DOCSLIB.ORG

Decision BASF B-CZ-08-04

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decision BASF B-CZ-08-04 Ministry of the Environment Environmental Risks Department The Decision came into force on 121 April 2009. Prague, April 3, 2009 To Reference Number: 93849/ENV/08 D e c i s i o n The Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic as the administrative body competent according to § 5 of the Act No.78/2004 Coll., on the use of genetically modified organisms and genetic products as amended by the Act No. 346/2005 Coll. (hereinafter the „Act“) and in § 10 of the Act No. 500/2004 Coll., the Administration Code, as later amended, has decided on the basis of a request of the company BASF spol. s r.o. located in Šafránkova 3, 155 00 Praha 5, for granting consent for the deliberate release into the environment in the Czech Republic of genetically modified (GM) potatoes with modified starch composition, transformation event EH92-527-1 (Amflora) pursuant to § 5 par. 8 of the Act: the company BASF spol. s r.o. Šafránkova 3, 155 00 Praha 5 i s g r a n t e d c o n s e n t for the deliberate release of genetically modified potatoes with modified starch composition, transformation event EH92-527-1 (Amflora) into the environment in the Czech Republic. Requirements of the consent according to § 18 par. 6 of the Act: Authorised person 1 Name: BASF spol. s r.o., Šafránkova 3, 155 00 Praha 5 Identification Number (I ČO): 41195469 Specification of the genetically modified organism The genetically modified potato clone EH92-527-1, of commercial name Amflora derived from the clone P107 with inserted fragment of a gene gbss starch synthase bound on the starch grain in antisense orientation, which causes in the interaction with the promotor of gbss gene the decrease of amylase content and the increase of the amount of amylopectin in potato tuber starch. Therefore its starch differs from the starch produced by recipient variety only with regard to amylose/amylopectin content. The selective gene for neomycine phosphotransferase II ( nptII or APH(3´)II) from a mobile element (transposon) Tn5 of Escherichia coli inducing the resistance to the antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin during the selection of transformed plant tissue. The transformation was made in a standard way by using the construct Agrobacterium tumefaciens in a binary vector system. The genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 (Amflora) differs from conventional potato varieties only with regard to starch quality, and the presence of nptII gene. Agronomic characteristics are within the range corresponding to conventional potato varieties. No differences in interactions with non-target organisms are expected. Specification of the genetic modification To transform a potato the strain Agrobacterium tumefaciens LBA4404 with the content of Ti- plasmid pAL4404 was used. The inserted material (insert) is composed of the starch synthase promotor sequence bound with potato granule (990 bp, gbss ) and polyadenyl sequence of nopalin synthase gene (253 bp). The gbss gene segment in the inverted orientation to the promotor was inserted between these two DNA segments. The selective gene nptII (neomycin phosphotransferase II) with the nos (nopalin synthase from Agrobacterium tumefaciens) promotor and the polyadenyl sequence on the line sides were inserted. The insertion of a fragment of starch synthase gene ( gbss) bound with the starch granule (in antisense orientation to the fragment gbss potato promotor causes the reduction of amylase content in the potato tuber starch. It evokes the increase of amylopectin content in potatoes. The selective gene for neomycine phosphotransferase II induces the resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin during the selection of transformed plant tissue. Risk assessment results In respect of the manner of propagation, absence of wild compatible varieties in the Central Europe, and no-possibility of running wild, a potato has been considered as a relatively safe plant variety the spreading of which can be kept controlled. In this case the risk for its introduction into the environment lies more likely in the presence of active selective genes. Nevertheless, the gene nptII has been approved generally as safe for GMOs and food prepared from them (see the statement of the European Food Safety Authority – EFSA - of 13 th April 2007. 