Do genetically modified crops affect animal reproduction? A review of the ongoing debate

In the past few years, genetically modified (GM) crops aimed at producing food/feed that became part of the regular agriculture in many areas of the world. However, we are uncertain whether GM food and feed can exert potential adverse effects on humans or animals. Of importance, the reproductive toxicology of GM crops has been studied using a number of methods, and by feeding GM crops to a number species of animals to ensure the safety assessment of GM food and feed. It appears that there are no adverse effects of GM crops on many species of animals in acute and short-term feeding studies, but serious debates of effects of long-term and multigenerational feeding studies remain. The aims of this review are to focus on the latest (last 3 to 4 years) findings and debates on reproduction of male and female animals after feeding daily diets containing the GM crops, and to present the possible mechanism(s) to explain their influences.     

Tracking genes from seed to supermarket: techniques and trends

Analytical techniques to track plant genes in the environment and the food chain are essential for environmental risk assessment, government regulation and production and trade of genetically modified (GM) crops. Here, I review laboratory techniques to track plant genes during pre-commercialization research on gene flow and post-commercialization detection, identification and quantification of GM crops from seed to supermarket. At present, DNA- and protein-based assays support both activities but the demand for fast, inexpensive, sensitive methods is increasing. Part of the demand has been generated by stringent food labeling and traceability regulations for GM crops. The increase in GM crops, changes in GM crop design, evolution of government regulations and adoption of risk-assessment frameworks will continue to drive development of analytical techniques.     

Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security

The role of genetically modified (GM) crops for food security is the subject of public controversy. GM crops could contribute to food production increases and higher food availability. There may also be impacts on food quality and nutrient composition. Finally, growing GM crops may influence farmers’ income and thus their economic access to food. Smallholder farmers make up a large proportion of the undernourished people worldwide. Our study focuses on this latter aspect and provides the first ex post analysis of food security impacts of GM crops at the micro level. We use comprehensive panel data collected over several years from farm households in India, where insect-resistant GM cotton has been widely adopted. Controlling for other factors, the adoption of GM cotton has significantly improved calorie consumption and dietary quality, resulting from increased family incomes. This technology has reduced food insecurity by 15–20% among cotton-producing households. GM crops alone will not solve the hunger problem, but they can be an important component in a broader food security strategy.     

Removing politics from innovations that improve food security

Genetically modified (GM) organisms and crops have been a feature of food production for over 30 years. Despite extensive science-based risk assessment, the public and many politicians remain concerned with the genetic manipulation of crops, particularly food crops. Many governments have addressed public concern through biosafety legislation and regulatory frameworks that identify and regulate risks to ensure human health and environmental safety. These domestic regulatory frameworks align to international scientific risk assessment methodologies on a case-by-case basis. Regulatory agencies in 70 countries around the world have conducted in excess of 4400 risk assessments, all reaching the same conclusion: GM crops and foods that have been assessed provide no greater risk to human health or the environment than non-GM crops and foods. Yet, while the science regarding the safety of GM crops and food appears conclusive and societal benefits have been globally demonstrated, the use of innovative products have only contributed minimal improvements to global food security. Regrettably, politically-motivated regulatory barriers are currently being implemented with the next genomic innovation, genome editing, the implications of which are also discussed in this article. A decade of reduced global food insecurity was witnessed from 2005 to 2015, but regrettably, the figure has subsequently risen. Why is this the case? Reasons have been attributed to climate variability, biotic and abiotic stresses, lack of access to innovative technologies and political interference in decision making processes. This commentary highlights how political interference in the regulatory approval process of GM crops is adversely affecting the adoption of innovative, yield enhancing crop varieties, thereby limiting food security opportunities in food insecure economies.

