DOCSLIB.ORG

GM Science Update: a Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GM Science Update: a Report GM Science Update A report to the Council for Science and Technology March, 2014 Professor Sir David Baulcombe, University of Cambridge Professor Jim Dunwell, University of Reading Professor Jonathan Jones, Sainsbury Laboratory Professor John Pickett, Rothamsted Research Professor Pere Puigdomenech, University of Cambridge/ Barcelona GM Science Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 1 PART 1: EXPERIENCE OF GM CROP CULTIVATION................................................................ 5 Summary ...........................................................................................................................................................................5 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................6 A. Agriculture...................................................................................................................................................................6 A1. Socio‐economic and environmental impacts..................................................................................................................8 A2. Farm income effects...................................................................................................................................................................8 A3. Commercial GM cultivation in the EU.............................................................................................................................10 A4. GM crop regulation in the USA...........................................................................................................................................10 A5. GM crop field trials in the EU and elsewhere ..............................................................................................................11 B. Horticulture.............................................................................................................................................................. 13 B1. Papaya...........................................................................................................................................................................................13 B2. Other commercialized horticultural products ............................................................................................................13 C. Forestry...................................................................................................................................................................... 13 PART 2: NEW SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS.................................. 15 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 15 A. GM traits “in the pipeline” to benefit many crops ........................................................................................ 16 A1. Enhanced photosynthesis ....................................................................................................................................................16 A2. Stress tolerance.........................................................................................................................................................................16 A3. Aluminium tolerance..............................................................................................................................................................17 A4. Salinity ..........................................................................................................................................................................................17 A5. Pest and disease resistance .................................................................................................................................................18 A6. Nitrogen use efficiency..........................................................................................................................................................18 A7. Phosphate use efficiency.......................................................................................................................................................19 A8. Nitrogen fixation ......................................................................................................................................................................19 B. GM traits for European crops.............................................................................................................................. 20 B1. Wheat ............................................................................................................................................................................................20 B2. Potato (and apple)...................................................................................................................................................................20 B3. Rapeseed (Brassica napus) and other oilseeds ..........................................................................................................21 B4. Tomato..........................................................................................................................................................................................21 B5. Bio‐fuels and industrial biotechnology ..........................................................................................................................24 C. GM traits for developing countries.................................................................................................................... 24 C1. Nutritional enhancement (biofortification) – vitamin A, iron and zinc ...........................................................25 C2. Banana diseases........................................................................................................................................................................26 C3. Bt brinjal /eggplant /aubergine.........................................................................................................................................27 C4. Bt cowpea.....................................................................................................................................................................................27 C5. Cassava diseases.......................................................................................................................................................................27 D. New enabling techniques and methods........................................................................................................... 28 D1. Synthetic biology......................................................................................................................................................................28 D2. High throughput sequencing technologies...................................................................................................................28 D3. Directed methods for producing mutations and for plant transformation ...................................................29 PART 3: SAFETY AND RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 32 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 32 A. Regulation of GM crops in the EU and elsewhere ......................................................................................... 32 B. The consequence of a stringent EU regulatory framework ...................................................................... 34 C. Is GM regulation necessary? ................................................................................................................................ 35 C1. Human and animal health ....................................................................................................................................................36 C2. Environmental damage .........................................................................................................................................................36 C3. Unknown unknowns...............................................................................................................................................................38 PART 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................... 39 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 39 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 39 A. Research and Development................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gene Targeting in Plants: 25 Years Later HOLGER PUCHTA* and FRIEDRICH FAUSER
    Int. J. Dev. Biol. 57: 629-637 (2013) doi: 10.1387/ijdb.130194hp www.intjdevbiol.com Gene targeting in plants: 25 years later HOLGER PUCHTA* and FRIEDRICH FAUSER Botanical Institute II, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany ABSTRACT Only five years after the initiation of transgenic research in plants, gene targeting (GT) was achieved for the first time in tobacco. Unfortunately, the frequency of targeted integration via homologous recombination (HR) was so low in comparison to random integration that GT could not be established as a feasible technique in higher plants. It took another 25 years and great effort to develop the knowledge and tools necessary to overcome this challenge, at least for some plant species. In some cases, the overexpression of proteins involved in HR or the use of negative select- able markers improved GT to a certain extent. An effective solution to this problem was developed in 1996, when a sequence-specific endonuclease was used to induce a double-strand break (DSB) at the target locus. Thus, GT frequencies were enhanced dramatically. Thereafter, the main limitation was the absence of tools needed to induce DSBs at specific sites in the genome. Such tools became available with the development of zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), and a breakthrough was achieved in 2005 when ZFNs were used to target a marker gene in tobacco. Subsequently, endogenous loci were targeted in maize, tobacco and Arabidopsis. Recently, our toolbox for genetic engineering has expanded with the addition of more types of site-specific endonucleases, meganucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and the CRISPR/Cas system.
