Search

In India, the restriction of genetically modified (GM) crops and derived products not approved in the country necessitates surveillance for transgene(s) in plant material/products imported into the country. CDC Triffid expressing acetolactate synthase (ALS) conferring tolerance to sulphonylurea herbicide is the only GM flax event that has got approval in Canada in 1990s and subsequently deregistered in 2001. In spite of deregistration, the unexpected and unauthorized detection of traces of GM flax in the consignments imported from Canada to Europe has further necessitated the stringent monitoring of flax shipments from Canada for suspected GM incidents. This study reports on the detection of transgenic elements being present in GM flax employing polymerase chain reaction assays, in a set of 123 flaxseed accessions imported from Canada for research purpose. Based on the tests conducted, none of the transgenic elements, namely, nos promoter (P-nos), nos terminator (T-nos), nptII marker gene, ALS transgene, as present in the GM flax CDC Triffid were detected in any of the tested accessions. The well-known herbicide tolerance gene cp4-epsps, being employed in Roundup® Ready events of other crops, was also not detected in these samples. This case study has demonstrated the importance of monitoring the presence of transgene(s) in flaxseed imports, and such studies need to be carried out for the imported seeds from the country where GM events of respective crop are being approved whereas they have not been approved in the country of import as a part of precautionary approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many critics of bioenhancement go to considerable lengths to establish the existence of reasons against pursuing bioenhancements but do little to establish the absence of reasons in favor. This suggests that they accept what Allen Buchanan has called the conclusive reasons view (CRV). According to this view, our reasons against bioenhancement are obviously decisive, so there is no need to balance them against countervailing reasons. Buchanan criticizes the CRV by showing that the reasons most commonly adduced against bioenhancement are not decisive, or, at least, not obviously so.In this article, I suggest that both Buchanan and the authors to whom he is responding underestimate the strength of the case for the CRV. There are, I argue, harm-based reasons against bioenhancement that provide stronger support to the CRV than the reasons that have most often been adduced by critics of enhancement. However, I then argue that even these harm-based reasons are not obviously decisive. Thus, I ultimately agree with Buchanan about the falsity of the CRV, though I disagree with him about the reasons for its falsity. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]