GE Crops Research Articles

Identification of T-DNA structure and insertion site in transgenic crops using targeted capture sequencing.

The commercialization of GE crops requires a rigorous safety assessment, which includes a precise DNA level characterization of inserted T-DNA. In the past, several strategies have been developed for identifying T-DNA insertion sites including, Southern blot and different PCR-based methods. However, these methods are often challenging to scale up for screening of dozens of transgenic events and for crops with complex genomes, like potato. Here, we report using target capture sequencing (TCS) to characterize the T-DNA structure and insertion sites of 34 transgenic events in potato. This T-DNA is an 18 kb fragment between left and right borders and carries three resistance (R) genes (RB, Rpi-blb2 and Rpi-vnt1.1 genes) that result in complete resistance to late blight disease. Using TCS, we obtained a high sequence read coverage within the T-DNA and junction regions. We identified the T-DNA breakpoints on either ends for 85% of the transgenic events. About 74% of the transgenic events had their T-DNA with 3R gene sequences intact. The flanking sequences of the T-DNA were from the potato genome for half of the transgenic events, and about a third (11) of the transgenic events have a single T-DNA insertion mapped into the potato genome, of which five events do not interrupt an existing potato gene. The TCS results were confirmed using PCR and Sanger sequencing for 6 of the best transgenic events representing 20% of the transgenic events suitable for regulatory approval. These results demonstrate the wide applicability of TCS for the precise T-DNA insertion characterization in transgenic crops.

Simulated gastric fluid assay for estimating the digestibility of newly expressed proteins in GE crops: Missteps in development and interpretation.

Digestive stability of a food protein in simulated gastric fluid (SGF) continues to be considered a risk factor for allergy, even though the current science does not support this belief. Methodological shortcomings of the adaption of the SGF assay for use with purified proteins has been cited as a reason to discount results that do not conform to this belief. Missteps in conducting and interpreting the results of SGF assays are reviewed here. However, these methodological shortcomings do not invalidate the conclusion that allergenic proteins are not systematically more stable to digestion than non-allergens. The growing evidence for the dual allergen exposure hypothesis, whereby sensitization to food allergens is primarily caused by dermal and inhalation exposure to food dust, and tolerization against food allergy is primarily induced by gut exposure in food, likely explains why the digestive stability of a protein is not a risk factor for allergenicity.

Who Trusts in Gene-Edited Foods? Analysis of a Representative Survey Study Predicting Willingness to Eat- and Purposeful Avoidance of Gene Edited Foods in the United States

CRISPR-Cas, ZFN, and TALEN provide gene editing opportunities which may lead to new food and agricultural products with identifiable benefits for end-use consumers. Given the public perceptions and backlash faced by previous generations of genetically modified food products, there is a lot of speculation regarding how gene edited food products will come to be understood, and if they will be accepted or avoided by society. This study provides timely and reliable data which reports representative coordinated study of the United States public as to what factors influence their willingness to eat- or purposeful avoidance of gene-edited foods. This study fills this gap to identify influential factors which, in concert, help to explain not only if members of the public trust GEF and are willing to eat GEF foods or choose to avoid them, but why they hold the trust attitudes they do. From our analysis, we find that social values, institutional trust, and awareness are the most important factors in why Americans would choose to either eat or avoid gene edited foods. Surprisingly, the public’s attitudes about the tangible characteristics of food (such as safety, cost, taste, and appearance) had no bearing on GE food perceptions. This helps explains why the American public makes little distinction between willingness to eat processed or raw foods made with GE crops.

Public Acceptance of Foods Derived from Genome Editing Technology: A Review of The Technical, Social and Regulatory Aspects

This paper focuses on the determinants of genome-edited foods by identifying trends in the application of CRISPR/Cas9 to major crops and reviewing consumer and regulatory studies on both GE and genetically modified (GM) foods. Findings show that GE crops have not been only targeted in input traits like GM crops, but also strengthened production ability in harsh environmental conditions, improving product quality and enhancement nutrition. Especially, these consumer-targeted traits pursued in GE applications could rise consumer acceptance. Consumer-targeted traits coupled with transgene-free crops has created a more balanced risk-benefit perception and given momentum to GE foods production. Nevertheless, the public has failed to distinguish bio-technologies, and regulators are treating GM and GE foods alike. Thus, it is vital to increase knowledge, communication and policy orientation. Policymakers should carefully assess novel bio-technologies and apply an appropriate regulatory approach to GE foods to promote the agricultural system and food safety.

