lecture 5 agricultural gm applications: transgenic crops and gm …karaali/lecture1.pdf · 2002. 6....
TRANSCRIPT
Lect
ure
5A
gric
ult
ura
lGM
app
licat
ion
s:
Tran
sgen
iccr
ops
and
GM
ingr
edie
nts
in f
ood
s
Pro
f. D
r. A
rtem
is K
araa
liD
epar
tmen
tof
Foo
dEn
gin
eeri
ng
Ista
nbu
lTec
hn
ical
Un
iver
sity
, Ist
anbu
l, Tu
rkey
kara
ali@
itu
.edu
.tr
Ove
rvie
wof
Pre
sen
tati
on
•G
ener
al in
trod
uct
ion
•H
isto
ry o
fG
M f
ood
s•
How
GM
foo
ds a
re m
ade
•M
ajor
deba
tes
and
con
cern
edst
akeh
old
ers
•Ev
alu
atio
ns
from
safe
tyan
det
hic
sas
pec
ts•
Con
clu
din
gR
emar
ks
Form
al D
efin
ition
:
•“G
enet
ical
ly m
odifi
ed f
ood”
: "
a fo
od w
hich
is,
or w
hich
is m
ade
from
, a g
enet
ical
ly m
odifi
ed
orga
nism
and
whi
ch c
onta
ins
gene
tic m
ater
ial
or p
rote
in r
esul
ting
from
thi
s m
odifi
catio
n".
From
: EU
Nov
el F
oods
Reg
ulat
ion
GM
Tec
hno
logy
•Ea
rlie
r G
M p
ract
ises
: “S
elec
tive
bree
ding
thro
ugh
hyb
ridi
sati
on”
Two
rela
ted
orga
nis
ms
(pla
nts
or
anim
als)
are
cros
s-fe
rtili
sed
and
the
resu
ltin
g of
fspr
ing
has
the
char
acte
rist
ics
of b
oth
par
ents
. B
reed
ers
then
sel
ect
and
repr
oduc
e th
e of
fspr
ing
that
has
the
mos
t de
sire
d tr
aits
.D
isad
van
tage
s: r
ando
m+
lon
g+te
diou
spr
oces
s, w
ith
spec
ies
barr
ier
•M
oder
n p
ract
ise
of “
gen
etic
en
gin
eeri
ng”:
“R
ec-D
NA
” D
irec
t in
terv
enti
on o
n t
he
gene
tic
mak
e-u
p of
an
or
gani
sm b
y in
trod
uci
ng
fore
ign
DN
A in
to it
s ge
ne
pool
by
mea
ns
that
wou
ld n
ot o
ccu
r na
tura
lly, e
nab
ling
h
um
ans
to c
reat
e ar
tifi
cial
org
anis
ms
that
are
no
lon
ger
the
resu
lt o
f th
e n
atu
ral m
ean
s of
the
ev
olu
tion
ary
deve
lopm
ent.
How
GM
tech
nolo
gyis
pra
ctis
ed: T
hest
ate
of th
ear
t
The
actu
alpr
oced
ure
of “
GM
” is
a f
airl
ylo
w-
tech
nol
ogy:
tod
ayit
is p
ossi
ble
tore
aliz
eit
eve
nin
so
me
hig
hsc
hoo
lsci
ence
labo
rato
ries
in t
he
USA
.
The
very
prec
iou
s“k
now
-how
”, h
owev
er, i
s n
ot in
h
owth
eac
tual
proc
edu
reis
app
lied,
bu
t in
th
em
oder
nco
mpu
ter
data
base
s co
nta
inin
g h
uge
amou
nts
of
sequ
ence
dat
afr
om t
he
gen
ome
proj
ects
wh
ich
mak
e th
e ta
sk o
f id
enti
fyin
g th
e ge
nes
wit
h
part
icu
lar
desi
red
char
acte
rist
ics
far
easi
er t
han
co
uld
eve
r be
imag
ined
in t
he
past
.
