DOCSLIB.ORG

Brave New World—Systemic Pesticides and Genetically Engineered Crops

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brave New World—Systemic Pesticides and Genetically Engineered Crops 1 Pheromone Report Special Volume XXXIII, Number 3/4, March/April 2011 (Published July 2012) Brave New World—Systemic Pesticides and Genetically Engineered Crops By William Quarles Photo courtesy Glenda Denniston, UW-Madison Lakeshore Nature Preserve lmost overnight, genetically engineered (GE) crops have A profoundly changed agricul- ture in the U.S. Leading the way have been corn, soybean, and cot- ton crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. As a result, traditional farming and IPM methods have been tossed aside and replaced with a simplistic solution. Seeds are drilled into the soil without cultiva- tion. When weeds appear, fields and crops are sprayed with glyphosate, usually by aerial application. Repeated applications are needed, and glyphosate resistant (GR) crops are often grown in the same field, year after year (Duke and Powles 2009; Mortensen et al. 2012). Glyphosate is systemically absorbed by the crop, and it appears in the food sold for con- Glyphosate applications associated with GR crops have destroyed milk- sumption (EPA 2011; Arregui et al. weed habitat of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus, leading to an 2004; Duke 2011). Other GE 81% reduction of Midwest monarch populations. changes include crops that grow their own pesticide. Genes from the Large Pesticide Increase resistant, and resistance increases bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis pesticide applications (Duke and Overall, GE crops have caused a (BT) are inserted into plant Powles 2009). GR crops actually large pesticide increase. BT crops genomes. Each plant cell produces reduced herbicide applications over have led to less applied insecticide, insecticidal proteins, and these the first three years after their but GR crops need large amounts of insecticides are incorporated into introduction. But rapid emergence the food (Gassmann 2012). glyphosate. Roundup Ready® GR of resistant weeds has caused large Genetically engineered foods are crops were introduced in 1996, and glyphosate increases each year. For not labeled, despite the fact that cumulative pesticide use over 16 instance, there was a 31% increase 90% of Americans support labeling years has increased by about 400 (Acres 2012). Consumers are million lbs (182 million kg) exposed to these new genetic cre- (Benbrook 2009; Benbrook 2012). ations and their systemic pesticides These production systems are not without their knowledge. The effects sustainable, but agribusiness has In This Issue of longterm, widespread exposure to bet America’s future on GE crops, these products have not been fully in exchange for large, shortterm investigated, and most of the stud- corporate profits. Systemic Pesticides 1 ies supporting their safety have GE crops are not sustainable ESA Report 10 been produced by industry because farmers rely on larger (Antoniou et al. 2011; Antoniou et amounts of fewer pesticides. Weeds al. 2012). and pest insects then become 2 Update in glyphosate use from 2007 to Photo courtesy Gary Nafis The IPM Practitioner is published six times 2008 (Benbrook 2009). per year by the Bio-Integral Resource Repeated use of the same pesti- Center (BIRC), a non-profit corporation undertaking research and education in inte- cides is leading to their buildup in grated pest management. soil and contamination of water and Managing Editor William Quarles air (Chang et al. 2011; Battaglin et Contributing Editors Sheila Daar al. 2005). GE crops have caused Tanya Drlik destruction of habitat for the Laurie Swiadon monarch butterfly and other envi- Glyphosate formulations can Editor-at-Large Joel Grossman ronmental problems (Hartzler 2010; be toxic to frogs. Business Manager Jennifer Bates Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012; Artist Diane Kuhn Antoniou et al. 2012). Resistance to and about 8.6 million lbs (3.9 mil- BT and invasion of secondary pests lion kg) were applied in 2010 (CA For media kits or other advertising informa- have led to systemic seed treat- tion, contact Bill Quarles at 510/524-2567, DPR 1996; 2010). [email protected]. ments with neonicotinoid pesticides In 2008, 57% of the corn acreage that have toxic effects on bees and 73% of the cotton acreage in Advisory Board George Bird, Michigan State Univ.; Sterling (Quarles 2011; Hopwood et al. the U.S. had been planted in BT Bunnell, M.D., Berkeley, CA ; Momei Chen, 2012; Krupke et al. 2012). More varieties (Benbrook 2009). In 2010, Jepson Herbarium, Univ. Calif., Berkeley; than 45% of U.S. cropland is now over 58 million acres (23.5 ha) Sharon Collman, Coop Extn., Wash. State treated with systemic chemical pes- Univ.; Sheila Daar, Daar & Associates, worldwide were planted to BT Berkeley, CA; Walter Ebeling, UCLA, Emer.; ticides (Stokstad 2012). crops, mostly cotton and corn Steve Frantz, Global Environmental Options, (Gassmann 2012). Longmeadow, MA; Linda Gilkeson, Canadian Ministry of Envir., Victoria, BC; Joseph Scope of the Problem Hancock, Univ. Calif, Berkeley; William GE