ГМО

Следует предположить,  что изучение данного вопроса потребует еще много времени.

5. Существующие в настоящее время требования к проверке на безвредность недостаточны и составлены таким образом,  чтобы упростить процедуру утверждения. Они позволяют использовать крайне нечувствительные методы проверки на безвредность.  Поэтому существует значительный риск того,  что опасные для здоровья продукты питания смогут пройти проверку незамеченными.На отработку методики промышленного производства рекомбинантного человеческого инсулина и его проверку понадобилось семь лет: только в 1980 году американская компания «Genentech» начала продажу нового препара-та [2].

Представляется важным отметить,  что процедура лицензирования генетически модифицированных продуктов в России достаточно сложна и регламентируется более чем 50  законодательными актами [4, 5].  Данной проблемой занимается Межведомственная комиссия РФ по проблемам генно-инженерной деятельности.

6. Созданные до настоящего времени с помощью генной инженерии продукты не имеют сколько-нибудь значительной ценности для человечества.  Эти продукты удовлетворяют, главным образом, коммерческие интересы.Использование ГМО позволило решить важнейшие проблемы –  например,  получить рекомбинантный инсулин,  необходимый больным диабетом,  а также создать технологии получения вакцинных препаратов против опасных инфекционных болезней.  В связи с этим роль достижений генной инженерии для населения России в частности и человечества в целом трудно переоценить. 

7. Недостаточны знания о влиянии на окружающую среду модифицированных с помощью генной инженерии организмов.  Не доказано,  что такое влияние не будет вредным. Экологами высказаны предположения о различных потенциальных экологических последствиях. Например,  имеется много возможностей для неконтролируемого распространения потенциально опасных генов,  используемых в генной инженерии, в том числе передача генов бактериями и вирусами.  Изменения в окружающей среде, вероятно, невозможно будет исправить, так как  «выпущенные на свободу»  гены невозможно забрать обратно.

В 1972  году в  лаборатории Пола Берга впервые была получена рекомбинантная молекула ДНК.  Через год был сконструирован первый модифицированный микроорганизм –  кишечная палочка, несущая ген человеческого инсулина.  Ученые,  получившие данный микроорганизм, – Стенли Коэн и Герберт Бойер, – обратились к мировому научному сообществу с призывом приостановить исследования в области генной инженерии в связи с непредсказуемостью результатов. В 1974 году был опубликован так называемый  «мораторий Берга»  с предложением временно прекратить работы с рекомбинантными ДНК. В феврале 1975 года на конференции в Асиломаре,  Калифорния,  ведущие специалисты в области генной инженерии решили прервать мораторий и продолжить исследования с соблюдением специально разработанных правил [2].

В настоящее  время наблюдается настоящий бум генетически модифицированных продуктов.  Если первые коммерческие посадки устойчивого к вредителям табака появились в 1992 году в Китае, то уже в 1996-м генетически модифицированные растения выращивали в шести странах, в 2002-м – в шестнадцати. В настоящее время около 59  миллионов гектаров –14%  земель,  пригодных для земледелия, –  засеяны генетически модифицированными растениями [6, 7].

В нашей стране генетически модифицированные растения пока не получили повсемест-ного распространения,  хотя следует предположить,  что это –  вопрос времени.  По всей видимости,  очевидные преимущества ГМО  «перевесят»  их возможные недостатки,  что создаст предпосылки для их окончательной законодательной легализации и широкого распространения. При этом основной задачей представляется нормативно-правовое закрепление обязательности проверки их безвредности для человека и окружающей среды.

8. Могут возникнуть новые опасные микроорганизмы,  более агрессивные,  чем исходные. Микроорганизмы могут стать также менее видоспецифичными.  Например,  возбудители заболеваний растений могут стать патогенными для животных и людей. Проводимые ранее зарубежными специалистами исследования по генетической модификации микроорганизмов показали, что рекомбинантные штаммы бактерий и вирусов в подав-ляющем большинстве случаев нежизнеспособны. Более того, зачастую основной задачей ученых является именно сохранение жизнеспособности модифицированного организма с полезными свойствами.  В связи с этим вероятность рекомбинации ГМО с присутствующими в окружающей среде микроорганизмами с последующим образованием патогенного штамма на столько мала,  что сопоставлять ее с теми выгодами,  которые дает использование генной инженерии, по меньшей мере, нерационально.

В последнее  время эксперты различных правозащитных и экологических организаций говорят о том,  что генетически модифицированные продукты питания и микроорганизмы могут стать оружием в руках террористов. Говорят об опасности генетического терроризма в отношении РФ, целесообразно рассмотреть основные цели, которые могут ставить перед собой исполнители подобных терактов. Как правило, они сводятся к привлечению внимания к выдвигаемым требованиям,  а также к массовому поражению обычного гражданского населения и представителей властных структур 

[8, 9]. Достижение указанных целей с помощью генетически модифицированных продуктов питания вряд ли возможно:  патологические последствия употребления подобных продуктов скорее всего будут носить отсроченный характер и их прогнозирование на сегодняшний день не представляется возможным.Таким образом,  использование ГМО в террористических целях будет маловероятным именно ввиду несоответствия средств совершения теракта его целям. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Genetically Modified Food History 
 

The history of genetically modified food can be traced back to mid 19th century, when Gregor Mendel - an Austrian monk and botanist, carried out an experiment wherein he crossbred tall pea species with short pea species to show that certain traits in one species were inherited by other in this process. Even though Mendel is considered to be the founder of science of genetics today, his efforts were not acknowledged until 20th century. Mendel's observations paved way for the development of first genetically modified plant - an antibiotic resistant tobacco plant, in 1983. 
 
