| vivint |
| vivint vivint alarms ripped off my mentallly disabled grandmother, stuck her with 48 mo. contract on fixed income, wouldn't let me cancel it bc i was |
| 17th of Jul, 2011 by User161255 |
| My grandmother had a man come by the house telling her that the alarm system was completely free. She said they talked for hours and had another man install the system the same evening. Nothing was mentioned about a contract or how long the service would last. When asked several times he always responded "It's Free!". I called the company to cancel the service once she got a letter in the mail. I explained to the customer service people that she was very old, does not know how to use the system, did not want it, was disabled, mentally ill, and that she doesn't have the money. They explained to me that it doesn't matter. There was nothing they could do for her because I called them 2 days after the trial period was over. There was no trial period mention either by the way. It's a sad day when a company has to feed off the mentally ill to make a buck. This company would rather over draft my grandmother's account for the next four years than to be socially responsable. Cold hearted if you ask me. It's not like she wouldn't let them come by to get their equipment back. She would love the company! |
|
|
|
|
Genetically modified foods (or GM foods) are foods derived from genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. These techniques are much more precise[1] than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change. Other techniques by which humans modify food organisms include selective breeding; plant breeding, and animal breeding, and somaclonal variation.
GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. Typically, genetically modified foods are transgenic plant products: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. Animal products have also been developed, although as of July 2010 none are currently on the market.[2] In 2006 a pig was controversially[3][4] engineered to produce omega-3 fatty acids through the expression of a roundworm gene.[5] Researchers have also developed a genetically-modified breed of pigs that are able to absorb plant phosphorus more efficiently, and as a consequence the phosphorus content of their manure is reduced by as much as 60%.[6]
Critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues, [7] ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact that these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.
Contents [hide]
1 Method
2 Development
3 Growing GM crops
3.1 Legal issues in the US
3.1.1 Alfalfa
3.1.2 Sugar beets
4 Crop yields
5 Coexistence and traceability
5.1 Detection
5.2 PLU codes
6 Controversy
7 Economic and environmental effects
8 Bans
8.1 U.S. government reaction to European ban
9 Intellectual property
10 Future developments
11 Health risks
11.1 Gene transfer
11.2 Allergies
11.3 Human exposure to pesticides associated with GM foods
12 Traceability
13 See also
14 References
15 External links
[edit]Method
''Genetic modification involves the insertion or deletion of genes. In the process of cisgenesis, genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could be conventionally bred. In the process of transgenesis, genes from a different species are inserted, which is a form of horizontal gene transfer. In nature this can occur when exogenous DNA penetrates the cell membrane for any reason. To do this artificially may require transferring genes as part of an attenuated virus genome or physically inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host using a microsyringe, or as a coating on gold nanoparticles fired from a gene gun. However, other methods exploit natural forms of gene transfer, such as the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer genetic material to plants, and the ability of lentiviruses to transfer genes to animal cells.
[edit]Development
The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was a tomato (called FlavrSavr), which was modified to ripen without softening, by Calgene, later a subsidiary of Monsanto.[8] Calgene took the initiative to obtain FDA approval for its release in 1994 without any special labeling, although legally no such approval was required.[9] It was welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at a substantial premium over the price of regular tomatoes. However, production problems[8] and competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the product from becoming profitable. A tomato produced using similar technology to the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996.[10][11] The labeling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment, which proved, at the time, that European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods. Currently, there are a number of food species in which a genetically modified version exists (percent modified are mostly 2009/2010 data).[12][13][14][15][16][17]
Food Properties of the genetically modified variety Modification Percent Modified in US Percent Modified in world
Soybeans Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides Herbicide resistant gene taken from bacteria inserted into soybean 93% 77%
Corn, field Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides. Insect resistance via producing Bt proteins, some previously used as pesticides in organic crop production. Vitamin-enriched corn derived from South African white corn variety M37W has bright orange kernels, with 169x increase in beta carotene, 6x the vitamin C and 2x folate.[18] New genes, some from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, added/transferred into plant genome. 86% 26%
Cotton (cottonseed oil) Pest-resistant cotton Bt crystal protein gene added/transferred into plant genome 93% 49%
Alfalfa Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides New genes added/transferred into plant genome. Planted in the US from 2005–2007; banned until January 2011 and presently legal
Hawaiian papaya Variety is resistant to the papaya ringspot virus.[19] New gene added/transferred into plant genome 80%
Tomatoes Variety in which the production of the enzyme polygalacturonase (PG) is suppressed, retarding fruit softening after harvesting.[20] A reverse copy (an antisense gene) of the gene responsible for the production of PG enzyme added into plant genome Taken off the market due to commercial failure. Small quantities grown in China
Rapeseed (Canola) Resistance to herbicides (glyphosate or glufosinate), high laurate canola[21] New genes added/transferred into plant genome 93% 21%
Sugar cane Resistance to certain pesticides, high sucrose content. New genes added/transferred into plant genome
Sugar beet Resistance to glyphosate, glufosinate herbicides New genes added/transferred into plant genome 95% (2010); planting in 2011 under controlled conditions 9%
Rice Genetically modified to contain high amounts of Vitamin A (beta-carotene) "Golden rice" Three new genes implanted: two from daffodils and the third from a bacterium Forecast to be on the market in 2013[22]
Squash (Zucchini) Resistance to watermelon, cucumber and zucchini yellow mosaic viruses[23][24] Contains coat protein genes of viruses. 13%
Sweet Peppers Resistance to virus[25] Contains coat protein genes of the virus. Small quantities grown in China
In addition, various genetically engineered micro-organisms are routinely used as sources of enzymes for the manufacture of a variety of processed foods. These include alpha-amylase from bacteria, which converts starch to simple sugars, chymosin from bacteria or fungi that clots milk protein for cheese making, and pectinesterase from fungi which improves fruit juice clarity.[26]
[edit]Growing GM crops
Between 1997 and 2009, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 80, from 17, 000 km2 (4.2 million acres) to 1, 340, 000 km2 (331 million acres).[14]
Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2009 the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in Brazil (214, 000 km2 in 2009 versus 158, 000 km2 in 2008.)[14] There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) In 2009 84, 000 km2 of GM cotton were harvested in India.[14]
In India, GM cotton yields in Andhra Pradesh were no better than non-GM cotton in 2002, the first year of commercial GM cotton planting. This was because there was a severe drought in Andhra Pradesh that year and the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered variant was not well suited to extreme drought. Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu had an average 42% increase in yield with GM cotton in the same year.[27] Drought resistant variants were developed and, with the substantially reduced losses to insect predation, by 2009 87% of Indian cotton was GM.[14] Though disputed[28][29] the economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented.[30][31]
In 2009, countries that grew 95% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (46%), Brazil (16%), Argentina (15%), India (6%), Canada (6%), China (3%), Paraguay (2%) and South Africa (2%).[14] The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient.[32] In particular, Bt corn, which produces the pesticide within the plant itself, is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These constitute "input-traits" are aimed to financially benefit the producers, may have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers.
In the US, by 2009/2010, 93% of the planted area of soybeans, 93% of cotton, 86% of corn and 95% of the sugar beet were genetically modified varieties.[12][13] Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide-tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensis Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002 to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant maize also increased in sown area.[33]
[edit]Legal issues in the US
[edit]Alfalfa
On 21 June 2010, the US Supreme Court issued its first ruling in regard to a GM crop in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms. This was a ruling in regard to Roundup Ready alfalfa.[34] The case goes back to 2006, when organic farmers, concerned about the impact of GM alfalfa on their crops, sued Monsanto. In response, the California Northern District Court ruled that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was in error when it approved the planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa. According to the presiding judge, the law required the USDA to first conduct a full environmental study, which it had not done. It was the concern of the organic growers that the GM alfalfa could cross-pollinate with their organic alfalfa, making their crops unsalable in countries that forbid the growing of GM crops.[35]
The impact of the current US Supreme Court ruling was somewhat unclear, with both sides appearing to claim victory.[36][37] While Monsanto claimed technical victory in the case, various other issues remained open and the planting of GM alfalfa was halted.