Paraguay's Path Toward the Simplification of Procedures in the Approval of GE Crops.

Agricultural biotechnology was first regulated in Paraguay in 1997. The first update to the country’s regulatory framework came in 2012, motivated by the need to keep up with current technologies. As part of this process, in late 2012, the Paraguayan Ministry of Agriculture (MAG) joined the Partnership for Biosafety Risk Assessment and Regulation, led by ILSI Research Foundation. The purpose of the program was the development of capacity building activities. As a result, the regulatory authorities in Paraguay incorporated the problem formulation approach to environmental risk assessment into their regulatory processes, leading to improved efficiency, with more timely decisions. Shifting to a problem formulation-based decision-making system was not straightforward, since practice and experience are always required to make professional risk assessors. Despite the continuity of approvals, there was a lag in the response time reflected in the number of events approved. During 2019, a simplified approval procedure for events that have been assessed by sound and experienced regulatory systems was introduced. Acceptance of third-country assessments can allow regulatory systems to make better use of their human, financial, and institutional resources, and stimulate inter-agency cooperation. In this work we aim to present the recent evolution of the regulatory system in Paraguay toward the establishment of a simplified procedure for GE crops that have been already assessed by sound and experienced regulatory systems, taking into account several scientific criteria. Concepts such as the familiarity, history of safe use, substantial equivalence, transportability, problem formulation, and the use of the consensus documents, developed by Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO) and other institutions, favors the acceptance of decision documents issued by third countries. This requires the commitment of governments to support the stability of the institutions responsible for the regulatory implementation and also encourages countries to put work into the preparation and publication of decision documents, which are the basis for the commercialization of GE events.

Of Society, Nature, and Health: How Perceptions of Specific Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Foods Shape Public Rejection

ABSTRACT Recent gene editing technologies advances, such as CRISPR/Cas9, will continue to shape the future of agriculture and genetically engineered crops. Using a representative survey of a North American Midwestern state, we examine the relative weights of specific risks and benefits associated with GMO foods in impacting potential rejection of the technology. Controlling for established predictors, we find perceptions of specific risks and benefits of the technology have a significant and substantial impact on GMO rejection, with risk aspects playing a relatively greater role. Two risks, viewing GMOs as benefiting food manufacturers and causing allergies and illness, are among the strongest predictors of GMO food rejection, suggesting social dimensions are important to consider and present in the public mind. Supplementing this, people also consider aspects related to health and nature. We discuss implications for communication efforts about GE foods and crops, and for the future of gene editing in food production.

Bt Eggplant Project in Bangladesh: History, Present Status, and Future Direction.

The purpose of this article is to provide information on the history, accomplishments, and future direction of the Bt brinjal (eggplant) program in Bangladesh, formerly under the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II, now the South Asia Eggplant Improvement Partnership (SAEIP). The India-based Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco) developed an eggplant expressing Cry1Ac (EE-1) for control of the eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB). In a partnership among Mahyco, USAID, Sathguru Management Consultants and Cornell University EE-1 was provided to the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) who bred it into local varieties. After regulatory approval, four varieties were distributed to 20 farmers who harvested Bt brinjal in 2014. Adoption in subsequent years has increased rapidly so that, in 2018, 27,012 farmers used this technology. This article provides background information on the process leading up to current adoption levels, the level of control of EFSB achieved and the economic benefits of Bt brinjal. Efforts on stewardship, farmer training and communication are discussed. In order to ensure the long-term future of the partnership, we discuss the need to enhance involvement of the private sector in the production and stewardship of Bt eggplant. Bt brinjal is the first genetically engineered crop to be commercially released in Bangladesh, and other GE crops are in the pipeline. Hence, success of the Bt brinjal partnership is likely to affect the future of other GE crops in Bangladesh, as well as other parts of the world where biotechnology is needed for food security and environmental safety.

