The document discusses how genetically modified crops could help increase UK food self-sufficiency and security. The UK population is growing and more food is being imported, making the country vulnerable. GM crops could help increase agricultural production on existing land in a more sustainable way. However, there is public opposition to GM due to health and environmental concerns. The document argues that with proper regulation and public education, GM crops could benefit the UK economy and environment while ensuring food security for future generations.
MYCOTOXIN REDUCTION IN THE FOOD AND FEED CHAIN CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES IN...Francois Stepman
1) The document discusses challenges with mycotoxins in food and feed in sub-Saharan Africa. Mycotoxins are toxic compounds produced by fungi that can cause health issues.
2) Mycotoxin control in sub-Saharan Africa faces many challenges, including lack of awareness, stringent EU regulations, and expensive testing.
3) The MYTOX-SOUTH partnership aims to address mycotoxin problems in sub-Saharan Africa through research, training, building analytical capacity, and engaging with policymakers.
Sterling paper GM crops fight world hunger.IFST Food Science & Technology Jou...Sterling Crew
GM crops help fight hunger by increasing yields and reducing costs for farmers. They can be tailored to address local needs in developing countries by enhancing locally grown crops with traits like insect or drought resistance. However, controversies over GM safety and corporate influence continue in Europe, where regulations have blocked most GM crop cultivation. With the global population expected to increase by 2 billion by 2050, attitudes must shift to enable innovation that can boost food security and availability.
Why be concerned? One of many good reasons is that these laboratory-created mutations are unlabeled, virtually untested and on grocery shelves everywhere.
Impact.tech: Opportunities in Plant-based Food Technologies by Liz SpechtImpact.Tech
Slides from the Impact.tech seminar on Opportunities in Plant-based Food Technologies. The seminar was taught by Liz Specht, a Senior Scientist with the Good Food Institute. The Good Food Institute is a non-profit organization advancing plant-based and clean meat food technology.
The plant-based foods sector has experienced tremendous growth and innovation as plant-based alternatives to animal products are increasingly adopted into the diets of mainstream consumers seeking healthier or more sustainable options. These products have come a long way in replicating the taste, texture, and mouthfeel of their animal-based counterparts. However, there is still ample room for food technology and product development to enable greater inroads into mainstream markets. The seminar discussed opportunities all across the product development pipeline - from genetic mapping to develop better plant protein crop strains, to novel protein isolation and functionalization methods, to mechanical processing and formulation to better replicate the structure and flavor of meat.
This document summarizes the controversy over genetically modified (GM) food aid in Africa in 2004. In March 2004, both Sudan and Angola introduced restrictions on GM food aid - Sudan requested food be certified GM-free, while Angola accepted only milled GM grain. The US and World Food Programme strongly criticized these decisions and pressured the countries to remove the restrictions. The document argues alternatives to GM food aid exist and that donors should make these available to ensure countries can exercise informed choice over their food supplies.
The document discusses genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and whether they are safe for human consumption. It provides background on GMOs, noting they were first introduced in 1983 and have been part of the food supply since the 1990s. It outlines both pros and cons of GMOs, with pros including increased crop yields but cons including potential negative health impacts. The document states the public's main concern with GMOs relates to health issues. It concludes by arguing GMOs can help address issues like hunger but that societies must work to better inform consumers about GMOs to address fears.
The future of food: business opportunities in alternative proteinsDavid Welch
A presentation given to the Coller School of Management
Coller Ignite program to provide an overview of alternative protein technologies, highlighting key white space business opportunities
The document discusses genetically modified (GM) foods and products. It defines GM as applying genetic engineering techniques to deliver specific DNA using bacteria to plants. While 10 million farmers in 22 countries use GM crops for benefits like pest resistance and drought tolerance, concerns exist around effects on insects, soil, and animal health. The conclusion states that GM is used worldwide, but scientists aim to minimize negative impacts and develop eco-friendly versions, encouraging evaluating pros and cons based on scientific evidence.
MYCOTOXIN REDUCTION IN THE FOOD AND FEED CHAIN CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES IN...Francois Stepman
1) The document discusses challenges with mycotoxins in food and feed in sub-Saharan Africa. Mycotoxins are toxic compounds produced by fungi that can cause health issues.
2) Mycotoxin control in sub-Saharan Africa faces many challenges, including lack of awareness, stringent EU regulations, and expensive testing.
3) The MYTOX-SOUTH partnership aims to address mycotoxin problems in sub-Saharan Africa through research, training, building analytical capacity, and engaging with policymakers.
Sterling paper GM crops fight world hunger.IFST Food Science & Technology Jou...Sterling Crew
GM crops help fight hunger by increasing yields and reducing costs for farmers. They can be tailored to address local needs in developing countries by enhancing locally grown crops with traits like insect or drought resistance. However, controversies over GM safety and corporate influence continue in Europe, where regulations have blocked most GM crop cultivation. With the global population expected to increase by 2 billion by 2050, attitudes must shift to enable innovation that can boost food security and availability.
Why be concerned? One of many good reasons is that these laboratory-created mutations are unlabeled, virtually untested and on grocery shelves everywhere.
Impact.tech: Opportunities in Plant-based Food Technologies by Liz SpechtImpact.Tech
Slides from the Impact.tech seminar on Opportunities in Plant-based Food Technologies. The seminar was taught by Liz Specht, a Senior Scientist with the Good Food Institute. The Good Food Institute is a non-profit organization advancing plant-based and clean meat food technology.
The plant-based foods sector has experienced tremendous growth and innovation as plant-based alternatives to animal products are increasingly adopted into the diets of mainstream consumers seeking healthier or more sustainable options. These products have come a long way in replicating the taste, texture, and mouthfeel of their animal-based counterparts. However, there is still ample room for food technology and product development to enable greater inroads into mainstream markets. The seminar discussed opportunities all across the product development pipeline - from genetic mapping to develop better plant protein crop strains, to novel protein isolation and functionalization methods, to mechanical processing and formulation to better replicate the structure and flavor of meat.
This document summarizes the controversy over genetically modified (GM) food aid in Africa in 2004. In March 2004, both Sudan and Angola introduced restrictions on GM food aid - Sudan requested food be certified GM-free, while Angola accepted only milled GM grain. The US and World Food Programme strongly criticized these decisions and pressured the countries to remove the restrictions. The document argues alternatives to GM food aid exist and that donors should make these available to ensure countries can exercise informed choice over their food supplies.
The document discusses genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and whether they are safe for human consumption. It provides background on GMOs, noting they were first introduced in 1983 and have been part of the food supply since the 1990s. It outlines both pros and cons of GMOs, with pros including increased crop yields but cons including potential negative health impacts. The document states the public's main concern with GMOs relates to health issues. It concludes by arguing GMOs can help address issues like hunger but that societies must work to better inform consumers about GMOs to address fears.