In January 2011, despite protests from organic groups and public health advocates, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the USDA had approved the unrestricted planting of genetically modified alfalfa.[38] Prior to the USDA decision, the USDA had announced that they were considering deregulation with or without restrictions.[39] The organic farming/sales community felt that by recognizing that cross-contamination of GE alfalfa could impact organic and non-GE farmers and consumers, both domestically and for export markets, the USDA was acknowledging that organic agriculture had the right to survive alongside conventional agriculture, and they urged the USDA to conditionally deregulate GE alfalfa by placing certain rules and restrictions that would minimize or limit contamination of non-GE crops. They stated that the issue with GE alfalfa had the potential of the contamination of organic and non-GE alfalfa, which is used as a mainstay food for organic and non-GE dairy cows, beef cattle and honey bees. They noted that the organic sector is an important part of the U.S. agricultural economy—a 26.6- billion-dollar-a-year industry that employs tens of thousands around the country, and helps keep at least 14, 540 family farms operating.[40]
Following the decision, organic farming groups, organic food outlets, and activists responded by publishing an open letter that said:
"The USDA's decision to allow unlimited, nationwide commercial planting of Monsanto's GE Roundup Ready alfalfa without any restrictions flies in the face of the interests of conventional and organic farmers, preservation of the environment, and consumer choice. USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops and its decision to appease the few companies who seek to benefit from this technology comes despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of American farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment."[41]
Commenting on the ruling, in a Joint Statement U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Peter DeFazio said:
"This long approval process began as a search for a workable compromise, but it has ended as a surrender to business as usual for the biotech industry. USDA officials had an opportunity to address the concerns of all farmers, whether they choose to farm genetically altered crops, conventional crops, or organic crops, and to find a way for them to coexist. Instead, what we now have is a setback for the nation's organic and conventional agriculture sectors. Instead of settling this issue, USDA's decision regrettably guarantees further rounds in the courts."[42]
The Center for Food Safety said they will be suing on the decision.[43]
[edit]Sugar beets
Between 2009 and 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California considered the case involving the planting of genetically modified sugar beets.[44] This case involves Monsanto's breed of pesticide-resistant sugar beets.[45] Earlier in 2010, Judge Jeffrey S. White allowed the planting of GM sugar beets to continue, but he also warned that this may be blocked in the future while an environmental review was taking place. On 13 August 2010, Judge White ordered a halt to the planting of the genetically modified sugar beets in the US. He indicated that "the Agriculture Department had not adequately assessed the environmental consequences before approving them for commercial cultivation." The decision was the result of a lawsuit organised by the Center for Food Safety, a US non-governmental organisation that is a critic of biotech crops.[46] On the 25th February 2011, a federal appeals court for the Northern district of California in San Francisco overturned a previous ruling by Judge Jeffrey S. White to destroy juvenile GM sugar beets, ruling in favor of Monsanto, the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and four seed companies. The court concluded that " The Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of irreparable injury. Biology, geography, field experience, and permit restrictions make irreparable injury unlikely." [47] In February 2011, The USDA allowed commercial planting of GM sugar beet under closely controlled conditions.[48][49]
[edit]Crop yields
A 1999 study by Charles Benbrook, Chief Scientist of the Organic Center, [50] found that genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans did not increase yields.[51] The report reviewed over 8, 200 university trials in 1998 and found that Roundup Ready soybeans had a yield drag of 5.3% across all varieties tested. In addition, the same study found that farmers used 2–5 times more herbicide (Roundup) on Roundup Ready soybeans compared to other popular weed management systems.[52]
However research published in Science in 2003 has shown that the use of genetically modified Bt cotton in India increased yields by 60% over the period 1998–2001 while the number of applications of insecticides against bollworm were three times less on average.[53]
A 2008 Soil Association report found that some scientific studies claimed that genetically modified varieties of plants do not produce higher crop yields than normal plants.[54]
In 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized numerous peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of genetic engineering in the United States. This report examined the two most widely grown engineered crops—soybeans and maize (corn).[55] Unlike many other studies, this work separated the yield contribution of the engineered gene from that of the many naturally occurring yield genes in crops.
The report found that engineered herbicide tolerant soy and maize did not increase yield at the national, aggregate level. Maize engineered with Bt insect resistance genes increased national yield by about 3 to 4 percent. Engineered crops increased net yield in all cases.
The study concluded that in the United States, other agricultural methods have made a much greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering. United States Department of Agriculture data record maize yield increases of about 28 percent since engineered varieties were first commercialized in the mid 1990s. The yield contribution of engineered genes has therefore been a modest fraction—about 14 percent—of the maize yield increase since the mid 1990s.
A 2010 article summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies on GM crops worldwide.[56][57] On average, farmers in developed countries experienced increase in yield of 6% and in underdeveloped countries of 29%. Tillage was decreased by 25–58% on herbicide resistant soybeans, insecticide applications on Bt crops were reduced by 14–76% and 72% of farmers worldwide experienced positive economic results.
[edit]Coexistence and traceability
The United States and Canada do not require labeling of genetically modified foods.[58] However in certain other regions, such as the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia, governments have required labeling so consumers can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins.[59][60] This requires a labeling system as well as the reliable separation of GM and non-GM organisms at production level and throughout the whole processing chain.[59][60]
For traceability, the OECD has introduced a "unique identifier" which is given to any GMO when it is approved.[61] This unique identifier must be forwarded at every stage of processing.[citation needed] Many countries have established labeling regulations and guidelines on coexistence and traceability. Research projects such as Co-Extra, SIGMEA and Transcontainer are aimed at investigating improved methods for ensuring coexistence and providing stakeholders the tools required for the implementation of coexistence and traceability.[citation needed]
[edit]Detection
Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques like DNA microarrays or qPCR. These tests can be based on screening genetic elements (like p35S, tNos, pat, or bar) or event-specific markers for the official GMOs (like Mon810, Bt11, or GT73). The array-based method combines multiplex PCR and array technology to screen samples for different potential GMOs, [62] combining different approaches (screening elements, plant-specific markers, and event-specific markers).
The qPCR is used to detect specific GMO events by usage of specific primers for screening elements or event-specific markers. Controls are necessary to avoid false positive or false negative results. For example, a test for CaMV is used to avoid a false positive in the event of a virus contaminated sample.
[edit]PLU codes
A 5-digit Price Look-Up code beginning with the digit 8 indicates genetically modified food [63]; however the absence of the digit does not necessarily indicate the food is not genetically modified.
[edit]Controversy
Main article: GM food controversy
While it is evident that there is a food supply issue[citation needed], the question is whether GM can solve world hunger problems, or even if that would be the best way to address the issue. Several scientists argue that in order to meet the demand for food in the developing world, a second Green Revolution with increased use of GM crops is needed.[64] Others argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production.[65][66] Recently some critics and environmentalists have changed their minds on the issue with respect to the need for additional food supplies.[67][68][69] Further, it has been widely noted that there are those who consider over-population the real issue here, and that food production is adequate for any reasonable population size.
“Genetic modification is analogous to nuclear power: nobody loves it, but climate change has made its adoption imperative, ” says economist Paul Collier of Oxford University. "Declining genetic modification makes a complicated issue more complex. Genetic modification offers both faster crop adaptation and a biological, rather than chemical, approach to yield increases."[70]
On the other hand, many believe that GM food has not been a success and that we should devote our efforts and money into another solution. “We need biodiversity intensification that works with nature’s nutrient and water cycles, not against them, ” says Vandana Shiva, the founder of Navdanya, the movement of 500, 000 seed keepers and organic farmers in India, argues that GMFs have not increased yields. Recently, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, published a report called “Failure to Yield”, in which he stated that in a nearly 20 year record, genetically engineered crops have not increased yields substantially of food and livestock feed crops in the United States.[71]
Some claim that genetically modified food help farmers produce, despite the odds or any environmental barriers. “While new technology must be tested before it is commercially released, we should be mindful of the risks of not releasing it at all, ” says Per Pinstrup-Andersen, professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University. Per Pinstrup-Anderson argues, “Misguided anti-science ideology and failure by governments to prioritize agricultural and rural development in developing countries brought us the food crisis.” He clearly states the challenge we face is not the challenge of whether we have enough resources to produce, but whether we will change our behavior.[72]
In March 2011 a coalition of family farmers, consumers and other critics of corporate agriculture held a town meeting to protest what they see as unfair consolidation of the nation's food system into the hands of a few multinationals. They contend that global biotech seed leader Monsanto controls the U.S. commercial seed market using unfair, and in some cases illegal, practices. They argue that Monsanto, which develops, licenses and markets genetically altered corn, soybeans and other crops, manipulates the seed market by buying up independent seed companies, patenting seed products, and then spiking prices. The group hopes to re-establish farmer rights to save seed from their harvested crops and replant it.[73][74]
[edit]Economic and environmental effects
Adoption of genetically-engineered crops in the United States.[75]
Many proponents of genetically engineered crops claim they lower pesticide usage and have brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those in developing nations.[76] For example, a 2010 study by US scientists, found that the economic benefit of Bt corn to farmers in five mid-west states was $6.9 billion over the previous 14 years. They were surprised that the majority ($4.3 billion) of the benefit accrued to non-Bt corn. This was speculated to be because the European Corn Borers that attack the Bt corn die and there are fewer left to attack the non-GM corn nearby.[77][78]
The United States has seen a widespread adoption of genetically-engineered corn, cotton and soybean crops since 1996 (see figure).[75]
In 2010, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reported that genetically engineered crops had resulted in reduced pesticide application and reduced soil erosion from tilling. The report also stated that the advent of glyphosate-herbicide resistant weeds—that have developed because of the use of engineered crops—could cause the genetically engineered crops to lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other established weed management strategies.[79][80]
In a study by Scientists at the University of Arkansas published in 2010 showed that about 83 percent of wild or weedy canola they tested contained genetically modified herbicide resistance genes, and they also found some plants that contained resistance to both herbicides, a combination of transgenic traits that had not been developed in canola crops. That leads us to believe that these wild populations that contain modified genes have become established populations.[81][82][83]
[edit]Bans
In 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme. This left a famine-stricken population without food aid.[84]
In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize.[85] However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods."[86][87]
In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in Venezuela.[88]
In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, which was subsequently authorized by the EU.
