Detection and traceability of genetically modified organisms in the food production chain

Miraglia, Marina; Berdal, Knut G; Brera, Carlo; Corbisier, Philippe; Holst‐Jensen, Arne; Kok, E.J.; Marvin, H.J.P.; Schimmel, Heinz; Rentsch, Jürg; Rie, J.P.P.F. van; Zagon, Jutta

doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.018

Cited by 268 publications

(173 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

155

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, they reflect a balance between differently framed requests and technical capabilities (the lower the threshold, the larger the error): notifiers request high thresholds, whilst NGOs and consumers demand lower ones. Still, the translation of labeling thresholds in practice entails enormous technical and scientific challenges (Holst-Jensen et al, 2006;Miraglia et al, 2004;Weighardt, 2006).…”

Section: Adventitious Gmo Presence In Non-gm Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union

Devos

Reheul

Waele

et al. 2006

Environ. Biosafety Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recapitulating how genetic modification technology and its agro-food products aroused strong societal opposition in the European Union, this paper demonstrates how this opposition contributed to shape the European regulatory frame on GM crops. More specifically, it describes how this opposition contributed to a de facto moratorium on the commercialization of new GM crop events in the end of the nineties. From this period onwards, the regulatory frame has been continuously revised in order to slow down further erosion of public and market confidence. Various scientific and technical reforms were made to meet societal concerns relating to the safety of GM crops. In this context, the precautionary principle, environmental post-market monitoring and traceability were adopted as ways to cope with scientific uncertainties. Labeling, traceability, co-existence and public information were installed in an attempt to meet the general public request for more information about GM agro-food products, and the specific demand to respect the consumers' and farmers' freedom of choice. Despite these efforts, today, the explicit role of public participation and/or ethical consultation during authorization procedures is at best minimal. Moreover, no legal room was created to progress to an integral sustainability evaluation during market procedures. It remains to be seen whether the recent policy shift towards greater transparency about value judgments, plural viewpoints and scientific uncertainties will be one step forward in integrating ethical concerns more explicitly in risk analysis. As such, the regulatory frame stands open for further interpretation, reflecting in various degrees a continued interplay with societal concerns relating to GM agro-food products. In this regard, both societal concerns and diversely interpreted regulatory criteria can be inferred as signaling a request -and even a quest -to render more explicit the broader-than-scientific dimension of the actual risk analysis.

show abstract

Section: Adventitious Gmo Presence In Non-gm Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union

Devos

Reheul

Waele

et al. 2006

Environ. Biosafety Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…cell adhesion [64], innate immunity [3], CO 2 assimilation in metabolic pathways [30], extracellular matrix degradation [2] and membrane construction [17,44,85]) as well as the binding properties of retrocyclins [14], apotosis regulators [42], antimicrobial peptides [23], glycosphingolipids [97], barley -amylase/subtilisin inhibitor [66], amelogenin [67], lysenin [45], lectins [65], endoxylases [40], connexins [21], selectins [25], phosphoinositides [71], carbohydrates [20,70,72], HIV proteins [48,91], tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily [95] and the insulin-like growth factor system [58]. Other reviews highlight the integration of optical biosensors with complementary technologies in areas of applied research, including drug development and chemical genetics [1,50,73,83,88], plant proteomics [33], gene and protein expression [29,35,86], antibody optimization [5,46,62], food industry [4,47,54,61,79], bioprocessing and manufacturing [12,…”

Section: Reviews Theory and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of the year 2004 commercial optical biosensor literature

Rich

Myszka

2005

J of Molecular Recognition

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The year 2004 represents a milestone for the biosensor research community: in this year, over 1000 articles were published describing experiments performed using commercially available systems. The 1038 papers we found represent a $ 10% increase over the past year and demonstrate that the implementation of biosensors continues to expand at a healthy pace. We evaluated the data presented in each paper and compiled a 'top 10' list. These 10 articles, which we recommend every biosensor user reads, describe wellperformed kinetic, equilibrium and qualitative/screening studies, provide comparisons between binding parameters obtained from different biosensor users, as well as from biosensor-and solution-based interaction analyses, and summarize the cutting-edge applications of the technology. We also re-iterate some of the experimental pitfalls that lead to sub-optimal data and over-interpreted results. We are hopeful that the biosensor community, by applying the hints we outline, will obtain data on a par with that presented in the 10 spotlighted articles. This will ensure that the scientific community at large can be confident in the data we report from optical biosensors.

show abstract

“…Hence, some cross-pollination occurs in tomato and eggplant, albeit at a small percentage and depending on environmental conditions, typically in the range of 0-10% [17]. (The standard test to measure the adventitious presence of GM in non-GM crops is quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) [18]. As of now, however, it is uncertain how quantification of transgenes will be conducted for fruits like tomatoes and eggplants.…”

Section: Cross-pollinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits and Costs of Biologically Contained Genetically Modified Tomatoes and Eggplants in Italy and Spain

Groeneveld

Ansink

Wiel³

et al. 2011

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper we assess the benefits and costs of introducing biologically contained genetically modified (GM) crops, with an application to the potential introduction of GM tomatoes and eggplants in Italy and Spain. Such crops possess both the standard beneficial GM traits, and they prevent introgression of transgenes from GM crops to their conventional or wild relatives, thereby adding to the safety of their cultivation. As a result, coexistence regulations for these crops are less stringent than for crops without biological containment. The potential adoption of biologically contained GM tomatoes and eggplants is assessed in a cost-benefit framework for Italy and Spain. We conclude that biological containment has considerable potential benefits if policy makers are willing to loosen the restrictions on the introduction of these varieties.

show abstract

Detection and traceability of genetically modified organisms in the food production chain

Cited by 268 publications

References 24 publications

The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union

The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union

Survey of the year 2004 commercial optical biosensor literature

Benefits and Costs of Biologically Contained Genetically Modified Tomatoes and Eggplants in Italy and Spain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About