The future of food: business opportunities in alternative proteinsDavid Welch
A presentation given to the Coller School of Management
Coller Ignite program to provide an overview of alternative protein technologies, highlighting key white space business opportunities
The document discusses genetically modified (GM) foods and products. It defines GM as applying genetic engineering techniques to deliver specific DNA using bacteria to plants. While 10 million farmers in 22 countries use GM crops for benefits like pest resistance and drought tolerance, concerns exist around effects on insects, soil, and animal health. The conclusion states that GM is used worldwide, but scientists aim to minimize negative impacts and develop eco-friendly versions, encouraging evaluating pros and cons based on scientific evidence.
This document provides information on genetically modified foods and Monsanto's research. It summarizes mouse and hamster studies on GM corn and soy that found smaller litters and higher mortality. It also notes potential health issues with GM rice, tomatoes, and dairy products related to allergies, early death, and cancer. The document includes screenshots of a YouTube video on health dangers of GM foods and references regulations in Malaysia requiring GM labeling to increase consumer choice and understanding.
This Project is for Seniors who are graduating. Its on genetically Modified Organism; Advantages & Disadvantages of it, and why should we care? Safety of food keeps our body safe and healthy!
The document summarizes a report from Transparency Market Research on the probiotics market. It discusses that the global probiotics market was valued at around $6.7 billion in 2018 and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 8.3% through 2026 to be worth approximately $12.8 billion. Probiotics, when consumed by humans in non-food forms like supplements, are generally available as tablets, capsules, powder, liquids or chewables. Excessive antibiotic use can imbalance gut microbiota and lower bacterial counts, and probiotics may help address this issue. Transparency Market Research provides business information reports and services on various sectors including pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food and beverages, and
This document discusses the debate around mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods. While consumers fear potential negative health impacts of GM foods, evidence suggests GM crops provide economic benefits to farmers by reducing costs and increasing yields. Mandatory labeling could negatively impact farmers if consumers avoid GM foods due to misconceptions about health risks, as GM seeds are more expensive. However, theories about GM foods' health effects lack proof, while benefits include lower pesticide use and residues. Therefore, the document concludes mandatory labeling may harm farmers' livelihoods and cause unintended health consequences while not providing meaningful information to consumers.
This document discusses GMOs for food security in Africa. It begins by defining genetically modified organisms and providing examples of early GMO applications. It then discusses the role of GMOs in agriculture, noting that GMOs have been developed to increase yields, improve disease resistance, and require less water. The document outlines stakeholders in the GMO industry and discusses health and safety concerns. It also presents alternative solutions to increasing food security before focusing on Morocco's regulations and vision regarding GMOs. In the end, it provides references used in the document.
Emerging opportunities in the alternative protein sectorDavid Welch
An overview of emerging opportunities and white space ideas in the alternative protein sector. This talk covers three technology areas within alternative proteins:
1. plant-based meat, egg, and dairy
2. utilizing microbial fermentation as an enabling technology
3. cultivated meat (also known as cultured meat and clean meat)
A recording of the webinar is available at: https://youtu.be/DA3wYmLtM1s
Why breeding rust resistant varieties is not sufficient to control Yellow RustICARDA
1) Breeding rust resistant wheat varieties alone is not sufficient to control the yellow rust pathogen, as new virulent races can develop and overcome resistance.
2) Yellow rust epidemics in the 1990s caused significant yield losses, up to 50% in some countries. Maintaining genetic diversity in wheat varieties and quickly replacing susceptible varieties is important for control.
3) Coordinated global efforts are needed for surveillance of new pathogen races, breeding resistant varieties, controlling volunteer wheat plants that spread disease, and establishing diverse resistant varieties before epidemics occur.
This document discusses industrial agriculture and GMOs. It begins by defining key concepts like intensive agriculture, monoculture, biodiversity, hybrids, bioengineering, and GMOs. It then notes that the vast majority of commodity crops in the US, like soybeans and corn, are now genetically modified varieties. The document outlines perceived benefits and concerns of GMOs, and discusses Monsanto's role in developing GMO crops and Roundup herbicide. It also discusses the "revolving door" between Monsanto and government regulators. Finally, it provides information on organic farming and certification.
Mandy Hagan - Advancing Technologies to Feed 9 BillionJohn Blue
Advancing Technologies to Feed 9 Billion - Mandy Hagan, Vice President, State Affairs and Grassroots, Grocery Manufacturers Association, from the 2015 Animal Agriculture Alliance Stakeholders Summit, The Journey to Extraordinary, May 6 - 7, 2015, Kansas City, MO, USA.
More presentations at http://www.trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2015-the-journey-to-extraordinary
AU Policies and Decisions for the Use of STI in the Implementation of a Susta...Francois Stepman
Jeremy Tinga OUEDRAOGO
Head of the NEPAD Regional Office for West Africa
Director of the African Biosafety Network of Expertise - ABNE
30 - 31 August 2018. Gent-Zwijnaarde, Belgium. IPBO conference 2018: “Scientific innovation for a sustainable development of African agriculture”
The document discusses embracing genetically modified crops to ensure future food security given challenges like population growth, climate change, and limited resources. It argues GM crops could increase yields to meet demands while remaining affordable and safe. However, current EU regulations impede GM crop development and cultivation in the UK due to public health concerns despite research showing GM foods are as safe and nutritious as conventional foods. To address food security threats, the document advocates modernizing regulations to consider GM crops on a case by case basis through national risk assessments.
Ecker-2015-The therapeutic monoclonal antibody market-RPRNTDawn M. Ecker
The therapeutic monoclonal antibody market has grown significantly since the approval of the first monoclonal antibody product in 1986. As of November 2014, 47 monoclonal antibody products have been approved to treat various diseases. The market is projected to continue growing rapidly, with sales expected to reach nearly $125 billion by 2020 and over 70 products projected to be approved. Factors such as improved understanding of disease targets and the favorable safety profile of monoclonal antibodies have contributed to their increasing development and usage.
Crop breeding in the 20th century led to increased yields but had limitations. Genetically modifying crops allows introducing genes across species and has increased yields for some crops grown in the US since the 1990s. However, there has been a campaign in Europe against GM crops based on environmental and food safety concerns, though analyses find some claims are erroneous. Reasonable caution is still advised with new technologies. Issues of global trade and justice must also be considered separately from the GM technology.
Greek farmers sued seed companies Pioneer and Syngenta for selling them genetically modified (GMO) contaminated maize seeds without their knowledge. The Greek government destroyed over 100 hectares of contaminated crops. The seed companies offered compensation to farmers but required them to sign agreements not to oppose the companies. Some farmers rejected these offers and through their organization GESASE, sued the companies and Greek authorities for allowing the contaminated seeds on the market. The lawsuits aimed to preserve Greek agriculture and biodiversity from GMOs.