2 The current potato varieties are very demanding with regard to the agrotechnical conditions. There is no case of long-term survival of the plants in open air. In cold and low temperature conditions the potato plants are immediately contested by many fungal or viral diseases. Both the potato leaves and tubers serving for vegetative propagation are susceptible to frost damage. Due to an absolute absence of the blooming or defoliation of buds, the generative reproduction of the most of varieties is impossible. In many cases the varieties produce a small amount of pollen with the low fertility, often totally sterile. The plant is self-pollinating, and although it is pollinated almost entirely by insect, the flowers are not visited by main pollinators (bees). The creating of fruitages (berries) through the self-pollinating is not very common, and the berries after the earing early defoliate before the grains get matured or in consequence of the harvesting. It causes a significant decrease of the possibility that seeds could survive in soil. The seeds eventually survived loose the ability for germinating when ploughing under the soil into the depths of 0.5 cm. Potato seeds are not spread by birds. Relative species do not occur by nature in the Czech Republic with the exception of S. nigrum and S. dulcamara, with which a potato is not sexually compatible. An occurrence of potato plants run wild has not been observed as well. Not any difference has been observed concerning the survival and persistence in agricultural locations or the agressivity of penetration into the natural environment when compared to conventional potato varieties. A selective advantage or disadvantage does not exist in nature not even in consequence of the decrease of amylase content and the insert of nptII gene for the resistance of plants to the antibiotic kanamycin and other aminoglycoside antibiotics because of none-existence of a selective pressure which could give advantage to the virus carrier. The system can be used only for the selections in vitro conditions. Other selection advantage does not arise of this gene manipulation for potato plants. The both antibiotics have limited or none clinical importance because of the toxicity thereof. The resistance to the both antibiotics occurs in nature much frequently, and the genes of resistance are present in natural populations of microorganisms. The safety of APH(3´)II with regard to human and animal health has been evaluated in the publication series, and it has been also confirmed by quite a few standpoints of the Scientific Committee on Plants and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (FDA, 1998; VIB, 2001; EFSA, 2004). The EFSA Scientific Committee has carried out a detailed risk assessment, and stated that there is no harmful effect caused by genetically modified event EH92-527-1 (EFSA, 2006a; EFSA, 2006b). Tubers are the useful part of the plant. The rigorous control of the content of harmful substances in tubers is carried out in the used varieties, and the limit values for the variety authorisation are determined. The genetic modification above mentioned is not intended to influence the content of harmful substances, and so any changes in the amount thereof are not awaited. Moreover, the tested genetically modified line is not intended for the use as food or feed, and therefore the input of inserted genes into food chains is decreasing to minimum. Agronomic characteristics represent a range of common potato varieties. No changes in the interactions with non-target organisms are awaited. It is expected that possible interactions of genetically modified potato clones with the non-living environmental elements will be comparable with common starch potatoes. The material from field experiments for EH92- 527-1 (Amflora) has been analysed, and it is proved that a starch modification had been stabile during several tuber generations. No other differences between EH92-527-1 (Amflora) clone and common used starch potatoes in the agronomic characteristics in relation to the introduction of potatoes into the environment. Because no changes in the agronomic characteristics are introduced, the lines of genetically modified potatoes show the same properties relative to the environment during cultivation as the comparable commonly used starch potatoes. 