A federal judge just ruled that, yes, the FDA can regulate a fish as a medicine. His written opinion is kind of a roller coaster for the mind.
Remember the GMO salmon? It was created by a company called AquaBounty back in 1989 and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in November 2015. Its sold in Canada under the brand name AquAdvantage, and the first batch intended for the U.S. market is quietly growing in an indoor facility in Albany, Indiana. Theyre expected to come to market in the U.S. sometime this year.
Or not. The fish, like most other genetically engineered plants and animals, faces adamant opposition in some quarters. Lisa Murkowski, the Republican senator from salmon countryAlaskahas slipped various riders into budget and other bills trying to throw obstacles in AquaBountys path. And theres a longstanding lawsuit brought by a coalition of salmon industry folks and environmentalists thats trying to completely overturn the approval.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act has nothing to say about genetically engineered animals. But it does give FDA the authority to regulate veterinary drugs.
That suit hit an important turning point just before Christmas, when Judge Vince Chhabria of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California responded to requests for summary judgment in the case, threw out a bunch of claims by the plaintiffs, but let others stand, pending a separate court decision. Its worth paying attention to, not just for the sake of knowing whether the AquAdvantage is going to find its way into your grocery store, but also because it shows how tricky it can be to get the legal system to do what you want it to.
You can read the opinion for yourself. (Chhabria is the rare judge who produces opinions you can actually read with pleasure.) But to simplify a bit, heres how the judge responds to the plaintiffs main points:
Fair enough. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) has nothing to say about genetically engineered animals. But it does give FDA the authority to regulate veterinary drugs. And FDA has issued a guidance (well talk about guidances a little later) that says that when you insert genetic material into an animal, that genetic material is a veterinary drug, and FDA gets to regulate it.
This idea isnt new. Back in 2009, using the same logic, FDA approved a goat that was genetically engineered to produce anticoagulants in its milk. Several other pharm animals were approved over the next few years that produced useful drugs in their milk or eggs.
AquaBountys DNA construct isnt essentially administered to a fish. Its reengineering a fish that hasnt yet begun its life
This is the first time the agency has used that particular pathway to approve a genetically modified animal intended to be eaten, but remember, FDA regulates lots of other sorts of drugsantibiotics are but one huge categorythat are given to animals intended for the table and which could have potential effects on the people who ultimately eat them.
Ill confess that I find something deeply unsatisfying about FDAs approach. We care about these fish as food, not as patients receiving treatment. And that means we should regulate them on that basis, not as some kind of workaround.
But that would require new legislation, which has problems of its own, so FDA has a long history of making do with the law that its got. You say you want to harvest cells from a patients tumor, use them to create a vaccine that stimulates immune reaction to the tumor, then inject them into the patients? Fine, FDA says. Thats a drug; we regulate it under the drug framework. How about if we want to take the patients own T-cells, modify them to target a cancer and inject them back into the patient? (The examples are real, by the way.) Drug. Follow the drug framework. GMO salmon? You get the idea.
FDCA says drugs are, articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.
It makes sense. It keeps politics out of the decision making (for better or for worse). And it avoids the situation where FDA knows something needs to be regulated and cant get a law passed to authorize it. And, as Chhabria points out, if the plaintiffs prevail on this point, it may well mean that no one regulates GMO salmon and that manufacturers are free to do what they wantwhich is exactly the opposite of what the plaintiffs want.
This sounds like a good argument. Drugs are things that treat diseases and relieve pain. AquaBountys DNA construct isnt administered to a fish per se, and it isnt curing anything. Its is reengineering a fish that hasnt yet begun its life.
But as Chhabria explains, for purposes of the law, it doesnt matter what the dictionary thinks a drug is or what common sense thinks it ought to be. What matters is how the statute defines it, and FDCA says drugs are, among other things, articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.
Drug is a defined term under the FDCA, writes Chhabria, and this definition is broad and dynamic by design, not by linguistic oversight. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, the word drug is a term of art for purposes of the Act, encompassing far more than the strict medical definition of that word.
The FDA asserted that the old rules for veterinary drugs were still in effect, and how companies might go about filing for marketing approval.
Heres where things get a little weird. Lets assume that FDA has the authority to regulate genetically engineered salmon. Under Administrative Procedures Act, people are allowed to file lawsuits over regulations.
But has the FDA actually issued regulations in regard to salmon? No, says Chhabria. It has issued guidance, and thats different.
