This document summarizes the key controversies surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including potential human health and environmental impacts, as well as issues regarding intellectual property, ethics, labeling, and society. It also outlines laws governing GMOs in the United States, European Union countries like France and Germany, and the United Kingdom. The US FDA regulates GMOs differently than the EU, which has more stringent safety testing and labeling requirements. Debate continues around the risks and benefits of GMO cultivation and consumption.
Ethical issues in biotechnology and related areas.
For soft copy of this document please feel free to contact us on info@biotechsupportbase.com or snjogdand@gmail.com
Ethical issues in biotechnology and related areas.
For soft copy of this document please feel free to contact us on info@biotechsupportbase.com or snjogdand@gmail.com
Genetically modified food or GM food is a very popular name nowadays. its been popular because of its controversy. Some scientists support this technology and some don't. That's why this slide showing it why it is controversial. this presentation contains information about GM food, its use, its benefit, its harmfulness and although why we should use this technology.
The Health Risks of Genetically Modified (GMO) Foods Jack Olmsted
The Health Risks of Genetically Modified short presentation.
The Institute for Responsible Technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about genetically modified (GM) foods and crops. This fully-scripted PowerPoint can be powerful presentation tool to share online, in front of groups or one-on-one with a laptop, tablet, smartphone or paper printout.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/resources/powerpoint-presentation-on-gmos
This presentation was given at a March 2013 meeting of the HEA STEM Special Interest Group on teaching ethics to bioscience students. The meeting was hosted at the University of Northampton, UK, and the principal focus was on teaching about Ethics and Risk.
Professor Joe Perry is a member of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
Ethical and bio-safety issues related to GM cropsMahammed Faizan
a seminar presentation on ethical and bio-safety issues related GM crops.
impact of gm crops on human, animal and environmental health.
safety measure related transgenic crops.
international governmental bodies
This ppt have a detailed source about the Biosafety issues in Biotechnology and their implements over by the government. It have a topics about the issues in antibiotic resistance gene , GMO crops etc.
Genetically modified food or GM food is a very popular name nowadays. its been popular because of its controversy. Some scientists support this technology and some don't. That's why this slide showing it why it is controversial. this presentation contains information about GM food, its use, its benefit, its harmfulness and although why we should use this technology.
The Health Risks of Genetically Modified (GMO) Foods Jack Olmsted
The Health Risks of Genetically Modified short presentation.
The Institute for Responsible Technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about genetically modified (GM) foods and crops. This fully-scripted PowerPoint can be powerful presentation tool to share online, in front of groups or one-on-one with a laptop, tablet, smartphone or paper printout.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/resources/powerpoint-presentation-on-gmos
This presentation was given at a March 2013 meeting of the HEA STEM Special Interest Group on teaching ethics to bioscience students. The meeting was hosted at the University of Northampton, UK, and the principal focus was on teaching about Ethics and Risk.
Professor Joe Perry is a member of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
Ethical and bio-safety issues related to GM cropsMahammed Faizan
a seminar presentation on ethical and bio-safety issues related GM crops.
impact of gm crops on human, animal and environmental health.
safety measure related transgenic crops.
international governmental bodies
This ppt have a detailed source about the Biosafety issues in Biotechnology and their implements over by the government. It have a topics about the issues in antibiotic resistance gene , GMO crops etc.
This article reviews latest developments in the market of GM crops and food ingredients derived from them, and discusses the outlook for these products.
My presentation to MSU's International Short Course
Biosafety and Biotechnology for Lawyers, in coordination with the AU/NEPAD African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE)
1 This simulation is designed to develop skills in cross-MartineMccracken314
1
This simulation is designed to develop skills in cross-
cultural negotiations with an emphasis on multi-stake-
holder dialogue and exchange.
Synopsis
On August 18, 2003, members of the World Trade Organiza-
tion (WTO) met in Geneva to hear a U.S. request for a
full-blown dispute-settlement proceeding regarding Euro-
pean Union (EU) restrictions on the import and sale of goods
produced with or containing genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). In late 1996, Monsanto exported the first geneti-
cally modified soybeans to Europe, assuming that consumers
would accept them as Americans had. The timing was not
good, however, as the GMO issue became linked in the
minds of Europeans with “mad cow” disease, an outbreak
that was first thought limited to animals but eventually killed
several humans. Neither GMO companies nor European
authorities were prepared for the reaction, as public senti-
ment immediately turned against the technology. Britain’s
Daily Mirror ran a front-page headline in 1998 warning
against “Frankenfood.” In 1998, five European countries said
they wouldn’t process any more applications for genetically
modified crops, and the EU upheld this decision. 1
In May 2003, the United States filed a complaint with the
WTO in hopes of getting the ban lifted. In response, in the
summer of 2003, the European Parliament passed ground-
breaking legislation that would require detailed labeling of
all food products containing as little as 0.9 percent of genet-
ically modified ingredients, and would require origin tracing
in order to gain approval. Although these steps were designed
to move toward lifting the moratorium, many in the United
States charged that these rules would be unworkable, would
be discriminatory toward imports, and would violate WTO
sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreements. 2
Paradoxically, both sides claimed to be concerned about
public health and environmental safety. The U.S. government
and industry argued that the EU was in violation of WTO
provisions requiring nondiscriminatory treatment of like or
similar goods. The Americans contended that uninformed
Europeans were spreading unfounded fears about GMOs. 3
In addition, the U.S. government argued that requiring labels
for GMO products would result in segregating GMO foods
from non-GMO foods and, in so doing, limit their consumer
appeal. Furthermore, the threshold of 0.9 percent was far too
restrictive, according to U.S. officials.