The
“dile
mm
a” h
ere
is:
this
data
is
not
rea
dily
avai
labl
eto
alln
atio
nsor
allf
irm
s, b
ut
sole
lyto
a fe
wm
ulti
nat
ion
alfi
rms
wh
oh
ave
hea
vily
inve
sted
in t
he
fiel
dof
bio
tech
nol
ogy.
His
toric
al B
ackg
roun
d•
19
70
’s:
Firs
tag
ricul
tura
lGM
app
licat
ions
in t
hela
bora
torie
s•
19
84
: In
trod
uctio
nof
firs
tge
nera
tion
(pro
duce
rs’
ben
efit
orie
nte
d) o
f fie
ld-s
cale
GM
pro
duct
s: t
rans
geni
cpl
ant
crop
sim
prov
edfo
rin
sect
prot
ectio
n, h
erbi
cide
tole
ranc
e, v
irus
resi
stan
ce, d
elay
edor
impr
oved
ripen
ing
i.e. B
tcro
ps•
19
90
: G
M f
ood
ingr
edie
nts:
bre
wer
’san
dba
ker’s
yeas
ts,
rChy
mos
inan
dsi
mila
rfo
oden
zym
es•
20
00
’s:
Intr
oduc
tion
of s
econ
dge
nera
tion
(Con
sum
er-
ben
efit
orie
nte
d) o
f G
M p
rodu
cts:
Foo
dra
wm
ater
ials
and
ingr
edie
nts
with
enha
nced
/alte
red
tech
nolo
gica
l, nu
triti
onal
and
heal
thpr
oper
ties
i.e. v
acci
ne-f
ruits
, Vi
tam
in-e
nric
hed
rice,
non
-sta
ling
brea
d.
Land
cu
ltiv
ated
wit
h t
ran
sgen
ic p
lan
ts -
1W
hol
e w
orld
19
96
-19
99
Sour
ce:
Pogn
a, 2
000
(bas
ed o
n IS
AAA
data
)
2,4
14
27,8
21,6
11,1
3,7
3,4
0,1
1996
1997
1998
1999
Soy
Cor
nC
otto
nR
ape
seed
Oth
ers*
Mill
ions
of
hect
ares
Mai
n co
untr
ies:
USA
, Ch
ina,
Can
ada,
Aus
tral
ia,
Arge
ntin
a, M
exic
o, J
apan
, Th
aila
nd, Sp
ain,
Bu
lgar
ia,
Hun
gary
* M
ainl
y po
tato
, zuc
chin
i, to
mat
o
Land
cu
ltiv
ated
wit
h t
ran
sgen
ic p
lan
ts-2
Wh
ole
wor
ld1
99
9
Tota
l = 3
9.9
Mill
ions
of
hect
ares
Corn
34,2%
Soy
46,7%
Cotto
n9,9
%
Rape
seed
9,1%
Potat
o0,1
%
USA
+ C
anad
a23
.13
Res
t of
the
wor
ld
Sour
ce:
Pogn
a, 2
000
Lan
d cu
ltiva
ted
with
tran
sgen
ic p
lant
s-3
Who
le w
orld
in 2
000
(200
2:>5
0 M
hec
tare
s)
Deb
ate
Issu
es
•Fo
od s
afet
y an
d he
alth
impl
icat
ions
;•
Envi
ronm
enta
l con
cern
s (i.