3 The request for the marketing of EH92-527-1 (Amflora) clone including the cultivation, has been in the EU submitted under both the Directive 2001/18/EC (request No. C/SE/96/3501) and the Regulation 1829/2003 (request EFSA-GMO-UK-2005-14). In both cases the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stated its positive opinion on the supposed use. Field trials with Amflora potatoes under given conditions will have the same impact on the environment as the cultivation of any other potatoes. Conditions for the use Genetically modified organisms above mentioned shall be used only in the way described in the request BASF spol. s r.o. located in Šafránkova 3, 155 00 Praha 5, Ref. No. MŽP 93849/ENV/08) submitted to the Ministry of the Environment on December 23, 2008, and supplemented by the submission delivered to MoE on March 10, 2009 (this request relates to the request of the company PROAGRO Radešínská Svratka, a.s., located in Radešínská Svratka 134, 592 33 Radešínská Svratka, Ref. No. MŽP 94262/ENV/08, and only when keeping all given conditions as follows: - The field trials shall not been carried out on the plot in location Svrate čka (a certified planting region). The data on this location are given only in the Annex to the request “Havarijní plán” (Emergency Plan) under point b).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Combatting Monsanto
    Picture: Grassroots International Combatting Monsanto Grassroots resistance to the corporate power of agribusiness in the era of the ‘green economy’ and a changing climate La Via Campesina, Friends of the Earth International, Combat Monsanto Technical data name: “Combatting Monsanto Grassroots resistance to the corporate power of agribusiness in the era of the ‘green economy’ and a changing climate” author: Joseph Zacune ([email protected]) with contributions from activists around the world editing: Ronnie Hall ([email protected]) design and layout: Nicolás Medina – REDES-FoE Uruguay March 2012 Combatting Monsanto Grassroots resistance to the corporate power of agribusiness in the era of the ‘green economy’ and a changing climate INDEX Executive summary / 2 Company profile - Monsanto / 3 Opposition to Monsanto in Europe / 5 A decade of French resistance to GMOs / 6 Spanish movements against GM crops / 9 German farmers’ movement for GM-free regions / 10 Organising a movement for food sovereignty in Europe / 10 Monsanto, Quit India! / 11 Bt brinjal and biopiracy / 11 Bt cotton dominates cotton sector / 12 Spiralling debt still triggering suicides / 12 Stopping Monsanto’s new public-private partnerships / 13 Resistance to Monsanto in Latin America / 14 Brazilian peasant farmers’ movement against agribusiness / 14 Ten-year moratorium on GM in Peru / 15 Landmark ruling on toxic soy in Argentina / 15 Haitians oppose seed aid / 16 Guatemalan networks warn of new biosafety proposals / 17 Battle-lines drawn in the United States / 17 Stopping the
    [Show full text]
  • General Court of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 160/13 Luxembourg, 13 December 2013
    General Court of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 160/13 Luxembourg, 13 December 2013 Judgment in Case T-240/10 Press and Information Hungary v Commission The General Court has annulled the Commission’s decisions concerning authorisation to place on the market the genetically modified potato Amflora The Commission infringed the procedural rules of the systems for authorising GMOs in the European Union In the territory of the European Union, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be released into the environment or placed on the market only if consent has been given, subject to specific conditions and granted with a view to specified uses, after a scientific assessment of the risks. The authorisation system consists of two different procedures which are applied depending on the intended use of the GMOs. The aim of the first procedure, whose rules are laid down by Directive 2001/18/EC1, is to authorise GMOs with a view to their deliberate release into the environment. Within the framework of that procedure, it is in principle for the Member State with which an undertaking has lodged an application for this purpose to issue consent. However, the other Member States, and also the Commission, may raise objections vis-à-vis the intended consent decision. The second authorisation procedure, set up by Regulation 1829/20032, concerns genetically modified food and feed. In that case, the application for consent is assessed at EU level. Where, in the context of the first procedure, an objection has been raised or, in the context of the second procedure, an application for consent has been submitted, the final decision on the authorisation is taken by the Commission or by the Council on the basis of the scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Farming Dwarfs GM Crop Production in Europe