canola, sugarbeets, corn, soy- Monarch Butterfly Olkowski, Birc Founder; George Poinar, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR; beans, and cotton are grown com- Habitat destruction of the Ramesh Chandra Saxena, ICIPE, Nairobi, mercially in the U.S. (Duke and monarch butterfly, Danaus plexip- Kenya; Ruth Troetschler, PTF Press, Los Powles 2009). Since most of the pus, represents one of the first Altos, CA; J.C. van Lenteren, Agricultural University Wageningen, The Netherlands. acreage is devoted to GE soybeans, large scale environmental catastro- cotton, and corn, only these crops phes due to GE crops. The monarch Manuscripts The IPMP welcomes accounts of IPM for any will be discussed here. In 2008, butterfly is one of the best known pest situation. Write for details on format for herbicide resistant soybeans, cot- environmental icons (Brower and manuscripts or email us, [email protected]. ton, and corn represented 92%, Malcolm 1991). Developing caterpil- Citations 93%, and 63% of total acres plant- lars of the monarch are dependent The material here is protected by copyright, ed to each crop in the U.S., and on wild stands of milkweed, and may not be reproduced in any form, either written, electronic or otherwise without amount was increasing each year Asclepias spp. From the milkweed written permission from BIRC. Contact (Benbrook 2009). In 2011, 94% of they obtain the chemicals that give William Quarles at 510/524-2567 for proper all U.S. soybeans were GE them a bad taste, and thus protect publication credits and acknowledgement. glyphosate resistant. Since GR soy- them from predators (Malcolm et al. Subscriptions/Memberships beans were first planted, there has 1989). A subscription to the IPMP is one of the bene- fits of membership in BIRC. We also answer been a 97% glyphosate increase in Milkweed is especially sensitive to pest management questions for our members soybeans, from 3 million lbs (1.4 glyphosate, and stands along crop and help them search for information. million kg) in 1994 to 92 million lbs edges have been destroyed by mas- Memberships are $60/yr (institutions/ libraries/businesses); $35/yr (individuals). (41.7 million kg) in 2006 (Pleasants sive glyphosate applications associ- Canadian subscribers add $15 postage. All and Oberhauser 2012). ated with GE crops. There has been other foreign subscribers add $25 airmail In 2011, about 72% of all U.S. an 81-90% reduction of milkweed postage. A Dual membership, which includes a combined subscription to both the IPMP corn was GE glyphosate resistant. on farmland in Iowa. Similar reduc- and the Common Sense Pest Control There has been a 94% glyphosate tions are found throughout the Quarterly, costs $85/yr (institutions); $55/yr (individuals). Government purchase orders increase in corn, from 4 million lbs Midwest where GE crops are plant- accepted. Donations to BIRC are tax- (1.8 million kg) in 2000 to 63 mil- ed (Hartzler 2010; Pleasants and deductible. lion lbs (28.5 million kg) in 2010 Oberhauser 2012). FEI# 94-2554036. (Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012). From 1999 to 2010 disappearing Change of Address California has fewer acres of GE milkweed insectary plants have led When writing to request a change of address, please send a copy of a recent address label. crops planted than areas such as to an 81% decline in Midwest pro- © 2012 BIRC, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA the Midwest, but glyphosate use in duction of migrating monarchs. 94707; (510) 524-2567; FAX (510) 524-1758. California has doubled since 1996, Partly due to this reduction, over- All rights reserved. ISSN #0738-968X the first year that Roundup Ready wintering populations in Mexico crops were used. About 4.2 million have dropped by 65% (Pleasants lbs (1.9 million kg) of glyphosate and Oberhauser 2012; Brower et al. and its salts were applied in 1996, 2012). IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 2 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 3 Update Frogs, Pathogens, Nutrients Box A. Glyphosate Problems Pesticides may be one of the causes of widespread amphibian Glyphosate herbicide was origi- phoma (de Roos et al. 2003; Cox decline seen over the last 30 years. nally developed by John Franz at 2004). More than one-third of amphibian Monsanto in 1970. It works by There is a large variation in envi- species are now threatened with inhibiting a key enzyme needed for ronmental persistence. The soil half extinction. Glyphosate formulations plant growth. It is broadspectrum life of glyphosate ranges from 2-197 and will affect most higher plants. days, and the soil half life of the containing various surfactants and Differences in damage between degradation product AMPA ranges inerts may cause amphibian toxici- plant species is due mainly to dif- from 76-240 days. Glyphosate binds ty, including birth defects (Paetow ferences in absorption (Duke and to soil, but it still moves out into et al. 2012; Paganelli et al. 2010; Powles 2008). streams. Phosphate fertilizers dis- Howe et al. 2004). Glyphosate for- Glyphosate has low acute toxicity, place glyphosate and increase mulations are toxic to tadpoles, and a generally benign toxicological runoff (Cerdeira and Duke 2010).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hb673 Hd2 Testimony Agl Ene 03