e.th
reat
ened
bi
o-di
vers
ity a
nd b
io-s
afet
y ov
er o
ur p
lane
t)•
Sett
ing
effic
ient
reg
ulat
ions
on
GM
O's
rele
ase(
i.e.la
belli
ng is
sues
)•
Pate
ntin
g is
sues
,inte
llect
ualp
rope
rty
right
s•
Ethi
cal a
nd s
ocia
l con
cern
s
Stak
ehol
ders
(Act
ors)
in d
ebat
es•
GM
O
supp
liers
:th
e "g
ene-
splic
ing”
tran
snat
ion
alco
rpor
atio
ns(
TNC
) su
ch
as
Mon
san
to,
Du
P
ont,
N
ovar
tis;
th
e fa
rmer
s w
ho
grow
GM
cro
ps,
the
foo
d-pr
oces
sors
an
d f
ood-
reta
ilers
pro
cess
ing
and
trad
ing
GM
cro
ps a
nd
food
s,
•Lo
cal g
over
nm
ents
of s
tate
s w
ho
are
resp
onsi
ble
for
re
gula
tin
g th
e n
ew t
ech
nol
ogy
in t
hei
r co
un
trie
s•
The
"ac
tivi
st"
NG
O g
rou
ps,
med
ia,
“lob
by”
grou
ps,
eth
icis
ts•
Con
sum
ers
•In
tern
atio
nal
sc
ien
tifi
cco
mm
un
ity:
R
espe
ctiv
e sc
ien
tist
s bo
th
from
in
dust
ries
an
d fr
om a
cade
mia
and
from
inte
rnat
ion
alor
gan
isat
ion
s (i
.e.F
AO
;WH
O;U
PO
V;W
TO;
OEC
D;I
LSI)
On
“Foo
d sa
fety
”an
d “h
ealth
impl
icat
ions
”
•Opp
onen
tscl
aim
:G
M m
ayin
trod
uce
:-n
ewan
tinu
trit
iona
lsu
bsta
nce
s(i
.e.n
atu
ral
toxi
can
ts)
toth
em
odif
ied
crop
,-d
ecre
ases
in n
utr
itio
nal
valu
e(vi
tam
ins,
min
eral
s)-a
lter
edpa
tter
ns
of f
ood
alle
rgie
sdu
eto
new
prot
ein
s-
anti
biot
icre
sist
ance
gen
esm
igh
tbe
tra
nsf
erre
dfr
omG
M
orga
nis
ms
toh
um
ans
•Pro
pon
ents
argu
e:
Ther
e is
no
curr
ent
evid
ence
to
su
gges
t th
at t
he
proc
ess
of
gen
etic
mod
ific
atio
n is
in
her
entl
y h
arm
ful.
Man
y of
th
eis
sues
rai
sed
for
food
s pr
odu
ced
usi
ng
gen
etic
m
odif
icat
ion
are
equ
ally
ap
plic
able
to
food
spr
odu
ced
by c
onve
nti
onal
mea
ns.
N
oth
ing
can
be
abso
lute
ly
cert
ain
in a
fie
ld o
f ra
pid
scie
nti
fic
and
tec
hn
olog
ical
de
velo
pm
ent.
Zer
ori
sk is
u
nat
tain
able
in m
oder
n li
fe.
On
“Foo
d sa
fety
”an
d “h
ealth
impl
icat
ions
”
Opp
onen
t’s
Exam
ple:
Wor
k w
as u
nd
erta
ken
at
the
Row
ett
Inst
itu
te b
y D
r P
usz
tai,
in w
hic
h p
otat
oes
wer
ege
net
ical
ly m
odif
ied
to
exp
ress
an
inse
ctic
idal
le
ctin
prot
ein
.D
r P
usz
taia
rgu
edth
atco
nsu
mpt
ion
of
thes
ege
net
ical
ly m
odif
ied
pota
toes
res
ult
edin
de
pres
sion
of
the
imm
un
e sy
stem
.
Pro
pon
ent’
sC
laim
s:•
The
Roy
alS
ocie
ty, a
fter
revi
ewin
gP
usz
tai’s
wor
k,
con
clu
ded
that
th
e w
ork
app
eare
d to
be
flaw
ed in
m
any
aspe
cts
of t
he
desi
gn
, exe
cuti
on a
nd
anal
ysis
an
d th
at n
osc
ien
tifi
cco
ncl
usi
ons
shou
ld b
e dr
awn
fro
m it
sin
ce t
her
ew
asn
o co
nvi
nci
ng
evi
den
ceof
ad
vers
e ef
fect
s du
eto
the
GM
pot
atoe
s st
udie
d.