On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly caused by cross-pollination with conventional crops.[89]
On February 9, 2010, Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, imposed a moratorium on the cultivation of GMF "for as long as it is needed to establish public trust and confidence".[90] His decision was made after protest from several groups responding to regulatory approval of the cultivation of Bt brinjal, a GM eggplant in October, 2009.
[edit]U.S. government reaction to European ban
In recent years, France and several other European countries banned Monsanto's MON-810 corn and similar genetically modified food crops. In late 2007, the U.S. ambassador to France recommended "moving to retaliation" against France and the European Union in an attempt to fight the French ban and changes in European policy toward genetically modified crops, according to a U.S. government diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks. The U.S. ambassador to France recommended retaliation to cause "some pain across the EU."[91][92]
[edit]Intellectual property
Traditionally, farmers in all nations saved their own seed from year to year. It should be noted that this does not apply in more agriculturally developed countries for some crops. Corn is one example where producers generally have not saved seed since the early 1900s with the advent of hybrid corn through selective breeding. Seed producers grow the seed corn instead due to the effort needed to produce hybrids.[93] The offspring of the hybrid corn, while still viable, lose the beneficial traits of the parents, resulting in the loss of hybrid vigor. In these cases, the use of hybrid plants has been the primary reason for growers not saving seed, not intellectual property issues, and has been in practice well before genetically-modified seed was developed. However, the practice of not saving seed in non-hybrid crops, such as soybean, is mainly due to intellectual property regulations. Allowing to follow this practice with genetically modified seed would result in seed developers losing the ability to profit from their breeding work[citation needed]. Therefore, genetically-modified seed is subject to licensing by their developers in contracts that are written to prevent farmers from following this practice.[94]
Main article: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
Enforcement of patents on genetically modified plants is often contentious, especially because of gene flow. In 1998, 95–98 percent of about 10 km2 planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto Company's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto.[95] The initial source of the plants was undetermined, and could have been through either gene flow or intentional theft. However, the overwhelming predominance of the trait implied that Schmeiser must have intentionally selected for it. The court found that Schmeiser had saved seed from areas on and adjacent to his property where Roundup had been sprayed, such as ditches and near power poles.[96]
Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly grew Roundup Ready plants without paying royalties (Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor.[95][96] The dissenting judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents covered only the gene itself and glyphosate resistant cells, and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety. All of the judges agreed that Schmeiser would not have to pay any damages since he had not benefited from his use of the genetically modified seed.
In response to criticism, Monsanto Canada's Director of Public Affairs stated that "It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by accident...Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act."[97]
[edit]Future developments
Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, [98] metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, foods no longer containing properties associated with common intolerances, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.[99] While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also, at the same time, be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development. Plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.[100][101]
[edit]Health risks
In the United States, the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition reviews summaries of food safety data developed and voluntarily submitted by developers of engineered foods, in part on the basis of comparability to conventionally-produced foods. There are no specific tests required by FDA to determine safety. FDA does not approve the safety of engineered foods[citation needed], but after its review, acknowledges that the developer of the food has asserted that it is safe. The table below shows the foods that have been reviewed by FDA as of 2002.[102] |
|
|
|
A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of GMOs, are organisms which have inserted DNA that originated in a different species.
Contents [hide]
1 Production
2 History
3 Uses
3.1 Detection
3.2 Transgenic microbes
3.3 Transgenic animals
3.3.1 Fruit flies
3.3.2 Mosquitoes
3.3.3 Mammals
3.3.4 Cnidarians
3.3.5 Fish
3.4 Gene therapy
3.5 Transgenic plants
3.6 Cisgenic plants
4 Controversy
4.1 Biological process
4.2 Foodchain
4.3 Trade in Europe and Africa
4.4 Agricultural surpluses
4.5 Labeling
4.6 Testing
4.7 Impoverished nations
4.8 Private investments
4.9 Transgenic organisms
4.10 "Terminator" and "traitor"
4.11 Governmental support and opposition
4.11.1 Australia
4.11.2 Canada
4.11.3 Japan
4.11.4 Pakistan
4.11.5 New Zealand
4.11.6 United States
4.11.7 Zambia
4.11.8 Other African countries
4.11.9 France
4.11.10 Germany
4.11.11 Other European countries
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
7.1 General
7.2 Transgenic animals
7.3 Transgenic plants
[edit]Production
Further information: Genetic engineering, Genetic modification, Horizontal gene transfer, Molecular cloning, Recombinant DNA and Transformation (genetics)
Genetic modification involves the insertion or deletion of genes. When genes are inserted, they usually come from a different species, which is a form of horizontal gene transfer. In nature this can occur when exogenous DNA penetrates the cell membrane for any reason. To do this artificially may require attaching the genes to a virus or just physically inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host with a very small syringe, or with very small particles fired from a gene gun.[1] However, other methods exploit natural forms of gene transfer, such as the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer genetic material to plants, [2] or the ability of lentiviruses to transfer genes to animal cells.[3]
[edit]History
This section requires expansion.
The general principle of producing a GMO is to add new genetic material into an organism's genome. This is called genetic engineering and was made possible through the discovery of DNA and the creation of the first recombinant bacteria in 1973; an existing bacterium E. coli expressing an exogenic Salmonella gene.[4] This led to concerns in the scientific community about potential risks from genetic engineering, which were first discussed in depth at the Asilomar Conference in 1975. One of the main recommendations from this meeting was that government oversight of recombinant DNA research should be established until the technology was deemed safe.[5][6] Herbert Boyer then founded the first company to use recombinant DNA technology, Genentech, and in 1978 the company announced creation of an E. coli strain producing the human protein insulin.[7]
In 1986, field tests of bacteria genetically engineered to protect plants from frost damage (ice-minus bacteria) at a small biotechnology company called Advanced Genetic Sciences of Oakland, California, were repeatedly delayed by opponents of biotechnology. In the same year, a proposed field test of a microbe genetically engineered for a pest resistance protein by Monsanto Company was dropped.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s guidance on assessing the safety of genetically engineered plants and food emerged from organizations including the FAO and WHO.[8][9][10][11]
Small scale experimental plantings of genetically modified (GM) plants began in Canada and the U.S. in the late 1980s. The first approvals for large scale, commercial cultivation came in the mid 1990s. Since that time, adoption of GM plants by farmers has increased annually.
[edit]Uses
GMOs are used in biological and medical research, production of pharmaceutical drugs, experimental medicine (e.g. gene therapy), and agriculture (e.g. golden rice). The term "genetically modified organism" does not always imply, but can include, targeted insertions of genes from one species into another. For example, a gene from a jellyfish, encoding a fluorescent protein called GFP, can be physically linked and thus co-expressed with mammalian genes to identify the location of the protein encoded by the GFP-tagged gene in the mammalian cell. Such methods are useful tools for biologists in many areas of research, including those who study the mechanisms of human and other diseases or fundamental biological processes in eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells.
To date the most controversial but also the most widely adopted application of GMO technology is patent-protected food crops which are resistant to commercial herbicides or are able to produce pesticidal proteins from within the plant, or stacked trait seeds, which do both. The largest share of the GMO crops planted globally are owned by the US firm Monsanto.[12] In 2007, Monsanto's trait technologies were planted on 246 million acres (1, 000, 000 km2) throughout the world, a growth of 13 percent from 2006. However, patents on the first Monsanto products to enter the marketplace will begin to expire in 2014, democratizing Monsanto products. In addition, a 2007 report from the European Joint Research Commission predicts that by 2015, more than 40 per cent of new GM plants entering the global marketplace will have been developed in Asia.[13]
In the corn market, Monsanto's triple-stack corn—which combines Roundup Ready 2 weed control technology with YieldGard Corn Borer and YieldGard Rootworm insect control—is the market leader in the United States. U.S. corn farmers planted more than 32 million acres (130, 000 km2) of triple-stack corn in 2008, [14] and it is estimated the product could be planted on 56 million acres (230, 000 km2) in 2014–2015. In the cotton market, Bollgard II with Roundup Ready Flex was planted on approximately 5 million acres (20, 000 km2) of U.S. cotton in 2008.[15]
According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), of the approximately 14 million farmers who grew biotech crops in 2009, some 90% were resource-poor farmers in developing countries. These include some 7 million farmers in the cotton-growing areas of China, an estimated 5.6 million small farmers in India (Bacillus thuringiensis cotton), 250, 000 in the Philippines, South Africa (biotech cotton, maize and soybeans often grown by subsistence women farmers) and the other twelve developing countries which grew biotech crops in 2009.[16] 10 million more small and resource-poor farmers may have been secondary beneficiaries of Bt cotton in China.