     

Assuring the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods: the importance of an holistic,integrative approach

Genes change continuously by natural mutation and recombination enabling man to select and breed crops having the most desirable traits such as yield or flavour. Genetic modification (GM) is a recent development which allows specific genes to be identified, isolated, copied and inserted into other plants with a high level of specificity. The food safety considerations for GM crops are basically the same as those arising from conventionally bred crops, very few of which have been subject to any testing yet are generally regarded as being safe to eat. In contrast a rigorous safety testing paradigm has been developed for GM crops, which utilises a systematic, stepwise and holistic approach. The resultant science based process, focuses on a classical evaluation of the toxic potential of the introduced novel trait and the wholesomeness of the transformed crop. In addition, detailed consideration is given to the history and safe use of the parent crop as well as that of the gene donor. The overall safety evaluation is conducted under the concept known as substantial equivalence which is enshrined in all international crop biotechnology guidelines. This provides the framework for a comparative approach to identify the similarities and differences between the GM product and its comparator which has a known history of safe use. By building a detailed profile on each step in the transformation process, from parent to new crop, and by thoroughly evaluating the significance from a safety perspective, of any differences that may be detected, a very comprehensive matrix of information is constructed which enables the conclusion as to whether the GM crop, derived food or feed is as safe as its traditional counterpart. Using this approach in the evaluation of more than 50 GM crops which have been approved worldwide, the conclusion has been that foods and feeds derived from genetically modified crops are as safe and nutritious as those derived from traditional crops. The lack of any adverse effects resulting from the production and consumption of GM crops grown on more than 300 million cumulative acres over the last 5 years supports these safety conclusions.     

Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: A review of options for food security

Since two decades ago, when the first GM crops were introduced, there have increasingly been hot debates on the applications of gene manipulation. Currently, the development of GM crop varieties has raised a wide range of new legal, ethical and economic questions in agriculture. There is a growing body of literature reflecting the socio-economic and environmental impacts of GM crops which aims to criticize their value for farming systems. While organic crops are promoted as environmentally-friendly products in developed countries, they have provoked great controversy in developing countries facing food security and a low agricultural productivity. Discussion has been especially vigorous when organic farming was introduced as an alternative method. There are in fact, a few tradeoffs in developing countries. On the one hand, farmers are encouraged to accept and implement GM crops because of their higher productivity, while on the other hand, organic farming is encouraged because of socio-economic and environmental considerations. A crucial question facing such countries is therefore, whether GM crops can co-exist with organic farming. This paper aims to review the main considerations and tradeoffs.     

Unintended effects in genetically modified crops: revealed by metabolomics?

In Europe the commercialization of food derived from genetically modified plants has been slow because of the complex regulatory process and the concerns of consumers. Risk assessment is focused on potential adverse effects on humans and the environment, which could result from unintended effects of genetic modifications: unintended effects are connected to changes in metabolite levels in the plants. One of the major challenges is how to analyze the overall metabolite composition of GM plants in comparison to conventional cultivars, and one possible solution is offered by metabolomics. The ultimate aim of metabolomics is the identification and quantification of all small molecules in an organism; however, a single method enabling complete metabolome analysis does not exist. Given a comprehensive extraction method, a hierarchical strategy--starting with global fingerprinting and followed by complementary profiling attempts--is the most logical and economic approach to detect unintended effects in GM crops.     

转基因食品安全性评价研究进展

自1996年全球转基因作物大规模商业化生产以来,转基因作物种植面积以年均10%左右的速度迅速增长,2013年种植面积已达1.75亿hm2。其在解决全球粮食问题、环境保护、提升粮食营养质量和品质、制药以及推动经济可持续发展方面展现了重要作用。但是,随着转基因商业化生产的深入,转基因技术的潜在风险性引起了社会以及国际上更广泛的关注。事实上,在转基因技术出现之初,科学家们就开始关注其安全性问题。相关国际组织（FAO、WHO、CAC、OECD等）经过数次研究制订了一系列与转基因食品安全性有关的评价原则、指南与措施等。随着转基因技术的发展,这些安全评价策略也在不断完善。我国目前已经基本建立了转基因食品的安全评价和管理体系。转基因食品在进入市场前要经过十分全面以及系统的安全性评价,包括营养学、毒理学、过敏性等方面,从而保障转基因食品的安全性。     

转基因作物的食用与环境安全性问题及其对策

自转基因技术研发和商业化生产以来,针对转基因作物的食用安全性和环境安全性问题一直是公众争论的焦点。面对全球粮食安全形势的严峻压力,如何使公众对转基因技术及其产品的客观性保持一种科学性的认识,是摆在各国(特别是发展中国家)政府和科学家面前不可忽视的课题。本文从食品和环境两个方面简要介绍了转基因作物的安全性问题,旨在还原转基因技术的科学真实性,并简要提出转基因作物的安全性对策。     

