scholarly journals Next biotechnological plants for addressing global challenges: The contribution of transgenesis and new breeding techniques

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnès E. Ricroch ◽  
Jacqueline Martin-Laffon ◽  
Bleuenn Rault ◽  
Victor C. Pallares ◽  
Marcel Kuntz
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. e00460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rim Lassoued ◽  
Diego Maximiliano Macall ◽  
Stuart J. Smyth ◽  
Peter W.B. Phillips ◽  
Hayley Hesseln

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 144
Author(s):  
Beate Friedrich

The paper uses qualitative interviews and document analysis to examine conflicts over plant and animal breeding techniques from the perspectives of Social and Political Ecology. It asks how past conflicts over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can inform understandings of possible trajectories of emerging conflicts over new breeding techniques (NBTs) such as CRISPR/Cas genome editing. Case studies of conflicts in three areas where the transgenic maize MON810 was cultivated in Germany from 2005–2008 show that the escalation of conflict coincided with the first tangible presence of these already controversial organisms in the rural landscape. Location-specific interlinkages between discursive and material dimensions gave rise to different pathways of conflict in the three areas studied. These empirical results inform the analysis of emerging conflicts over NBTs in Germany and the United Kingdom. The future of NBTs in both countries is still open, and the divergence of regulatory frameworks in Europe could lead to the development of ‘NBT hotspots’ located in particular European countries, provoking an escalation of conflict in areas where commercial application takes place. The paper concludes by examining the potential for a politicization of future conflicts to encompass wider issues related to the transformation of agricultural systems towards sustainability.


Author(s):  
Silas Obukosia ◽  
Olalekan Akinbo ◽  
Woldeyesus Sinebo ◽  
Moussa Savadogo ◽  
Samuel Timpo ◽  
...  

A new set of breeding techniques, referred to as New Breeding Techniques developed in the last two decades have potential for enhancing improved productivity in crop and animal breeding globally. These include site directed nucleases based genomic editing procedures-CRISPR and Cas associated proteins, Zinc Finger Nucleases, Meganucleases/Homing Endonucleases and Transcription- Activator Like-Effector Nucleases for genome editing and other technologies including- Oligonucleotide-Directed Mutagenesis, Cisgenesis and intragenesis, RNA-Dependent DNA methylation; Transgrafting, Agroinfiltration, Reverse breeding. There are ongoing global debates on whether the processes of and products emerging from these technologies should be regulated as genetically modified organisms or approved as conventional products. Decisions on whether to regulate as GMOs are based both on understanding of the molecular basis of their development and if the GMO intermediate step was used. For example- cisgenesis, can be developed using Agrobacterium tumefaciens methods of transformation, a process used by GMO but if the selection is properly conducted the intermediate GMO elements will be eliminated and the final product will be identical to the conventionally developed crops. Others like Site Directed Nuclease 3 are regulated as GMOs in countries such as United State of America, Canada, European Union, Argentina, Australia. Progress in genome editing research, testing of genome edited bacterial blight resistant rice, development of Guidelines for regulating new breeding techniques or genome editing in Africa is also covered with special reference to South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria. Science- and evidence-based approach to regulation of new breeding techniques among regulators and policy makers should be strongly supported.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahil Shahzad ◽  
Shakra Jamil ◽  
Shakeel Ahmad ◽  
Amina Nisar ◽  
Sipper Khan ◽  
...  

Cereals and pulses are consumed as a staple food in low-income countries for the fulfillment of daily dietary requirements and as a source of micronutrients. However, they are failing to offer balanced nutrition due to deficiencies of some essential compounds, macronutrients, and micronutrients, i.e., cereals are deficient in iron, zinc, some essential amino acids, and quality proteins. Meanwhile, the pulses are rich in anti-nutrient compounds that restrict the bioavailability of micronutrients. As a result, the population is suffering from malnutrition and resultantly different diseases, i.e., anemia, beriberi, pellagra, night blindness, rickets, and scurvy are common in the society. These facts highlight the need for the biofortification of cereals and pulses for the provision of balanced diets to masses and reduction of malnutrition. Biofortification of crops may be achieved through conventional approaches or new breeding techniques (NBTs). Conventional approaches for biofortification cover mineral fertilization through foliar or soil application, microbe-mediated enhanced uptake of nutrients, and conventional crossing of plants to obtain the desired combination of genes for balanced nutrient uptake and bioavailability. Whereas, NBTs rely on gene silencing, gene editing, overexpression, and gene transfer from other species for the acquisition of balanced nutritional profiles in mutant plants. Thus, we have highlighted the significance of conventional and NBTs for the biofortification of cereals and pulses. Current and future perspectives and opportunities are also discussed. Further, the regulatory aspects of newly developed biofortified transgenic and/or non-transgenic crop varieties via NBTs are also presented.


Agronomy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 1511
Author(s):  
Sven J. R. Bostyn

Plant breeders’ rights (PBRs) are an important IP right, and as plant breeding has a crucial role to play in sustainability, it is vital that innovations in plant breeding receive the appropriate innovation incentives. The full breeders’ exemption ensures that there is always free access to the plant variety protected by a PBR for developing new varieties. The price to pay for this exemption is that PBR holders cannot prevent third parties from taking advantage of their efforts and investments in developing a new variety. This invites free-riding, at the detriment of the PBR holder. The concept of “essentially derived varieties” (EDV), introduced in 1991, provided a “fix” for this problem. It allows PBR holders to extend, at least to some extent, the scope of protection of their PBR to those varieties which use all or most essential characteristics of the initial protection variety. Decades have passed, but no adequate interpretation of the complex EDV concept has been found. The advent of new breeding techniques (NBTs) has made the discussion about a fair scope of protection of PBRs all the more relevant. This necessitates a modernization of the EDV concept, if the PBR system is to remain relevant and continue to be an innovation-incentivizing mechanism. I argue that a broader scope for the EDV concept is essential and fair. Determining what essential derivation is will remain a difficult task also in the future. This is why I have additionally proposed a collaborative reward model, which will facilitate the functioning of the EDV system and is capable of providing more legal certainty in this area.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document