Description of Exercise
This exercise provides an interactive case simulation in
which you will be assigned to a group that will assume
the role of one of several stakeholder groups in the actual
dispute between the United States and the EU over trade
in GMOs. In this case, the U.S. government, on behalf
of U.S. farmers and the biotech industry, argued that the
EU is in violation of global trading rules. Europe responded
that it has the right to protect the health and safety o ...
1 This simulation is designed to develop skills in cross-AbbyWhyte974
1
This simulation is designed to develop skills in cross-
cultural negotiations with an emphasis on multi-stake-
holder dialogue and exchange.
Synopsis
On August 18, 2003, members of the World Trade Organiza-
tion (WTO) met in Geneva to hear a U.S. request for a
full-blown dispute-settlement proceeding regarding Euro-
pean Union (EU) restrictions on the import and sale of goods
produced with or containing genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). In late 1996, Monsanto exported the first geneti-
cally modified soybeans to Europe, assuming that consumers
would accept them as Americans had. The timing was not
good, however, as the GMO issue became linked in the
minds of Europeans with “mad cow” disease, an outbreak
that was first thought limited to animals but eventually killed
several humans. Neither GMO companies nor European
authorities were prepared for the reaction, as public senti-
ment immediately turned against the technology. Britain’s
Daily Mirror ran a front-page headline in 1998 warning
against “Frankenfood.” In 1998, five European countries said
they wouldn’t process any more applications for genetically
modified crops, and the EU upheld this decision. 1
In May 2003, the United States filed a complaint with the
WTO in hopes of getting the ban lifted. In response, in the
summer of 2003, the European Parliament passed ground-
breaking legislation that would require detailed labeling of
all food products containing as little as 0.9 percent of genet-
ically modified ingredients, and would require origin tracing
in order to gain approval. Although these steps were designed
to move toward lifting the moratorium, many in the United
States charged that these rules would be unworkable, would
be discriminatory toward imports, and would violate WTO
sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreements. 2
Paradoxically, both sides claimed to be concerned about
public health and environmental safety. The U.S. government
and industry argued that the EU was in violation of WTO
provisions requiring nondiscriminatory treatment of like or
similar goods. The Americans contended that uninformed
Europeans were spreading unfounded fears about GMOs. 3
In addition, the U.S. government argued that requiring labels
for GMO products would result in segregating GMO foods
from non-GMO foods and, in so doing, limit their consumer
appeal. Furthermore, the threshold of 0.9 percent was far too
restrictive, according to U.S. officials.
Description of Exercise
This exercise provides an interactive case simulation in
which you will be assigned to a group that will assume
the role of one of several stakeholder groups in the actual
dispute between the United States and the EU over trade
in GMOs. In this case, the U.S. government, on behalf
of U.S. farmers and the biotech industry, argued that the
EU is in violation of global trading rules. Europe responded
that it has the right to protect the health and safety o ...
The first section of the presentation provides background information on GMOAnswers.com – who we are, what we do and the resources we provide. The second section covers common misconceptions and the basics and science behind GMOs.
MATATAG CURRICULUM: ASSESSING THE READINESS OF ELEM. PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS I...NelTorrente
In this research, it concludes that while the readiness of teachers in Caloocan City to implement the MATATAG Curriculum is generally positive, targeted efforts in professional development, resource distribution, support networks, and comprehensive preparation can address the existing gaps and ensure successful curriculum implementation.
Safalta Digital marketing institute in Noida, provide complete applications that encompass a huge range of virtual advertising and marketing additives, which includes search engine optimization, virtual communication advertising, pay-per-click on marketing, content material advertising, internet analytics, and greater. These university courses are designed for students who possess a comprehensive understanding of virtual marketing strategies and attributes.Safalta Digital Marketing Institute in Noida is a first choice for young individuals or students who are looking to start their careers in the field of digital advertising. The institute gives specialized courses designed and certification.
for beginners, providing thorough training in areas such as SEO, digital communication marketing, and PPC training in Noida. After finishing the program, students receive the certifications recognised by top different universitie, setting a strong foundation for a successful career in digital marketing.