Issuing regulations is a complicated business. Theres a lengthy, arduous procedure, with notifications of planned rulemaking in the Federal Register, formal publications and comment periods, and often hearings. But FDA didnt issue a new rule about GM salmon. Instead, it asserted that the old rules for veterinary drugs were still in effect, and it issued a guidance explaining the agencys current thinking on how the rules apply to genetically altered animals, and how companies might go about filing for marketing approval. Its not a binding document. You could, for instance, come up with a different approach to filing for approval for a GM animal, and if FDA liked what you did, theres nothing in the guidance that prevents them from accepting your application. But the guidance lets everyone know whats likely to happen, at least for today. Its not a rule, but for most practical purposes, it might as well be one.
FDA issues lots of guidances. They typically come out in draft form, and then are finalized based on outside input. But the process of finalizing can take years, or even decades, and sometimes it never comes. A few years back FDA withdrew close to 50 draft guidances, including a few that dated to the late 1980s, that never got finalized and had been rendered obsolete by changing technology and standards.
But heres the thing: Under the law, while an agency can be sued over a rule, the only way it can be sued over a guidance is if the guidance has a direct and immediate effect on the complaining parties or requires immediate compliance. Since the plaintiffs in the case are mostly environmental groups and people in the salmon industry who have no intention of marketing GM salmon, the law doesnt require them to do anything, and they face no legal penalties, so they cant sue.
The question is whether the agency can decline to approve a product based on environmental concerns and, if so, what standards would apply.
At this point, barring appeals, the whole first part of the plaintiffs case has been tossed out. Were left with the claim that really matters: that when FDA approved AquaBountys salmon, it did not appropriately consider potential environmental harms (for instance, the possibility that the engineered salmon would crossbreed with wild Atlantic salmon to the detriment of that species). Judge Chhabria didnt rule on this issue (its going to be decided separately), but he did raise a few points:
First, its not entirely clear whether FDA can decline to approve a drug based on environmental concerns. The Food Drug and Cosmetic Act instructs FDA to consider the safety of veterinary drugs, but heres how it defines safety:
In determining whether such drug is safe for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling thereof, the Secretary shall consider, among other relevant factors, (A) the probable consumption of such drug and of any substance formed in or on food because of the use of such drug, (B) the cumulative effect on man or animal of such drug, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance, (C) safety factors which in the opinion of experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety of such drugs, are appropriate for the use of animal experimentation data, and (D) whether the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling are reasonably certain to be followed in practice.
So its clear that FDA can refuse to approve a drug that harms the animal or the people who eat the animal. (If you were wondering what they did to ensure that level of safety, heres the agencys explanation.) But environmental damage? Much less clear; expect to hear a lot of discussion of among other relevant factors as the case proceeds.
The fact is that FDA already has considered at least some environmental factors in approving the AquaBounty salmonfor example, it requires that the fish be raised in land-based facilities to make it difficult for fish to escape and mingle with wild salmon populations. (AquaBounty already has taken the step of sequestering the small cohort of male fish it needs for egg production and sterilizing its fish intended for food, which are all females.) The question is whether the agency can decline to approve a product based on environmental concerns and, if so, what standards would apply. One potential glitch as the trial moves forward: A judge could rule that FDA has no authority to make decisions based on environmental impact and no ability to impose conditions on companies whose products may be environmentally harmful but safe under the terms of the FDCA. Who would be in charge then? Its not clear, but the answer might be nobody.
But thats another days concern. For the moment, barring the possibility that a higher court reverses Chhabria, FDA has the right to regulate genetically altered animals under its pathway for veterinary drugs, the rest of the suit will continue, and a batch of AquAdvantage salmon continue to fatten up down in Indiana.
They may have thought that being raised in a tank meant they didnt have to swim upstream against raging currents. They were wrong.