The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: a review

Genetic engineering of food is the science which involves deliberate modification of the genetic material of plants or animals. It is an old agricultural practice carried on by farmers since early historical times, but recently it has been improved by technology. Many foods consumed today are either genetically modified (GM) whole foods, or contain ingredients derived from gene modification technology. Billions of dollars in U.S. food exports are realized from sales of GM seeds and crops. Despite the potential benefits of genetic engineering of foods, the technology is surrounded by controversy. Critics of GM technology include consumer and health groups, grain importers from European Union (EU) countries, organic farmers, environmentalists, concerned scientists, ethicists, religious rights groups, food advocacy groups, some politicians and trade protectionists. Some of the specific fears expressed by opponents of GM technology include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, potential toxicity, possible antibiotic resistance from GM crops, potential allergenicity and carcinogenicity from consuming GM foods. In addition, some more general concerns include environmental pollution, unintentional gene transfer to wild plants, possible creation of new viruses and toxins, limited access to seeds due to patenting of GM food plants, threat to crop genetic diversity, religious, cultural and ethical concerns, as well as fear of the unknown. Supporters of GM technology include private industries, research scientists, some consumers, U.S. farmers and regulatory agencies. Benefits presented by proponents of GM technology include improvement in fruit and vegetable shelf-life and organoleptic quality, improved nutritional quality and health benefits in foods, improved protein and carbohydrate content of foods, improved fat quality, improved quality and quantity of meat, milk and livestock. Other potential benefits are: the use of GM livestock to grow organs for transplant into humans, increased crop yield, improvement in agriculture through breeding insect, pest, disease, and weather resistant crops and herbicide tolerant crops, use of GM plants as bio-factories to yield raw materials for industrial uses, use of GM organisms in drug manufacture, in recycling and/or removal of toxic industrial wastes. The potential risks and benefits of the new technology to man and the environment are reviewed. Ways of minimizing potential risks and maximizing the benefits of GM foods are suggested. Because the benefits of GM foods apparently far outweigh the risks, regulatory agencies and industries involved in GM food business should increase public awareness in this technology to enhance worldwide acceptability of GM foods. This can be achieved through openness, education, and research.     

Unintended polar metabolite profiling of carotenoid-biofortified transgenic rice reveals substantial equivalence to its non-transgenic counterpart

Substantial equivalence is a critical concept for biosafety assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops. To investigate substantial equivalence among carotenoid-biofortified GM rice and five conventional rice cultivars having common white (three) and red (two) grain colors, profiles of 52 polar metabolites were analyzed using gas chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry. The results were compared to evaluate the differences among GM and non-GM rice cultivars using principal components analysis. The GM rice is more comparable to its non-transgenic counterpart rice variety according to the closer co-separation than for other cultivars tested. This suggests that profiling of unintended polar metabolites could be a useful tool to reveal substantial equivalence of GM rice.     

GM crops: science, politics and communication

As the public debate in Europe about genetically modified (GM) crops heats up and the trade row between the United States and the European Union over GM food escalates, what better time to examine the issues with an international group of experts (Box 1). Their views are diverse, but they all agree that we need more impartial communication, less propaganda and an effective regulatory regime that is based on a careful case-by-case consideration of GM technology. It seems that GM crops are here to stay, so let us hope that these requirements are met and that the developing nations that perhaps have the most to gain from this technology can start to reap its benefits.     

转基因作物生物安全:科学证据

通过对美国Web of Science数据平台的全部转基因作物生物安全SCI论文的检索,研究了有关转基因作物生物安全的科学证据。得出科学家比消费者更关心转基因技术的安全性;批准商业化生产的转基因技术经过了有史以来最为严格的生物学安全检验与检测,并建立了有史以来最为严格的监管体系;在所发表的全部9333篇转基因生物安全论文中,90%以上的论文证明转基因技术的安全性与传统非转基因作物无显著差异;而对于所有得出转基因食品不安全结论的论文的追踪研究发现,其研究结论被证明是在错误的研究材料或方法条件下得出的。     

Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies

Allergenic reactions to proteins expressed in GM crops has been one of the prominent concerns among biotechnology critics and a concern of regulatory agencies. Soybeans like many plants have intrinsic allergens that present problems for sensitive people. Current GM crops, including soybean, have not been shown to add any additional allergenic risk beyond the intrinsic risks already present. Biotechnology can be used to characterize and eliminate allergens naturally present in crops. Biotechnology has been used to remove a major allergen in soybean demonstrating that genetic modification can be used to reduce allergenicity of food and feed. This provides a model for further use of GM approaches to eliminate allergens.     

Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops--what makes sense?

GM crops have great potential to improve food quality, increase harvest yields and decrease dependency on certain chemical pesticides. Before entering the market their safety needs to be scrutinized. This includes a detailed analysis of allergenic risks, as the safety of allergic consumers has high priority. However, not all tests currently being applied to assessing allergenicity have a sound scientific basis. Recent events with transgenic crops reveal the fallacy of applying such tests to GM crops.     

Moving beyond the GM Debate

Once again, there are calls to reopen the debate on genetically modified (GM) crops. I find these calls frustrating and unnecessarily decisive. In my opinion the GM debate, on both sides, continues to hamper the urgent need to address the diverse and pressing challenges of global food security and environmental sustainability. The destructive power of the debate comes from its conflation of unrelated issues, coupled with deeply rooted misconceptions of the nature of agriculture.

This article is part of the PLOS Biology Collection “The Promise of Plant Translational Research.”

For many people, genetic modification (GM) has become the poster child for everything they consider bad about modern agriculture. It represents the domination of the food supply chain by profit-driven multinational companies. It represents the systematic replacement of important ecosystems with huge high-intensity farms growing monocultures of commodity crops. It represents humankind''s evil manipulation of Nature for personal gain and greed, at the expense of the planet and of future generations. These are important concerns. It is reasonable to be disturbed by some of the current trends in agricultural practices, with fears fuelled by past errors, such as the previous emergence in the UK of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). However, none of these issues has anything to do with GM as a technique for improving or introducing plant traits. A complete ban on the use of GM in crop development would have no impact on any of them. For as long as we imagine that GM itself is the cause of these problems, they are free to escalate unchecked.A defining question of the 21^st century is: How can we achieve a reliable, sustainable, equitable supply of nutritious food for a growing and increasingly urbanized world population in the face of climate change? This is a complex question with agricultural productivity constituting only a small part of it, and in turn, GM only a small part of that. It is essential that we move forward to address this question without being continuously sidetracked by the GM debate. How can this be achieved?First, it is necessary to move on from the well-worn logical fallacy that anything natural is good, and anything unnatural is bad. The application of this fallacy to agriculture is an excellent illustration of why it is so flawed. Plants evolved by natural selection, driven by the survival of the fittest. As a result, naturally, they are defended to the hilt from herbivores of all kinds, including humans. We know this. No one sends their children into the woods saying “Eat anything you find. It''s all natural, so it must be good for you.” The seeds of plants are particularly well protected, because they are, of course, the plant''s children, their ticket to posterity. Seed is therefore usually tough, indigestible, minimally resourced, and often laced with toxins. Yet plant seeds are now our major source of calories. The cereal crops we eat bear little resemblance to their naturally selected ancestors, and the environments in which we grow them are equally highly manipulated and engineered by us. We have, over the last 10,000 years, bred out of our main food plants all kinds of survival strategies that natural selection put in. This has drastically reduced their competitiveness in nature, but equally dramatically increased their utility in feeding us. Agriculture is the invention of humans. It is the deliberate manipulation of plants (and animals) and the environment in which they grow to provide food for us. The imperative is not that we should stop interfering with nature, but that we should interfere in the best way possible to provide a reliable, sustainable, equitable supply of nutritious food. To do this we need to understand how nature works. That''s what science is all about.This is easy to say, but concepts of the inherent goodness of Nature, and the inherent dangers of human interventions through science, are deeply ingrained in the way many people think, particularly in the context of food. This is an understandable response to concerns over the industrialization and unsustainable intensification of agriculture described above. You only have to walk down the aisles of a supermarket to see that “all natural” and “nothing artificial” sells things. These words sell products because they are so strongly culturally associated with environmental sustainability and well-being, exploiting people''s interest in protecting the environment and their health. However, many of the products people think of as natural, such as cereal crops, are profoundly unnatural and wouldn''t exist without human intervention; and many things people think of as artificial, such as “chemicals,” can be made with no human involvement at all. Similarly, many “natural” things are extremely bad news, such as aflatoxins, and many “artificial” things are widely accepted to be an extremely good idea, such as cereal crops (again). The only way to determine whether something is environmentally sustainable or healthy is to do the science and find out. Guessing based on cultural norms, amplified by aggressive marketing strategies is understandable, but will not deliver the desired outcome: a sustainable supply of healthy food. People need to be empowered to make decisions in a different way. For example, in the UK there is now a well-established health wheel traffic light system on foods in supermarkets, indicating through a simple graphic the sugar, fat, salt, and calorific content of the product. Perhaps there could be a similar sustainability wheel, building on such initiatives as Leaf (for Linking Environment and Farming – a UK organization that promotes sustainable food and farming and that identifies food produced to high environmental standards to consumers with a Leaf logo) [1]. This could be combined with the stricter application of advertising standards, preventing the fostering of misleading claims about what counts as “natural” and of misleading implications about the associated health and environmental benefits.Second, we need to get past the idea that GM, as a technique for crop genetic improvement, is specifically and generically different from other approaches, including conventional selective breeding. GM involves introducing a gene directly into the genome of an organism. The introduced gene can be one found in other members of that species or it could be from a different species. The most distinctive generic thing about a GM crop, in comparison to one produced by conventional selective breeding, would therefore appear to be the insertion of a piece of DNA into its genome, a process that is certainly not unique to GM crops. Even the movement of genes between species is not GM-specific, and indeed GM crops need not be modified with genes from a different species. Many