    LATE HB673HD2 Testimony HB 673 4Ag Hawaii opposes HB 673 Currently Restricted Use Pesticides are highly regulated by EPA and HDOA and can only be purchased by certified applicators. Further there are strict enforcement rules and penalties if misused We do not understand the reason for “posting”, as this information could be used, especially in today’s online world, to harass individuals/organizations that are purchasing this product legally and acting responsibly. Perhaps a better argument could be made for improving, through adequate funding, the HDOA’s education and enforcement sections. 4 Ag Hawaii is a non-profit 501[c] [3] corporation established as a public-private partnership focused on goals that include: promoting the agricultural economic welfare of Hawai‘i and its counties; conducting agricultural economic; educational & media programs, and fostering statewide interest for responsible agricultural economic development of our islands. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this matter. www.4AgHawaii.org From: [email protected] To: AGL Testimony Cc: [email protected] Subject: Submitted testimony for HB673 on Mar 14, 2013 14:45PM Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:10:55 PM HB673 Submitted on: 3/13/2013 Testimony for AGL/ENE on Mar 14, 2013 14:45PM in Conference Room 229 Present Testifier Submitted By Organization at Position Hearing Hawaii Cattlemen's Alan Gottlieb Oppose No Council Comments: We strongly oppose this bill: • RUPs are highly regulated by EPA and DOA and can only be purchased by certified
    [Show full text]
  • NABC Report 27 Stewardship for the Sustainability of Genetically Engineered Crops: the Way Forward in Pest Management, Coexistence, and Trade
    NABC Report 27 Stewardship for the Sustainability of Genetically Engineered Crops: The Way Forward in Pest Management, Coexistence, and Trade Edited by Gary A. Thompson, Susanne E. Lipari, and Ralph W.F. Hardy 2015 NORTH AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY COUNCIL REPORT Cover image “Earth from Space” courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons i ii NABC REPORT 27 Stewardship for the Sustainability of Genetically Engineered Crops: The Way Forward in Pest Management, Coexistence, and Trade Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the North American Agricultural Biotechnology Council, hosted by The Pennsylvania State University, June 2 and 3, 2015 Edited by Gary A. Thompson, Susanne E. Lipari, and Ralph W.F. Hardy Published by the North American Agricultural Biotechnology Council Ithaca, New York 14853 iii NABC Report 27 Stewardship for the Sustainability of Genetically Engineered Crops: The Way Forward in Pest Management, Coexistence, and Trade The North American Agricultural Biotechnology Council provides an open forum for the discussion of issues related to the impact of bio- technology on agriculture. The views presented and positions taken by individual contributors to this report are their own and do not neces- sarily reflect the views or policies of NABC. NABC grants permission to copy the conference overview. Permission to copy other chapters should be sought from the authors. SALE OF THIS VOLUME IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. NABC Report 27 is available for $10.00 to cover shipping and handling. Please make checks or purchase orders
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States
    This PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804 Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States ISBN Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and 978-0-309-14708-8 Sustainability; National Research Council 270 pages 6 x 9 PAPERBACK (2010) Visit the National Academies Press online and register for... Instant access to free PDF downloads of titles from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 10% off print titles Custom notification of new releases in your field of interest Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Request reprint permission for this book Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources Division on Earth and Life Studies Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Gov- erning Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engi- neering, and the Institute of Medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropogenic and Biogenic Influence on VOC Fluxes at an Urban
    Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 7981–8007, 2016 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/7981/2016/ doi:10.5194/acp-16-7981-2016 © Author(s) 2016. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Anthropogenic and biogenic influence on VOC fluxes at an urban background site in Helsinki, Finland Pekka Rantala1, Leena Järvi1, Risto Taipale1, Terhi K. Laurila1, Johanna Patokoski1, Maija K. Kajos1, Mona Kurppa1, Sami Haapanala1, Erkki Siivola1, Tuukka Petäjä1, Taina M. Ruuskanen1, and Janne Rinne1,2,3,4 1Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland 2Department of Geoscience and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland 3Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland 4Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystems Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Correspondence to: Pekka Rantala (pekka.a.rantala@helsinki.fi) Received: 22 December 2015 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 15 February 2016 Revised: 31 May 2016 – Accepted: 4 June 2016 – Published: 1 July 2016 Abstract. We measured volatile organic compounds 1 Introduction (VOCs), carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) at an urban background site near the city centre of Helsinki, Micrometeorological flux measurements of volatile organic Finland, northern Europe. The VOC and CO2 measurements compounds (VOCs) in urban and semi-urban areas are were obtained between January 2013 and September 2014 limited, although local emissions have a major effect on whereas for CO a shorter measurement campaign in April– the local and regional atmospheric chemistry and further- May 2014 was conducted. Both anthropogenic and biogenic more on air quality (e.g. Reimann and Lewis, 2007 and sources were identified for VOCs in the study. Strong correla- references therein). Biogenic VOCs, mainly isoprene and tions between VOC fluxes and CO fluxes and traffic rates in- monoterpenes, affect hydroxyl radical (OH) concentration dicated anthropogenic source of many VOCs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brave New World of Genetic Engineering
    California Certified Organic Farmers Volumemagazine XX, Number 2 Creating a Living Standard for Healthy Food Summer 2003 lebrating Ce 30 Years! 1973~2003 Sustainable Industrial Agriculture Agriculture The Brave New World of Genetic Engineering GE-FREE CALIFORNIA WHEN TRANSGENES WANDER (WILD)LIFE SUPPORT: RICE CCOF HISTORY: 1980–90 page 6 page 8 page 18 page 28 FIRST WORD BSERVATION farmer tried the new chemicals and quences. Their political power allowed O , observed that they killed birds, fish, and these companies to put into place regula- REFLECTION AND frogs, and decided that he did not want tory schemes that fail to safeguard human any part of an approach based on death. health and the environment. PRACTICE A few scientists noticed the negative con- Organic farmers and consumers have sequences and questioned rejected the use of genet- By Brian Leahy CCOF President the validity of basing the Imagine if California lost its ically modified organ- production of food on the isms in the production HE SKILLS use of toxic chemistry. ability to sell its wine, rice, nut of food as the continua- needed to bring Unfortunately, most scien- tion of an approach to forth nutritious tists seemed to shut off crops, or its fruits and vegetables agriculture that fails to T their powers of observa- honestly account for the food from the earth are acquired through observation, reflection tion and reflection and to the EU or Asia because true risks inherent in the and practice. Applying accumulated skill continued to promote a technology. Farmers to nature, the grower uses seed, water, soil, bad technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Biopharming, Biosafety, and Billion Dollar Debacles: Preventing Liability for Biotech Crops
    BIOPHARMING, BIOSAFETY, AND BILLION DOLLAR DEBACLES: PREVENTING LIABILITY FOR BIOTECH CROPS Thomas P. Redick* I. Introduction ..................................................................................... 115 II. A Snapshot of Biopharming and Corn Stewardship ....................... 118 III. The Biopharming Pipeline Begins to Bulge ................................... 123 A. National Academy of Sciences Expresses Concern ................. 124 B. Case Study—Biopharming for Cystic Fibrosis ........................ 125 C. StarLink and its Ensuing Mass Tort Litigation ........................ 127 D. Biotech’s Prodigal Son—ProdiGene ........................................ 131 IV. Welcome to Waffle World: Three-Dimensional Regulatory Chess ............................................................................ 133 V. Liability Risks for Crops Not Approved for Export ....................... 136 A. The Liberty Link™ Soybean—Nipping the Billion Dollar Debacle in the Bud ........................................................ 136 B. Unapproved-in-EU Corn Enters the Litigation Arena.............. 137 VI. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A Global Biotech Ban? ...... 140 VII. The States Begin to Regulate the “Commercial Impact” of Biotech Crops ............................................................................. 143 VIII. Will the Food Processors Revolt Against Biopharming? ............... 147 IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 149 Appendix A ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • International Sustainability Core 1 Portfolio As of July 31, 2021 (Updated Monthly) Source: State Street Holdings Are Subject to Change