The global commercial value of biotech crops grown in 2008 was estimated to be US$130 billion.[16]
In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports on the total area of GMO varieties planted.[17] According to National Agricultural Statistics Service, the states published in these tables represent 81–86 percent of all corn planted area, 88–90 percent of all soybean planted area, and 81–93 percent of all upland cotton planted area (depending on the year).
USDA does not collect data for global area. Estimates are produced by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) and can be found in the report, "Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2007".[18]
Transgenic animals are also becoming useful commercially. On February 6, 2009 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first human biological drug produced from such an animal, a goat. The drug, ATryn, is an anticoagulant which reduces the probability of blood clots during surgery or childbirth. It is extracted from the goat's milk.[19]
[edit]Detection
Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done by molecular techniques like DNA microarrays or qPCR. The test can be based on screening elements (like p35S, tNos, pat, or bar) or event-specific markers for the official GMOs (like Mon810, Bt11, or GT73). The array-based method combines multiplex PCR and array technology to screen samples for different potential GMOs, [20] combining different approaches (screening elements, plant-specific markers, and event-specific markers). The qPCR is used to detect specific GMO events by usage of specific primers for screening elements or event-specific markers.
To avoid any kind of false positive or false negative testing outcome, comprehensive controls for every step of the process is mandatory. A CaMV check is important to avoid false positive outcomes based on virus contamination of the sample.
[edit]Transgenic microbes
Bacteria were the first organisms to be modified in the laboratory, due to their simple genetics.[21] These organisms are now used for several purposes, and are particularly important in producing large amounts of pure human proteins for use in medicine.[22]
Genetically modified bacteria are used to produce the protein insulin to treat diabetes.[23] Similar bacteria have been used to produce clotting factors to treat haemophilia, [24] and human growth hormone to treat various forms of dwarfism.[25][26]
[edit]Transgenic animals
Some chimeras, like the blotched mouse shown, are created through genetic modification techniques like gene targeting.
Transgenic animals are used as experimental models to perform phenotypic and for testing in biomedical research.[27]
Genetically Modified (Genetically Engineered) animals are becoming more vital to the discovery and development of cures and treatments for many serious diseases. By altering the DNA or transferring DNA to an animal, we can develop certain proteins that may be used in medical treatment. Stable expressions of human proteins have been developed in many animals, including sheep, pigs, and rats.
Some examples are: Human-alpha-1-antitrypsin, [28] which has been developed in sheep and is used in treating humans with this deficency and transgenic pigs with human-histo-compatibility have been studied in the hopes that the organs will be suitable for transplant with less chances of rejection. Transgenic livestock have been used as bioreactors since the 1990s. Many medicines, including insulin and many immunizations are developed in transgenic animals.[29] In March 2011, the bioactive recombinant Human Lysozyne was expressed in the milk of cloned transgenic cattle. This field is growing rapidly and new pharming uses are being discovered and developed. The extent that trangenic animals will be useful in the medical field as well as other fields is very promising based on results thus far.[30]
[edit]Fruit flies
In biological research, transgenic fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) are model organisms used to study the effects of genetic changes on development.[31] Fruit flies are often preferred over other animals due to their short life cycle, low maintenance requirements, and relatively simple genome compared to many vertebrates.
[edit]Mosquitoes
In 2010, scientists created "malaria-resistant mosquitoes" in the laboratory.[32][33][34] The World Health Organisation estimated that Malaria killed almost one million people in 2008.[35]
[edit]Mammals
Genetically modified mammals are an important category of genetically modified organisms. Transgenic mice are often used to study cellular and tissue-specific responses to disease.
In 1999, scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada created the genetically engineered Enviropig. The Enviropig excretes from 30 to 70.7% less phosphorus in manure depending upon the age and diet.[36] In February 2010, Environment Canada determined that Enviropigs are in compliance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and can be produced outside of the research context in controlled facilities where they are segregated from other animals.[37]
In 2009, scientists in Japan announced that they had successfully transferred a gene into a primate species (marmosets) and produced a stable line of breeding transgenic primates for the first time.[38][39] Their first research target for these marmosets was Parkinson's disease, but they were also considering Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Huntington's disease.[40]
In 2011, scientists in China released news that they have introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. Aside from milk production, the researchers claim these transgenic cows to be identical to regular cows.[41]
[edit]Cnidarians
Cnidarians such as Hydra and the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis have become attractive model organisms to study the evolution of immunity and certain developmental processes. An important technical breakthrough was the development of procedures for generation of stably transgenic hydras and sea anemones by embryo microinjection.[42]
[edit]Fish
Genetically modified fish have promoters driving an over-production of "all fish" growth hormone. This resulted in dramatic growth enhancement in several species, including salmonids, [43] carps[44] and tilapias.[45]
[edit]Gene therapy
Gene therapy, [46] uses genetically modified viruses to deliver genes that can cure disease into human cells. Although gene therapy is still relatively new, it has had some successes. It has been used to treat genetic disorders such as severe combined immunodeficiency, [47] and treatments are being developed for a range of other currently incurable diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, [48] sickle cell anemia, [49] Parkinson's disease[50][51] and muscular dystrophy.[52] Current gene therapy technology only targets the non-reproductive cells meaning that any changes introduced by the treatment can not be transmitted to the next generation. Gene therapy targeting the reproductive cells—so-called "Germ line Gene Therapy"—is very controversial and is unlikely to be developed in the near future.
[edit]Transgenic plants
Kenyans examining insect-resistant transgenic Bt corn
Transgenic plants have been engineered to possess several desirable traits, such as resistance to pests, herbicides, or harsh environmental conditions, improved product shelf life, and increased nutritional value. Since the first commercial cultivation of genetically modified plants in 1996, they have been modified to be tolerant to the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate, to be resistant to virus damage as in Ringspot virus-resistant GM papaya, grown in Hawaii, and to produce the Bt toxin, an insecticide that is non-toxic to mammals.[53]
Most GM crops grown today have been modified with "input traits", which provide benefits mainly to farmers. The GM oilseed crops on the market today offer improved oil profiles for processing or healthier edible oils.[54] The GM crops in development offer a wider array of environmental and consumer benefits such as nutritional enhancement, drought and stress tolerance. GM plants are being developed by both private companies and public research institutions such as CIMMYT, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre.[55] Other examples include a genetically modified sweet potato, enhanced with protein and other nutrients, while golden rice, developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), has been discussed as a possible cure for Vitamin A deficiency.
The coexistence of GM plants with conventional and organic crops has raised significant concern in many European countries. Due to relatively high demand from European consumers for the freedom of choice between GM and non-GM foods, EU regulations require measures to avoid mixing of foods and feed produced from GM crops and conventional or organic crops. European research programs such as Co-Extra, Transcontainer, and SIGMEA are investigating appropriate tools and rules. At the field level, biological containment methods include isolation distance and pollen barriers. Such measures are generally not used in North America because they are very costly and there are no safety-related reasons to employ them.[56]
[edit]Cisgenic plants
Cisgenesis, sometimes also called Intragenesis, is a product designation for a category of genetically engineered plants. A variety of classification schemes have been proposed, [57] that order genetically modified organisms based on the nature of introduced genotypical changes rather than the process of genetic engineering.
While some genetically modified plants are developed by the introduction of a gene originating from distant, sexually incompatible species into the host genome, cisgenic plants contain genes which have been isolated either directly from the host species or from sexually compatible species. The new genes are introduced using recombinant DNA methods and gene transfer. Some scientists hope that the approval process of cisgenic plants might be simpler than that of proper transgenics, [58] but it remains to be seen.[59]
[edit]Controversy
See also: Genetically modified food controversies
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (March 2010)
[edit]Biological process
The use of genetically modified organisms has sparked significant controversy in many areas.[60] Some groups or individuals see the generation and use of GMO as intolerable meddling with biological states or processes that have naturally evolved over long periods of time, while others are concerned about the limitations of modern science to fully comprehend all of the potential negative ramifications of genetic manipulation.[61] Other people see this as a continuation in the role humanity has occupied for thousands of years, modifying the genetics of crops by selecting specimen of crops with the most desirable characteristics as parent for the next generation of crops.[62]
[edit]Foodchain
The safety of GMOs in the foodchain has been questioned by some environmental groups, with concerns such as the possibilities that GMOs could introduce new allergens into foods, or contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance.[63] According to a study published in 1999, there was no current evidence to suggest that the processes used to genetically modify food were inherently harmful.[64] However, a number of more recent studies [65][66] have raised concern, and environmental groups still discourage consumption in many countries, claiming that GM foods are unnatural and therefore unsafe.[67] Such concerns have led to the adoption of laws and regulations that require safety testing of any new organism produced for human consumption.[68]
GMOs' proponents note that because of the safety testing requirements imposed on GM foods, the risk of introducing a plant variety with a new allergene or toxin using genetic modification is much smaller than using traditional breeding processes. Transgenesis has less impact on the expression of genomes or on protein and metabolite levels than conventional breeding or plant (non-directed) mutagenesis.[69] An example of an allergenic plant created using traditional breeding is the kiwi.[70] One article calculated that the marketing of GM salmon could reduce the cost of salmon by half, thus increasing salmon consumption and preventing 1, 400 deaths from heart attack a year in the United States.[71]
[edit]Trade in Europe and Africa
In response to negative public opinion, Monsanto announced its decision to remove their seed cereal business from Europe, and environmentalists crashed a World Trade Organization conference in Cancun that promoted GM foods and was sponsored by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Some African nations have refused emergency food aid from developed countries, fearing that the food is unsafe. During a conference in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, Kingsley Amoako, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), encouraged African nations to accept genetically modified food and expressed dissatisfaction in the public’s negative opinion of biotechnology.[67]
[edit]Agricultural surpluses
Patrick Mulvany, Chairman of the UK Food Group, accused some governments, especially the Bush administration, of using GM food aid as a way to dispose of unwanted agricultural surpluses. The UN blamed food companies and accused them of violating human rights, calling on governments to regulate these profit-driven firms. It is widely believed that the acceptance of biotechnology and genetically modified foods will also benefit rich research companies and could possibly benefit them more than consumers in underdeveloped nations.[67]
[edit]Labeling
While some groups advocate the complete prohibition of GMOs, others call for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food or other products. Other controversies include the definition of patent and property pertaining to products of genetic engineering. According to the documentary Food, Inc. efforts to introduce labeling of GMOs has repeatedly met resistance from lobbyists and politicians affiliated with companies like Monsanto.
