scholarly journals Genetically modified crops: the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gurdev S Khush
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
Modern Agriculture ◽  
History Of

scholarly journals Comparative Analysis of Genetically-Modified Crops: Conditional Equivalence Criteria

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Changjian Jiang ◽  
Chen Meng ◽  
Adam W. Schapaugh ◽  
Huizhe Jin
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
Genotypic Differences ◽  
Unintended Effects ◽  
Equivalence Test ◽  
History Of ◽  
Equivalence Criterion ◽  
The Difference ◽  
New Criterion ◽  
The Given

AbstractThe comparative assessment of genetically-modified (GM) crops relies on the principle of substantial equivalence, which states that such products should be compared to conventional counterparts that have an established history of safe use. In an effort to operationalize this principle, the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority proposed an equivalence test that directly compares a GM test variety with a set of unrelated, conventionally-bred reference varieties with part of the difference as the known background of the test (the same as the given control). The criterion of the EFSA test, however, is defined solely by genotypic differences between the non-traited control and reference varieties (i.e. the background effect) while assuming the so-called GM trait effect as zero. As the outcome of an EFSA equivalence test is determined primarily by the similarity, or lack thereof, of the control and references, a conditional equivalence criterion is proposed in this investigation that focuses on “unintended” effects of a GM trait which is irrespective of the (random) genotypic value of a given control. The new criterion also includes a mean-scaled standard similar to the 80-125% rule for bioequivalence assessment practiced in the pharmaceutical industry as an alternative when the reference variation is zero or close to zero. In addition, optional criteria are proposed with a step-wise procedure to control the rate of false negatives (non-equivalence by chance) providing a comprehensive assessment under multiple comparisons. An application to maize grain composition data demonstrates that the conditional equivalence criterion provides effect-specific and more robust assessment of equivalence than the EFSA criterion did, especially for GM traits showing negligible or no unintended effects which are likely true for most traits in the current market.

CAUTION, PRECAUTION & COMMON SENSE: SOME THOUGHTS ON GMOS, ECOSYSTEMS, AND REGULATING THE UNKNOWN

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 991
Author(s):  
David N. Cassuto ◽  
Drew Levinson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Market ◽  
Genetically Engineered ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Modern Agriculture ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Potential Risks

As of 2014, genetically modified crops occupied 448 million acres globally, representing a global market value of 15.7 billion dollars. The United States planted 170 million acres of genetically engineered crops in 2012, including 95% of the nation's sugar beets, 94% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 88% of the feed corn. While many argue that biotechnology is essential to ensuring long-term food security in the climate change era, little is known of its impact on ecosystems.  Potential risks such as changes in adaptive characteristics, gene flow, pest resistance, genotypic or phenotypic instability and adverse effects on non-target organisms must be balanced with the benefits of genetically modified crops. Despite much perseveration about the risks and benefits of GMOs, the United States regulatory regime has remained stagnant, unable to adapt to new innovations in the field. This lack of adequate oversight cannot go on. We propose shifting responsibility to a single agency charged with implementing science-based regulations that embrace the precautionary principle and promote early collaboration among stakeholders, multidisciplinary research, and well-designed monitoring. Part I of this Article provides an overview of biotechnology in modern agriculture.  More specifically, it evaluates potential benefits and risks associated with genetically modified crops. Part II outlines the United States regulatory regime as it applies to genetically modified crops.  Part III analyzes the current regulatory process, focusing specifically on the Department of Agriculture’s ineffective role in the environmental review process. Last, Part IV offers several potential adjustments to improve our ability to identify and mitigate the unforeseeable consequences of implementing this revolutionary technology. 

scholarly journals Monarch butterfly and milkweed declines substantially predate the use of genetically modified crops

2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (8) ◽  
pp. 3006-3011 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. H. Boyle ◽  
H. J. Dalgleish ◽  
J. R. Puzey
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Danaus Plexippus ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
Monarch Butterfly ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gm Crops ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
The Past ◽  
Scientific Attention ◽  
Herbicide Use

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) decline over the past 25 years has received considerable public and scientific attention, in large part because its decline, and that of its milkweed (Asclepias spp.) host plant, have been linked to genetically modified (GM) crops and associated herbicide use. Here, we use museum and herbaria specimens to extend our knowledge of the dynamics of both monarchs and milkweeds in the United States to more than a century, from 1900 to 2016. We show that both monarchs and milkweeds increased during the early 20th century and that recent declines are actually part of a much longer-term decline in both monarchs and milkweed beginning around 1950. Herbicide-resistant crops, therefore, are clearly not the only culprit and, likely, not even the primary culprit: Not only did monarch and milkweed declines begin decades before GM crops were introduced, but other variables, particularly a decline in the number of farms, predict common milkweed trends more strongly over the period studied here.

Environment and its Forms of Knowledge: The Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops in India

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-183
Author(s):  
Aniket Aga
Keyword(s):  
Power Relations ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
Gm Crops ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Democratic Participation ◽  
Environment Protection ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Inherent Ambiguity ◽  
Forms Of Knowledge

A fierce controversy over genetically modified (GM) crops has been raging in India for over two decades. Analyzing India’s regulatory regime for GM crops, this article focuses on the modes through which state bureaucracies know the environment. It argues that two epistemologies - scientific and legal-administrative – underpin environment protection. By unraveling the course of regulatory disputes, I demonstrate that bureaucracies are not just hierarchically divided but are also segmented by horizontal, functional specializations. There is thus an inherent ambiguity lodged between environment as a technical discourse and as statecraft. This ambiguity both fosters and constrains democratic participation in policy decisions and can even partially disrupt power relations in unanticipated ways.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document