Green genetic engineering
The plant genetic engineering or agricultural biotechnology, is the application of genetic engineering methods in the field of plant breeding . Genetically modified plants are the result of genetic engineering . In particular, the term refers to processes for the production of genetically modified plant organisms (GMOs), into whose genetic material individual genes are specifically introduced. If these genes come from other species, transgenic plants are created . Green genetic engineering is thus part of green biotechnology , whereby the term “green”, as opposed to “red” biotechnology and “white” biotechnology, refers to the application on plants. Currently, herbicide- and insect-resistant plant varieties are being marketed as genetically modified plants .
Green genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding in that it transfers individual genes in a targeted manner and can more easily cross species boundaries and other obstacles to crossing (such as sterility). Conventional plant breeding, on the other hand, usually uses spontaneous or induced mutations as an alternative , the manifestations of which are caused less specifically in the cell, but rather by external influences (e.g. cold shocks or radioactive radiation ). In both cases, a selective screening of the mutations is necessary before further breeding.
The question of whether the use of green genetic engineering is desirable or to be rejected is a lively discussion in various regions of the world from many different perspectives. Aspects of food security, environmental protection, economic efficiency and the relationship between genetic engineering and “naturalness” play a role here.
Research and Techniques
Genetic engineering in research
Modern plant physiology often examines molecular processes in plants. Genetic engineering makes it possible to specifically influence the behavior of genes in the plant. Plant cells contain between 20,000 and 60,000 genes, the function of which is currently only known to a fraction. Even in the best-studied plant ( Arabidopsis thaliana ), more than half of the genes are still without a known function.
In order to recognize the function of a gene, it is usually necessary to modify the control of the gene. Often three different plant populations are tried for this. The first, unchanged, population is called the wild type . In the second population, the gene to be examined is cloned behind a viral promoter and transferred into the plant. This population increasingly produces the gene product of the gene (usually a protein ). This population consists of overexpressors . A third population produces the gene product to a lesser extent ( knockdown ) or no longer at all ( knockout ). The technique of RNA interference (RNAi) is mainly used for "knock down" . Classic “knock-out” plants are T-DNA insertion lines, so that either a truncated protein is created that has no function or the promoter of the wild-type gene is destroyed by the T-DNA insertion. With the help of RNAi, “knock down” plants can be generated, for example if a “knock out” in a homozygous state is lethal. A "knock down" by RNAi offers the possibility to examine different expression levels of the wild-type gene due to the different efficiency of different RNAi constructs.
Complicated regulatory mechanisms should also be elucidated by considering not only the gene product, but also the entire changes within the cell or plant. These methods are intended to expand the classic screening of mutants by a much more targeted technique with which it is possible to directly examine the effect of “candidate genes” found.
In addition to the techniques mentioned above, descriptive techniques are also included in genetic engineering plant research. For example, genes are cloned using polymerase chain reactions (PCR), frequencies of transcripts (building instructions for proteins) are determined using quantitative PCR, or most of the genes in a plant are determined in terms of their reading frequency using so-called DNA chips .
In modern green genetic engineering, Agrobacterium -mediated horizontal gene transfer is an important technique. With this genetic engineering method, individual genetic factors are transferred from cells of one organism to cells of another living being. It was developed in the 1980s by Jozef Schell and Marc van Montagu .
The somatic hybridization , another important method makes it possible to combine desirable traits of different parent plants. In comparison to Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer, no specific genes have to be identified and isolated. In addition, this overcomes the transformation restriction of only being able to introduce a few genes into a given genetic material. The number of chromosomes in the cells can also be multiplied during cell fusion , i.e. the number of chromosome sets ( degree of ploidy ) can be increased. This can increase the productivity of plants. Molecular markers or biochemical analyzes are used to characterize and select plants that have emerged from somatic hybridization.
Genetic engineering in plant breeding
There are a number of genetic engineering methods, not all of which result in the production of transgenic plants. Since the late 1990s, three methods have been widely used to produce transgenic plants (gene transfer by Agrobacterium tumefaciens , biolistic gene transfer, protoplast transformation). In addition, refined genetic engineering methods have become established in recent years (cisgenesis, intragenesis, genome editing), in which the transfer of alien genes is only one of several different fields of application. Finally, genetically modified plants can also be used as a base for grafting .
Transfer by Agrobacterium tumefaciens
Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a soil bacterium that integrates a special plasmid into the plant genome. In this way, galls aretriggeredin plants at the root neck as a habitat and at the same time the production of certain nutrients, so-called opines . This is used in genetic engineering by shutting down the plasmid that triggers tumor formation and opin production and adding a smaller plasmid with foreign genes that was previouslyassembledin Escherichia coli (binary vector system). Subsequently, pieces of plants are infected with these bacterial strains, transgenic tissues are selected and thengrown back into whole plantsby means of in vitro culture.
In order for Agrobacterium tumefaciens to be able to transform plant cells, they have to release phenolic substances as a result of injury, which act as “attractants” for the bacterium. Since only very few monocot plants do this, the use is largely limited to dicotyledonous plants , however, by adding appropriate substances (e.g. acetosyringone ) the area of application could be increased to some monocotyledons and even fungi. Another restriction is that Agrobacterium tumefaciens is only suitable for transforming the chromosomes of the cell nucleus.
Biolistic transfers
In contrast, biolistic transfer is a purely mechanical method of gene transfer. Here, DNA is applied to gold or tungsten particles, which are then shot into the cells at speeds of more than 1,300 m / s. This is done with the help of a gene cannon .
Since the particles are very small, the cell and cell wall remain largely undamaged. Further advantages are that the method is suitable for cells of any living being, can also be applied to the DNA of mitochondria and plastids and that the possible number of genes transferred is relatively high. The problem is, however, that the gene transfer is relatively unstable, so-called “transient expression” is often the result, the inserted DNA is only temporarily active and is lost again later, and sometimes only parts of the tissue obtained come out transformed cells exist.
Protoplast transformation
A third possible way is the protoplast transformation. Here, the cells of the tissue to be transformed are first separated by pectinases (see protoplast culture ) and then the cell walls are broken up by cellulases ( protoplast isolation ). So you only get protoplasts held together by the cell membrane .
For the actual gene transfer, either polyethylene glycol is added to these protoplasts or a transfer takes place after a short current surge ( electroporation ), which makes the membrane permeable to the DNA. The method can be used with all plants, but it is extremely difficult to regenerate plants from the protoplasts.
Cisgenesis
Transgenic plants contain genes from other species that cannot enter the plant through natural crosses. A natural barrier is thus crossed, the long-term consequences of which cannot be clearly assessed. In order to rule out these risks, so-called cisgenic plants were developed, which only contain genes from cross species. The process is known as cisgenesis. Cisgenic plants contain only a single integrated DNA sequence, which contains the protein-coding gene with its regulatory sequences ( promoter and terminator ). Such a cisgenic plant could also result from natural crossing, but lengthy backcrossing would be necessary to remove unwanted genes ( linkage drag ). A promising example of a cisgenic plant is potatoes, which are resistant to late blight. For this purpose, genes were isolated from wild potatoes and inserted into popular potato varieties such as Désirée . The Fortuna initially produced is not a purely cisgenic potato, as it still contains foreign DNA that comes from bacteria and Agrobacterium tumefaciens .
Intragenesis
If the inserted piece of DNA comes from a crossable species, but is composed of several fragments, one speaks of an intragenic plant and the process is called intragenesis. An intragenic plant contains only pieces of DNA from crossable species, but it is very unlikely that this arrangement could result from crossing the different species.
Genome editing
A targeted change in the DNA sequence on a previously determined gene is known as genome editing . Here, an endonuclease is introduced into the cell that specifically recognizes and cuts the desired DNA sequence. Zinc finger nucleases , transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) or the CRISPR / Cas system are inserted as endonucleases . The resulting double-strand break is recognized and repaired by the cell (non-homologous end joining, NHEJ). In this repair, a mistake is often made, so that a mutation appears at the repaired point . This enables targeted mutagenesis of practically every gene in a plant cell. If the endonuclease that triggered the targeted break in the DNA is no longer present in the cell, the plant modified by genome editing cannot be distinguished from a plant mutated using conventional methods. In order to influence the repair of the double-strand break, a short DNA can be added in addition to the sequence-specific nuclease, which includes the sequence of the break point. In this case, the repair will use this DNA as a template. In this process, which is known as homologous recombination , the repaired site contains the sequence of the added DNA and thus a targeted change in the DNA at a well-defined site. This change can involve a single base change in the DNA, but it can also involve the insertion of an entire gene. The technique thus allows a gene to be inserted at a precisely defined location in the genome .
Grafting with GVP
The grafting can be carried out with genetically modified plants, wherein either the scions or pad containing the genetically modified material. If the rootstock is genetically modified, the fruits will not represent a genetically modified organism .
Features, uses
from 477 events
in 29 plants between 1992 and 2016
(highlighted: stacked events)
in GM crops grown in 2016
In principle, the goals of green genetic engineering do not differ from those of traditional plant breeding that is thousands of years old. It is about improving the properties of plants.
Each gene transfer is carried out with the aim of the plant a desired trait ( English trait to be transferred). A distinction is made between properties that are interesting for cultivation and those that serve better marketing. Herbicide tolerance and pest control are particularly important for cultivation . For marketing, the focus is on improving the nutrient content and the improved production of industrial raw materials.
The result of a transformation is as Event (Engl. For event ), respectively. Different events can lead to the same characteristic. GM plants with combinations of several characteristics are also increasingly available. One speaks here of stacked events (English for stacked ). New varieties with multiple characteristics can be the result of cooperation between companies. So have z. As Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences in the development of SmartStax collaborated -Maissorten.
In 2016 genetically modified crops were grown on 185 million hectares worldwide. The four most important agricultural crops (share in% of the total GMO) are soy (50%), maize (33%), cotton (12%) and rapeseed (5%). Alfalfa , sugar beet and papaya each make up less than 1% of the GMO cultivated area. In the meantime, genetically modified plants are predominantly grown around the world for soy and cotton, as these crops are mostly grown in countries where the cultivation of genetically modified plants is permitted. This is 78% for soy and 64% for cotton. In contrast, only 33% of maize and 24% of rapeseed are grown as GMOs.
Properties that affect agronomy
Herbicide resistance
The terms herbicide resistance and herbicide tolerance are usually used interchangeably.
The control of weeds in crops with herbicides is a method that is used in the hope of the highest possible yield. By transferring genes that confer resistance to certain herbicides, crops are created that are resistant to these herbicides. The use of genetically modified crops of this type enables simple weed control, since all weeds die off through the use of the appropriate herbicide while the genetically modified plants continue to grow.
In 2012, herbicide resistance was by far the most widespread genetic modification in the commercial cultivation of genetically modified plants, with around 145 million hectares of herbicide-resistant species being cultivated worldwide. Almost 45 million hectares were cultivated with plants that, in addition to herbicide resistance, also contained insect resistance ( stacked events ).
The first breakthrough came with the transfer of the EPSPS gene (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens , which gives resistance to the herbicide glyphosate (brand name Roundup from Monsanto ). This glyphosate resistance was transmitted in particular in maize , rapeseed , soy , cotton , alfalfa and sugar beet .
Correspondingly, the PAT protein (phosphinothricin acetyl transferase) from the bar or pat gene, both of which come from different Streptomyces species , was transferred to maize , rapeseed and cotton to provide resistance to glufosinate (brand name Liberty or Basta from Bayer ) to trigger.
As 24 weeds around the world have become resistant in recent years due to the frequent use of glyphosate and the selective effect of the herbicide has been lost dramatically, crops are being developed that contain resistance genes that work in conjunction with other herbicides. The focus is on the compounds dicamba , 2,4-D ( 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid ), imazapyr , HPPD ( 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase ) inhibitors, ACCase ( acetyl CoA carboxylase ) inhibitors and ALS (acetolactate synthase) Inhibitors ( sulfonylureas ).
In order to delay the emergence of resistance, crops are also being developed that contain several genes for resistance to different herbicides at the same time. The United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) has approved five soy, two maize and one cotton varieties, each with two different resistance genes (as of March 2015) for commercial cultivation ( nonregulated status ). The use of these crops, which are resistant to multiple herbicides, has sparked controversy. This applies in particular to genetically modified maize and soy which, manufactured by Dow AgroSciences , are resistant to enlist, a mixture of glyphosate and 2,4-D.
It is currently controversial whether the rules for the use of the corresponding herbicides are sufficient to reduce a further increase in herbicide-resistant weeds.
Insect resistance
Bt toxins from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium have been used as preparations for decades in biological plant protection or for combating mosquitoes . Molecular analyzes have shown that a variety of different Bt toxins (also known as cry proteins) occur, some of which have a selective effect against certain caterpillars of butterflies or beetles . By transferring the corresponding bacterial genes into useful plants, it was achieved that the plants independently generate poisons against certain pests. The diversity of Bt toxins is reflected in a large number of Bt toxin-producing crops that are approved for cultivation. Since the pests sometimes become resistant to a specific Bt toxin, different Bt toxins are often introduced at the same time. If one takes into account the additionally introduced herbicide resistance genes, then in November 2017 there are 200 events for corn and 44 for cotton in the database of the ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications) . SmartStax corn, a joint development by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences , contains six different Bt toxins as well as two herbicide resistance genes ( glyphosate and glufosinate ). Bt eggplant has been successfully grown in Bangladesh since 2014, making it the first genetically modified food crop to be used for commercial purposes in a developing country . In 2018, the use of pesticides was drastically reduced and a six-fold profit was achieved.
In recent years, a new genetic engineering approach has emerged to control insect pests. For this purpose, a piece of the pest's vital gene is inserted into the plant in such a way that a double-stranded RNA is created. When eating this plant, the pest ingests this RNA and through RNA interference , the function of this vital gene in the pest is blocked, so that the insect dies. With this method, the western corn rootworm was successfully combated in laboratory tests in transgenic maize, among other things . This method can also be used to successfully control the Colorado potato beetle in potatoes . The use of RNA interference enables the control of harmful insects that do not react to Bt toxins or that have become resistant through the use of Bt toxins. In June 2017, the maize variety SmartStax PRO was approved for cultivation in the USA, which not only combats the western corn rootworm with several Bt toxins , but also through RNA interference .
Since there is an intensive interaction between plants and insects, targeted genetic engineering interventions are conceivable. The Agricultural Research Institute Rothamsted Research showed that a gene introduced into wheat from peppermint , which produces the odorous substance β-ferns , on the one hand drives away aphids and on the other hand attracts a parasitic parasitic wasp that lays eggs in the aphids. Corresponding field tests were unsuccessful, which indicates the more limited informative value of laboratory tests.
Virus resistance
Virus resistance of crop plants is mainly achieved through the transgenic expression of the coat protein of the virus in question. Alternatively, the virus resistance is mediated by the expression of gene fragments of the virus to be combated in order to prevent the viral function by means of RNA interference . Virus- resistant papaya was produced as the first application in the 1990s in order to successfully save the papaya cultivation in Hawaii, which is threatened by the papaya ring spot virus. In November 2017, in addition to papaya, virus-resistant kidney beans , plums , potatoes , garden pumpkins , peppers and tomatoes were approved for commercial cultivation.
Bacteria resistance
In the selection of crops by humans, properties are usually selected which have a favorable effect on taste and yield without taking sufficient account of the loss of genes resistant to plant diseases . The subsequent reintroduction of lost resistance genes into popular crops by classic breeding is very time-consuming, but can be carried out with relatively little effort using genetic engineering methods.
Fire blight is a bacterial disease of plants that can affect the apple tree, among other things, and must be reported. Since the antibiotic streptomycin , the use of which is controversial, is used to combat the spread of the disease in addition to pruning and clearing , resistant apple varieties have been bred (e.g. Remo , which is suitable for making must and juice). Such breeding is very tedious, as one has to breed over five generations, which corresponds to 20 to 50 years, in order to select away undesirable properties such as small fruits without losing the resistance gene. Alternatively, genetic engineering can be used to specifically introduce resistance genes from wild forms into an established cultivated apple. The fire blight resistance gene has been successfully transferred from the Siberian crab apple to the Gala apple variety . Since this genetically modified fire-blight-resistant Gala apple does not contain any foreign DNA, it is classified as cisgenic . In 2016, the Agroscope research institute in Switzerland was granted a license by the Federal Office for the Environment ( FOEN ) to test the properties of this cisgenic apple in field trials until 2021.
Fungus resistance
Algae- like fungi such as the genus Phytophthora infestans are among the plant pests that cause the greatest damage to harvests , for example through late blight on tomatoes and potatoes . With conventional breeding methods, a certain resistance is achieved by crossing Mexican wild races, but undesirable properties are also transferred, which then have to be bred out again in lengthy processes. Alternatively, chemical fungicides are applied - up to sixteen times per growing season - or copper sulphates , for example, in organic farming , which, however, lead to severe soil pollution . To combat late blight, resistance genes were transferred from wild potatoes to established potato varieties using genetic engineering methods . First of all, the chemical company BASF produced the “ Fortuna ” potato variety, which contains two resistance genes from a South American wild potato variety. After initial trials in the field, in 2012, in view of the critical assessment by the public, BASF generally decided not to further develop genetically modified plants for the European market. Since 2009, cisgenic potatoes with several genes for resistance to Phytophthora have been tested by Wageningen University (Netherlands) in several European countries. Based on ten years of tests in the field, the researchers from Wageningen estimate that using these cisgenic potatoes could save around 80% of the fungicides normally used. Since 2015, 8 different cisgenic potato lines have also been tested by Agroscope in Switzerland. In 2016, two Phythophtora-resistant potato varieties "innate second generation potato" from the Simplot company were approved for commercial cultivation in the USA.
Apple scab is a common fungal disease in cultivated apples that requires the use of fungicides to contain the disease. In order to reduce the use of these fungicides, some of which are also permitted in organic agriculture , attempts are being made to develop resistant apple varieties. Since the wild forms of the apple are resistant to these diseases, crosses have been made in order to obtain apples that are resistant to fungi. This endeavor is very tedious, as apples have to be selected from the offspring over several generations which, in addition to resistance, also have the desired properties of the cultivated apple. A much simpler way is to introduce the isolated resistance genes of the wild form into the desired apple variety using genetic engineering methods. The resistance gene against apple scab was introduced into the apple variety Gala . This genetically modified Gala apple shows an 80% reduction in the growth of the apple scab. It is a cisgenic apple because it does not contain any foreign DNA, so there is no risk of outcrossing . This cisgenic apple variety has been tested in field trials in Holland since 2011.
Panama disease is a devastating disease of bananas caused by the fungus Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense is conveyed and leads to the withering of the banana trees by infestation of the roots. In recent years a new variant, TR4, of this mushroom has emerged, which threatens the Cavendish banana variety , which is considered to be the most important banana in the world. Since no effective control has yet been possible and the spores survive in the soil for decades, bananas can no longer be grown in many regions of the world. Like many cultivated bananas, the Cavendish banana is sterile, so it is not possible to cross a resistance gene . A research group at the Queensland University of Technology has introduced a resistance gene from a wild variety of banana into the Cavendish banana using genetic engineering methods. This banana is resistant to Panama disease and has comparable yields to the original Cavendish banana. But it is not cisgenic because it also contains foreign DNA. Crossing out this foreign DNA is not possible because Cavendish is sterile.