viruses can insert their genomes into that of their host as a normal part of their life cycle. These viral sequences, and many related genetic elements, such as retroposons, accumulate over evolutionary time and can continue to move about the genomes of their hosts, creating new DNA insertion sites. Thus, every conventionally bred rice crispy or cornflake you had for breakfast probably differs from every other one by the insertion of a piece of DNA at an unknown site in its genome.There is really nothing generic to be said about GM as a plant breeding technique. Almost all the media reports purporting to be about the effects of GM are in fact about effects of the specific trait that has been introduced into the GM crop. Currently, there are only two widely deployed GM traits: herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. Concerns purporting to be about GM are almost all about one or other of these traits. For example, a large, farm-scale evaluation of the environmental impacts of three herbicide-tolerant GM crops conducted in the UK between 1999 and 2006 [2] was widely reported as demonstrating that GM is bad for wildlife. What in fact it showed was that effective weed control is bad for wildlife. Weeds are required to support biodiversity in agricultural environments, and are currently under threat from winter planting regimes, non-GM herbicide-tolerant crops, and a range of increasingly sophisticated weed control strategies. Banning GM crops will not address this problem. It is wrong to imply that growing GM crops, rather than effective weed control, is the cause of negative effects on biodiversity. It is not because a crop is GM that weeds are reduced; many GM crops have no impact on weeds at all. It is because a crop, GM or otherwise, is herbicide tolerant and sprayed with weed killers that reduce weed populations. The claim that biodiversity is reduced because a GM crop was grown detracts attention from the real issue, namely how to balance the positive effects of weeds in supporting biodiversity with their negative impacts on agricultural productivity.This confusion between the effects of a new trait and the method by which it has been introduced is enshrined in the way new crops are licensed for commercial release in many countries. In the European Union (EU), a new herbicide-tolerant GM crop, produced by introducing a single gene conferring herbicide tolerance, must go through a lengthy procedure of testing aimed at assessing its potential health and environmental impacts [3]. Such an assessment would include concerns about impacts on wildlife, as described above, and about the generation of so-called super weeds by out-crossing of the GM crop to wild relatives or caused by the over-use of herbicides. Meanwhile, a herbicide-tolerant crop produced by mutation of a single endogenous gene has no such testing, and the breeders need only to demonstrate that it is stable and significantly different from already registered crops. All the environmental concerns associated with GM herbicide tolerance are equally applicable to non-GM herbicide tolerance. There are also considerable agronomic and environmental benefits that could accrue from herbicide tolerant crops, such as reduced soil erosion through reduced need for ploughing [4]. These need to be weighed against the risks and an appropriate decision reached. This decision is about weed control, not about GM. In my opinion, there is therefore no justification for considering GM vs non-GM herbicide tolerant crops differently. Their assessment, from a regulatory viewpoint and in terms of their environmental impact, should be based on the distinctive trait they carry.The GM-specific regulatory system currently in place creates huge financial barriers for GM crop introduction, which ironically is one of the main reasons why almost the only applications in the field today are driven by big business. These days, the cost of developing a GM crop is relatively affordable. Meanwhile, non-GM crops, sometimes with new traits, are released with relatively little scrutiny of their impacts on the environment or on food safety. This is increasingly an issue as we continue to develop new and ever more sophisticated ways to introduce desirable traits into crops, for example by genomic assisted breeding or by genome editing [5]. These new tools provide exciting and much needed opportunities for crop genetic improvement, but in my view they also demand a more sensible licensing system that assesses all new crops based on the traits they carry rather than on the method by which they were introduced [5],[6].The current system does little to protect the environment or the food chain and is ill-equipped to cope with the new approaches to plant breeding now coming on line. A trait-based system, bringing a proportional level of scrutiny to all crops that carry a new trait, could provide the checks and balances that should go hand in hand with innovation. We definitely need crop genetic improvement [4], using whatever method is best, and it is precisely because we do that we also need an evidence-based and proportional system for assessing new crops for environmental and health impacts.A related issue, which will be similarly challenged by new genetic improvement techniques, is that of patent protection for crops. While conventionally bred crops can be protected by various means, such “variety” protection systems include exemptions for farmers that permit them to save seed for next year''s planting and for breeders to include the variety in breeding programmes. In contrast, GM crops can be protected by so-called utility patents, which can protect the use of a specific gene to confer a trait. These patents are much more restrictive and prohibit both seed saving by farmers and exemptions for plant breeders. The harmonisation of the crop variety licensing system to focus on novel traits, however introduced, could reasonably be widened to include an examination of the patent protection system for such traits. If the licensing system were to become less expensive, the argument for restrictive utility patents on such traits is reduced.We now have a wealth of opportunities for crop genetic improvement, with an impressive arsenal of tools and techniques available. To deploy these effectively, we need to move well beyond the GM debate to a much wider debate about food production. What methods of farming provide reliable and high yields in a sustainable way? What is the role of multinational companies in delivering food security? What political and societal changes are needed to drive more equitable food distribution? How can waste be reduced? These are big complex questions with big complex answers and no simple dogmatic solution. No single farming method or crop improvement technique is a panacea, nor is it the cause of the problem. Such complex problems with correspondingly complex and multifaceted solutions are difficult. They don''t make rousing campaign slogans or eye-catching tabloid headlines, but we have got to find a way to address them, in all their complexity.The most frustrating thing about this situation is that almost everyone wants the same outcome: a reliable, sustainable, equitable supply of nutritious food. For issues this big, there will of course be differences of opinion about how to move forward, what to prioritise, and how to decide. These are important areas for debate. GM, as a technique, is not.     

