Abstracts, Papers &

Resources:
Plant & Animal Breeding

Currently showing only Plant & Animal Breeding Resources
Page 4 of 6

Legislation & RegulationPlant & Animal BreedingScience & Technology

New genetic engineering techniques: precaution, risk, and the need to develop prior societal technology assessment

Steinbrecher R and Paul HR

Publication date: 18/08/2017

Business has been arguing that governments should override the precautionary principle in favor of an “innovation principle.” The new genetic engineering techniques (sometimes called “new breeding techniques”)1 provide the perfect cover for this argument. Proponents assure us that these new techniques are essential to address the crises we face and will provide economic benefit, as long as we set aside the precautionary approach that they claim increasingly hampers technological progress. We are in the midst of powerful high-risk technological developments with potentially severe and irreversible health, environmental, and societal implications. It is vital to develop processes for examining new technologies while they are still being developed. We argue that precaution needs to guide technology development in this area. Indeed, it should precede the technology development. An adequate technology assessment and decision-making process requires concerted effort, courage, and restraint, and it must include the option to decide against developing or deploying some technologies altogether.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Citizen StakeholdersPlant & Animal Breeding

Is it only the regulatory status? Broadening the debate on cisgenic plants

Lilian van Hove and Frøydis Gillund

Publication date: 26/06/2017

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

In current debates on emerging technologies for plant breeding in Europe, much attention has been given to the regulatory status of these techniques and their public acceptance. At present, both genetically modified plants with cisgenic approaches—using genes from crossable species—as well as transgenic approaches—using genes from different species—fall under GMO regulation in the EU and both are mandatorily labelled as GMOs. Researchers involved in the early development of cisgenic GM plants convey the message that the potential use and acceptance of cisgenic approaches will be seriously hindered if GMO regulations are not adjusted.

Although the similar treatment and labelling of transgenic and cisgenic plants may be a legitimate concern for the marketability of a cisgenic GM plant, there are concerns around their commercialization that reach beyond the current focus on (de)regulation. In this paper, we will use the development of the cisgenic GM potato that aims to overcome ‘late blight’—the most devastating potato disease worldwide—as a case to argue that it is important to recognize, reflect and respond to broader concerns than the dominant focus on the regulatory ‘burden’ and consumer acceptance. Based on insights we gained from discussing this case with diverse stakeholders within the agricultural sector and potato production in Norway during a series of workshops, we elaborate on additional issues such as the (technical) solution offered; different understandings of the late blight problem; the durability of the potato plant resistance; and patenting and ownership.

Hence, this paper contributes to empirical knowledge on stakeholder perspectives on emerging plant breeding technologies, underscoring the importance to broaden the scope of the debate on the opportunities and challenges of agricultural biotechnologies, such as cisgenic GM plants. The paper offers policy-relevant input to ongoing efforts to broaden the scope of risk assessments of agricultural biotechnologies. We aim to contribute to the recognition of the complex socio-ecological, legal and political dimensions in which these technological developments are entangled as a means to acknowledge, discuss and respond to these concerns and thereby contribute to more comprehensive and responsible developments within agricultural biotechnology.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Plant & Animal BreedingSustainability

A world without hunger: organic or GM crops?

Taheri F, et al

Publication date: 11/04/2017

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

It has been estimated that the world population will increase to 9.2 billion by 2050; supplying the growing population with food will require a significant increase in agricultural production.

A number of agricultural and ecological scientists believe that a large-scale shift to organic farming (OF) would not only increase the world’s food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate hunger sustainably.

Nevertheless, OF has recently come under new scrutiny, not just from critics who fear that a large-scale shift in this direction would cause billions to starve but also from farmers and development agencies who question whether such a shift could improve food security. Meanwhile, the use of genetically modified (GM) crops is growing around the world, leading to possible opportunities to combat food insecurity and hunger. However, the development of GM crops has been a matter of considerable interest and worldwide public controversy.

So far, no one has comprehensively analyzed whether a widespread shift to OF or GM would be the sole solution for both food security and safety. Using a literature review from databases of peer-reviewed scientific publications, books, and official publications, this study aims to address this issue.

Results indicate that OF and GM, to different extents, are able to ensure food security and safety. In developed countries, given that there are relatively few farmers and that their productivity, even without GMOs, is relatively high, OF could be more a viable option.

