Comment on the MBAA team's blogs (incl. continuative thoughts)

Regulation
	Alexia	Daniel	Sebastian	Tatjana
Two consequences for agriculture in Europe	Ban by the EU of the import of commodity crops	Opportunity to improve productivity and sustainability in agriculture would be constrained	GE plants would be sold like naturally modified (?) plants	Severe hindrance of the use of new breeding processes
	Farmers in the EU would be stretched to their limit (results in competition)	Crop productivity would be improved	Organic food wouldn’t be distinguishable from GE plants	GM (?) food would get more expensive that traditionally bred food; Europe would hold on traditionally bred food
Two consequences for research in Europe	All researched around plant breeding would be disabled Research for commercialisation may be restricted to   large biotech multinationals	Huge potential for biotechnological research (i.e. resistance against diseases) would be neglected	GE as regulated form of GM would stifle innovation in applied research and plant breeding programs	Research of GM (?) food will lose his attraction because too expensive Some promising approaches would never be implemented
	Regionally significant but low-profit crops would be ignored due to the limitation of breeding programs	Could weaken a European nutrition improvement because in GE, there’s much potential	Advantage for farmers because their fields wouldn’t   be contaminated by GM (?) plants	Other breeding methods would be fostered such as radiation breeding
Continuative thoughts (initiated by Petra’s blog comment) What are the consequences of not doing something in terms of regulation?
If GE plants weren’t regulated, a significant opportunity for research would be enabled what could result in further great NPBT. In addition, it could be a precedence case for further juristic/governmental decisions concerning NPBT. On the other hand, the GE technology would likely compete against the GM technology, what would find both supporters and opposers.

Precautionary principle (PP)
	Alexia	Daniel	Sebastian	Tatjana
PP applicable on the breeding process?	Possible and necessary, but difficult in general	Yes (due to the “Principle 15” of the UN)	Yes (due to “Directive 2001/18/EC” of the EU)	Possible for products, different for the production process
Continuative thoughts (initiated by Petra’s blog comment) What are the consequences of not applying the PP on the breeding process?
If PP wasn’t applied in the breeding process, there would exist a non-transparent scope of action for research what could finally result in a local to pandemic catastrophe for both the environment (plants, animals) and human beings. As mentioned by somebody in the movie Jurassic Park (can’t remember which episode and by whom exactly), DNA represents the mightiest power on biologically alive Earth. Cynically said, DNA isn’t a children’s birthday party – treating with DNA needs, from my point of view, precautionary behaviour.

Organic agriculture
	Alexia	Daniel	Sebastian	Tatjana
Regulation for organic agriculture	Tests would be held to analyse what effects monocultures had on the environment	Larger subject for the governments as it is now, what resulted in more regulations for supervision and quality management	The question of the problem needs another formulation…	Testing of the products, the cultivation, fertilizing…
Outlook on organic agriculture	No monocultures; no pesticides; no over-fertilizing…	More regulations which would make organic agriculture sensibly more costly (unprofitable or luxury prone)		Lower food diversity due to many provisions; organic agriculture wouldn’t finally be lucrative
Continuative thoughts (initiated by Petra’s blog comment)       1.     What are the consequences of not regulating organic agriculture?       2.     When thinking about applying the PP to organic agriculture: what could be difficult parts of this agriculture?       3.     Would these 'risky' practices have been prevented and would this not have been worse, making organic agriculture a no-go?       4.   What consequences would this have had for the environment?
1. Organic agriculture, per se, is characterised as GM-free and free of synthetic pesticides and mineral / chemical fertiliser. If there were no regulations at all for organic agriculture, it would be (below the line) less cost-intensive and still GM-free, what made it more lucrative. That, however, could result in more agriculture in general as well as in a competition between agriculture and nature protection. 2.,3.,4. To answer these questions, I would like to pick up Petra’s two examples: Synthetic pesticide applications and using Harmonia axyridis as biological pest control in agriculture. By using the PP in organic agriculture, synthetic pesticides would be substituted by natural pesticide applications, like it has been done with Harmonia axyridis. However, this animal is invasive and causes problems in local food chain. If an animal, such as Harmonia axyridis, was associated with a term like “organic agriculture”, there would be a constant damage to its image.

