scholarly journals RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF GENETIC ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND AGRICULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 589-603
Author(s):  
Nguyen Hai Ha ◽  
Pham Le Bich Hang ◽  
Nong Van Hai ◽  
Le Thi Thu Hien
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Herbicide Tolerance ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
The United States ◽  
Genetically Engineered ◽  
Molecular Techniques ◽  
Industrial Biotechnology ◽  
The Us

The status of research, development and application of genetic technology in the US has been reflected through efforts and accomplishments in numerous fields including research, medicine, industrial biotechnology and agriculture in the past decades. In the area of medicine, the field of therapeutic purposes on human is the pioneer, in which gene therapy is attempted to carry out in various clinical trials. Diagnostic applications of human diseases which focus primarily on infectious diseases, cancer, pharmacogenomics and screening for inherited diseases by using molecular techniques related to PCR, next generation sequencing are followed. In addition, preparatory studies on human cells utilizing CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology have been undertaken in hopes of finding new treatments for cancer and rare form of eye disorder. In the field of agriculture, many large companies in the US have been developing varieties of genetically modified crops with traits of herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, drought resistance and nutrition enhancement. Among the biotech crops, proportion of planted acres of genetically engineered soybean, corn and cotton were increased rapidly and forecasted to expand in the coming years. Studies on generating genetically modified animals and fisheries have also been concentrated in order to not only resist diseases, enhance nutrition, but also provide pharmaceutical compounds. Application of new gene editing techniques such as CRISPR/Cas9 on plants and animals help biotech products have more opportunities to be approved for commercial sale in the US market. In general, although the research and application of genetic engineering in the US has outstripped worldwide, numerous obstacles are still encountered due to serious ethical regulations and controversy regarding to human health and environment. The US government continues to establish suitable policies and invest in science and technology to improve the quality of human life.

scholarly journals THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs)

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-20
Author(s):  
Anisa ◽  
Chelsilya ◽  
Grace Yohana ◽  
Mucco Eva ◽  
Morry Zefanya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Current technological advances have been present in all aspects of human life, including technological advances in biotechnology. Biotechnology not only raises hope for science but also raises heated debates among scientists, especially between the European Union and the US. This debate arises because of differences in perspective between the EU and the US. The EU has stringent rules regarding the development efforts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). At the same time, the US thinks that GMOs are part of agriculture, so there is no need for any special laws to regulate them. Various side effects also come hand in hand with the birth of GMOs. They are ranging from adverse effects on human health, the health of food products, and even environmental damage. The development of GMOs can damage the ecosystem of species that exist in the environment. Still, more complex problems arise due to GMOs like economic problems and monopolies.   Keywords: The  GMOs, The EU, The US.

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.

Genetically Modified Crops

2021 ◽  
pp. 112-133
Author(s):  
Alasdair R. Young
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Member State ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Decision Rule ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Decision Rules ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
The Eu

This chapter presents the EU’s responses with respect to three closely related policies: the approval of genetically modified (GM) crops for sale and (separately) for cultivation and efforts to lift member state bans on EU-approved GM varieties. These most similar cases differ in outcome; with the EU resuming approvals for sale (a change sufficient to placate Argentina and Canada, but not the United States), but not for cultivation and failing to address member state bans despite very permissive decision rules. In these cases, no tariffs were threatened and there was no exporter mobilization. Commission trade officials did push to accelerate approvals. The Commission, which was more favorably disposed toward biotechnology than most of the member states, was able, with the help of very a permissive decision rule, to overcome opposition to approvals for sale, but not for cultivation, reflecting greater concern among regulators about the environmental impacts of GM cultivation than about the safety of GM varieties. The member state governments also balked at forcing their peers to change their policies. There is little evidence that the WTO’s adverse ruling affected any of the protagonists’ preferences.

Comparison on the Legal Management on Genetically Modified Food between the Europe and the US and China‘s Legal Reform

2013 ◽  
Vol 781-784 ◽  
pp. 1341-1346
Author(s):  
Ren Yuan Li
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
The United States ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
The Us

The European Union and the United States have imposed different legal management on the genetically modified food. There are some disadvantages in the legal regime of China concerning the management of GMF which make the regal reform on the issue of GMF become necessary. To ensure food safety, China should take the legal regime of EU as reference and raise its standards for the market access of the GMF. The requirements of traceability and labeling for GMF should also be included in law. A centralized governmental department responsible for the issues of GMF should also be established.

From “Experiments of Concern” to “Groups of Concern”: Constructing and Containing Citizens in Synthetic Biology

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1038-1064 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Frow
Keyword(s):  
Synthetic Biology ◽  
Recombinant Dna ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
The United States ◽  
Biological Engineering ◽  
Recombinant Dna Technology ◽  
The Us ◽  
Dna Technology ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Past Experiences

Synthetic biology represents a recent and explicit attempt to make biology easier to engineer, and through this to open up the design space of genetic engineering to a wider range of practitioners (including, but not limited to, engineers). Proponents of this approach emphasize the standardization of practices as key to successful biological engineering; yet, meaningful transatlantic differences are emerging with respect to the constitution of key concerns and the governance of synthetic biology in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). In this article, I tease out how national approaches to governing synthetic biology are being framed against different salient past experiences with recombinant DNA technology. In the US, the governance of synthetic biology is consistently articulated in relation to the early days of recombinant DNA technology and the self-governance mechanisms pioneered in response to Asilomar. In the UK, more recent experiences with genetically modified crops provide the overarching imaginary against which governance initiatives are being proposed. I suggest that these differing sociotechnical imaginaries have implications for how new “groups of concern” are being defined in relation to synthetic biology and how measures to contain perceived risks are being pursued in the US and Britain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document