Boulder Startup Week 2019: The Future of Food: Innovation in Plant-Based & Ce...David Welch
The document discusses plant-based and cell-based meat alternatives. It summarizes the work of the Good Food Institute, which focuses on four key areas: science and technology to advance plant-based and cell-based meat; helping innovators develop successful companies; engaging with food companies; and advocating for fair regulation. The document then discusses challenges with the current agricultural system and animal agriculture's environmental impact. It outlines the growth of the plant-based market and consumer demand. Finally, it provides an overview of cell-based meat production and the technologies required to produce meat at scale from cell cultures.
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MYCOTOXIN CONTAMINATION IN AFRICAFrancois Stepman
12-14 September 2017. Ghent, Belgium. 1st MYCOKEY International Conference.
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MYCOTOXIN CONTAMINATION IN AFRICAPatrick Njobeh* and Adekoya Ifeoluwa Dept of Biotechnology and Food Technology Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Risk Assessment of Mycotoxins in Stored Maize Grains from NigeriaFrancois Stepman
12-14 September 2017. Ghent, Belgium. 1st MYCOKEY International Conference.
M. C. Adetunji1, O. O. Atanda1, and C. N. Ezekiel2
1Department of Biological Sciences, McPherson University, Seriki Sotayo, Ogun State, Nigeria
2Department of Microbiology, Babcock University, Ilishan Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria
Here are the answers to the questions:
1. a) 25%
2. a) The best known specialized agency in the field is the United Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture
3. a) TeleFood
4. a) Analyze food needs, Assesstheavailability of food
5. FAO also has a System Information and Early Warning, through which oversees a comprehensive tracking device, which is supported by satellite surveillance techniques shows the evolution of the factors that affect food production and warns governments and donors about any possible threat to the food supply.
[1] Paul Collier argues that the debate over genetically modified crops has been contaminated by prejudices against big corporations and science. He says genetic modification could help increase crop yields and adaptation to climate change in Africa.
[2] Vandana Shiva argues against genetically modified crops, saying they have not increased yields and biodiversity is needed for ecological security. She cites research showing GM crops have failed to increase yields and says small, sustainable farms produce more food. She also argues industrial agriculture contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
[3] The document presents opposing views on whether genetically modified crops can help address issues
- Organic farming is more environmentally friendly than conventional farming as it avoids the use of harmful pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Organic farming relies more on natural processes to nourish soils and protect crops.
- Conventional farming is controlled by large agribusinesses and relies on monocultures, fossil fuel-based inputs, and global distribution of commodities for profit. This model is unsustainable and damages the environment.
- Organic markets are growing rapidly as consumers demand healthier, locally-grown food. Organic farming is better for both the environment and local economies compared to the corporate-controlled, conventional system.
Partnerships and the Future of Agriculture TechnologyCIMMYT
Presentation delivered by Dr. Robert T. Fraley (Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Monsanto, USA) at Borlaug Summit on Wheat for Food Security. March 25 - 28, 2014, Ciudad Obregon, Mexico.
http://www.borlaug100.org
This document provides information on genetically modified foods and Monsanto's research. It summarizes mouse and hamster studies on GM corn and soy that found smaller litters and higher mortality. It also notes potential health issues with GM rice, tomatoes, and dairy products related to allergies, early death, and cancer. The document includes screenshots of a YouTube video on health dangers of GM foods and references regulations in Malaysia requiring GM labeling to increase consumer choice and understanding.
This Project is for Seniors who are graduating. Its on genetically Modified Organism; Advantages & Disadvantages of it, and why should we care? Safety of food keeps our body safe and healthy!
The document summarizes a report from Transparency Market Research on the probiotics market. It discusses that the global probiotics market was valued at around $6.7 billion in 2018 and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 8.3% through 2026 to be worth approximately $12.8 billion. Probiotics, when consumed by humans in non-food forms like supplements, are generally available as tablets, capsules, powder, liquids or chewables. Excessive antibiotic use can imbalance gut microbiota and lower bacterial counts, and probiotics may help address this issue. Transparency Market Research provides business information reports and services on various sectors including pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food and beverages, and
This document discusses the debate around mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods. While consumers fear potential negative health impacts of GM foods, evidence suggests GM crops provide economic benefits to farmers by reducing costs and increasing yields. Mandatory labeling could negatively impact farmers if consumers avoid GM foods due to misconceptions about health risks, as GM seeds are more expensive. However, theories about GM foods' health effects lack proof, while benefits include lower pesticide use and residues. Therefore, the document concludes mandatory labeling may harm farmers' livelihoods and cause unintended health consequences while not providing meaningful information to consumers.
This document discusses GMOs for food security in Africa. It begins by defining genetically modified organisms and providing examples of early GMO applications. It then discusses the role of GMOs in agriculture, noting that GMOs have been developed to increase yields, improve disease resistance, and require less water. The document outlines stakeholders in the GMO industry and discusses health and safety concerns. It also presents alternative solutions to increasing food security before focusing on Morocco's regulations and vision regarding GMOs. In the end, it provides references used in the document.
Emerging opportunities in the alternative protein sectorDavid Welch
An overview of emerging opportunities and white space ideas in the alternative protein sector. This talk covers three technology areas within alternative proteins:
1. plant-based meat, egg, and dairy
2. utilizing microbial fermentation as an enabling technology
3. cultivated meat (also known as cultured meat and clean meat)
A recording of the webinar is available at: https://youtu.be/DA3wYmLtM1s
Why breeding rust resistant varieties is not sufficient to control Yellow RustICARDA
1) Breeding rust resistant wheat varieties alone is not sufficient to control the yellow rust pathogen, as new virulent races can develop and overcome resistance.
2) Yellow rust epidemics in the 1990s caused significant yield losses, up to 50% in some countries. Maintaining genetic diversity in wheat varieties and quickly replacing susceptible varieties is important for control.
3) Coordinated global efforts are needed for surveillance of new pathogen races, breeding resistant varieties, controlling volunteer wheat plants that spread disease, and establishing diverse resistant varieties before epidemics occur.
This document discusses industrial agriculture and GMOs. It begins by defining key concepts like intensive agriculture, monoculture, biodiversity, hybrids, bioengineering, and GMOs. It then notes that the vast majority of commodity crops in the US, like soybeans and corn, are now genetically modified varieties. The document outlines perceived benefits and concerns of GMOs, and discusses Monsanto's role in developing GMO crops and Roundup herbicide. It also discusses the "revolving door" between Monsanto and government regulators. Finally, it provides information on organic farming and certification.
Mandy Hagan - Advancing Technologies to Feed 9 BillionJohn Blue
Advancing Technologies to Feed 9 Billion - Mandy Hagan, Vice President, State Affairs and Grassroots, Grocery Manufacturers Association, from the 2015 Animal Agriculture Alliance Stakeholders Summit, The Journey to Extraordinary, May 6 - 7, 2015, Kansas City, MO, USA.