How
saf
ety
is a
sses
sed
•P
rese
ntA
ppro
ach:
ByW
HO
&U
S:“S
ubst
anti
aleq
uiva
lenc
e”Th
e G
M f
ood
is c
ompa
red
to it
s co
nven
tion
al c
ount
erpa
rt a
ndco
nsid
erat
ion
is g
iven
to
both
the
in
tent
iona
l eff
ects
of
the
mod
ific
atio
n an
d al
so t
o an
y po
ssib
leun
inte
nded
sec
onda
ry e
ffec
ts.
This
com
pari
son
invo
lves
the
as
sess
men
t of
:-A
agro
nom
ic d
ata
deri
ved
over
a
num
ber
of g
ener
atio
ns (
such
as
crop
hei
ght,
yie
ld, f
low
erin
g pa
tter
n,
dise
ase
resi
stan
ce a
nd c
limat
ic
tole
ranc
e) ,
-Com
posi
tion
alin
form
atio
n on
nu
trie
nts
(pro
tein
s, f
ats,
ca
rboh
ydra
tes,
vit
amin
s an
d m
iner
als)
-P
ossi
ble
toxi
cant
s in
bot
h th
e pl
ant
and
any
deri
ved
food
pro
duct
.
•R
ecom
men
ded
App
roac
hB
yEU
: “P
reca
utio
nary
prin
cipl
e”·
Ris
k as
sess
men
tssh
ould
incl
ude
deta
iled
desc
ript
ion
of w
hat
the
food
is a
nd h
ow it
is p
rodu
ced;
a hi
stor
y of
any
pos
sibl
e ad
vers
e he
alth
eff
ects
link
ed t
o th
e or
gani
sm b
eing
mod
ifie
d;·
a de
taile
d de
scri
ptio
n of
the
gen
etic
m
odif
icat
ion
proc
ess;
an
eval
uati
on
of a
ny p
ossi
ble
nutr
itio
nal e
ffec
ts o
f th
e m
odif
ied
food
;·
an e
valu
atio
n of
any
tox
icol
ogic
al
effe
cts
of t
he m
odif
ied
food
;an
ev
alua
tion
of
any
adve
rse
mic
robi
olog
ical
effe
cts
of t
he
mod
ifie
d fo
od;
· an
eva
luat
ion
of a
ny d
ata
on p
eopl
e ea
ting
the
mod
ifie
d fo
ods
unde
r co
ntro
lled
cond
itio
ns;
the
amou
nts
of t
he G
M f
ood
that
peo
ple
are
likel
y to
con
sum
e, in
clud
ing
both
av
erag
ean
d ex
trem
e co
nsu
mpt
ion
leve
ls
Out
com
eof
The
EU
-US
Bio
tech
nolo
gyco
nsul
tativ
e fo
rum
: “P
reca
utio
nary
Prin
cipl
e”“P
reca
uti
onar
y de
cisi
on-m
akin
g pr
oces
s”re
quir
es:
• Ta
kin
g ac
tion
pro
port
ion
ate
to
the
nat
ure
of
the
pote
nti
al
risk
, im
posi
ng
mor
est
rin
gent
re
stri
ctio
ns
on r
isks
th
at
cou
ld h
ave
irre
vers
ible
, ca
tast
roph
icco
nseq
uen
ces
for
futu
re g
ener
atio
ns
than
ag
ain
st r
isks
wit
h m
odes
t re
perc
uss
ion
s.•
App
lyin
g m
ore
stri
nge
nt
limit
s on
ris
ks t
hat
can
not
be
reve
rsed
eas
ily. A
s th
e ri
skof
ir
reve
rsib
ility
ris
es,
man
dato
ry m
onit
orin
g fo
r sp
ecif
ic o
utc
omes
sh
ould
be
mor
e ea
sily
impo
sed.