Genome Editing (GE)
	Alexia	Daniel	Sebastian	Tatjana
Regulation for GE/GM plants	GM (?): bigger benefit (for human beings) than damage (for the environment) – PP is justifiable Importance in terms of climate change and population growth must not be neglected	GE and GM plants should be regulated with an appropriate controlling period (but differently prioritised; GM higher than GE)	GE plants (without foreign DNA) should be treated differently than GM plants (with foreign DNA)	Observation of only the GE products is sufficient GE is not primarily a danger but a chance
Regulation for  radiation breeding programs	Radiation bred plants shouldn’t be classified as GMO	Radiation bred plants should be regulated, like supposed for GE and GM, with an appropriate controlling period (due to unpredictable mutations)	Radiation breeding is the proof for its harmlessness (because of having no foreign DNA?)	For all breeding processes, the same specifications have to be considered For GE the same regulations as for radiation breeding
Continuative thoughts (initiated by Petra’s blog comment)       1.     What are the consequences of not regulating radiation breeding programs?       2.    Does not realizing the potential of GE plants also have huge benefits for the environment?
1. A lack of regulation in terms of radiation breeding, that is recognized as “random and unpredictable” (because no mutation can be controlled), could be critical, especially if "super mutations" occured during that procedure (as mentioned in my blog). These could be i.e. genetic mutations which could cause excessive tolerance in terms of environmental conditions what resulted in a suppression of surrounding plants. 2. First of all, it is important to specify the term “environment”; here, I will use “recent biodiversity”. I could well imagine that GE plants could, in their agricultural dominance, suppress some recent species (i.e. apple trees, the stealthy disappearance of the species-rich high-tribe fruit trees (“Hochstammobstbäume” in German). Therefore, not realizing the potential of GE plants had benefits for the environment indeed.

Effect of PP on the regulation of technical innovations (Blog 3)

Consequences of the regulation based on the breeding process:

The regulation of breeding process in Europe would severely hamper the use of new breeding processes because the procedure genetically modified plants must pass is costly and time-consuming (Hartung et al. (2013)). As a consequence, food from genetic modified plants gets more expensive than food produced in a conventional procedure. Another point is that agriculture in Europe will rely more on conventional breeding and so it is not possible to produce new plant varieties (Hartung et al. (2013)).

The research on genetically modified food will lose his attraction because it is too expensive and some promising approaches never will get implemented because the approval procedure is too complex. So the scientists will focus more on other methods like radiation breeding.

PP for regulation based on the breeding process:

The Precautionary approach was originally created with the aim of protecting the environment, later the European Commission renamed the approach as a precautionary principle and extended it to cover policies to safeguard consumers and human, animal and plant health (Tagliabue (2016)). Since the PP was not particular developed for the regulation of breeding processes the principle is not an optimal method to use for the regulation. The PP places additional regulatory burden on GMO utilization, in consequence it reduces returns from innovation, limits utilisation of GMOs worldwide and provides misplace incentives for research (Ingeborg-Myhr (2007). It is possible to use the PP when just the product has to be considered but when it also is important to assess the way how something was produced the PP achieves his limits.

PP and organic agriculture:

If the organic agriculture had not been invented until today it maybe would be regulated by the precautionary principle. In this case it had to be proven that the hole organic agriculture is harmless for humans and the environment before the products can be sold on the market. Not only the products would have to be tested but also the hole process of growing which includes watering, fertilization and many other things. The development of organic agriculture would progress very slowly because all this steps are very time-consuming and expensive. In the end the diversity of food would not be as big as it is now because there are too many provisions that takes account and the development of organic agriculture would not be lucrative.

Genome editing:

In my opinion it is very important to observe the development on genome editing critical and precise. But I also think that it would be enough just to check the products and not the overall production. In the end the human population especially comes in contact with the end product and it is important not to forget that genome editing is not primarily a danger but a chance. In my opinion it is important that for all breeding processes the same specifications have to be considered. Therefore, I think when plant production with genome editing has to be regulated it is also important to regulate radiation breeding.

Literature:

F. Hartung, J. Schiemann. 2013. Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU. The Plant Journal.

G. Tagliabue. 2016. The Precautionary principle: its misunderstandings and misuses in relation to “GMOs”. New Biotechnology.

A. Ingeborg-Myhr. 2007. The Precautionary Principle in GMO regulations. Norwegian Institute Of Gene Ecology.

Comment on blog (CW13-15)

Dear Tatjana,

after having read your and Alexia's blog, I have decided to make a comparison between three of the tasks as an educational service for all of us.

