DOCSLIB.ORG

A New Dawn for Transgenic Crops in Europe?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. If the council fails to approve it, as was the case with Amflora, the decision rests with the European Commission. Does the approval of Amflora signal a change? Yes and no. Austria and Italy have already said that they will defy the commission and refuse to allow the crop to be grown, and other countries are likely to follow. In theory, the commission can force such countries to comply, but that has become a political non•starter. Last year, the commission attempted to force France, Greece, Austria and Hungary to lift bans on growing MON 810 maize, but couldn't muster the majority vote of member states needed. At the moment, six countries — Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg — have GMO bans in place through the use of 'safeguard clauses'. Such clauses allow member states to restrict or prohibit specific GMOs that are already approved by the EU if they claim to have some evidence that nature.com/…/news.2010.112.html 1/4 16-3-2010 A new dawn for transgenic crops in E… the crops might pose a risk to human health or the environment. Often, however, member states are simply responding to public pressure at home. But the commission's approval of Amflora may signal that it is willing to use its executive authority to push through authorizations of GMOs that haven't been Amflora potatoes have been approved able to gain approval through the usual voting for cultivation in the European Union. procedure. The commission has indicated that it is BASF likely to take decisions soon on the stalled renewal of MON 810's licence, and on the approval of three other m aize strains — tw o insect­resistant varieties m ade by Syngenta and Pioneer, and a Monsanto strain that is resistant to glyphosate•based herbicides such as 'Roundup'. And what about states that refuse to comply? After the commission's bruising defeat in trying to lift the bans of individual nations, it now looks set to take a pragmatic approach that might formally allow countries to opt out of growing GM crops. Few details of the proposals, which are due to be announced this summer, are available yet. But some reports suggest that the commission could continue to approve GMOs across the EU on the basis of scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), its independent risk­assessment body in Parma, Italy — and then let member states decide whether to grow the crops or not. This sort of approach could take the heat out of the EU debate on GMOs, spur more approvals and allow countries that wish to grow GMOs to do so. The Amflora potato approval has stirred up a lot of opposition. Why is this? The potato is controversial not because of its modified starch but because it contains marker genes that confer resistance to the antibiotics kanamycin and neomycin. Breeders of GM crops use antibiotic•resistance markers to spot which plants have successfully incorporated transgenes. They attach the antibiotic•resistance gene onto the desired trait genes, and then treat the transgenic seedlings with antibiotics, which kills those plants that haven't taken up the foreign genes. Environmental groups and some countries have had long•standing concerns about the risk of genes spreading from crops to bacteria and increasing bacterial antibiotic resistance. What does the science say about that risk? The EFSA considered this in the context of the Amflora application in 2005, and concluded that the risk of transfer of antibiotic resistance from plants to bacteria was remote, and that bacteria resistant to the antibiotics were already present in soil, animals and humans. That position was restated in a broader safety assessment of antibiotic•resistance markers, published by EFSA's GMO and BIOHAZ panels in June 2009. But on that occasion, two scientists, both from the BIOHAZ panel, formally disagreed with the conclusions. They argued that the risk of gene transfer might be less than remote, and that introducing genes that confer resistance to antibiotics that are used, for example, to treat multiply drug•resistant nature.com/…/news.2010.112.html 2/4 16-3-2010 A new dawn for transgenic crops in E… tuberculosis simply isn't a good idea. The reason the problem arises at all is because ADVERTISEMENT Amflora is a first•generation GM crop that was developed in the late 1980s. Modification technologies developed since then allow the use of alternatives to antibiotic•resistance markers, or allow such markers to be spliced out of the plant before cultivation. Indeed, although the EU, the World Health Organization and many health bodies accept that the risk of transfer of antibiotic resistance seems low, they have called for antibiotic•resistance markers in GMOs to be phased out. More broadly, other experts say that much more publicly funded research on GMOs would lead to greater public confidence in risk assessments, which are currently heavily dependent on industry studies. Where and when will the Amflora potato be planted? BASF has said that it only intends to grow the potatoes in countries that want it — the company will begin planting Amflora this year on a few dozen hectares in Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic. If the European Commission succeeds in its plans to break the GMO deadlock, many more hectares, and many more varieties of GM crops, may soon be growing in Europe. Comments If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise comply with our Terms or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant 'Report this comment' link. Comments on this thread are vetted after posting. Social acceptance of GMOs should come from the heart of the people & not by forcefull #9652 implimentation of rules & regulation which is not going to help.Public have faith only on research outcome of public funded research not on business oriented companies whose aim is to make money only.Indian government has taken right decision by declining bt•brinzal & research out come of private companies.EU need to take utmost precoution in this step. Anurag chaurasia,ICAR, India, [email protected], [email protected], +919452196686(M) Report this comment Posted by: Anurag Chaurasia 2010•03•10 10:39:13 PM Let us see how the people of European Union Welcomes them. #9674 Report this comment Posted by: b.vivek reddy 2010•03•12 08:37:45 AM nature.com/…/news.2010.112.html 3/4 16-3-2010 A new dawn for transgenic crops in E… Add your own comment This is a public forum. Please keep to our Community Guidelines. You can be controversial, but please don't get personal or offensive and do keep it brief. Remember our threads are for feedback and discussion • not for publishing papers, press releases or advertisements. Although you are an existing nature.com user, you will need to agree to our Community Guidelines and accept our Terms before you can leave a comment. View and accept Terms Nature ISSN 0028•0836 EISSN 1 47 6•4687 About NPG Priv acy policy Nature News Contact NPG Legal notice Naturejobs RSS web feeds Accessibility statement Nature Asia Help Terms Nature Education About Nature News Search: go Nature News Sitemap © 2010 Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Lim ited. All Rights Reserv ed. partner of AGORA, HINARI, OARE, INASP, CrossRef and COUNTER nature.com/…/news.2010.112.html 4/4.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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]