C
onve
rsel
y, c
ontr
ols
may
be
rela
xed
wh
en t
hos
e co
nce
rns
prov
e u
nfo
un
ded.
Con
side
rati
on o
f th
e co
sts
that
cau
tion
impo
ses,
co
nse
rvin
gsc
arce
res
ourc
esan
d m
akin
g th
e be
nef
its
of
new
tec
hn
olog
ies
avai
labl
e ar
e im
port
ant
soci
etal
goa
ls.
Ther
efor
e th
e co
st t
hat
ca
uti
on im
pose
s on
the
re
gula
ted
indu
stry
shou
ldbe
are
leva
nt,
bu
t n
ever
th
e do
min
ant,
con
side
rati
on.
Wh
en s
ubs
tan
tive
u
nce
rtai
ntie
s pr
even
t ac
cura
te r
isk
asse
ssm
ent,
go
vern
men
tssh
ould
act
pr
otec
tive
ly o
n t
he
side
of
safe
ty.
“Ris
k-Be
nefit
Equa
tion”
The
EU-U
SB
iote
chn
olog
yco
nsu
ltat
ive
foru
m r
ecom
men
ded
that
it is
app
ropr
iate
toco
nsi
der,
on a
cas
e-by
-cas
e ba
sis,
th
epo
ten
tial
ris
ks a
nd
ben
efit
s of
each
new
prod
uct
, giv
en t
he
hea
lth
an
d n
utr
itio
nal
stat
us
ofth
e pe
ople
an
d th
eec
olog
ical
and
agri
cult
ural
sys
tem
s in
apa
rtic
ula
rre
gion
ofus
e.M
oreo
ver,
wh
en w
eigh
ing
risk
s an
dbe
nef
its,
the
effe
cts
of in
trod
uci
ng
gen
etic
ally
mod
ifie
dpr
odu
cts
shou
ld n
otbe
com
pare
dso
lely
to
the
stat
us
quo
(e.g
.pr
esen
tpe
stic
ide
use
), b
ut
also
to
oth
erpo
ten
tial
alte
rnat
ives
(e.
g. b
io-i
nte
nsi
vepe
stm
anag
emen
t sy
stem
s).
Exam
ple
of a
dif
fere
nt
“Ris
k-B
enef
it”
eval
uati
onm
ade
byEU
:C
ontr
ary
toG
M f
oods
, ph
arm
aceu
tica
lpro
duct
sde
rive
d fr
om b
iote
chn
olog
yar
em
uch
mor
eea
sily
appr
oved
by
the
EU.
Mor
e th
an 2
00
new
dru
gsde
rive
d fr
ombi
otec
hnol
ogy
are
curr
entl
y in
ph
ase
III
oftr
ials
(in
199
8),
hav
ing
met
wit
hal
mos
tze
ropr
otes
ts.