    for the people | for the planet | for the future Organic farming dwarfs GM crop production in Europe February 2012 The area dedicated to growing genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union remains insignificant when compared with conventional and organic farming. In 2011, GM crops were grown on 0.1% of arable land in Europe, compared with nearly 4% for organic. Nineteen member states cultivated no GM crops at all. The EU has 110,849,000 hectares of arable land (excluding permanent crops as vineyards), of which only 114,525 hectares were planted with GM crops in 2011. Table 1: GMO cultivation in European countries, 2008-2011 Country and crops 2008(ha) 2009(ha) 2010(ha) 2011(ha) Cultivation of Maize Mon810 Spain (1) 79,269 76,057 67,726 97,346 Portugal (2) 4,856 5,202 4,869 7,723 Czech Republic (3) 8,380 6,480 4,830 5,090 Poland (4) 3,000 3,000 3000 3,000 Slovakia (5) 1,931 875 1,248 760 Romania (6) 6,130 3,244 823 588 Germany (7) 3,173 0 0 0 Cultivation of potato Amflora Sweden (8) 0 0 103 16 Germany (9) 0 0 15 2 106,739 94,858 82,614 114,525 The main exception to this picture of GM crop rejection in Europe is Spain where 97,346 hectares of Monsanto’s maize were planted in 2011. The increase was mainly caused by the general expansion of the area cultivated with maize from 311,900 (21.7% GM) to 368,300 (26.4% GM) hectares.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Biotechnology 2008
    guide to biotechnology 2008 research & development health bioethics innovate industrial & environmental food & agriculture biodefense Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Avenue, SW imagine Suite 900 Washington, DC 20024 intellectual property 202.962.9200 (phone) 202.488.6301 (fax) bio.org inform bio.org The Guide to Biotechnology is compiled by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Editors Roxanna Guilford-Blake Debbie Strickland Contributors BIO Staff table of Contents Biotechnology: A Collection of Technologies 1 Regenerative Medicine ................................................. 36 What Is Biotechnology? .................................................. 1 Vaccines ....................................................................... 37 Cells and Biological Molecules ........................................ 1 Plant-Made Pharmaceuticals ........................................ 37 Therapeutic Development Overview .............................. 38 Biotechnology Industry Facts 2 Market Capitalization, 1994–2006 .................................. 3 Agricultural Production Applications 41 U.S. Biotech Industry Statistics: 1995–2006 ................... 3 Crop Biotechnology ...................................................... 41 U.S. Public Companies by Region, 2006 ........................ 4 Forest Biotechnology .................................................... 44 Total Financing, 1998–2007 (in billions of U.S. dollars) .... 4 Animal Biotechnology ................................................... 45 Biotech
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Stock of the Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants and Gene Therapy
    Taking stock of the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants and gene therapy 30 December 2015 Study performed for the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu) Project 4410001148 Patrick L.J. RÜDELSHEIM & Greet SMETS PERSEUS BVBA Advisory Committee The authors gratefully acknowledge the members of the advisory committee for the valuable discussions and patience. Prof. dr. G.A.P. Hospers Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen Dr. W.J. de Kogel Wageningen University & Research Centre Dr. I. de Kort Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (Ministry of Infrastructure and Dr. J.E.E. Ng-A-Tham Environment) Dr. D.C.M. Glandorf, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (National Institute for Dr. H.C.M. van den Akker Public Health and the Environment) Dr. ir. M.M.C. Gielkens Dr. D.A. Bleijs Dr. ir. P.A.M. Hogervorst H. de Wijs Disclaimer This report was commissioned by the RIVM. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and may in no way be taken to represent the views of the RIVM or members of the advisory committee. 2 | 170 Summary Based on the precautionary principle, legislation addressing environmental aspects of research on, development and marketing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was established in the early nineties. At that moment, limited knowledge on environmental effects of GMOs was available. Since then a vast amount of data has been generated. Both applicants and research institutes in Europe and elsewhere studied a diversity of aspects relating to environmental safety. In Europe and in the Netherlands in particular many field trials and clinical trials have been conducted.
    [Show full text]
  • Amflora Is Safe, Environmentally Friendly, and Brings Advantages to Farmers and Industry in Europe!