    [Show full text]
  • CRISPR-Cas9-Mediated Efficient Directed Mutagenesis and RAD51
    CRISPR-Cas9-mediated efficient directed mutagenesis and RAD51-dependent and RAD51-independent gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella patens Cécile Collonnier, Aline Epert, Kostlend Mara, François Maclot, Anouchka Guyon-Debast, Florence Charlot, Charles White, Didier Schaefer, Fabien Nogué To cite this version: Cécile Collonnier, Aline Epert, Kostlend Mara, François Maclot, Anouchka Guyon-Debast, et al.. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated efficient directed mutagenesis and RAD51-dependent and RAD51- independent gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella patens. Plant Biotechnology Journal, Wiley, 2017, 15 (1), pp.122 - 131. 10.1111/pbi.12596. inserm-01904879 HAL Id: inserm-01904879 https://www.hal.inserm.fr/inserm-01904879 Submitted on 25 Oct 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License Plant Biotechnology Journal (2017) 15, pp. 122–131 doi: 10.1111/pbi.12596 CRISPR-Cas9-mediated efficient directed mutagenesis and RAD51-dependent and RAD51-independent gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella
    [Show full text]
  • ES Cell Targeting Handbook
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview of ES Core Facility Introduction Generation of Gene-Targeted ES Cells Karyotyping of Positive ES Clones ES Cell Request Form General Information for the Generation of Targeted Cells Principles of Gene Targeting Requirements for the Design of Targeting Constructs Screening Assay for the Identification of Targeted ES Clones Overview of ES Cell Culture ES Cell Factors Affecting Successful Chimera Production FAQ Overview of ES Core Facility Our Mission The ES Core Facility (ECF) was founded by the NINDS Core Center Grant and was established to benefit the contributors of this proposal. The mission of ECF is to effectively produce ES cell lines with a high probability of germline transmission. Core Service Services provided by the Core for a typical project include: • Provide guidance on the design of targeting construct • Generate targeted ES cell lines for the production of chimeric mice • Karyotyping ES cells to be micro-injected into blastocysts Consultation is available from ECF directors and staff members on the entire procedures of generating gene knock-out mice. Application for Service Prior to the initiation of a project, a brief meeting is generally required between the investigator and ECF facility staff resulting in a mutually acceptable research strategy. This strategy will outline specifics of the project including knockout strategy, KO construct design, screening assays, and other procedural issues relevant to the generation of targeted ES cells. In addition, a completed service application form, signed by the principal investigator and approved by the Core Director, will also be required. The Core Director will prioritize the service requests according to the difficulty of the project and work load.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Endogenous Allergens for the Safety Evaluation of Genetically Engineered Food Crops
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications in Food Science and Food Science and Technology Department Technology 2013 Evaluation of Endogenous Allergens for the Safety Evaluation of Genetically Engineered Food Crops: Review of Potential Risks, Test Methods, Examples and Relevance Richard E. Goodman University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Rakhi Panda University of Nebraska-Lincoln Harsha Ariyarathna University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/foodsciefacpub Part of the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons, Food Biotechnology Commons, and the Other Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering Commons Goodman, Richard E.; Panda, Rakhi; and Ariyarathna, Harsha, "Evaluation of Endogenous Allergens for the Safety Evaluation of Genetically Engineered Food Crops: Review of Potential Risks, Test Methods, Examples and Relevance" (2013). Faculty Publications in Food Science and Technology. 149. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/foodsciefacpub/149 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Food Science and Technology Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications in Food Science and Technology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Reproduced here under the terms of the ACS AuthorChoice usage agreement. Article pubs.acs.org/JAFC Terms of Use Evaluation of Endogenous Allergens for
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Efficient Transient Gene Expression and Gene Targeting in Primate Embryonic Stem Cells with Helper-Dependent Adenoviral Vectors
