From WIKIPEDIA then.....
Government support for and ban of GMOs
The use of GMOs has sparked significant controversy in many areas [5]. Some groups or individuals see the generation and use of GMO as intolerable meddling with biological states or processes that have naturally evolved over long periods of time, while others are concerned about the limitations of modern science to fully comprehend all of the potential negative ramifications of genetic manipulation.
While some groups advocate the complete prohibition of GMOs, others call for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food or other products. Other controversies include the definition of patent and property pertaining to products of genetic engineering and the possibility of unforeseen local and global effects as a result of transgenic organisms proliferating. The basic ethical issues involved in genetic research are discussed in the article on genetic engineering.
In 2004, Mendocino County, California became the first county in the United States to ban the production of GMOs. The measure passed with a 57% majority. In 2005, a standing committee of the government of Prince Edward Island in Canada began work to assess a proposal to ban the production of GMOs in the province. PEI has already banned GM potatoes, which account for most of its crop. In California, Trinity and Marin counties have also imposed bans on GM crops, while ordinances to do so were unsuccessful in Butte, San Luis Obispo, Humboldt, and Sonoma counties. Supervisors in the agriculturally-rich counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Solano, Sutter, and Tulare have passed resolutions supporting the practice [6].
Currently, there is little international consensus regarding the acceptability and effective role of modified "complete" organisms such as plants or animals. A great deal of the modern research that is illuminating complex biochemical processes and disease mechanisms makes vast use of genetic engineering.
The practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique is not restricted in the United States. Individual genetically modified crops (such as soybeans) are studied before being brought to market, but generally only by the companies providing the modification. This "test by those being tested" practice is common in the United States, where many in the FDA are ex-employees of Monsanto, the largest gene-manipulation firm.[citation needed] Most countries in Europe, Japan, Mexico (among others) have taken the opposite position, stating that genetic modification has not been proven safe, and therefore that they will not accept genetically modified food from the United States or any other country without assessing their safety themselves.[citation needed] This issue has been brought before the World Trade Organization, which determined that not allowing GMOs into the country creates an unnecessary obstacle to international trade. Consequently, genetic modification within agriculture is an issue of some strong debate in the United States, the European Union, and some other countries.[citation needed]
[edit] Crosspollination concerns
Some critics have raised the concern that conventionally bred crop plants can be cross-pollinated (bred) from the pollen of modified plants. Pollen can be dispersed over large areas by wind, animals, and insects. Recent research with creeping bentgrass has lent support to the concern when modified genes were found in normal grass up to 21 km (13 miles) away from the source, and also within close relatives of the same genus (Agrostis) [7]. GM proponents point out that outcrossing, as this process is known, is not new. The same thing happens with any new open-pollinated crop varietyâ€â€newly introduced traits can potentially cross out into neighbouring crop plants of the same species and, in some cases, to closely related wild relatives. Defenders of GM technology point out that each GM crop is assessed on a case by case basis to determine if there is any risk associated with the outcrossing of the GM trait into wild plant populations. The fact that a GM plant may outcross with a related wild relative is not, in itself, a risk unless such an occurrence has consequences. If, for example, a herbicide resistance trait was to cross into a wild relative of a crop plant it can be predicted that this would not have any consequences except in areas where herbicides are sprayed, such as a farm. In such a setting the farmer can manage this risk by rotating herbicides.
The European Union funds research programmes such as Co-Extra, that investigate options and technologies on the coexistence of GM and conventional farming. This also includes research on biological containment strategies and other measures, that prevent outcrossing and enable the implementation of coexistence.
If patented genes are outcrossed, even accidentally, to other commercial fields and a person deliberately selects the outcrossed plants for subsequent planting then the patent holder has the right to control the use of those crops. This was supported in Canadian law in the case of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.
[edit] 'Terminator' and 'Traitor'
An often cited controversy is a hypothetical "Technology Protection" technology dubbed 'Terminator'[8]. This yet-to-be-commercialised technology would allow the production of first generation crops that would not generate seeds in the second generation because the plants yield sterile seeds. The patent for this so-called "terminator" gene technology is owned by Delta and Pine Land and the United States Department of Agriculture. Delta and Pine Land was bought by Monsanto in August 2006. Similarly, the hypothetical Trait-specific Genetic Use Restriction Technology, also known as 'Traitor' or 'T-gut', requires yearly application of a chemical to genetically-modified crops to reactivate engineered traits[9][10]. This technology is intended both to limit the spread of genetically engineered plants, and to require farmers to pay yearly to reactivate the genetically engineered traits of their crops. Traitor is under development by companies including Monsanto and AstraZeneca.
In addition to the commercial protection of proprietary technology in selfpollinating crops such as soybean (a generally contentious issue) another purpose of the terminator gene is to prevent the escape of genetically modified traits from crosspollinating crops into wild-type species by sterilizing any resultant hybrids. The terminator gene technology created a backlash amongst those who felt the technology would prevent re-use of seed by farmers growing such terminator varieties in the developing world and was ostensibly a means to exercise patent claims. Use of the terminator technology would also prevent "volunteers", or crops that grow from unharvested seed, a major concern that arose during the Starlink debacle.There are technologies evolving which contain the transgene by biological means and still can provide fertile seeds using fertility restorer functions. Such methods are being developed by several EU research programmes, among them Transcontainer and Co-Extra.
[edit] Losses of Biodiversity
See also: Biodiversity, Genetic pollution, and Food security
In agriculture and animal husbandry, green revolution popularized the use of conventional hybridization to increase yield many folds by creating "High yielding varieties". Often the handful of breeds of plants and animals hybridized originated in developed countries and were further hybridized with local verities, in the rest of the developing world, to create high yield strains resistant to local climate and diseases. Local governments and industry since have been pushing hybridization with such zeal that several of the wild and indigenous breeds evolved locally over thousands of years having high resistance to local extremes in climate and immunity to diseases etc. have already become extinct or are in grave danger of becoming so in the near future. Due to complete disuse because of un-profitability and uncontrolled crosspollination and crossbreeding (genetic pollution) formerly huge gene pools of various wild and indigenous breeds have collapsed causing widespread genetic erosion and genetic pollution resulting in great loss in genetic diversity and biodiversity as a whole.[7]
Concerns have been raised that Genetically Modified Organisms may contribute to genetic pollution because artificially created and genetically engineered plants and animals in laboratories, which could never have evolved in nature even with conventional hybridization, can interbreed with naturally evolved wild varieties. Genetically Modified (GM) crops today have become a common source for genetic pollution, not only of wild varieties but also of other domesticated varieties derived from conventional hybridization[8][9][10][11][12].
It is being said that genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution is destroying that needed unique genetic base thereby creating an unforeseen hidden crisis which will result in a severe threat to our food security for the future when diverse genetic material will cease to exist to be able to further improve or hybridize weakening food crops and livestock against more resistant diseases and climatic changes[13].
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.