Abstracts, Papers &

Resources:
Plant & Animal Breeding

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

Citizen StakeholdersPlant & Animal Breeding

The three main monotheistic religions and gm food technology: an overview of perspectives

Omobowale EB et al

Publication date: 22/08/2009

Public acceptance of genetically modified crops is partly rooted in religious views. However, the views of different religions and their potential influence on consumers’ decisions have not been systematically examined and summarized in a brief overview. We review the positions of the Judaism, Islam and Christianity – the three major monotheistic religions to which more than 55% of humanity adheres to – on the controversies aroused by GM technology.

The article establishes that there is no overarching consensus within the three religions. Overall, however, it appears that mainstream theology in all three religions increasingly tends towards acceptance of GM technology per se, on performing GM research, and on consumption of GM foods. These more liberal approaches, however, are predicated on there being rigorous scientific, ethical and regulatory scrutiny of research and development of such products, and that these products are properly labeled.

We conclude that there are several other interests competing with the influence exerted on consumers by religion. These include the media, environmental activists, scientists and the food industry, all of which function as sources of information and shapers of perception for consumers.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Plant & Animal Breeding

Options for future discussions on genetically modified and cloned animals

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology and Michigan State University

Publication date: 09/03/2007

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

ublic discussions about cloned or genetically engineered food animals have largely focused on questions about the regulatory authorities that may govern such animals. Of importance
to many observers, however, are ethical issues which cannot be addressed fully at scientific conferences or during regulatory discussions. In its 2005 poll, Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology (PIFB) found that 53% of Americans strongly favored including ethical and moral considerations in making regulatory decisions about cloned or GM animals.

At PIFB’s workshop in January 2005, “Exploring the Moral and Ethical Aspects of Genetically Engineered and Cloned Animals” many participants indicated a need for additional discussions about ethics and animal biotechnology, but no institution in the U.S. appeared ready to address all the issues involved. For this reason, PIFB partnered with Michigan State University on two meetings: a one-day symposium, “Animal Biotechnology: Considering Ethical Issues,” which provided an overview of the general ethical issues involved with food animal biotechnology; and a two-day workshop among experts who came together to discuss institutional options for addressing, in the future, the moral and ethical issues relating to genetically engineered or cloned animals. Attendees included representatives from the food, agricultural, and biotechnology industries, public interest groups, and academics in ethics, biology, and law.

This document summarizes in brief the options discussed at the workshop.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Legislation & RegulationPlant & Animal Breeding

Engineering animals: ethical issues and deliberative institutions

Sheila Jasanoff and Stefan Sperling

Publication date: 07/03/2007

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

Many public discussions about cloned and genetically engineered (GE) food animals have focused on questions of the regulatory authorities that may govern such animals, but few have considered the impacts of ethical or moral concerns. While ethical issues can be equally as or even more important than safety and regulatory issues to many people, there is currently no established venue where these issues can be fully addressed.

Representatives from federal agencies, biotech companies, food companies, consumer groups, animal welfare organizations, agricultural groups, non-U.S. regulatory agencies and universities gathered in October 2006 to consider what options are available for continuing discussions regarding the moral and ethical aspects of genetically engineering and cloning food animals and how those discussions might shape the future development and commercialization of such animals.

This report is the synthesis of that meeting.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Plant & Animal Breeding

Organic agriculture requires process rather than product evaluation of novel breeding techniques

E.T. Lammerts Van Bueren. et al

Publication date: 09/02/2007

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

In organic agriculture the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is banned.

Recently, two novel breeding techniques have been developed, i.e., cisgenesis and reverse breeding, both of which are based on gene technology but should raise less moral concerns from the public. Whether the products of these breeding processes are classified as GMOs depends on the interpretation of the relevant EU regulations.

In cisgenic plants, the genes introduced through genetic modification are from a crossable donor plant so that the source of the genes is considered to be of the same nature. In reverse breeding, the recombinant genes, essential to the breeding process, are no longer present in the product resulting from the entire breeding process, and thus the product as such is not transgenic. Should varieties obtained through cisgenesis or reverse breeding be allowed in organic agriculture?

The answer to this question depends on whether the product or the process of breeding is taken into account. Assessment based on the product implies a choice of an ethical approach that only considers the extrinsic consequences of human action by making a risk-benefit analysis. It neglects so-called intrinsic, ethical arguments related to the applied technology (the process] itself. The organic movement uses the intrinsic argument of ‘unnaturalness’ against genetic engineering. We therefore conclude that products of cisgenesis and reverse breeding should be subject to the current GMO-regulations in organic agriculture and should thus be banned from organic agriculture.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Plant & Animal BreedingScience & Technology

Foom farm to fork: the regulatory status of non-GMO plant innovations under current EU law

De Jong P, et al

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

In April 2017, the Scientific Advice Mechanism (‘SAM’)presented its explanatory note on ‘New Techniques in Agricultural Biotechnology’ to the European Commission (‘the SAM Note’). The SAM Note provides a detailed description of the nature and characteristics of so-called‘plant breeding innovations’ or ‘new breeding techniques’(‘NBTs’), and how they are similar to or different from conventional breeding techniques (‘CBT’, such as crossing and selection, or mutation breeding) and established techniques of genetic modification(‘GM’, such as the use of recombinant nucleic acids).

According to the SAM Note, the term ‘NBTs’ refers to a wide range of new breeding methods, some of which are substantially different from established transgenic approaches in their way of introducing traits to an organism.Whereas some NBTs amount to a refinement of CBT and integrate genetic material that is derived from a sexually compatible species, some nevertheless are used in combination with established GM techniques. Some NBTs result in organisms that contain only point mutations and are practically indistinguishable from varieties bred through CBT. The NBTs that have attracted most attention in recent years (and are, presumably also for that reason, currently subject to a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the EU or ‘CJEU’) are the so-called genome editing techniques.The present article focuses specifically on those genome editing techniques

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)