However, OF is significantly less efficient in land-use terms and may lead to more land being used for agriculture due to its lower yield. In developing countries, where many small-scale farmers have low agricultural productivity and limited access to agricultural technologies and information, an approach with both GM and OF might be a more realistic approach to ensure food security and safety.

Link goes to full text and .pdf options.

Resource type: Web page URL

Plant & Animal BreedingSustainability

Sowing fresh seeds – Food, farming and animal welfare post-Brexit

Compassion in World Farming

Publication date: 31/01/2017

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

Brexit gives us the opportunity to think about food and farming from scratch. We need food and farming that produces nutritious food and encourages healthy diets. That enables us to
meet the Paris climate targets and restores water, soils and biodiversity so that they are passed in good shape to future generations. Decent livelihoods for farmers and respect for
animals as sentient beings, as individuals must be core elements of our policy.

There are two important starting points. Firstly, we need to move away from the current practice of formulating policy in silos with different Government departments, or sections of
departments, being responsible for agriculture, the environment, animal welfare, dietary health, climate change and agri-tech. As a result policies in this arena do not cohere and are
sometimes contradictory. For example, Defra tends to press for further intensification even though this has a detrimental impact on soil quality and animal welfare. Public Health
England advises people to eat less red and processed meat while Defra promotes increased meat production.

Secondly, we need to move away from industrial livestock production as this is a key driver of, or an important contributor to:

overconsumption of meat and dairy which leads to health problems and will make it
impossible to meet the Paris climate targets
overuse of antibiotics in farming
pollution and overuse of water, soil degradation, biodiversity loss and air pollution
food insecurity
poor animal welfare

Compassion in World Farming wishes to present the following integrated plan for post Brexit food and farming in England.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Plant & Animal Breeding

Concepts and strategies of organic plant breeding in light of novel breeding techniques

Nuijten E et al

Publication date: 23/12/2016

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

In this paper, we describe the development of a set of guiding principles for the evaluation of breeding techniques by the organic sector over time. The worldwide standards of organic agriculture (OA) do not allow genetic engineering (GE) or any products derived from genetic engineering. The standards in OA are an expression of the underlying principles of health, ecology, fairness and care. The derived norms are process and not product oriented. As breeding is considered part of the process in agriculture, GE is not a neutral tool for the organic sector. The incompatibility between OA and GE is analyzed, including the “novel breeding techniques”. Instead, alternative breeding approaches are pursued based on the norms and values of organic agriculture not only on the technical level but also on the social and organizational level by including other value chain players and consumers. The status and future perspectives of the alternative directions for organic breeding are described and discussed.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Legislation & RegulationPlant & Animal Breeding

Should organic agriculture maintain its opposition to GM? New techniques writing the same old story

Wickson F, et al

Publication date: 28/10/2016

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

Biotechnology is diversifying rapidly through the development and application of new approaches to genome editing and ongoing research into synthetic biology.

Proponents of biotechnology are enthusiastic about these new developments and have recently begun calling for environmental movements to abandon their campaigns against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and for organic agriculture to reconsider its exclusion of Genetic Modification (GM).

In this article, we begin by describing the diversity of practices that cluster under both the terms GM and organic and show that although there is a clash of different cultures of agriculture at stake, there is also a spectrum of practices existing between these two poles.

Having established the terms of the debate, we then go on to analyse whether the organic movement should reconsider its position on GM in light of new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs), using the criteria highlighted as important by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in their 2016 draft revised position on GMOs.

Through this analysis, we suggest that given the in-context-trajectory of biotechnology development, the continued narrow framing of agricultural problems and the ongoing exclusion of important socio-economic, political and cultural dimensions, the organic movement is justified in maintaining its opposition to GM in the face of NPBTs.

Link goes to full text and .pdf options.

Resource type: Web page URL

Plant & Animal BreedingScience & Technology

Genome-editing – an ethical view

Nuffield Council on Bioethics

Publication date: 30/09/2016

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

It seems as though genome editing is everywhere. In a relatively short time, particularly since the emergence of the CRISPR-Cas9 system in 2012, techniques for making precisely targeted
alterations to DNA sequences in living cells have not only preoccupied life science journals, but have also featured in mainstream news. They have been implicated in stories of revolutionary
medical advance and genetically altered food, and in the business pages, where the battle over the intellectual property rights to the underlying technology, and the prospects of companies
developing genome editing treatments and products, have been matters of continual intrigue and speculation.