GM
Ph
arm
aceu
tica
lPro
duct
sal
read
yin
use
in E
U
Col
on c
ance
r tr
eatm
ent
Hu
ma
Spe
ct
Ren
al r
ejec
tion
tre
atm
ent
Sim
ulec
t
Ren
al r
ejec
tion
tre
atm
ent
Zen
epax
Hep
atit
is C
tre
atm
ent
Infe
rgen
Mal
ign
ant
hyp
erca
lcem
ia t
reat
men
t Fo
rcal
ton
in
An
tith
rom
bosi
s tr
eatm
ent
Res
cupa
se
Ther
apeu
tic
use
Pro
duct
Dia
beti
c u
lcer
s tr
eatm
ent
Reg
ran
ex
An
ti-h
aem
orra
gic
trea
tmen
tR
efac
to
Sof
t ti
ssu
e sa
rcom
a tr
eatm
ent
Ber
orn
um
Folli
cula
r ly
mph
oma
trea
tmen
t M
ab T
her
a
Pae
diat
ric
vacc
ine
agai
nst
diph
teri
tis,
tet
anu
s an
d pe
rtu
ssis
Tria
cellu
eax
ON
“B
IOD
IVER
SITY
” an
d“E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L IS
SUES
”•
Opp
onen
ts’ c
laim
:M
an h
aspi
cked
up
on
ly a
bou
t 40
of
th
e t
ens
of t
hou
san
ds
of
plan
ts t
hat
gro
w o
n t
his
pla
net
fo
r su
stai
nin
g h
um
an li
fe, a
nd
even
a s
mal
ler
nu
mb
er,
just
9,
ac
cou
nts
for
mor
e th
an 7
5 %
of
all t
he p
lan
t fo
ods
on t
he
wor
ld
mar
kets
. A
larg
er-s
cale
lan
dsca
pe
hom
ogen
isat
ion
wit
h t
ran
s-ge
nic
cr
ops
only
will
incr
ease
and
inte
nsi
fyth
e ec
olog
ical
pro
blem
s al
read
y as
soci
ated
wit
h
mon
ocu
ltu
re a
gric
ult
ure
and
th
e er
osio
n o
f w
hat
rem
ain
s as
bio
-di
vers
ity
will
res
ult
in t
otal
loss
of
our
insu
ran
ce a
gain
st a
ny
futu
re
un
favo
rabl
e ec
osys
tem
ch
ange
s.
On
Food
Secu
rity
•P
ropo
nen
ts’a
rgu
emen
t:Th
e
wor
ld's
po
pula
tion
is
co
nti
nu
ing
to
grow
an
d is
pr
ojec
ted
to
reac
h 1
0 b
illio
n b
y th
e ye
ar 2
05
0,
a do
ubl
ing
tobe
ob
serv
edm
ainl
yin
th
epo
orer
nat
ion
s,
calli
ng
for
a pa
ralle
ldo
ubl
ing
of
wor
ldfo
odpr
odu
ctio
n.
Giv
enth
e co
nst
ant
acre
age
of
arab
le l
and
over
our
pl
anet
, ge
net
ical
lym
odif
ied
plan
ts
h
ave
the
hig
hes
tpo
ten
tial
fo
r in
crea
sing
th
e pr
odu
ctiv
ity
of
trad
itio
nal
ag
ricu
ltur
al
crop
s.
Th
e “G
MO
" er
aw
ill
incr
ease
w
orld
ag
ricu
ltur
al
prod
uct
ivit
y,
thus
en
han
ce f
ood
secu
rity
, an
d m
ove
agri
cult
ure
away
fr
om
a de
pen
den
ce o
n c
hem
ical
in
puts
,h
elpi
ng,
mor
eove
r,
to r
edu
ce t
hecu
rren
t en
viro
nm
enta
lpo
lluti
on
prob
lem
s .
Exa
mpl
efo
rPr
opon
ents
’ Cla
ims
Agr
oeco
logi
sts’
Cla
ims:
“Soc
iala
ndEt
hica
lIs
sues
”“T
he
real
cau
se o
f h
un
ger
in
less
erd
evel
oped
cou
ntr
ies
isn
ot ‘d
efic
ien
cyof
foo
d’ b
ut
isth
eir
pove
rty,
th
ereb
yth
eir
ineq
ual
ity
and
lack
of
acce
ss t
o fo
od a
nd
lan
d. H
ere
in t
hos
eco
un
trie
s, t
oo
man
y pe
ople
are
too
poo
r to
bu
y th
e fo
od t
hat
is
alre
ady
avai
labl
e on
ear
th s
ince
wea
lth
is v
ery
po
orly
dis
trib
ute
dan
d/or
th
ey la
ck t
he
lan
d an
d re
sou
rces
to
grow
th
eir
food
sth
emse
lves
.Th
us
GM
cro
psis
not
a s
olu
tion
. In
stea
d, s
ocia
l pr
oces
ses
em
phas
isin
g lo
calc
omm
un
ity
part
icip
atio
n a
nd
empo
wer
men
t sh
ould
be
en
cou
rage
dth
rou
ghru
ral d
evel
opm
ent
app
roac
hes
an
d lo
w-i
npu
t te
chn
olog
ies
thu
sin
crea
sin
g th
e pr
odu
ctiv
ity
and
prof
itab
ility
of
the
smal
lhol
der
farm
.”
