Coexistence of GMOs in the EU – A Veritable Choice?

This chapter examines the issue of coexistence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) alongside conventional and organic crops. The central focus is on whether there is a veritable opportunity for coexistence of all three types of crops, which allows for freedom of choice by both farmers and consumers. It commences by considering the nature of the general GM regime, the relationship between the frameworks for cultivation and the use and sale of GM food and feed, and the main elements of the cultivation regime. In light of this, the concept of coexistence is considered, with an evaluation of both the legal and practical elements. Although the general GM regime is controlled at an EU level, coexistence is apparently left to the Member States who may take appropriate coexistence measures. Nonetheless, the Commission has created Recommendations that are to guide the Member States in their choice of measures. To a great extent, what is considered ‘appropriate’ is to be determined by the economic impact upon the farmers and the relationship with the labelling thresholds. The chapter evaluates the future of coexistence, bearing in mind the continued use of the safeguard clauses, the declaration of ‘GM-free’ regions, the potential for national ‘opt-outs’ and the general practical challenges of maintaining coexistence including the ‘domino effect’. Overall, it is arguable that coexistence is a misnomer and that if the term’s meaning is strictly maintained then veritable coexistence that allows for freedom of choice by both farmers and consumers seems unattainable. Although not directly controlled by CAP, there are strong areas of overlap and they share a number of similar objectives; the chapter will conclude by considering whether the approaches in relation to CAP and the cultivation of GMOs are converging or diverging.

Genetically Engineered Crops' Authorizations in the US and the EU: a Struggle Against the Clock

The regulation of genetically engineered crops is important for society: ensuring their safety for humans and the environment. Their authorization starts with a scientific step and ends with a political step. Trends in the time taken for their authorization in the European Union are that they are decreasing, but in the United States there is a break in the overall trend: initially it decreased until 1998 after which it increased.

GM-CSF receptor targeted treatment of primary AML in SCID mice using Diphtheria toxin fused to huGM-CSF

The severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mouse model may be used to evaluate new approaches for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We have previously demonstrated the killing of SCID mouse leukemia initiating cells by in vitro incubation with human GM-CSF fused to Diphtheria toxin (DT-huGM-CSF). In this report, we show that in vivo treatment with DT-huGM-CSF eliminates AML growth in SCID mice. Seven cases of AML were studied. SCID mice were treated intraperitoneally with the maximally tolerated dose of 75 microg/kg/day for 7 days. Antileukemic efficacy was determined at days 40 and 80 after transplantation, by enumerating the percentages of human cells in SCID bone marrow using flow cytometry and short tandem repeat polymerase chain reaction (STR-PCR) analysis. Four out of seven AML cases were sensitive to in vivo treatment with DT-huGM-CSF at both evaluation time points. In three of these cases, elimination of human cells was demonstrated by flow cytometry and STR-PCR. One AML case showed moderate sensitivity for DT-huGM-CSF, and growth of the two remaining AML cases was not influenced by DT-huGM-CSF. Sensitivity was correlated with GM-CSFR expression. Our data show that DT-huGM-CSF can be used in vivo to reduce growth of AML and warrant further development of DT-huGM-CSF for the treatment of human AML.

Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union

Genetically engineered (GE) crops are subject to regulatory oversight to ensure their safety for humans and the environment. Their approval in the European Union (EU) starts with an application in a given Member State followed by a scientific step (risk assessment), and ends with a political decision-making step (risk management); and in the United States (US) it starts with a scientific (field trial) step and ends with a ‘bureaucratic’ decision-making step. We investigated trends for the time taken for these steps and the overall time taken for approving GE crops in the US and the EU (traders in these commodities). Results show that from 1996-2015 the overall time trend for approval in the EU decreased and then flattened off, with an overall mean completion-time of 1,763 days. In the US in 1998 there was a break in the trend of the overall approval time: Initially, from 1988 until 1997 the trend decreased with a mean approval time of 1,321 days; from 1998-2015, the trend almost stagnated with a mean approval time of 2,467 days.