Journal of Plant Biotechnology

The Korean Society of Plant Biotechnology (한국식물생명공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Debates on the isolation distances to segregate fields with GM crops from fields with non-GM crops for the establishment of their coexistence

GM과 non-GM 작물의 공존제도의 정착을 위한 포장의 격리거리에 관한 고찰

  • Lee, Shin-Woo (Department of Crop Science and Biotechnology, College of Life Science and Natural Resources, JinJu National University)
  • 이신우 (진주산업대학교, 생명자원과학대학, 작물생명과학과)
  • Published : 2009.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The coexistence policy of GM and non-GM crops is still on the debates in EU since “the recommendation on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming” has been reported in 2003. The major issues are maximum tolerance level of GMO admixture and minimum isolation distances of GM fields with others including conventional, organic and seeds production. Majority of member states in EU proposed that the tolerance level of GMO admixture must be more strictly controlled, in particular in the fields for organic crops and seeds production. To this end, it was proposed that minimum isolation distances to segregate GM crops from fields with organic crops and seeds production need to be further extended than those of conventional crops since cross pollination with other crops adjacent GM fields is known as the most prevalent source for GMO contamination. In these circumstances, it is strongly suggested that the current legislations need to be revised including the minimum isolation distances of fields for each species before field cultivation for a commercial GM crop is approved for the first time in South Korea.

Keywords

References

  1. Arnaud JF, Viard F, Delescluse M, Cuguen J (2003) Evidence for gene flow via seed dispersal from crop to wild relatives in Beta vulgaris (Chenopodiaceae): consequences for the release of genetically modified crop species with weedy lineages. Proc Royal Soc Lon Series B 270:1565-1571 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2407
  2. Azeez G (2008) Position of the european organic farming movement on GM co-existence. Soil Association (UK), IFOAM.
  3. Bondera M, Query M (2006) Hawaiian Papaya: GMO Contaminated. www.gmofreehawaii.org
  4. Bouchie A (2002) Organic farmers sue GMO producers. Nat Biotechnol 20:210 https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0302-210
  5. European Commission (2003) Recommendation on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. (Recommendation 2003/556/EC), Brussels, 23 July, 2003 C (2003)
  6. European Commission (2004) New case studies on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops in european agriculture. Technical Report Series, EUR 22102 EN, European Science and Technology Observatory, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
  7. European Commission (2006) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. Brussels, 9.3. 2006, COM (2006) 104 final.
  8. European Commission (2007). Summary Record of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health Held in Brussels on January 16, 2007 (EC, Brussels, 2007).
  9. European commission (2009) Report from the commission to the council and the european parliament, on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. COM153 final
  10. James (2008) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. ISAAA reports No. 39
  11. Jayaraman KS (2004) Illegal seeds overtake India's cotton fields. Nat Biotech 22: 1333-1334 https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1104-1333
  12. Kaplinsky N, Braun B, Lisch D (2002) Maize transgene results in Mexico are artefacts. Nature 416:600-601 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature738
  13. Kim EJ (2006) GMO를 둘러싼 생산 유통논란. Biosafety 7(3): 5-23
  14. Lee SW (2008) Consideration on coexistence strategy of GM with non-GM. environmentally friend crops in South Korea. Kor J Plant Biotech 35:345-356 https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2008.35.4.245
  15. Lu BR, Snow AA (2005) Gene flow from genetically modified rice and its environmental consequences. BioScience 55:669-678 https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0669:GFFGMR]2.0.CO;2
  16. Mano J, Shigemitsu N, Futo S, Akiyama H, Teshima R, Hino A, Furui S, Kitta K (2009) Real-Time PCR array as a universal platform for the detection of genetically modified crops and its application in identifying unapproved genetically modified crops in Japan. J Agric Food Chem 57:26-37 https://doi.org/10.1021/jf802551h
  17. Marris E (2006) Escaped Chinese GM rice reaches Europe. news@nature.com 5 Sept,
  18. Metz M, F\ddot{u}tterer J (2002) Suspect evidence of transgenic contamination. Nature 416:601 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature739
  19. Pinyro-Nelson A, Van Heerwaarden Perales HR, Serratos-Hernandez JA, Rangel A, Hufford MB, Gepts P, Garay-Arroyo A, Rivera-Bustamante R, E. R. Alvarez-Buylla ER (2009) Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations. Mol Ecology 18:750-761
  20. Quist D, Chapela I (2001) Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541-543 https://doi.org/10.1038/35107068
  21. Watrud LS., Lee EH, Fairbrother A, Burdick C, Reichman JR, Bollman M, Storm M, King G, Van de Water PK. (2004) Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:14533-14538 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405154101