[edit]Testing
Bruce Stutz's article, “Wanted: GM Seeds for Study, ” highlights a story of two dozen scientists who spoke out against the research restrictions put forth by companies producing genetically modified (GM) seeds such as DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta. In February 2009, after scientists warned the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) “that industry influence had made independent analyses of transgenic crops impossible, ” the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) agreed that they “would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops.” This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future, but there is little optimism as to whether this agreement has the ability to “alter what has been a research environment rife with obstruction and suspicion.”[72]
[edit]Impoverished nations
Some groups believe that impoverished nations will not reap the benefits of biotechnology because they do not have easy access to these developments, cannot afford modern agricultural equipment, and certain aspects of the system revolving around intellectual property rights are unfair to "undeveloped countries". For example, The CGIAR (Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research) is an aid and research organization that has been working to achieve sustainable food security and decrease poverty in undeveloped countries since its formation in 1971. In an evaluation of CGIAR, the World Bank praised its efforts but suggested a shift to genetics research and productivity enhancement. This plan has several obstacles such as patents, commercial licenses, and the difficulty that third world countries have in accessing the international collection of genetic resources and other intellectual property rights that would educate them about modern technology. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has attempted to remedy this problem, but results have been inconsistent. As a result, "orphan crops", such as teff, millets, cowpeas, and indigenous plants, are important in the countries where they are grown, but receive little investment.[73]
[edit]Private investments
The development and implementation of policies designed to encourage private investments in research and marketing biotechnology that will meet the needs of poverty-stricken nations, increased research on other problems faced by poor nations, and joint efforts by the public and private sectors to ensure the efficient use of technology developed by industrialized nations have been suggested. In addition, industrialized nations have not tested GM technology on tropical plants, focusing on those that grow in temperate climates, even though undeveloped nations and the people that need the extra food live primarily in tropical climates.[67] Some European scientists are concerned that political factors and ideology prevent unbiased assessment of GM technology in some EU countries, with a negative effect on the whole community.[74]
[edit]Transgenic organisms
Another important controversy is the possibility of unforeseen local and global effects as a result of transgenic organisms proliferating. The basic ethical issues involved in genetic research are discussed in the article on genetic engineering.
Some critics have raised the concern that conventionally-bred crop plants can be cross-pollinated (bred) from the pollen of modified plants. Pollen can be dispersed over large areas by wind, animals, and insects. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Scotts Miracle-Gro $500, 000 when modified genetic material from creeping bentgrass, a new golf-course grass Scotts had been testing, was found within close relatives of the same genus (Agrostis)[75] as well as in native grasses up to 21 km (13 miles) away from the test sites, released when freshly cut grass was blown by the wind.[76]
GM proponents point out that outcrossing, as this process is known, is not new. The same thing happens with any new open-pollinated crop variety—newly introduced traits can potentially cross out into neighboring crop plants of the same species and, in some cases, to closely related wild relatives. Defenders of GM technology point out that each GM crop is assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if there is any risk associated with the outcrossing of the GM trait into wild plant populations. The fact that a GM plant may outcross with a related wild relative is not, in itself, a risk unless such an occurrence has negative consequences. If, for example, an herbicide resistance trait was to cross into a wild relative of a crop plant it can be predicted that this would not have any consequences except in areas where herbicides are sprayed, such as a farm. In such a setting the farmer can manage this risk by rotating herbicides.
The European Union funds research programs such as Co-Extra, that investigate options and technologies on the coexistence of GM and conventional farming. This also includes research on biological containment strategies and other measures to prevent outcrossing and enable the implementation of coexistence.
If patented genes are outcrossed, even accidentally, to other commercial fields and a person deliberately selects the outcrossed plants for subsequent planting then the patent holder has the right to control the use of those crops. This was supported in Canadian law in the case of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.
[edit]"Terminator" and "traitor"
An often cited controversy is a "Technology Protection" technology dubbed 'Terminator'.[77] This uncommercialized technology would allow the production of first generation crops that would not generate seeds in the second generation because the plants yield sterile seeds. The patent for this so-called "terminator" gene technology is owned by Delta and Pine Land Company and the United States Department of Agriculture. Delta and Pine Land was bought by Monsanto Company in August 2006. Similarly, the hypothetical trait-specific Genetic Use Restriction Technology, also known as 'Traitor' or 'T-GURT', requires application of a chemical to genetically modified crops to reactivate engineered traits.[77][78] This technology is intended both to limit the spread of genetically engineered plants, and to require farmers to pay yearly to reactivate the genetically engineered traits of their crops. Genetic Use Restriction Technology is under development by companies including Monsanto and AstraZeneca.
In addition to the commercial protection of proprietary technology in self-pollinating crops such as soybean (a generally contentious issue), another purpose of the terminator gene is to prevent the escape of genetically modified traits from cross-pollinating crops into wild-type species by sterilizing any resultant hybrids. Some environmentalist groups, while considering outcrossing of GM plants dangerous, felt the technology would prevent re-use of seed by farmers growing such terminator varieties in the developing world and was ostensibly a means to exercise patent claims.[citation needed] However other environmental groups welcomed the terminator gene as a means of preventing GM crops from mixing with natural crops.[citation needed]
Hybrid seeds were commonly used in the developed countries long before the introduction of GM crops. Hybrid seeds cannot be saved, so purchasing new seed every year is already a standard agricultural practice.
There are technologies evolving which contain the transgene by biological means and still can provide fertile seeds using fertility restorer functions. Such methods are being developed by several EU research programs, among them Transcontainer and Co-Extra.
[edit]Governmental support and opposition
[edit]Australia
Several states of Australia had placed bans on planting GM food crops, beginning in 2003.[79] However, in late 2007 the states of New South Wales and Victoria lifted their bans.[80] Western Australia lifted their state's ban in December 2008, [81] while South Australia continues its ban.[82] Tasmania has extended its moratorium until November 2014.[83] The state of Queensland has allowed the growing of GM crops since 1995 and has never had a GM ban.[84]
[edit]Canada
Genetically modified crops have been widely adopted in Canada and have been grown since 1995.[85] Nearly all of the canola grown in Canada is GM, as are significant proportions of corn and soybean. The Canadian regulatory system for biotechnology is science-based.[86]
In general, biotechnology is well-accepted by Canadian farmers, with some exceptions. In 2005, a standing committee of the government of Prince Edward Island (PEI) in Canada assessed a proposal to ban the production of GMOs in the province. The ban was not passed.[87] As of January 2008, the use of genetically modified crops on PEI was rapidly increasing.[88] Mainland Canada is one of the world's largest producers of GM canola.[89]
[edit]Japan
As of 2009, Japan has no commercial farming of any kinds of genetically modified food. Consumers have strongly resisted both imports and attempts to grow GMO in the country. Campaigns by consumer groups and environmental groups, such as Consumers Union of Japan and Greenpeace Japan, as well as local campaigns, have been very successful. In Hokkaido, a special bylaw has made it virtually impossible to grow GMOs, as the No! GMO Campaign collected over 200, 000 signatures to oppose GMO farming.[90] Consumers Union of Japan participated together with other Japanese NGOs at the Planet Diversity conference in Bonn, Germany on May 12–16, 2008, a global congress on the future of food and agriculture, with a demonstration to celebrate biodiversity, to oppose GMOs. “We don’t only need networks between people, but between people and plants, and people and planet earth, ” noted Koketsu Michiyo from CUJ.[91]
Cross-pollination has commonly occurred in Japan, as canola seed (rape seed) is imported from Canada. Around ports and the roads to major food oil companies, GE canola has now been found growing wild. Imported canola seeds have been found to be GMO varieties, including the Roundup Ready and Liberty Link types not grown in Japan. Activists and local groups, as well as the No! GMO Campaign and others, are alarmed that imported GMOs may harm the biodiversity and cause irreversible damage. A report from the Japanese National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) confirms that herbicide-resistant genetically engineered canola plants were identified in five of the six Japanese ports where samples were collected.[92]
A number of Japanese groups have been making submissions to Western Australia’s Review of the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. These include the Seikatsu Club Consumers’ Cooperative Union and the Consumers Union of Japan. Seikatsu—an umbrella group of 29 Seikatsu Club Consumers’ Co-Operatives—and its oil crushers Okamura Oil Mill Ltd and Yonezawa Oil Co. Ltd., all have non-GE canola policies. The groups stopped importing canola from Canada after the introduction of GE canola, when cross-pollination made it impossible to guarantee GE-free canola from Canada.[93]
[edit]Pakistan
The government supports the use of hybrid seeds. However, Monsanto once tried to sell their hybrid seeds of such important crops as wheat and rice via the government. Even though yields would have increased, it would have made the Pakistani population dependent on the seeds of one company. The contract was never given.