While the scientific merits are overt, the practical and ethical significance of these recent developments is far harder to discern. While the use of genome editing techniques has spread
across biological research, including microorganisms, plants, animals and human cells, the extent to which the potential applications can be understood in relation to prevailing norms and managed through existing governance measures has not been extensively examined. As a rapidly established (though continually developing) research technique, one that is at the foundation of diverse emerging biotechnologies, there is concern that genome editing science and innovation are moving ahead of public understanding and policy.

The Nuffield Council’s terms of reference charge it “to identify and define ethical questions raised by recent advances in biological and medical research in order to respond to, and to anticipate, public concern.” In 2015, convinced that genome editing had the potential to raise such questions, the Council agreed to undertake a programme of work and established an interdisciplinary working group to gather evidence and to deliberate in relation to these matters. The present publication is the output of the first stage of this work. It addresses conceptual and descriptive issues regarding genome editing and identifies the key ethical questions that arise.

Web page has links to the full report.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Plant & Animal BreedingScience & TechnologySustainability

Organic farmers are not anti-science but genetic engineers often are

Elizabeth Henderson

Publication date: 24/05/2016

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

At one of the public brainstorming sessions for the New York Organic Action Plan, an organic farmer made an impassioned plea for support for “independent science” and told us that with 8.5 billion mouths to feed by 2050, we will need genetic engineering to prevent starvation.

I would like to examine these words carefully to decipher what they mean, how those words are used by this farmer and by others, and suggest how the movement for locally grown organic food in this country should respond.

What is the meaning of ‘independent science’? As co-chair of the Policy Committee for the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY), I have been an active participant in the coalition that is campaigning to pass GMO labeling legislation in NY State. In this capacity, I have spoken at public meetings, to the press and on radio interviews. A question that I have heard from proponents of biotechnology is “why do you organic farmers oppose science, like the climate deniers?”

The first time I heard this, I was startled and felt defensive. Had I ever opposed science? I searched back through things I had written and reviewed all the policy resolutions the members of NOFA-NY had passed over the years. I found a few places where I criticized reductionist science and defended “indigenous knowledge” (that is things like composting and crop rotations that people who practice a craft know and pass on to their children that has not been proven by research at a university). But nowhere could I find any statement opposing science.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Legislation & RegulationPlant & Animal Breeding

New plant breeding techniques – ethical considerations

Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology (ECNH)

Publication date: 01/03/2016

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

Even before the advent of modern genetic engineering, to many people it was important whether a plant was created “naturally” (usually under-stood as “using conventional cross-breeding techniques”) or “artificially” (usually understood as “genetically engineered or altered in a non-natural way”).

Put simplistically, “natural” is associated with “better” and “artificial” with “worse”, or vice versa, depending on the viewpoint. Regardless of the connotations given to “natural” and “artificial”, these notions involve moral evaluations. Although often implicit only, such evaluations have an influence on the risk assessment of NPBTs.

This report critically considers this differentiation and its implicit effect on the discussion of risk as well as other urgent issues around NPBTs.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Citizen StakeholdersPlant & Animal BreedingScience & Technology

New gene-editing techniques could transform food crops – or die on the vine

Stephen S Hall

Publication date: 01/03/2016

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

The CRISPR revolution may be having its most profound – and least publicized – effect in agriculture. By the fall of 2015 about 50 scientific papers had been published reporting uses of CRISPR in gene-edited plants, and there are preliminary signs that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one of the agencies that assesses genetically modified agricultural products, does not think all gene-edited crops require the same regulatory attention as “traditional” genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. With that regulatory door even slightly ajar, companies are racing to get gene-edited crops into the fields and, ultimately, into the food supply.

Will consumers agree? Or will they see CRISPR crops as the latest iteration of Frankenfood—a genetic distortion of nature in which foreign (and agribusiness-friendly) DNA is muscled into a species, with unpredictable health or environmental consequences? Because CRISPR is only now being applied to food crops, the question has not yet surfaced for the public, but it will soon.

Resource type: article: Web Page