Ipsos realiza encuesta para Monsanto en Puerto Rico
- Carmelo Ruiz Marrero
7 de diciembre 2014
Etiquetas: es, Ipsos, Puerto Rico
Este es un blog bilingüe fundado en mayo de 2004, dedicado a proveer perspectivas críticas sobre biotecnología y bioseguridad … This is a bilingual blog, founded in May 2004, dedicated to providing critical perspectives on biotechnology and biosafety. Contact: ruiz@tutanota.com.
Etiquetas: es, Ipsos, Puerto Rico
November 26, 2014 |
THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Many cases of unintentional transboundary movements have taken place since the introduction of GMOs. Some of these are also illegal transboundary movements, which are addressed by Article 25 of the Protocol. In the absence of a global monitoring system, GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International launched the GM Contamination Register database (www.contaminationregister.org) in 2005 to record all publically documented incidents of contamination arising from the intentional or accidental release of GM organisms as well as illegal plantings of GM crops and reported adverse agricultural side-effects. An analysis of the Register database has been recently published. From 1997 to the end of 2013, 396 incidents in 63 countries were recorded. There have also been nine cases of contamination associated with GM lines with no authorisation for cultivation anywhere in the world, hence these have not been risk assessed. An analysis of the data concludes that “GM contamination can occur independently of commercialisation”, as evidenced by GM rice which has never been grown commercially but which records the highest number of contamination incidents. GM maize, soya and oilseed rape, all grown commercially, rate next. Once GM contamination has happened, it can be difficult to contain it. However, the detection of GM contamination is dependent on routine and targeted regimes, which is inconsistent across countries. Furthermore, the lack of analytical methodology to detect GM crops at the field trial stage poses an obstacle to detecting any arising contamination.
The Abstract and Conclusions of the paper are reproduced below.
With best wishes
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twnet@po.jaring.my
Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/
To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to news@biosafety-info.net
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net
Becky Price and Janet Cotter
International Journal of Food Contamination 2014, 1:5
doi:10.1186/s40550-014-0005-8
Abstract
Background
Since large-scale commercial planting of genetically modified (GM) crops began in 1996, a concern has been that non-GM crops may become contaminated by GM crops and that wild or weedy relatives of GM crops growing outside of cultivated areas could become contaminated. The GM Contamination Register contains records of GM contamination incidents since 1997 and forms a unique database. By the end of 2013, 396 incidents across 63 countries had been recorded.
|
Etiquetas: Contamination, en, Third World Network
Etiquetas: Calentamiento global, Cambio climático, COP 20, es, RALLT
Etiquetas: en, GM Watch, Precautionary principle
December 03, 2014 |
THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Genome editing is an advanced genetic engineering technology that can directly modify a gene within a genome. Examples include genome editing with nucleases such as zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and the clustered regularly inter-spaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas system.
Scientists have warned that some organisms modified by genome editing may appear almost identical to naturally occurring organisms, making genetic characterization difficult. While acknowledging that genome editing demonstrates efficient and effective genetic engineering, they caution that it is creating indistinct regulatory boundaries between naturally occurring and modified organisms.
They also cite other risks such as unforeseen functional losses or gains in the modified organisms, which may threaten biodiversity. Furthermore, unforeseen immunogenicity or toxicity in agricultural products could have adverse health impacts. Strict scientific scrutiny of these organisms is therefore required before any environmental release or placing on the market is considered.
One major issue raised is whether some techniques of genome editing will fall under current regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The scientists call for scientific accountability in R&D to “avoid misleading society” and for the establishment of appropriate regulations to govern the technology.
