Consumer--
DR.
SALYERS: Safety of the consumer. And let the companies worry about--
DR.
FEDOROFF: They have to sell it the
second, you know--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Gonsalves.
DR.
GONSALVES: You know, I'm glad I
developed the papaya back when I did.
[Laughter.]
Because,
you know, all these discussions about developers, you're acing out these
academic people that, you know, everybody say, you got to do this, this, this
right, really organized. Well, you
know, a lot of the best things that come out came out because you're doing some
experiment. And I think the big lack in
products in coming out is because it has almost become the purview of big
companies. You know, it's easy to talk
about this and this, but some labs are just not suited to do that. And if they need to do that, then they
probably won't pursue it. And I think
if you make it--if you only think about these developers, these big people who
got specialized, they're going to do this and this and that, I think you're
tending to miss these innovations that really make a difference. And I can tell you the papaya is one of
them. We had only 15 transgenic lines,
because during those days, that's all we could do to transform. And I would think we're unusual. I think some of the best innovations to
really help agriculture comes from these things that are not well planned; and
if you make it such that
if--because of lack of foresight, where
you didn't follow these protocols; and, therefore, your product is out the
window. I really think we may miss
something.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Qualset.
DR.
QUALSET: Yeah, I just thinking we're
talking about two sides here: the development and the evaluation for the
consumers. And we've written a helluva
of a textbook for the development side of things, about how to--what you need
to measure and what kind of information will be to have, and all this. But let's get back to the issue of how do
you judge whether a product is safe to--for the farmers to grow and the
processors and the consumers to buy it and cook it up. So I think we've got to get back on track
with the--what are the things you can measure and ask about in the stability
issue, for example. There's stability
in the--of the gene. There's stability
of performance, and all those. I think that we can put all this nice-to-know
stuff on the table, because it will help you understand, as a developer, what
has happened, what does your thing look like.
But if there's two inserts instead of one, does that affect the
phenotype. If it does affect the
phenotype, what happens if one is lost?
Have you lost a significant amount of the phenotype.
So,
those are issues. I think we need to
structure this looking from the backside a little bit as to what the consumers
might see when this product goes to market, if it does, and why would you not
let it go. And I think the issue that
Dennis has raised is outstanding. I
think that a lot of developments can be done relatively simply. They might need to do a little clean up
analysis toward the end, but if the stable--if the product is stable and
useful, you can go from there.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: How would you like to answer
number two?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: I think we've answered
it. I mean, the only thing we've really
debated was the chromosome translocations.
That's what generated the debate.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Okay.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: So--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: We're happy—
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: You know, people were
agreement on the other stuff. And, you
know, I've been fairly silent on this particular debate because I don't know
much about this, and I guess I feel the same as Dr. Gurian-Sherman: I'd like to
have a little more time to think about it.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: On the last--on the issue.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Yeah, and to read up on
it. Because, you know, I appreciate all
the different points that have been made--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Not the remainder of this, but
this last issue is what we're talking about?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Right.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Okay, I'm just trying
to--as you see, I'm trying to close,
get a little bit of closure here.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Right. I would support that.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Yeah, Nina Fedoroff. I think that trying to revise one through
four is a losing proposition. I think
that's in the Codex, and that's pretty much whether people eventually change
that and back of it or not is not for us to decide. But I think that I would strongly resist adding great
characterization of rearrangements for all the reasons that I discussed before.
DR.
ARIAS: Jonathan Arias. I'm sorry.
I just think that this falls within the domain of the particular one
through four comments as I mentioned earlier.
And it's not really a separate issue.
It's a definitional one, on information on the organization of the DNA
within the inserts.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Within the inserts.
DR.
ARIAS: That's--that's--well, within the
inserts; that's right.
And
I think that this extends in terms of the analysis of the insertional site.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: I have a question. Jonathan, would you be content if we
consider this further? I mean, do you
feel like we need to come to a decision about this in an hour?
DR.
