Genetically Modified Organisms Products Research Articles

Detection of transgenes in genetically modified organisms and their subproducts

Recombinant DNA technologies allow the assembly of new genes ( transgenes ) that can be introduced into plants to confer them new characteristics. The new varieties are known as transgenic crops and are included in the widely used generic term Genetically Modified Organism (GMO). Corn, soybean and cotton are the most important transgenic crops whereas the most common traits are herbicide and insect tolerance.  Mexico is exposed to unintentional releases of GMO into the environment. It will cause a problem when diversity is affected. Therefore, there is a need to develop procedures that will allow the detection or identification of transgenes in GMO as well as in GMO-related products. The objective of this study is to develop and validate some procedures to detect transgenes in GMO and GMO-derived products using PCR-based assays. Increase reproducibility and the use of accessible reagents are important part of the strategy in order to standardize and facilitate its implementation through different laboratories.

Outcome of the public consultation on the draft guidance for renewal applications of genetically modified food and feed authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

EFSA Supporting PublicationsVolume 12, Issue 6 825E Technical reportOpen Access Outcome of the public consultation on the draft guidance for renewal applications of genetically modified food and feed authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)Search for more papers by this author European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)Search for more papers by this author First published: 18 June 2015 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.EN-825 Published date: 18 June 2015 Question number: EFSA-Q-2014-00465 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2006. Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for renewal of authorisations of existing GMO products lawfully placed on the market, notified according to Articles 8 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. EFSA Journal 2006, 435, 1– 4. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), 2010a. Scientific opinion on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(7):1700, 168 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1700 EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), 2010b. Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(11):1879, 111 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879 EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), 2011. Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2011; 9(5):2150, 37 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2150 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2015. Guidance for renewal applications of genetically modified food and feed authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. EFSA Journal 2015; 13(6):4129, 8 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4219 Wu JY, Xiao JF, Wang LP, Zhong J, Yin HY, Wu SX, Zhang Z and Yu J, 2013. Systematic analysis of intron size and abundance parameters in diverse lineages. Science China Life Sciences, 56, 968– 974. Volume12, Issue6June 2015825E ReferencesRelatedInformation

Empirical evidence on the trade impact of asynchronous regulatory approval of new GMO events

This paper focuses on the ex-post empirical analysis of the trade impact of asynchronous regulatory approval of new genetically modified organism (GMO) events. We contribute to the literature in three ways: first, we define indices to assess the extent of asynchronicity and the relative strictness of the GMO approval authorizations of 40 countries considering GMO regulatory developments between 2000 and 2012 regarding cotton, maize and soybeans. Second, we introduce indices that are country-pair specific, product-specific, and year-specific in a gravity model to examine the trade impact of asynchronous regulatory approval across countries. By grouping the countries according to the state of their national regulatory GMO frameworks, we have an even more differentiated view on the trade impact of asynchronous approval that focuses not only on the existence of regulations but also on their restrictiveness. The results from the gravity model show that asynchronous approval has negatively impacted trade flows of cotton, maize and soybeans. It is observed that both asynchronous approvals and the restrictiveness of importing countries’ regulations to address the importation of GMO products matter, meaning those countries that have already adopted a comprehensive GMO regulatory framework and have policies to manage the importation of GMO crops tend to feel a higher negative impact on trade flows.

Review of the state of the art of human biomonitoring for chemical substances and its application to human exposure assessment for food safety