The penetration of a fungus into a plant cell usually requires an interaction with certain plant genes. The deliberate destruction of such genes can therefore confer resistance. By specifically switching off ( gene knockout ) the six MLO (Mildew Resistance Locus) alleles for powdery mildew in bread wheat, resistance to this fungal disease could be achieved. The simultaneous mutation with genome editing of all six alleles in hexaploid wheat documents the efficiency of this new method. Since the endonucleases used are no longer present in the resistant wheat, this genetically modified wheat is not classified as a genetically modified organism in the USA , while a final evaluation has not yet been carried out in the EU.
Drought tolerance
Drought-tolerant crops should avoid crop failures in the case of insufficient water supply due to climatic changes or in the case of singular dry periods. Further goals are a reduction in water consumption in agriculture and an expansion of cultivation areas to regions with unfavorable climates.
In individual countries, drought-tolerant maize, soy and sugar cane produced through genetic engineering were approved for commercial cultivation in 2017 . When drought-tolerant corn , which as DroughtGard of Monsanto marketed since 2011, a bacterial gene, a revenue increase of 6% was achieved by inserting in field trials. In 2016, 1.173 million hectares of drought-tolerant corn were grown in the United States. The drought-tolerant soybean contains a transcription factor gene from the sunflower and is said to result in a 10% increase in yield. The drought-tolerant sugar cane contains a bacterial gene that produces glycine betaine and thus imparts drought tolerance. These two drought-tolerant plants have not yet been grown for commercial purposes.
Drought-tolerant varieties are also being developed for rapeseed , rice , wheat and tomatoes using various genetic engineering methods, and individual varieties have shown positive results in field trials. Since drought tolerance is controlled by many genes, classic breeding is a viable alternative.
Salt and aluminum tolerance
Agricultural productivity is severely affected on saline soils. More than 60 million hectares of arable land worldwide are affected by soil salinization. When rapeseed could be shown that individuals who a from Arabidopsis thaliana expressing derived ion transport protein (AtNHX1) can grow even at a sodium chloride concentration of 200 mmol / l. The growth of common oilseed rape is severely affected at this concentration, and so is most other arable crops. The more the transporter is expressed in the oilseed rape plants, the higher their salt tolerance . Phenotypically, transgenic oilseed rape plants that grow at high salt concentrations hardly differ from the wild type. As a result, many other genes have been introduced into a wide variety of useful plants, which lead to increased salt tolerance. These salt-tolerant transgenic plants are interesting insofar as they show that the targeted transfer of a single new trait can significantly improve the salt tolerance of a crop without any noticeable impairment of other properties. Since this is relatively easy to do with genetic engineering, salt-tolerant transgenic plants also provide convincing examples of the development potential of modern plant breeding that includes genetic engineering.
Under acidic conditions, trivalent aluminum ions (Al 3+ ) are released from aluminum silicates in the soil , which are highly toxic to many plants. Since acidic arable soils make up 30 to 40 percent of the arable land area of the earth, this represents a serious impairment of the cultivation of many crops. In Arabidopsis , barley and some other plants, the aluminum tolerance can be improved by overexpression of certain enzymes that bind Al 3+ lead. However, these developments are still a long way from being ready for use.
Better nutrient absorption
A research goal in genetic engineering is a higher nitrogen use efficiency of plants. This would reduce the nutrient losses associated with negative environmental impacts and lower economic costs for the farmer. Research efforts to improve nitrogen use efficiency are ongoing for corn, wheat, barley, rice, rapeseed, sugar beet and sugar cane at various companies and public institutions.
Faster growth
So far, the genetic engineering of crops with an increased yield has not been very successful because the processes involved are complex and controlled by many genes. Only one genetically modified eucalyptus tree is approved for wood use in Brazil. This eucalyptus contains a gene from the thale cress , which ensures faster growth. The eucalyptus modified in this way produces 20% more wood than conventional trees and can be harvested after five instead of seven years.
Properties that concern marketing
Green genetic engineering has the potential to modify crops in such a way that they have beneficial properties for the consumer. The focus here is on enriching the nutrient content of food ( biofortification ). An important approach is also allergen removal and crop detoxification . In the longer term, pharmaceutical plant development is also likely to be of great importance.
One of the first GM foods with a modified product quality was the Flavr-Savr tomato in the 1990s , in which a gene for the production of the ripening enzyme polygalacturonase was blocked and the fruit therefore kept longer. Due to insufficient quality in cultivation (low yields and resilience), marketing was discontinued after a few years.
Another example of changed ingredients is the Amflora potato intended for starch production .
Phosphate and iron bioavailability
The phosphorus content of grain and oilseeds, which is sufficient for human and animal nutrition, is largely bound in phytate . Phytate is the anion of phytic acid , from which phosphate is released in the stomach of cattle and other ruminants with bacterial phytase. Livestock that does not ruminate excrete phytate ingested with their food undigested. This is the reason that pig manure and other domestic animals are high in phosphate, which is considered to be the main source of phosphate pollution and eutrophication of water from agriculture. In order to improve the phosphorus uptake in pigs and poultry, animal feed is often supplemented either with phosphate, which comes from rock meal, or by adding phytase, a phytate-breaking enzyme from microorganisms. Since the addition of phytase is expensive, attempts are made to breed plants whose seeds have the lowest possible phytate content. In the field of green genetic engineering, two approaches in particular are currently recognizable: the expression of recombined phytase genes in the cotyledons of the embryo and the shutdown of genes which are necessary for the synthesis or storage of the phytate.
By introducing the phytase gene from the black mold ( Aspergillus niger ), a 50-fold increase in phytase content could be achieved in feed maize, so that phytase as a feed additive in pigs and poultry is unnecessary. This transgenic maize was approved for commercial cultivation in China from 2009 to 2014. In addition to this maize, a transgenic oilseed rape with increased phytase activity is also approved in the USA . An increased phytase activity could also be achieved in barley by cisgenesis . The insertion of an additional copy of the phytase gene of barley results in a 3-fold increased phytase activity, which corresponds to the activity that is usually achieved by adding microbial phytase in order to improve phosphorus uptake. In Denmark, this cisgenic barley will be tested in field trials from 2012 to 2016.
Alternatively, the endogenous phytate concentration in a crop can be reduced by inactivating the IPK1 gene, which is responsible for phytate synthesis, through genome editing . The corresponding genome-edited maize is not classified as a genetically modified organism in the USA .
A significant part of the phosphate is bound in phytate in the soil and so cannot be used by plants. In order to increase the availability of phosphate, for example for oilseed rape plants, transgenic phytase was expressed in the roots, which is secreted. In addition to the improved absorption of phosphate from phytate from the soil, an increased phytase activity in the seeds was also observed in this transgenic oilseed rape, which also leads to an improved phosphate release when these seeds are fed.
Since phytate binds iron and thus blocks its absorption in the intestine, a reduction in phytate by phytase can combat iron deficiency . Accordingly, the simultaneous expression of phytase and iron-binding ferritin in transgenic forage maize leads to an increased availability of iron and can thus prevent iron deficiency.
Since rice, an important staple food in many countries, does not contain enough iron, transgenic rice varieties with up to seven times the iron content have been created by introducing genes that influence iron metabolism. None of these rice varieties were grown commercially in 2017.
Protein quality and content
Since cereals contain relatively little lysine , an essential amino acid for human and animal nutrition , attempts are being made using genetic engineering methods to increase the lysine content. In the transgenic maize variety LY038 (trade name Mavera TM ) the content of free lysine is increased by introducing a gene from a bacterium ( Corynebacterium glutamicum ). Mavera TM has been approved for commercial cultivation as animal feed in the USA since 2006, but has barely established itself in the market. In an experimental approach, a pollen-specific gene from a wild potato, which codes for a protein with a particularly high lysine content, was introduced into maize. In this transgenic corn, the protein content is increased by 12 to 39% and the lysine content by 16 to 55%.
In 2000, Indian researchers at the Central Potato Research Institute succeeded in increasing the protein content of a potato by 60% by transferring a gene from amaranth . The property has already been transferred to seven potato varieties, which were then tested over several years. Some varieties doubled their protein content and the content of several essential amino acids through genetic modification ; the yield was also 15 to 25% higher than that of the unchanged varieties.
Improving the quality of oils
Increased vitamin E content
Vitamin E (tocopherol) is a collective term for a group of eight fat-soluble substances, of which α-tocopherol has the highest biological activity. Important vitamin E suppliers for humans are germ oils and cold-pressed edible oils , as well as milk, eggs, but also some vegetables. Many medical studies indicate that α-tocopherol can prevent cardiovascular diseases , inflammatory reactions and cancer or have a beneficial effect on the course of these diseases. However, the daily intake of therapeutically effective amounts of vitamin E is difficult without the consumption of large amounts of foods fortified with the vitamin. For some years now, attempts have been made to optimize plant tocopherol synthesis and to breed plants with a high α-tocopherol content. Oil crops such as rapeseed and soy are particularly suitable as these are the most important sources of vitamin E. Since α-tocopherol forms the end product of the tocopherol synthesis and the other tocopherols are intermediate products of the α-tocopherol synthesis, the overexpression of enzymes that catalyze the intermediate steps of the tocopherol synthesis can reduce the biologically less effective β-, γ- and δ-tocopherols in α-tocopherol to convert. Previous attempts to optimize the α-tocopherol synthesis are based on this principle. For example, the overexpression of the γ-tocopherol methyltransferase gene from Perilla frutescens , an oil plant native to East Asia, leads to soy plants whose seeds have ten times the content of α-tocopherol and 15 times the content of β-tocopherol compared to the wild type, what corresponds to an approximately five-fold increase in vitamin E activity. None of the previous transgenic plants with increased vitamin E content are approved for commercial cultivation.
Increased heat resistance
Several companies have developed transgenic soybeans whose fat properties are believed to bring health benefits. Thus, the oil of the transgenic soybean Plenish TM , in the from Pioneer Hi-Bred by RNA interference is a gene of the fatty acid metabolism was inhibited less linoleic acid and linolenic acid , but more oleic acid . This leads to a longer shelf life and increased heat resistance of the oil, which reduces the proportion of trans fatty acids classified as unhealthy when frying or deep-frying . A comparable soybean is Vistive Gold TM by Monsanto . Both soy varieties are approved for cultivation, but so far of no commercial interest.
Increased content of essential fatty acids
Essential fatty acids such as arachidonic acid , eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid cannot be synthesized by the human body and must therefore be ingested with food. A sufficient supply of essential fatty acids is an important prerequisite for preventing permanent pre- and neonatal developmental disorders, since only then can the tissues of the brain, nervous and vascular systems, which are rich in molecular membranes, develop normally. Polyunsaturated fatty acids with more than 19 carbon atoms are found primarily in animal fats, especially in fish. The production of essential fatty acids in plants would provide the food industry with a new and inexpensive source of these nutritionally important nutritional components. Through targeted changes in the metabolism in transgenic oil plants such as soy , rape , brown mustard and camelina , a large number of essential fatty acids could be produced in plants. In a pioneering work, brown mustard ( Brassica juncea ), an Asian oil plant closely related to rapeseed, was genetically modified in such a way that linoleic acid and γ-linolenic acid are converted into arachidonic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid in three consecutive steps. Individual transgenic lines contain up to 25% arachidonic acid, 15% eicosapentaenoic acid and 0.2% docosahexaenoic acid in the seed oil. These plants carry three to nine enzyme genes that are involved in the biosynthesis of long-chain fatty acids and come from different organisms. They were transferred in blocks in a single transformation step. This means a significant reduction in the transformation effort. Even if the yields are in some cases still low, these experiments show that it is in principle possible to convert the plant lipid metabolism in such a way that essential fatty acids can be produced economically in oil plants.
Enrichment with vitamins
Vitamins are essential for vital functions, but are not produced by the organism and must therefore be taken in through food. In the case of one-sided nutrition, the vitamin content in many plants is insufficient, so that there is a lack of vitamins. This is why the vitamin content of many crops has been increased using genetic engineering methods. The best-known example is the transgenic rice variety Golden Rice , in which an increased content of β-carotene , a precursor of vitamin A , is present due to the introduction of three genes from carotenoid synthesis . The possibility of using genetic engineering to modify a staple food in such a way that vitamin A deficiency could be combated worldwide sparked a heated discussion in 2000 that continues (Golden Rice). Using appropriate genetic engineering methods, an increase in β-carotenes was also achieved in maize, potatoes, carrots, rape, tomatoes and kumquats .
Folic acid (vitamin B9), which has to be taken in with food, is in too low a concentration in staple foods such as rice. Folic acid deficiency leads to reduced red blood cell production ( hyperchromic macrocytic anemia ) and can lead to a neural tube defect in the embryo during pregnancy . Since traditional breeding methods can only increase the folic acid content by a factor of two, the introduction of genes that are important for folic acid synthesis resulted in the production of transgenic plants that contain significantly more folic acid. A 25-fold increase was achieved for tomatoes and a 100-fold increase for rice.
The activity content of vitamin E could be increased by a factor of 5 while improving the quality of oils in transgenic soy.
In 2015, no transgenic plants with high levels of vitamins were approved for commercial cultivation worldwide.
Potatoes that won't discolor and produce less acrylamide
The United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) approved the genetically modified Innate potato from agribusiness JR Simplot Company for commercial cultivation in November 2014 , and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared this potato for consumption in March 2015. This Innate potato hardly shows any stains when bruised and shows no discoloration after peeling, as the polyphenol oxidase , which is responsible for these reactions, is reduced by the technique of RNA interference. A second property of the Innate potato is a 70% lower content of acrylamide , which is produced when the potatoes are fried. This was achieved by RNA interference with the asparagine synthetase in the tubers, so that there is less asparagine that can be converted to acrylamide when heated ( Maillard reaction ). The reduced content of acrylamide is an advantage, since acrylamide is mutagenic and carcinogenic in rats and mice. Since the Innate potato was produced with intragenesis , it only contains DNA from potatoes, so that cross-breeding of foreign DNA with other potatoes is impossible.
Non-browning apples
The Canadian biotech company "Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc." has developed genetically modified apple trees, the fruits of which do not turn brown after being cut open ("Arctic Apples"). This is based on the fact that the polyphenol oxidases, which are responsible for browning after contact with atmospheric oxygen, are inhibited by RNA interference . They were approved for cultivation in the USA and Canada in early 2015. In 2016, 70,000 transgenic apple trees were planted and 300,000 and 500,000 are planned for 2017 and 2018, so a harvest of up to 15,000 tons is expected.
Removal of lignin
Lignin is a main component of woody plants and bonds the cellulose . Since lignin interferes with pulp production and the production of biofuels from wood and therefore has to be removed by complex processes, attempts are made to reduce the amount of lignin in corresponding crops such as poplars or sugar cane by trying to inhibit lignin synthesis enzymes. Here genome editing the method of choice, because it allows targeted inactivation of genes. The difficulty is to find those enzymes, the elimination of which does not affect the growth of the crop too much. In the poplar, switching off the 4-coumarate-CoA ligase ( 4CL ) with the CRISPR / Cas method seems to be a feasible option, as it leads to a 23% reduction in the lignin content. To reduce the lignin content in sugar cane, 107 genes of a gene family that are important for lignin synthesis were simultaneously inactivated using the TALEN process . This genome-edited sugar cane is beneficial for the production of bioethanol . After the sugar has been extracted from sugar cane, a fibrous residue, the bagasse , usually remains , which consists mainly of cellulose and lignin. After biochemical degradation of the cellulose, this residue can be converted into bioethanol ( cellulose-ethanol ) by fermentation . Since lignin interferes with this process and has to be removed at great expense, the genome-edited sugar cane, which contains 20% less lignin with the same growth, is of interest. It allows saccharification efficiency to be increased by up to 44%.
Allergen removal
A significant part of the population is allergic to certain foods. The allergens of soy is particularly problematic, as the use of soy products because of the high nutritional value of soy proteins found in food production increasingly widespread. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for soy allergy sufferers to get soy-free food products. Soy allergies are also found in pigs and calves. Food allergens are almost always naturally occurring proteins. One of the allergenic seed proteins of the soybean is called Gly m Band 30 K. It makes up about one percent of the total protein of the seed. More than 65 percent of soy allergy sufferers react to this protein. It is possible to shut down the gene of this protein by means of RNA interference and thus develop transgenic soy lines that no longer contain this allergen. The elimination of allergens using RNA interference is also possible with apples , tomatoes , peanuts and rice . The expression of the most important protein allergen of ryegrass ( Lolium spec. ), One of the most common pasture grasses with highly allergenic pollen, can also be suppressed with RNA interference without impairing the vitality or usefulness of the plant. It is to be expected that RNA interference will be replaced by genome editing to turn off an allergenic protein so that the modified plant can not be distinguished from a natural mutation . Since there is no foreign DNA in these products, consumer acceptance is increased.
In contrast to switching off an allergen, no case has been reported in which a biotech plant would have newly formed an allergen that was not present in its conventional precursor.
Crop detoxification
When harvesting a cotton field, about 1.6 kg of seeds are produced for every kilogram of fiber. In terms of tonnage, cotton is the most important oil crop after soybeans. The seeds contain approx. 21% oil and 23% relatively high-quality protein, which, however, can only be used to a limited extent as food or animal feed due to its gossypol and other terpenoids content . Gossypol damages the heart and liver. Theoretically, 44 megatons (Mt) of cottonseed, harvested annually worldwide and containing 9 Mt of protein, could meet the annual protein requirements (50 g / day) of half a billion people. Since cottonseed is pressed to produce oil, the press cake containing gossypol is disposed of as toxic. This press cake of gossypol-free seeds would be easy to use as feed or food. First attempts in the 1970s to remove Gossypol from the entire cotton plant resulted in high yield losses, as Gossypol is an important protection against feeding. Using RNA interference , the gossypol synthesis was specifically interrupted in the seeds by shutdown of one of the first biochemical steps of the gossylpol synthesis pathway, so that gossypol in the cottonseed is dramatically reduced. It is well below the limit of 600 ppm (parts per million), which the World Health Organization (WHO) considers harmless for cotton seeds intended for use in food. In the other plant organs, Gossypol is present in sufficient quantities so that the normal protection against pathogens is maintained.
In addition to cotton, several other cultivated plants are known whose value as food is greatly reduced by the content of toxic compounds. The genetic detoxification of these crops would not only improve food safety, but also supply the growing world population without the need to increase yields or acreage.
Cassava ( manioc ) contains poisonous cyanogenic glycosides (which develop hydrogen cyanide) , mainly linamarine , in the roots . By introducing a transgene, the metabolism in the root could be changed in such a way that the linamarine content was reduced by 80%. At the same time, the protein content has been increased by a factor of 3, so that the nutritional value of the transgenic cassava is also improved.
The seeds of the seed pea ( Lathyrus sativus ), a tropical / subtropical vegetable plant, contain a natural neurotoxin, oxalyldiaminopropionic acid . The constant consumption of their flour causes a chronic nervous system disease known as lathyrism in the poor in many countries in Asia and parts of Africa . Since oxalyldiaminopropionic acid is produced via oxalates , a gene that codes for oxalate decarboxylase has been inserted into the seed pea. In this transgenic pea, the content of oxalates and thus also of oxalyldiaminopropionic acid is reduced by a good 70%. This genetically modified seed pea grows like the original plant, but there are still no meaningful field trials. Since the oxalate decaboxylase comes from an edible mushroom, the common velvet foot , no direct health hazard is to be expected from consumption.
Pharmaceutically and medically important substances
For pharmaceutical and medical applications, the production of proteins and other substances in plants (see pharmaceutical plants ) can be advantageous over that in animals, since production is relatively cheap and the risk of contamination with pathogens is much lower. In contrast to production in bacteria, modifications of proteins such as glycosylation in plants are possible, although they may not correspond to the animal modifications. Production also takes place in part in plant cell cultures. An example of this is the human enzyme glucocerebrosidase , which is produced in cultures of carrot cells and is used as a drug ( taliglucerase alfa ) for the treatment of Gaucher's disease . More than ten companies are now producing commercially recombinant proteins in transgenic plants that are used for cell biological research or tested as pharmaceuticals in clinical studies.