    International Sustainability Core 1 Portfolio As of July 31, 2021 (Updated Monthly) Source: State Street Holdings are subject to change. The information below represents the portfolio's holdings (excluding cash and cash equivalents) as of the date indicated, and may not be representative of the current or future investments of the portfolio. The information below should not be relied upon by the reader as research or investment advice regarding any security. This listing of portfolio holdings is for informational purposes only and should not be deemed a recommendation to buy the securities. The holdings information below does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. The holdings information has not been audited. By viewing this listing of portfolio holdings, you are agreeing to not redistribute the information and to not misuse this information to the detriment of portfolio shareholders. Misuse of this information includes, but is not limited to, (i) purchasing or selling any securities listed in the portfolio holdings solely in reliance upon this information; (ii) trading against any of the portfolios or (iii) knowingly engaging in any trading practices that are damaging to Dimensional or one of the portfolios. Investors should consider the portfolio's investment objectives, risks, and charges and expenses, which are contained in the Prospectus. Investors should read it carefully before investing. Your use of this website signifies that you agree to follow and be bound by the terms and conditions
    [Show full text]
  • Cleave and Rescue, a Novel Selfish Genetic Element and General Strategy for Gene Drive
    Cleave and Rescue, a novel selfish genetic element and general strategy for gene drive Georg Oberhofera,1, Tobin Ivya,1, and Bruce A. Haya,2 aDivision of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125 Edited by James J. Bull, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved January 7, 2019 (received for review October 2, 2018) There is great interest in being able to spread beneficial traits high-fidelity HR. While important progress has been made, sustained throughout wild populations in ways that are self-sustaining. Here, alteration of a population [as opposed to suppression (20)] to we describe a chromosomal selfish genetic element, CleaveR [Cleave transgene-bearing genotype fixation with a synthetic HEG into ar- and Rescue (ClvR)], able to achieve this goal. ClvR comprises two tificial or naturally occurring sites remains to be achieved (21–30). linked chromosomal components. One, germline-expressed Cas9 and A number of other approaches to bringing about gene drive take guide RNAs (gRNAs)—the Cleaver—cleaves and thereby disrupts en- as their starting point naturally occurring, chromosomally located, dogenous copies of a gene whose product is essential. The other, a selfish genetic elements whose mechanism of spread does not in- recoded version of the essential gene resistant to cleavage and gene volve homing (4, 6, 31). Many of these elements can be represented conversion with cleaved copies—the Rescue—provides essential gene as consisting of a tightly linked pair of genes encoding a trans-acting function. ClvR enhances its transmission, and that of linked genes, by toxin and a cis-acting antidote that neutralizes toxin expression and/ creating conditions in which progeny lacking ClvR die because they or activity (TA systems) (4).
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Plan 5: Bioethics
    Unit Plan 5: Bioethics Each unit is complete with the corresponding slides found in the main Genetic Engineering PowerPoint. Teachers have the liberty to cover the material on an as-needed basis based on alignment with class curriculum. Estimated Time Materials 3 – 4 class periods PowerPoint, printable worksheets of choice from the following lesson plan Objectives 1. Distinguish between the pros and cons of vaccine producing food (Analyze) 2. Define bioethics and relate the field of study to vaccine producing food (Remember) 3. Explain why lab safety is important in genetic engineering (Understand) 4. Sketch the three spheres of sustainability and define each part (Apply) 5. List the three components of agricultural ethics and summarize each part (Remember) 6. Develop an argument for GM crops and against GM crops (Evaluate) 7. Give an example of a concern related to the following categories: ecologic, economic (Understand) Standards and strands Science Biology • Standard 4, Objective 2, Part d: Analyze bioethical issues and consider the role of science in determining public policy Agricultural Science 1 • Strand 3, Standard 3, Describe benefits and risks associates with biotechnology. • Strand 3, Standard 6, Research the scope of the food science industry and the world food supply. Agricultural Science 2 • Strand 3, Standard 2, Discuss ethical, legal, social, and cultural issues in modern biotechnology. Agricultural Science 3 • Strand 5, Standard 2, Identify and discuss ethical issues with applications of genetic engineering. Assessment Options 1. Choose any of the included activities or projects as assessments. Vocabulary Bioethics, sustainability Objectives Curriculum and Instruction: Content Teaching Method 1. Distinguish Vaccine Producing Food Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not? Create a between the • Foods can be genetically engineered to contain vaccines, pros and cons list to share with the class! pros and cons also known as “edible vaccines”, which could be easier to of vaccine deliver vaccines to children.