More presentations at http://www.trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2015-the-journey-to-extraordinary
AU Policies and Decisions for the Use of STI in the Implementation of a Susta...Francois Stepman
Jeremy Tinga OUEDRAOGO
Head of the NEPAD Regional Office for West Africa
Director of the African Biosafety Network of Expertise - ABNE
30 - 31 August 2018. Gent-Zwijnaarde, Belgium. IPBO conference 2018: “Scientific innovation for a sustainable development of African agriculture”
The document discusses embracing genetically modified crops to ensure future food security given challenges like population growth, climate change, and limited resources. It argues GM crops could increase yields to meet demands while remaining affordable and safe. However, current EU regulations impede GM crop development and cultivation in the UK due to public health concerns despite research showing GM foods are as safe and nutritious as conventional foods. To address food security threats, the document advocates modernizing regulations to consider GM crops on a case by case basis through national risk assessments.
Ecker-2015-The therapeutic monoclonal antibody market-RPRNTDawn M. Ecker
The therapeutic monoclonal antibody market has grown significantly since the approval of the first monoclonal antibody product in 1986. As of November 2014, 47 monoclonal antibody products have been approved to treat various diseases. The market is projected to continue growing rapidly, with sales expected to reach nearly $125 billion by 2020 and over 70 products projected to be approved. Factors such as improved understanding of disease targets and the favorable safety profile of monoclonal antibodies have contributed to their increasing development and usage.
Crop breeding in the 20th century led to increased yields but had limitations. Genetically modifying crops allows introducing genes across species and has increased yields for some crops grown in the US since the 1990s. However, there has been a campaign in Europe against GM crops based on environmental and food safety concerns, though analyses find some claims are erroneous. Reasonable caution is still advised with new technologies. Issues of global trade and justice must also be considered separately from the GM technology.
Greek farmers sued seed companies Pioneer and Syngenta for selling them genetically modified (GMO) contaminated maize seeds without their knowledge. The Greek government destroyed over 100 hectares of contaminated crops. The seed companies offered compensation to farmers but required them to sign agreements not to oppose the companies. Some farmers rejected these offers and through their organization GESASE, sued the companies and Greek authorities for allowing the contaminated seeds on the market. The lawsuits aimed to preserve Greek agriculture and biodiversity from GMOs.
Boulder Startup Week 2019: The Future of Food: Innovation in Plant-Based & Ce...David Welch
The document discusses plant-based and cell-based meat alternatives. It summarizes the work of the Good Food Institute, which focuses on four key areas: science and technology to advance plant-based and cell-based meat; helping innovators develop successful companies; engaging with food companies; and advocating for fair regulation. The document then discusses challenges with the current agricultural system and animal agriculture's environmental impact. It outlines the growth of the plant-based market and consumer demand. Finally, it provides an overview of cell-based meat production and the technologies required to produce meat at scale from cell cultures.
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MYCOTOXIN CONTAMINATION IN AFRICAFrancois Stepman
12-14 September 2017. Ghent, Belgium. 1st MYCOKEY International Conference.
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MYCOTOXIN CONTAMINATION IN AFRICAPatrick Njobeh* and Adekoya Ifeoluwa Dept of Biotechnology and Food Technology Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Risk Assessment of Mycotoxins in Stored Maize Grains from NigeriaFrancois Stepman
12-14 September 2017. Ghent, Belgium. 1st MYCOKEY International Conference.
M. C. Adetunji1, O. O. Atanda1, and C. N. Ezekiel2
1Department of Biological Sciences, McPherson University, Seriki Sotayo, Ogun State, Nigeria
2Department of Microbiology, Babcock University, Ilishan Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria
Here are the answers to the questions:
1. a) 25%
2. a) The best known specialized agency in the field is the United Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture
3. a) TeleFood
4. a) Analyze food needs, Assesstheavailability of food
5. FAO also has a System Information and Early Warning, through which oversees a comprehensive tracking device, which is supported by satellite surveillance techniques shows the evolution of the factors that affect food production and warns governments and donors about any possible threat to the food supply.
[1] Paul Collier argues that the debate over genetically modified crops has been contaminated by prejudices against big corporations and science. He says genetic modification could help increase crop yields and adaptation to climate change in Africa.
[2] Vandana Shiva argues against genetically modified crops, saying they have not increased yields and biodiversity is needed for ecological security. She cites research showing GM crops have failed to increase yields and says small, sustainable farms produce more food. She also argues industrial agriculture contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
[3] The document presents opposing views on whether genetically modified crops can help address issues
- Organic farming is more environmentally friendly than conventional farming as it avoids the use of harmful pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Organic farming relies more on natural processes to nourish soils and protect crops.
- Conventional farming is controlled by large agribusinesses and relies on monocultures, fossil fuel-based inputs, and global distribution of commodities for profit. This model is unsustainable and damages the environment.
- Organic markets are growing rapidly as consumers demand healthier, locally-grown food. Organic farming is better for both the environment and local economies compared to the corporate-controlled, conventional system.
Partnerships and the Future of Agriculture TechnologyCIMMYT
Presentation delivered by Dr. Robert T. Fraley (Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Monsanto, USA) at Borlaug Summit on Wheat for Food Security. March 25 - 28, 2014, Ciudad Obregon, Mexico.
http://www.borlaug100.org
GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, involve transferring genetic material from one organism to another. This alters the host organism's genetic traits. There are three main components to creating a GMO - the host organism, the desired gene from another organism, and a vector to transport the gene into the host cells. While GMOs aim to address issues like food supply and the environment, they also raise health and ecological concerns that require further long-term research. Debate continues around both the benefits and risks of GMOs.
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 document discusses the debate around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. It notes that while scientists argue GMOs could help address issues like climate change, land use, and poverty, many members of the public remain unconvinced of their safety and value. The rapid adoption of GMO crops by farmers is also examined. Specific concerns raised include the control Monsanto has over global seed supply, increased pesticide and herbicide use, risks of genetic pollution, impacts on small farmers, and lack of GMO labeling. Overall, the document advocates that more independent research is still needed on the impacts of GMOs.
This article reviews latest developments in the market of GM crops and food ingredients derived from them, and discusses the outlook for these products.
This document summarizes a presentation on genetically modified foods. It begins by defining genetic modification as inserting DNA from one organism to another or modifying an organism's DNA to attain a desirable trait. Some examples of early GM foods are provided, such as the Flavr Savr tomato and Golden Rice. Potential benefits of GM crops include increased resistance to pests and stress, while concerns include risks to human health, the environment, and corporate control of the food system. The status of GM crops globally and in different countries is reviewed. In India, Bt cotton was the first approved GM crop, while Bt brinjal was also approved but not commercialized due to protests. The document concludes by acknowledging both benefits and risks require further
The document discusses genetically modified (GM) crops and the debate around them in Britain. It covers:
1) Public opinion in Britain is largely opposed to GM crops but the government continues to support research. Hundreds of hectares of GM crops are grown in research centers.