There are also initial successes in the breeding of transgenic maize and other cultivated plants which produce antigens with which an active vaccination against dangerous infectious diseases, which triggers the formation of endogenous antibodies, is possible when administered orally. Thus, a transgenic corn was produced comprising an antigen against TGEV ( English Transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus ) produced. After feeding this transgenic maize to pigs, the animals are immune to the virus, so that no diarrheal disease occurs. It is currently open whether such edible vaccines, which are produced in transgenic plants, can also be developed for humans.
Another promising application is the production of monoclonal antibodies in transgenic plants. The antibody produced in this way, which is also known as a plantibody , can be used for a variety of immunochemical detection or as an infection-inhibiting (neutralizing) antibody. An antibody formed in tobacco against a surface antigen of Streptococcus mutans , the main cause of dental caries , has proven to be effective when applied locally and can effectively prevent the recolonization of the tooth surface by the bacteria. In 2011, in a clinical study (phase I), the tolerance of an HIV - neutralizing antibody produced in tobacco plants was demonstrated when it was administered to the vagina. Also of interest is ZMapp , a mixture of three neutralizing antibodies against the Ebola virus that were produced in tobacco plants and used during the Ebola fever epidemic in 2014 .
Market data
The worldwide use of green genetic engineering by 18 million farmers resulted in an additional yield of 15.4 billion USD in 2015 thanks to improved crop yields and cost savings. This corresponds to an increase of 5.2%. If you look at the 20 years in which GM crops were planted (1996 to 2015), the result is a surplus of USD 168 billion. This primarily reflects the fact that in the period from 1996 to 2015, genetic engineering varieties led to an increase in global production of 180 million tonnes of soy, 358 million tonnes of maize, 25 million tonnes of cotton fibers and 11 million tonnes of rapeseed. Most of the additional income was generated in the USA (USD 72 billion), South America (USD 39 billion), and cotton fibers in China and India (USD 38 billion). In 2015, 48.7% of the additional yield was generated in developing countries, whereby this is mainly due to the cultivation of insect-resistant cotton and herbicide-tolerant soy. A comprehensive assessment of the economic benefits of GM crops by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine suggests that increased financial return is the rule for large farms that grow cotton, soybeans, corn, and canola, but that is In the case of smaller companies, other framework conditions such as lending have a significant influence.
Seed producers
In 2016, Monsanto , DuPont , Syngenta , Limagrain , Dow Chemical , KWS Saat and Bayer AG were the ones with $ 10, 6.7, 2.6, 1.8, 1.6, 1.5 and 1.5 billion respectively top-selling seed manufacturer. The proportion of genetically modified seeds was 33%. In 2017, through mergers, some of which have not yet been completed, these market leaders gave rise to three large corporations (Bayer + Monsanto, Dow + Dupont, ChemChina + Syngenta) whose supremacy is viewed critically, as it not only delays innovations, but also economic monopolies conditionally.
Cultivation
In 2016, GM crops were grown on 185.1 million hectares worldwide. This corresponds to 12.3% of the arable land that can be used worldwide (according to the FAO definition 1.5 billion hectares), or about 10 times the total German agricultural area (18.4 million hectares). The cultivation took place in 26 countries in 2016, including 19 developing countries. In the EU , only in Spain , Portugal , Slovakia and the Czech Republic were small amounts of insect-resistant maize grown on 0.14 million hectares.
The ten countries with the largest arable land (GMO area 2016, share of total arable land in 2015)
| rank | country | Area (10 6 ha) | proportion of | plants |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States | 72.9 | 48% | Corn , soybeans , cotton , rapeseed , sugar beet , alfalfa , papaya , apples , potatoes |
| 2 | Brazil | 49.1 | 61% | Soy, corn, cotton |
| 3 | Argentina | 23.8 | 61% | Soy, corn, cotton |
| 4th | Canada | 11.6 | 27% | Rapeseed, soy, corn, sugar beet, alfalfa, apples, potatoes |
| 5 | India | 10.8 | 7% | cotton |
| 6th | Paraguay | 3.6 | 75% | Soy, corn, cotton |
| 7th | Pakistan | 2.9 | 10% | cotton |
| 8th | China | 2.8 | 2% | Cotton, papaya, poplar , |
| 9 | South Africa | 2.7 | 22% | Corn, soy, cotton |
| 10 | Uruguay | 1.3 | 54% | Soy, corn |
Regulation: authorization, labeling and coexistence
Existing regulations
There is no globally standardized procedure for the approval of GM plants for cultivation or for use as food and feed. Every country has its own laws on this. Some countries regulate GM crops based on existing legislation, while others create new laws that apply specifically to GM crops. One approach is the precautionary principle followed in the EU . Due to the manufacturing process, foods with GM content are treated as novel foods ( process-based ). A new GM product, regardless of its composition, is initially considered risky until sufficient tests have been carried out to ensure its safety. Labeling of foods with GM components is mandatory outside of the specified admixture limits. In contrast, the rules in the US are primarily based on the principle of Substantial Equivalence . Food with GM content is treated like food without GM content if the end product has the same composition ( product-based ). Labeling is voluntary.
EU
The relevant requirements for a permit in the EU are the Release Directive (approval for cultivation) and Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 (approval as food and feed). For approval, an application is first submitted to the national competent authorities, which must include information on studies that have been carried out that show that no adverse effects on humans, animals and the environment are to be expected, and an analysis that the GM food is not differs significantly from conventional comparable products. In order to be able to recognize possible environmental effects of GMP cultivation (according to 2001/18 / EG), a tailored monitoring plan must be drawn up for each application. The monitoring must be carried out in a standardized manner so that reproducibility and data comparability are ensured. These standardized procedures were published in a separate VDI series of guidelines on GMP monitoring, funded by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) with funds from the Federal Environment Ministry. The method descriptions, which are divided into 13 guideline sheets, range from pollen monitoring to detection methods for genetically modified nucleic acids and insecticidal Bt proteins to the standardized recording of important indicator species such as amphibians, wild bees and butterflies. The application is forwarded to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) after it has been checked by the national authority . EFSA examines the application, supplements it with suggestions for labeling, monitoring and verification procedures and issues an opinion within six months on the basis of the opinion of an independent panel of experts ( GMO panel ). The application is then forwarded to the EU Commission . The Commission submits the application to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain, in which all member states are represented. The committee can issue an opinion on the application by a qualified majority. If the opinion is not given or if it deviates from the application, the Commission forwards its decision proposal to the Council of Ministers and informs the EU Parliament. The Council of Ministers then has 90 days to decide on the Commission's proposal by a qualified majority. If the Council rejects the Commission's proposal, the Commission will prepare a new proposal. Otherwise, the Commission will bring the legislative act it proposed into force.
In 2003 the guidelines for the coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops ( Directive 2003/556 / EC of July 23, 2003) were formulated. Here, the part of the EU, which it had declined until the 2000s was to develop by GMOs EU-wide rules and clear liability rules for the production and marketing of products, or because it does not allow blanket restrictions of an economic measure, the concept of coexistence created , which in its core statement means "that farmers should have a real choice between conventional , organic or GM production systems in compliance with the labeling and purity regulations ". In 2008 the European Office for Coexistence (at the Institute for Prospective Studies of the JRC , IPTS-JRC for short, in Seville) was set up to further improve the effectiveness of technical coexistence measures.
Threshold values are introduced in order to legally differentiate the deliberate use of genetic engineering from accidental, technically no longer influenceable admixture. In the EU, this value is 0.9% for feed and food, including organic food . However, this value only applies if the manufacturer in question can prove that the admixtures are accidental GMO entries. If this is exceeded, there is an obligation to label. Additives are generally excluded from this, as are the products of conventional farm animals that have been fed with GM feed. In Germany there is the voluntary labeling without genetic engineering , which tolerates mixtures up to the EU threshold value and feeding with GM forage plants up to a certain point in time before slaughter / oviposition.
There is a proposal from the EU Commission for seeds. The value should be measured in such a way that the harvested products are definitely below the labeling requirement. For rapeseed, 0.3% should not be exceeded, for sugar beet, maize and potatoes 0.5%. Critics demand a value of 0.1% from which a quantitative determination is technically possible. A zero tolerance applies to GM plants that are not approved in the EU, even if they are permitted in other countries or if it is a cross of approved varieties. The European Commission and some member states have in the past advocated raising the tolerance threshold to 0.1%; however, these proposals did not win a majority. Authorities react inconsistently to the slight admixture of GMO seeds in conventional batches.
The EU's requirements are considered to be the highest in the world. In addition to the requirements of the EU, the member states can determine further requirements. For example, the distance regulations for GM fields from growing locations for conventional or organic products vary between EU countries. In Spain, the EU country with the largest GM cultivation area, a distance of 50 m from conventional fields is required for maize. In Germany there is a minimum distance of 150 m between GM and conventional maize fields and 300 m between GM and organic maize fields. In Austria, farmers are obliged to obtain official approval for every field and every plant species if transgenic seeds are to be used. Special training courses are to be completed. The liability rules apply as strictly for the cultivator of genetically modified organisms. The European Court of Justice declared the 2003 attempt by Upper Austria and subsequently seven other Austrian federal states to establish themselves as GMO-free zones under the Florence Charter as a violation of the freedom of choice for farmers and consumers.
Recommendation 2010 / C 200/01, which repeals the old 2003/556 / EC, suggested, however, that member states may also impose bans for non-scientific reasons in the future. Various concerns have been raised against them, such as possible violations of world trade and EU internal market treaties. According to a report submitted in November 2010 by the legal service of the European Council, the EU Commission's plans violate the world trade treaties and the treaties of the European internal market . Possible justifications that a country could use for a national cultivation ban according to the Commission proposal are also problematic. Scientific doubts about the safety of GM plants were not provided for in the proposal; they should continue to be answered in a uniform approval procedure that is binding for all EU countries. In December 2014, after several failed attempts and most recently months of negotiations, the Commission, Council and Parliament reached an agreement. According to the decision, which is expected to come into force in April, member states are allowed to prohibit the cultivation of individual GM plants approved in the EU on their territory. The reasons required can be of a socio-economic or political nature, but do not contradict the results of the EU-wide approval procedures that continue to apply with regard to health and environmental risks.
Other countries
In the USA, the USDA , EPA and FDA are responsible for the regulation of GM plants . The legislation is product-based , labeling is voluntary and the admixture limit is 5%. In July 2016, a law was passed according to which the Ministry of Agriculture must lay down mandatory labeling rules for GM foods within two years. The law also prohibits separate U.S. state-level GM labeling rules.
In Canada , Taiwan , Bangladesh , the Philippines , Argentina and South Africa , the legislation is also product-based . In the United Kingdom , Australia , New Zealand , China , Japan , India , Brazil , Mexico , Burkina Faso , Egypt , Kenya , Zambia and Nigeria , legislation is process-based . Identification is optional in Canada, the Philippines, Argentina, and South Africa; mandatory in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, Taiwan, Chile , Brazil and Mexico. The blending threshold is 5% in Canada, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines. In other countries for which information is available it is 1%.
Many developing countries have not yet created a comprehensive legal basis for the approval of and trade in transgenic plants.
International agreements
National legislation moves within the scope that is defined by international agreements that are intended to promote harmonization:
- The WTO aims to break down trade barriers . The Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) sets guidelines for food safety and plant health. The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) aims to promote the dismantling of unnecessary regulations on approvals, tests and standards that hinder trade.
- The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of the FAO is to regulate use and exchange of plant genetic resources.
- The FAO's Codex Alimentarius provides recommendations and guidelines on food safety. Arbitration procedures ( adjudication ) of the WTO fall back on the Codex.
- The Cartagena Protocol regulates the international movement of GMOs when this has a potential impact on biodiversity .
- The OECD strives to harmonize international regulations and standards.
Difference between USA and EU: reasons
In the USA the approval process for a transgenic event takes an average of 15 months, in the EU 40. There are different scientific explanations for the differences between the USA and the EU in the regulation of green genetic engineering, which have been discussed for years. Some assume that consumers in the EU would have a more negative attitude towards genetic engineering than US consumers, that food scandals (e.g. BSE or dioxin) in the 1990s resulted in stronger regulation or that consumer confidence in the Regulators in the EU is lower. Other researchers argue that regulation in the US is less strict because farmers there could benefit more from genetic engineering than EU farmers. Another explanation is that the difference is due to the relative strength of European companies in the traditional crop protection market, with which the first-generation transgenic plants compete. Tait and Barker (2011) see a further explanation of the restrictive stance of the EU in the considerable influence exerted by non-governmental organizations and representatives of the organic farming sector who reject green genetic engineering. The possibility of this influence was created in the 1980s, when Europe moved from a top-down government to a bottom-up governance in which the state is no longer primarily the sole maker of politics, but rather the interactions between societies Groups promotes. In the mid-1980s, the precautionary principle applicable in Germany for the regulation of new technologies in Europe was adopted. However, each of these explanations has weaknesses; there is no scientific consensus on the causes of the differences.
Criticism of the restriction
Many scientists criticize the severe legal restrictions on the development and use of transgenic plants in some countries. The regulation of green genetic engineering in contrast to other methods of plant breeding is unjustified, since the end product of a breeding process, but not the method, is decisive. Such “over-regulation” would result in high costs due to the lost benefits, especially in developing countries. Many regulations, such as coexistence rules, also have no scientific basis. In Europe in particular, a “repressive system” would emphasize possible risks and ignore the positive consequences for the economy, the environment and health. One of the key recommendations of a panel of experts convened by the Papal Academy of Sciences in May 2009 is to “free green genetic engineering from excessive and unscientific regulation”. In particular, she advocates a revision of the Cartagena Protocol, which exports European-style regulation to developing countries (the Vatican declared that the final document should not be understood as a declaration by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences or the Vatican). Consumer organizations, on the other hand, are calling for stricter approval procedures and labeling requirements.
In March 2015, the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, the German Academy of Science and Engineering - acatech and the Union of German Academies of Sciences recommended that the law at national and European level for risk assessment should in future focus primarily on the specific properties of new plant varieties and not on stop the process of their creation. In addition, the academies spoke out against scientifically unfounded general cultivation bans for GMOs and strongly recommended science-based individual case studies.
At the end of June 2016, more than a third of the Nobel Prize winners living around the world signed the Mainau Declaration , in which they called on governments around the world to reject anti-genetic engineering campaigns in general (and the Greenpeace campaign against golden rice in particular) and to give farmers access to genetically modified seeds enable.
Admission
Years of trials often have to be carried out before new transgenic varieties are approved. It is estimated that the cost of licensing a transgenic corn variety in one country is between US $ 6 million and US $ 15 million. These sums are paid by the applicant. The high costs reduce innovation rates and, in particular, hinder the spread of transgenic plants in smaller countries with weaker demand. The high costs also contribute to the concentration of the seed industry, as smaller companies and public research institutions often cannot afford the high sums.
In addition, there are costs resulting from the loss of benefit from a possibly safe, but not yet approved variety ( error of type 2 ). It is estimated that a two year delay in approving a Bt cotton variety in India will cost farmers more than US $ 100 million. A year delay in the approval of a pest-resistant cow bean in Nigeria cost the country 33-46 million US dollars and between 100 and 3,000 human lives in a model calculation.
According to one of the developers of the Golden Rice , Ingo Potrykus , the delay in approval of his invention for more than 10 years is responsible for the loss of millions of lives. He sees the interpretation of the precautionary principle, which he describes as "extreme" instead of a regulation based on scientific evidence, as a "crime against humanity". Scientific studies estimate the possible positive effects of golden rice to be significantly lower. Matin Qaim , for example, assumes only 40,000 lives that could be saved with golden rice worldwide each year.
Consumer and environmental organizations, on the other hand, are demanding stricter approval criteria, as there are unexplained health and environmental risks.
Labeling requirement
Since transgenic foods are classified as harmless to health in the USA and other countries if they are approved, it is argued that labeling is nonsensical. If consumers want to pay more for GMO-free food, food manufacturers would label voluntarily. In the EU, on the other hand, there is a labeling requirement which, firstly, is significantly more expensive and, secondly, suggests that transgenic foods pose a health risk. This obligation is justified with the right-to-know principle , which, in contrast to the need-to-know principle, can be used to justify the obligation to convey practically any type of information and is therefore criticized.
Consumer and environmental organizations, on the other hand, are in favor of mandatory labeling because there are unexplained health risks and the consumer therefore has a right to information. Furthermore, there is a demand among consumers for foods that are labeled as GMO-free. This consumer concern is supported by the Association for Food Without Genetic Engineering (VLOG)
coexistence
The EU guidelines on coexistence (2003/556 / EC) stipulate that distance rules should reflect the scientific state of knowledge regarding the likelihood of admixture. Some scholars criticize that many EU member states ignore this and that the minimum distances are arbitrary, excessive and politically motivated. In Luxembourg, for example, a minimum distance of 600 m applies to maize, while in the Netherlands it is 25 m. In Spain 50 m are mandatory, in Portugal 200 m. In Latvia a distance of 4 km (or 6 km to organic fields) is required for rapeseed. This would represent significant costs for farmers who want to use transgenic seeds and unnecessarily limit their freedom of choice. A meta-analysis of outcrossing studies in maize concluded that a distance of 50 m would be sufficient to ensure outcrossing below 0.5%.
Problems in agricultural trade
The sometimes rapid introduction of green genetic engineering in other countries of the world and the approval practice in Europe, which is based on the precautionary principle, should, according to various opinions, lead to ever greater problems in agricultural trade. The USA, Canada and Argentina sued the EU at the WTO in 2003 and were right on most points in 2005. Since then, a regulation has been negotiated. After the EU allowed the import of genetically modified T45 oilseed rape as food and feed in March 2009, Canada and the EU put down their dispute in July 2009 and agreed to meet twice a year for further consultations.
A report by the Joint Research Center of the EU Commission fears that the prices for agricultural products without the addition of the numerous GM crops that are grown in other countries will rise significantly. By 2015, the number of commercially used GM traits is expected to increase from 30 to 120 in 2009. A working group of innovative farmers sees itself increasingly disadvantaged compared to the competition from other countries.
According to the Deutscher Verband Tiernahrung e.V., the European animal husbandry and feed industry would arise . V. damage of 3.5 to 5 billion €, since deliveries with traces of GMOs would have to be rejected again and again. The same animal feed could be used outside of Europe and food of animal origin produced with it would in principle have unhindered market access in Europe.
New methods of plant breeding
New methods of plant breeding that have been developed since the establishment of the first regulatory measures for GM plants pose a regulatory challenge because the status of the plants they produce is often unclear. A comparison (2010) between Argentina, Australia, the EU, Japan, Canada, South Africa and the USA shows that legislation, definitions and regulation differ greatly between countries. Decisions are often made based on different techniques or even on a case-by-case basis. Also, some countries have already completed clear legislation, while in others discussions are only just beginning. It can be assumed that the same or a very similar breeding method will be classified as GMO or non-GMO in different countries. This has already led to asynchronous approvals that have disrupted international trade.
For example, it has not yet been clarified in the EU how genome editing procedures should be regulated. In the USA, such plants are exempt from the regulation applicable to GMOs, provided they do not contain any foreign genetic material. There are different views in the EU member states. In March 2015, for example, the BVL classified a rapeseed line produced by oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (ODM) as non-GM. The decision was made on the basis of a statement by the Central Commission for Biosafety from 2012.