Global capture of crop biotechnology in developing world over a decade

There is an urgent need for the advancement of agricultural technology (e.g. crop biotechnology or genetic modification (GM) technology), particularly, to address food security problem, to fight against hunger and poverty crisis and to ensure sustainable agricultural production in developing countries. Over the past decade, the adoption of GM technology on a commercial basis has increased steadily around the world with a significant impact in terms of socio-economic, environment and human health benefits. However, GM technology is still surrounded by controversial debates with several factors hindering the adoption of GM crops. This paper reviews current literatures on commercial production of GM crops, and assesses the benefits and constraints associated with adoption of GM crops in developing countries in the last 15 years. This article provides policy implication towards advancing the development and adoption of GM technology in developing countries and concludes with summary of key points discussed.     

转基因耐除草剂作物的环境风险及管理

自1996年第1例转基因作物在美国商业化种植, 其在全球的种植面积一直处于持续、快速增长的趋势。2010年, 全球转基因作物种植总面积达1.48×10⁸ hm², 所种植的转基因作物主要是耐除草剂和抗虫作物, 其中耐除草剂作物占种植总面积的81%。耐除草剂作物的种植为杂草的高效控制提供了新的手段, 但其可能带来的生态环境风险也引起了全世界各国的广泛关注和争议。该文在总结归纳前人研究的基础上, 针对耐除草剂作物的基因漂移、杂草化及对生物多样性的影响等当前人们普遍关注的环境风险问题, 系统讨论了相关的风险评价程序和方法, 概括和分析了当前耐除草剂作物的环境风险研究进展和管理措施, 以期为我国转基因耐除草剂作物的开发、风险评价及管理提供依据。     

The EU’s GM crop conundrum: Did the EU policy strategy to convert EFSA GMO guidance into legislation deliver on its promises?