Overexpressing Exogenous 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate Synthase (EPSPS) Genes Increases Fecundity and Auxin Content of Transgenic Arabidopsis Plants

Transgenic glyphosate-tolerant plants overproducing EPSPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) may exhibit enhanced fitness in glyphosate-free environments. If so, introgression of transgenes overexpressing EPSPS into wild relative species may lead to increased competitiveness of crop-wild hybrids, resulting in unpredicted environmental impact. Assessing fitness effects of transgenes overexpressing EPSPS in a model plant species can help address this question, while elucidating how overproducing EPSPS affects the fitness-related traits of plants. We produced segregating T2 and T3 Arabidopsis thaliana lineages with or without a transgene overexpressing EPSPS isolated from rice or Agrobacterium (CP4). For each of the three transgenes, we compared glyphosate tolerance, some fitness-related traits, and auxin (indole-3-acetic acid) content in transgene-present, transgene-absent, empty vector (EV), and parental lineages in a common-garden experiment. We detected substantially increased glyphosate tolerance in T2 plants of transgene-present lineages that overproduced EPSPS. We also documented significant increases in fecundity, which was associated with increased auxin content in T3 transgene-present lineages containing rice EPSPS genes, compared with their segregating transgene-absent lineages, EV, and parental controls. Our results from Arabidopsis with nine transgenic events provide a strong support to the hypothesis that transgenic plants overproducing EPSPS can benefit from a fecundity advantage in glyphosate-free environments. Stimulated biosynthesis of auxin, an important plant growth hormone, by overproducing EPSPS may play a role in enhanced fecundity of the transgenic Arabidopsis plants. The obtained knowledge is useful for assessing environmental impact caused by introgression of transgenes overproducing EPSPS from any GE crop into populations of its wild relatives.

‘Superweeds’ or ‘survivors’? Framing the problem of glyphosate resistant weeds and genetically engineered crops

In this paper, we explore how efforts to frame the socio-environmental problem of glyphosate resistant weeds— superweeds—at particular scales shape calls for certain governance strategies and regulatory responses. We use a political agronomy approach and the politics of scale literature to understand the linkages and relationships between socio-political and economic forces and the problem of glyphosate resistant weeds. We draw on in-depth interview data with representatives from farm groups, consumer and environmental advocacy organizations, agriculture and biotech companies, government regulatory agencies, and agricultural extension agents, together with a content analysis of websites of GE supporters and opponents. Together these data are used to explore how the problem of superweeds is being framed by proponents and opponents of GE crops, and among agricultural scientists, advocacy organizations and business. We conclude that when environmental problems associated with pesticide resistance are ‘scaled up’ to incorporate more systemic agricultural issues and are linked with broader socio-economic and political issues that impact a larger public, there are greater possibilities for pushing for government intervention and regulation to address environmental burdens and externalities.

Empat Belas Tahun Perkembangan Peraturan Keamanan Hayati dan Keamanan Pangan Produk Rekayasa Genetik dan Implementasinya di Indonesia

<p>Fourteen Years of Development of Biosafety and Food<br />Safety Regulations of Genetically Engineered Products<br />and their Implementation in Indonesia. M. Herman. In<br />Indonesia, the need for biosafety and food safety regulation<br />of genetically engineered products (GEP) is well recognized.<br />The Food Law and the Decree on Provisions of Biosafety of<br />Genetically Engineered Agricultural Biotechnology Products<br />has been signed respectively by the President of Republic of<br />Indonesia in 1996 and by the Minister of Agriculture in 1997.<br />The biosafety and food safety regulation of GEP comprise of<br />guidelines, ministerial decree, joint ministerial degree,<br />government regulation, presidential regulation, presidensial<br />decree, and law. In the implementation of biosafety regulation<br />during the year of 1999-2001, there were five GE crops<br />and two enzymes products derived from GE microorganisms<br />for feed additive have been decraled as safe to the environment.<br />One of the five GE crop declared for environment<br />safety, the insect resistant (IR) cotton (Bt cotton) was commercialized<br />for limited released in seven districts of South<br />Sulawesi during 2001-2003. Whereas, from 2001-2010 there<br />are 13 GE crops have been studied in the greenhouse of<br />biosafety containment and confined field trials, among of<br />those there are two GE crops, herbicide tolerant (HT) GE<br />maize and drought tolerant (DT) GE sugarcane have been<br />assessed and recommended for environment safety. Five<br />application of animal vaccine derived from GE microorganisms<br />for studied in the biosafety containment and<br />confined field have been submitted to the regulator. In<br />addition to biosafety regulation, food safety regulation has<br />also been implemented after the Food Safety Assessment<br />Guideline for GEP has been signed by the Head of Food and<br />Drug Inspection Agency in July 2008. Food safety assessment<br />has been conducted on 10 GE crops such as HT maize, HT<br />soybean, IR maize, amylase modification maize and DT<br />sugarcane. There are some constraints encountered during<br />the implementation of biosafety and food safety regulation.<br />The constraints are the lack of commitment of related<br />institution involved in the regulation, lack of understading on<br />the regulation, and difficulties of implementing the regulation<br />on the import products such as maize and soybean for<br />food and feed process.</p>

Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union

AbstractGenetically engineered (GE) crops are subject to regulatory oversight to ensure their safety for humans and the environment. Their approval in the European Union (EU) starts with an application in a given Member State followed by a scientific risk assessment, and ends with a political decision‐making step (risk management). In the United States (US) approval begins with a scientific (field trial) step and ends with a ‘bureaucratic’ decision‐making step. We investigate trends for the time taken for these steps and the overall time taken for approving GE crops in the US and the EU. Our results show that from 1996–2015 the overall time trend for approval in the EU decreased and then flattened off, with an overall mean completion‐time of 1,763 days. In the US in 1998 there was a break in the trend of the overall approval time. Initially, from 1988 until 1997 the trend decreased with a mean approval time of 1,321 days; from 1998–2015, the trend almost stagnated with a mean approval time of 2,467 days.

Two Recent U.S. Reports Identify Shortcomings in USDA's Regulation of GE Crops

Two Recent U.S. Reports Identify Shortcomings in USDA's Regulation of GE Crops

Review of Biological Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops and Neonicotinoid Treated Seed Use on Staten Island

Genetically modified organism (GMO) crops particularly Roundup Ready Crops have been widely used in commercial agriculture in the United States in general and Staten Island in particular. However, its use has promoted concerns about the potential environmental effects of this technology. Therefore, this work was initiated to review impact of GE crops and Neonicotinoid to biodiversity, special focus on bees, birds, and super weeds development at Satan Island. Glyphosate herbicide is now widely used for growing Roundup Ready crop, like maize and soy bean. Scientists reported that using glyphosate herbicide by far better than using the previously used herbicide to the environment and biodiversity. It is also known that super weed may develop through gene flow from Roundup Ready Crops to its wild relatives and develop resistance against roundup. However, this might not be a problem in Staten Island where there is no wild relative species for widely grown Roundup Ready Crops like corn and alfaalfa.With regards to Neonicotinoids, it has lower toxicity to mammals like birds, and fish than other non-target insect species specially bees and other pollinator. The effect of Neonicotinoids to non-target species can be minimized using Fluent Agent in seed coating the which reduces dust contamination. Therefore, the use of Genetically Engineered Crops and Neonicotinoid Treated Seed needs special care and management in order to minimize its damage to non-target insect species.

Resistance Is Fertile: Canadian Struggles on the BioCommons by Wilhelm Peekhaus (review)