Socio-economic impact
Cross- border meta-analyzes on Bt maize, Bt cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybeans published in 2011 and 2012 showed that these GM plants are superior to conventional plants in agronomic and economic terms. This superiority is greater in developing than in industrialized countries and is particularly great for Bt cotton.
A meta-analysis published in 2014 came to the conclusion that, on average, large and significant agronomic and economic benefits can be demonstrated through the use of GM plants. According to the authors, there is a particular variance with regard to the specific changed properties and cultivation areas: the yield and the reduction in the amount of pesticides are greatest in insect-resistant plants, while the yield and producer profit is greatest in developing countries.
Perceived benefit for consumers
In an international context, several studies have been carried out on the reaction of consumers to food that has been produced using raw materials from genetically modified organisms. From their point of view, the majority of consumers criticize the currently inadequate labeling regulations. A comprehensive overview study comes to the conclusion that a 5–110% higher price is accepted by consumers for otherwise identical products that were manufactured without green genetic engineering. A recently published study on the large-scale cultivation of Bt maize and HR rape in Germany shows that labeling food “with GMP” (genetically modified plants) alone leads to a price reduction of around 1/3. In terms of welfare economics, this is a loss of utility on the part of the consumer. Economic cultivation advantages of less than € 100 million would be offset by loss of benefits of € 360 million to almost € 6 billion per year.
Income improvement
Income increases were demonstrated for transgenic cotton , transgenic maize , transgenic rapeseed and transgenic soybeans . A review of the scientific literature on the effects of transgenic plants on agricultural incomes, comprising 49 studies, shows a positive effect in 72% of the results, a neutral effect in 11% and a negative effect in 16%. In developing countries the proportion of positive results is significantly higher (approx. 75%) than in industrialized countries (approx. 65%). Added to this are non-monetary gains in the form of labor savings, increased flexibility, lower risk, and greater safety, which were estimated at an average of $ 12 per hectare for herbicide-resistant plants and $ 10 for insect-resistant plants in the USA. In addition, conventional cultivation benefited from the cultivation of insect-resistant plants in its vicinity (see section on environmental protection ).
In studies that measured income improvements through GM crops across different farm sizes, there were mostly advantages for households with less land ownership. In addition, there is a reduction in the income risk, which is comparatively more valuable for small farmers than for larger farms, which have more instruments at their disposal to reduce risk.
The FAO expects that transgenic plants, like other improved seed technologies in the past, will play an important role in increasing rural incomes and reducing poverty in the future.
A long-term study led by Matin Qaim shows, for example, that Indian smallholders who grow Bt cotton earn 50% more profit than farmers who grow conventional cotton. In addition, the "advantages even tended to increase further over time", so that "fears of critics that genetic engineering would result in increasing exploitation of farmers by large corporations" have been refuted.
A study in collaboration with Justus Wesseler examined the acceptance of a hypothetically introduced genetically modified banana. Small farmers in particular showed more acceptance of the modified banana. The better-earning urban population was more critical of this.
Income and lawsuit risks
The manufacturers of genetically modified seeds examine patent infringements and enforce claims for damages in court. The basis for this are additional contracts between the seed manufacturers and the farmers, which are a prerequisite for delivery. These contracts forbid farmers to reproduce themselves, for example, and grant seed manufacturers far-reaching rights. The right to take legal action in the event of loss of earnings is also excluded. In May 2003, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) investigated legal disputes among American farmers who cultivate patented, genetically modified crops, and found that market leader Monsanto was using aggressive investigative methods to unscrupulously sued farmers, even if the patent infringements were even are not the responsibility of the farmer. Cases have emerged in the USA and Canada in which legal disputes with seed manufacturers have ruined farmers financially and had to give up their farms. Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher accuses seed producers of forcing farmers into a dependency on their products, and describes this as effective colonialism. Even unwanted and undesirable contamination / crossbreeding on other, conventional fields is associated with a high risk of legal action for the farmers. For farmers who have been using genetically modified seeds and adapted herbicides for many years, there is a risk of developing superweeds which, for example, have infested 92 percent of the cotton and soybean fields in the northeastern United States. Overall, in 2013 in the USA it was no longer possible to grow crops either partially or completely on 24 million hectares.
Dominance of multinational corporations
Today, more than 75% of all green biotechnology patents are privately owned, mostly by a few multinational corporations. The possibility of exploiting patents for profit is an incentive for research. At the same time, this has meant that the development of new transgenic varieties by non-holders of relevant patents is often associated with high transaction costs and license fees. This could further intensify the concentration process. Due to the declining relative importance of public research and development, the genetic engineering improvement of less common plant species as well as in small developing countries could be neglected.
Ronald Herring observed during the rapid adoption of Bt cotton in India that legal Bt seeds came under strong competitive pressure if the prices were too high or the procurement too bureaucratic. The massive unauthorized propagation of Bt plants and crossbreeding into local varieties by farmers contradicts the “European narratives of power over organic property”.
A study (2011) on behalf of the Dutch Commission for Genetic Modification ( COGEM ) investigated the question of whether green genetic engineering has increased concentration processes in the seed industry and whether concentration processes have slowed down innovation . A significant consolidation has taken place in recent years, the market share of the nine largest seed companies was 12.7% in 1985 and 16.7% in 1996, while the market share of the three largest seed companies had increased to 34% in 2009. In addition to advances in plant science and breeding, intellectual property rights in plant breeding and biotechnology, as well as increasing spending on research and development, have contributed to this consolidation process. Since concentrations also occurred in markets with breeding technologies not affected by genetic engineering, the importance of genetic engineering as a driver of these processes varies. Surveys of 11 top managers in the seed industry revealed that intellectual property rights and patents are seen by some as conducive to innovation and by others as hindering. An economic analysis of the relatively highly concentrated seed markets for cotton, corn and soybean in the United States found that concentration had no negative impact on innovation rates. The authors of the study expect that high costs for research and development as well as for approvals, monitoring and admixtures will hinder smaller companies and public research institutions and promote further concentration of the seed industry.
Food prices
Yu et al. a. (2010) assume that yield increases through green genetic engineering can lower food prices, which can have positive socio-economic consequences for consumers. They estimated the global price reductions in 2007 to be 5.8% (corn), 9.6% (soybeans) and 3.8% (rapeseed). According to their analysis, substitutes for these grains and oilseeds have also become 3–4% cheaper as a result.
Based on a simulation , Sexton and Zilberman (2012) estimated the price reduction for 2008 as follows: Without green genetic engineering, world market prices would have been 35% (maize), 43% (soybeans), 27% (wheat) and 33% (rapeseed) been higher.
Mahaffey et al. (2016) estimated the effects of a global ban on GM crops. As a result, food prices would rise by 0.27% to 2.2% depending on the region.
Formation of resistance
A well-known problem in crop protection is the development of resistance of pests to crop protection agents via the natural mechanism of mutation and selection. It is scientifically undisputed that harmful insects and weeds can develop resistance to Bt toxins or herbicides even when using green genetic engineering. Various countermeasures, such as refuge areas and the combination of several active ingredients, make the development of resistance more difficult.
There is a possibility that genes from transgenic crops could pass to their wild relatives. Some plants hybridize quickly with their wild relatives. In the case of genetically modified plants, scientists see the possibility that outcrossing of the transgenic property can lead to so-called superweeds. This not only affects the transfer of the property of herbicide resistance, but also characteristics such as drought tolerance, disease and pest resistance or increased yields. Furthermore, the possibility is seen that genetically modified plants become a weed themselves. An example of this is herbicide-resistant rape , which u. a. can become a weed problem for the farmer due to the longevity of its seeds during crop rotation. According to a review published in 2011 (Kwit et al., 2011), possible negative consequences of an outcrossing of transgenic properties on related weeds have not yet been proven.
Resistance to glyphosate
A British study carried out between 2000 and 2004 examined the extent to which herbicide-resistant oilseed rape transfers its resistance properties to related species. In the first year of the experiment, an outcrossing of the resistance gene on two turnip rape plants was found in an examination of 95,459 related plants . In the following year, the outcrossing of resistance to a field mustard plant was demonstrated in the test fields . The scientists involved in the study, however, emphasize that no second study was able to determine outcrossing, that the probability of outcrossing is very low and that outcrossing into wild relatives is not a problem, since herbicide resistance does not bring any fitness gain in the wild. However, they point out that the cultivation of herbicide-resistant oilseed rape varieties could lead to herbicide-resistant volunteer rape (i.e. oilseed rape plants that grow again as a result of the survival of rapeseed in subsequent crops) making it difficult to control weeds in the subsequent crop , especially if in the crop rotation other herbicide-resistant crops are used. The Swiss Genetic Engineering Working Group (SAG) adds that multi-resistant rapeseed (i.e. rapeseed varieties that have developed new and thus multiple resistance to herbicides after the transfer of genes from other varieties) can also cause agronomic problems, and claimed in 2003 that transgenic volunteer rape is already one of the most common weeds in some areas of Canada. Three quarters of Canadian farmers who cultivate transgenic oilseed rape said in a 2005 survey that the control of volunteer growth in genetically modified oilseed rape is no bigger problem than with conventional oilseed rape.
The development of resistance through random mutation and natural selection of weeds is more likely than outcrossing of the gene responsible for herbicide resistance from transgenic crops to weeds. Resistance to glyphosate in fields with herbicide-resistant transgenic crops was observed in 9 species up to 2008, almost all of them in the USA. Since 2002 there has been an expansion of populations of glyphosate-resistant wild millet in soybean cultivation in Argentina , which may result in the use of more toxic herbicides in the future. Resistance to glyphosate in fields without herbicide-resistant transgenic crops was observed in 6 species in 12 countries on all continents up to 2008. According to the organization WeedScience, there are 19 glyphosate-resistant weeds worldwide (as of 2010). With 107 resistant weed species, the group of ALS inhibitors (acetolactate synthase), which are the basis for other commonly used chemical weed control agents, is most affected. For all herbicide categories taken together, there are 347 (as of 2010). Scientists are calling for greater diversification in weed control, for example with the help of herbicides in which glyphosate is combined with other active ingredients, with the help of transgenic crops with corresponding additional herbicide resistance and non-herbicide-based weed control measures. The aim is to slow down the development of resistance in weeds so that glyphosate can continue to be used effectively. The glyphosate resistance of the weed Amaranthus palmeri observed in the USA is based on a strong gene amplification of the EPSPS gene and not on an outcrossing of the transgene.
Resistance to Bt toxins
Just as insect pests have developed resistance to chemical insecticides in the past, resistance to Bt toxins could develop in the future. This possibility was documented for butterflies in the field in 2002 . In Mississippi and Arkansas , the sensitivity of the cotton boll drill to the Bt toxin Cry1Ac, which was primarily used in the first Bt varieties, has already decreased significantly. The development of resistance was not found in other regions of the USA or in China, Spain or Australia. No resistance to Bt toxins has been observed in five other important pests either.
In order to delay the development of resistance, so-called “refuge strategies” are recommended. The EPA stipulates the development and implementation of resistance avoidance strategies for Bt plants. Compliance with refugee areas is also recommended in India. Here, conventional seeds are sown on part of the Bt field (5–20%). This allows Bt-sensitive individuals to survive and mate with Bt-resistant individuals, which slows down the development of resistance. Another option for suppressing the development of resistance is the release of sterile harmful insects, which is possible according to computer simulations and has been confirmed in a four-year field test.
Resistance of the red cotton bollworm to first-generation Bt cotton varieties (Bollgard I, since 2002) was observed for the first time in four districts of the Indian state of Gujarat at the beginning of 2010 . This could be due to the inadequate compliance with refugee areas or the illegal cultivation of Bt varieties with lower toxin content. No resistance was found for the second generation of Bt varieties (Bollgard II, since 2006), which contain two Bt genes. Bollgard III, which has three Bt genes, is currently being developed. Several independent insecticides make the development of resistance more difficult.
The mechanism of resistance formation has not yet been adequately explained scientifically. In the case of non-specific resistance to all Bt toxins, farmers would have to use Bt plants and conventional plants alternately so that the resistance in the pest populations decreases. If resistances develop specifically to individual Bt toxins, a Bt maize variety could be used with another of the more than 200 cry proteins. Strains with multiple cry proteins ( stacked traits ) may also help in this case.
A study published in June 2011 of resistances that have arisen worldwide since 1996 comes to the conclusion that a high-dose / refuge strategy, i.e. the combination of plants that express a high dose of bt proteins with refuges of non-expressing plants successfully prevents the development of resistance can. In a continuation of this strategy, plants which combine several bt proteins should be of particular importance.
Environmental impact
Effects rated positively
| plant | Use of pesticides (million kg) |
Environmental pollution from pesticides (%) |
Consumption of fuel (million liters) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herbicide Resistant Soybean | −50.45 | −16.6 | −835 (USA) / −1,636 (Argentina) / −196 (rest) |
| Herbicide Resistant Corn | −111.58 | −8.5 | |
| Herbicide-resistant rapeseed | −13.74 | −24.3 | −347 (Canada) |
| Herbicide-resistant cotton | −6.29 | −5.5 | |
| Bt corn | −29.89 | −29.4 | |
| Bt cotton | −140.60 | −24.8 | −125 |
| Herbicide-resistant sugar beet | +0.13 | −2.0 | |
| total | -352.42 | -16.3 | -3,139 |
According to some studies, transgenic plants can have positive effects on the environment. By using transgenic plants, it was possible to save an estimated 352 million kg (8.4%) of pesticides in the period 1996–2008, which would correspond to a 16.3% reduction in the environmental impact of pesticides in these plants. On the one hand, the saving of the amount applied and the reduction of the toxicity of the applied agent played a role. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 would be equivalent to the emissions of 6.9 million cars. The adoption of herbicide-resistant plants led to an increased application of herbicides of low toxicity (especially glyphosate , WHO toxicity level IV) with a simultaneous reduction in more toxic active ingredients (of WHO toxicity levels II and III) and, associated with this, an expansion of plowless cultivation, which causes soil erosion and fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions decreased. In the study by Barfoot and Brookes , however, it is not about actual reduction, rather the current consumption of green genetic engineering is compared with the hypothetical consumption of the same area in conventional cultivation. According to an Argentine study in the Pampas region, however, the introduction of ploughless cultivation has led to a strong expansion and intensification of agricultural use, with the result that the result is increased herbicide application, the development of resistance, an increase in energy consumption and a decline in biodiversity came. In India, on the occasion of the observation of the development of resistance of the red cotton bollworm to Bt cotton varieties, suitable precautions and a. deep plowing, extensive crop rotation and removal of crop residues are deemed necessary.
The adoption of Bt plants led to a sharp decline in the use of insecticides, especially that of the most toxic substances. It is estimated that between 1996 and 2008, 140 million kg of pesticides were saved through the use of Bt cotton , which equates to a decrease in the environmental impact of pesticide applications in cotton of almost 25%. A 2010 review of the scientific literature found that insecticide applications from insect-resistant plants decreased by 14-75% and in no case increased. Often, less toxic insecticides and herbicides were applied than in conventional fields.
Due to the lower use of insecticides in Bt plants, more non-target organisms survive. A meta-study of 42 field experiments concludes that non-target invertebrates are more common in Bt maize and cotton fields than in fields treated with insecticides (but less often than in fields not treated with insecticides).
In addition, green genetic engineering can promote the diversity of varieties, as individual properties can be incorporated relatively easily into locally adapted varieties. Conventional breeding requires more time and money for a similar process. Instead of replacing locally adapted varieties, the number of varieties with transgenic properties increased rapidly in the growing countries.
Long-term observations of pest populations in the USA and China have shown that the use of Bt cotton has not only resulted in lower pest infestation in the Bt fields, but also in lower pest infestation in conventional cotton and other crop fields ( positive externality ) . American maize farmers who did not grow Bt maize have thus benefited massively from other farmers growing Bt maize. On the other hand, investigations in China with the cultivation of genetically modified cotton showed that non-target organisms could spread temporarily and lead to damage to Bt cotton as well as to conventional crops ( negative externality ).
A review of the effects of green genetic engineering on biodiversity published in 2011 came to the conclusion that the GM crops cultivated to date have reduced the negative effects of agriculture on biodiversity, namely through the increased use of conservation tillage, the reduction in the use of insecticides and the Use of more environmentally friendly herbicides as well as the protection of non-agricultural areas by increasing yields.
Environmental risks
Scientific research status
In 2010 the European Commission published a compendium in which it compiled the results of EU-funded studies by more than 400 independent working groups from the period 2001-2010, according to which there is so far no scientific evidence that genetically modified plants are associated with higher risks for the environment are considered conventional. A 10-year review of scientific literature and studies by international organizations published in 2007 concluded that there was no scientific evidence of environmental damage caused by the previously commercialized transgenic plants. Other studies contradict this. For example, in their paper “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”, Hilbeck describes the alleged scientific consensus as an “artificial construct that was falsely disseminated through various forums”. Before a new transgenic variety can be approved for cultivation, extensive safety studies are required, which usually take several years. A new variety may only be approved if it has been confirmed to be harmless to the environment. After the start of commercial cultivation of a new variety, monitoring during cultivation is planned in the EU.
Since 1987, the federal government has funded over 140 projects for the safety assessment of GM crops (in particular maize, potatoes, grain, rape), in which over 60 universities and non-university research institutions were involved. In addition to laboratory experiments, numerous field tests were carried out. The BMBF published a balance sheet after 25 years of funding. The results available show no higher risk of environmental damage for the cultivation of GM plants compared to conventionally grown plants.
Controversy
Non-target organisms
The Bt toxin Cry1Ab is poisonous for some species of the butterflies order . Unlike the European corn borer , only very few butterfly species feed on maize, but could theoretically be indirectly damaged by Bt maize pollen that ends up on their food. A laboratory study published in 1999 found damage to monarch butterflies when they were fed with Bt maize pollen from Event 11. Some parts of the scientific community have shown that the feeding experiment does not justify these fears. Further laboratory experiments found that pollen from the event caused damage to 176 monarch butterfly larvae, whereupon the event was withdrawn from the market. Field studies, on the other hand, did not find any effects on larvae from the widespread Bt maize events (MON810 and Bt 11), which produce 80 times less toxin than event 176.Field studies also showed that the pollen quantities used in the laboratory studies were unrealistically high under field conditions, and they did so suggests that Event 11's pollen may have been mixed with other parts of the plant. For the events currently permitted, extremely high pollen densities are necessary in order to cause larval damage. Field studies showed that a small percentage of 0.8% of the monarch butterfly population was exposed to Bt maize pollen. The natural mortality of 80% during the larval phase must also be taken into account, as well as other factors such as loss through habitat destruction, insecticide use and collisions with cars. A simulation published in 2010 shows that even under pessimistic assumptions, widespread cultivation of Bt maize in Europe would hardly have any negative effects on butterfly species. In all regions, the maximum calculated mortality rate for peacock butterfly and admiral was less than one of 1,572 butterflies, for the cabbage moth one of 392. The mean of all regions was one of 5000 for peacock butterfly and admiral, for the cabbage moth one of 4367.
The effects on beneficial organisms such as natural enemies and pollinators were also examined. Bt maize is considered safe for healthy honey bees . The need for further research into the effect of the Bt toxin on bees infected with microsporidia will be derived from the results of a research project. In laboratory and greenhouse studies, natural enemies such as lacewings were negatively affected when their prey was damaged by Bt toxins. Field studies showed that natural predators were less common due to the lower availability of prey in Bt fields, but that this reduction had no impact on the population. Lacewing and other natural enemies are polyphagous and therefore not affected by the reduction of certain types of prey. In addition, other pest control tools would affect the food supply of natural enemies, and most insecticides currently in use (especially broad spectrum insecticides such as pyrethroids and organophosphates ) would have more negative effects on natural enemies than Bt toxins. Numerous studies did not reveal any negative effects of Bt plants on soil macroorganisms ( roundworms , springtails , land isopods , mites and earthworms ).