ARIAS: No, I don't. No, I just feel that this is something that
should be considered at some point. It
does need to be done today.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: I mean, I would
absolute support that there should be on the--I'm just making a suggestion--
DR.
ARIAS: But this must--that this should
be on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: To try to tie this up--
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Yeah, and I would support
that.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I got--to try and tie this up
then, we feel that this characterization that is consistent with the Codex
description is something that is going to be done, if I can sum--
DR.
FEDOROFF: The train has left the
station.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Yeah. And what that other data that might be useful to safety
assessment that is something that we need some time to think about, like the
topic resistance--
DR.
ARIAS: Mapping the chromosomal
positions.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Right. Or maybe some others. So
the last part of other data is still an outstanding question that we're
probably not in a position to answer at this moment. Does that really--
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Can I--I would just
like to make one point about the whole context of this that we really haven't
considered, which is on page 50, paragraphs 20 and 21. There's two parts of that that I think, you
know, are important and reflect on the specifics, which, you know, one that the
design of the experiments, the assessment is done in accordance with sound and
scientific concepts and principles.
That's kind of vague, but I think, you know, hopefully we know what
they're getting at. But then, in the
next paragraph, "in light of the best available scientific knowledge,"
and I think that kind of goes to what Abigail was saying about, you know, for
instance, the protein, you know, the best characterization of at least the
protein that's inserted needs to be done.
And it's the best characterization, and part of that is the sequence of
the protein. I mean, that's--so I think
that this gives some important context that yeah, there may be some flexibility
built into this, but it needs to reflect back on what's the state of the
science now that can give us answers that are, again, reflect on risk
assessment and safety. So, I think that
language is helpful.
DR.
ASTWOOD: Yeah. I got a quick question, and it relates to
that is in terms of our answer to other data, I'm not sure if it was under two
or three, did we chose to include, Mr. Chairman, the concept of a robust
characterization of the protein as expressed in the plant? Would that be an add-on? It's very closely related to insert
characterization. Anyway, is that
something--I think everyone is agreeing that that's what we should we do, but
it seems out of scope, but even though it's out of scope, we could chose to
have it in scope.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Maybe that goes up as three?
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Yeah, I thought that was in
three.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Yeah, I think we talked about
number three.
DR.
ASTWOOD: Yeah.
DR.
FEDOROFF: And it seemed like that was
something we all did agree upon.
DR.
ASTWOOD: I agree. Exactly.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Yeah.
DR.
ASTWOOD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I thought that was in number
three. I--I--Dr. Fedoroff.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Well, I didn't want to--I was
going to jump to three, but you think you want to close out two.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: If you are--
DR.
ASTWOOD: Three's down.
DR.
FEDOROFF: At the beginning.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Okay. We got number two is closed.
Number three, we've put down a number of issues that I hope they are
recorded, because I didn't write them down.
DR.
FEDOROFF: But did somebody? I mean--
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Yeah, I mean, we--if I
remember correctly.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Right we had three or four
issues that we named off in number three.
DR.
FEDOROFF: I think that the major ways
that you can expand the decision tree are to increase the
characterization. We now know what we
didn't know ten years ago that some genes, some from the processes that are
used while they protect plants against disease and pests are--work at the level
of RNA, destroying the RNA, that should increase the safety assessment--the
probability that it's a safe food because and decrease the need for
allergenicity assessment. If the
process knocks down the amount of protein, you don't have to worry so much
about it. Do you see what I'm saying?
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Mm-hmm.
DR.
FEDOROFF: In other words, it's a
mechanism that destroys the RNA, messenger RNA, so it doesn't get translated,
so when you overexpress that coat protein gene, you're not actually
overexpressing the coat protein, you are triggering a mechanism that destroys
the messenger.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: And what are we to do with that?
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
have perhaps that may help. If you look
at the decision trees in the '92 policy, there are sections in there that
directly relate to exposure of the protein in terms of aggregate human
consumption. And, so, I believe what
Dr. Fedoroff is saying that if you have a gene for which you can show that
consumption is actually lower as a result of the expression of that transgene,
then that can be taken into account in your risk assessment, and it would be a
positive risk assessment.