Efforts by the EU to improve its regulatory framework for importing GM food and feed have done nothing to make the process easier and more predictable for applicants. Subject Categories: Biotechnology & Synthetic Biology, Economics, Law & Politics, Plant Biology

The first genetically modified (GM) crops were introduced more than two decades ago and have been planted globally on more than 190 million hectares (ISAAA, 2020), a surface area larger than all the arable land in the EU. Thousands of risk assessments have consistently concluded that they are as safe as conventional crops in regard to human and animal health (Smyth et al, 2021) and many countries have been growing GM crops for years. Despite political commitments to innovation and investments into research (EC, 2010), the EU is still lagging behind in adopting this technology on a wider scale owing to diverging views among its member states, the European Commission (EC) and the European parliament. Various attempts to resolve this tension by legal and regulatory means have created the most cumbersome and byzantine regulatory system for GM crops in the world. The Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013, meant to ease the regulatory process, has made things even more complicated.

Various attempts to resolve this tension by legal and regulatory means have created the most cumbersome and byzantine regulatory system for GM crops in the world.

A major conundrum for the EU is the need to import large quantities of protein‐rich crops such as soybean to supply the continent’s livestock industry with high‐quality feed.In the light of the current Russia–Ukraine situation, which has added a layer of instability to already tense markets, the importance of the global agricultural market to ensure food security is even more pronounced.Given the high adoption rate of GM crops outside the EU, most of these imported commodities inevitably contain GM crops. Under EU law, food and feed products that contain or were produced from GM crops need an import authorisation by the European Commission (EC), which is a lengthy, costly and unpredictable process.In 2002, the EU set up a centralised review system under Regulation (EC) 178/2002 (the General Food Law Regulation) and an independent scientific body to conduct this review: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA is responsible for performing the risk assessment for food and feed regulated products, including GM crops; their advice “opinion” is used by the EC to draft a decision whether or not to authorise import. EU member states then vote whether or not to follow the EC’s draft decision. To date, not a single GM product has received a qualified majority decision for authorisation. The EC then makes the final decision based on EFSA’s risk assessment.There are many reasons why the member states disagree, mostly owing to political and economic agendas. Some members with a large and important agri‐food sector tend to vote in line with EFSA’s opinions, while others consistently vote against authorisation or abstain their vote mainly for political reasons. This ongoing disagreement has made it very difficult to establish an EU‐wide policy for agricultural biotechnology.

…the continuous proliferation, update and reinterpretation of EU requirements means that studies that were conducted in compliance with the guidelines at a particular time may no longer comply with changed requirements…

     

Are all GMOs the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India

India has more than 215 million food‐insecure people, many of whom are farmers. Genetically modified (GM) crops have the potential to alleviate this problem by increasing food supplies and strengthening farmer livelihoods. For this to occur, two factors are critical: (i) a change in the regulatory status of GM crops, and (ii) consumer acceptance of GM foods. There are generally two classifications of GM crops based on how they are bred: cisgenically bred, containing only DNA sequences from sexually compatible organisms; and transgenically bred, including DNA sequences from sexually incompatible organisms. Consumers may view cisgenic foods as more natural than those produced via transgenesis, thus influencing consumer acceptance. This premise was the catalyst for our study—would Indian consumers accept cisgenically bred rice and if so, how would they value cisgenics compared to conventionally bred rice, GM‐labelled rice and ‘no fungicide’ rice? In this willingness‐to‐pay study, respondents did not view cisgenic and GM rice differently. However, participants were willing‐to‐pay a premium for any aforementioned rice with a ‘no fungicide’ attribute, which cisgenics and GM could provide. Although not significantly different (P = 0.16), 76% and 73% of respondents stated a willingness‐to‐consume GM and cisgenic foods, respectively.