Biofortified sorghum in Africa: using problem formulation to inform risk assessment

Hokanson, Karen; Ellstrand, Norman C.; Ouedraogo, Jeremy T.; Olweny, Patrick A; Schaal, Barbara A.; Raybould, Alan

doi:10.1038/nbt0910-900

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The environmental risks associated with the GM crops such as gene flow, adverse effects on biodiversity and on the beneficial insects, and the potential emergence of superweeds are not referred to here as these issues have been adequately dealt elsewhere (Wolfenbarger and Phifer 2000;Andow and Zwahlen 2006;Kwaku and Asante 2008;Dunfield and Germida 2010;Hokanson et al 2010;Jiang et al 2010;Liu 2010;Raybould et al 2010).…”

Section: Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Crops and Biomentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritionally Enhanced Staple Food Crops

Dwivedi

Sahrawat

Kedar

et al. 2012

Plant Breeding Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Crops and Biomentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritionally Enhanced Staple Food Crops

Dwivedi

Sahrawat

Kedar

et al. 2012

Plant Breeding Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…32,33 When GM crops are grown in proximity to compatible relatives, risk assessment should be focused on the consequences of an introduced allele, particularly when the introduced trait is one that may confer a selective advantage. 29,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] Similar to that described for maize and sorghum, 34,35 cowpea exists in West Africa as a series of landraces that interbreed with one another and which are continually being modified by farmers. 9 In addition, wild cowpea exists outside of cultivation.…”

Section: Panel Discussion: Gene Flow In Cowpeamentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulatory considerations surrounding the deployment Of Bt-expressing cowpea in Africa

Huesing¹,

Romeis²,

Ellstrand³

et al. 2011

GM Crops

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In human health risk assessment, the EU often requires a 28-d repeated-dose rodent study to assess transgenic protein toxicity, despite data on bioinformatics, mode-of-action, in vitro digestibility and stability, predicted dietary exposure and a 14-d single dose mouse study indicating negligible potential for the protein to be hazardous. 65 The scientific value of this study is minimal if other data indicate negligible hazard, 65 and therefore is it doubtful that the use of additional animals is justified.…”

Section: Distinctive Aspects Of Regulation Of Gm Crops In the Eumentioning

confidence: 96%

“…These data are combined with the data from the developmental expression study to assess the risks to human and animal health and the environment from the transgenic proteins when the crop is cultivated and used for human and animal feed. 64,65 Detailed molecular characterization of the inserted DNA and flanking regions of the crop genome are also undertaken. Although the value of these data for risk assessment is questionable, 66 the information aids quality control and traceability of the GM crop.…”

Section: The Development Of Gm Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commercializing genetically modified crops under EU regulations

Raybould

Poppy

2012

GM Crops & Food

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture faces serious problems in feeding 9 billion people by 2050: production must be increased and ecosystem services maintained under conditions for growing crops that are predicted to worsen in many parts of the world. A proposed solution is sustainable intensification of agriculture, whereby yields are increased on land that is currently cultivated, so sparing land to deliver other ecosystem services. Genetically modified (GM) crops are already contributing to sustainable intensification through higher yields and lower environmental impacts, and have potential to deliver further significant improvements. Despite their widespread successful use elsewhere, the European Union (EU) has been slow to introduce GM crops: decisions on applications to import GM commodities are lengthy, and decision-making on applications to cultivate GM crops has virtually ceased. Delayed import approvals result in economic losses, particularly in the EU itself as a result of higher commodity prices. Failure to grant cultivation approvals costs EU farmers opportunities to reduce inputs, and results in loss of agricultural research and development from the EU to countries such as the United States and China. Delayed decision-making in the EU ostensibly results from scientific uncertainty about the effects of using GM crops; however, scientific uncertainty may be a means to justify a political decision to restrict cultivation of GM crops in the EU. The problems associated with delayed decision-making will not improve until there is clarity about the EU's agricultural policy objectives, and whether the use of GM crops will be permitted to contribute to achieving those objectives.

show abstract

Biofortified sorghum in Africa: using problem formulation to inform risk assessment

Cited by 24 publications

References 18 publications

Nutritionally Enhanced Staple Food Crops

Nutritionally Enhanced Staple Food Crops

Regulatory considerations surrounding the deployment Of Bt-expressing cowpea in Africa

Commercializing genetically modified crops under EU regulations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About