    An open letter from BASF requesting the approval of Amflora Amflora is safe, environmentally friendly, and brings advantages to farmers and industry in Europe! Dear Commissioner Dimas, Amflora is a genetically optimised starch potato developed in Europe for use by the European starch industry. The potato produces pure amylopectin, a starch used in technical processes such as papermaking. Amflora is a renewable raw material that helps in saving energy and water. Leading starch producers confirm that amylopectin potatoes such as Amflora are estimated to create added value of at least €100 million per year for the European starch industry and farmers, who now want to see it cultivated. Genetically modified crops are already reality, being grown by 12 million farmers around the world on more than 114 million hectares, although on only 0.1 million hectares in Europe. To remain competitive on the world market, European farmers must be granted access to safe, innovative technology now! EU experts at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have repeatedly stated that Amflora is as safe as conventional potatoes. Their conclusion is based on ex- tensive scientific studies. All scientific evidence supports the safety of Amflora. Amflora was submitted to the EU for approval years ago. BASF has adhered to all processes that have been agreed upon between EU countries, and has submitted all required data. We were encouraged to see that you initiated the approval process by recommending the approval of Amflora in 2006. Now, even though all the necessary political and administrative steps have been taken, the final decision by the Commission has been pending since July 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Amflora Potato”)
    Published on July 30th, 2015, Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental, n. 48 ISSN: 1989-5666 NIPO: 721-15-001-4 JUDGMENT COMMENTARY: JUDGMENT OF 13 DECEMBER 2013, T-240/10 - HUNGARY V COMMISSION (“AMFLORA POTATO”) Author and translation: Isabel Hernández San Juan, Doctoral Student. Public Law Department, Carlos III University Of Madrid, [email protected] Source: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=145620&page Index=0&doclang=ES&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=542223#Footn ote Keywords: Approximation of laws; Deliberate release of GMOs into the environment; Marketing authorisation procedure; Scientific opinions of EFSA; Comitology; Regulatory procedure; Infringement of essential procedural requirements; Findings of the Court of its own motion Summary: Abstract I. Legal Context II. Risk Assessment, Comitology Procedures And Law Conclusion ABSTRACT The subject matter of this commentary is a judgment concerning the annulment of two Decisions adopted by the European Commission in 2010. These authorised the marketing of a variety of genetically-modified potato and the marketing of feed produced from the same, respectively1. The Court awarded a judgment against the Commission and declared both Decisions null and void, as they contained 1 Commission Decision 2010/135/EU of 2 March 2010 concerning the placing on the market in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a potato product (Solanum tuberosum L. line EH92-527-1) genetically modified for enhanced content of the amylopectin component of starch (OJ 2010 L 53, p. 11). And Commission Decision 2010/136/EU of 2 March 2010 which authorised the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 (BPS-25271-9) and the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 53, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Here's the List
    List of Genetically Modified Organisms for 8th grade research project May 2017 1. lavender-colored carnations- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianthus_caryophyllus#Colors 2. blue roses- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_rose 3. glowing fish- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish 4. golden rice- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice 5. salmon- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_salmon 6. insect- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_insect 7. MON 810- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MON_810 8. Amflora- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amflora 9. Roundup Ready Soybean- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_ready_soybean 10. Flavr Savr- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_savr 11. Wheat- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_wheat 12. Mouse- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_mouse 13. Pig- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviropig 14. Bull- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_the_Bull 15. Sheep- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_the_sheep 16. Ice-minus bacteria- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-minus_bacteria 17. supermice- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_supermice 18. oncomouse- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncomouse 19. rat- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_rat 20. goats- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioSteel 21. green fluorescence- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein 22. Ruppy- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruppy 23. mosquito- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedes_aegypti 24. corn- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmartStax 25. poplar tree- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tree 26. dog- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuppy 27. rice fish- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oryzias_latipes 28. medicine- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATryn 29. papaya- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carica_papaya 30.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Dawn for Transgenic Crops in Europe?