DR.
ASTWOOD: I have one comment.
DR.
FEDOROFF: And the flip side. Excuse me, let me just finish. And the flip side of that is if your target,
if what you're trying to accomplish is to inactivate the gene, then you have to
show, in a sense, in other words, the required data would be that it is a
stable--it is genetically stable, that ability to inactivate, particularly in
the case of a known allergen, for example.
If you're going to sell the food as a allergen free food, then the need to
show that as a food safety issue is much, much greater than the need to show
stability of a trait if it's an add-on trait.
That's a problem for the company, in a sense. But when it's--when the objective is to decrease the production
of a known allergen or toxin, then it becomes more important to show that
stability, that genetic stability.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: I had one relevant
comment, I think, to this, which--I think the concept is a good concept. There are some exceptions where we're in a
little bit of trouble, and allergenicity is one of them, because, and this we
went through ad nauseam on the StarLink issue, where the amount of protein
needed to sensitize someone, nobody can agree on what that is at this point. So, it's hard to set that low limit. I mean, I agree with it in principle, but we
can't say that 20 parts per million is okay.
You know, 10 parts per million--I mean parts per million is okay. Twenty parts per million is not. So, unfortunately, with allergenicity, I
mean, I think you can say that if there's no expression of the protein, we're
all right. But with that particular
issue, with allergenicity, we're in a little bit of a hole.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Right. But it is a consideration in that, and allergenicity is a
different session.
DR.
ASTWOOD: This is Jim Astwood. You could actually genericize the concept to
say that for some categories of products, or for some straits, demonstration of
expression stability of the transgene is much more relevant to the risk
assessment than for others; and that will be on a case-by-case basis.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I see shaking heads.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: I'm sorry, Jim. Could you say that--say it one more time.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Dr. Kapuscinski.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Anne Kapuscinski. I just want to make sure we remembered what
we'd agree on about three earlier, because we actually did--addressing that
question first, and then we went to one and two.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I think some of these are--
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: So, I want to make sure we
haven't erased any of that.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: No, and it shouldn't be.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: And hopefully in the minutes,
under number three, when we said we were at number three, and it should be
taped--
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Okay, because to--my
recollection was we all agreed that it's a good idea to encourage research and
development on proteomics and metabolomics, and we're still doing that; so
that--and especially on the correlation of the data from that with food
safety--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Right. In relation to food safety.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Questions. And really encourage that because that would
help--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Down the road.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: So, just--as separate from
the conversation we're having right now, but I want to make sure that it didn't
get eclipsed.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Right. It's a
different--it was a different issue.
I
am going to move on to the issue of the letter that three of you sent in. There were some items there that we can take
now. We only have about I would say 10
to 15 minutes to discuss items that you have in that letter by the whole
committee. I'd like to keep comments to
a couple minutes per person so everyone has a chance to comment, and include in
this discussion of future agenda items.
But before we do that, I'd like an idea of just your quick feel of a
one-day meeting, which this is a first experience, with a one-day meeting. We've had day and a half or day and
two-thirds meetings, finishing at 3:00
p.m. for a two-day meeting. Do you have
a quick opinion on the tolerance to this one-day meeting, or do you like a day
and a half, or do you like a couple of days.
Any feelings or opinions?
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: I think there's a
couple qualifiers that make a difference here.
You know, I think we accomplished a lot in the end. It's a pretty limited, a fairly limited
topic in the whole spectrum of risk assessment. So if you have a very limited topic, it may be enough.
The
other piece of that is to have, you know, which is one of the points in the
letter, to have adequate time prior to the meeting to, for any of us to
consider the issues. You know, do
whatever of background reading research we need to do, so when we come to the
meeting, you know, we're more prepared.