2) Arguments for GM crops include making them resistant to pests and diseases to reduce pesticide use, resistant to herbicides, and needing less water or fertilizer. This could help address famine issues.
3) Opponents argue GM crops pose enormous risks like creating super-weeds or reducing biodiversity and harming ecosystems. Within 10-20 years the long term risks and impacts may become clearer, but for now individuals
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) refer to plants, animals, or bacteria that have been altered in a laboratory using genetic engineering techniques. The majority of corn, soy, cotton, canola, and sugar beets grown in the United States are genetically modified. While GMOs may increase yields and benefit farmers, there is ongoing debate about their safety for human health and the environment. Extensive additional research is needed to fully understand both the risks and benefits of consuming genetically modified foods.
BAN GMOsThe issue of whether to ban GMOs has been widely debated.docxrock73
BAN GMOs
The issue of whether to ban GMOs has been widely debated for a while now. Despite the ongoing debate, the use of GMOs has continued to increase worldwide, especially in farming. GMOs plantation in US was first introduced for commercial purposes in 1996. During that time, farmers view them as an ideal alternative to their crops as it increased their yields as well as improving efficiency through cutting of cost of herbicides and pesticides. Coupled with vigorous campaigns by biotech firms, the belief in GMO continued to grow and spread to all parts of the world, leading to an increase in the use of GMOs. But, is GMO really good or bad? GMOs are absolutely bad and their use should be banned. They are bad because they pose unknown health consequences, contaminate our gene pools, reduces genetic diversity, and destroys our environment and most importantly, due to the skewed practices of biotech firms.
First, GMOs use need be banned due to their unknown health consequences. It is never a secret that every one of us would like to consume something that is safe. However, Scientist have failed to show that GMOs are safe for human consumption and eating them may have undesired consequences. According to Dr. Doris Lin (2016), the amount of time that scientist spend in testing for the safety of GMOs is short and, therefore, cannot be enough to prove the safety of GMOs. Numerous human studies have shown that traces of materials from genetically modified food are left on our system when we consume them. These materials, according to Jeffrey Smith (2011), have the possibility of causing more problems in our bodies. The unhealthy risks of GMO has been shown by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) action of arguing doctors not to prescribe GMO diet to their patients. AAEM understands the side effects that comes with consuming GMO. For instance, they cite animal studies which have revealed gastrointestinal disorders, immune disorders, organ damages, infertility and accelerated aging as the reason for recommending non-GMO prescribed diet to patients. I believe these unhealthy risks of GMO food can also affect a healthy person. The health risks of GMO can also be confirmed by the current trends in the health of the population. The current health trend indicates an upward increase in the incidence of chronic diseases and conditions world-wide. Chronic diseases and conditions such as stroke, cancer, arthritis, chronic respiratory diseases, heart disease, obesity and diabetes are now more prevalent than never before. These diseases, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), are now the leading cause of mortality as they contribute to about 60% of all deaths. US, in particularly has been the most affected by this trend. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than half of American adults suffer from one or more chronic disease. What do you think caused this increase? Probably, the increase in the numb ...
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have had a significant impact on global society. While some worry about potential health risks, GMO engineering has helped address issues like poverty and hunger by increasing crop yields to feed a growing population. Processed GMO foods are consumed across economic classes and in many countries, both developed and developing. However, others argue that GMOs may cause diseases through the introduction of foreign genes and excessive use of chemicals in food production. There are calls for more transparency around food labeling to help consumers make informed choices about what they eat.
Raising Awareness and Discovering the Dirt 12345 .docxrobert345678
Raising Awareness and Discovering the Dirt
12345 Canyon Dr., Northridge, CA 91344 (818) 555-9089 (818) 555-9222 Radd.com
RADD
What role can the FDA play in regulating GMO
products?
This brief is intended for the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is
presented on behalf of Raising Awareness and Discovering the Dirt (RADD). RADD is a non-profit
organization committed to promoting the wellness of the environment.
Since the earlier 1990s, commercialization of Genetic Modified Organisms (GMOs) has spread
throughout the U.S. The FDA has promoted a program of self-regulation among the biotech crop and
food developers (www.fda.gov). Many of the biotech food and crop developers’ primary interest is the
development of high-yielding products. For example, Monsanto, a biotech food and crop developer’s
director of corporate communications, Philip Angell was quoted saying; “Monsanto should not have to
vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its
safety is the FDA’s job,” (Antoniou, Robinson, & Fagan, 2012, p. 23).
Finally, research and Monsanto’s own feeding trials revealed health-effects and suggest that
more suitable options are needed to maintain the safety of consumers and the environment. Therefore,
RADD is committed to working with the FDA in creating programs that will ensure the safety of
environment and the use of GMOs.
Statement of Issue:
In order to promote awareness and ultimately protect the health of consumers, the FDA has the
ability to regulate GMOs by establishing new guidelines. There is a growing body of evidence that
connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage, and violation of rights of farmers and
consumers. Studies show a correlation between GMOs and health problems such as production of new
allergens increased toxicity, decreased nutrition, and antibiotic resistance (Bernstein et al., 2003).
Additionally, since the emergence of GMO crops, there has been an increase in the amount of
agriculture changes. Such changes include the development of “massive weeds” and “super bugs,” both
requiring an increased dosage of toxins to rid of these unwanted, overgrown organisms. In return,
consumers are now ingesting these increased dosages of toxins.
Background:
Ultimately, the only beneficiaries of products containing GMOs are its producers, such as,
Monsanto, rather than consumers. Monsanto makes an abundant amount of profit on their GMO
products as they have scientifically modified crops, allowing them to have faster results. The “proposed”
purpose of GMOs was to increase yield and enhance nutritional value, while also lowering the use of
pesticides. (www.nongmoproject.org, 2013). Indeed, the use of GMOs increase yield, but studies show
that GMO products hold no nutritional value and rather, by decreasing the use of pesticides, there has
been an increase .
Monsanto is the world's largest seed company and leader in biotechnology for agriculture. It has successfully commercialized genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and is expected to lead the world in GMO adoption in the next decade. However, Monsanto has faced criticism for some of its business practices, including its role in developing the herbicide Agent Orange for use in the Vietnam War and misleading advertising about its Roundup product being biodegradable. The document examines how Monsanto has navigated social expectations regarding its impact on stakeholders such as farmers, consumers, and communities affected by its products.
Monsanto is the world's largest seed company and leader in biotechnology for agriculture. It has successfully commercialized genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and is expected to lead the world in GMO adoption in the next decade. However, Monsanto has faced criticism for some of its business practices, including its role in developing the herbicide Agent Orange for use in the Vietnam War and misleading advertising about its Roundup product being biodegradable. The document examines how Monsanto has navigated social expectations regarding balancing customer, owner, and public needs.
This document discusses genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and GM crops. It provides background on what GM crops are, including that they are plants that have been genetically engineered to express traits like herbicide tolerance or pest resistance. The document then discusses topics like the global acreage of GM crops, major GM crop producing countries, advantages and disadvantages of GM crops, food labeling policies regarding GMOs, and health and environmental risks of genetically engineered foods.