EFSA Supporting PublicationsVolume 12, Issue 2 724E External scientific reportOpen Access Review of the state of the art of human biomonitoring for chemical substances and its application to human exposure assessment for food safety Judy Choi, Judy Choi Judy Choi, Alexandra Polcher, Anke JoasSearch for more papers by this authorThit Aarøe Mørck, Thit Aarøe Mørck Thit Aarøe Mørck, Lisbeth E. KnudsenSearch for more papers by this authorAlexandra Polcher, Alexandra Polcher Judy Choi, Alexandra Polcher, Anke JoasSearch for more papers by this authorLisbeth E. Knudsen, Lisbeth E. Knudsen Thit Aarøe Mørck, Lisbeth E. KnudsenSearch for more papers by this authorAnke Joas, Anke Joas Judy Choi, Alexandra Polcher, Anke JoasSearch for more papers by this author Judy Choi, Judy Choi Judy Choi, Alexandra Polcher, Anke JoasSearch for more papers by this authorThit Aarøe Mørck, Thit Aarøe Mørck Thit Aarøe Mørck, Lisbeth E. KnudsenSearch for more papers by this authorAlexandra Polcher, Alexandra Polcher Judy Choi, Alexandra Polcher, Anke JoasSearch for more papers by this authorLisbeth E. Knudsen, Lisbeth E. Knudsen Thit Aarøe Mørck, Lisbeth E. KnudsenSearch for more papers by this authorAnke Joas, Anke Joas Judy Choi, Alexandra Polcher, Anke JoasSearch for more papers by this author First published: 24 February 2015 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.EN-724Citations: 30 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. Published date: 24 February 2015 Question number: EFSA-Q-2013-00304 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Åkesson A, Julin B and Wolk A, 2008. Long-term Dietary Cadmium Intake and Postmenopausal Endometrial Cancer Incidence: A Population-Based Prospective Cohort Study. Cancer Research, 68, 6435– 6441. Alexander J, Benford D, Boobis A, Eskola M, Fink-Gremmels J, Fürst P, Heppner C, Schlatter J and van Leeuwen R 2012. Risk assessment of contaminants in food and feed. EFSA Journal 2012; 10(10):s1004, 12 pp. Alfthan G, Aspila P, Ekholm P, Eurola M, Hartikainen H, Hero H, Hietaniemi V, Root T, Salminen P, Venäläinen ER and Aro A, 2011. Nationwide supplementation of sodium selenate to commercial fertilizers: history and 25-year results from the Finnish selenium monitoring programme (Chap. 17, pp. 312– 337). Wallingford: CABI. Alfthan G, Eurola M, Ekholm P, Venalainen ER, Root T, Korkalainen K, Hartikainen H, Salminen P, Hietaniemi V, Aspila P, Aro A and for the Selenium Working G, 2014. Effects of nationwide addition of selenium to fertilizers on foods, and animal and human health in Finland: From deficiency to optimal selenium status of the population. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, doi:10.1016/j.jtemb.2014.1004.1009. Alimonti A, Bocca B, Mattei D and Pino A 2011. Programme for biomonitoring the Italian population exposure (PROBE): internal dose of metals. 98 pp. Ambrus Á, Horváth Z, Farkas Z, Cseh J, Petrova S, Dimitrov P, Duleva V, Rangelova L, Chikova-Iscener E, Ovaskainen M-L, Pakkala H, Heinemeyer G, Lindtner O, Schweter A, Naska A, Sekuła W, Guiomar S, Lopes C and Torres D 2013. Pilot study in the view of a Pan-European dietary survey – adolescents, adults and elderly. EFSA Supporting Publications 2013:EN-508, 104 pp. Andersen AM and Olsen J, 2011. The Danish National Birth Cohort: selected scientific contributions within perinatal epidemiology and future perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 39, 115– 120. Angerer J, Aylward LL, Hays SM, Heinzow B and Wilhelm M, 2011. Human biomonitoring assessment values: approaches and data requirements. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 214, 348– 360. Angerer J, Bird MG, Burke TA, Doerrer NG, Needham L, Robison SH, Sheldon L and Zenick H, 2006. Strategic biomonitoring initiatives: moving the science forward. Toxicological Sciences, 93, 3– 10. Angerer J, Ewers U and Wilhelm M, 2007. Human biomonitoring: state of the art. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 210, 201– 228. Angerer J, Koch HM and Schindler BK, 2012. [ Personal communication]. Antignac JP, Veyrand B, Kadar H, Marchand P, Oleko A, Le Bizec B and Vandentorren S, 2013. Occurrence of perfluorinated alkylated substances in breast milk of French women and relation with socio-demographical and clinical parameters: results of the ELFE pilot study. Chemosphere, 91, 802– 808. Aylward LL and Hays SM, 2008. Biomonitoring Equivalents (BE) dossier for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) (CAS No. 94-75-7). Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 51, S37– 48. Aylward LL, Hays SM, Smolders R, Koch HM, Cocker J, Jones K, Warren N, Levy L and Bevan R, 2014. Sources of variability in biomarker concentrations. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, Critical Reviews, 17, 45– 61. Baeyens W, Vrijens J, Gao Y, Croes K, Schoeters G, Den Hond E, Sioen I, Bruckers L, Nawrot T, Nelen V, Van Den Mieroop E, Morrens B, Loots I, Van Larebeke N and Leermakers M, 2014. Trace metals in blood and urine of newborn/mother pairs, adolescents and adults of the Flemish population (2007-2011). International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 217, 878– 890. Barker DJ, 2004. The developmental origins of adult disease. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 23, 588S– 595S. Batariova A, Cerna M, Spevackova V, Cejchanova M, Benes B and Smid J, 2005. Whole blood selenium content in healthy adults in the Czech Republic. Science of the Total Environment, 338, 183– 188. Bearer C, 1995. Environmental health hazards: how children are different from adults. Future Child, 5 11– 26. Becker K, Goen T, Seiwert M, Conrad A, Pick-Fuss H, Muller J, Wittassek M, Schulz C and Kolossa-Gehring M, 2009. GerES IV: phthalate metabolites and bisphenol A in urine of German children. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 212, 685– 692. Becker K, Müssig-Zufika M, Conrad A, Lüdecke A, Schulz C, Seiwert M and Kolossa-Gehring M, 2008. German Environmental Survey for Children 2003/06 (GerES IV), Human Biomonitoring-Levels of selected substances in blood and urine of children in Germany. 93 pp. Becker K, Seiwert M, Angerer J, Kolossa-Gehring M, Hoppe HW, Ball M, Schulz C, Thumulla J and Seifert B, 2006. GerES IV Pilot Study: Assessment of the exposure of German children to organophosphorus and pyrethroid pesticides. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 209, 221– 233. Becker K, Seiwert M, Casteleyn L, Joas R, Joas A, Biot P, Aerts D, Castano A, Esteban M, Angerer J, Koch HM, Schoeters G, Den Hond E, Sepai O, Exley K, Knudsen LE, Horvat M, Bloemen L, Kolossa-Gehring M and consortium D, 2014. A systematic approach for designing a HBM pilot study for Europe. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 217, 312– 322. Berlin CM, Crase BL, Furst P, LaKind JS, Moy G, Needham LL, Pugh LC and Tully MR, 2005. Methodologic considerations for improving and facilitating human milk research. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 68, 1803– 1823. Bjelland M, Hausken SE, Sleddens EF, Andersen LF, Lie HC, Finset A, Maes L, Melbye EL, Glavin K, Hanssen-Bauer MW and Lien N, 2014. Development of family and dietary habits questionnaires: the assessment of family processes, dietary habits and adolescents' impulsiveness in Norwegian adolescents and their parents. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11, 130. Bjorklund KL, Vahter M, Palm B, Grander M, Lignell S and Berglund M, 2012. Metals and trace element concentrations in breast milk of first time healthy mothers: a biological monitoring study. Environmental Health, 11, 92. Bocca B, Mattei D, Pino A and Alimonti A, 2010. Italian network for human biomonitoring of metals: preliminary results from two Regions. Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 46, 259– 265. Bocca B, Pino A and Alimonti A, 2013. Metals as biomarkers of the environmental human exposure. Paper presented at the E3S Web of Conferences. Bonefeld-Jorgensen EC, 2004. The Human Health Effect Programme in Greenland, a review. Science of the Total Environment, 331, 215– 231. Bonefeld-Jorgensen EC, 2010. Biomonitoring in Greenland: human biomarkers of exposure and effects – a short review. Rural Remote Health, 10, 1362. Boogaard PJ, Hays SM and Aylward LL, 2011. Human biomonitoring as a pragmatic tool to support health risk management of chemicals–examples under the EU REACH programme. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 59, 125– 132. Brantsaeter AL, Haugen M, Mul A, Bjellaas T, Becher G, Klaveren JV, Alexander J and Meltzer HM, 2008. Exploration of different methods to assess dietary acrylamide exposure in pregnant women participating in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46, 2808– 2814. Bulgaroni V, Rovedatti MG, Sabino G and Magnarelli G, 2012. Organophosphate pesticide environmental exposure: Analysis of salivary cholinesterase and carboxilesterase activities in preschool children and their mothers. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184, 3307– 3314. Burillo-Putze G, Luzardo OP, Garcia CP, Zumbado M, Yanes C, Del Mar Trujillo-Martin M, Boada Fernandez del Campo C and Boada LD, 2014. [Exposure to persistent and non-persistent pesticides in a non-occupationally exposed population in Tenerife Island (Spain)]. Gaceta Sanitaria, 28, 301– 304. Calafat AM, Wong LY, Silva MJ, Samandar E, Preau JL, Jr., Jia LT and Needham LL, 2011. Selecting adequate exposure biomarkers of diisononyl and diisodecyl phthalates: data from the 2005–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119, 50– 55. Cañas AI, Cervantes-Amat M, Esteban M, Ruiz-Moraga M, Pérez-Gómez B, Mayor J and Castaño A, 2014. Blood lead levels in a representative sample of the Spanish adult population: The BIOAMBIENT.ES project. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 217, 452– 459. Caporossi L, Santoro A and Papaleo B, 2010. Saliva as an analytical matrix: State of the art and application for biomonitoring. Biomarkers, 15, 475– 487. Casas M, Chevrier C, Hond ED, Fernandez MF, Pierik F, Philippat C, Slama R, Toft G, Vandentorren S, Wilhelm M and Vrijheid M, 2013. Exposure to brominated flame retardants, perfluorinated compounds, phthalates and phenols in European birth cohorts: ENRIECO evaluation, first human biomonitoring results, and recommendations. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 216, 230– 242. Castano A, Sanchez-Rodriguez JE, Canas A, Esteban M, Navarro C, Rodriguez-Garcia AC, Arribas M, Diaz G and Jimenez-Guerrero JA, 2012. Mercury, lead and cadmium levels in the urine of 170 Spanish adults: a pilot human biomonitoring study. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 215, 191– 195. Casteleyn L, Biot P and Viso AC, 2009. From human biomarkers to human biomonitoring in environmental health in Europe – Highlights of the Conference held in Paris on November 4-5, 2008. Bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire, Special edition. Casteleyn L, Dumez B, Becker K, Kolossa-Gehring M, Den Hond E, Schoeters G, Castaño A, Esteban M, Angerer J, Koch HM, Bloemen L, Exley K, Sepai O, Knudsen LE, Horvat M, Joas A, Joas R, Aerts D, Biot P, Koppen G, Dewolf MC, Katsonouri A, Hadjipanayis A, Cerna M, Krskova A, Schwedler G, Fiddicke U, Nielsen JKS, Jensen JF, Rudnai P, Kozepesy S, Mulcahy M, Mannion R, Gutleb AC, Fischer MA, Ligocka D, Jakubowski M, Reis MF, Namorado S, Lupsa IR, Gurzau AE, Halzlova K, Jajcaj M, Mazej D, Snoj JT, Posada M, Lopez E, Berglund M, Larsson K, Lehmann A, Biot P, Crettaz P and Aerts D, in press. A pilot study on the feasibility of European harmonized human biomonitoring: challenges and opportunities. Environmental Research. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), 2005. Biomonitoring data definition of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/statistics/bio/. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), 2011. Fourth national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. 514 pp. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), 2013. NHANES 2011- 2012: Serum Cotinine and Urinary Total NNAL. Retrieved from http://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/2011-2012/COTNAL_G.htm. Cerna M, Krskova A, Cejchanova M and Spevackova V, 2012. Human biomonitoring in the Czech Republic: an overview. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 215, 109– 119. Cerna M, Spevackova V, Batariova A, Smid J, Cejchanova M, Ocadlikova D, Bavorova H, Benes B and Kubinova R, 2007. Human biomonitoring system in the Czech Republic. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 210, 495– 499. Cerna M, Spevackova V, Cejchanova M, Benes B, Rossner P, Bavorova H, Ocadlikova D, Smid J and Kubinova R, 1997. Population-based biomonitoring in the Czech Republic–the system and selected results. Science of the Total Environment, 204, 263– 270. Chadeau-Hyam M, Vermeulen RCH, Hebels DGAJ, Castagné R, Campanella G, Portengen L, Kelly RS, Bergdahl IA, Melin B, Hallmans G, Palli D, Krogh V, Tumino R, Sacerdote C, Panico S, de Kok TMCM, Smith MT, Kleinjans JCS, Vineis P, Kyrtopoulos SA and consortium obotEp, 2014. Prediagnostic transcriptomic markers of Chronic lymphocytic leukemia reveal perturbations 10 years before diagnosis. Annals of Oncology, 25, 1065– 1072. Clewell HJ, Tan YM, Campbell JL and Andersen ME, 2008. Quantitative interpretation of human biomonitoring data. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 231, 122– 133. Commission of the European Communities 2007. Mid Term Review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004–2010. 10. Corcellas C, Feo ML, Torres JP, Malm O, Ocampo-Duque W, Eljarrat E and Barcelo D, 2012. Pyrethroids in human breast milk: occurrence and nursing daily intake estimation. Environment International, 47, 17– 22. Croes K, De Coster S, De Galan S, Morrens B, Loots I, Van de Mieroop E, Nelen V, Sioen I, Bruckers L, Nawrot T, Colles A, Den Hond E, Schoeters G, van Larebeke N, Baeyens W and Gao Y, 2014. Health effects in the Flemish population in relation to low levels of mercury exposure: from organ to transcriptome level. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 217, 239– 247. Darnerud PO, Eriksen GS, Johannesson T, Larsen PB and Viluksela M, 2001. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers: occurrence, dietary exposure, and toxicology. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109 Suppl 1, 49– 68. Darnerud PO, Lignell S, Glynn A, Aune M, Tornkvist A and Stridsberg M, 2010. POP levels in breast milk and maternal serum and thyroid hormone levels in mother-child pairs from Uppsala, Sweden. Environment International, 36, 180– 187. De Felip E, Bianchi F, Bove C, Cori L, D'Argenzio A, D'Orsi G, Fusco M, Miniero R, Ortolani R, Palombino R, Parlato A, Pelliccia MG, Peluso F, Piscopo G, Pizzuti R, Porpora MG, Protano D, Senofonte O, Spena SR, Simonetti A and di Domenico A, 2014. Priority persistent contaminants in people dwelling in critical areas of Campania Region, Italy (SEBIOREC biomonitoring study). Science of the Total Environment, 487, 420– 435. Den Hond E, Paulussen M, Geens T, Bruckers L, Baeyens W, David F, Dumont E, Loots I, Morrens B, de Bellevaux BN, Nelen V, Schoeters G, Van Larebeke N and Covaci A, 2013. Biomarkers of human exposure to personal care products: results from the Flemish Environment and Health Study (FLEHS 2007–2011). Science of the Total Environment, 463– 464, 102-110. Deutch B, Pedersen HS and Hansen JC, 2004. Dietary composition in Greenland 2000, plasma fatty acids and persistent organic pollutants. Science of the Total Environment, 331, 177– 188. Duarte-Salles T, Mendez MA, Meltzer HM, Alexander J and Haugen M, 2013a. Dietary benzo(a)pyrene intake during pregnancy and birth weight: associations modified by vitamin C intakes in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). Environment International, 60, 217– 223. Duarte-Salles T, von Stedingk H, Granum B, Gutzkow KB, Rydberg P, Tornqvist M, Mendez MA, Brunborg G, Brantsaeter AL, Meltzer HM, Alexander J and Haugen M, 2013b. Dietary acrylamide intake during pregnancy and fetal growth-results from the Norwegian mother and child cohort study (MoBa). Environmental Health Perspectives, 121, 374– 379. ECHA (European Chemicals Agency), 2010. Guidance on Derivation of DNEL/DMEL from Human Data. DRAFT (Rev.:2.1). Chapter R.8 Dose (Concentration)-Response Regarding Human Health. 51 pp. ECHA (European Chemicals Agency), 2012. Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC): Opinion on an Annex XV dossier proposing restrictions on four phthalates. 26 pp. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related to a harmonised approach for risk assessment of substances which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic. The EFSA Journal; 282, 1– 31. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2007. Definition and description of “emerging risks” within the EFSA's mandate. 3 pp. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009. Guidance of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. The EFSA Journal; 1150, 1– 72. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2010. Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(6): 1637, 90 pp. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014. Guidance on the EU Menu methodology. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(12):3944, 77 pp. EFSA AFC Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food), 2006. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (AFC) on a request related to a 12th list of substances for food contact materials The EFSA Journal; 395 to 401, 21 pp. EFSA CEF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids), 2015. Scientific Opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs. EFSA Journal 2015; 13(1): 3978. EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2009. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in food. The EFSA Journal; 980, 1– 139. EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2010. Scientific Opinion on Lead in Food. The EFSA Journal; 8(4): 1570, 151 pp. EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2014. Scientific Opinion on the risks for human and animal health related to the presence of modified forms of certain mycotoxins in food and feed. The EFSA Journal; 12(12):3916, 107 pp. EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2006. Guidance document for the renewal of authorisations of existing GMO products by the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The EFSA Journal; 435, 1– 4. EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2011. Panel on GMO; Scientific Opinion on guidance on the Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants. The EFSA Journal; 9(8):2316, 40 pp. EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2013. Scientific Opinion on the developmental neurotoxicity potential of acetamiprid and imidacloprid. The EFSA Journal; 11(12):3471, 47 pp. Ellis JK, Athersuch TJ, Thomas LD, Teichert F, Perez-Trujillo M, Svendsen C, Spurgeon DJ, Singh R, Jarup L, Bundy JG and Keun HC, 2012. Metabolic profiling detects early effects of environmental and lifestyle exposure to cadmium in a human population. BMC Medicine, 10, 61. Esteban M, 2010. Non-invasive biomonitoring of metals using hair. Workshop presentation on noninvasive human biomonitoring, Brussels, Belgium. Esteban M and Castano A, 2009. Non-invasive matrices in human biomonitoring: a review. Environment International, 35, 438– 449. Esteban M, Schindler B, Jiménez-Guerrero J, Koch HM, Angerer J, Rivas T, Rosado M, Gomez S, Casteleyn L, Kolossa-Gehring M, Becker K, Bloemen L, Schoeters G, Den Hond E, Exley K, Sepai O, Knudsen LE, Horvat M, Joas A, Joas R, Aerts D, Biot P, Pirard C, Wittsiepe J, Jones K, Nielsen F, Grander M, Janasik B, Borošová D, Davidson F, Dumitrascu I, Fischer M, Kašparová L, Larssen T, Naray M, Hohenblum P, Plateel G, Tratnik J, EQUAS Reference Laboratories and Castano A, 2014. Mercury analysis in hair: Comparability and quality assessment within the transnational COPHES/DEMOCOPHES project. Environmental Research, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.1011.1014. Falq G, Zeghnoun A, Pascal M, Vernay M, Le Strat Y, Garnier R, Olichon D, Bretin P, Castetbon K and Fréry N, 2011. Blood lead levels in the adult population living in France the French Nutrition and Health Survey (ENNS 2006–2007). Environment International, 37, 565– 571. Fei C, McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L and Olsen J, 2008. Prenatal exposure to perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and maternally reported developmental milestones in infancy. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116, 1391– 1395. Fenech M and Bonassi S, 2011. The effect of age, gender, diet and lifestyle on DNA damage measured using micronucleus frequency in human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Mutagenesis, 26, 43– 49. Fiddicke U, Becker K, Schwedler G, Seiwert M, Joas A, Biot P, Aerts D, Casteleyn L, Dumez B, Castaño A, Esteban M, Angerer J, Koch HM, Schoeters G, Den Hond E, Sepai O, Exley K, Knudsen LE, Horvat M, Bloemen L, Katsonouri A, Hadjipanayis A, Cerna M, Krsková A, Jensen JF, Nielsen JKS, Rudnai P, Középesy S, Gutleb AC, Fischer ME, Ligocka D, Kamińska J, Reis FM, Namorado S, Lupsa I-R, Gurzau A, Halzlová K, Mazej D, Tratnik JS, Rivas TC, Gómez S, Berglund M, Larsson K, Lehmann A, Crettaz P, Dewolf M-C, Burns D, Kellegher A and Kolossa-Gehring M, 2014. Lessons learnt on recruitment and fieldwork from a pilot European human biomonitoring survey. Environmental Research, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.1008.1039. Fillol C, Oleko A, Szego E, Contrerès J, Lemoisson C and Delamaire C, 2013. Design of the French Environmental Health Biomonitoring Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey called “Esteban”. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Biological Monitoring Manchester, Great Britain. Focant JF, Frery N, Bidondo ML, Eppe G, Scholl G, Saoudi A, Oleko A and Vandentorren S, 2013. Levels of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and polychlorinated biphenyls in human milk from different regions of France. Science of the Total Environment, 452– 453, 155-162. Frederiksen H, Jensen TK, Jorgensen N, Boye Kyhl H, Husby S, Skakkebaek NE, Main KM, Juul A and Andersson AM, 2014. Human urinary excretion of non-persistent environmental chemicals: an overview of Danish data collected between 2006–2012. Reproduction, 147, 555– 565. Frederiksen H, Nielsen JK, Morck TA, Hansen PW, Jensen JF, Nielsen O, Andersson AM and Knudsen LE, 2013. Urinary excretion of phthalate metabolites, phenols and parabens in rural and urban Danish mother-child pairs. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 216, 772– 783. Fréry, Saoudi, Garnier, Zeghnoun, Falq and Guldner, 2010. Exposure of the French population to environmental pollutants –Environmental components of the French National Survey on Nutrition and Health – Initial results. French Institute for Public Health Surveillance, September 2010, 12 p. Fréry N, Guldner L, Saoudi A, Garnier R, Zeghnoun A and Bidondo ML Institut de veille sanitaire, 2013. Exposition de la population française aux substances chimiques de l'environnement. Tome 2 – Polychlorobiphényles (PCB-NDL) et pesticides., 178. Fréry N, Saoudi A, Garnier R, Zeghnoun A, Falq G and Guldner L Institut de veille sanitaire, 2011. Exposition de la population française aux substances chimiques de l'environnement. Tome 1 – Présentation générale de l'étude – Métaux et métalloïdes., 151. Fréry N, Vandentorren S, Etchevers A and Fillol C, 2012. Highlights of recent studies and future plans for the French human biomonitoring (HBM) programme. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 215, 127– 132. Glynn A, Aune M, Darnerud PO, Cnattingius S, Bjerselius R, Becker W and Lignell S, 2007. Determinants of serum concentrations of organochlorine compounds in Swedish pregnant women: a cross-sectional study. Environmental Health, 6, 2. Grandjean P, 2010. Even low-dose lead exposure is hazardous. The Lancet, 376, 855– 856. Gutzkow KB, Haug LS, Thomsen C, Sabaredzovic A, Becher G and Brunborg G, 2012. Placental transfer of perfluorinated compounds is selective–a Norwegian Mother and Child sub-cohort study. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 215, 216– 219. Ha M, Kwon HJ, Leem JH, Kim HC, Lee KJ, Park I, Lim YW, Lee JH, Kim Y, Seo JH, Hong SJ, Choi YH, Yu J, Kim J, Yu SD and Lee BE, 2013. Korean Environmental Health Survey in Children and Adolescents (KorEHS-C): survey design and pilot study results on selected exposure biomarkers. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 217, 260– 270. Hays SM and Aylward LL, 2012. Interpreting human biomonitoring data in a public health risk context using Biomonitoring Equivalents. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 215, 145– 148. Health Canada, 2010. Report on human biomonitoring of environmental chemicals in Canada – Results of the Canadian Health Measures Survey Cycle 1 (2007–2009). Health Canada, 2013. Second Report on Human Biomonitoring of Environmental Chemicals in Canada – Results of the Canadian Health Measures Survey Cycle 2 (2009–2011). Hepburn P, Howlett J, Boeing H, Cockburn A, Constable A, Davi A, de Jong N, Moseley B, Oberdorfer R, Robertson C, Wal JM and Samuels F, 2008. The application of post-market monitoring to novel foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46, 9– 33. Hohenblum P and Hutter H-P, 2011. Schadstoffe im Menschen: Ergebnisse einer Human-Biomonitoring-Studie in Österreich. [Pollutants in Humans: Results of a Human Biomonitoring study in Austria]. 100 pp. Hohenblum P, Steinbichl P, Raffesberg W, Weiss S, Moche W, Vallant B, Scharf S, Haluza D, Moshammer H, Kundi M, Piegler B, Wallner P and Hutter H-P, 2012. Pollution gets personal! A first population-based human biomonitoring study in Austria. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 215, 176– 179. Holland NT, Pfleger L, Berger E, Ho A and Bastaki M, 2005. Molecular epidemiology biomarkers–sample collection and processing considerations. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 206, 261– 268. Horvat M, Mazej D, Tratnik J, Lapanje S, Krsnik M, Briški AS, Kobal AE and Kononenko L, 2011, November 30, 2011. HBM Surveillance Programme in Slovenia. Paper presented at the Workshop on HBM, Brussels, Belgium. Huang W, Caudill SP, Grainger J, Needham LL and Patterson DG, Jr., 2006. Levels of 1-hydroxypyrene and other monohydroxy polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in children: a study based on U.S. reference range values. Toxicology Letters, 163, 10– 19. Huetos