Outcrossing to wild relatives and biodiversity
During studies of the gene flow in wild cotton plants of the species Gossypium hirsutum in Mexico, transgenes of genetically modified plants were found in wild populations . Transgenes of insect-resistant, antibiotic-resistant, or herbicide-resistant cotton were found in about a quarter of the 270 wild cottonseed seeds examined. One seed came from a population that was 755 kilometers from the nearest GM cotton plantation. Other seeds could be identified as successors to the first hybrid generation because they had several and different transgenes. Ana Wegier, lead author on the study, said gene flow from GM cotton crops to wild relatives reduced cotton genetic diversity and could have implications for the environment, food safety and health, as well as legal and trade regulations.
In Mexico , the cultivation of transgenic maize has been banned since 1998 in order to protect landraces and wild relatives from possible outcrossing. In 2001, Nature published a controversial study that reported a transgene found in Mexican landrace maize. Nature withdrew the publication a few months later because "the data situation did not justify publication". A study published in 2009 found Bt genes in landrace maize in 1% of over 100 fields examined in Mexico. It is unclear whether the genetic engineering of the Bt gene was carried out illegally in land races or whether the genes of regular, illegally grown Bt maize varieties were unintentionally crossed out. In October 2009, two permits were issued for the experimental cultivation of transgenic maize on almost 13 hectares. One of the topics of the investigations is the question of whether Mexico can reduce its dependence on imports with transgenic varieties. Almost 2,000 scientists protested in a petition against the permits, because they believed that outcrossing to land races could not be prevented. The licensing authorities stated that a distance of 500 m to conventional fields is maintained. In addition, sowing should take place at different times and surrounding farmers should be asked about possible outcrossing. So far there is no scientific evidence that a possible outcrossing of transgenes could reduce the biodiversity of maize. The gene flow, the exchange of genes between cultivated and wild varieties, is a natural process. Whether genes from conventional high-performance varieties or transgenic varieties establish themselves permanently in local varieties and thereby reduce biodiversity ultimately depends on whether they give the offspring a selection advantage. According to the International Maize and Wheat Research Institute , the large number of maize breeds in Mexico is not decreasing simply through crossbreeding from cultivars.
According to a review published in 2011 (Kwit et al., 2011), the possible negative consequences of an outcrossing of transgenic properties on wild relatives, such as the extinction of wild populations, have not yet been proven.
Health effects
Health protection
The reduced use of pesticides , the number of poisoning cases has through direct contact with the case of transgenic plants of the first generation pesticides reduced. This effect is particularly strong in countries like China, South Africa and India, where pesticides are often applied with garden sprayers.
Green genetic engineering can also improve food quality. Significantly lower traces of mycotoxins were found for Bt maize , which can be attributed to the improved pest control .
With the help of green genetic engineering, the content of allergens in food can be reduced, which is already possible for tomatoes and peanuts without sacrificing yield.
Malnutrition
Nutritionally improved plants can improve the health of consumers. It is estimated that growing golden rice could reduce the cost of vitamin A supplies in India by up to 60%. Translating increased health into labor productivity, global welfare growth is estimated at US $ 15 billion per year, most of it in Asia. In China, golden rice is estimated to have a 2% growth effect. Positive economic and health effects are also expected for transgenic plants with an increased content of nutrients such as iron or zinc and an increased content of essential amino acids .
Health risks
Scientific consensus
There is a broad scientific consensus that the applications of green genetic engineering are not associated with higher risks than conventional methods of plant breeding. According to the New Scientist , this position is held by all major scientific institutions and academies worldwide. This consensus is only contested by anti-GMO lobby groups who claim an alternative consensus, as well as a small group of scientists who move beyond the scientific mainstream.
A review published by the European Commission in 2001 of 81 studies over a period of 15 years found no evidence of health risks from transgenic plants. In 2010 the European Commission again published a compendium in which it brought together the results of EU-funded studies by more than 400 independent working groups from the period 2001-2010, according to which there was no scientific evidence that genetically modified plants pose higher risks to human health are connected as conventional. The American Association for the Advancement of Science , the American Medical Association , the National Institute of Medicine , the National Research Council, and the National Academy of Sciences also share this view. The FAO , WHO , OECD as well as German, French and British science academies and the US FDA came to the same conclusion. It is scientifically impossible to completely exclude future damage to health. Critics often demand “proof” of security. According to proponents, however, this is disproportionate; no technology should be approved according to such a strict standard, neither new nor existing.
A 2014 review summarizes the scientific literature on the effects of GM feed on the performance and health of farm animals (Eenennaam & Young, 2014). Numerous experimental studies then come to the consistent conclusion that there is no difference between GM and conventional feed with regard to these effects on livestock. Furthermore, no study found any significant effects of GM feed on the nutrient profile of the animal end products. GM components in milk, meat and eggs could not be detected or reliably quantified.
By 2007 there were over 270 studies on the safety of GMOs worldwide. The authorities responsible for surveillance have carried out extensive studies to prove environmental safety, and politicians such as the former Federal Research Minister Schavan or researchers such as Nobel Prize winner Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard are of the opinion that after 20 years of research there is no scientific evidence of a risk from genetic engineering. This was also confirmed in a meta-study published in early 2014 . It evaluated 1,783 publications relating to safety research on genetically modified plants in the period from 2002 to 2012 and found no indications of any serious risks.
Controversy
Some scientists and non-governmental organizations fear that transgenic plants pose health risks, such as decreased nutrient or increased toxin levels. Transgenic plants could produce previously unknown allergens or change the content of known allergens. The use of antibiotic resistance genes as markers could also result in antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria.
While researching possible transgenes for potato breeding in the late 1990s, British researcher Árpád Pusztai carried out feeding experiments . It should be tested whether transgenic potatoes snowdrops - lectin form, posed a potential health risk. Snowdrop lectin is an effective protein against harmful insects that is considered safe for humans. Pusztai explained that the rats fed the transgenic potatoes were less healthy than the other test animals. This sparked controversy among scientists. The statistical significance of the results was questioned, possible errors in the experiment pointed out and the explanation of the results assumed in factors other than gene transfer. Pusztai subsequently stuck to his interpretation that the gene transfer would have led to the production of new toxins.
In principle, allergens can be transferred to other organisms with the help of genetic engineering. As a result, previously harmless foods can trigger allergies without the consumer being able to identify the cause. During the development phase of a transgenic soybean with increased methionine content, for example , the manufacturer Pioneer Hi-Bred discovered in 1996 that the gene introduced from the Brazil nut was the previously unidentified main allergen of the Brazil nut. Product development was then canceled. New GM plants are therefore tested for their allergy potential using a procedure developed by the WHO. So far, no case of introduction of an allergen into approved transgenic plants has become known. Such tests are not required for conventional breeds in which unplanned changes in genes already present are caused by mutations or genes already present in the gene pool of a species are recombined by crossings. The Union of German Academies of Sciences therefore estimates the risk of allergenicity in GM plants to be significantly lower than in products of conventional breeding. Overall, according to this study, it appears "extremely unlikely that there is a higher health risk when consuming GMO foods approved in the European Union than when consuming conventional foods."
According to some scientists, it is extremely unlikely that the antibiotic resistance genes used as markers in green genetic engineering could be transferred to human pathogens, as a corresponding resistance gene must firstly pass through the digestive tract undamaged and secondly come into contact with a suitable pathogenic bacterium, and thirdly, it must recombine with the bacterial chromosome, in a very specific place and in a very specific way. Every single one of these steps is very improbable in and of itself, the probability that all steps will coincide is extremely low. Other scientists consider transmission of this resistance to bacteria, which can cause diseases in plants and animals, to be rare, but possible. For example, such transmission could take place in the intestines of bees that eat pollen from a transgenic plant. To avoid this risk, Zimmermann et al. a. indicated that antibiotic resistance genes would no longer be used. The consumer advice center North Rhine-Westphalia states that genetically modified crops would still incorporate genes with antibiotic resistance despite the lower-risk processes.
The risk of using promoters is similarly low . Promoters must be used to activate a gene. A promoter from a cauliflower virus is used to activate the Bt gene. However, this promoter only works in plants, yeast and bacteria and is not active in human cells. Since humans have been ingesting viruses and bacteria as well as cauliflower for millennia without their promoters having had a negative influence, the concerns are misplaced. In order to eliminate this risk, only species-specific promoters would be used from the second generation.
Scientists also explain that genetic engineering is not as artificial or imprecise as is often assumed. Processes that also occur in nature are used and these are constantly being improved. The properties of the target genes are also known very precisely, and the resulting plants are monitored more closely than those produced conventionally, and varieties that do not have the desired or even negative properties are not developed further.
Ethical aspects
According to Joachim von Braun , in the fight against world hunger it is ethically necessary to make green genetic engineering available to farmers in developing countries.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics arose in respect of a potentially unethical unnaturalness of transgenic plants to the conclusion that the difference to conventional breeding was not large enough to determine an inherent moral dubiousness of agricultural biotechnology. With regard to the precautionary principle, it was appropriate to take into account the risks of the status quo . Since the status quo causes considerable damage to the hungry and the poor and green genetic engineering offers opportunities to reduce this damage, a restriction of green genetic engineering is not necessarily consistent with the precautionary principle.
The Federal Ethics Commission for Non-Human Biotechnology is unanimously based on the assessment model which basically sees the possibility that GM plants show unintended and unexpected effects with regard to pleiotropic, epigenetic or cumulative effects. Decisions are therefore made in the context of a typical risk situation on the basis of incomplete knowledge. The consequence of this is that a final assessment as safe or unsafe is not possible for a GM plant . Only information on the probability of a damaging event is possible. The decision about the experimental release of a GM plant is therefore dependent on the assessment of the quality of the incomplete knowledge and the options for reducing this incompleteness. A small minority of this committee assesses the effects of genetic engineering to be so complex that a release does not appear to be justifiable for the time being.
Reception in public
In contrast to red biotechnology , green genetic engineering is particularly popular in industrialized countries. Environmental protection organizations such as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth see themselves as fundamental opponents of this technology. Organic farming associations advocate GMO-free agriculture. The topic of “green genetic engineering” is also being discussed controversially within the political landscape. The protest against genetically modified plants is expressed, among other things, in so-called field exemptions , whereby corresponding cultivation areas are illegally occupied or damaged by environmental activists.
In an opinion poll of 2000 in 35 countries, 35,000 people were asked whether the benefits of transgenic food crops were greater than the risks associated with them. Transgenic food crops received little approval from citizens of rich nations such as Japan and France with only 22%. In India and China , approval was significantly higher at over 65%; it was highest in Cuba and Indonesia at around 80%. A 2006 survey of people who were aware of the existence of GMOs found that 89% of Greeks believed GMOs were harmful, compared to only 33% of South Africans . Surveys (2001, 2003) showed that in the USA the acceptance of GM foods is lower among people over 64, among women and among people with a lower level of education. Rejection of genetically modified foods was positively correlated with a vegetarian / vegan diet. The acceptance of GM foods is somewhat lower among people who prefer a health-conscious diet and natural and little processed foods. The rejection of GM foods is lowest among people with postgraduate degrees . 94% of Americans were in favor of GM food labeling in 2003. According to the 1999 Eurobarometer , rejection of GM foods increased in all 16 European countries compared to 1996. Opposition was strongest in 1999 in Greece (81%) and weakest in the Netherlands (25%). Approval for GM plants was highest in Portugal and Spain and lowest in Norway, Luxembourg and Austria. Over 80% of opponents of GM foods stated that GM foods endanger the “natural order”, are “fundamentally unnatural”, are associated with “unacceptable risks” and “dangers for future generations”. According to the Eurobarometer 2010, the population in all EU countries has a predominantly negative attitude towards genetically modified food. With a few exceptions, rejection has increased in recent years. The most important reasons given for rejecting GM foods are that they are “not safe” and “unnatural”. The latest nature awareness study shows that people in Germany also strongly reject genetic engineering in agriculture: in 2017, 79 percent are in favor of a ban. In addition, 93 percent of those questioned are of the opinion that possible effects on nature should always be investigated when plants are specifically genetically modified.
Some scientists see a partial explanation for this view that genetically modified food poses a health risk in a lack of knowledge about green genetic engineering. Polls in the late 1990s found that 35% of EU citizens and 65% of US Americans believed that non-transgenic tomatoes did not contain genes. Another poll showed that a quarter of Europeans believed that consuming a transgenic plant could alter human genes. The rejection of green genetic engineering is stronger in richer countries because the first generation of genetically modified plants would mainly benefit farmers in developing countries, but hardly any benefits for rich consumers.
On the part of science , the approach of the critics themselves is criticized. The Union of German Academies of Science comes to the conclusion that campaigns against green genetic engineering lack a scientific basis.
In 2009 there was a "Joint Declaration by the Science Organizations on Green Genetic Engineering" (a declaration by the Alliance of Science Organizations ) and a "Statement by the German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina ", in which politicians called for an objective discussion and reliable framework conditions for research to create. A panel of experts convened by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in May 2009 considers it a moral imperative to make the benefits of green genetic engineering accessible to a greater number of the poor, and reminds opponents of the harm that withholding technologies would do to those most in need . (The Vatican stated that the final document should not be understood as a statement by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences or the Vatican, and it distanced itself from the panel of experts' support for the cultivation of genetically modified crops.)
The Federation for Food Law and Food Science stated in a position paper that foods with genetically modified ingredients are already widespread in German supermarkets. It is estimated that 60% to 70% of all food in their production came into contact with genetic engineering in some way.
literature
- German Research Foundation : Green genetic engineering. (PDF; 3.7 MB). Information brochure. 2009.
- Frank Kempken: With green genetic engineering against hunger? . In: APuZ . No. 6-7, 2009, pp. 21-26.
- Peggy G. Lemaux: Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part I). (PDF; 342 kB). In: Annual Review of Plant Biology . Volume 59, 2008, pp. 771-812.
- Peggy G. Lemaux: Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part II). (PDF; 405 kB). In: Annual Review of Plant Biology. Volume 60, 2009, pp. 511-559.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects . The National Academies Press, Washington, DC 2016. doi: 10.17226 / 23395 .
- Ingo Potrykus , Klaus Ammann (Ed.): Transgenic plants for food security in the context of development - proceedings of a study week of the pontifical academy of sciences. (PDF; 564 kB). In: New Biotechnology. Vol. 27, No. 5, November 2010.
- Bernd Müller-Röber, Mathias Boysen, Lilian Marx-Stölting, Angela Osterheider (eds.): Green genetic technology. Current scientific, economic and social developments. Dornburg 2013, ISBN 978-3-940647-05-4 . ( Download short version as PDF )
- Matin Qaim : Genetically Modified Crops and Agricultural Development . Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
- Stuart J. Smyth, Peter WB Phillips, David Castle: Handbook On Agriculture, Biotechnology And Development. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham 2014.
Broadcast reports
- Freedom for the field? - Europe decides on new gene plants , Deutschlandfunk - “ Science in focus ” on May 27, 2018
Web links
- Overview of research and cultivation of all genetically modified plants
- Database for the evaluation of molecular biological screenings for genetically modified plants in food
Individual evidence
- ^ Frank Kempken, Renate Kempken: Genetic engineering in plants. 2nd Edition. 2003, ISBN 3-540-01216-8 , p. 83.
- ↑ N. Podevin, Y. Devos, HV Davies, KM Nielsen: Transgenic or not? No simple answer! New biotechnology-based plant breeding techniques and the regulatory landscape. In: EMBO Rep. Volume 13 2012, pp. 1057-1061. doi: 10.1038 / embor.2012.168
- ↑ a b B. R. Frame, HX Shou et al.: Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of maize embryos using a standard binary vector system. In: Plant Physiology. Volume 129, No. 1, 2002, pp. 13-22. doi: 10.1104 / pp.000653
- ↑ a b c d e f Frank Kempken, Renate Kempken: Genetic engineering in plants. 3. Edition. 2006, ISBN 3-540-33661-3 , pp. 83-91.
- ↑ V. Sidorov, L. Gilbertson et al.: Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of seedling-derived maize callus. In: Plant Cell Reports. Volume 25, No. 4, 2006, pp. 320-328. doi: 10.1007 / s00299-005-0058-5
- ↑ DJ James, S. Uratsu et al .: Acetosyringone and osmoprotectants like betaine or proline synergistically enhance Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of apple. In: Plant Cell Reports. Volume 12, No. 10, 1993, pp. 559-563. doi: 10.1007 / bf00233060
- ↑ BR Frame, HY Zhang et al .: Production of transgenic maize from bombarded type II callus: Effect of gold particle size and callus morphology on transformation efficiency. In: In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology-Plant. Volume 36, No. 1, 2000, pp. 21-29. doi: 10.1007 / s11627-000-0007-5
- ↑ R. Brettschneider, D. Becker, u. a .: Efficient transformation of scutellar tissue of immature maize embryos. In: Theoretical and Applied Genetics. Volume 94, No. 6-7, 1997, pp. 737-748. doi: 10.1007 / s001220050473
- ↑ a b I. B. Holme, T. Wendt, PB Holm: Intragenesis and cisgenesis as alternatives to transgenic crop development. In: Plant Biotechnol J. Volume 11, 2013, pp. 395-407. doi: 10.1111 / pbi.12055
- ^ KR Jo, CJ Kim, SJ Kim, TY Kim, M. Bergervoet, MA Jongsma, RG Visser, E. Jacobsen, JH Vossen: Development of late blight resistant potatoes by cisgene stacking. In: BMC biotechnology. Volume 14, 2014, p. 50. doi: 10.1186 / 1472-6750-14-50
- ↑ a b D. F. Voytas, C. Gao: Precision genome engineering and agriculture: opportunities and regulatory challenges. In: PLOS Biol. Volume 12, 2014, p. E1001877. doi: 10.1371 / journal.pbio.1001877
- ↑ M. Lusser, C. Parisi, D. Plan, E. Rodriguez-Cerezo: Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding. In: Nat Biotech. Volume 30, 2012, pp. 231-239. doi: 10.1038 / nbt.2142
- ↑ Data from Figure 15 in ISAAA: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech / GM Crops: 2016. ISAAA Letter No. 52.
- ↑ Data from Table 35 in ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech / GM Crops: 2016. ISAAA Letter No. 52.
- ↑ J. Gressel et al .: How well will stacked transgenic pest / herbicide resistances delay pests from evolving resistance? In: Pest Manag Sci. Volume 73, No. 1, 2017, pp. 22-34. doi: 10.1002 / ps.4425
- ↑ NP Storer et al: Application of pyramided traits against Lepidoptera in insect resistance management for Bt crops. In: GM Crops Food. Volume 3, No. 3, 2012, doi: 10.4161 / gmcr.20945
- ↑ Table 34 in ISAAA (2016). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech / GM Crops: 2016. ISAAA Letter No. 52.
- ↑ Figure 11 in ISAAA (2016). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech / GM Crops: 2016. ISAAA Letter No. 52.