Commentary, Home Feature, TechAquaBountybioengineeredFDAFDCAGMOsalmon
See the rest here:
GM salmon leaps another legal hurdle. Next up: Another legal hurdle - The New Food Economy
- The Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Impacted by Modern ... - Hindawi - November 25th, 2022
- BSGM - The British Society for Genetic Medicine - November 25th, 2022
- Feasibility and ethics of using data from the Scottish newborn blood spot archive for research | Communications Medicine - Nature.com - October 7th, 2022
- Closing your health care practice: What you need to know - Medical Economics - October 7th, 2022
- Is the doctor's office heading for extinction? - Medical Economics - October 7th, 2022
- Abortion Access in the U.S.: What to Know on a State-By-State Level - Healthline - October 7th, 2022
- Students can create their own path with new ASU Online biology degree - ASU News Now - October 7th, 2022
- U.S. Releases an AI Bill Of Rights That Though Encouraging Won't Yet Move the Needle - JURIST - October 7th, 2022
- California Funds Research On Blocking Marijuana Monopolies And Protecting 'Legacy' Cannabis Strains - Marijuana Moment - October 7th, 2022
- Tips For Your Virtual Meetings With The FDA - Med Device Online - October 7th, 2022
- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed ... - The Bakersfield Californian - October 7th, 2022
- MeiraGTx Announces the Upcoming Presentation of 15 Abstracts at the European Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (ESGCT) 2022 Annual Congress -... - October 7th, 2022
- Neighborhood deprivation and coronary heart disease in patients with bipolar disorder | Scientific Reports - Nature.com - October 7th, 2022
- Have Insurers Paid Too Much for Asbestos and Other Toxic Torts? - Claims Journal - August 19th, 2022
- Restrictive abortion laws are limiting the options parents have after receiving genetic test results, experts say - Yahoo Singapore News - August 19th, 2022
- Neurologists Discuss the Impact of Roe v. Wade Reversal on... : Neurology Today - LWW Journals - August 19th, 2022
- Abortion ruling prompts variety of reactions from states - ABC News - August 19th, 2022
- Is pregnancy possible after multiple failed IVF attempts? Can your frozen eggs and sperm be as healthy later? - The Indian Express - August 19th, 2022
- Meet the Expert: Focus on orthopaedics and VTE - Hospital Healthcare Europe - August 19th, 2022
- Egg Donation Process: From Application to Recovery - Healthline - July 6th, 2021
- Patent protection of mRNA vaccines and regulatory authorization - Lexology - July 6th, 2021
- EAPM: Presidency bridging conference a great success, HTA compromise agreed and data on the agenda - EU Reporter - July 6th, 2021
- Cell and Gene Therapy Drug Delivery Devices Market, 2030 - Market Opportunities in the Strong Pipeline of Cell and Gene Therapies - PRNewswire - April 4th, 2021
- Legally blind Great Falls filmmakers share their vision in national challenge - Yahoo News - April 4th, 2021
- Pfizer Announces Vaccine Is 100% Protective Against Coronavirus In Kids As Young As 12 - Yahoo News - April 4th, 2021
- How the law will change in 2021 - Lexology - February 11th, 2021
- Writing is the best medicine - The London Economic - February 11th, 2021
- Misleading glyphosate-cancer study Part 2: 'Symptom of a widespread problem'Concerns about ideological activism in science research and communications... - February 11th, 2021
- The Error of Fighting a Public Health War With Medical Weapons - WIRED - January 2nd, 2021
- Moderna, Pfizer vaccine trials were the highest of quality: vaccine expert - Yahoo Money - January 2nd, 2021
- Celebrate the new year with this New Year's Eve fireworks show in SF - Yahoo News - January 2nd, 2021
- The movie industry will strengthen again around April or May: Screenvision CEO - Yahoo Money - January 2nd, 2021
- Congress overrides Donald Trump's veto of a defense policy bill in the first such rebuke of his presidency - Yahoo News - January 2nd, 2021
- How the pandemic enabled a robot revolution - Politico - December 4th, 2020
- The mink link: How COVID-19 mutations in animals affect human health and vaccine effectiveness - The Conversation CA - November 24th, 2020
- How vaccines get made and approved in the US - The Albany Herald - November 24th, 2020
- Legalization votes bring worries of increased youth marijuana use, but evidence remains murky - AberdeenNews.com - November 24th, 2020
- Your daily 6: Third vaccine looks effective, no single 'word of the year' and Trump team called 'a national embarrassment' - Ravalli Republic - November 24th, 2020