A novel GMO biosensor for rapid ultrasensitive and simultaneous detection of multiple DNA components in GMO products

Since the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), there has been on-going and continuous concern and debates on the commercialization of products derived from GMOs. There is an urgent need for development of highly efficient analytical methods for rapid and high throughput screening of GMOs components, as required for appropriate labeling of GMO-derived foods, as well as for on-site inspection and import/export quarantine. In this study, we describe, for the first time, a multi-labeling based electrochemical biosensor for simultaneous detection of multiple DNA components of GMO products on the same sensing interface. Two-round signal amplification was applied by using both an exonuclease enzyme catalytic reaction and gold nanoparticle-based bio-barcode related strategies, respectively. Simultaneous multiple detections of different DNA components of GMOs were successfully achieved with satisfied sensitivity using this electrochemical biosensor. Furthermore, the robustness and effectiveness of the proposed approach was successfully demonstrated by application to various GMO products, including locally obtained and confirmed commercial GMO seeds and transgenetic plants. The proposed electrochemical biosensor demonstrated unique merits that promise to gain more interest in its use for rapid and on-site simultaneous multiple screening of different components of GMO products.

Recommendations from a Meeting on Health Implications of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)

The Ghana Public Health Association organized a scientific seminar to examine the introduction of genetically modified organisms into public use and the health consequences. The seminar was driven by current public debate on the subject. The seminar identified some of the advantages of GMOs and also the health concerns. It is clear that there is the need to enhance local capacity to research the introduction and use of GMOs; to put in place appropriate regulatory mechanisms including particularly the labeling of GMO products and post-marketing surveillance for possible negative health consequences in the long term. Furthermore the appropriate state agency should put in place advocacy strategies to keep the public informed about GMOs.

The use of GMOs and consumers' rights in the European Union

Most European consumers are against the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) products. Nevertheless, the European Union (EU) does not set particular limits to GMOs intake while it is restrictive with regard to GMOs farming. As consequence nine Member States, including France, Italy and Germany, have adopted measures to forbid GMOs farming on their land. Worldwide, the EU is the main importer of GMOs products for feeds and this is not consistent with the choice made by these countries. This could result in any reduction in the appreciation of consumers towards quality products and could jeopardise the economic value of the entire quality product section. As consequence, the voluntary certification could represent an effective answer to overcome the normative ambiguities and to create new market opportunities, for the benefit of both producers and consumers.

Marketing Genetically Modified Organism Carnations by Future Floral Designers: Student-designed Policy Formulation

Genetically modified organism (GMO) crops provide new trait(s) that may benefit floral designers and consumers. A limited array of GMO cut flower cultivars exist in the floral markets worldwide: nine carnations (Dianthus caryophyllus) and one rose (Rosa ×hybrida). Labeling GMO flowers in the United States is not required. Thus, most distributors, flower auctions, brokers, wholesalers, floral designers and consumers are not aware that they exist. To test the acceptance of GMO cut flowers with potential future floral designers, n = 121 students enrolled in Floral Design (HORT 1013) at the University of Minnesota during 2005–07, 2009, and 2011, designed with standard and miniature GMO Moon™ series carnations. Each student created a Hogarth design with both types of carnations and assembled a price sheet. Students examined the differences between GMO lavender/purple carnations and those created with classic methods of spraying, dipping, or infusion. In 2009 only, students were also assigned to write a marketing paragraph about their GMO floral design. Each year, students were given an identical question on a subsequent midterm examination to determine their position on GMO cut flowers, including development of a floral shop policy to inform customers. Student examination responses ranged from not carrying GMO products [1/121 (0.8% response)], offering GMO/non-GMO carnation options to the consumer [81/121 (66.9% response)], or only selling only GMOs [33/121 (27.3% response)] that differed significantly from a 1:1:1 chi-square (χ2). A significant majority of students would inform their customers of the GMO crops [89/121 (73.6% response)]. In several instances, consumers were not to be informed of the GMO nature unless they queried about the higher price point. Similarly, marketing paragraphs did not uniformly highlight the GMO nature of the flowers. Implications for the next generation of floral designers demonstrate that, with the exception of students in 2005–06, most would sell both GMO and non-GMO flowers with a majority of shops clearly identifying GMOs.

Agrarian reforms and the African Green Revolution

Purpose – Agricultural intensification is central to the Green Revolution (GR) programme. This initiative, which dates back to the early 1940s, revolves around the development of high-yielding and disease-resistant seed varieties that aims at bringing about efficient and secure food production. The purpose of this paper is to present a brief genesis and thrust of the GR. Focusing on Nigeria as a typical African case, the discourse addresses the political economy of the Nigerian agriculture, outlines the features of the Nigerian GR and highlights some crucial issues debated during the 2008 Salzburg Global Seminar (SGS) conference for a uniquely African GR as a pro-poor development strategy. Design/methodology/approach – Using a critical discourse analysis and case study design, the paper analyses the political and bureaucratic lapses associated with the introduction and implementation of the reform. Findings – Although wary of some of the socio-political and environmental issues surrounding the production of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and high external inputs (HEIs) in the push for a new African GR, the paper reports the proceedings of the Salzburg conference as a likely platform for the formulation of new pro-poor policies in the context of the African GR. If sincerely and properly implemented, the paper argues that an African-oriented GR framework is conceived as a possible policy window to address the challenges of the continent ' s poor majority. Social implications – The policy issues raised in the paper would serve as a pool of information from which policy conceptualisation, formulation and implementation could be derived for the good of the African agrarian economies and poor majority. Originality/value – Highlighted issues on the debates on a “uniquely” African GR during the SGS conference provide original insights to the implementation of agrarian reforms in Africa. The paper is valuable to policy makers and other stakeholders in re-shaping the agricultural sector in the continent.

Response to issues on GM agriculture in Africa: Are transgenic crops safe?

The controversies surrounding transgenic crops, often called Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), call for a need to raise the level of public awareness of Genetic Modification (GM) technology in Africa. This should be accomplished by educating the public about the potential benefits and risks that may be associated with this new technology. In the last 15 years, GM crop producing countries have benefited from adoption of this new technology in the form of improved crop productivity, food security, and quality of life. The increased income to resource-poor farmers is a key benefit at the individual level especially as most countries using this technology are in the developing world, including three African countries (South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt). Despite clear benefits to countries and farmers who grow GMOs, many people are concerned about suspected potential risks associated with GMOs. This sparks debate as to whether GM technology should be adopted or not. Given the concerns regarding the safety of GMO products, thorough scientific investigation of safe application of GMOs is required. The objective of this paper is to respond to the issues of GM agriculture in Africa and some of the issues surrounding the adoption of GM crops between developed and developing countries. In this article, I analyse relevant papers relating to the adoption of GM technology particularly in developing countries including the few African countries that have adopted GM crops. The issues discussed span a wide range including: safety; potential benefits and risks; disputes between the United States of America (USA) and the European Union (EU) over adoption of GM crops with a focus on Africa continent. This article is concluded by summarising the issues raised and how GM technology can be adopted for agricultural development in Africa.

GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food

Proponents of using genetically modified (GM) crops and food in the developing world often claim that it is unjust not to use GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. In reply, the critics of GMOs claim that while GMOs may be useful as a technological means to increase yields and crop quality, stable and efficient institutions are required in order to provide the benefits from GMO technology. In this debate, the GMO proponents tend to rely on a simple utilitarian type of calculus that highlights the benefits of GMOs to the poor, but that overlooks the complex institutional requirements necessary for GMO production. The critics, recognizing the importance of institutional conditions, focus primarily on the negative impacts of institutional deficiencies, thereby overlooking the basically Rawlsian claim that institutions per se may generate claims to justice. This article investigates how GMOs might generate claims to global justice and what type of justice is involved. The paper argues that the debate on GMOs and global justice can be categorized into three views, i.e., the cosmopolitan, the pluralist, and the sceptic. The cosmopolitan holds that GMOs can and should be used for alleviating global hunger, whereas the sceptic rejects this course of action. I will argue here for a moderately cosmopolitan approach, relying on the pluralist view of institutions and the need to exploit the benefits of GMOs. This argument rests on the premise that global cooperation on GMO production provides the relevant basis for assessing the use of GMOs by the standard of global distributive justice.

Trade, GMOs and Environmental Risk: Are Current Policies Likely to Improve Welfare?