With best wishes
Third World Network131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/ To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to news@biosafety-info.net To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net
CAUTION REQUIRED FOR HANDLING GENOME EDITING TECHNOLOGY
By Motoko Araki1, Kumie Nojima2, and Tetsuya Ishii1
Trends in Biotechnology May 2014, Vol. 32, No. 5
1 Office of Health and Safety, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0808, Japan
2 Molecular Imaging Center, National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Chiba 263-8555, Japan
Genome-editing technology, although a robust tool for genetic engineering, is creating indistinct regulatory boundaries between naturally occurring and modified organisms. However, researchers must act with caution in research and development to avoid misleading society. Furthermore, appropriate regulations should be proactively discussed and established for handling genome-editing technology. |
Etiquetas: en, Genome editing, Third World Network
December 02, 2014 |
THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE A report published by GenØk-Centre for Biosafety in Norway proposes a framework for monitoring of GMOs released into the environment. Specifically, it provides information and considerations for monitoring carried out under the Norwegian Gene Technology Act, which is at the same time robust, comprehensive and useful for safeguarding the environment and human and animal health. The framework is adaptable to biosafety frameworks in other regulatory contexts. GMO monitoring is the observational science undertaken when a GMO is to be released into the environment, which aims at detecting the occurrence of changes (e.g. in the receiving environment(s) or in the GMO) that could lead to adverse effects. Monitoring aims to detect both anticipated and unanticipated effects that are direct and indirect, immediate and delayed, by observing changes in the environment or in human or animal health and determining whether these changes are related to one (or more) GMO(s). GMO monitoring may serve three principle functions: 1. Monitoring can be a science-based means for confirming the conclusion on hazards anticipated in the risk assessment; 2. Monitoring can survey for adverse effects that were not identified in, or could not have been anticipated in, a singular risk assessment; 3. Monitoring may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of selected risk management strategies. The report distinguished between the two main types of monitoring: case-specific monitoring and general surveillance. Case-specific monitoring deals with monitoring for potential adverse effects that were identified and evaluated in the risk assessment of a specific GMO, or to verify the effectiveness of risk management strategies that were enacted with the GMO release, based on specified protection goals. General surveillance surveys for unanticipated adverse effects that were not identified in the risk assessment. This includes monitoring for interactive or cumulative adverse effects that by definition could not have been anticipated in a singular risk assessment and is particularly useful where there is a limited understanding of persistence, accumulation or exposure of the GMO or its products in the environment, or where different GMOs may interact, or new agricultural management strategies may be employed. The report recommends a monitoring plan that is clear in its requirements, detailed in its description, practical and feasible in its management, robust in its analysis and interpretation, and consistent in its reporting. With this aim there are a number of general considerations that may be kept in mind in the development of a monitoring framework: 1. The monitoring plan should be flexible and adaptive to respond to new information, realities, and/or monitoring needs; 2. The collection of baseline data in both the specific GMO and the potential receiving environment is critical to detect changes and establish causal relationships; 3. Review and assessment of monitoring should ensure scientific quality and integrity in the conduct of monitoring, and ensure that the objectives set forth at the beginning of the monitoring are met; 4. Additional risk assessment studies may be deemed necessary based on the results from monitoring; 5. Monitoring should begin early in the development of a GMO; 6. Observation and management of long-term, indirect and cumulative effects; 7. The capacities to carry out the required monitoring activities should be taken into account when designing a plan or determining its feasibility, in order to identify and estimate any additional resources needed to carry out the activity; 8. Monitoring for human and animal health impacts may require additional methods and/or information sources; 9. The competent authority may request, as appropriate, the exporter to carry out the implementation and coordination of monitoring activities. The full report is available here: http://genok.no/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/GenOk_Biosafety_Report_2013_02.pdf With best wishes, Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/ To unsubscribe: reply ‘unsubscribe’ to news@biosafety-info.net To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net Biosafety Report 2013/02 GenØk - Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway December 2013 Monitoring of GMOs released into the Norwegian environment: A case study with herbicide-tolerant GM rapeseed David Quist Summary Monitoring GMOs approved for release into the environment is a requirement under both EU and Norwegian legislation, in order to safeguard desired protection goals from potential adverse effects arising from their use. Achieving this objective requires that monitoring be practical and feasible, its use of resources effective, and that its outcomes are useful for producing new knowledge. This report aims to help ensure monitoring carried out under the Norwegian Gene Technology Act (NGTA) is robust, comprehensive, and useful for meeting the stated aims of safeguarding the environment and human/animal health. |
Etiquetas: Contamination, David Quist, en, Genok
Etiquetas: en, Glyphosate, GM Watch