And the third point is the length of an individual meeting versus the
frequency of meetings, because, obviously, you know, that's going to influence
it. So, you know, a one-day meeting may
be sufficient for a small topic where we have adequate--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Focus. As long as we
can--and it takes a great deal of
effort--
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: And adequate time--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: To stay on the focus.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Right. And adequate time. And if we are meeting frequently enough to address the issues
that the committee needs to address.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Anne.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: You know, I would just add
to that sometimes we don't have--I think for me one of the key issues is to
have a little more regular communication.
And, you know, I'm overworked, so it's not necessarily that I'm looking
for more work. But it's easy--if we
have a little more frequent communication, even if it just means that there's
some sort of update via e-mail to us, once every three months of sort of where
things stand, update can be just a couple paragraphs, that just helps to kind
of know where we are, and that would also make more effective when we do
meet. And it might turn out that in
some cases, we can have a teleconference meeting, depending on the subject at
hand. We don't necessarily have to
always meet in person. So more frequent
communication might be able to be done without the extra cost of always
bringing us together, face-to-face. I
wouldn't want teleconferences to replace face-to-face meetings in totality, but
it could be a useful add-on. I've
served on several other committees, especially NRC committees, National
Research Council Committees, where that's been used very effectively.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: No, I don't know the mechanics
of the official FDA advisory committees. You know, as you see, everything was recorded. Everything is very, very official, and so
I'm--and we can look into that. We may
be able to do that, but I don't know if there are constraints that other
places, like NRC or whatever, would not have.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: I mean, there could still
be speaker phones in a public room, where anyone else could come in and listen,
and we could even hear people give public comment to us.
DR.
BENEDICT: The experience that I've had
from--with this committee was that if it was a meeting of this nature, it must
be public, and people have to have a right to come and speak. When we had teleconferences, they were with
working groups that were subsets of the food advisory committee. And we could--we had a charge to do
significant scientific agreement of a lot of data dealing with particular
approval, and then we could have essentially a out-of-public session. But then we had to report it publicly. So there are a lot of really strange, not
strange, there some quite well prescribed reasons.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: What I've heard is number one,
the length of the meeting is very dependent upon the topic and the breadth in
the amount of time. It's not a matter
of whether you need the evening to think through the meeting; it's more the
breadth of the topic; is that correct?
Is that what I'm hearing?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: But add on to that, that
we would really appreciate getting the briefing materials as far in advance as
possible.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Yeah. Yeah, I was just trying to dispatch the length of the
meeting. We'll get back. Yes, Dr. Qualset.
DR.
QUALSET: This is Cal Qualset speaking.
Today we've gone through some stuff that nominally will be in a report
form. If we were here tomorrow morning
for two hours, we could edit that, work through it, and decide if that's what
we--that's the product of our meeting.
That's the advantage of the overnight that you can get some thinking
about it and then consensus when you--if we're asked to do a report. And I would favor a couple hours in the next
day. And that, from coming from the
West Coast, it's just a little easier to get home on the same day.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I think you can get home by
midnight on your time. Okay on the
time. That's good enough. Now how about the comments in the
letter? There were three items there
that I highlighted but other comments.
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: Well, I think, you know
this goes again to something, you know, Abigail had mentioned earlier about the
flexibility versus specifics. And so
the first issue was on guidance and guidelines.
I
think, you know, the rigidity is a downside, but you can build in still
flexibility into guidelines and still have some specifics by giving caveats and
saying, if, you know, other methods can be justified, then go ahead.
But
the reason that, you know, that that specific was in there was because we were
starting to consider some specific protocols, or if not protocols at least
performance standards, such as should we have the sequence of the insert. And when were considering allergenicity, we
were talking about specific at least kind of performance standards. How should those tests, you know, be done
for allergenicity. And I think there's
two benefits to that if you can build in some flexibility as well. One it gives some of the predictability that
Dennis is talking about having a problem with: that if a researcher doesn't
know what to expect or if the ground going to be constantly changing, and
that's a very
difficult--if you know what you're up
against ahead of time, and if it's reasonable, you can take that into account.
