Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2009.36.3.261

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

Lee, Shin-Woo (Department of Crop Science and Biotechnology, College of Life Science and Natural Resources, JinJu National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Plant Biotechnology / v.36, no.3, 2009 , pp. 261-267 More about this Journal
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
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Azeez G (2008) Position of the european organic farming movement on GM co-existence. Soil Association (UK), IFOAM.
2 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)
3 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.
4 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.
5 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).
6 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
7 James (2008) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. ISAAA reports No. 39
8 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   DOI   ScienceOn
9 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   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Jayaraman KS (2004) Illegal seeds overtake India's cotton fields. Nat Biotech 22: 1333-1334   DOI   ScienceOn
11 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   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Metz M, F\ddot{u}tterer J (2002) Suspect evidence of transgenic contamination. Nature 416:601   DOI   ScienceOn
13 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
14 Quist D, Chapela I (2001) Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541-543   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Bondera M, Query M (2006) Hawaiian Papaya: GMO Contaminated. www.gmofreehawaii.org
16 Lu BR, Snow AA (2005) Gene flow from genetically modified rice and its environmental consequences. BioScience 55:669-678   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Bouchie A (2002) Organic farmers sue GMO producers. Nat Biotechnol 20:210   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Kaplinsky N, Braun B, Lisch D (2002) Maize transgene results in Mexico are artefacts. Nature 416:600-601   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Kim EJ (2006) GMO를 둘러싼 생산 유통논란. Biosafety 7(3): 5-23
20 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   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Marris E (2006) Escaped Chinese GM rice reaches Europe. news@nature.com 5 Sept,