After the 1983 breakthrough, it took the scientists another ten years to grow the first genetically modified food for commercial use. This transgenic crop was a tomato created by a California based company - Calegne. The new species of tomato - which was named FlavrSavr by the company, was made available commercially in 1994. It was genetically modified in such a manner that it took longer duration for it to decompose after being picked as compared to a normal tomato. Even though consumers showed keen interest in the same, the company stopped its production in 1997 owing to the fact that its longer shelf-life made it less profitable for the company. 
 
Some sources also cite that the actual reason for stopping the production of this crop was the competition it had to face from its conventional counterpart as well as some production problems that the company was subjected to. In the meanwhile, another European company manufactured a tomato paste from a genetically modified tomato species and made it available in the market in 1996. The controversies surrounding genetically modified food began with some scientists claiming that these genetically modified products were harmful for animals and humans alike. One such scientist was Arpad Pusztai - a Hungarian-born biochemist and nutritionist, who revealed that he had observed some harmful effects of these food on the stomach lining and immune system of rats whom he fed genetically modified potatoes in 1998.

What followed was a series of controversies associated with genetically engineered food pros and cons which made the masses believe that humans were reduced to mere guinea pigs for this new technology. Even though that did affect the production of genetically modified food in certain regions of the world, it didn't bring the same to a complete halt. Genetic research continued and soon enough many other food crops were genetically modified to suit human requirements. The total surface area of land cultivated to grow genetically modified crops increased from 4.2 million acres in 1997 to 331 million acres in 2009. As of today, the United States has a major share of genetically modified food production which amounts to 45 percent of the world production, followed by Brazil and Argentina with 16 and 15 percent of the world share respectively. 
 
That was a short but controversial history of genetically modified food which has kept this concept of genetic engineering in spotlight over the last fifteen years. Even today, genetically modified foods are as controversial as ever and a large part of the credit for this goes to conflicting research on genetically modified food advantages and dangers and their exaggerated results. At the end of the day, there are no concrete reasons to say whether these transgenic foods are harmful for us or not, and therefore it is wise to evaluate genetically modified food pros and cons and opt for safe way out - even if it means abstaining from their consumption. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Companies - producers of GMOs 
 

Patents for more than 90% of all genetically modified seeds in the world is owned by three corporations 
 
Patents for more than 90% of all GM seeds in the world is owned by three companies-the giants: Syngenta »(Syngenta, Switzerland) and its subsidiaries, Syngenta Seeds" (France), Monsanto »(Monsanto, USA) and Bayer CropScience ( Germany). Among large companies that produce GMOs, should be called another Du Pont and Advanta. 
GMOs are used not only for food but also medicines. Departing from negativity associated with the GM experiments, the largest U.S. biotech transnational corporation (bioTNK) «Monsanto», that displays new varieties of grain and vegetable crops by GMOs, has teamed up with the Swiss group "Farmatseya End Upjohn.  

As a result of the combined company Pharmacia Corporation, under the leadership of President Monsanto R. Shapiro uses the name "Sierl, Pharmacia and Upjohn for trading desks, and the name" Monsanto "it remains only for autonomous agricultural subsidiary.That is, trade of GMOs might go behind the scenes and under other brands.  
Monsanto is practically a monopoly of transgenic agricultural, so now some words about this company in more detail.

In 1990 Monsanto bought major seed company and now offers growers a whole system of products and technologies for growing major crops. Products Monsanto employs about 90% of biotech market in agriculture.According to Greenpeace, most seeds patented by Monsanto, is a GMO.  
Recently "Monsanto" also aspires to become a world monopolist in the field of cultivation H'm-animal. In particular, in February, 2005 of "Monsanto" tried to take out the patent on new H'm-breed pigs who have less than fat, they grow faster, using thus less forages. 

From time to time round "Monsanty" and its production there are loud scandals. So in January, 2005 in Hungary have forbidden cultivation монсантовской H'm-corn MON810 as it can be crossed to other cultures. That is to "pollute, force out natural kinds

In 2005 scandal in Indonesia has burst – representatives of "Monsanto" have been convicted in briberies to local government officials of quality of "gratitude" for cancellation of ecological examination H'm-clap. 

In June, 2005 in Germany experiments on rats who fed монсантовской H'm-corn grades MON863 have been made. As a result of experiences it was revealed that the corn GMO-DIET has caused changes of structure of blood and loss of weight in experimental animals. 