    Highly efficient transient gene expression and gene targeting in primate embryonic stem cells with helper-dependent adenoviral vectors Keiichiro Suzuki*, Kaoru Mitsui*, Emi Aizawa*, Kouichi Hasegawa†‡, Eihachiro Kawase§, Toshiyuki Yamagishi¶, Yoshihiko Shimizuʈ, Hirofumi Suemori†, Norio Nakatsuji§**, and Kohnosuke Mitani*†† *Division of Gene Therapy, Research Center for Genomic Medicine, ¶Department of Anatomy and ʈDepartment of Pathology, Saitama Medical University, Hidaka, Saitama 350-1241, Japan; and †Laboratory of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research Center and §Department of Development and Differentiation, Institute for Frontier Medical Sciences, and **Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan Communicated by C. Thomas Caskey, University of TexasϪHouston Health Science Center, Houston, TX, July 23, 2008 (received for review April 18, 2008) Human embryonic stem (hES) cells are regarded as a potentially gene expression in Ϸ100% of cells have not been established (9, unlimited source of cellular materials for regenerative medicine. 10). Furthermore, unlike mES cells, in which gene targeting via For biological studies and clinical applications using primate ES HR has been used routinely with great success, there are few cells, the development of a general strategy to obtain efficient studies using gene targeting in hES cells (11–17). Gene targeting gene delivery and genetic manipulation, especially gene targeting study in nonhuman primate ES cells has not yet been reported. via homologous recombination (HR), would be of paramount Although three investigative groups have reported that HPRT1 importance. However, unlike mouse ES (mES) cells, efficient strat- gene targeting was achieved in hES cells by using electroporation egies for transient gene delivery and HR in hES cells have not been (11, 12, 17), the frequencies of HR were extremely low at Ϸ1 ϫ established.
    [Show full text]
  • Gene Targeting in Plants
    The EMBO Journal vol.7 no.13 pp.4021 -4026, 1988 Gene targeting in plants Jerzy Paszkowski, Markus Baur, Although integration of transforming DNA into the Augustyn Bogucki and Ingo Potrykus homologous chromosomal DNA occurs efficiently in yeast, other fungi and Dictyostelium discoideum (Hinnen et al., Friedrich Miescher Institut, PO Box 2543, CH4002 Basel, 1978; De Lozanne et al., 1987; Miller et al., 1987), Switzerland non-homologous ('illegitimate') integration of foreign DNA Present address: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute of into the genome of higher eukaryotic cells makes it difficult Plant Sciences, ETH-Zentrum, Universitatstrasse 2, CH-8092 Zurich, to assay the frequency of gene targeting to a desired locus. Switzerland Only recently has the application of selection (Lin et al., Communicated by J.-D.Rochaix 1985; Thomas et al., 1986; Doetschman et al., 1987; Song et al., 1987; Thomas and Capecchi, 1987) and screening Although the generation of transgenic plants is now (Smithies et al., 1985) systems allowed comparison of the routine, the integration of foreign genetic information has frequencies of homologous and illegitimate integration of so far been at random sites in the genome. We now transformed DNA in cultured mammalian cells. In plants present evidence for directed integration into a predicted the high transformation frequencies reported for DNA location in the host plant genome. Protoplasts of molecules with no homology to the plant genome (Shillito transgenic tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) plants carrying et al., 1985; Negrutiu et al., 1987) indicate efficient copies of a partial, non-functional drug-resistance gene illegitimate integration. Therefore, the detection of gene in the nuclear DNA were used as recipients for DNA targeting through homologous DNA recombination requires molecules containing the missing part of the gene.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 6:17-Cv-01210 Document 1 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 69
    Case 6:17-cv-01210 Document 1 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS JED R. CLAASSEN, Individually and as PLAINTIFFS Representative of CLAASSEN FARMS; CLAASSEN FARMS vs. Civil Case No. __________________ MONSANTO COMPANY; DEFENDANTS BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION BASF PLANT SCIENCE LP; and JOHN DOE COMPANIES A - Z COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Jed R. Claassen and Claassen Farms on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the class they seek to represent for their Class Action Complaint against the named Defendants herein, state as follows: I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS 1. Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit for damages against Defendants, Monsanto and BASF, who jointly collaborated to develop and release a defective and unreasonably dangerous “dicamba-tolerant crop system,” which has directly resulted in massive harm to crops in Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, and other states. 2. These damages include, but are not limited to, crop damage, yield loss, total failure of the crop, and financial ruin to impacted farmers. 3. The BASF/Monsanto dicamba-tolerant crop system cannot be safely used for its intended purpose regardless the degree of care without causing collateral damage to nearby crops, which are not part of the BASF/Monsanto dicamba-tolerant crop system. Page 1 of 69 Case 6:17-cv-01210 Document 1 Filed 08/18/17 Page 2 of 69 4. Dicamba is a synthetic herbicide, which farmers have been using for decades to burn down fields in an effort to control weeds.