Food with inputs from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has met considerable skepticism among European Union (EU) consumers. The EU import ban on GM food has triggered a great deal of controversy and has been partly replaced by a mandatory labeling scheme. Although there is no measure in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that directly addresses the use of product labeling, WTO and others have been skeptical to mandatory product labeling on the grounds that they may be used as hidden protectionism hampering global welfare. This study has two foci. First, we examine how different policies for the production and use of GMOs might influence the market outcome in consumer food markets. Second, we evaluate the welfare effects of the policy measures. We find that mandatory labeling often increases domestic welfare and, may also enhance global welfare. On the other hand, a trade ban is more likely to decrease global welfare.

Perceptions and Attitudes of Riyadh University Students towards Products Derived from Genetically Modified Crops in Saudi Arabia

A survey was conducted during 2008 to assess the attitudes and perceptions of the Riyadh University students towards genetically modified crops and foods. Using descriptive analysis, it was found that the majority of surveyed students had good knowledge of genetic modifications, but lack knowledge about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) values. Most respondents would not purchase clearly labelled GMO products, though considerable number of the respondents was ready to taste or try the products. It is evident from these results that majority of university students who participated in this survey, in general had very little information or didn't know the genetic engineering technology e.g., gene therapy, fingerprinting, role in reducing pesticide application etc., as appeared in the results, therefore, most of the participants did not know or thought GM foods are harmful and could not be easily detected. The implication of this result is that majority will not support GM products.

Reconciling the Bio Safety Protocol and the WTO Regime: Problems, Perspectives and Possibilities

Problem statement: The issue of regulation of international trade in Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) evokes a very unique, passionate and emotional debate between environmentalists and businesses. At the conceptual level itself, like most other multilateral environmental agreements, the Cartagena Protocol appears to be incompatible with the WTO Rules. Approach: Further, since there is precious little scientific certainty on the actual and potential impact of GMOs on environment and human health, and because the debate spans cultural and philosophical contours, domestic regulation of GMOs vary substantially. The most vocal among such divergences has been the trans-atlantic rift between the US and the European Community regarding the application and interpretation of the precautionary principle. All these negatively hamper international trade and fragment international market, thereby decreasing economies of scale, which in turn is a huge setback to the massive research and development costs involved in the production of GMOs. It is a particularly challenging scenario for developing countries, as it directly affects their exports, even of organic products. Results: The authors strongly believe that the benefits of bio-technology shall not be wholly abandoned without proper scientific evidence; because the evolution of an environmentally safe and risk-free GM product has the potential to become the panacea for global food shortage and inequity. Conclusion/Recommendations: The study will first examine the apparent conflict and tension between the Cartagena Protocol and the WTO regime. Secondly, the language of the savings clause in the Cartagena Protocol would be analyzed, to emphasize that the Protocol was envisaged to be in force with equal primacy to the WTO regime and that WTO rules can be harmoniously interpreted with the Protocol, in a manner that is beneficial to both. Next, it would be elaborated on how the Cartagena Protocol in effect supports and strengthens the existing WTO regime by better defining the precautionary principle. Therefore, through this study, we seek to suggest a possible way forward to sustainable development-by arguing that the Cartagena Protocol and WTO regime are capable of a mutually beneficial existence. In the years to come, such a harmonious interpretation would definitely become crucial for stabilizing and strengthening the international regime governing trade in GMOs.