Reviewed by: Resistance Is Fertile: Canadian Struggles on the BioCommons by Wilhelm Peekhaus André Magnan Resistance Is Fertile: Canadian Struggles on the BioCommons. By Wilhelm Peekhaus. Vancouver: ubc Press, 2013. x + 298 pp. Tables, photographs, maps, notes, references, index. $95.00 cloth. The “new” biotechnologies, including genetic engineering, have been a matter of public controversy since the early 1980s. No aspect of this debate has been more contentious than the commercialization of genetically engineered (ge) crops. Canada and the United States were early adopters of this technology, which transformed the production of key crops such as canola, soy, and maize. In Resistance Is Fertile, Wilhelm Peekhaus provides a wide-ranging assessment of social and political struggles over agricultural biotechnology in Canada. The analysis is developed through a critical, Marxist framework that places the development of science and technology in the wider context of capitalist social relations. Peekhaus argues that corporate control over the new biotechnologies is a form of primitive accumulation, the process whereby people are separated from the social wealth, knowledge, and tools needed for their survival and well-being. In the case of biotechnology, capital is appropriating the very building blocks of life, including genes, seeds, and biological organisms. These technologies provide “capital a new suite of tools to plumb the depths of biological existence at the genetic level in search of new sources of capital accumulation” (68). The privatization and monopolization of genetic resources have sparked a countermovement, the Bio-Commons, which seeks to carve out an alternative set [End Page 88] of institutions that protect the building blocks of life as a common heritage and resource. Peekhaus documents and analyzes the social actors on each side of this rather polarized debate. On the one hand, life sciences corporations and the Canadian state have been strong proponents of biotechnology development. The author traces the history of biotechnology policy in Canada, showing how successive governments have implemented industry-friendly regulatory processes and promoted biotechnology as an engine of innovation and economic activity. As for the resistance to corporate biotechnology, the scholar focuses on groups—such as the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, the National Farmers’ Union, Greenpeace, and the etc Group—who have led struggles for greater industry transparency and responsibility. Within the work, the empirical material consists of interviews with leaders of these organizations as well as detailed treatments of several of the sector’s hot-button issues. Here, Peekhaus critically examines the commercial practices of biotech seed companies, conflicts over the introduction of particular ge varieties, legal battles over patented genes, and civil society criticism of Canada’s regulatory system for ge foods. The author also tackles controversies over the environmental and health safety of ge crops. These are a highly contentious debate, particularly when it comes to the evidence around the health effects of consuming ge foods. Peekhaus describes at some length studies that have linked the consumption of ge plants to toxic effects in animals. Yet he downplays the fact that these studies have been criticized by scientific peers on methodological grounds. At best, we can say that the scientific evidence is contested. A better strategy for the book might have been to develop a sociology of science analysis of these controversies, asking how and to what effect such questions become politicized by actors with different agendas and interests. Indeed, the book is sometimes too one-sided in its analysis, tending to reduce the complexities of the debate to a Manichean struggle between capital and its opponents. In doing so, it glosses over the ambivalent positions of some of the key actors such as biotechnology scientists, who are not motivated by purely capitalist motives, and farmers, who have adopted ge crops on a large scale but face complicated trade-offs in using these technologies. André Magnan Department of Sociology and Social Studies University of Regina Copyright © 2015 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States

The use of GE crops in the United States has been through 14 years since their introduction and several National Research Council(NRC) reports have addressed the effects of GE crops on the environment and on human health during 2000 to 2004.However,the effects of agricultural biotechnology at the farm level have received much less attention.To fill that information gap,the NRC initiated the study and released the first comprehensive assessment of the effects of GE-crop adoption on farm sustainability in the United States.This report addresses just the scientific questions and is based on peer-reviewed literature to form conclusions and recommendations.In general,the committee finds that genetic-engineering technology has produced substantial net environmental and economic benefits to U.S.farmers;however the social effects of agricultural biotechnology have largely been unexplored.This report details the challenges and opportunities for future GE crops and offers recommendations on how crop-management practices and future research and development efforts can help to realize the full potential offered by genetic engineering.

GE crop regulation at a crossroads

GE crop regulation at a crossroads

Safety and Public Acceptance of Transgenic Products

Public acceptance of transgenic (genetically engineered, GE) products is influenced by the perception of direct or indirect risks and benefits and the credibility of regulatory agencies that evaluate food and environmental safety. In North America acceptance of GE foods is holding steady, while knowledge about them remains low. Development of transgenic foods with improved nutritional properties or other quality factors will likely be better received than products that primarily benefit the grower or developer of the product. There is continuing unease about biopharming and the association, by some members of the public, of GE crops with corporate agriculture. Several recent reports have reviewed the U.S. regulatory system for transgenic crops and called for a more coordinated and transparent process that allows for greater public participation. For society to benefit from GE crops, we must move away from the polarized positions that have defined the transgenic debate in the past, to positions of mutual respect that allow a rational discussion of the technology's merits and risks.

Contemporary Biotechnology and the New “Green Revolution”

Both the Green Revolution and GE foods have come under persistent attack by social philosophers, environmentalists, and other commentators, who argue that these technologies should be banned. In this essay, I examine five of the most common arguments for banning further development of GE crops, and show how they effectively reduce to two: distress at blurred boundaries, and hazards of a new technology. I will also show that both of these arguments can be addressed and defused-and so we can use Frankenfoods to help feed the world.

Agriculture

Antibiotics Replacement Products in Demand. BoviQuest & Merial in Milk Genes License. ARS: A Center for Risk Assessment of GE Crops. USDA Tightened Pharma Crop Farming Legislation.

The quest for a biosafe biosphere

The quest for a biosafe biosphere