    [Show full text]
  • CQR Genetically Modified Food
    Res earc her Published by CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc. CQ www.cqresearcher.com Genetically Modified Food Should labels be required? alifornia voters will decide in November whether foods produced with genetically modified ingredients — so-called GM foods — should bear special labels. C The controversial measure reflects the uneven ac - ceptance of genetically engineered crops since their rise in the 1990s. Organic farmers and other opponents of GM foods contend they may pose health or environmental risks, despite widespread scientific consensus that they are not inherently more risky than other crops. Foes of the labeling referendum, including GM farmers and seed producers, such as Monsanto, say that GM crops are more Plant breeder Alamgir Hossain is developing Golden Rice for Bangladesh. Supporters of the genetically engineered variety say it could save the lives of up to productive, pest-resistant and environmentally friendly than conven - 2.7 million children a year, but it has yet to be planted commercially; the Philippines may approve it for tional crops and that the fast-growing organic industry and misguid - cultivation in 2013. ed consumer groups are to blame for confusion about the science I behind them. Even as GM crops have been embraced by U.S. N THIS REPORT commodity growers, Europe remains skeptical. However, eight of S THE ISSUES ....................719 I the 10 countries with the most acreage in biotech crops are now BACKGROUND ................726 D in the developing world. CHRONOLOGY ................727 E CURRENT SITUATION ........732 CQ Researcher • Aug. 31, 2012 • www.cqresearcher.com AT ISSUE ........................733 Volume 22, Number 30 • Pages 717-740 OUTLOOK ......................735 RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY ................738 EXCELLENCE N AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD THE NEXT STEP ..............739 GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD CQ Re search er Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Genetic Technologies in Denmark
    RAPPORT 2/2004 Marja Häyrinen-Alestalo Egil Kallerud (editors) Mediating Public Concern in Biotechnology A map of sites, actors and issues in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden 1 © Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education Hegdehaugsveien 31, N-0352 Oslo NIFU Rapportserie 2/2004 ISBN 82-7218-482-6 ISSN 0807-3635 For other publications from NIFU, see www.nifu.no 2 NIFU Rapport 2/2004 Preface This publication is the first report from the Nordic research project Changing Contexts for Mediating Public Concern in the Assessment of Technoscience. Public Responses to Genetic Technologies in the Nordic Countries (COMPASS). The pro- ject is headed by Margareta Bertilsson, Copenhagen University, Department of Sociology, Denmark. The other partners are: Andrew Jamison, Aalborg Univer- sity, Institute for Social Development and Planning, Denmark; Jesper Lassen, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Denmark; Marja Häyrinen-Alestalo and Karoliina Snell, Hel- sinki University, Department of Sociology, Finland; Egil Kallerud and Vera Schwach, Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education, Norway; Thomas Achen, Linköping University, Department of Environmental Science, Sweden; and Mark Elam, Gothenburg University, Department of Soci- ology, Sweden. The project is funded for a three year period (2002–2004) by the Joint Committee for Nordic Research Councils for the Humanities and the So- cial Sciences (NOS-HS). This report documents the first exploratory steps towards an articulated comparative account of approaches and experiences in the Nordic countries concerning the political, economic, social and cultural responses to global, Eu- ropean and Nordic efforts in the appropriation and mediation of modern bio- technology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Industrial Food Chain's Recipe for a Box Lunch