- ↑ GM crops: A story in numbers. In: Nature. Volume 497, May 2, 2013, pp. 22-23 doi: 10.1038 / 497022a
- ^ SO Duke, SB Powles: Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. In: PestManagSci. Volume 64, 2008, pp. 319-325. doi: 10.1002 / ps.1518
- ↑ C. Hérouet et al .: Safety evaluation of the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase proteins encoded by the pat and bar sequences that confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium herbicide in transgenic plants. In: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. Volume 41, No. 2, 2005, pp. 134-149. doi: 10.1016 / j.yrtph.2004.11.002
- ↑ I. Heap: Global perspective of herbicide-resistant weeds. In: Pest ManagSci. Volume 70, 2014, pp. 1306-1315. doi: 10.1002 / ps.3696
- ↑ MR Behrens, N. Mutlu, S. Chakraborty, R. Dumitru, WZ Jiang, BJ LaVallee, PL Herman, TE Clemente, DP Weeks: Dicamba Resistance: Enlarging and Preserving Biotechnology-Based Weed Management Strategies. In: Science. Volume 316, 2007, pp. 1185-1188. doi: 10.1126 / science.1141596
- ↑ TR Wright, G. Shan, TA Walsh, JM Lira, C. Cui, P. Song, M. Zhuang, NL Arnold, G. Lin, K. Yau et al: Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenic. In: ProcNatlAcadSciUSA. Volume 107, 2010, pp. 20240-20245. doi: 10.1073 / pnas.1013154107
- ↑ CT Citadin, AR Cruz, FJ Aragao: Development of transgenic imazapyr-tolerant cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). In: Plant Cell Rep. Volume 32, 2013, pp. 537-543. doi: 10.1007 / s00299-013-1385-6
- ↑ M. Matringe, A. Sailland, B. Pelissier, A. Rolland, O. Zink: p-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitor-resistant plants. In: Pest Manag Sci. Volume 61, 2005, pp. 269-276. doi: 10.1002 / ps.997
- ↑ SS Kaundun: Resistance to acetyl-CoA carboxylase-inhibiting herbicides. In: Pest Manag Sci. Volume 70, 2014, pp. 1405-1417. doi: 10.1002 / ps.3790
- ↑ M. Endo, T. Shimizu, S. Toki: Selection of transgenic rice plants using a herbicide tolerant form of the acetolactate synthase gene. In: Methods Mol Biol. Volume 847, 2012, pp. 59-66. doi : 10.1007 / 978-1-61779-558-9_6
- ^ E. Waltz: Glyphosate resistance threatens Roundup hegemony. In: NatBiotechnol. Volume 28, 2010, pp. 537-538. doi: 10.1038 / nbt0610-537
- ↑ Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status ( Memento of March 30, 2015 in the Internet Archive ).
- ↑ Helen Thompson: War on weeds loses ground. In: Nature . May 22, 2012, accessed November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ DA Mortensen, JF Egan, BD Maxwell, MR Ryan, RG Smith: Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. In: BioScience. Volume 62, 2012, pp. 75-84. doi: 10.1525 / bio.2012.62.1.12
- ↑ January Suszkiw: Tifton, Georgia: A Peanut Pest showdown. USDA , November 1999, accessed November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ A. Bravo, S. Likitvivatanavong, SS Gill, M. Soberon: Bacillus thuringiensis: A story of a successful bioinsecticide. In: Insect biochemistry and molecular biology. Volume 41, 2011, pp. 423-431. doi: 10.1016 / j.ibmb.2011.02.006
- ^ GM Approval Database
- ↑ G. Sanahuja, R. Banakar, RM Twyman, T. Capell, P. Christou: Bacillus thuringiensis: a century of research, development and commercial applications. In: Plant Biotechnol J. Volume 9, 2011, pp. 283-300. doi: 10.1111 / j.1467-7652.2011.00595.x
- ↑ AM Shelton et al .: Bt Brinjal in Bangladesh: The First Genetically Engineered Food Crop in a Developing Country. In: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2019, doi: 10.1101 / cshperspect.a034678
- ^ KH Gordon, PM Waterhouse: RNAi for insect-proof plants. In: Nat Biotechnol. Volume 25, 2007, pp. 1231-1232. doi: 10.1038 / nbt1107-1231
- ↑ S. Whyard: science Plant. Insecticidal RNA, the long and short of it. In: Science. Volume 347, 2015, pp. 950-951. doi: 10.1126 / science.aaa7722
- ↑ EPA Registers Innovative Tool to Control Corn Rootworm. US EPA , accessed November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ GP Head et al: Evaluation of SmartStax and SmartStax PRO maize against western corn rootworm and northern corn rootworm: efficacy and resistance management. In: Pest Manag Sci. Volume 73, No. 9, 2017, pp. 1883-1899. doi: 10.1002 / ps.4554
- ↑ TJ Bruce et al .: The first crop plant genetically engineered to release an insect pheromone for defense. In: Sci Rep. Volume 5, 2015, Art. 11183. doi: 10.1038 / srep11183
- ^ R. Scorza et al.: Genetic engineering of Plum pox virus resistance: 'HoneySweet' plum-from concept to product. In: Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture. Volume 115, No. 1, 2013, pp. 1-12. doi: 10.1007 / s11240-013-0339-6
- ↑ LC Galvez et al .: Engineered plant virus resistance. In: Plant Sci. 228c, 2014, pp. 11-25. doi: 10.1016 / j.plantsci.2014.07.006
- ↑ S. Tripathi et al.: Papaya ringspot virus-P: characteristics, pathogenicity, sequence variability and control. In: Mol Plant Pathol. Volume 9, No. 3, 2008, pp. 269-280. doi: 10.1111 / j.1364-3703.2008.00467.x
- ^ GM Events with Viral Disease Resistance. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, accessed on November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ MG Palmgren et al .: Are we ready for back-to-nature crop breeding? In: Trends Plant Sci. Volume 20, No. 3, 2015, pp. 155-164. doi: 10.1016 / j.tplants.2014.11.003
- ↑ TD Kost et al: Development of the First Cisgenic Apple with Increased Resistance to Fire Blight. In: PLoS ONE. Volume 10, No. 12, 2015, Art. E0143980. doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0143980
- ↑ Cisgenic apple trees with improved fire blight resistance. In: admin.ch. Agroscope , accessed on November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ G. Gheysen, R. Custers: Why Organic Farming Should Embrace Co-Existence with Cisgenic Late Blight-Resistant Potato. In: Sustainability. Volume 9, No. 2 2017, p. 172. doi: 10.3390 / su9020172
- ↑ C. Dixelius, T. Fagerstrom, JF Sundström: European agricultural policy goes down the tubers. In: Nat Biotechnol. Volume 30, 2012, pp. 492-493. doi: 10.1038 / nbt.2255
- ↑ Late blight in potatoes: New strategies against a tricky pathogen. In: transgen.de. Retrieved November 29, 2017 .
- ^ AJ Haverkort et al .: Durable Late Blight Resistance in Potato Through Dynamic Varieties Obtained by Cisgenesis: Scientific and Societal Advances in the DuRPh Project. In: Potato Research. Volume 59, No. 1, 2016, pp. 35-66. doi: 10.1007 / s11540-015-9312-6
- ↑ Field trial with cisgenic potatoes approved on the Protected Site. Retrieved November 30, 2017 .
- ^ Innate Second Generation Potatoes with Late Blight Protection Receive EPA and FDA Clearances. Retrieved November 30, 2017 .
- ↑ T. Vanblaere, H. Flachowsky, C. Gessler, GA Broggini: Molecular characterization of cisgenic lines of apple 'Gala' carrying the Rvi6 scab resistance gene. In: Plant Biotechnol J. Volume 12, 2014, pp. 2-9. doi: 10.1111 / pbi.12110
- ↑ Go-ahead for field test with cisgene apples. Wageningen Universiteit , accessed November 30, 2017 .
- ↑ J. Dale et al.: Transgenic Cavendish bananas with resistance to Fusarium wilt tropical race 4. In: Nat Commun. Volume 8, No. 1 2017, p. 1496. doi: 10.1038 / s41467-017-01670-6
- ↑ Y. Wang, X. Cheng, Q. Shan, Y. Zhang, J. Liu, C. Gao, JL Qiu: Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. In: Nat Biotechnol. Volume 32, 2014, pp. 947-951. doi: 10.1038 / nbt.2969
- ↑ J. Gil-Humanes, DF Voytas: Wheat rescued from fungal disease. In: Nat Biotechnol. Volume 32, 2014, pp. 886-887. doi: 10.1038 / nbt.3013
- ↑ GM Events with Drought Stress Tolerance. ISAAA, accessed December 4, 2017 .
- ↑ M. Eisenstein: Plant breeding: Discovery in a dry spell. In: Nature. Volume 501, 2013, pp. S7-S9. doi: 10.1038 / 501S7a
- ↑ ISAAA. 2016. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech / GM Crops: 2016. ISAAA Letter No. 52. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. Page 10. (PDF) Accessed December 4, 2017 .
- ^ E. Waltz: First stress-tolerant soybean gets go-ahead in Argentina. In: Nature Biotechnology. Volume 33, No. 7, 2015, pp. 682-682. doi: 10.1038 / nbt0715-682
- ↑ Genes: EcBetA. ISAAA, accessed December 4, 2017 .
- ^ E. Waltz: Beating the heat. In: Nat Biotechnol. Volume 32, 2014, pp. 610-613. doi: 10.1038 / nbt.2948
- ^ N. Gilbert: Cross-bred crops get fit faster. In: Nature. Volume 513, 2014, p. 292. doi: 10.1038 / 513292a
- ↑ HX Zhang, JN Hodson, JP Williams, E. Blumwald: Engineering salt-tolerant Brassica plants: characterization of yield and seed oil quality in transgenic plants with increased vacuolar sodium accumulation. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . Volume 98, 2001, pp. 12832-12836. doi: 10.1073 / pnas.231476498
- ↑ SJ Roy, S. Negrao, M. Tester: Salt resistant crop plants. In: Current Opinion in Biotechnology. Volume 26, 2014, pp. 115-124. doi: 10.1016 / j.copbio.2013.12.004
- ↑ G. Zhou, JF Pereira, E. Delhaize, M. Zhou, JV Magalhaes, PR Ryan: Enhancing the aluminum tolerance of barley by expressing the citrate transporter genes SbMATE and FRD3. In: J Exp Bot. Volume 65, 2014, pp. 2381-2390. doi: 10.1093 / jxb / eru121
- ^ Nitrogen Use Efficient Biotech Crops - Pocket K. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, accessed on November 29, 2017 (English).
- ↑ Potatoes, Wheat, Barley - A New Generation of Genetically Modified Plants in the Field. In: transgen.de. March 30, 2012. Retrieved November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ MJ Paul and others: Are GM Crops for Yield and Resilience Possible? In: Trends Plant Sci. Volume 23, No. 1, Jan 2018, pp. 10-16. doi: 10.1016 / j.tplants.2017.09.007
- ↑ Brazil approves transgenic eucalyptus. In: Nat Biotech. Volume 33, No. 6, 2015, pp. 577-577. doi: 10.1038 / nbt0615-577c
- ↑ Mature - and yet more durable. ( transgen.de ( Memento of December 10, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
- ^ IL Goldman: Molecular breeding of healthy vegetables. In: EMBO Rep. Volume 12, 2011, pp. 96-102. doi: 10.1038 / embor.2010.215
- ↑ R. Chen, G. Xue, P. Chen, B. Yao, W. Yang, Q. Ma, Y. Fan, Z. Zhao, MC Tarczynski, J. Shi: Transgenic maize plants expressing a fungal phytase gene. In: Transgenic Res. Volume 17, 2008, pp. 633-643. doi: 10.1007 / s11248-007-9138-3
- ↑ H. Jia: Chinese green light for GM rice and maize prompts outcry. In: NatBiotechnol. Volume 28, 2010, pp. 390-391. doi: 10.1038 / nbt0510-390b
- ↑ GM Events with Phytase Production. In: ISAAA. Retrieved December 10, 2017 .
- ↑ IB Holme, G. Dionisio, H. Brinch-Pedersen, T. Wendt, CK Madsen, E. Vincze, PB Holm: Cisgenic barley with improved phytase activity. In: Plant Biotechnol J. Volume 10, 2012, pp. 237-247. doi: 10.1111 / j.1467-7652.2011.00660.x
- ↑ Summary Notification. Notification Number B / DK / 12/01. In: europa.eu. Retrieved November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ E. Waltz: Tiptoeing around transgenics. In: Nat Biotechnol. Volume 30, No. 3, 2012, pp. 215-217. doi: 10.1038 / nbt.2143
- ^ Y. Wang, X. Ye, G. Ding, F. Xu: Overexpression of phyA and appA genes improves soil organic phosphorus utilization and seed phytase activity in Brassica napus. In: PLoS ONE. Volume 8, 2013, Art. E60801. doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0060801
- ↑ G. Drakakaki, S. Marcel, RP Glahn, EK Lund, S. Pariagh, R. Fischer, P. Christou, E. Stoger: Endosperm-specific co-expression of recombinant soybean ferritin and Aspergillus phytase in maize results in significant increases in the levels of bioavailable iron. In: Plant Mol Biol. Volume 59, 2005, pp. 869-880. doi: 10.1007 / s11103-005-1537-3
- ↑ IH Slamet-Loedin, SE Johnson Beebout, p Impa, N. Tsakirpaloglou: Enriching rice with Zn and Fe while minimizing risk Cd. In: Front Plant Sci. Volume 6, March 2015, p. 121. doi: 10.3389 / fpls.2015.00121
- ^ DW Ow: GM maize from site-specific recombination technology, what next? In: CurrOpinBiotechnol. Volume 18, 2007, pp. 115-120. doi: 10.1016 / j.copbio.2007.02.004
- ↑ isaaa.org
- ↑ J. Yu, P. Peng, X. Zhang, Q. Zhao, D. Zhy, X. Sun, J. Liu, G. Ao: Seed-specific expression of a lysine rich protein sb401 gene significantly increases both lysine and total protein content in maize seeds. In: Molecular Breeding. Volume 14, 2004, pp. 1-7. doi: 10.1023 / B: MOLB.0000037990.23718.d6
- ↑ S. Chakraborty, N. Chakraborty, L. Agrawal, S. Ghosh, K. Narula, S. Shekhar, PS Naik, PC Pande, SK Chakrborti, A. Datta: Next-generation protein-rich potato expressing the seed protein gene AmA1 is a result of proteome rebalancing in transgenic tuber. In: ProcNatlAcadSciUSA. 2010, doi: 10.1073 / pnas.1006265107
- ↑ S. Fritsche et al: Recent Advances in our Understanding of Tocopherol Biosynthesis in Plants: An Overview of Key Genes, Functions, and Breeding of Vitamin E Improved Crops. II. In: Antioxidants. (Basel). Volume 6, No. 4, 2017, doi: 10.3390 / antiox6040099
- ↑ VS Tavva et al: Increased alpha-tocopherol content in soybean seed overexpressing the Perilla frutescens gamma-tocopherol methyltransferase gene. In: Plant Cell Rep. Volume 26, 2007, pp. 61-70. doi: 10.1007 / s00299-006-0218-2
- ↑ ISAAA GM Approval Data Base: Event Name: DP305423. Retrieved January 24, 2018 .
- ^ E. Waltz: Food firms test fry Pioneer's trans fat-free soybean oil. In: Nat Biotechnol. Volume 28, 2010, pp. 769-770. doi: 10.1038 / nbt0810-769a
- ↑ ISAA GM Approval Database: Event Name: MON87705. Retrieved January 24, 2018 .
- ↑ C. Zhu, S. Naqvi, S. Gomez-Galera, AM Pelacho, T. Capell, P. Christou: Transgenic strategies for the nutritional enhancement of plants. In: Trends Plant Sci. Volume 12, 2007, pp. 548-555. doi: 10.1016 / j.tplants.2007.09.007
- ^ RP Haslam, N. Ruiz-Lopez, P. Eastmond, M. Moloney, O. Sayanova, JA Napier: The modification of plant oil composition via metabolic engineering - better nutrition by design. In: Plant Biotechnol J. Volume 11, 2013, pp. 157-168. doi: 10.1111 / pbi.12012
- ↑ G. Wu, M. Truksa, N. Datla, P. Vrinten, J. Bauer, T. Zank, P. Cirpus, E. Heinz, X. Qiu: Stepwise engineering to produce high yields of very long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in plants. In: Nat Biotechnol. Volume 23, 2005, pp. 1013-1017. doi: 10.1038 / nbt1107
- ^ M. Eisenstein: Biotechnology: Against the grain. In: Nature. Volume 514, 2014, pp. S55-S57. doi: 10.1038 / 514S55a
- ↑ G. Farre, C. Bai, RM Twyman, T. Capell, P. Christou, C. Zhu: Nutritious crops producing multiple carotenoids - a metabolic balancing act. In: Trends Plant Sci. Volume 16, 2011, pp. 532-540. doi: 10.1016 / j.tplants.2011.08.001
- ↑ D. Blancquaert, H. De Steur, X. Gellynck, D. Van Der Straeten: Present and future of folate biofortification of crop plants. In: J Exp Bot. Volume 65, 2014, pp. 895-906. doi: 10.1093 / jxb / ert483
- ^ GM Traits List
- ^ E. Waltz: USDA approves next-generation GM potato. In: Nat Biotechnol. Volume 33, 2015, pp. 12-13. doi: 10.1038 / nbt0115-12
- ↑ FDA concludes Arctic Apples and Innate Potatoes are safe for consumption. Press release. FDA , March 20, 2015, accessed November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ CM Rommens, J. Ye, C. Richael, K. Swords: Improving potato storage and processing characteristics through all-native DNA transformation. In: J AgricFood Chem. Vol. 54, 2006, pp. 9882-9887. doi: 10.1021 / jf062477l
- ↑ R. Chawla, R. Shakya, CM Rommens: Tuber-specific silencing of asparagine synthetase-1 reduces the acrylamide-forming potential of potatoes grown in the field without affecting tuber shape and yield. In: Plant Biotechnol J. Volume 10, 2012, pp. 913-924. doi: 10.1111 / j.1467-7652.2012.00720.x
- ↑ E. Waltz: Nonbrowning GM apple cleared for market. In: Nat Biotech. Volume 33, 2015, pp. 326-327. doi: 10.1038 / nbt0415-326c .
- ↑ ISAAA: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech / GM Crops: 2016, p. 108. Retrieved January 25, 2018 .