    [Show full text]
  • U5 Powerpoint
    Details Utah State University Genetic Engineering This is a project resulting from the “Genetic Engineering Workshop for Teachers” to provide in Agriculture teaching materials for genetic engineering topics. Please direct any feedback to ASTE graduate student Olivia Horning at [email protected] START COURSE 1 Lesson 5: Bioethics Gavrilescu, M. (2010). Environmental biotechnology: achievements, opportunities and challenges. Dynamic biochemistry, process biotechnology and molecular biology, 4(1), 1-36. 2 Genetic Engineering in Bioethics Agriculture Lesson 1 Objectives Lesson 2 1. Distinguish between the pros and cons of vaccine producing food. Lesson 3 2. Define bioethics and relate the field of study to vaccine producing food. Lesson 4 3. Explain why lab safety is important in genetic engineering. 4. Sketch the three spheres of sustainability and define each part. Lesson 5 5. List the three components of agricultural ethics and summarize each part. Lesson 6 6. Develop an argument for GMO crops and against GMO crops. Lesson 7 7. Give an example of a concern related to the following categories: ecologic, economic 3 Genetic Engineering in Bioethics Agriculture Lesson 1 Vaccine Producing Food Lesson 2 • Foods can be genetically engineered to contain vaccines, also Lesson 3 known as “edible vaccines”, which could be easier to deliver Lesson 4 vaccines to children. Lesson 5 • Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not? Create a pros and cons list to share with the class. Lesson 6 Lesson 7 4 Genetic Engineering in Bioethics Agriculture
    [Show full text]
  • Cry1ab and Cry1f Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) Corn Plant-Incorporated Protectants
    Cry1Ab and Cry1F Bt Plant-Incorporated Protectants September 2010 Biopesticides Registration Action Document BIOPESTICIDES REGISTRATION ACTION DOCUMENT Cry1Ab and Cry1F Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Corn Plant-Incorporated Protectants U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division Cry1Ab and Cry1F Bt Plant-Incorporated Protectants September 2010 Biopesticides Registration Action Document TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................................................3 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................3 B. CRY1AB AND CRY1F BT CORN PLANT-INCORPORATED PROTECTANTS ................................3 C. FOOD CLEARANCE/TOLERANCE EXEMPTION LISTINGS.............................................................6 II. SCIENCE ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................................6 A. PRODUCT CHARACTERIZATION...........................................................................................................6 1. PRODUCT CHARACTERIZATION OF BT 11 CRY1AB CORN (006444) ..........................................................11 2. PRODUCT CHARACTERIZATION OF MON810 CRY1AB CORN (006430) ....................................................13 3. PRODUCT CHARACTERIZATION OF PLANT OPTIMIZED (PO) CRY1F CORN
    [Show full text]
  • Adoption of Bioengineered Crops
    Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. By Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride, with contributions from Hisham El-Osta, Ralph Heimlich, Meredith Soule, Cassandra Klotz-Ingram, Stan Daberkow, Rachael Goodhue, and Corinne Alexander. Agricultural Economic Report No. 810. Abstract Use of crop biotechnology products, such as genetically engineered (GE) crops with input traits for pest management, has risen dramatically since commercial approval in the mid-1990s. This report addresses several of the economic dimen- sions regarding farmer adoption of bioengineered crops, including herbicide- tolerant and insect-resistant varieties. In particular, the report examines: (1) the extent of adoption of bioengineered crops, their diffusion path, and expected adop- tion rates over the next few years; (2) factors affecting the adoption of bioengi- neered crops; and (3) farm-level impacts of the adoption of bioengineered crops. Data used in the analysis are mostly from USDA surveys. Keywords: Biotechnology, technology adoption, genetic engineering, pest management, financial effects, tillage, herbicide-tolerant crops, Bt crops, corn, soybeans, cotton. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Robbin Shoemaker, Kitty Smith, Susan Offutt, Utpal Vasavada, Margriet Caswell, George Norton, and William Lin for their helpful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Dale Simms for his valuable and prompt editorial assistance and Wynnice Pointer-Napper for the cover design, document layout, and final charts. Note: The use of brands or firm names in this publication does not imply endorse- ment by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1800 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-5831 May 2002 Contents Summary . .iv Introduction . .1 Factors Shaping Adoption of Bioengineered Crops .
    [Show full text]