    The Industrial Food Chain’s Recipe for a Box Lunch Who’s going to eat whose lunch … the Hardware Grunts or the Software Gurus? The Battle for the control of agricultural inputs is just beginning. Time for a “Kickboxer” Campaign? Briefing Note, May 31st, 2016 Bayer’s $62 billion bid for Monsanto, as of this writing, has been rejected, but both parties say they are continuing to negotiate. That the “Joy of Six” agricultural input companies may soon become a ménage à trois has been a matter of speculation in ETC Group since mid-2014. If (and it is a big “if”) the Seven Players Reduced to Four? marriages of Dow with DuPont, The biggest agrochemical makers if the ChemChina with Syngenta, and deals for through Crop Protection Seeds Bayer with Monsanto are 25 consummated, the only wallflower left on the dance floor, 20 BASF, will either have to hook up or give up. Agriculture is, 15 relatively speaking, small potatoes for the German chemical $ billion 10 giant, but, still, it brought home $7.2 billion in crop chemical sales 5 in 2014 and commands a hefty 11.5% of the global pesticide 0 market. Although BASF invests in Bayer & DuPont & Dow ChemChina & BASF Monsanto Chemical Syngenta plant breeding and breeding technologies, it doesn’t directly sell seeds. Instead, the company Based on 2015 revenue, Monsanto figures for fiscal year through collaborates on R&D all along the Aug. 2015. Source: Company reports, Bloomberg food chain – with Monsanto (developing GMO traits), with Yara (producing ammonia for fertilizers), with synbio company Evolva (developing biosynthetic pesticides), with Cargill (developing oils high in omega-3), with Deere & Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Articles
    Feature Articles GM trials return to the UK GM potatoes are being trialled at a site in bringing their hives to the nearby borage farms are the functioning of a gene depends on its position Cambridgeshire, with more planned. Eva concerned that their honey might become within the DNA, something the geneticists are Novotny explains why we should be on our contaminated with GM pollen. altogether unable to control. Many further guard. complications arise 8. When the GM potato plants on the NIAB land come The Farm-Scale Evaluations of four GM crops into flower, the flower heads will not be removed. A geneticist has commented on these trials as concluded in 2002 with the only successful contender Although this would be easy to do, ACRE (the follows 9: “The risk assessment has been granted – GM maize – failing to make commercial reality, and government’s Advisory Committee on Releases to the using the assumption that these are normal potatoes the UK enjoyed a respite from the looming possibility Environment) has not advised NIAB to do so and no with a few predictable genes added. A characteristic of commercial GM crops. funds have been provided; therefore NIAB will not do feature of transgenic crops is that they do not behave it3. Neither, by a similar logic, will the flow of pollen in such a predictable fashion. The reason BASF is But the GM industry has not gone away. The German from the GM plants be monitored. This throws into testing so many transgenic lines is precisely because company BASF, which has entered the field as BASF question NIAB’s claims that it is gathering scientific transgenics are not predictable ..
    [Show full text]
  • Master Complaint
    rows of soybeans covered with plastic. The dicamba evaporated from the trays and caused damage to surrounding soybeans. 309. Citing research by Jason Norsworthy and Tom Barber in Arkansas, Kevin Bradley in Missouri, and Tom Mueller in Tennessee, weed scientist Ford Baldwin sees no question about whether the new dicamba herbicides volatilize in the field: Common logic along with our understanding about long distance transport of pesticides in stable air told us the only way we could be getting the landscape effect we arc seeing with dicamba is through movement in temperature inversions. Common logic also told us there had to be more than just spray particles being trapped in inversions when the herbicides are restricted to ground application and ultra-coarse nozzles. The results from studies like these now confirms the logic that it is volatiles trapped in the inversions causing the landscape dicamba. damage. As I have stated before[,] dicamba is just doing what dicamba does when it is sprayed in summertime temperatures. Additional application restrictions on the herbicide simply will not fix this problem . Ford Baldwin, latest &camber research and a new task force (Aug. 17, 2017), http://www. deltafampress.com/weeds/baldwin-latest-dicamba-research-and-new-task-force. 310. Larry Steckel cited research from Purdue, the University of Arkansas, University of Missouri, University of Georgia, University of Tennessee, and even Monsanto's Texas data submitted to the Arkansas Plant Board, that "clearly showed volatility 54 to 65 hours after application." Monsanto Extend Academic Summit (Iowa State Univ.) Slides presented in St. Louis, MO, September 27-29, 2017 (Smoke(' Alley Compl.
    [Show full text]