Doroteya RaykovaGrzegorz DziurawiecMichaël da Veiga MendesSylwia MisiaszekVasil Savov

Definition

A genetically modified organism is altered by the means of genetic engineering so that it possesses a foreign gene (calledthe transgene) deliberately inserted in its genome

GMOs can be classified in three broad categories: transgenic animals, plants or microorganisms

Isolate the gene from the donor organism

Insert in a bacterial plasmid vector and multiply

Insert the DNA in the acceptor animal

- by direct injection in the fertilized egg

- by microinjection in an embryonic stem cell and subsequent insertion in the uterus of a surrogate mother, or:

Insert the foreign DNA in the acceptor plant’s tissue

To serve as food with improved characteristics – e.g. superfish

To produce therapeutic substances (transpharmers) – e.g. Polly the sheep (factor IX), transgenic pigs (human Hb)

As disease models for human disoreders – e.g. oncomice

As organ donors (xenotransplantation) – e.g. pigs

As pets – e.g. allergy-free cats, glo-fish

For higher crop yields For pure and environment-

friendly production (no use of insecticides)

For improved characteristics –e.g. bigger size or stronger flavour of fruit and vegetables

For production of certain substances – e.g. Golden rice

Genes can have more than one function and knockout can cause problems

Transgenic salmon can put in danger the natural salmon population

Trojan gene theory

Transgenic corn MON810 disturbs the function of the immune system, lowers the fertility of experimental mice and causes irregularities in the expression of the genesPollution of non-GM crops by GM plant pollen or viruses

Arise of resistant pests with unknown properties

“Golden rice“ case

Flavr Savr tomato

What will happen with damaged food chains?

- Life

- Rights

- Instrumentations

- Property

Good

Wellbeing

democratic

society

� Who reflects ?

What is the most widely discussed ?

- Use/application of transgenic animals

- Welfare of animals

- ecology

- environment

- economy

- society

- future of the human health

- acceptable insignificant

consequences

- advantages disadvantages

- Intrinsic values

Public opinions

the worry : safety for the consumers

Urgent questions :

- dangerous ? No notions of risks in the current EU

regulations!

- security of the food market ! Any clear conclusions of researches

- future parasites resistant to toxins in transgenic plants?

to stop the advance the technology?

to protect the environment?

to fight for more productive agricutlture?

to increase the income for the country?

biodiversity?

genetic pollution?

Who´s blame ?

Mutual compromise ?!

Bulgarian scientists (Dr Eva Cherneva, Center for transgenic technologies in the Faculty of

veterinary medicine, University of Pennsylvania, USA; Dr Didi Baev, research associate in

molecular microbiology and genetics, State University of New York, USA) about GMO in

Bulgaria: we are not prepared to deal with GMO, because there are too many variables in

this equation. Bulgarian newspapers write that the growing of transgenic crops is the most

ecological agriculture, that there haven’t been any accidents with GMO until the moment,

that these organisms have only positive applications. However, it is impossible to make a

long-term prognosis about the effects of GMO on human health – they may cause allergies

or other problems. Bulgarian society doesn’t have enough information on both the

negatives and positives of GMO. And finally, ss James Watson put it, “We can’t play the role

of God”.

Similar situation occurs in Poland. One difference is that the lobby in Poland (e.g. Greenpeace), and the authorities tend to the opposite direction, i.e. inform the public almost exclusively about the disadvantages of GMOs. A very good reflection of this seems to be the proportion in which google.pl gives as a first 100 found pages:

We have to remember that it is clear from various studies on public opinion and biotechnology that when the public judges biotechnological applications there are various levels of acceptability. First comes the priority of purpose. In general, applications intended to generate health and medical benefits are viewed most positively. This is followed by applications for environmental benefits. Food biotechnology has generated more concerns for a variety of reasons. When the technology succeeds in increasing the welfare of society, greater support for the application is elicited rather than when the purpose of transgenesis is seen as beneficial for certain individual (non-utilitarian) pursuits.

We can say that the relation of the majority of Europeans to genetically modified organisms is a result of a lack of interest in the topic or insufficient information. This seems to be extremely paradoxical if we pay attention to the fact that more than half of Europeans openly expressed disagreement, if not hostility to GMOs. The question of why transgenic animals do not produce so negative reactions as GM plants (although the influence of transgenic crops in our daily life appears to be equally significant), seems to have not only one answer. However, few of these reasons seem to stand out, and we would like to repeat them once more. First and foremost, the majority of Europeans have only minimal knowledge about GM animals and plants. Second, people who are trying to find information on this subject encounter great difficulty in reaching independent and reliable sources, which would enable them to develop their own mind. As a third and the last we have to keep in mind that in today's realities, even the biggest skeptics accept GM animals, which are bioreactors of medicines, as creations ethically justified, in opposed to GM plants which are created almost in each case for profit.

Thank you for your attention!!!