Outside Looking In: Understanding the Role of Science in Regulation

Vol. 117, No. 3 EnvironewsOpen AccessOutside Looking In: Understanding the Role of Science in Regulation Tim Lougheed Tim Lougheed Search for more papers by this author Published:1 March 2009https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.117-a104Cited by:5AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail When Rachel Carson took on the task of defining environmental health advocacy in the early 1960s, she made the business of government oversight look simple and straightforward. “Much of the necessary knowledge is now available, but we do not use it,” she wrote in her 1962 book Silent Spring. “We train ecologists in our universities and even employ them in our government agencies, but we seldom take their advice. We allow the chemical death rain to fall as though there were no alternative, whereas in fact there are many, and our ingenuity could soon discover more if given opportunity.”Carson would likely be dazzled by the extent to which governments of all stripes have since called on scientific experts to help populate a regulatory galaxy that extends from the humblest of municipal bailiwicks to the global economy. Nevertheless, the unfolding of this new world of prevention and protection has been neither tidy nor consistent. The scientific community generates volumes of data about potential hazards to human health, but the process of interpretation—resulting ultimately in the development of policy—is often heavily shaped by political, economic, and even cultural interests, which can vary dramatically from one hazard to the next, as well as from one jurisdiction to the next.The outcome of any regulatory deliberation can therefore be unexpected and downright frustrating. A given agent might be labeled a toxic threat in one place while being tolerated without prejudice somewhere else, even as the architects of each policy looked at the very same data. That prospect might puzzle many thoughtful and earnest observers who believe definitive scientific findings should yield equally definitive responses.Daniel Sarewitz recalls his early days as a Congressional Science Fellow in 1989. “The scales fell from my eyes after about a week of being [in Washington, DC],” he says. “When you’re a scientist working in academia, what you see is scientists arguing about difficult problems to try to arrive at the truth. When you’re on the Hill, you realize what’s really going on is these problems are complicated both in terms of the science and in terms of the values. It’s possible to bring many different scientific lenses—interpretations of data, choices of what data to use, what theories to use—to any given complex problem. Not surprisingly, those choices end up mapping onto value preferences and political preferences.”Today Sarewitz is director of the Consortium for Science, Policy, & Outcomes, which, in its own words, seeks to enhance the capacity of public policy to link scientific research to beneficial societal outcomes. But Sarewitz says the consortium faces resistance in moving these perspectives into open public debate. The difficulty, as he outlined in an article in the October 2004 issue of Environmental Science & Policy, stems from a common desire of both advocates and opponents of any given regulation to invoke science to make their respective cases. The former will insist that current knowledge warrants doing something, while the latter point to uncertainties in that same knowledge as justification for doing less, or perhaps nothing.A Case in PointThe example of bisphenol A (BPA) has recently testified to the ever more intricate subtleties of the regulatory review process. This organic compound is a building block in a number of widely used polymers, including the protective coating applied to the inside of food cans and the plastics used to form beverage containers such as baby bottles. Agencies in North America and Europe have regularly considered the potential health implications of this product ever since it entered commercial use more than 50 years ago.Although various animal models raised questions about specific hazards—such as altering hormonal balances in rats—regulators generally concluded that any effect on humans was too small to yield measurable effects. Canada broke with international consensus in 2008, however, when it declared BPA toxic under its 1999 Canadian Environment Protection Act (CEPA), which applies to activities of two key federal departments, Environment Canada and Health Canada. “We have concluded that early development is sensitive to the effects of bisphenol A,” stated Health Minister Tony Clement in his formal announcement of the government’s move. “Although our science tells us exposure levels to newborns and infants are below the levels that cause effects, it is better to be safe than sorry. And so, if no new, relevant, and compelling information comes forward during the public consultation period, it is our intention to ban the importation, sale, and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles.”Meanwhile, in 2006, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an independent risk assessment agency under the European Union, had conducted its own evaluation of BPA and concluded that, for the general population, exposure to the chemical was well below the tolerable daily intake (TDI), or the highest dose that can be tolerated every day without adverse effects. This TDI was based on the findings of several toxicity studies in rats, which together had yielded a specific NOAEL (no-observed-adverse-effect level, or the highest dose at which an adverse effect is not seen).In July 2008, EFSA re-examined the safety of BPA, focusing on the possible differences between neonates and adults (in both humans and rats) in eliminating BPA from the body. EFSA’s scientific panel concluded that neonates are sufficiently capable of eliminating BPA from the body and that, because of metabolic differences, rats are more exposed to BPA than are humans. Shortly before Canada declared BPA toxic, EFSA made a public statement contending that the existing body of data on BPA did not warrant such action on its part.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for its part, made specific reference to that EFSA observation and to a similar report from the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in reaching its own conclusions about the safety of BPA. “Each of these documents considered the question of a possible low-dose effect and concluded that no current [human] health risk exists for BPA at the current exposure level,” stated an agency release issued in spring 2008. The FDA declared BPA safe in a draft assessment released 15 August 2008, but by October, a subcommittee of the FDA Science Board issued a report challenging the agency’s conclusions, describing the assessment’s defined margin of safety as inadequate.Steven Hentges, whose perspective as a representative of the American Chemistry Council became part of the official record of an October 31 meeting of the board, rejects this characterization. “This definitive conclusion and other similar statements in the report do not appear to be based on a sound and thorough scientific analysis, and in particular, one that follows the subcommittee’s own recommendations,” he said.What’s the Bottom Line?The debate around BPA could look arcane to a parent who simply wants to know if baby’s bottle is at all harmful. For George Enei, acting director general of Environment Canada’s Science and Risk Assessment Directorate, the issue sits within a larger bureaucratic context. “Most people ask the question ‘How can a chemical substance be toxic in Canada but not in the United States or vice versa?’” he says. “The basic answer is that, while each country is following the same scientific methods and protocols, our respective legislation is different.”Enei explains that whereas the United States combines various processes of environmental health assessment and management, Canada has separated them into three steps under CEPA. “We conduct a risk assessment that assembles all of the available science to determine if a substance is harmful or has the potential to cause harm to humans or the environment,” he says. “If the answer is yes, the substance is added to the list of toxic substances. Once the substance is on the list, we have access to a variety of options under CEPA to manage the risks that the assessment has identified. These include pollution prevention plans, regulations, or, in extreme cases, eliminating the substance from being used or brought into Canada.”Enei credits Canada with taking these efforts further with its Chemicals Management Plan, leading the international community in a comprehensive sorting of no fewer than 23,000 chemicals that could pose some kind of threat to the environment or human health. Since the launch of this initiative in 2006, the United States and European Union have followed suit with similar programs: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Chemicals Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) and the European Commission’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH) system. The three programs are equally ambitious, addressing tens of thousands of agents old and new.BPA had been among 200 chemicals singled out by the Chemicals Management Plan for inclusion in a “challenge to industry,” meaning these chemicals were flagged as the most likely to cause environmental and/or health problems, and their manufacturers would be among the first to be asked about how these substances were being handled. Also, under provisions of CEPA, screening assessments examine scientific information and develop conclusions by incorporating weight-of-evidence and precautionary approaches.Barbara McElgunn, health policy officer with the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, has been examining the scientific findings around BPA and developmental neurotoxicity for years. “This is the first time in my memory that Canada has really taken the lead on any chemical in terms of regulation,” she says, noting that all too often regulatory policies have lagged behind decisions already made in the United States.That might also have happened with respect to BPA, she adds, but the Chemicals Management Plan appears to have added momentum to Canada’s work in this field. By setting a fresh agenda that transcends the mandates of existing government departments, this new program managed to bring at least one longstanding debate to the fore.“The tipping point is public political concern,” McElgunn says. “When you raise public political concern, then it seems that regulators can take action. If there’s no public concern and only scientific concern, it’s a different kettle of fish, unfortunately.”Complexity and Competing InterestsIn the view of Peter Andrée, a political scientist at Carleton University in Ottawa, government actors will incorporate other factors outside of scientific evidence into their decisions, regardless of how much respect they have for the pertinent science. In this way he explains discrepancies in bureaucratic attitudes toward recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST, also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone, rbGH) a synthetic version of a protein produced in the pituitary glands of cattle that enhances milk output.The FDA sanctioned the use of rbST across the United States in 1993, while Health Canada eventually banned it in 1999, despite the findings of an independent review panel that there was “no biologically plausible reason for concern about human safety if rbST were to be approved for sale in Canada.” That panel’s only proviso was an rbST oral toxicity study in rats that resulted in a single test animal developing an antibody response at low dosage.In its 1999 Report on the Food and Drug Administration’s Review of the Safety of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin, the FDA wrote that “such response was consistent with that produced by a number of food proteins and is not necessarily an indication of absorption of intact rbGH. As rbGH produces significant biological effects when injected into rats, this study supported the inability of rbGH to cause significant biological effects following oral administration even at doses 50 times greater than the injected dose.” The FDA then suggested that “the Canadian reviewers did not interpret the study results correctly and that there are no new scientific concerns regarding the safety of milk from cows treated with rbGH.”For his part, Andrée regards this exchange from a different perspective. “My tendency is to look first towards the political economy of the issue,” he says. More specifically, he notes significant distinctions between each country’s dairy industry. The larger, corporation-centered U.S. producers would welcome the prospect of getting more milk from the same number of cows, he says. Sentiments tended the other way in Canada, where more of those producers are family-run operations.“There’s a whole supply management system that keeps farm sizes reasonably small and allows them to be profitable,” explains Andrée, adding that these producers would be more likely to lobby the Canadian government to restrict rbST, thereby maintaining the existing level of milk output within a protected market. Any ban would thus win favor from an organized political constituency while allowing government administrators to claim they are championing public health, regardless of scientific testimony that little or no hazard existed.The urgency to act grows once a hazard has actually been demonstrated, even if the nature of the hazard is not yet fully understood, says Manolis Kogevinas, an epidemiologist with the Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona. That has been the case in Europe, where the impact of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) continues to reverberate. As thousands of animals were diagnosed with this condition, politicians initially found themselves defending the safety of meat, offering assurances that the best science of the day had found no implications for human health. Then, when further inquiry revealed that BSE was caused by a strange class of mis-folded proteins called prions, many of these same politicians had to do a very public about-face, acknowledging that a link with human health might exist.The BSE experience has unquestionably shaped the European outlook on environmental health regulation, says Kogevinas. In particular, EU lawmakers have adopted a critical stance toward claims associated with the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food and pharmaceutical processing. In 1998, this ongoing suspicion threatened to undermine an economic pillar of Switzerland, where voters were offered the opportunity to all but outlaw genetic research on plants and animals within the country. The defeat of this referendum was a boon for Swiss-based drug giants such as Novartis and Hoffmann-La Roche, which depend heavily on their ability to engage in this kind of research. Had this measure passed, such work and the people conducting it likely would have migrated elsewhere, hollowing out a mainstay of the Swiss economy.Nor did this 1998 decision put the matter to rest. In 2005 another referendum successfully installed a five-year moratorium on the use of GMO products in Swiss agriculture. Although this latest decision does not have a direct impact on laboratory work, organizations such as the Swiss Biotech Association and Swiss Trade Association have voiced their fears that such legislative maneuvers will restrict the freedom of researchers, fostering an international perception of their nation as one that is unfriendly to scientific activity.Kogevinas concedes that the hue and cry over GMOs has no counterpart in North America. He suggests that this distinction reflects a more fundamental difference in the nature of public engagement, particularly the manner in which administrative procedures are executed. “In North America you have a much more structured and transparent system for contact with institutions, with organizations, with communities,” he says. “We have less of a tradition of that in Europe.” In fact, new rules have opened up EU regulatory review committee meetings that formerly provided little or no public access.Still, says Kogevinas, having long been excluded from such proceedings, many members of the scientific community have little appetite for contributing to the development of public policy except in the most technical manner. That reluctance can play into the strategies adopted by many policy makers, as Kogevinas discovered when he waded into Spanish deliberations over the approval of municipal garbage incinerators, a potential source of dioxin emissions.“The government asks certain questions as if they were scientific questions, when actually they are political questions, and sometimes we mix things up and try to respond to political questions using strictly scientific criteria,” he explains. The real question, he says, is not whether dioxin emissions should be limited to 0.1 ng/m3 or some other value. Instead, he says, “the real question is ‘What do we do with all the residues?’ The real question is whether we need a particular incinerator—or incinerators in general—as a means of waste reduction.”Precautionary TalesSimilar distractions crop up in U.S. discussions, whether the participants are looking at incinerators, stem cells, or GMOs. What often sets European conclusions apart, however, is commitment to a tenet known as the precautionary principle.The precautionary principle—another way of saying “better safe than sorry”—has been making its way into the regulatory practices of governments since the 1930s. By the 1990s, major events such as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit began casting the idea in legal language. In 1998, the Science and Environmental Health Network convened an international gathering of scientists, philosophers, lawyers, and environmental activists at the Johnson Foundation Wingspread Conference Center in Wisconsin, yielding this succinct definition of the principle: “When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”Members of the European Union took note, and within two years had adopted a similar statement as the foundation for EU environmental regulation. The result has imposed the juridical equivalent of “guilty until proven innocent” on any manufacturer seeking permission to introduce a product into the marketplace, demanding that public protection from potential harm be placed ahead of commercial interests.Such a requirement accounts for much of the administrative distance that separates Europe from the United States, according to John Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a multiagency toxicology and testing program housed at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “The U.S. system has evolved around the supposition that the government is responsible for providing information, or utilizing and acting on information supplied by industry, that would suggest that a particular chemical shouldn’t be used in commerce,” he says. In other words, precaution is not imposed upon commercial interests as a default position; instead, hazards and risks are defined by government on a case-by-case basis.Bucher suggests that although regulatory agencies evaluate the risks of agents fairly uniformly, they may pay more attention to cases that rise to political or social prominence. Nor can he and his colleagues in the NTP sway this tendency, since they lack the mandate of a regulatory agency and cannot define or assess risk as part of their observations. “So we must couch things in terms of whether we have concerns over a particular level of human exposure that’s going on in the population,” he says. “We do however, select agents for evaluation through our programs . . . that we feel warrant regulatory agency consideration.”The precautionary approach in the United States has been further stalled by a modest rider added to a congressional spending bill in 2001—two sentences with no official name but known alternately as the Information Quality Act or the Data Quality Act. This seemingly minor legislation has become contentious for requiring federal agencies to optimize the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity” of the information supporting regulatory activities.Critics have highlighted this stipulation as a loophole for corporations to hold up the implementation of restrictions on their products. For Chris Mooney, author of the 2005 book The Republican War on Science, this move represented “an unprecedented and cumbersome process by which government agencies must field complaints over the data, studies, and reports they release to the public. It is a science abuser’s dream come true.”On the other hand, when the EPA considered the endocrine-disrupting potential of the herbicide atrazine in 2003, the Data Quality Act was invoked to clarify the experimental methods that were being used to argue that such effects from this agent had been observed in frogs. “Publication of a research article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal does not mean that the research has been accepted as valid by the scientific community and that it should be considered reliable for regulatory purposes,” argued members of the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE) in correspondence published in the January 2004 issue of EHP. A self-styled regulatory watchdog, the CRE applauded the introduction of the legislation as a brake against an overzealous embrace of preliminary or incomplete research findings.That said, the precautionary principle is not altogether absent from U.S. regulations. In 2000, the FDA submitted a paper on its national food safety system to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, complete with an annex illustrating the role that precaution plays in the system. This document outlined various adjustment factors that would be applied to account for prospects such as sensitive subgroups within a tested population, extrapolation from short-term study data to assess chronic effects, extrapolation from animal data to human application, and variations within a human population, such as age or sex.Still, the enforcement of precaution can raise new challenges that scientists do not yet know how to meet. Early in 2009, the European Parliament was putting the finishing touches on regulations banning chemicals that go into some of the world’s most widely used pesticides. Richard Tren, director of the nonprofit organization Africa Fighting Malaria, insists that the ban will prompt many nations on that continent to abandon their use of pesticides that are effectively and safely managing a public health scourge.“This is a victory for the environmental lobby and a defeat of sound science,” he wrote in the 20 January 2009 edition of the Vancouver newspaper The Province. “Sensible regulations should evaluate the risks posed by chemicals to humans and the environment based on sound scientific evidence. Regulators shouldn’t be solely concerned with whether a pesticide is hazardous in the lab. Most important is how the pesticide is used and how diluted the active ingredient is.”Observers such as McElgunn take another view. “Dilution of toxicants is not a solution, even when all the science is in and we have a NOAEL for sensitive end points,” she says. “Others would argue that sound scientific evidence should include both low-dose testing to uncover endocrine effects and neurodevelopmental effects, and cumulative assessments of substances that have similar properties or that produce similar adverse effects.”For her part, Rachel Carson did not dismiss the use of chemical products, only their indiscriminate use—and she charged policy makers with the responsibility to discriminate. But weighing the scientific evidence in fulfillment of that responsibility is no simple task. According to Sarewitz, policy makers must deal with the harsh reality that there is not always one best way to use chemical compounds, which is why it can be so difficult to identify and eliminate toxicants. “We’re very glib about how easy that task is,” he says, “both in terms of the question of identifying what things do and the costs and consequences of getting rid of stuff.”FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Sanni S, Lyng E and Pampanin D (2017) III: Use of biomarkers as Risk Indicators in Environmental Risk Assessment of oil based discharges offshore, Marine Environmental Research, 10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.12.004, 127, (1-10), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017. Rivera J, Seely B and Sutherland J (2012) Societal implications of nanotechnology: occupational perspectives, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10.1007/s10668-012-9355-7, 14:5, (807-825), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2012. Burger J and Gochfeld M (2011) Mercury and selenium levels in 19 species of saltwater fish from New Jersey as a function of species, size, and season, Science of The Total Environment, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.12.034, 409:8, (1418-1429), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2011. Lent T, Silas J and Vallette J (2010) Chemical Hazards Analysis of Resilient Flooring for Healthcare, HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 10.1177/193758671000300209, 3:2, (97-117), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2010. Turnbull C, Lillemo M and Hvoslef-Eide T (2021) Global Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops Amid the Gene Edited Crop Boom – A Review, Frontiers in Plant Science, 10.3389/fpls.2021.630396, 12 Vol. 117, No. 3 March 2009Metrics Downloaded 115 times About Article Metrics Publication History Originally published1 March 2009Published in print1 March 2009 Financial disclosures License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.