- ↑ CR Poovaiah et al.: Altered lignin biosynthesis using biotechnology to improve lignocellulosic biofuel feedstocks. In: Plant Biotechnology Journal. Volume 12, No. 9, 2014, pp. 1163–1173. doi: 10.1111 / pbi.12225
- ↑ X. Zhou et al .: Exploiting SNPs for biallelic CRISPR mutations in the outcrossing woody perennial Populus reveals 4-coumarate: CoA ligase specificity and redundancy. In: New Phytol. Volume 208, No. 2, 2015, pp. 298-301. doi: 10.1111 / nph.13470
- ↑ B. Kannan et al .: TALEN mediated targeted mutagenesis of more than 100 COMT copies / alleles in highly polyploid sugarcane improves saccharification efficiency without compromising biomass yield. In: Plant Biotechnol J. 2017, doi: 10.1111 / pbi.12833
- ↑ EM Herman, RM Helm, R. Jung, AJ Kinney: Genetic modification removes an immunodominant allergen from soybean. In: Plant Physiol. Volume 132, 2003, pp. 36-43. doi: 10.1104 / pp.103.021865
- ↑ UB Jagtap, RG Gurav, VA Bapat: Role of RNA interference in plant improvement. In: Natural Sciences. Volume 98, 2011, pp. 473-492. doi: 10.1007 / s00114-011-0798-8
- ^ Y. Wakasa, K. Hirano, A. Urisu, T. Matsuda, F. Takaiwa: Generation of transgenic rice lines with reduced contents of multiple potential allergens using a null mutant in combination with an RNA silencing method. In: Plant Cell Physiol. Volume 52, 2011, pp. 2190-2199. doi: 10.1093 / pcp / pcr151
- ↑ PL Bhalla, I. Swoboda, MB Singh: Antisense-mediated silencing of a gene encoding a major ryegrass pollen allergen. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . Volume 96, 1999, pp. 11676-11680. doi: 10.1073 / pnas.96.20.11676
- ↑ CC van de Wiel et al: New traits in crops produced by genome editing techniques based on deletions. In: Plant Biotechnol Rep. Volume 11, No. 1, 2017, pp. 1-8. doi: 10.1007 / s11816-017-0425-z
- ↑ N. Weber et al .: Editor's choice: Crop genome plasticity and its relevance to food and feed safety of genetically engineered breeding stacks. In: Plant Physiol. Volume 160, No. 4, 2012, pp. 1842-1853. doi: 10.1104 / pp.112.204271
- ^ KS Rathore, S. Sundaram, G. Sunilkumar, LM Campbell, L. Puckhaber, S. Marcel, SR Palle, RD Stipanovic, TC Wedegaertner: Ultra-low gossypol cottonseed: generational stability of the seed-specific, RNAi-mediated phenotype and resumption of terpenoid profile following seed germination. In: Plant Biotechnol J. Volume 10, 2012, pp. 174-183. doi: 10.1111 / j.1467-7652.2011.00652.x
- ↑ P. Morandini: Inactivation of allergens and toxins. In: New Biotechnol. Volume 27, 2010, pp. 482-493. doi: 10.1016 / j.nbt.2010.06.011
- ↑ NN Narayanan, U. Ihemere, C. Ellery, RT Sayre: Overexpression of hydroxynitrile lyase in cassava roots elevates protein and free amino acids while reducing residual cyanogen levels. In: PLoS One. Volume 6, 2011, Art. E21996 doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0021996
- ↑ CJ Jiao, JL Jiang, LM Ke, W. Cheng, FM Li, ZX Li, CY Wang: Factors affecting beta-ODAP content in Lathyrus sativus and their possible physiological mechanisms. In: Food Chem Toxicol. Volume 49, 2011, pp. 543-549. doi: 10.1016 / j.fct.2010.04.050
- ↑ V. Kumar et al .: Improving nutritional quality and fungal tolerance in soya bean and grass pea by expressing an oxalate decarboxylase. In: Plant Biotechnol J. Volume 14, No. 6, 2016, pp. 1394-1405. doi: 10.1111 / pbi.12503
- ↑ E. Stoger, R. Fischer, M. Moloney, JK Ma: Plant molecular pharming for the treatment of chronic and infectious diseases. In: Annu Rev Plant Biol. Volume 65, 2014, pp. 743-768. doi: 10.1146 / annurev-arplant-050213-035850
- ↑ GA Grabowski, M. Golembo, Y. Shaaltiel: Taliglucerase alfa: an enzyme replacement therapy using plant cell expression technology. In: Mol Genet Metab. Volume 112, 2014, pp. 1-8. doi: 10.1016 / j.ymgme.2014.02.011
- ↑ M. Sack, A. Hofbauer, R. Fischer, E. Stoger: The increasing value of plant-made proteins. In: Current Opinion in Biotechnology. Volume 32, 2015, pp. 163-170. doi: 10.1016 / j.copbio.2014.12.008
- ^ JA Howard: Commercialization of plant-based vaccines from research and development to manufacturing. In: Anim Health Res Rev. Volume 5, 2004, pp. 243-245. doi: 10.1079 / AHR200476
- ↑ H.-T. Chan, H. Daniell: Plant-made oral vaccines against human infectious diseases-Are we there yet? In :: Plant Biotechnology Journal. Volume 13, No. 8, 2015, pp. 1056-1070. doi: 10.1111 / pbi.12471
- ↑ JK Ma, BY Hikmat, K. Wycoff, ND Vine, D. Charginue, L. Yu, MB Hein, T. Lehner: Characterization of a recombinant plant monoclonal secretory antibody and preventive immunotherapy in humans. In: Nature medicine. Volume 4, 1998, pp. 601-606. doi: 10.1038 / nm0598-601
- ↑ JK Ma, J. Drossard, D. Lewis, F. Altmann, J. Boyle, P. Christou, T. Cole, P. Dale, CJ van Dolleweerd, V. Isitt et al: Regulatory approval and a first-in-human phase I clinical trial of a monoclonal antibody produced in transgenic tobacco plants. In: Plant Biotechnol J. 2015, doi: 10.1111 / pbi.12416
- ^ K. Kupferschmidt, J. Cohen: Infectious diseases. Ebola drug trials lurch ahead. In: Science. Volume 347, 2015, pp. 701-702. doi: 10.1126 / science.347.6223.701
- ↑ G. Brookes, P. Barfoot: Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996-2015. In: GM Crops Food. Volume 8, No. 3, 2017, pp. 156–193. doi: 10.1080 / 21645698.2017.1317919
- ↑ Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2016, Chapter 6. doi: 10.17226 / 23395
- ^ S. Bonny: Corporate Concentration and Technological Change in the Global Seed Industry. In: Sustainability. Volume 9, No. 9, 2017. doi: 10.3390 / su9091632 /
- ↑ FAO: Statistical Pocketbook 2015. Retrieved February 19, 2018 .
- ↑ Federal and State Statistical Offices: Land use 2015. Accessed on February 19, 2018 .
- ↑ a b ISAAA: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech / GM Crops: 2016. ISAAA Letter No. 52. (PDF) Retrieved February 19, 2018 .
- ↑ FAOSTAT: ResourceSTAT: Land: Arable land. Retrieved February 19, 2018 .
- ^ A b Justus Wesseler, Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes: Present and Future EU GMO policy. In: Arie Oskam, Gerrit Meesters, Huib Silvis (Eds.): EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas. 2nd Edition. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen 2011, pp. 23-323-23-332.
- ↑ Directive 2001/18 / EC (PDF) (Release Directive )
- ↑ Food and feed (GMO). Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 on europa.eu
- ↑ Guideline series "Monitoring the Effects of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)". Association of German Engineers (VDI) , accessed on April 18, 2019 .
- ↑ The long way from the application to the decision . Transgen.de, January 12, 2010.
-
↑ a b c Recommendation 2003/556 / EC of the Commission of July 23, 2003 with guidelines for the development of national strategies and suitable procedures for the coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops. Announced under file number K (2003) 2624, OJ. . L 189 of 29 July 2003 ( . Web document . (Not available online) In: . Umwelt-online.de Archived from the original on June 29, 2010 , accessed October 28, 2010 . )
Repealed with guidelines for the development national coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops. Recommendation of the Commission of 13 July 2010 / C 200/01 (pdf, bmg.gv.at), cf. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops . {SEC (2009) 408 COM / 2009/0153 final. CELEX: 52009DC0153 (pdf, eur-lex) - ↑ Volker Beckmann, Claudio Soregaroli, Justus Wesseler: Co-Existence Rules and Regulations in the European Union. In: American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Volume 88, No. 5, 2006, pp. 1193-1199.
- ↑ Volker Beckmann, Justus Wesseler: Spatial Dimension of Externalities and the Coase Theorem: Implications for Coexistence of Transgenic Crops. In: W. Heijman (Ed.): Regional Externalities. Springer, Berlin 2007, pp. 215-234.
- ^ Rolf Groeneveld, Justus Wesseler, Paul Berentsen: Dominos in the dairy: An analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming. In: Ecological Economics. Volume 86, No. 2, 2013, pp. 107-116.
- ↑ EU guidelines. In: → Environmental situation → Genetic engineering → Coexistence → EU guidelines. Federal Environment Agency, accessed on October 30, 2010 .
- ↑ Not subject to labeling. Transgen.de, January 10, 2007.
- ↑ Without genetic engineering - some genetic engineering is allowed. Transgen.de, September 14, 2010.
- ↑ Seeds: fundamental conflict over threshold value . Transgen.de.
- ↑ EU: Decision on genetic engineering traces in feed imports postponed again. Transgen.de, February 9, 2011.
- ↑ Results of nationwide GMO seed monitoring are available ( Memento of August 27, 2009 in the Internet Archive ). um.baden-wuerttemberg.de
- ↑ a b c d K. Ramessar, T. Capell, R. Twyman, P. Christou: Going to ridiculous length - European coexistance regulations for GM crops. In: Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 28, No. 2, February 2010. (pdf)
- ↑ Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (PDF)
- ↑ National “self-determination” for genetically modified plants: Has it already failed? Transgen.de, September 27, 2009. ( Memento from January 13, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ Expert opinion: EU plans for national genetic engineering cultivation violate the WTO. Transgen.de, November 9, 2010. ( Memento from January 13, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ Genetic engineering: the Council of Ministers puts national bans on the back burner. Transgen.de, December 12, 2010. ( Memento from January 6, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ European Parliament: Exit clause for GM crops decided - Hendricks wants a complete ban. In: transgen.de. January 13, 2015, accessed November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ a b c d K. Ramessar, T. Capell, R. Twyman, H. Quemada, P. Christou: Calling the tunes on transgenic crops: the case for regulatory harmony. In: Molecular Breeding. Vol. 23, 2009, pp. 99-112. (link.springer.com , PDF; 229 kB)
- ↑ Obama signs bill requiring labeling of GMO foods . Lawyer, July 30, 2016.
- ^ US Department of Agriculture. GAIN Report: EU-27 Biotechnology. GE Plants and Animals (USDA, Washington, DC, 2009). (PDF; 657 kB)
- ^ A b Johan FM Swinnen, Thijs Vandemoortele: Policy Gridlock or Future Change? The Political Economy Dynamics of EU Biotechnology Regulation. In: AgBioForum. Volume 13, No. 4, 2010.
- ↑ a b c d e Joyce Tait, Guy Barker: Global food security and the governance of modern biotechnologies. In: EMBO reports. Volume 10, No. 8, 2011, pp. 763-768.
- ↑ Steven H. Strauss, Adam Costanza, Armand Séguin: Genetically engineered trees: Paralysis from good intentions . In: Science . tape 349 , no. 6250 , 2015, p. 794-795 , doi : 10.1126 / science.aab0493 .
- ^ A b M. Qaim: The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops. In: Annual Review of Resource Economics. Vol. 1, 2009, pp. 665-694.
- ^ A b Y. Devos, M. Demont, K. Dillen, D. Reheul, M. Kaiser, O. Sanvido: Coexistence of Genetically Modified and Non-GM Crops in the European Union: A Review. In: E. Lichtfouse, M. Navarrete, P. Debaeke, V. Souchère, C. Alberola (Eds.): Sustainable Agriculture. Springer, 2009.
- ↑ Maite Sabalza, Bruna Miralpeix, Richard M Twyman, Teresa Capell, Paul Christou: EU legitimizes GM crop exclusion zones. In: Nature Biotechnology. Volume 29, 2011, pp. 315-317. doi: 10.1038 / nbt.1840 .
- ↑ Sonia Gómez-Galera, Richard M. Twyman, Penelope AC Sparrow, Bart Van Droogenbroeck, René Custers, Teresa Capell, Paul Christou: Field trials and tribulations — making sense of the regulations for experimental field trials of transgenic crops in Europe. In: Plant Biotechnology Journal. Volume 10, 2012, pp. 511-523.
- ↑ Torbjörn Fagerström, Christina Dixelius, Ulf Magnusson, Jens F. Sundström: Stop worrying; start growing. In: EMBO Reports. Volume 13, 2012, pp. 493-497.
- ↑ Stuart J. Smyth, Peter WB Phillips: Risk, regulation, and biotechnology: The case of GM crops . In: GM Crops & Food . tape 5 , no. 3 , 2014, p. 170-177 , doi : 10.4161 / 21645698.2014.945880 .
- ↑ a b Vatican: Lombardi on gene plants. (No longer available online.) Radio Vaticana, December 1, 2010, archived from the original on December 6, 2010 ; accessed on November 29, 2017 (English).
- ↑ a b Anna Meldolesi: Vatican panel backs GMOs. In: Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 29, No. 1, 2011, p. 11. (PDF; 184 kB)
- ↑ a b c d Consumers International, 2007. ( Memento from October 25, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ Academies comment on the progress made in molecular breeding and on the national ban on cultivation of genetically modified plants ( Memento from April 2, 2015 in the Internet Archive ). Retrieved March 27, 2015.
- ^ Laureates Letter Supporting Precision Agriculture (GMOs) , wording of the declaration, Support Precision Agriculture
- ↑ Nobel Prize winners urge Greenpeace to rethink , Spectrum of Science, June 30, 2016.
- ^ Nobel laureates call for the use of genetic engineering in agriculture , Der Standard, June 30, 2016.
- ↑ Nobel Prize winners shoot against Greenpeace , NZZ, June 30, 2016.
- ^ Daniel Lingenhöhl: Nobel Prize winners criticize Greenpeace violently. In: Handelsblatt. June 30, 2016.
- ↑ N. Kalaitzandonakes, J. Alston, K. Bradford: Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops. In: Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 25, 2007, pp. 509-511.
- ↑ C. Pray, P. Bengali, B. Ramaswami: The cost of biosafety regulations: the Indian experience. In: Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture. Vol. 44, 2005, pp. 267-289.
- ↑ Foregone benefits of important food crop improvements in Sub-Saharan Africa
- ^ M. Qaim: Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition, and health. In: New Biotechnology. Volume 27, No. 5, 2010, pp. 552-557. doi: 10.1016 / j.nbt.2010.07.009 , here p. 556.
- ↑ E. Golan, F. Kuchler, L. Mitchell: Economics of food labeling. In: Journal of Consumer Policy. Vol. 24, 2001, pp. 117-84.
- ^ G. Moschini: Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects. In: European Review of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 35, 2008, pp. 331-55.
- ↑ Thomas Venus, Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Justus Wesseler: Is the supply of food “without genetic engineering” economically sustainable? In: Quarterly Journal of Economic Research. Volume 81, No. 4, 2012, pp. 93-110.
- ↑ VLOG - food without genetic engineering
- ^ Coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic agriculture. European Commission website. ec.europa.eu.
- ^ WTO Dispute Settlement: EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products. USA , Canada , Argentina , all wto.org (English)
- ↑ EU allows import of genetically modified T45 rapeseed. ( Memento from June 6, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Transgen.de
- ↑ EU and Canada settle WTO case on Genetically Modified Organisms . europa.eu (English).
- ↑ Regional differences in genetic engineering policy lead to problems in the agricultural trade ( Memento from July 16, 2009 in the Internet Archive ). Transgen.de.
- ↑ Innovative farmers demand freedom of choice . mz-web.de.
- ↑ Unsolved problem of zero tolerance to GMOs is a burden for the feed industry and processing . In: Agricultural News. proplanta.de.
- ^ Maria Lusser, Howard V. Davies: Comparative regulatory approaches for groups of new plant breeding techniques . In: New Biotechnology . tape 30 , no. 5 , 2013, p. 437-446 , doi : 10.1016 / j.nbt.2013.02.004 .
- ↑ Genetic engineering laws and new breeding methods: Europe threatens to lose touch ( memento of April 3, 2015 in the Internet Archive ). Transgen.de, March 30, 2015.
- ↑ New breeding techniques: What makes a plant genetically modified ( Memento from April 17, 2015 in the Internet Archive ). Transgen.de, March 10, 2015.
- ↑ Robert Finger, Nadja El Benni, Timo Kaphengst, Clive Evans, Sophie Herbert, Bernard Lehmann, Stephen Morse, Nataliya Stupak: A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops. In: Sustainability. Volume 3, No. 5, 2011, pp. 743-762, doi: 10.3390 / su3050743
- ^ FJ Areal, L. Riesgo, E. Rodríguez-Cerezo: Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: a meta-analysis. ( Memento from November 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) In: The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2012.
- ^ Wilhelm Klümper, Matin Qaim: A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. In: PLoS ONE. 9, 2014, p. E111629, doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0111629 .
- ^ W. Moon, SK Balasubramaian: Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: The mediating role of risk perveptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage. In: Review of Agricultural Economics. Volume 26, No. 2, 2004, pp. 186-208.
- ↑ Montserrat Costa-Font, Jose M. Gil, W. Bruce Traill: Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. In: Food Policy. Volume 33, 2007, pp. 99-111.
- ↑ J. Barkmann, C. Gawron, R. Marggraf, L. Theuvsen, M. Thiel: Large-scale cultivation of Bt maize and HR rape: Willingness to pay and benefit-cost analysis. In: B. Breckling, G. Schmidt, W. Schröder: GeneRisk - Systemic Risks of Genetic Engineering: Analysis of the Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture. 2012, pp. 207-220.
- ↑ a b c Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. In: Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 28, No. 4, April 2010, pp. 319-321.
- ^ S. Fan, C. Chan-Kang, K. Qian, K. Krishnaiah: National and international agricultural research and rural poverty: the case of rice research in India and China. In: Agricultural Economics. Vol. 33, 2005, pp. 369-379.
- ^ P. Hazell, C. Ramasamy: The Green Revolution Reconsidered: The Impact of High-Yielding Rice Varieties in South India. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 1991.
- ^ A b FAO: The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04; Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor? FAO, Rome 2004.
- ↑ Genetic engineering increases the yields and standard of living of smallholders. Science Information Service, July 2, 2011, accessed July 4, 2012 .
- ↑ Enoch Kikulwe, Ekin Birol, Justus Wesseler, José Falck-Zepeda: A Latent Class Approach to Investigating Developing Country Consumers' Demand for Genetically Modified Staple Food Crops: The Case of GM Banana in Uganda. In: Agricultural Economics. 2011.
- ↑ Enoch Kikulwe, Justus Wesseler, José Falck-Zepeda: Attitudes, Perceptions, and Trust: Insights from a Consumer Survey Regarding Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda. In: Appetite. Volume 57, No. 2, 2011, pp. 401-413.
- ↑ Roundup Ready © Rapeseed Technology Agreement - Terms and Conditions. Monsanto, December 2005, accessed October 20, 2027.
- ↑ Monsanto against farmers. (PDF). updated November 2007, accessed October 20, 2017.
- ↑ Monsanto against farmers. ( Memento from October 21, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Gen-ethical network, June 2005, accessed October 20, 2017.
- ↑ Michael Friedrich: Interview with Tewolde Egziabher . In: Greenpeace magazine . No. 8 , 2001 ( online [accessed October 20, 2017]).
- ↑ An economic disaster . ( Memento from October 20, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Umweltinstitut München, December 2005, accessed on October 20, 2010.
- ↑ Genetic engineering: super weed resistant to destructive agents. Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, February 2, 2014, accessed October 20, 2017.
- ↑ USA: "Super weeds" by genetically modified plants. In: Kronenzeitung. December 12, 2013, accessed October 20, 2017.
- ^ G. Graff, S. Cullen, K. Bradford, D. Zilberman, A. Bennett: The public-private structure of intellectual property ownership in agricultural biotechnology. In: Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 21, 2003, pp. 989-995.
- ↑ V. Santaniello, R. Evenson, D. Zilberman, G. Carlson (eds.): Agriculture and Intellectual Property Rights: Economic, Institutional and Implementation Issues in Biotechnology. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK 2000.
- ^ M. Lipton: Reviving global poverty reduction: what role for genetically modified plants? In: Journal of International Development. Vol. 13, 2001, pp. 823-846.
- ↑ M. Qaim, A. Krattiger, J. von Braun (eds.): Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: Towards Optimizing the Benefits for the Poor. Kluwer, New York 2000.