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
Normal Labour/ Stages of Labour/ Mechanism of LabourWasim Ak
Normal labor is also termed spontaneous labor, defined as the natural physiological process through which the fetus, placenta, and membranes are expelled from the uterus through the birth canal at term (37 to 42 weeks
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP ModuleCeline George
In Odoo, the chatter is like a chat tool that helps you work together on records. You can leave notes and track things, making it easier to talk with your team and partners. Inside chatter, all communication history, activity, and changes will be displayed.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
2. Controversies
• Safety
• Access and Intellectual Property
• Ethics
• Labeling
• Society
• Food and Fuel
• Genetic Pollution
3. Safety
– Potential human health impacts, including
allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance
markers, unknown effects
– Potential environmental impacts, including:
unintended transfer of transgenes through
cross-pollination, unknown effects on other
organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of
flora and fauna biodiversity
4. Access and Intellectual Property
– Domination of world food production by a few
companies
– Increasing dependence on industrialized
nations by developing countries
– Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural
resources
5. Ethics
– Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
– Tampering with nature by mixing genes
among species
– Objections to consuming animal genes in
plants and vice versa
– Stress for animal
6. Labelling
– Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United
States)
– Mixing GM crops with non-GM products
confounds labeling attempts
8. Food and Fuel
• Supporters of GMOs believe such crops help increase
yield, which could help curtail skyrocketing food prices.
In addition, GMOs could potentially be influential in the
gas crisis. Alternatives such as increased use of biofuels
(made from GMOs) seem to be a positive advantage
because they could lessen the nation’s dependence on
oil as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Although the use of biofuel has been expanding, many
believe the full effects on the environment and elsewhere
must be further researched.
9. • The international ―food vs. fuel‖ debate has
been another topic of great controversy in
and of itself. Critics of biofuel worry that
investment into the sector has driven up the
price of food. Creating biofuels requires
massive amounts of raw material, and
although the land used by GM crops is a
huge percentage of land farmed, the question
remains whether ultimately using it for food or
fuel is the best use of it, time and money.
10. Genetic Pollution
• One of the major problems with GMOs is that they have
no boundaries. Once planted, they run the risk of
contaminating any conventional crops planted nearby. A
survey reports that in the Midwest, where there are
millions of acres of GM corn and soybean crops, up to
80% of organic farmers reported direct costs or damages
resulting from genetic trespass. This trespassing can
occur in a variety of common, natural ways, which
makes keeping the GMOs on their own fields impossible.
For example, winds (particularly high winds, but even
breezes can be problematic) and water runoff are full of
seeds and spores, and can easily bring GMOs to fields
where they are not purposely grown.
11. • Often, these seeds and spores will then implant
themselves into soil and produce plants that are
genetically altered—with the farmer having no idea his
crops have been genetically polluted. Other sources of
GMO contamination include commingling during harvest
and cross-pollination, which is particularly rampant with
corn. Farmers often hire combines to harvest their food,
instead of using their own, and if these have not been
cleaned well enough, residual GM grains from previous
harvests can contaminate the crop. Something as small
as a particle on a tarp is enough to cause contamination.
There has been some talk of creating GMOs whose
offspring would be sterile, thus eliminating many of these
plants; as of yet there has been no great move to
implement the modification on a large scale.
13. US FDA
• In the U.S., 3 agencies are responsible
with th release of GM food plants. The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
• GM foods labeling is optional.
14. US FDA (cont’n)
• The FDA only makes sure that the food consumers
consumed is safe, and wholesome
– does not consider the fact that the sources of GM
foods are genetically engineered.
– Flavr Svar, did not require labelling as it was
found safe and contains the same amount
vitamins, proteins, and mineral as original tomato.
– same case with Bt potatoes that are in grocery
stores.
15. US FDA (cont’n)
• Safety testing on GM foods is also
voluntary by the FDA as long as the new
product is not "significantly different" from
its traditional counterpart
– not surprising that if most of the products sold
in the market now is categorized as
―substantially equivalent‖ and safe by their
manufacturers.
16. European Union (EU)
• The European Union (EU) has possibly the most stringent
GMO regulations in the world. All GMOs, along with irradiated
food, are considered "new food" and subject to extensive,
case-by-case, science based food evaluation by
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The EFSA
reports to the European Commission who then draft a
proposal for granting or refusing the authorisation. This
proposal is submitted to the Section on GM Food and Feed of
the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal
Health and if accepted it will be adopted by the EC or passed
on to the Council of Agricultural Ministers. Once in the Council
it has three months to reach a qualified majority for or against
the proposal, if no majority is reached the proposal is passed
back to the EC who will then adopt the proposal
17. • As of August 2012, the European Union
had authorised 48 GMOs. Most of these
were for animal feed imports or for feed
and food processing. There is also a
safeguard clause that Member States can
invoke to temporarily restrict or prohibit the
use and/or sale of a GMO within their
territory if they have a justifiable reasons
to consider that the approved GMO
constitutes a risk to human health or the
environment
18. • In 2010 Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,
Slovenia, and the Netherlands wrote a
joint paper requesting that individual
countries have the right to decide whether
to cultivate GM crops.