Lay Public or Experts? e‐Participation in Authorization for GMO Products in the European Union

AbstractIn the European Union, for the first time, lay people can participate directly in the procedure of assessment of GMO (genetically modified organisms) products, an exercise normally reserved for scientists and legal experts. What makes this a unique strategy of participation is that for each single application for authorization, lay people have the opportunity to express their views. This article presents the result of the first in‐depth analysis of this type of Internet participatory exercise in the first years of its implementation. It shows that, despite generally participatory technology assessment aims at deliberative consensus on technical questions, this forum is instead a way to expose the work of regulative authorities to public scrutiny and to express dissent and opposition to the European Commission policy on GMOs.

New trends in bioanalytical tools for the detection of genetically modified organisms: an update

Despite the controversies surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the production of GM crops is increasing, especially in developing countries. Thanks to new technologies involving genetic engineering and unprecedented access to genomic resources, the next decade will certainly see exponential growth in GMO production. Indeed, EU regulations based on the precautionary principle require any food containing more than 0.9% GM content to be labeled as such. The implementation of these regulations necessitates sampling protocols, the availability of certified reference materials and analytical methodologies that allow the accurate determination of the content of GMOs. In order to qualify for the validation process, a method should fulfil some criteria, defined as "acceptance criteria" by the European Network of GMO Laboratories (ENGL). Several methods have recently been developed for GMO detection and quantitation, mostly based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology. PCR (including its different formats, e.g., double competitive PCR and real-time PCR) remains the technique of choice, thanks to its ability to detect even small amounts of transgenes in raw materials and processed foods. Other approaches relying on DNA detection are based on quartz crystal microbalance piezoelectric biosensors, dry reagent dipstick-type sensors and surface plasmon resonance sensors. The application of visible/near-infrared (vis/NIR) spectroscopy or mass spectrometry combined with chemometrics techniques has also been envisaged as a powerful GMO detection tool. Furthermore, in order to cope with the multiplicity of GMOs released onto the market, the new challenge is the development of routine detection systems for the simultaneous detection of numerous GMOs, including unknown GMOs.