- Cybersecurity depends on the user - Modern Diplomacy - November 20th, 2020
- It's Been Exactly One Year Since the First Case of COVID Was Found in China - Newsweek - November 20th, 2020
- Risks and benefits of an AI revolution in medicine - Harvard Gazette - November 12th, 2020
- HHS eased oversight of Covid-19 tests though it knew of problems - STAT - November 3rd, 2020
- Who won this years Nobel science prizes? - The Economist - October 8th, 2020
- Patent and Patient Rights in COVID-19: Is the Right to Exclusivity a Hamlet Question? - The Leaflet - October 8th, 2020
- FDA Oversight of Laboratory-Developed Tests Continues To Evolve - JD Supra - October 8th, 2020
- One Sperm Donor. 36 Children. A Mess of Lawsuits. - The Atlantic - September 15th, 2020
- Nebraska Medical Bill initiative blocked from entering the November ballots - Cannabis Health Insider - September 15th, 2020
- Poaching pressure mounts on jaguars, the Americas' iconic big cat - Mongabay.com - September 15th, 2020
- 'There is a sense of being robbed': Olympian Caster Semenya loses appeal on testosterone rule - The World - September 15th, 2020
- Global Microbiome Sequencing Market Growth Drivers, Demands, Business Opportunities and Demand Forecast to 2026|Clinical-Microbiomics A/S; Diversigen;... - September 5th, 2020
- Legal and Regulatory Issues in Genetic Information ... - August 31st, 2020
- The legal aspects of genetic testing - Medical Defence Union - August 31st, 2020
- Their view: Now is not the time to legalize marijuana - Wilkes Barre Times-Leader - August 31st, 2020
- Weighing up the potential benefits and harms of comprehensive full body health checks - Croakey - August 24th, 2020
- Soon, India will have its dedicated vaccine portal: ICMR - ETHealthworld.com - August 24th, 2020
- Two Families, Two Fates: When the Misdiagnosis is Child Abuse - The Marshall Project - August 22nd, 2020
- Ron Evans steals a trick from I/O, and points the way to a transformational diabetes therapy - Endpoints News - August 22nd, 2020
- Contact tracing apps may be ineffective for reducing Covid-19 spread: Study - ETHealthworld.com - August 22nd, 2020
- Global Microbiome Sequencing Market Size 2020 Review, Growth Strategy, Developing Technologies And Forecast By 2026|Charles River; CoreBiome, Inc.;... - August 19th, 2020
- Bill Jones: Working to create a culture of education - Wilkes Barre Times-Leader - August 19th, 2020
- Whats next for abortion legislation in the U.S.? - PBS NewsHour - July 10th, 2020
- No ethics when it comes to US enemies, even in the middle of a deadly pandemic - IOL - July 10th, 2020
- IML conducts the 5th National Convention on Medicine and Law - ETHealthworld.com - July 10th, 2020
- Wayne Medicine and Wayne Law professors team up to explore legal and ethical issues of wastewater monitoring for COVID-19 - The South End - June 28th, 2020
- Challenge trials aren't the answer to a speedy Covid-19 vaccine - STAT - June 28th, 2020
- Trump Suspends H-1B and Other Visas That Allow Foreigners to Work in the U.S. - The New York Times - June 24th, 2020
- Could the Montreal Neuro herald a paradigm shift in scientific research? - University Affairs - June 24th, 2020
- Next-Generation Sequencing Market: Understanding The Key Product Segments And Their Future During 2020 -2025 - 3rd Watch News - June 24th, 2020
- Meet 'Gastruloid': The First Human Embryo-like Model From Stem Cells That Could Soon Save Many Babie - Science Times - June 12th, 2020
- Could these senolytic drugs halt the spread of COVID-19? - Health Europa - June 12th, 2020
- The coronavirus vaccine frontrunners have emerged. Here's where they stand - BioPharma Dive - June 12th, 2020
- Regulating marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction - The Daily Star - June 12th, 2020
- Vaccines have saved millions of lives, but history shows missteps can prove deadly - The Boston Globe - June 12th, 2020
- Quitting smoking might reduce severe coronavirus infection risk: Study - ETHealthworld.com - May 23rd, 2020
- Where Taiwan Can Make the Most of AI - Taiwan - Taiwan Business TOPICS - May 23rd, 2020
- WHO and IOC team up to improve health through sport - ETHealthworld.com - May 18th, 2020
- The Cell Therapy Industry to 2028: Global Market & Technology Analysis, Company Profiles of 309 Players (170 Involved in Stem Cells) -... - May 15th, 2020
- Medical School: Who gets in and why - Stuff.co.nz - May 15th, 2020
- Wilson Ighodalo: Addressing Substance Abuse as a Public Health Problem - THISDAY Newspapers - May 15th, 2020
- The Falsehoods of the 'Plandemic' Video - FactCheck.org - May 14th, 2020