“The
Eth
ical
Mat
rix”
Fr
omR
epor
t Of“
The
Foo
d E
thic
s Cou
ncil”
ET
HIC
IST
S an
dG
MT
heid
eaof
“co
mm
onm
oral
ity”
shou
ldap
ply:
“Eth
icsi
s abo
ut r
espe
ctin
g ot
hers
as i
ndiv
idua
ls.”
KA
NT
On
“Lab
ellin
gRe
gula
tions
”:Te
chn
ical
Pro
blem
s:•
Lack
of g
loba
l har
mon
izat
ion
in
resp
ecti
vere
gula
tion
sam
ong
trad
ing
cou
ntr
ies:
1. W
het
her
“to
labe
l”(E
U)
or“n
ot t
ola
bel”
(US
)2
. “W
hat
” to
labe
l: I
nde
fin
ing
the
basi
s of
th
e "t
oler
ance
" lim
its,
sh
ould
it b
e th
e %
of
tran
sgen
ic D
NA
in f
inal
pr
odu
ct, o
r th
e %
of
tran
sgen
ic
prot
ein
, or
th
e %
by
wei
ght
of
GM
O in
gred
ien
ts in
th
e fi
nal
prod
uct
s?
•U
nav
aila
bilit
yof
sta
nda
rdis
ed
and
easi
ly a
pplic
able
an
alyt
ical
m
eth
ods
for
det
ecti
ng
and
quan
tify
ing
GM
foo
ds(a
bsol
ute
abse
nce
of r
ec-D
NA
cam
nno
tbe
pr
oved
.)
•D
iffe
renc
esin
att
itud
es:
•EU
:•
Nov
el F
oods
an
d N
ovel
Foo
d In
gred
ien
ts (
25
8/9
7),
15
May
19
97.
•Th
e EC
reg
ula
tion
, 49/
200
0,s
etti
ng
the
de m
inim
isth
resh
old
for
labe
llin
g re
quir
emen
ts f
or f
ood
com
mod
itie
s co
nta
inin
g m
ore
than
1%
of
any
indi
vidu
al G
M-d
eriv
ed in
gred
ien
t th
at
poss
esse
s an
y ge
net
ical
ly m
odif
ied
DN
A a
nd
prot
ein
.U
S:
•N
o G
ener
al R
equ
irem
ent
to L
abel
(If
safe
, wh
yst
igm
atiz
eth
epr
odu
ct?)
>7
0 P
erce
nt
of F
oods
Con
tain
GM
Os
(To
Eat
in A
mer
ica
is t
o Ea
t G
MO
s)•
U.S
. Eat
s W
hat
It
Expo
rts:
Jan
., 2
001
: G
M F
ood
deve
lope
rsh
ould
not
ify
FDA
1
20
day
sbe
fore
putt
ing
on t
hem
arke
t, a
nd
volu
nta
ryla
belli
ng
for
impr
oved
qual
ity
trai
ts.
On
Pate
ntin
gIs
sues
(IPR
’s)
•Pro
pon
ents
clai
m:
•TR
IPS
(Tra
de-r
elat
edin
telle
ctu
alpr
oper
ty
syst
em)
sch
emes
ar
e in
ten
ded
to
prov
ide
asy
stem
that
ensu
res
a fa
irre
turn
on
inve
stm
ents
mad
e in
res
earc
han
dn
ovel
inve
ntio
ns.