During other researches it has been revealed that injections for cows with монсантовским  a hormone rBGH, on 30 % raising yields of milk, increase risk of disease by a cancer of a mammary gland and a prostate at people, this milk using, to 500 %!

However, and others биоТНК have been noticed in giving obviously false information about the hybrids and consequences of their use. For example, the competitor of "Monsanto", corporation "Сингента", meaningly substituted results of a harmless grade H'm-corn Bt11 and dangerous Bt10, containing a gene steady against antibiotics. By the way, in the European Union countries sale H'm-production which contains the genes steady against antibiotics, is forbidden. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

National Regulations on Use and Marketing 

United States Regulations on GMOs 
 
 

In the U.S., the regulatory process for GMOs is a covered by a “Coordinated Framework” established in 1986 (James and Krattiger, 1996). Under the framework, transgenic crops are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure food and feed safety; by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether bio-engineered plants present environmental risks; and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspections Service (APHIS) to ensure that they are safe to grow (Nottingham, 1998). In practice, this means that while the USDA/APHIS issues permits for field trials and also for commercial release, any crop containing a pesticide also requires approval from the EPA. If the product from a transgenic crop is designed for food or feed use, the FDA gets involved in the application process (James and Krattiger, 1996). Since 1993, the review process has been facilitated by a “Notification System” that APHIS introduced for six transgenic crops with which the agency had had an extensive experience in processing and monitoring applications. For the six crops

concerned (corn, tomato, soybean, potato, cotton, and tobacco), applicants are not required to obtain a permit to conduct trials as long as APHIS has reviewed a notification and determined that the review needs no further consultation (James and Krattiger, 1996). In addition, before any commercialization, genetically engineered plants must also conform with standards set by State and Federal marketing statutes such as State seed certification laws, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Federal Plant Pest Act. 
 
 

The European Union and GMOs 
 

While different, the process that regulates transgenic crops in the European Union is also complex and specific in terms of application and requirements. Some of the Union’s regulations were enacted after EU member countries had already established their own procedures, and the full regulatory integration of EU member states is still in progress (James and Krattiger, 1996). Certain member countries, especially Germany and Denmark, have developed particularly strict regulatory regulations and require a “case-bycase” governmental review of any use of biotechnology in agriculture (Miller, 1997). Denmark has established strict laws related specifically to the environmental applications of biotechnology-derived products (Wiegele, 1991). The 1986 Environment and Gene Technology Act referred all cases involving the free releases of GMOs to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment and established a set of mandatory product-approval mechanisms for commercial biotechnology innovations, including a backup enforcement system  (Gibbs, Cooper, and Mackler, 1987). Similarly, under an Order for Genetically Modified Organisms, the Netherlands have established a national regulatory framework requiring a permit from the Ministry of the Environment to use GMOs in an experimental or commercial setting (Hodgson,

1990). At the Union level, there are three main regulations in place. The Novel Food Regulation of 1997 regulates food processed using GMOs or GMOs that are found in food. Environmental assessments of contained use of GMOs are conducted through the 90/219 Directive, and field trials or marketing of GMOs are regulated under the 90/220 Directive (IPC, 1998). For a transgenic crop to be tested in the field22 however, approval from a regulatory body is required. For commercial production, two steps need to be completed. First, a growing permit needs to be issued under Directive 90/220; second, a variety registration is required for all new varieties irrespective of whether the crop is transgenic or not (James, 1998). To obtain marketing authorization within the EU, a request must be made to the Member State in which the product will be first sold. A copy of the application is then sent to all the member states so that objections can be made within 60 days to the EU Commission, the main regulatory body. Theoretically, while a product that has been approved in a member state is automatically approved in any other member state, most companies tend to prefer registering the product in each of the EU member countries for marketing purposes. 
 

Japan and GMOs 
 
 

As in the European Union, Japan’s regulatory approach is “process-based.” Research and development is accomplished by the Ministry for International Trade and Industry, and the Biotechnology Research Development Foundation, a conglomeration of fourteen top firms involved in rDNA applications, bioreactor development, and mass cell-culture technologies (Prestowitz, 1986). Regulations for field-testing genetically modified crops are issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries since 1989 (Office of Technology, 1991). In addition, the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare has imposed a strict regulatory regime specific to foods and food additives manufactured with rDNA techniques (Miller,1997) 
 
 

Developing Countries and GMOs 
 

Developing countries including Bolivia, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, are only in the  process  of  developing  regulations  (James,  1998).  With  the  exception  of Argentina,  Brazil,  Mexico,  Chile,  China,  Costa  Rica,  Cuba,  India,  the  Philippines,  and  Thailand,developing countries lack operational field testing regulations (James, 1998). Some developing countries are pursuing efforts to align their regulations to that of developed countries. In South Africa for example,the government is working to harmonize its regulations with the U.S. so that applicants in the country will no longer need to seek a permit for using a product from a transgenic crop. This would be possible as long as the crop has already been approved for use in the U.S and as long as applications for field trials have been submitted (James, 1998)