Equal

Parity between the sexes, harmony between the religions, balance between the cultural differences: these principles all hinge upon the idealistic concept of all things in our human society being equal. In this issue of M/C Journal the notion of ‘equal’ is reviewed and discussed in terms of both its discourse and its application in real life. Beyond the concept of equal itself, uniting each author’s contribution is acknowledgement of the competing objectives which can promote bias and prejudice. Indeed, it is that prejudice, concomitant to the absence of equal treatment by and for all peoples, which is always of concern for the pursuit of social justice. Although it has been reduced to a brand-name of low calorie sugar substitute in the Australian supermarket and cafe set, the philosophical values and objectives behind the concept of equal underpin some of the most highly prized and esteemed ideals of western liberal democracy and its ideas on justice. To be equal in the modern sense means to be empowered, to enjoy the same entitlements as others and to have the same rights. At the same time, the privileges associated with being equal also come with responsibilities and it these that we continue to struggle with in our supposed enlightened age. The ideals we associate with equal are far from new, since they have informed ideas about citizenship and justice at least from the times of Ancient Greece and perhaps more problematically, the Principate period of the Roman Empire. It was out of the Principate that the notion primus inter pares (‘first among equals’) was implemented under Augustus in an effort to reconcile his role as Emperor within the Republic of Rome. This oxymoron highlights how very early in the history of Western thought inevitable compromises arose between the pursuit of equal treatment and its realisation. After all, Rome is as renowned for its Empire and Senate as it is for the way lions were fed Christians for entertainment. In the modern and postmodern world, the values around the concept of equal have become synonymous with the issue of equality, equal being a kind of applied action that has mobilised and enacted its ideals. With equality we are able to see more clearly the dialectic challenging the thesis of equal, the antitheses of unequal, and inequality. What these antitheses of equal accentuate is that anything to do with equality entails struggle and hard won gains. In culture, as in nature, things are rarely equal from the outset. As Richard Dawkins outlined in The Selfish Gene, “sperms and eggs … contribute equal number of genes, but eggs contribute far more in the way of food reserves … . Female exploitation begins here” (153). Disparities that promote certain advantages and disadvantages seem hard-wired into our chemistry, biology and subsequent natural and cultural environments. So to strive for the values around an ideal of equal means overcoming some major biological and social determinants. In other words, equality is not a pursuit for the uncommitted. Disparity, injustice, disempowerment, subjugations, winners and losers, victors and victims, oppressors and oppressed: these are the polarities that have been the hallmarks of human civilization. Traditionally, societies are slow to recognise contemporary contradictions and discriminations that deny the ideals and values that would otherwise promote a basis of equality. Given the right institutional apparatus, appropriate cultural logic and individual rationales, that which is unequal and unjust is easily absorbed and subscribed to by the most ardent defender of liberty and equality. Yet we do not have to search far afield in either time or geography to find evidence of institutionalised cultural barbarity that was predicated on logics of inequality. In the post-renaissance West, slavery is the most prominent example of a system that was highly rationalised, institutionalised, adhered to, and supported and exploited by none other than the children of the Enlightenment. The man who happened to be the principle author of one of the most renowned and influential documents ever written, the Declaration of Independence (1776), which proclaimed, “all men are created equal”, was Thomas Jefferson. He also owned 200 slaves. In the accompanying Constitution of the United States, twelve other amendments managed to take precedence over the abolition of slavery, meaning America was far from the ‘Land of the Free’ until 1865. Equal treatment of people in the modern world still requires lengthy and arduous battle. Equal rights and equal status continues to only come about after enormous sacrifices followed by relentless and incremental processes of jurisprudence. One of the most protracted struggles for equal standing throughout history and which has accompanied industrial modernity is, of course, that of class struggle. As a mass movement it represents one of the most sustained challenges to the many barriers preventing the distribution of basic universal human rights amongst the global population. Representing an epic movement of colossal proportions, the struggle for class equality, begun in the fiery cauldron of the 19th century and the industrial revolution, continued to define much of the twentieth century and has left a legacy of emancipation perhaps unrivalled on scale by any other movement at any other time in history. Overcoming capitalism’s inherent powers of oppression, the multitude of rights delivered by class struggle to once voiceless and downtrodden masses, including humane working conditions, fair wages and the distribution of wealth based on ideals of equal shares, represent the core of some of its many gains. But if anyone thought the central issues around class struggle and workers rights has been reconciled, particularly in Australia, one need only look back at the 2007 Federal election. The backlash against the Howard Government’s industrial relations legislation, branded ‘Work Choices’, should serve as a potent reminder of what the community deems fair and equitable when it comes to labor relations even amidst new economy rhetoric. Despite the epic scale and the enormous depth and breadth of class struggle across the twentieth century, in the West, the fight began to be overtaken both in profile and energy by the urgencies in equality addressed through the civil rights movement regarding race and feminism. In the 1960s the civil rights and women’s liberation movements pitted their numbers against the great bulwarks of white, male, institutional power that had up until then normalised and naturalised discrimination. Unlike class struggle, these movements rarely pursued outright revolution with its attendant social and political upheavals, and subsequent disappointments and failures. Like class struggle, however, the civil rights and feminist movements come out of a long history of slow and methodical resistance in the face of explicit suppression and willful neglect. These activists have been chipping away patiently at the monolithic racial and sexist hegemony ever since. The enormous achievements and progress made by both movements throughout the 1960s and 1970s represent a series of climaxes that came from a steady progression of resolute determination in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. As the class, feminist and civil rights movements infiltrated the inner workings of Western democracies in the latter half of the twentieth century they promoted equal rights through advocacy and legislative and legal frameworks resulting in a transformation of the system from within. The emancipations delivered through these struggles for equal treatment have now gone on to be the near-universal model upon which contemporary equality is both based and sought in the developed and developing world. As the quest for equal status and treatment continues to advance, feminism and civil rights have since been supplanted as radical social movements by the rise of a new identity politics. Gathering momentum in the 1980s, the demand for equal treatment across all racial, sexual and other lines of identity shifted out of a mass movement mode and into one that reflects the demands coming from a more liberalised yet ultimately atomised society. Today, the legal frameworks that support equal treatment and prevents discrimination based on racial and sexual lines are sought by groups and individuals marginalised by the State and often corporate sector through their identification with specific sexual, religious, physical or intellectual attributes. At the same time that equality and rights are being pursued on these individual levels, there is the growing urgency of displaced peoples. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) estimate globally there are presently 8.4 million refugees and 23.7 million uprooted domestic civilians (5). Fleeing from war, persecution or natural disasters, refugee numbers are sure to grow in a future de-stabilised by Climate Change, natural resource scarcity and food price inflation. The rights and protections of refugees entitled under international frameworks and United Nations guidelines must be respected and even championed by the foreign States they journey to. Future challenges need to address the present imbalance that promotes unjust and unequal treatment of refugees stemming from recent western initiatives like Fortress Europe, offshore holding sites like Naru and Christmas Island and the entire detention centre framework. The dissemination and continued fight for equal rights amongst individuals across so many boundaries has no real precedent in human history and represents one of the greatest challenges and potential benefits of the new millennium. At the same time Globalisation and Climate Change have rewritten the rule book in terms of what is at stake across human society and now, probably for the first time in humanity’s history, the Earth’s biosphere at large. In an age where equal measures and equal shares comes in the form of an environmental carbon footprint, more than ever we need solutions that address global inequities and can deliver just and sustainable equal outcomes. The choice is a stark one; a universal, sustainable and green future, where less equals more; or an unsustainable one where more is more but where Earth ends up equaling desolate Mars. While we seek a pathway to a sustainable future, developed nations will have to reconcile a period where things are asymmetrical and positively unequal. The developed world has to carry the heavy and expensive burden required to reduce CO2 emissions while making the necessary sacrifices to stop the equation where one Westerner equals five Indians when it comes to the consumption of natural resources. In an effort to assist and maintain the momentum that has been gained in the quest for equal rights and equal treatment for all, this issue of M/C Journal puts the ideal of ‘equal’ up for scrutiny and discussion. Although there are unquestioned basic principles that have gone beyond debate with regards to ideas around equal, problematic currents within the discourses surrounding concepts based on equality, equivalence and the principles that come out of things being equal remain. Critiquing the notion of equal also means identifying areas where seeking certain equivalences are not necessarily in the public interest. Our feature article examines the challenge of finding an equal footing for Australians of different faiths. Following their paper on the right to free speech published recently in the ‘citizen’ issue of M/C Journal, Anne Aly and Lelia Green discuss the equal treatment of religious belief in secular Australia by identifying the disparities that undermine ideals of religious pluralism. In their essay entitled “Less than Equal: Secularism, Religious Pluralism and Privilege”, they identify one of the central problems facing Islamic belief systems is Western secularism’s categorisation of religious belief as private practice. While Christian based faiths have been able to negotiate the bifurcation between public life and private faith, compartmentalising religious beliefs in this manner can run contrary to Islamic practice. The authors discuss how the separation of Church and State aspires to see all religions ignored equally, but support for a moderate Islam that sees it divorced from the public sphere is secularism’s way of constructing a less than equal Islam. Debra Mayrhofer analyses the unequal treatment received by young males in mainstream media representations in her paper entitled “Mad about the Boy”. By examining TV, radio and newspaper coverage of an ‘out-of-control teenage party’ in suburban Melbourne, Mayrhofer discusses the media’s treatment of the 16-year-old boy deemed to be at the centre of it all. Not only do the many reports evidence non-compliance with the media industry’s own code of ethics but Mayrhofer argues they represent examples of blatant exploitation of the boy. As this issue of M/C Journal goes online, news is now circulating about the boy’s forthcoming appearance in the Big Brother house and the release of a cover of the Beastie Boys’ 1986 hit “Fight for Your Right (to Party)” (see News.com.au). Media reportage of this calibre, noticeable for occurring beyond the confines of tabloid outlets, is seen to perpetuate myths associated with teenage males and inciting moral panics around the behaviour and attitudes expressed by adolescent male youth.Ligia Toutant charts the contentious borders between high, low and popular culture in her paper “Can Stage Directors Make Opera and Popular Culture ‘Equal’?” Referring to recent developments in the staging of opera, Toutant discusses the impacts of phenomena like broadcasts and simulcasts of opera and contemporary settings over period settings, as well as the role played by ticket prices and the introduction of stage directors who have been drawn from film and television. Issues of equal access to high and popular culture are explored by Toutant through the paradox that sees directors of popular feature films that can cost around US$72M with ticket prices under US$10 given the task of directing a US$2M opera with ticket prices that can range upward of US$200. Much has been written about newly elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Australians whereas Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson’s Apology has been somewhat overlooked. Brooke Collins-Gearing redresses this imbalance with her paper entitled “Not All Sorrys Are Created Equal: Some Are More Equal than ‘Others.’” Collins-Gearing responds to Nelson’s speech from the stance of an Indigenous woman and criticises Nelson for ignoring Aboriginal concepts of time and perpetuating the attitudes and discourses that led to the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families in the first place. Less media related and more science oriented is John Paull’s discussion on the implications behind the concept of ‘Substantial Equivalence’ being applied to genetically modified organisms (GMO) in “Beyond Equal: From Same But Different to the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence”. Embraced by manufacturers of genetically modified foods, the principle of substantial equivalence is argued by Paull to provide the bioengineering industry with a best of both worlds scenario. On the one hand, being treated the ‘same’ as elements from unmodified foods GMO products escape the rigours of safety testing and labelling that differentiates them from unmodified foods. On the other hand, by also being defined as ‘different’ they enjoy patent protection laws and are free to pursue monopoly rights on specific foods and technologies. It is easy to envisage an environment arising in which the consumer runs the risk of eating untested foodstuffs while the corporations that have ‘invented’ these new life forms effectively prevent competition in the marketplace. This issue of M/C Journal has been a pleasure to compile. We believe the contributions are remarkable for the broad range of issues they cover and for their great timeliness, dealing as they do with recent events that are still fresh, we hope, in the reader’s mind. We also hope you enjoy reading these papers as much as we enjoyed working with their authors and encourage you to click on the ‘Respond to this Article’ function next to each paper’s heading, aware that there is the possibility for your opinions to gain equal footing with those of the contributors if your response is published. References Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1976.News.com.au. “Oh, Brother, So It’s Confirmed – Corey Set for House.” 1 May 2008. 3 May 2008 < http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,23627561-10229,00.html >.UNHCR – The UN Refugee Agency. The World’s Stateless People. 2006. 2 May 2008 < http://www.unhcr.org/basics/BASICS/452611862.pdf >.

PCR-free quantitative detection of genetically modified organism from raw materials. An electrochemiluminescence-based bio bar code method.

A bio bar code assay based on oligonucleotide-modified gold nanoparticles (Au-NPs) provides a PCR-free method for quantitative detection of nucleic acid targets. However, the current bio bar code assay requires lengthy experimental procedures including the preparation and release of bar code DNA probes from the target-nanoparticle complex and immobilization and hybridization of the probes for quantification. Herein, we report a novel PCR-free electrochemiluminescence (ECL)-based bio bar code assay for the quantitative detection of genetically modified organism (GMO) from raw materials. It consists of tris-(2,2'-bipyridyl) ruthenium (TBR)-labeled bar code DNA, nucleic acid hybridization using Au-NPs and biotin-labeled probes, and selective capture of the hybridization complex by streptavidin-coated paramagnetic beads. The detection of target DNA is realized by direct measurement of ECL emission of TBR. It can quantitatively detect target nucleic acids with high speed and sensitivity. This method can be used to quantitatively detect GMO fragments from real GMO products.

What's the Beef? The Contested Governance of European Food Safety and Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States

What's the Beef? The Contested Governance of European Food Safety. Edited by Christopher Ansell and David Vogel. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006. 389p. 18.95 paper.In 1999, a truck dumped four tons of genetically modified soybeans on the doorstep of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Operated by Greenpeace UK, the truck carried a banner that read, “Tony, don't swallow Bill's seed.” The action occurred amidst a rising chorus of voices critical of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Ultimately, the public's wholesale rejection of GMOs prompted Britain's major food retailers to remove all GMO products from their shelves and forced the British government to restructure its food safety apparatus completely.