19. • Currently (2010) the only GMO food crop with
approval for cultivation in Europe is MON810, a
Bt expressing maize conferring resistance to
the European corn borer, that gained approval in
1998. On 2 March 2010 a second GMO, a
potato called Amflora, was approved for
cultivation for industrial applications in the EU by
the European Commission and was grown in
Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic that
year. Gene flow will occur between related crops
and the EC issued new guidelines in 2010
regarding the co-existence of GM and non-GM
crops.
20. France adopts EU Laws
• France adopted the EU laws on growing GMOs
in 2007 and were fined €10 million by
the European Court of Justice for the six year
delay in implementing the laws. In February
2008 the French government used the
safeguard clause to ban the cultivation of
MON810 after Senator Jean-François Le Grand,
chairman of a committee set up to evaluate
biotechnology, said there were "serious doubts"
about the safety of the product
21. Germany adopts EU Laws
• In April 2009 German Federal Minister Ilse
Aigner announced an immediate halt to cultivation and
marketing of MON810 maize under the safeguard
clause. The ban was based on "expert opinion" that
suggested there was reasonable grounds to believe that
MON810 maize presents a danger to the environment.
Three French scientists reviewing the scientific evidence
used to justify the ban concluding that it did not use a
case-by-case approach, confused potential hazards with
proven risks and ignored the meta-knowledge on Bt
expressing maize, instead focusing on selected
individual studies.
22. Adoption
• Spain is the largest producer of GM crops in
Europe with 76,000 hectares (190,000 acres) of
GM maize planted in 2009 (20% of Spain's
maize production).Smaller amounts were
produced in the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Portugal, Romania and Poland. France and
Germany are the major opponents of genetically
modified food in Europe, although Germany has
approved Amflora a potato modified with higher
levels of starch for industrial purposes
23. • In addition to France and Germany, other
European countries that placed bans on
the cultivation and sale of GMOs include
Austria, Hungary, Greece, and
Luxembourg. Poland has also tried to
institute a ban, with backlash from
the European Commission. Bulgaria
effectively banned cultivation of genetically
modified organisms on March 18, 2010.
24. GMO (CU)
• The primary piece of legislation that applies to
the use of genetically modified organisms in the
workplace is the Genetically Modified
Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000
(GMO(CU)) as amended by Genetically
Modified Organisms (Contained Use)
(Amendment) Regulations in 2002, 2005 and
2010.
25. • The GMO (CU) Regulations provide for human
health and safety and environmental protection
from genetically modified micro-organisms in
contained use, and additionally the human
health and safety from genetically modified
plants and animals (GMOs). The key
requirement of the GMO (CU) Regulations is to
assess the risks of all activities and to make sure
that any necessary controls are put in place. The
GMO (CU) Regulations provide a framework for
making these judgments, and place clear legal
obligations on people who work with GMOs.
26. The Genetically Modified Organisms
(Contained Use) Regulations 2000:
– require risk assessment of activities involving
genetically modified micro-organisms and
activities involving organisms other than
micro-organisms. All activities must be
assessed for risk to humans and those
involving GMMs assessed for risk to the
environment;
27. – introduce a classification system based on the
risk of the activity independent of the purpose
of the activity. The classification is based on
the four levels of containment for microbial
laboratories;
– require notification of all premises to HSE
before they are used for genetic modification
activities for the first time;
28. – require notification of individual activities of Class
2 (low risk) to Class 4 (high risk) to be notified to
the Competent Authority (which HSE
administers). Consents are issued for all Class 3
(medium risk) and Class 4 (high risk) activities.
Class 1 (no or negligible risk) activities are non
notifiable, although they are open to scrutiny by
HSE's specialist inspectors who enforce the
Regulations. Activities involving GM animals and
plants which are more hazardous to humans than
the parental non modified organism also require
notification;
29. – require fees payable for the notification of
premises for first time use, class 2, 3 and 4
activities notifications, and notified activities
involving GM animals and plants.
– require the maintenance of a public register of
GM premises and certain activities.
30. • There are also other pieces of health and safety
legislation that are relevant to work with GMOs.
These include the general requirements of the
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the
Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations 1999, and the Carriage of
Dangerous Goods legislation. There are also
some biological agents aspects of the Control of
Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations
2002 which may be applicable in some
circumstances.
31. • The Department for Environment Food
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is responsible
for deliberate releases of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs).