Production, Identity Preservation, and Labeling in a Marketplace with Genetically Modified and Non-Genetically Modified Foods

Huffman, Wallace E.

doi:10.1104/pp.103.033423

Cited by 26 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the considerations of coexistence is the transfer of genes from one population to another through gene flow via pollen [16]. The methods used to study gene flow include potential pollen-mediated gene flow (which includes the analysis of pollen viability, pollen dispersal and deposition, pollen capture and computer modelling) [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] and pollen-mediated gene flow (which involves determining the extent of cross-pollination over distance and computer modelling) [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A case study of GM maize gene flow in South Africa

Viljoen

Chetty

2011

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: South Africa has been growing first-generation commercial genetically modified (GM) maize since 1997. Despite a requirement for non-GM food, especially for export, there is no system for coexistence of GM and non-GM crop. Gene flow is a major contributor to commingling, and different distances of cross-pollination have been recorded for maize, using a variety of field-trial designs under different environmental conditions, with the furthest distance being 650 m. However, these trials have usually been small plots and not on the scale of commercial farming. There are also no published data regarding the extent of cross-pollination for maize in South Africa, even after a decade of commercialization of GM. Thus, the aim of this study, conducted from 2005 to 2007, was to determine the extent of GM maize cross-pollination under South African conditions in the context of commercial farming practice. Materials and methods: Field trials were planted with a central plot of yellow GM maize (0.0576 ha) surrounded by white non-GM maize (13.76 ha), in two different geographic regions over two seasons with temporal and spatial isolations to surrounding commercial maize planting. Cross-pollination from GM to non-GM maize was determined phenotypically across 16 directional transects. Pollen counts during flowering were compared to weather data as well as percentage cross-pollination. The data were transformed logarithmically, and mean percentage cross-pollination was compared to high cross-pollination. Results and discussion: Although there was a general congruency between wind data, pollen load and crosspollination, it is evident that wind data and pollen load do not solely explain the directional extent of crosspollination and that swirling winds may have contributed to this incongruence. Based on the logarithmic equations of cross-pollination over distance, 45 m is sufficient to minimize cross-pollination to between <1.0% and 0.1%, 145 m for <0.1% to 0.01% and 473 m for <0.01% to 0.001%. However, compared to this, a theoretical isolation distance of 135 m is required to ensure a minimum level of cross-pollination between <1.0% and 0.1%, 503 m for <0.1% to 0.01% and 1.8 km for <0.01% to 0.001% based on high values of cross-pollination. Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, the use of mean values of cross-pollination over distance may result in an underestimation of gene flow. Where stringent control of gene flow is required, for example, for non-GM seed production or for GM field trials under contained use, the high values of cross-pollination should be used to determine isolation distance. However, this may not be practical in terms of the isolation distance required. We therefore suggest that temporal and distance isolations be combined, taking into account the GM maize pollen sources within the radius of the most stringent isolation distance required.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A case study of GM maize gene flow in South Africa

Viljoen

Chetty

2011

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, they are environmentally friendly because farmers do not have to apply large amounts of pesticides and consequently involve less spraying to the surroundings which would in turn reduce the amount of harmful cancer causing mycotoxins in the environment Others argue that insect resistance will be only temporary because the pest would develop resistance at a later stage thus necessitating the use of even more pesticides. Indeed, this has already happened with GM cotton [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Crops can successfully reduce maturation time and improved resistance to different diseases along with its ability to increase stress tolerance.…”

Section: Future Challenges and Prospects In Safety Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gene revolution in crop improvement in this era is a relatively complex process which involves the utilization of new genes derived from different kinds of living organisms in order to add new improved characteristics to the manipulated plant crop [4]. This technology is known as genetic engineering or genetic modification and the crops which are modified are referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or just GM crops [4]. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines the process of producing genetically modified organisms as "the splicing of a gene of interest from a donor organism and pasting it into a recipient to express the desired characteristic" [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the year 2001, the global area of commercially grown transgenic plants was 52.6 million hectares. The main GM crops were soybean occupying 63% of global transgenic area, followed by corn, cotton and canola which occupied respectively 19%, 13% and 5% of global transgenic cultivation area [2][3][4]. The first approval of a genetically engineered plant for human consumption was given in the United States in 1992 when the Flavr Savr tomato from Calgene received approval from United States Department of Agriculture and Animal and the Plant Health Inspection Service and food and drug administration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since then, approximately 27 different food products have also been approved in other countries including the European Union [5]. Gene revolution in crop improvement in this era is a relatively complex process which involves the utilization of new genes derived from different kinds of living organisms in order to add new improved characteristics to the manipulated plant crop [4]. This technology is known as genetic engineering or genetic modification and the crops which are modified are referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or just GM crops [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Concerns Regarding Food Biotechnology: An Ongoing Debate

Anouti

2014

J Biodivers Biopros Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of agricultural biotechnology has led to the production of numerous types of genetically modified crops with improved traits. The prevalence of genetically modified food is increasing globally. The Rapid progress in the development of genetically modified food has significantly however increased public concern about food safety in recent years. The appearance of such foods in the global market has lately resulted in debate and scientific discussion. This debate is likely to continue, probably in the broader context of other uses of biotechnology and their consequences for human societies. To date, regulations and policies which mandate the labeling of genetically modified food are strictly adhered to in many countries to allow consumers both right for knowledge and freedom of choice. Nonetheless, several countries have not yet implemented policies that would oblige food producers to label modified food products. Main concerns about the safety of genetically modified food include allergenicity, emergence of antibiotic resistance and out-crossing of wild type crop. On the other hand, genetically modified crops can successfully reduce maturation time and improve quality by increasing tolerance to stress and some plant diseases. In fact many debate and believe that genetically modified food is the solution of world hunger because it increases food security every day and guarantees adequate nutrition. The debate would likely continue in the future but until clear evidence is provided, all concerns can be considered relative and dealt with transparency and objectivity to reveal both the good and evil side of biotechnology.

show abstract

Transgenic Organisms, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization

Cooley¹

2007

The Ethics of Genetic Commerce

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Production, Identity Preservation, and Labeling in a Marketplace with Genetically Modified and Non-Genetically Modified Foods

Cited by 26 publications

References 9 publications

A case study of GM maize gene flow in South Africa

A case study of GM maize gene flow in South Africa

Concerns Regarding Food Biotechnology: An Ongoing Debate

Transgenic Organisms, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About