[edit]New Zealand
Main article: Genetic engineering in New Zealand
In New Zealand, no genetically modified food is grown and no medicines containing live genetically-modified organisms have been approved for use.[94] However, medicines manufactured using genetically modified organisms that do not contain live organisms have been approved for sale, and imported foods with genetically modified components are sold.
[edit]United States
Main article: Genetic engineering in the United States
In 2004, Mendocino County, California became the first county in the United States to ban the production of GMOs. The measure passed with a 57% majority. In California, Trinity and Marin counties have also imposed bans on GM crops, while ordinances to do so were unsuccessful in Butte, Lake, San Luis Obispo, Humboldt, and Sonoma counties. Supervisors in the agriculturally-rich counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Solano, Sutter, and Tulare have passed resolutions supporting the practice.[95]
In 2007, with reference to US negotiations with the EU on agricultural biotechnology, US diplomatic cables recommended that 'we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU'.[96]
[edit]Zambia
The Zambian government rejected a consignment of GMO maize supplied by donors during a famine in 2002 on the basis of the Cartagena Protocol. [97]
[edit]Other African countries
In 2010, after nine years of talks, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) produced a draft policy on GM technology. This proposed policy was sent to all 19 national governments for consultation in September 2010. Under the policy, a member country which wants to grow a new GM crop would inform COMESA who would have sufficient scientific expertise to make the decision as to whether the crop was safe for the environment and for humans. At the moment, few countries have the resources to make their own decisions. Once COMESA had made their decision, permission would be granted for the crop to be grown in all 19 member countries. Member countries would retain the power not to grow the crop in their own country if they wanted.[98]
[edit]France
The cultivation of Monsanto's MON 810 corn was forbidden in France on February 9, of 2008.[99] It was the only GMO authorized in France. The safeguard measure is taken as far as side effects on human health will be known. In 2010 Marion Guillou, president of the National Institute for Agronomical Research and one of France's top farm researcher, said she can no longer work on developing new GMOs due to widespread distrust and even hostility by European consumers.[100]
[edit]Germany
Germany placed a ban on the cultivation and sale of GMO maize in April 2009.[101]
[edit]Other European countries
MON 810 (maize) was the first GMO crop to be cultivated in Europe. The initial lines of maize were approved in 1997 and, by 2009, 76, 000 hectares of GM maize were grown in Spain (20% of Spain's maize production). Smaller amounts were produced in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugal, Romania and Poland.[16] However, in addition to France and Germany, other European countries that have placed bans on the cultivation and sale of GMOs include Austria, Hungary, Greece, and Luxembourg.[102] Ireland has also banned GMO cultivation, and has instituted a voluntary label for GMO-free food products.[103] Poland has also tried to institute a ban, with backlash from the European Commission.[104] Bulgaria effectively banned cultivation of genetically modified organisms on March 18, 2010.[105]
On 2 March 2010 a second species of GMO, a potato named Amflora, was approved for cultivation for industrial applications in the EU by the European Commission[106] and was grown in Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic that year.[107] On 13 July 2010, the European Commission issued a recommendation that in future individual states in the EU should be able to ban the growing of specific GM crops that had been scientifically approved at the EU level. A ban could be justified on cultural, economic or ethical grounds.[108][109] The EU approval process for imports of GM crops and labelling of GM food products remained in place.[110][111] |
|
|
|
Genetically modified mammals are mammals that have been genetically engineered. They are an important category of genetically modified organisms. The majority of research involving genetically modified mammals involves mice with attempts to produce knockout animals in other mammalian species limited by the inability to derive and stably culture embryonic stem cells.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Usage
2 Genetically modified mice
3 Genetically modified rats
4 Genetically modified goats
5 Genetically modified pigs
6 Genetically modified cattle
7 Genetically modified dogs
8 Genetically modified primates
9 References
[edit]Usage
The majority of genetically modified mammals are used in research to investigate changes in phenotype when specific genes are altered. This can be used to discover the function of an unknown gene, any genetic interactions that occur or where the gene is expressed. Genetic modification can also produce mammals that are susceptible to certain compounds or stresses for testing in biomedical research.[2] Some genetically modified mammals are used as models of human diseases and potential treatments and cures can first be tested on them. Other mammals have been engineered with aim of potentially increasing there use to medicine and industry. These possibilities include pigs expressing human antigens aiming to increasing the success of xenotransplantation[3] to lactating mammals expressing useful proteins in their milk.[4]
[edit]Genetically modified mice
Main article: Genetically modified mouse
Genetically modified mice are often used to study cellular and tissue-specific responses to disease (cf knockout mouse). This is possible since mice can be created with the same mutations that occur in human genetic disorders, the production of the human disease in these mice then allows treatments to be tested.[5]
The oncomouse is a type of laboratory mouse that has been genetically modified using modifications designed by Philip Leder and Timothy A. Stewart of Harvard University to carry a specific gene called an activated oncogene.[6]
Metabolic supermice are the creation of a team of American scientists led by Richard Hanson, professor of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University at Cleveland, Ohio.[7][8] The aim of the research was to gain a greater understanding of the PEPCK-C enzyme, which is present mainly in the liver and kidneys.
[edit]Genetically modified rats
A knockout rat is a rat with a single gene disruption used for academic and pharmaceutical research.[9][10][11][12]
[edit]Genetically modified goats
BioSteel is a trademark name for a high-strength based fiber material made of the recombinant spider silk-like protein extracted from the milk of transgenic goats, made by Nexia Biotechnologies. The company has successfully generated distinct lines of goats that produce in their milk recombinant versions of either the MaSpI or MaSpII dragline silk proteins, respectively.[13]
[edit]Genetically modified pigs
The enviropig is the trademark for a genetically modified line of Yorkshire pigs with the capability to digest plant phosphorus more efficiently than ordinary unmodified pigs that was developed at the University of Guelph.[14] Enviropigs produce the enzyme phytase in the salivary glands that is secreted in the saliva.
In 2006 the scientists from National Taiwan University's Department of Animal Science and Technology managed to breed three green-glowing pigs. *BBC NEWS link to this fact
[edit]Genetically modified cattle
Herman the Bull was the first genetically modified or transgenic bovine in the world.[15][16] The announcement of Herman's creation caused an ethical storm.[17]
[edit]Genetically modified dogs
Ruppy (short for Ruby Puppy) is the world's first Genetically modified dog.[18] A cloned beagle, Ruppy and four other beagles produce a fluorescent protein that glows red upon excitation with ultraviolet light.[19]
[edit]Genetically modified primates
In 2009 scientists in Japan announced that they had successfully transferred a gene into a primate species (marmosets) and produced a stable line of breeding transgenic primates for the first time. It is hoped that this will aid research into human diseases that cannot be studied in mice, for example Huntington's disease and strokes.[20][21] |
|
|
|
A genetically modified mouse is a mouse that has had its genome altered through the use of genetic engineering techniques. Genetically modified mice are commonly used for research or as animal models of human diseases.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Methods
3 Uses
4 References
[edit]History
In 1974 Rudolf Jaenisch created the first genetically modified animal by inserting a DNA virus into an early-stage mouse embryo and showing that the inserted genes were present in every cell.[1] However the mice did not pass the transgene onto their offspring. In 1981 the laboratories of Frank Ruddle from Yale and Frank Constantini and Elizabeth Lacy in Oxford injected purified DNA into a single-cell mouse embryo and showed transmission of the genetic material to subsequent generations.[2][3] During the early eighties the technology used to generate genetically modified mice was improved into a tractable and reproducible method.[4]
[edit]Methods
There are two basic technical approaches to produce genetically modified mice. The first involves pronuclear injection into a single cell of the mouse embryo, where it will randomly integrate into the mouse genome.[5] This method creates a transgenic mouse and is used to insert new genetic information into the mouse genome or to over-express endogenous genes. The second approach involves modifying embryonic stem cells with a DNA construct containing DNA sequences homologous to the target gene. Embyonic stem cells that recombine with the genomic DNA are selected for and they are then injected into the mice blastocysts.[6] This method is used to manipulate a single gene, in most cases "knocking out" the target gene, although more subtle genetic manipulation can occur (e.g. only changing single nucleotides).