GM crops are debated for their environmental impacts. Potential benefits include reduced pesticide use from Bt crops and conservation tillage from herbicide-tolerant varieties. However, risks include Bt toxin harming non-target species like butterflies, the development of pest resistance, and herbicide-tolerant weeds. Comprehensive environmental assessments are needed to understand both risks and benefits of each GM trait.
The document discusses genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and whether they are safe for human consumption. It provides background on GMOs, noting they were first introduced in 1983 and have been part of the food supply since the 1990s. It outlines US regulatory oversight of GMOs and both pros and cons of GMOs related to health, pesticide use, and addressing issues like hunger. The author's position is that GMOs approved by regulators can provide benefits that outweigh risks when sustainably produced. Mandatory labeling is argued to ensure consumer choice, and efforts are needed to reduce stigma around GMOs through education on the facts.
Similar to The potential of Genetically Modified Crops in the United Kingdom. (20)
The potential of Genetically Modified Crops in the United Kingdom.
1. 1 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
The potential of Genetically Modified
Crops in the United Kingdom.
Lucille Gilpin. lucilleg@hotmail.co.uk
UK population is projected to increase by 9.7 million over the next 25 years (ONS, 2015), with 40% of
our food being imported (Lang, 2016), the UK is in an insecure position. Global demand to feed a
growing and richer population is increasing faster than supply (Benton, 2012; Elferink & Schierhorn,
2016); competition for food is increasing prices and decreasing availability. The lack of global food
security means UK food production needs to escalate; our aim in the UK should be to increase self-
sufficiency. This report will explain how genetically modified (GM) crops are one of the best ways to
accomplish this in agricultural production.
By looking at the growths of UK’s population over the past two decades, we can see how agriculture
has reacted. In the 19th
Century the invention of the plough increased production dramatically, and
through mechanisation and fertilisers in the 20th
Century (Ford, 2002). What will the 21st
Century
solution be? Food production needs to increase further but on a more sustainable level, using fewer
resources along with the enormous challenges of climate change (GOS, 2011; EPA, 2016), GM crops
is the answer to this problem (Bonham, 2015). If we fail to get more from the land sustainably, we
must face the alternatives, humans will go unfed or we reclaim wilderness land, leaving the land and
industry in a much worse state for future generations.
Britain will need to develop its own technology, specific to our environment, climate and needs of
relevant crops, existing GM crops will not be of use, our biotechnology institute and private
companies will be required to develop specific GM crops for the UK. Wheat, for example is the most
produced crop in the UK (DEFRA & ONS, 2015) but for four years in succession the UK has been a net
importer (Statista, 2016), importing £276 million of unmilled wheat in 2015 (DEFRA, 2016). GM
technology needs to be developed, allowing self-sufficiency to be achieved, as imports should not be
relied upon for long term use. Such as what is being developed at Sainsbury Laboratory, late blight
(Phytophthora infestans) resistant potatoes. These are ready to undergo a small field trial in the next
3 years (ACRE, 2016); it exhibits 3 different types of resistance to blight, one of which was
responsible for the Great Irish famine (Jones, 2016).
This trial and ones like it have only got to this stage because of legislation support from the
government and economic backing from private business. Former Prime and Environment Ministers
have been vocally supportive of genetically modified organisms (GMO) since 2012 (Warmflash &
2. 2 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
Entine, 2016), only the future will tell the views of our new PM Theresa May. She is economically
driven shown by the closure of the climate change department (DECC, 2016), her view will support
GM development; with its great potential to increase the economical position of agriculture, while it
will require great investment. Interestingly, of global GM research, 80% of the total spend is by
private firms (Food Ethics Council, 2003); this strongly affects the technology developed and the
premium price to be paid. This ownership of the innovative technology is a strong subject for anti
GM groups (Savage, 2015), many of whom are not concerned by GM in itself, but by corporate
control of the food chain (Fisher, 2016). Opponents claim only private firms will gain from GM and
not the British public. Governance and regulation is key if this technology is to excel to its full
potential, regulation will be addressed later on in this report.
Anti GM activists have many problems with GMO’s e.g. meddling with nature, producing
Frankenstein foods (Daily Mail, 2015). The lack of understanding has caused this, with too few
people stop to check plausible facts (Glassman, 2015). Therefore, headlines are produced evoking
fear, with many developing an opinion, based on this inaccurate information (Vegter, 2014).
Education is the problem; we have been producing Frankenstein food for decades (Ford, 2002) as in
public parks most trees are grafted on, the same concept of Frankenstein. Furthermore, the public
do not fully appreciate the problems it can solve as with shop shelves full of food, how can there be
a shortage? This is slowly evolving with the knowledgeable Millennials generation coming through
and people being more aware of food security and agronomic problem.
This must be the case as GM products are already being incorporated into our diet with
supermarkets like Tesco, Co-Op and Marks and Spencer no longer require poultry to be fed on GM-
free feed from April 2013 (Gene Watch UK, 2016). British supermarkets are seeing the advantage of
this technology and are willing to use it within their market share, products are still in growth and
stabilised at a low price (Fortune, 2015), regardless that most people were unaware of the GM feed
(FSA, 2013). Furthermore, the EU is the biggest importer of GM grain (Warmflash & Entine, 2016).
These imports of GM will only be made stronger with potential US or Canada (Department for
International Trade, 2015) trade agreement. Especially since the product will tried and tested under
2 international governance legislations. Foreign efficiency on these crops will benefit UK imports but
will hinder self-sufficiency of Britain, these markets cannot be relied on for long term crop security,
just as China has recognised and placed a strategy to become self-sufficient (ISAAA, 2009).
3. 3 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
Food labelling is a massive concern to the public as shown by the horse meat scandal (The Guardian,
2013), as well as the extensive conflict in the US on this subject (Monsanto, 2016). Britain needs
public support to create this market, consequently food labelling options are a top priority (Millar,
2016). The EU regulation 1829/2003 & 1830/2003 requires traceability & labelling of all GM food
and feed which contains or consists of GMOs (European Union, 2016). The Food Standards Agency
research found most of the “participants were typically not seeking information or labelling with
regard to GM foods” (FSA, 2013). Nonetheless the British government aims to ensure clear GM
labelling rules as stated in the 2010 to 2015 government policy paper (DEFRA, 2015). But Britain
currently has no idea on what these rules will be. Potentially in relation to the US situation on GM
labeling (Monsanto, 2016), which will affect the US partnership with Britain. Either way the GM
campaign needs the public on its side, ensuring the industry is invested in and a consumer market is
evolved.