Wit
hh
oldi
ng
IP p
rote
ctio
n f
or
GM
inn
ovat
ions
w
ith
the
pote
nti
al
toim
prov
eag
ricu
ltu
re
will
ri
sk
putt
ing
the
rela
ted
indu
stry
at
a
com
peti
tive
di
sadv
anta
gew
ith
firm
s w
hic
h
did
not
in
vest
in
G
Mre
sear
chan
d sl
ow
thei
r pa
ce
of
furt
her
rese
arch
.
•O
ppon
ents
argu
e:•
IPR
’sh
ave
pote
nti
al f
or t
o fo
ster
m
onop
olie
s on
pl
ant
gen
etic
m
ater
ial
orge
rmpl
asm
s.
In
deve
lopi
ng
cou
ntr
ies,
con
trov
ersi
es
incl
ude
th
e im
plic
atio
ns o
f pa
ten
ts
for
food
sec
uri
ty a
nd
mee
tin
g th
e ba
sic
food
nee
ds o
f th
e po
or.
•Th
e di
verg
ence
s in
op
inio
n
over
w
het
her
th
e“W
orld
’spl
ants
an
d an
imal
s”sh
ould
be
pate
nte
d at
all
al
so
carr
y so
me
eth
ical
as
wel
l as
pr
acti
cal
impl
icat
ion
s, s
ince
acc
ess
to
any
pate
nte
d
mat
eria
ls
and
proc
esse
s is
be
ing
seve
rely
re
stri
cted
to
the
rest
of
the
Wor
ld
by
ag
ro-c
hem
ical
G
M
TNC
'sth
rou
gh t
hei
r lic
ensi
ng
agre
emen
ts.
“Pri
vati
sati
onof
w
orld
’sge
net
icre
sou
rces
”
InG
M f
oods
area
, tw
o T
RIP
S (t
rade
-rel
ated
inte
llect
ual
prop
erty
) sy
stem
sha
vebe
ende
velo
ped:
thos
e w
hich
ena
ble
the
tech
nolo
gy,
and
appl
icat
ion
pate
nts
whi
chco
ver
spec
ific
trai
ts f
or i
mpr
ovin
g pl
ants
but
whi
ch a
re d
epen
dent
on
the
enab
ling
pate
nts
for
thei
r im
plem
enta
tion.
Conc
lusi
on•
Gen
etic
ally
-mod
ifie
dfo
ods
mig
ht
hav
eth
ep
oten
tial
toco
ntr
ibu
teto
the
solu
tion
of w
orld
'sh
un
ger
and
mal
nu
trit
ion
prob
lem
s, a
nd
toh
elp
prot
ect
and
pres
erve
the
envi
ron
men
tby
incr
easi
ng
yiel
dan
dre
duci
ng
relia
nce
up
onch
emic
alpe
stic
ides
and
her
bici
des.
•Y
et t
her
ear
em
any
chal
len
ges
ahea
dfo
rgo
vern
men
ts,
espe
cial
lyin
th
ear
eas
of s
afet
yte
stin
g, r
egu
lati
on,
inte
rnat
ion
alp
olic
yse
ttin
gan
dfo
odla
belin
g.
•“G
enet
icen
gin
eeri
ng”
see
ms
tobe
th
ein
evit
able
wav
eof
th
efu
ture
and
we
can
not
aff
ord
toig
nor
ea
tech
nolo
gyth
atpr
omis
essu
chp
oten
tial
ben
efit
s.
How
ever
, we
mu
stpr
ocee
dw
ith
cau
tion
toav
oid
cau
sin
gu
nin
ten
ded
har
mto
hu
man
hea
lth
and
the
envi
ron
men
tas
a r
esu
ltof
usi
ng
this
pow
erfu
lte
chn
olog
y.