| 词条 | Genetically modified canola |
| 释义 |
Genetically modified canola is a genetically modified crop. The first strain, Roundup Ready canola, was developed by Monsanto for tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the commonly used herbicide Roundup. Genetic modificationGlyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, which is used to kill weeds and grasses which are known to compete with commercial crops grown around the world. The first product came onto the market in the 1970s under the name ‘Roundup’. Plants which are exposed to glyphosate are unable to produce aromatic amino acids and in turn die.[1] To produce the Roundup Ready canola, two genes were introduced into the canola genome. One is a gene derived from the common soil bacterium Agrobacterium strain CP4, that encodes for the EPSPS enzyme. The other is a gene from the Ochrobactrum anthropi strain LBAA, which encodes for the enzyme glyphosate oxidase (GOX). The CP4 EPSPS enzyme imparts high tolerance to glyphosate, so the plants can still create aromatic amino acids even after glyphosate is applied. GOX helps break down glyphosate within the plant.[2] Regulation{{Main|Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms}}Genetically modified crops undergo a significant amount of regulation throughout the world. For a GM crop to be approved for release in the US, it must be assessed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) agency within the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and may also be assessed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental protection agency (EPA), depending on the intended use. The USDA evaluates the plant's potential to become a weed. The FDA regulates crops used as food or animal feed.[3][4] In Canada, the largest producer of GM canola,[5] GM crops are regulated by Health Canada, under the Food and Drugs Act, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency[6] are responsible for evaluating the safety and nutritional value of genetically modified foods. Environmental assessments of biotechnology-derived plants are carried out by the CFIA's Plant Biosafety Office (PBO).[7] In Australia Roundup Ready Canola was approved for commercial production in 2003 by the Gene Technology Regulator after undergoing approximately 400 tests and studies to determine it was safe. Food Standards Australia New Zealand also approved this product as being safe for human consumption in the same year.[8] Controversy{{Main|Genetically modified food controversies}}Controversy exists over the use of food and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of from conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The dispute involves consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, nongovernmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to GMO foods are whether they should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population. There is a scientific consensus[9][10][11][12] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[13][14][15][16][17] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[18][19][20] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[21][22][23][24] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[25][26][27][28]Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, the Non-GMO Project, and Organic Consumers Association say that risks of GM food have not been adequately identified and managed, and have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. They have expressed concerns about the objectivity of regulators and rigor of the regulatory process, about contamination of the non-GM food supply, about effects of GMOs on the environment and nature, and about the consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs.[29] Resistances problems{{See also|Glyphosate#Resistance}}Due to the heavy reliance of glyphosate in agriculture, resistance to this chemical is a problem and is prevalent throughout Australia, the USA, and Canada.[30][31] Roundup canola has also emerged as a weed in other crops due to its glyphosate resistance. This is due to canola seed being able to be dormant in the soil for up to 10 years. In California, it has become a significant problem in this way because of the restrictions on phenoxy herbicides being used in the state due to crops such as the sensitivity of cotton and grapes to this chemical.[32] References1. ^{{cite web|url=http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html|title=Glyphosate|work=orst.edu}} {{Genetic engineering}}2. ^{{cite web|last=Monsanto|title=What is Roundup Ready canola?|url=http://www.monsanto.com/global/au/products/Documents/tech-topic-what-is-roundup-ready-canola.pdf|accessdate=8 November 2013}} 3. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm|title=Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants|work=fda.gov}} 4. ^FDA page on Regulation of GM Plants in Animal Feed 5. ^GMO Compass Rapeseed 27 July 2010. Retrieved 6 August 2010. 6. ^Canadian Food Inspection Agency - Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology 7. ^Genetically Modified Food. 8. ^{{cite web|title=Fact Sheet - GMOs approved for commercial release in Australia: GM Canola |url=http://ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/factcanolaApr10-htm |publisher=Australian Government |accessdate=8 November 2013 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140322030053/http://ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/factcanolaApr10-htm |archivedate=22 March 2014 |df=dmy }} 9. ^{{Cite journal|url=http://www.agrobio.org/bfiles/fckimg/Nicolia%202013.pdf|title=An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research|first1=Alessandro|last1=Nicolia|first2=Alberto|last2=Manzo|first3=Fabio|last3=Veronesi|first4=Daniele|last4=Rosellini|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|date=2013|pages=77–88|doi=10.3109/07388551.2013.823595|quote="We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops. The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns."|pmid=24041244|volume=34|issue=1}} {{Cite journal|url=http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf|title=A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants|first1=José L.|last1=Domingo|first2=Jordi Giné|last2=Bordonaba|journal=Environment International|date=2011|volume=37|issue=4|pages=734–742|doi=10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003|quote="In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies."|pmid=21296423}} {{Cite journal|url=http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/Illusory%20Consensus%20GMOs.PDF|title=An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment|first=Sheldon|last=Krimsky|journal=Science, Technology, & Human Values|pages=883–914|doi=10.1177/0162243915598381|date=2015|quote="I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story."|volume=40|issue=6}} And contrast: {{Cite journal|title=Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons|first1=Alexander Y.|last1=Panchin|first2=Alexander I.|last2=Tuzhikov|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume = 37|issue=2|date=14 January 2016|issn=0738-8551|doi=10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684|quote="Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm. The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality."|pmid=26767435|pages=213–217}} and {{Cite journal|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Governing+GMOs+in+the+USA%3A+Science%2C+law+and+public+health|title=Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health|first1=Y.T.|last1=Yang|first2=B.|last2=Chen|journal=Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture|volume=96|issue=6|pages=1851–1855|date=2016|doi=10.1002/jsfa.7523|quote="It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date. Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome."|pmid=26536836}} {{Cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-%E2%80%9Cmislead-and-falsely-alarm|title=AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"|first=Ginger|last=Pinholster|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=25 October 2012|accessdate=8 February 2016}} {{Cite web|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf |title=REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods |publisher=American Medical Association |date=2012 |accessdate=19 March 2016 |quote="Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature." |deadurl=bot: unknown |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf |archivedate=7 September 2012 |df=dmy }} GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods."}} {{Cite web|url=http://www.argenbio.org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf|title=Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement|publisher=British Medical Association|date=March 2004|accessdate=21 March 2016|quote="In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available. When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis. Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects. The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit."}} 2 : Genetically modified organisms in agriculture|Genetically modified organisms |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。