[edit]Uses
Genetically modified mice are used extensively in research as models of human disease.[7] The most common type is the knockout mouse, where the activity of a single (or in some cases multiple) genes are removed. They have been used to study and model obesity, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, substance abuse, anxiety, aging and Parkinson disease.[8] Transgenic mice generated to carry cloned oncogenes and knockout mice lacking tumor suppressing genes have provided good models for human cancer. Hundreds of these oncomice have been developed covering a wide range of cancers affecting most organs of the body and they are being refined to become more representative of human cancer.[4] The disease symptoms and potential drugs or treatments can be tested against these mouse models.
A mouse has been genetically engineered to have increased muscle growth and strength by overexpressing the insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) in differentiated muscle fibers.[9][10] Another mouse has had a gene altered that is involved in glucose metabolism and runs faster, lives longer, is more sexually active and eats more without getting fat than the average mouse (see Metabolic supermice).[11][12] |
|
|
|
Genetically modified plants are plants whose DNA is modified using genetic engineering techniques. In most cases the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in this species. Examples include resistance to certain pests, diseases or environmental conditions, or the production of a certain nutrient or pharmaceutical agent.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Development
3 Types
4 Regulation of genetically modified plants
5 Biosafety
6 Agricultural impact of transgenic plants
7 Coexistence and traceability
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
[edit]History
Plums that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to the plum pox virus
Some degree of natural flow of genes, often called horizontal gene transfer or lateral gene transfer, occurs between plant species.[1] This is facilitated by transposons, retrotransposons, proviruses and other mobile genetic elements that naturally translocate to new sites in a genome.[2][3] They often move to new species over an evolutionary time scale[4] and play a major role in dynamic changes to chromosomes during evolution.[5][6]
The introduction of foreign germplasm into common foods has been achieved by traditional crop breeders by artificially overcoming fertility barriers. A hybrid cereal was created in 1875, by crossing wheat and rye.[7] Since then important traits have been introduced into wheat, including dwarfing genes and rust resistance.[8] Plant tissue culture and the induction of mutations have also enabled humans to artificially alter the makeup of plant genomes.[9][10]
The first field trials of genetically engineered plants occurred in France and the USA in 1986, when tobacco plants were engineered to be resistant to herbicides.[11] In 1987, Plant Genetic Systems (Ghent, Belgium), founded by Marc Van Montagu and Jeff Schell, was the first company to develop genetically engineered (tobacco) plants with insect tolerance by expressing genes encoding for insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).[12] The People’s Republic of China was the first country to allow commercialized transgenic plants, introducing a virus-resistant tobacco in 1992.[13] The first genetically modified crop approved for sale in the U.S., in 1994, was the FlavrSavr tomato, which had a longer shelf life.[14] In 1994, the European Union approved tobacco engineered to be resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, making it the first commercially genetically engineered crop marketed in Europe.[15] In 1995, Bt Potato was approved safe by the Environmental Protection Agency, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the USA.[16] In 2009, 11 different transgenic crops were grown commercially on 330 million acres (134 million hectares) in 25 countries such as the USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay and South Africa.[17]
The U.S. has adopted the technology most widely whereas Europe has very little genetically engineered crops[18] with the exception of Spain where one fifth of maize grown is genetically engineered, [19] and smaller amounts in five other countries.[20] The EU had a formal ban on the approval of new GM crops, until it was overturned in 2006;[21] in a controversial move.[22] GM crops are now regulated by the EU.[23]
[edit]Development
Plants (Solanum chacoense) being transformed using agrobacterium
Genetically engineered plants are generated in a laboratory by altering the genetic makeup, usually by adding one or more genes, of a plant's genome using genetic engineering techniques. Most genetically modified plants are generated by the biolistic method (particle gun) or by Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation.
In the biolistic method, DNA is bound to tiny particles of gold or tungsten which are subsequently "shot" into plant tissue or single plant cells under high pressure. The accelerated particles penetrate both the cell wall and membranes. The DNA separates from the metal and is integrated into the plant genome inside the nucleus. This method has been applied successfully for many cultivated crops, especially monocots like wheat or maize, for which transformation using Agrobacterium tumefaciens has been less successful.[24] The major disadvantage of this procedure is that serious damage can be done to the cellular tissue.
Agrobacteria are natural plant parasites, and their natural ability to transfer genes is used for the development of genetically engineered plants. To create a suitable environment for themselves, these Agrobacteria insert their genes into plant hosts, resulting in a proliferation of plant cells near the soil level (crown gall). The genetic information for tumour growth is encoded on a mobile, circular DNA fragment (plasmid). When Agrobacterium infects a plant, it transfers this T-DNA to a random site in the plant genome. When used in genetic engineering the bacterial T-DNA is removed from the bacterial plasmid and replaced with the desired foreign gene. The bacterium is a vector, enabling transportation of foreign genes into plants. This method works especially well for dicotyledonous plants like potatoes, tomatoes, and tobacco. Agrobacteria infection is less successful in crops like wheat and maize.
Genetically modified plants have been developed commercially to improve shelf life, disease resistance, herbicide resistance and pest resistance. Plants engineered to tolerate non-biological stresses like drought [25][26], frost[27][28] and nitrogen starvation[29] or with increased nutritional value (e.g. Golden rice[30]) were in development in 2011. Future generations of GM plants are intended to be suitable for harsh environments, produce increased amounts of nutrients or even pharmaceutical agents, or are improved for the production of bioenergy and biofuels. Due to high regulatory and research costs, the majority of genetically modified crops in agriculture consist of commodity crops, such as soybean, maize, cotton and rapeseed.[31][32] However, commercial growing was reported in 2009, of smaller amounts of genetically modified sugar beet, papayas, squash (zucchini), sweet pepper, tomatoes, petunias, carnations, roses and poplars.[32] Recently, some research and development has been targeted to enhancement of crops that are locally important in developing countries, such as insect-resistant cowpea for Africa [33] and insect-resistant brinjal (eggplant) for India.[34]
In research tobacco and Arabidopsis thaliana are the most genetically modified plants, due to well developed transformation methods, easy propagation and well studied genomes.[35][citation needed] They serve as model organisms for other plant species. Genetically modified plants have also been used for bioremediation of contaminated soils. Mercury, selenium and organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been removed from soils by transgenic plants containing genes for bacterial enzymes.[36]
[edit]Types
Transgenic maize containing a gene from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis
Transgenic plants have genes inserted into them that are derived from another species. The inserted genes can come from species within the same kingdom (plant to plant) or between kingdoms (bacteria to plant). In many cases the inserted DNA has to be modified slightly in order to correctly and efficiently express in the host organism. Transgenic plants are used to express proteins like the cry toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis, herbicide resistant genes and antigens for vaccinations[37]
Cisgenic plants are made using genes found within the same species or a closely related one, where conventional plant breeding can occur. Some breeders and scientists argue that cisgenic modification is useful for plants that are difficult to crossbreed by conventional means (such as potatoes), and that plants in the cisgenic category should not require the same level of legal regulation as other genetically modified organisms.[38]
In research plants are engineered to help discover the functions of certain genes. One way to do this is to knock out the gene of interest and see what phenotype develops. Another strategy is to attach the gene to a strong promoter and see what happens when it is over expressed. A common technique used to find out where the gene is expressed is to attach it to GUS or a similar reporter gene that allows visualisation of the location.[39]
The first commercialised genetically modified plants (Flavr Savr tomatoes) used RNAi technology, where the inserted DNA matched an endogenous gene already in the plant. When the inserted gene is expressed it can repress the translation of the endogenous protein. Host delivered RNAi systems are being developed, where the plant will express RNA that will interfere with insects, nematodes and other parasites protein synthesis.[40] This may provide a novel way of protecting plants from pests.
[edit]Regulation of genetically modified plants
Main article: Regulation of genetic engineering
In the USA genetically modified organisms are assessed by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental protection agency (EPA). The USDA evaluate the plants potential to become weeds, the FDA review plants that could enter or alter the food supply and the EPA regulate the genetically modified plants with pesticide properties. Most developed genetically modified plants are reviewed by at least two of the agencies, with many subject to all three.[41] Final approval can still be denied by individual counties within each state. In 2004, Mendocino County, California became the first and only county to impose a ban on the "Propagation, Cultivation, Raising, and Growing of Genetically Modified Organisms", the measure passing with a 57% majority.[42]
Allergic proteins were detected during testing of a transgenic soybean inserted with a gene from the Brazil nut. The inserted gene did not translate into a known allergen, the allergenic nature of the protein was discovered when tested with serum from people allergic to Brazil nut.[43] Three federal district court suits have been brought against Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the agency within USDA that regulates genetically modifies plant. Two involved field trials (herbicide-tolerant turfgrass in Oregon; pharmaceutical-producing corn and sugar in Hawaii) and one the deregulation of GM alfalfa.[41] APHIS lost all three cases, with the judges ruling they failed to diligently follow the guidelines set out in the National Environmental Policy Act.