- ↑ . Suicide Seeds? Biotechnology Meets the Developmental State. ( Memento from June 17, 2010 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ Drivers of Consolidation in the Seed Industry and its Consequences for Innovation (CGM 2011-01). COGEM, March 29, 2011.
- ^ Graham Brookes, Tun Hsiang "Edward" Yu, Simla Tokgoz, Amani Elobeid: The Production and Price Impact of Biotech Corn, Canola, and Soybean Crops. In: AgBioForum. Volume 13, No. 1, 2010, pp. 25-52.
- ^ Steven Sexton, David Zilberman, Land for Food and Fuel Production: The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology. In: Joshua S. Graff Zivin, Jeffrey M. Perloff, eds .: The Intended and Unintended Effects of US Agricultural and Biotechnology Policies. University Of Chicago Press, 2012, ISBN 978-0-226-98803-0 , pp. 269-288.
- ↑ Harry Mahaffey, Farzad Taheripour, Wallace E. Tyner: Evaluating the Economic and Environmental Impacts of a Global Ban GMO . In: Journal of Environmental Protection . tape 7 , no. 11 , 2016, p. 1522–1546 , doi : 10.4236 / jep.2016.711127 .
- ↑ Bruce E. Tabashnik, JBJ Van Rensburg, Yves Carrière: Field-Evolved Insect Resistance to Bt Crops: Definition, Theory, and Data. In: Journal of Economic Entomology. Vol. 102, No. 6, December 2009, pp. 2011-2025.
- ^ Herbicide Resistant Crops - Diffusion, Benefits, Pricing, and Resistance Management. agbioforum.org
- ^ Murray W. Nabors : Botany. Pearson Studium, 2007, ISBN 978-3-8273-7231-4 , p. 579.
- ^ A b Charles Kwit, Hong S. Moon, Suzanne I. Warwick, C. Neal Stewart Jr .: Transgene introgression in crop relatives: molecular evidence and mitigation strategies . In: Trends in Biotechnology . tape 29 , no. 6 , 2011, p. 284–293 , doi : 10.1016 / j.tibtech.2011.02.003 .
- ↑ a b c Monitoring movement of herbicide resistant genes from farm-scale evaluation field sites to populations of wild crop relatives. (English)
- ^ Daniel Ammann: Fact Sheet: Uncertainties and Damage Examples. (PDF; 14 kB) Swiss Genetic Engineering Working Group, September 2003, accessed on November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ Genetically modified rapeseed in Canada: Ten years of cultivation - a balance sheet. biosecurity
- ↑ R. Binimelis, W. Pengue, I. Monterroso: "Transgenic treadmill": responses to the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant johnson grass in Argentina. In: Geoforum. Vol. 40, No. 4, 2009, pp. 623-633, doi: 10.1016 / j.geoforum.2009.03.009
- ↑ a b Stephen B Powles: Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learned. In: Pest Management Science. Volume 64, 2008, pp. 360-365, doi: 10.1002 / ps.1525 . PMID 18273881 .
- ↑ Herbicide Resistant Weeds Summary (English)
- ↑ SB Powles: Gene amplification delivers glyphosate-resistant weed evolution. In: Proc Natl Acad Sci US A. Vol. 107, No. 3, Jan 19, 2010, pp. 955-956.
- ↑ a b Bruce E Tabashnik, Aaron J Gassmann et al .: Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. In: Nature Biotechnology. Volume 26, 2008, pp. 199-202, doi: 10.1038 / nbt1382 .
- ↑ Bruce E. Tabashnik, Aaron J. Gassmann, David W. Crowder, Yves Carrière: Field-evolved insect resistance to Bt crops: definition, theory, and data . In: Journal of Economic Entomology . tape 102 , no. 6 , 2009, p. 2011–2025 , doi : 10.1603 / 029.102.0601 , PMID 20069826 .
- ^ T. Hurley: Bacillus thuringiensis resistance management: Experiences from the USA. In: Justus Wesseler (Ed.): Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops. Springer, Dordrecht 2005.
- ↑ Bruce E Tabashnik, Mark S Sisterson, Peter C Ellsworth, Timothy J Dennehy, Larry Antilla, Leighton Liesner, Mike Whitlow, Robert T Staten, Jeffrey A Fabrick, Gopalan C Unnithan, Alex J Yelich, Christa Ellers-Kirk, Virginia S Harpold , Xianchun Li, Yves Carrière: Suppressing resistance to Bt cotton with sterile insect releases. In: Nature Biotechnology. November 7, 2010 (published online)
- ↑ Resistant pests detected in India. Trangen, March 16, 2010.
- ^ E. Stockstad: First Light on Genetic Roots of Bt Resistance. In: Science. Vol. 293, No. 5531, August 3, 2001, p. 778.
- ^ A b c d N. Fedoroff, N. Brown: Mendel in the Kitchen. John Henry Press, Washington, DC 2004.
- ↑ Fangneng Huang, David A. Andow, Lawrent L. Buschman: Success of the high-dose / refuge resistance management strategy after 15 years of Bt crop use in North America. In: Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. Volume 140, 2011, pp. 1–16, doi: 10.1111 / j.1570-7458.2011.01138.x .
- ↑ a b c G. Brookes, P. Barfoot: Global impact of biotech crops: Environmental effects, 1996-2008. In: AgBioForum. Volume 13, No. 1, 2010, pp. 76-94.
- ^ M. Qaim, G. Traxler: Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects. In: Agricultural Economics. Vol. 32, 2005, pp. 73-86.
- ^ A b National Research Council: The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC 2010.
- ↑ Walter Alberto Pengue: Transgenic Crops in Argentina and its hidden costs. In: E. Ortega, S. Ulgiati (Eds.): Proceedings of IV Biennial International Workshop “Advances in Energy Studies” Unicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil. June 16-19, 2004. pp. 91-101.
- ↑ Resistant pests detected in India. In: Biosafety. March 16, 2010.
- ↑ Bruce E. Tabashnik, Yves Carrière: Field-Evolved Resistance to Bt Cotton: Bollworm in the US and Pink Bollworm in India. In: Southwestern Entomologist. Volume 35, No. 3, 2010, pp. 417-424, doi: 10.3958 / 059.035.0326 .
- ↑ M. Marvier, C. McCreedy, J. Regetz, P. Kareiva: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates. (PDF; 181 kB). In: Science. Vol. 316, June 2007, pp. 1475-1477.
- ↑ M. Qaim, C. Pray, D. Zilberman: Economic and social considerations in the adoption of Bt crops. In: J. Romeis, A. Shelton, G. Kennedy (Eds.): Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops within IPM Programs. Springer, New York 2008, chapter 12.
- ↑ WD Hutchison, EC Burkness, PD Mitchell, RD Moon, TW Leslie, SJ Fleischer, M. Abrahamson, KL Hamilton, KL Steffey, ME Gray, RL Hellmich, LV Kaster, TE Hunt, RJ Wright, K. Pecinovsky, TL Rabaey , BR Flood, ES Raun: Areawide Suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt Maize Reaps Savings to Non-Bt Maize Growers. In: Science. October 8, 2010.
- ↑ Yanhui Lu, Kongming Wu, Yuying Jiang, Bing Xia, Ping Li, Hongqiang Feng, Kris AG Wyckhuys, Yuyuan Guo: Mirid Bug Outbreaks in Multiple Crops Correlated with Wide-Scale Adoption of Bt Cotton in China. In: Science. Vol. 328, No. 5982, May 28, 2010, pp. 1151-1154. doi: 10.1126 / science.1187881
- ↑ Janet E. Carpenter: Impact of GM crops on biodiversity . In: GM Crops . tape 2 , no. 1 , 2011, p. 7–23 , doi : 10.4161 / gmcr.2.1.15086 ( PDF ( Memento from December 31, 2013 in the Internet Archive )).
- ↑ a b European Union (Ed.): A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) . European Commission , Luxembourg 2010, ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9 , doi : 10.2777 / 97784 .
- ↑ a b Commission publishes collection of results of EU-supported research on genetically modified crops. December 9, 2010
- ↑ a b c d e Olivier Sanvido, Jörg Romeis, Franz Bigler: Ecological Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops: Ten Years of Field Research and Commercial Cultivation . In: Armin Fiechter, Christof Sautter (Eds.): Green Gene Technology (= Advances in Biochemical Engineering / Biotechnology . Volume 107 ). Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-71321-0 , p. 235-278 , doi : 10.1007 / 10_2007_048 .
- ↑ Aristidis M. Tsatsakis, Muhammad Amjad Nawaz, Demetrios Kouretas, Georgios Balias, Kai Savolainen, Victor A. Tutelyan, Kirill S. Golokhvast, Jeong Dong Lee, Seung Hwan Yang, Gyuhwa Chung: Environmental impacts of genetically modified plants: A review . In: Environmental Research . tape 156 , 2017, p. 818-833 , doi : 10.1016 / j.envres.2017.03.011 , PMID 28347490 .
- ↑ Angelika Hilbeck , Rosa Binimelis, Nicolas Defarge, Ricarda Steinbrecher, András Székács, Fern Wickson, Michael Antoniou, Philip L Bereano, Ethel Ann Clark, Michael Hansen, Eva Novotny, Jack Heinemann, Hartmut Meyer, Vandana Shiva, Brian Wynne: No scientific consensus on GMO safety . In: Environmental Sciences Europe . tape 27 , no. 4 , 2015, doi : 10.1186 / s12302-014-0034-1 (free full text).
- ↑ Bt maize: Safe for people and the environment? ( Page no longer available , search in web archives ) Biosicherheit.de, May 14, 2008.
- ↑ BMBF (Ed.): 25 years of BMBF research programs on biological safety research . Bonn 2014 ( full text [PDF; 3.8 MB ]).
- ↑ J. Losey, L. Rayor, M Carter: Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. ( Memento from January 28, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 158 kB). In: Nature. Vol. 399, 1999, p. 214.
- ↑ JN Perry, Y. Devos, S. Arpaia, D. Bartsch, A. Gathmann, RS Hails, J. Kiss, K. Lheureux, B. Manachini, S. Mestdagh, G. Neemann, F. Ortego, J. Schiemann , JB Sweet: A mathematical model of exposure of nontarget Lepidoptera to Bt-maize pollen expressing Cry1Ab within Europe. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society. 2010. published online.
- ↑ Even with extensive cultivation of Bt maize, there is hardly any risk to butterflies. Biosecurity, June 7, 2010.
- ↑ Project leader: Prof. Dr. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz: Effects of BT maize pollen on honeybees - final report 2004. (PDF; 520 kB).
- ^ Effects of Bt maize pollen on honeybees. ( Memento of December 22, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Biosafety, October 12, 2005.
- ↑ Long-term study: cultivation of Bt maize without influence on earthworms. Biosafety, May 18, 2010.
- ↑ FAL data show no risk of GM maize for soil microorganisms.
- ↑ A. Wegier, A. Pineyro-Nelson, J. Alarcon, A. Galvez Mariscal, ER Álvarez-Buylla, D. Pinero: Recent long-distance transgenic flow into wild populations Conforms to historical patterns of gene flow in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) at its center of origin. In: Molecular Ecology. Vol. 20, No. 19, October 2011, pp. 4182-4194. doi: 10.1111 / j.1365-294X.2011.05258.x
- ↑ Transgenic DNA discovered in native Mexican corn, according to a new study by UC Berkeley researchers. Press Release, November 29, 2001, UC Berkeley.
- ^ R. Dalton: Modified genes spread to local maize. In: Nature. Volume 456, No. 7219, November 2008, p. 149, doi: 10.1038 / 456149a . PMID 19005518 .
- ↑ Mexico: Traces of genetically modified maize confirmed. Biosafety, March 11, 2009.
- ^ Mexico issues first permits to grow GM corn. (English)
- ^ A b R. Dalton: Mexico's transgenic maize under fire. In: Nature. Volume 462, No. 7272, November 2009, p. 404, doi: 10.1038 / 462404a . PMID 19940892 .
- ↑ Foreign genes in local varieties: threat to biological diversity? February 10, 2003.
- ↑ J. Huang, R. Hu, C. Pray, F. Qiao, S. Rozelle: Biotechnology as an alternative to chemical pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China. In: Agricultural Economics. Vol. 29, 2003, pp. 55-68.
- ^ R. Bennett, S. Morse, Y. Ismael: Bt cotton, pesticides, labor and health: a case study of smallholder farmers in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. In: Outlook Agriculture. Vol. 32, 2003, pp. 123-128.
- ↑ Shahzad Kousera, Matin Qaim: Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: A panel data analysis. (PDF; 477 kB). In: Ecological Economics. Volume 70, No. 11, September 15, 2011, pp. 2105-2113.
- ^ F. Wu: Bt corn's reduction of mycotoxins: regulatory decisions and public opinion. In: R. Just, J. Alston, D. Zilberman (Eds.): Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy. Springer, New York 2006, chapter 9.
- ↑ M. Singha, P. Bhallaa: Genetic engineering for removing food allergens from plants. In: Trends in Plant Science. Vol. 13, No. 6, 2008, pp. 257-260.
- ↑ H. Bouis: The potential of genetically modified food crops to improve human nutrition in developing countries. In: Journal of Developmen Studies. Vol. 43, 2007, pp. 79-96.
- ↑ L. Unnevehr, C. Pray, R. Paarlberg: Addressing micronutrient deficiencies: alternative interventions and technologies. In: AgBioForum. Vol. 10, 2007, pp. 124-134.
- ^ A. Stein, H. Sachdev, M. Qaim: Genetic engineering for the poor: Golden Rice and public health in India. In: World Development. Vol. 36, 2008, pp. 144-158.
- ↑ K. Anderson, L. Jackson, C. Nielsen: Genetically modified rice adoption: implications for welfare and poverty alleviation. In: Journal of Economic Integration. Vol. 20, 2005, pp. 771-788.
- ↑ M. Qaim, A. Stein, J. Meenakshi: Economics of biofortification. In: Agricultural Economics. Vol. 37, 2007, pp. 119-133.
- ↑ "This is a position supported by every major scientific institution in the world, and all the scientific academies of countries and regions, but denied by the anti-GMO lobby, which promotes its own alternative" consensus "of a small ragtag group of academics out on the fringes of the mainstream. " Síle Lane: Don't scrap Europe's chief scientific adviser. In: New Scientist. Online from July 15, 2014.
- ↑ MA Sánchez, WA Parrott: Characterization of scientific studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food / feed. In: Plant Biotechnology Journal. Volume 15, No. 10, October 2017, doi: 10.1111 / pbi.12798 .
- ↑ Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods ( Memento of February 18, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 68 kB). AAAS, October 20, 2012.
- ↑ Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. NAP, 2004.
- ↑ Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment: Key Issues (PDF; 24 MB). NAP, 1987.
- ^ A b c R. Paarlberg: Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA 2008.
- ^ L. Thompson: Are Bioengineered Foods Safe? FDA Consumer magazine. January-February 2000.
- ↑ AL Van Eenennaam, AE Young: Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations . In: Journal of Animal Science . tape 92 , no. 10 , October 2014, p. 4255-4278 , doi : 10.2527 / jas.2014-8124 .
- ↑ 270+ published safety assessments on GM foods and feeds (English)
- ^ Statement of the ZKBS on the risk assessment of MON810 - New studies on the environmental impact of MON810 - short version -. ( Page no longer available , search in web archives: bvl.bund.de )
- ↑ Schavan - genetic engineering is a must. (No longer available online.) In: Financial Times Deutschland . May 18, 2009, archived from the original on November 11, 2012 ; Retrieved April 4, 2013 .
- ↑ Till Behrend: Interview: They also put human lives at risk. In: Focus Online . November 24, 2008, accessed April 4, 2013 .
- ↑ A. Nicolia include: An overview of the load 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. In: Crit Rev Biotechnol. Volume 34, No. 1, 2014, pp. 77-88. PMID 24041244 ; doi: 10.3109 / 07388551.2013.823595
- ↑ Stanley Ewen, Arpad Pusztai: Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. (PDF; 42 kB). In: The Lancet. Volume 354, 1999, pp. 1353-1354.
- ↑ Error of scientists or evidence of security flaws. ( Memento of November 5, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Transgene, December 20, 2002.
- ↑ Patrick Schwan: The informed consumer ?: The consumer policy model on the test bench. An investigation using the example of the food sector. Springer DE, 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-16400-7 , p. 125.
- ^ R. Goodman, S. Vieths, H. Sampson, D. Hill, M. Ebisawa, S. Taylor, R. van Ree: Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops — what makes sense? In: Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 26, No. 1, 2008.
- ↑ Are there risks for the consumer when consuming food products made from genetically modified plants? (PDF; 122 kB) (No longer available online.) Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, archived from the original on August 18, 2014 ; Retrieved November 29, 2017 .
- ↑ Gene transfer: From plant to bacteria: Probability 1: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. ( Memento of April 17, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Transgen, October 26, 2007.
- ↑ Opinion of the Scientific Committee for Genetically Modified Organisms on the use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker genes in genetically modified plants. (PDF; 48 kB)
- ^ Murray W. Nabors : Botany. Pearson Studium, 2007, ISBN 978-3-8273-7231-4 , p. 368.
- ^ A b M. Zimmermann, E. Porceddu: Agricultural Biotechnology: Concepts, Evolution, and Applications. In: J. Cooper, L. Lipper, D. Zilberman (Eds.): Agricultural Biodiversity and Biotechnology in Economic Development. Springer, New York 2005.
- ^ Consumer advice center North Rhine-Westphalia: Genetic engineering in agriculture and food production. ( Memento of August 8, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) of April 9, 2014.
- ↑ Agrobacteria: Natural exchange of genes across species boundaries
- ↑ Recombination: New Arrangements of Genes
- ↑ Addressing safety concerns ( Memento of March 11, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ Mandatory task: monitoring
- ↑ Report of the Federal Ethics Commission for Biotechnology in the Extra-Human Area (EKAH) Release of Genetically Modified Plants - Ethical Requirements
- ↑ Thomas J. Hoban: Public Attitudes towards Agricultural Biotechnology. ESA Working Paper No. 04-09. Agricultural and Development Economics Division. FAO 2004. (fao.org)
- ^ W. Hallman et al.: Public Perception of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. (PDF; 908 kB). Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University, 2003.
- ↑ G. Gaskell et al: Biotechnology and the European public. (PDF; 139 kB). In: Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 18, 2000, pp. 935-938.
- ↑ European Commission. Special Eurobarometer Biotechnology Report (PDF; 8.6 MB).
- ^ G. Gaskell et al: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. Winds of change? (PDF; 1.5 MB) European Union, 2010.
- ↑ Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety and Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (ed.): Nature Consciousness 2017 - Population Survey on Nature and Biodiversity. Berlin and Bonn, 2018. Available at: https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/naturbewusstseinsstudie_2017_de_bf.pdf
- ^ T. Hoban: Trends in Consumer Attitudes about Agricultural Biotechnology. In: Ag-BioForm. Vol. 1, No. 1 1998, pp. 3-7.
- ^ R. Marchant: From the Test Tube to the Table. In: European Molecular Biology Organization Reports. Vol. 2, No. 5, 2001, pp. 354-357.
- ↑ H. Miller, G. Conko: The Frankenfood Myth-How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution. Praeger, Westport, CT 2004.
- ↑ Myriam Hönig: Campaigns against green genetic engineering lack a scientific basis. In: idw-online.de. Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, May 29, 2006, accessed on November 29, 2017 .
- ^ Joint declaration of the scientific organizations on green genetic engineering
- ^ For a new policy in green genetic engineering ( Memento from November 5, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ bll.de: Basic position of the German food industry on green genetic engineering