    16-3-2010 A new dawn for transgenic crops in E… Published online 9 March 2010 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2010.112 News: Briefing A new dawn for transgenic crops in Europe? Approval of the Amflora potato could signal a fresh approach to genetically modified organisms. Declan Butler The European Comm ission last week approved Amflora — a genetically modified (GM ) potato developed by Germ an chem ical com pany BASF. The potato — engineered to produce a form of starch that is better for some industrial purposes in, for example, paper manufacturing, adhesives and textiles — is the first GM crop to be approved for cultivation in the European Union (EU) for 12 years. Monsanto's MON 810 maize (corn), which is engineered to be resistant to the European corn•borer caterpillar, was licensed in 1998. The sluggish pace of approval for GM crops means that whereas 134 million hectares of GM crops were planted worldwide last year, less than 100,000 hectares of those were in the agricultural powerhouse that is the EU. Nature looks at the reasons why so few GM crops have been approved in Europe, and if that is now set to change. What's responsible for the EU blockage of GM crops? The EU•wide system for approving genetically modified organisms (GMOs) isn't working. In principle, when the EU approves a GM crop for cultivation, companies and farmers across all member states have the right to plant it. But getting crops approved requires a 'qualified majority' of the 27 member states that make up the European Council in favour — at least 255 from a total of 345 votes — so opposition by a few countries can block the introduction of a crop across the entire bloc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gmo Emperor Has No Clothes
    THE GMO EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES Published by A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs THE GMO EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs - False Promises, Failed Technologies Coordinated by Vandana Shiva, Navdanya Debbie Barker, Centre for Food Safety Caroline Lockhart, Navdanya International Front page cartoon: Sergio Staino Layout, production and printing: SICREA srl, Florence Contact: [email protected] Available for download at www.navdanyainternational.it www.navdanya.org Thanks go to all those who readily contributed in the realization of this report, particularly Sergio Staino, creator of the cover cartoon, Maurizio Izzo of Sicrea for production and Massimo Orlandi for press and communications. Thanks also go to Christina Stafford and interns Tara McNerney and Tanvi Gadhia of Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Sulakshana Fontana, Elena Bellini and Filippo Cimo of Navdanya International for their diligent coordination, editing and translation efforts. Final thanks also go to Giannozzo Pucci, Maria Grazia Mammuccini and Natale Bazzanti for their cooperation and assistance in realizing this report. This publication is printed on ecological paper SYMBOL FREELIFE SATIN ECF A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs - False Promises, Failed Technologies Coordinated by Navdanya and Navdanya International, the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, with the participation of The Center for Food Safety (CFS) Contributing organizations: THE AMERICAS Center for Food Safety
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Most of GM Potatoes
    CORRESPONDENCE Making the most of GM potatoes To the Editor: crops, particularly in the European market, The recent approval of the Amflora potato where outcrossing or admixture of GM by the European Union (EU)—the EU’s first crops with conventional varieties remains registration of a genetically modified (GM) such a hot-button issue. Such crops would potato in 12 years—has garnered considerable represent low-risk GM varieties, which media attention and public controversy. possibly could be cleared through approval Amflora (EH92-527-1) is a GM potato authorities in a more timely manner9. produced by BASF (Ludwigshafen, Germany) For example, GM potatoes resistant to that lacks amylose and instead contains potato late blight10 that are currently being amylopectin (>98%) as the predominant generated (http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/ starch1,2. Amylose ordinarily has to be removed potato/plant_diseases/462.docu.html) ©AFP to allow the industrial use of potato starch. would probably be more palatable to both Thus, Amflora is a highly suitable source for You say potato, I say Amflora. BASF recently the public and regulatory authorities if technical applications, such as paper, adhesive received approval from the EU to market its GM selection markers were removed and sexual and textile production. Supporters of the potato engineered with reduced amylase content reproduction were irreversibly blocked. via an antisense construct targeting granule- technology welcome the approval, which has Who knows: as late-blight disease caused bound starch synthase. taken 13 years, and consider it a regulatory by the pathogen Phytophthora infestans is a milestone, at least for GM potatoes.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Genetic Engineering Technology and Sustainable Development in the African Food Security Context
    Agricultural GE and Sustainable Development in the African Context AGRICULTURAL GENETIC ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AFRICAN FOOD SECURITY CONTEXT A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by YASSINE DGUIDEGUE Dr. Mary Hendrickson, Dissertation Supervisor July 2019 Agricultural GE and Sustainable Development in the African Context The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled: GENETIC ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AFRICAN FOOD SECURITY CONTEXT presented by Yassine Dguidegue, a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, and hereby certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance. Professor Mary Hendrickson Professor Jere Gilles Professor Sandy Rikoon Professor Stephen Jeanetta ___________________________________________________ Professor Martha Dragich Agricultural GE and Sustainable Development in the African Context Dedication: This humble work is dedicated to my father Alall Dguidegue, who showed me the power of education. His intellect, ideas, and convictions have always been inspiring. I would say that I rarely find people like him even in academia with such appreciation of education and intellect. His infinite and unconditional support for my education makes me proud to say that I am the best investment he has made. I may have not been rewarding financially to him, but I have sought to be the person he has always wanted me to be. He always said: “Yassine! you will be saved once you get out of the shell”. It took me so many years to realize what he meant by “the shell”: the shell of ignorance and dogmatism.
    [Show full text]