The European Union (EU) has possibly the most stringent regulations for genetically modified plants in the world.[44] All genetically modified plants are considered "new food" and subject to extensive, case-by-case, science based food evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The European Commission (EC) then draft a proposal that is submitted to the Section on GM Food and Feed of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, where if accepted it will be adopted by the EC or passed on to the Council of Agricultural Ministers.[44] There is also a safeguard clause that any Member State can invoke to restrict or prohibit the use or sale of a GM plant within their territory if they have a justifiable reasons to consider that the approved GM plant constitutes a risk to human health or the environment.[45]
Currently (2010) the only genetically modified plants approved for cultivation in Europe are MON810, a Bt expressing maize conferring resistance to the European corn borerand a potato called Amflora, approved only for industrial applications.[46] The EC has issued guidelines to allow the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops through buffer zones (where no GM crops are grown).[47] These are regulated by individual countries and vary from 15 meters in Sweden to 800 meters in Luxembourg.[44] All food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.
Regulation in Australia are provided by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and Food Standards Australia New Zealand.[48][49] Each state in Australia individually assess the impact of release on markets and trade and can apply further legislation if they deem it necessary. Genetically modified plants are currently[when?] grown in all states except South Australia and Tasmania, who have extended their moratoriums.[50] Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency[51] are responsible for evaluating the safety and nutritional value of genetically modified plants in Canada.[52]
The Argentine government was one of the first to accept genetically modified plants, with assessment provided by the National Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee (for environmental impact), the National Service of Health and Agrifood Quality (for food safety) and the National Agribusiness Direction (for theeffect on trade) The final decision is made by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fishery and Food.[53] In Brazil the 27 member National Biosafety Technical Commission is responsible for assessing environmental impact, food safety and provides guidelines for transport, importation and field experiments. In 2005, the Mexican senate passed a law allowing planting and selling of genetically modified crops.[54]
Genetically modified crops in China go through three phases of field trials (pilot field testing, environmental release testing, and preproduction testing) before they are submitted to the Office of Agricultural Genetic Engineering Biosafety Administration (OAGEBA) for assessment.[55] The 75 member National Biosafety Committee evaluates all applications, although OAGEBA has the final decision. The cost of regulation enforcement in India is generally higher than China, while the enforcement of regulations has proved more effective in China.[56] The National Assembly of Burkina Faso passed a biosafety law in early 2006, which established a National Biosafety Agency that would regulate GM products with the advise of various governmental and non-governmental advisory committees.[57]
[edit]Biosafety
See also: biosafety
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)
Genetically modified plants can spread the trans gene to other plants or – theoretically – even to bacteria. Depending on the transgene, this may pose a threat to the environment by changing the composition of the local ecosystem.[58] Therefore, in most countries environmental studies are required prior to the approval of a GM plant for commercial purposes, and a monitoring plan must be presented to identify potential effects which have not been anticipated prior to the approval.
Little research has been conducted on human and animal health. However, in most countries every GM plant is tested in feeding trials to prove its safety, before it is approved for use and marketing. The project GMO-Safety collects and presents biosafety research on GMOs with more in-depth information on this topic.[1]
The potential impact on nearby ecosystems is one of the greatest concerns associated with transgenic plants.
Transgenes have the potential for significant ecological impact if the plants can increase in frequency and persist in natural populations. These concerns are similar to those surrounding conventionally bred plant breeds. Several risk factors should be considered:[59]
Can the transgenic plant pass its genes to a local wild species, and are the offspring also fertile?
Does the introduction of the transgene confer a selective advantage to the plant or to hybrids in the wild?
Many domesticated plants can mate and hybridise with wild relatives when they are grown in proximity, and whatever genes the cultivated plant had can then be passed to the hybrid. This applies equally to transgenic plants and conventionally bred plants, as in either case there are advantageous genes that may have negative consequences to an ecosystem upon release. This is normally not a significant concern, despite fears over 'mutant superweeds' overgrowing local wildlife: although hybrid plants are far from uncommon, in most cases these hybrids are not fertile due to polyploidy, and will not multiply or persist long after the original domestic plant is removed from the environment. However, this does not negate the possibility of a negative impact.
In some cases, the pollen from a domestic plant may travel many miles on the wind before fertilising another plant. This can make it difficult to assess the potential harm of crossbreeding; many of the relevant hybrids are far away from the test site. Among the solutions under study for this concern are systems designed to prevent transfer of transgenes, such as Terminator Technology, and the genetic transformation of the chloroplast only, so that only the seed of the transgenic plant would bear the transgene. With regard to the former, there is some controversy that the technologies may be inequitable and might force dependence upon producers for valid seed in the case of poor farmers, whereas the latter has no such concern but has technical constraints that still need to be overcome. Solutions are being developed by EU funded research programmes such as Co-Extra and Transcontainer.
There are at least three possible avenues of hybridization leading to escape of a transgene:
Hybridization with non-transgenic crop plants of the same species and variety.
Hybridization with wild plants of the same species.
Hybridization with wild plants of closely related species, usually of the same genus.
However, there are a number of factors which must be present for hybrids to be created.
The transgenic plants must be close enough to the wild species for the pollen to reach the wild plants.
The wild and transgenic plants must flower at the same time.
The wild and transgenic plants must be genetically compatible.
In order to persist, these hybrid offspring:
Must be viable, and fertile.
Must carry the transgene.
Studies suggest that a possible escape route for transgenic plants will be through hybridization with wild plants of related species.
It is known that some crop plants have been found to hybridize with wild counterparts.
It is understood, as a basic part of population genetics, that the spread of a transgene in a wild population will be directly related to the fitness effects of the gene in addition to the rate of influx of the gene to the population. Advantageous genes will spread rapidly, neutral genes will spread with genetic drift, and disadvantageous genes will only spread if there is a constant influx.
The ecological effects of transgenes are not known, but it is generally accepted that only genes which improve fitness in relation to abiotic factors would give hybrid plants sufficient advantages to become weedy or invasive. Abiotic factors are parts of the ecosystem which are not alive, such as climate, salt and mineral content, and temperature. Genes improving fitness in relation to biotic factors could disturb the (sometimes fragile) balance of an ecosystem. For instance, a wild plant receiving a pest resistance gene from a transgenic plant might become resistant to one of its natural pests, say, a beetle. This could allow the plant to increase in frequency, while at the same time animals higher up in the food chain, which are at least partly dependent on that beetle as food source, might decrease in abundance. However, the exact consequences of a transgene with a selective advantage in the natural environment are almost impossible to predict reliably.
It is also important to refer to the demanding actions that government of developing countries had been building up among the last decades.
[edit]Agricultural impact of transgenic plants
Outcrossing of transgenic plants not only poses potential environmental risks, it may also trouble farmers and food producers.[citation needed] Many countries have different legislations for transgenic and conventional plants as well as the derived food and feed[citation needed], and consumers demand the freedom of choice to buy GM-derived or conventional products[citation needed]. Therefore, farmers and producers must separate both production chains[citation needed]. This requires coexistence measures on the field level as well as traceability measures throughout the whole food and feed processing chain[citation needed]. Research projects such as Co-Extra, SIGMEA and Transcontainer investigate how farmers can avoid outcrossing and mixing of transgenic and non-transgenic crops, and how processors can ensure and verify the separation of both production chains.[citation needed]
[edit]Coexistence and traceability
In many countries, and especially in the European Union, consumers demand the choice between foods derived from GM plants and conventionally or organically produced plants. This requires a labelling system as well as the reliable separation of GM and non-GM crops at field level and throughout the whole production chain.
Research has demonstrated, that coexistence can be realised by several agricultural measures, such as isolation distances or biological containment strategies.[2]
For traceability, the OECD has introduced a "unique identifier" which is given to any GMO when it is approved. This unique identifier must be forwarded at every stage of processing.[60]
Many countries have established labelling regulations and guidelines on coexistence and traceability. Research projects like Co-Extra, SIGMEA and Transcontainer are aimed at investigating improved methods for ensuring coexistence and providing stakeholders the tools required for the implementation of coexistence and traceability. |
|
|
|
| My name is Will Strong and I am one of the account mangers for your grandmother's account at Vivint. I'm sorry to hear about the problems you have had in canceling. I would be happy to take care of this situation for you. Please call me at 1-800-216-5232 Ext. 5020 or you can email your contact information to [email protected] and I will call you to resolve this situation. |
|
|
|
| Hey man, is she over the age of 70? I so she's liable for a 30 day cancellation...take note when yiu called before to attempt to cancel and date it back to that time...I am actually a vivint employe as well...but I do know the ins and outs. Its unfortunate to see this post online and it makes me sad that she was taken advantage of. |
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