GM crops benefit the environment and sustainability (ISAAA, 2016) for consumers and famers in
many ways, such as reducing pesticides, saving on fossil fuels & decreasing CO2 emissions. The John
Innes Centre is creating wheat crops capable of absorbing substantial amounts of atmospheric
nitrogen. These developments are highly beneficial to the UK agriculture industry, allowing
sustainable & economic produce. Gene flow is a potential problem with GM, transfer can occur from
GMO to non-GMO plants, forming herbicide resistant weeds or into other non-GM crops causing
contamination (compensation will be required (Gene Watch UK, 2015)). Herbicide resistant weeds
can also occur by mutations, through overuse of an active ingredient, some survive to reproduce,
multiplying the problem (Walport & Rothwell, 2013). This was a problem prior to GM’s invention,
due to overreliance on one strategy and natural selection (Brazeau, 2014). Introduction of an IPM
plan to halt undesired reproduction is an easy solution; physical methods for example can very
quickly eradicate these problems.
There is also an argument of biodiversity, with non-target species being affected but with the
decreasing amount of pest and herbicides used biodiversity will increase. Rothamsted Institute is
attempting to combat this argument further, through testing a GE wheat variety, designed to
express a pheromone deterring aphid infestation (Bruce, et al., 2015), reducing the amount of
pesticide needed & discouraging rather than killing pests, this technology is supported by wildlife
organisations (RSPB, 2013).
4. 4 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
Public health is a significant concern in GM, regardless that there have been no reported ill effects,
despite media influences (Key, et al., 2008; DEFRA, 2010; The Royal Society, 2016). The first GM
crop was sold in 1994, disallowing sufficient time for long term (>21 year) experiments on human
health effects, causing a gap in the knowledge. A human experiment model, with observations on
large numbers extending over many years would be ideal. Brian Ford (2002) states this current
experiment is ongoing: “they are called Americans”. The UK cannot wait for such long term results
(50+ years), as food insecurity will prevail. Until then scientists will have to be trusted to allow these
products onto the market (DEFRA, 2010). Unfortunately, public uncertainty especially around GM’s
possible carcinogenic compounds, creates perceived risk on a mass scale (Glassman, 2015), hence
the hatred towards GMOs. Although on farm worker’s health has dramatically increased especially
the respiratory system, due to lack of chemicals. The government, scientist and institutions need to
communicate science clearly, reinstating public confidence in food and the social institutions of
government, science, and industry (DEFRA, 2010). The safety assessments are currently carried out
by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) but will progress to the UK Food Standards Agency
post Brexit (DEFRA, 2010).
One of the potential problems is toxicity and allergenicity to GM crops, as there is an additional or
altered gene (Lim, 2014). Animal models are usually used to for screen this, therefore with this
rigorous testing GM technology could potentially be used to decrease allergens in food e.g. soy
(Allergy UK, 2015). GM can also directly benefit health through bio fortification, targeting specific
deficiencies in populations and modifying the plant to supply this. Golden rice is a prime example,
specifically targeting the production of B-carotene (used to combat Vitamin A) in deficient prone
areas in Asia (Tang, et al., 2012) (this technology is not currently in use due to other conflicts). Bio
fortification can be used to solve many health problems in Britain such as the folate, Vitamin D or
iodine deficiency’s we are prone to.
More recently the EU has been accepting New Breeding Technology (NBT), where unwanted traits in
a plant can be reduced (Bruins, 2016), such as enhancing nutrient content, reduction of oxidation
and bruising, and improve colour, odour, flavour and texture (Bruins, 2016). With the lack of foreign
DNA being added, the EU (ultimately the UK) cannot decide if it is GMO (postponed since the end of
2015 (Michalopoulos, 2016), essentially will it follow GMO legislation or easier standard crop
legislation. In May 2015, Argentina classed it as modern technology and is reviewing it on a case by
case basis (NFU, 2016). NBT has a much better public perception as no foreign DNA is added, but
with great potential benefits, being quick, easy and cheap to produce.
5. 5 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
In 2008, the global gain production for the 4 principal biotech crops of soybean, maize, cotton and
canola was 29 600 million kilograms, which would have required 10.5 million additional hectares had
biotech crops not been deployed (ISAAA, 2009). Can we afford to miss out on this innovative
technology? There are no limits in what could be achieved with genetically modified technology;
Britain would increase self-sufficiency, whilst maintaining food security and affordability. There are
few scientists that understand the technology and disagree with it as shown in The UK Government’s
Food 2030 study (2010) backed up by The Royal Society. Scientific, financial and political support for
genetically modified crops is required, with responsible, rigorous and efficient regulatory systems
put in place by the Food Standards Agency. The New Breeding Technology will be developed and
excel in post Brexit Britain, before allowing genetically modified crops to be commercialised. In
conclusion the UK will become a strong competitor in the global crop market, becoming more self-
sufficient with a sustainable approach, making a stronger United Kingdom.
6. 6 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
List of abbreviations.
ACRE - Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
DECC - Department of Energy & Climate Change
DEFRA - Department of Environment Food & Rural Affairs
FSA - Food Standards Agency
GM – Genetically Modified
GMO – Genetically Modified Organism
ISAAA - International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
NBT – New Breeding Technology
NFU – National Farmers Union
ONS – Office of National Statistics
RSPB - Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
7. 7 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
References
ACRE, 2016. ACRE advice: potato plant trial. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/acre-advice-potato-plant-trial
[Accessed 25 November 2016].
Allergy UK, 2015. Soya (Soy) Allergy. [Online]
Available at: https://www.allergyuk.org/soya-and-soy-allergy/soya-soy-allergy
[Accessed 28 October 2016].
Benton, P. T., 2012. Global Food Systems and UK Food Imports. [Online]
Available at: http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/gfs-and-uk-food-imports.pdf
[Accessed 09 November 2016].
Bonham, K., 2015. GMOs are Still the Best Bet for Feeding the World. [Online]
Available at: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/gmos-are-still-the-best-bet-for-
feeding-the-world/
[Accessed 29 October 2016].
Brazeau, M., 2014. ‘Superweeds’ confirm ‘failure’ of GMOs…or maybe not—Narrative misleads,
avoids real solutions. [Online]
Available at: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/01/superweeds-confirm-failure-of-
gmos-or-maybe-not-narrative-misleads-avoids-real-solutions/
[Accessed 30 October 2016].
Bruce, T. J. A. et al., 2015. The first crop plant genetically engineered to release an insect pheromone
for defence. Scientific Reports, 5(1), pp. 20-25.
Bruins, M., 2016. New Breeding Techniques. [Online]
Available at: http://european-seed.com/new-breeding-techniques/
[Accessed 01 November 2016].
Daily Mail, 2015. Trials of GM crops bring new fears of 'Frankenstein' food. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153058/Trials-GM-crops-bring-new-fears-
Frankenstein-food.html
[Accessed 10 November 2016].
DECC, 2016. Department of Energy & Climate Change became part of Department for Business,
Energy & Industrial Strategy in July 2016. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change
[Accessed 01 October 2016].