But
it's the same for the companies as well, I would think; that to have some
independently determined either performance standards or specific, you know,
testing standards where they can be developed would be useful to everybody to
know what, you know, the ground, the foundation and the ground, the playing
field is. So that was kind of the first
point that I think needs to be considered.
And part of that, again, is attached to the second point that, you know,
again this goes to a study that, you know, that we did that probably most
people here, or a number of the people, may haven't seen. But the concern that I have is that we can
set up what we consider to be reasonable parameters to be looked at in risk
assessment. But I don't think that it's
a good idea to leave it there and not consider if those are being done
according to good scientific practice and that the data that the Agency is
looking at are good.
And,
so, that kind of goes to both one and two; and what I would suggest, and I
don't--you know whether we look at my report of not, I don't really care. But I think two things that I found very
useful in doing that report that--you know, that I think it could be very
useful for the committee is one, well, the main thing is to actually look at
what FDA evaluates in some cases and how they made their decisions and how they
acted on them, because, again, you can come up with all the kind of general
suggestions or not, but if the process for evaluating those is not adequate,
then you're going to end with a product that's not great. And I think, you know, there was a fair
amount of some discussion between, you know, myself and some of the FDA people,
where we just kind of disagreed about the kind of data that they're seeing and
what they are seeing, what they're asking for.
So,
I'm kind of just throwing that out as a possibility. I have 14 of these studies.
They have been cleared through the Freedom of Information Act, so they
can be made available.
That's
one possibility, and then the third one goes to some of these procedural things
that we've talking about: you know, getting information, meeting adequately
enough, and I think we've already discussed.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Other comments now on these
topics by other members of the committee.
Anne?
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Well, just a minor one
regarding the third topic about process.
You know, I think one of the things that had frustrated me was just not
knowing what the outcome was of the last meeting that the committee had; and,
you know, I just want to make sure that when I put effort into this, that its'
useful so it's constructive. And, you
know, just hearing from Bob Lake today that, yes, they're still going to do
something about allergenicity. They do
plan to come back to us with recommended guidance, but they just haven't gotten
to that. Even that helped, because without
having had any communication at all about it in the last year, I just didn't
know if maybe it had fallen into a Black Hole.
Maybe it would something we recommended that they didn't really want to
deal with or what. So, that's part of
why I was suggesting earlier, even if the staff could once every three months
briefly check in with us, and just tell us, this is where we're at. That would, at least, give me the sense that
our subcommittee is actually of some value.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: So major and ongoing
communications.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: And it doesn't have to be
onerous. I can brief, but just to let
us know what's going on.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: The format of the
meeting--these meetings generally, I
guess all of them that I've been at, have been a presentation sort of bringing
the committee or subcommittee up to speed on FEA is doing, the various
specialists; it depends on what topic it is.
Presentations. Essentially a
show-and-tell, and then a discussion.
Is the format useful or would you rather just get the write-ups and come
in and go right, brute force, into discussion--discussion questions?
DR.
ARIAS: I just have a suggestion
here. It would be nice to know in
sufficient advance the topic of the subcommittee meeting so that perhaps we, as
subcommittee members, could provide input to the FDA on potential technical
expertise that could be presented at the meeting as part of the process of
discussion that would incorporate, you know, sort of an education as well as a
point of discussion. The discussions
today were very useful, but, for instance, I don't think at the two meetings
that I've been involved, we've had a detailed presentation by expertise, for
instance, in genetic engineering of plants about, you know, the molecular basis
of the process and sort of a summary of the literature to get a sense of the
potential risks or not. Most of these
have been brought, I would say, relatively ad hoc to the committee or through
our experiences.
I
think it would be useful, just for input purposes, if the FDA would like to
hear about potential topics for discussion and presenters, that--this might be
a good opportunity.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Other comments on--
DR.
FEDOROFF: There's a recent report
released in July. Can you get the
latest report? The big--
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Big U.K.--the GM
plants--
DR.
FEDOROFF: That's available on the web,
and it's a very up to date assessment of the procedures, the data on horizontal
transfer, everything--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: So what you would be
recommending there, consistent here, is that we would be alerted to that ahead
of the meetings, so you could go into it or, even to the point of bringing in
someone to summarize for the people who aren't up to speed.
DR.
FEDOROFF: Yeah. People have summarized. There's lots out there that you can use to
catch up on.
DR.
ARIAS: I think particularly the risk
aspects of this--safety risk assessment.
DR.
FEDOROFF: It's a British report is
very, very comprehensive--
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Anne.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Anne Kapuscinski. I think the generic point is that it's hard
for us to feel prepared as best as possible if we get the charge very late in
the game. So, and I can appreciate that
the staff is really busy, and they got a lot of pressure on them. And I can see why they would be trying to
refine the charge at the, you know, right up to the day before. But even if they could send us a draft
charge so that we have a sense of what they're thinking about, you know, a
couple weeks ahead of time. I mean,
ideally, it would be about a month ahead of time. But at least a couple weeks ahead of time. Then, and if they've got suggestions of
things that we could read. That--we,
obviously, don't them to necessarily to photocopy all the relevant materials,
but if they want to recommend five or six things that we look up, great. And plus, if we get that charge ahead of
time, each of us is reading different aspects of the literature isn't on top of
different things, and we can go and, you know, collate the information that we
think will help us refresh our minds and sort of prepare us for the
meeting. Kind of get our head around
what the key issue is going to be. So,
if we can get it earlier, even if it's draft form and subject to change, that,
at least, gets us a sense of what the Agency is thinking about, and what it is
they would like us to talk about at the meeting.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: I don't know some of the
official mechanics. You know, I'm a
academic. We're not very regulated,
especially when you're an emeritus--then you're really not regulated. So I'm not sure of the mechanics. Whether there's a problem with sending out a
draft that then it's official, even though it's a draft. You know, it can go to the news media, and
even though it didn't surface, and it was a draft, it might still
be--then, I don't know those
situations.
DR.
KAPUSCINSKI: Well, I mean if that is a
problem, then at least get the final one to us, you know, at a minimum two
weeks beforehand.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Last call for any comments.
DR.
GONSALVES: My brief comment is that,
from a format, your prior question was the format of this meeting today. I thought it was very productive. It was extremely helpful to hear from Bob
Lake and what the FDA activities are, priorities are, and, of course, the other
presenters I thought laid the context and landscape of the issues for us very
nicely. So I'm very appreciative to the
FDA for that.
DR.
ASTWOOD: Yes, I'd say the updates are
very important.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Well, I would like to thank all
of the committee, subcommittee, and appreciate all your effort, your intensity,
your putting up with me as the ultimate, whatever, acting, the acting FBS
Chair. I would like to thank the staff
who are sitting back there, the FDA group, for all the preparation, and we
appreciate all that you've done, and you've heard the comments. We appreciated that presentations. Have a good trip home.
[Whereupon,
at 5:05 p.m., the meeting
adjourned.]
POST-ADJOURNMENT DISCUSSION
DR.
GURIAN-SHERMAN: I would just I guess
like to say in closing, what were trying to get at with this letter, I mean,
and entering into the public record was a consideration of the issues we were
bringing up.
So,
I don't want to belabor it now. I mean,
we're running out of time. We're out of
time.
But
I think, you know, what I would suggest is that a couple of those issues be
considered further, and I don't know how we would get at that or whether
there's any consensus about that.
But
maybe, you know, one way to get at that is if there's further thought or
discussion about the points made in the letter that somehow we could consider
that as a committee. We'd be able to
dismiss it and say, those, as a committee, we don't agree with those points, or
if maybe we should pursue them further.
But
I didn't want to let it just die here with just making a couple of points, and
then forgetting about it forever.
CHAIRMAN
BUSTA: Well, I think Bob Lake said, you
know, FDA does not have enough.
[End
of tape recording.]