Suchergebnisse

In 2008, the commercial cultivation of Genetically Modified (GM) cotton (Bollgard II (R)) started in Burkina Faso. The adoption rate increased rapidly in subsequent years to reach around 70% in 2014. Although some criticisms were raised concerning the suitability of the technology for the farming system in Burkina Faso, the introduction of transgenic cotton in the country was generally regarded as a great success. Despite this, during the 2016-2017 agricultural campaign, the government of Burkina Faso decided to suspend the cultivation of Bollgard II (R). In this context, this paper investigates farmers' knowledge, perceptions, opinions and attitudes towards Bollgard II (R) as well as their views on the recent decision to suspend its cultivation. Data was collected from 324 cotton farmers, both growers of conventional and Bollgard II (R). The results showed that the farmers surveyed had a poor knowledge concerning the core concepts of biotechnology and Bollgard II (R) in particular. Moreover, the regulatory oversight of the implementation of the technology was found insufficient, as illustrated by the lack of compliance with prescriptions concerning refuge areas and pesticide treatments. Nevertheless, overall, the farmers interviewed had a slightly positive opinion about the effects on yield, income and their wellbeing. In particular the reduction in pesticide treatments was perceived very positively by all respondents. Although the study finds that the majority of farmers disagreed with the recent suspension of Bt cotton cultivation by the government, it also makes clear that a thorough debate on the technology and its implementation is necessary.

The James Hutton Institute receives funding from the Scottish Government Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services division. YM was funded through a BOF Ph.D. scholarship (Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds, Ghent University). This collaboration was supported by an International Exchanges Award (IE110776) from the Royal Society and benefited from interactions funded by COST Action FA1208. ; The white potato cyst nematode, Globodera pallida, is an obligate biotrophic pathogen of a limited number of Solanaceous plants. Like other plant pathogens, G. pallida deploys effectors into its host that manipulate the plant to the benefit of the nematode. Genome analysis has led to the identification of large numbers of candidate effectors from this nematode, including the cyst nematode-specific SPRYSEC proteins. These are a secreted subset of a hugely expanded gene family encoding SPRY domain-containing proteins, many of which remain to be characterized. We investigated the function of one of these SPRYSEC effector candidates, GpSPRY-414-2. Expression of the gene encoding GpSPRY-414-2 is restricted to the dorsal pharyngeal gland cell and reducing its expression in G. pallida infective second stage juveniles using RNA interference causes a reduction in parasitic success on potato. Transient expression assays in Nicotiana benthamiana indicated that GpSPRY-414-2 disrupts plant defenses. It specifically suppresses effector-triggered immunity (ETI) induced by co-expression of the Gpa2 resistance gene and its cognate avirulence factor RBP-1. It also causes a reduction in the production of reactive oxygen species triggered by exposure of plants to the bacterial flagellin epitope flg22. Yeast two-hybrid screening identified a potato cytoplasmic linker protein (CLIP)-associated protein (StCLASP) as a host target of GpSPRY-414-2. The two proteins co-localize in planta at the microtubules. CLASPs are members of a conserved class of microtubule-associated proteins that contribute to microtubule stability and growth. However, disruption of the microtubule network does not prevent suppression of ETI by GpSPRY-414-2 nor the interaction of the effector with its host target. Besides, GpSPRY-414-2 stabilizes its target while effector dimerization and the formation of high molecular weight protein complexes including GpSPRY-414-2 are prompted in the presence of the StCLASP. These data indicate that the nematode effector GpSPRY-414-2 targets the microtubules to facilitate infection. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

In a ruling on 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute GMOs in the sense of Directive 2001/18, and that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis are not excluded from the scope of the Directive. Following the ruling, there has been much debate about the possible wider implications of the ruling. In October 2019, the Council of the European Union requested the European Commission to submit, in light of the CJEU ruling, a study regarding the status of novel genomic techniques under Union Law. For the purpose of the study, the Commission initiated stakeholder consultations early in 2020. Those consultations focused on the technical status of novel genomic techniques.This article aims to contribute to the discussion on the legal status of organisms developed through novel genomic techniques, by offering some historical background to the negotiations on the European Union (EU) GMO Directives as well as a technical context to some of the terms in the Directive, and by analysing the ruling. The article advances that (i) the conclusion that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute GMOs under the Directive means that the resulting organisms must comply with the GMO definition, ie the genetic material of the resulting organisms has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination; (ii) the conclusion that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis were not intended to be excluded from the scope of the Directive is not inconsistent with the negotiation history of the Directive; (iii) whether an organism falls under the description of "obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis" depends on whether the genetic material of the resulting organisms has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. Finally, the article offers an analysis of the EU GMO definition, concluding that for an organism to be a GMO in the sense of the Directive, the technique used, as well as the genetic alterations of the resulting organism, must be considered.

In a ruling on 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute GMOs in the sense of Directive 2001/18, and that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis are not excluded from the scope of the Directive. Following the ruling, there has been much debate about the possible wider implications of the ruling. In October 2019, the Council of the European Union requested the European Commission to submit, in light of the CJEU ruling, a study regarding the status of novel genomic techniques under Union Law. For the purpose of the study, the Commission initiated stakeholder consultations early in 2020. Those consultations focused on the technical status of novel genomic techniques. This article aims to contribute to the discussion on the legal status of organisms developed through novel genomic techniques, by offering some historical background to the negotiations on the European Union (EU) GMO Directives as well as a technical context to some of the terms in the Directive, and by analysing the ruling. The article advances that (i) the conclusion that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute GMOs under the Directive means that the resulting organisms must comply with the GMO definition, ie the genetic material of the resulting organisms has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination; (ii) the conclusion that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis were not intended to be excluded from the scope of the Directive is not inconsistent with the negotiation history of the Directive; (iii) whether an organism falls under the description of "obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis" depends on whether the genetic material of the resulting organisms has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. Finally, the ...