DEFRA, 2010. Food 2030. [Online]
Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402151656/http:/archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/f
ood/pdf/food2030strategy.pdf
[Accessed 23 October 2016].
8. 8 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
DEFRA, 2015. 2010 to 2015 government policy: food and farming industry. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-food-
and-farming-industry/2010-to-2015-government-policy-food-and-farming-industry
[Accessed 23 October 2016].
DEFRA, 2015. Food Statistics Pocketbook 2015. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/526395/foodpock
etbook-2015update-26may16.pdf
[Accessed 23 October 2015].
DEFRA, 2016. Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2015, London: DEFRA.
DEFRA & ONS, 2015. Farming Statistics, London: DEFRA.
Department for International Trade, 2015. Doing business in Canada: Canada trade and export
guide. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exporting-to-canada/doing-business-in-
canada-canada-trade-and-export-guide
[Accessed 29 October 2016].
Donaldson, A., Lee, R., Ward, N. & Wilkinson, K., 2006. Foot and Mouth five years on. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/publish/discussionpapers/pdfs/dp6.pdf
[Accessed 29 October 2016].
Elferink, M. & Schierhorn, F., 2016. Global Demand for Food Is Rising. Can We Meet It?. [Online]
Available at: https://hbr.org/2016/04/global-demand-for-food-is-rising-can-we-meet-it
[Accessed 09 November 2016].
EPA, 2016. Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply. [Online]
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply
[Accessed 11 November 2016].
European Union, 2016. GMO legislation. [Online]
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/legislation/index_en.htm
[Accessed 23 October 2016].
Fama, R., 2016. The new GMO labeling law: A matter of perspective. [Online]
Available at: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/09/the-new-gmo-labeling-law-a-matter-of-
perspective/#.WCShbdKLQ2w
[Accessed 10 November 2016].
Fisher, K., 2016. GMOs As A Corporate Control Tactic. [Online]
Available at: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/gmos-corporate-control-tactic
[Accessed 1 November 2016].
Food Ethics Council, 2003. Engineering Nutrition. GM crops for global justice?, Brighton: Council.
Ford, B. J., 2002. GM Crops. The Scientists Speak. Cambridge, Rothay House.
9. 9 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
Fortune, A., 2015. Poultry consumption reaches five-year high in 2014. [Online]
Available at: Poultry consumption reaches five-year high in 2014
[Accessed 01 November 2016].
FSA, 2013. GM Labelling: Exploring public responses to the labelling of GM food and the use of GM-
free labelling, London: Define Insight.
Gene Watch UK, 2015. Contamination and Coexistence. [Online]
Available at: http://www.genewatch.org/sub-530852
[Accessed 23 October 2016].
Gene Watch UK, 2016. GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe. [Online]
Available at: http://www.genewatch.org/sub-568547
[Accessed 21 October 2016].
Glassman, M., 2015. Public perceptions and understanding of genetically modified foods and
labeling. [Online]
Available at: https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/blog/global-food-thought/public-perceptions-and-
understanding-genetically-modified-foods-and
[Accessed 30 October 2016].
GOS, T. G. O. f. S., 2011. The Future of Food and Farming, London: The Government Office for
Science.
ISAAA, 2009. ISAAA Brief 41-2009: Executive Summary. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM
Crops. [Online]
Available at: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummary/default.asp
[Accessed 27 October 2016].
ISAAA, 2016. Pocket K No. 4: GM Crops and the Environment. [Online]
Available at: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/4/
[Accessed 29 October 2016].
Jones, . P. J., 2016. Funding approved to develop new potato at The Sainsbury Laboratory. [Online]
Available at: http://www.tsl.ac.uk/news/new-potato-at-the-sainsbury-laboratory/
[Accessed 30 September 2016].
Key, S., K-C Ma. J. & Drake, P. M., 2008. Genetically modified plants and human health. Journal of the
Royal Society of Medicine, 101(6), p. 290–298.
Lang, P. T., 2016. 'How Brexit threatens Britain’s food security'. [Online]
Available at: http://www.city.ac.uk/news/2016/july/how-brexit-threatens-britains-food-security
[Accessed 09 November 2016].
Lim, X., 2014. Are GMOs causing an increase in allergies?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/16/are-gmos-causing-an-increase-in-
allergies/
[Accessed 8 October 2016].
10. 10 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
Michalopoulos, S., 2016. Decision on new plant breeding techniques further delayed. [Online]
Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/decision-on-new-plant-
breeding-techniques-further-delayed/
[Accessed 25 October 2016].
Millar, H., 2016. The GMO Circus Comes To Congress And It's Not Fun. [Online]
Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2016/04/20/the-gmo-circus-comes-to-
congress-its-not-entertaining/#3d622404799b
[Accessed 09 November 2016].
Monsanto, 2016. Labeling Food and Ingredients Developed from GM Seed. [Online]
Available at: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/food-labeling.aspx
[Accessed 29 October 2016].
NFU, 2016. New Breeding Techniques- what are NBTs and why do they matter?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nfuonline.com/cross-sector/science-and-technology/biotechnology/new-
breeding-techniques/
[Accessed 25 October 2016].
ONS, 2015. National Population Projections: 2014-based Statistical Bulletin. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationproje
ctions/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2015-10-29
[Accessed 24 October 2016].
ONS, 2016. UK trade: Aug 2016. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/aug201
[Accessed 28 October 2016].
RSPB, 2013. Genetically Modified crops and the environment. [Online]
Available at: https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/GM_environment_tcm9-351596.pdf
[Accessed 23 October 2016].
Savage, S., 2015. Who controls the food supply?. [Online]
Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2015/06/26/who-controls-the-food-
supply/#5330881a68c1
[Accessed 10 November 2016].
Statista, 2016. Import volume of wheat in the United Kingdom in 2015. [Online]
Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/316522/wheat-import-volume-key-partners-
united-kingdom-uk/
[Accessed 09 November 2016].
Tang, G., Hu, Y. & Yin, S.-a., 2012. b-Carotene in Golden Rice is as good as b-carotene in oil at
providing. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2(1), pp. 658-664.
The Royal Society, 2016. GM plants: Questions and Answers. London: Creative Commons.
11. 11 | P a g e L u c i l l e G i l p i n .
The Guardian, 2013. Horsemeat scandal: the essential guide. [Online]
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/15/horsemeat-scandal-the-essential-guide
[Accessed 02 November 2016].
Vegter, I., 2014. 13 ways the media tries to scare you. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-12-29-13-ways-the-media-tries-to-
scare-you/#.WCSVGNKLQ2w
[Accessed 10 November 2016].
Walport, S. M. & Rothwell, P. D. N., 2013. GM technologies. London: s.n.
Warmflash, D. & Entine, J., 2016. How Brexit will impact the future of farming, GMOs and gene
editing in Britain and Europe. [Online]
Available at: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/06/29/brexit-will-impact-future-farming-
gmos-gene-editing-britain-europe/
[Accessed 29 September 2016].