GM crops bring concerns as well as benefits, admits USDA
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: firstname.lastname@example.org.
|Title: Future GE Developments Remain Risky|
Publication date: February 13, 2014
Posting date: February 13, 2014
THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Re: Future GE Developments Remain Risky
A new report from Testbiotech entitled “Free trade for high-risk biotech‘? Future of genetically engineered organisms, new synthetic genome technologies and the planned free trade agreement TTIP” examines future developments in agro-biotechnology and genetic engineering. It focuses on the kinds of GMOs for which market authorisation has been applied in the EU and those that are in the pipeline and might soon be on the market. The report discusses these future applications in the context of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement between the EU and USA, which may facilitate placing such products on the market.
Forty-nine GE crop events have been approved for import into the EU for use in food and feed while 55 applications for authorisation of new GE crop events are pending. Most are insecticidal and/or resistant to herbicides. These same traits also appear in so-called stacked events, which increasingly combine multiple traits. New applications in the future include GE trees and GE insects.The report also discusses the new 'synthetic genome technologies' which involve radical alteration of genomes. The report warns, with supporting evidence, that these technologies are complex, failure-prone and linked to uncertainties and risks.
Testbiotech asserts that if society wants to allow the use of some of these technologies and applications, there is no alternative but to reinforce precautionary approaches in parallel. The report therefore recommends strengthening the Precautionary Principle; extending ethical debates on the protection of genetic identity and integrity of living beings; and changing agricultural policy to include more comprehensive protection of the environment and enhancement of biodiversity.
The Summary and the Conclusions and Recommendations of the report are reproduced below. The full paper can be downloaded at: www.testbiotech.org/node/1007
Etiquetas: Sara Agapito
|Publication date: January 27, 2014|
Posting date: January 27, 2014
THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Review Highlights the Flaws in Artificial Genetic Modification
It has been about 20 years since genetically modified (GM) organisms were introduced into the world on a commercial basis. The original rationale and impetus for artificial genetic modification was the “central dogma” of molecular biology which assumed that DNA carried all the instructions for making an organism, transmitted via RNA to protein to biological function, in linear causal chains. This dogma has been debunked by the “new genetics” of the “fluid genome” (where the organism conducts its own natural genetic modification) which emerged in the mid-1970s.
This situation is discussed in a review article by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a renowned genetic scientist from the Institute of Science in Society, London. The review was published in the journal Entropy and clearly lays out the differences between natural and artificial genetic modification: “natural genetic modification is quite precise and predictable, is negotiated by the organism as a whole, occurs at the right time and place without damaging the genome….(and) is appropriate to the organism as a whole in its environmental context (whereas) artificial genetic modification, in contrast, is crude, imprecise, unpredictable, and uncontrollable….and interferes with the natural process.”
The article, entitled “The New Genetics and Natural versus Artificial Genetic Modification”, reviews empirical evidence on how artificial genetic modification disrupts the natural process. Dr. Ho covers, inter alia, transgene instability, horizontal gene transfer, and the hazards of using the CaMV 35S promoter and the agrobacterium vector in genetic engineering.
The full article can be downloaded from:https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4748/pdf and the abstract is reproduced below.
With best wishes
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/
Review: The New Genetics and Natural versus Artificial Genetic Modification
Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society, London.
AbstractThe original rationale and impetus for artificial genetic modification was the “central dogma” of molecular biology that assumed DNA carries all the instructions for making an organism, which are transmitted via RNA to protein to biological function in linear causal chains. This is contrary to the reality of the “fluid genome” that has emerged since the mid-1970s. In order to survive, the organism needs to engage in natural genetic modification in real time, an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life with RNA and DNA responding to and participating in “downstream” biological functions. Artificial genetic modification, in contrast, is crude, imprecise, and interferes with the natural process. It drives natural systems towards maximum biosemiotic entropy as the perturbations are propagated and amplified through the complex cascades of interactions between subsystems that are essential for health and longevity.