Kind regards,

Daniel

Alexia	Daniel	Tatjana
Precautionary principle (definition)
The precautionary principle is to be used for avoiding possible future harm associated with suspected environmental risks. (…) Precautionary measures should be taken when an activity raises the risk of harm to the environment or to human health.	The precautionary principle (PP) is a morally based maxim which presumes a specific action (or diverse specific actions) before harm to human beings or the environment can occur.	The precautionary principle has the task to prevent damages on the environment or the human health in advance.
Discussion of shown statement (EU vs US)
The study (…) shows that it is not really true that the European research has to be more precautionary than the one in the USA. (…) They say, “the reality of precaution is not one region being more precautionary than the other, but a scenario of occasional and selective application of precaution to different risks in different places and times”.	EU: (...) Any company in the EU that wants to introduce or commercialise a transgenic crop, should carry out a “full” environmental risk assessment taking into account “direct, indirect, intermediate and delayed effects”. This requires scientific expertise. US: (...) The regulation of GM crops in the US, on the contrary, is divided among three regulatory agencies which all regulate transgenic crops from a different perspective. One of these agencies is the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which considers most GM crops as “substantially equivalent” to non-GM crops. In such cases, GM crops are designated as “generally recognized as safe” and do not require pre-market   approval.	While the European Union endorses the precautionary principle and proactively regulates uncertain risks, the United States opposes the precautionary principle and waits for evidence and harm before regulating. Nevertheless, the European Union is not more precautionary than the US absolutely. In some cases, US scientists have much more liberties than the EU scientists do while in other cases, something for EU scientists is allowed and the US is more precautionary.
Pros and cons for the precautionary principle as a threat to science (personal opinion)
I think it is important to consider and implement the precautionary principle while doing research and new inventions. Maybe it is true that precaution hinders some research projects but I think it is more important to avoid unnecessary poisoning of one’s body and the environment than doing research that has negative effects on the ecosystems and us humans.	Previous example (…) could constrain the modification of plants and (bio-) technological progress what would lead in a stagnation or reduction of global nutrition safety. On the other hand, the PP could force solving the recent political and economic problems concerning nutrition safety and pursue the development of old (non-GM) technologies. Hence the PP is a mixed blessing, rather negative for technological progress but positive for the environment and human health.	I think it is a good idea that the legislation on GMOs in Europe is based on this principle. Because in most cases, genetically modified organisms are not essential for survival for us so it is not tragically when it takes more time until a product is available for general public. In other sector, like pharmacy, it can prevent important innovations. It often lasts years until you can prove that something is harmless and there are so many rules and provisions in the drug development.

Precautionary principle (Blog 2)

Precautionary principle: Short definition

The precautionary principle plays an important role at environmental policy and health policy in Europe. It has the task to prevent damages on the environment or the human health in advance. In the 1970s, the German government began employing a principle according to which a distinction is to be made between human actions that cause danger and those that merely cause risks. This principle, called the foresight principle, is the predecessor model of the precautionary principle. In 1970s and early 1980s a more formalised precautionary principle, as a justification for imposing restriction on the use of technologies such as nuclear powers was promoted by academics and pressure groups (J. Morris (2002)). Today the principle is both celebrated and criticized. One of the biggest problem of the principle is, that it is not clear defined how to use it and what it actually says (E. Persson (2016)).

Precautionary principle: EU and US

The precautionary principle has generated transatlantic controversy. While the European Union endorses the precautionary principle and proactively regulates uncertain risks, the United States opposes the precautionary principle and waits for evidence and harm before regulating. Nevertheless, the European Union is not more precautionary than the US absolutely. In some cases, like nuclear energy, particulate air pollution and new drug approval the US is more precautionary while the European Union is more precautionary in thing like GMOs and hormones in beef (J. Wiener et al.). This implicates for scientists that it is not easy to keep the overview about the precautionary principle and to know what things are allowed. In some cases, US scientists have much more liberties than the EU scientists while in other cases something for EU scientists is allowed and the US is more precautionary.

Pro and con of the precautionary principle

Fundamentally, the precautionary principle is a good and important thing for the protection of the environment and the human health. I think it is a good idea that the legislation on GMOs in Europe is based on this principle. Because in most cases, genetically modified organisms are not essential for survival for us so it is not tragically when it takes more time until a product is available for general public. In other sector, like pharmacy, it can prevent important innovations. It often lasts years until you can prove that something is harmless and there are so many rules and provisions in the drug development. This implicates that drug development is a very expensive thing and it is difficult to find investors so the precautionary principle in this case is a barrier for new innovations.

The precautionary principle: A threat to science?

The precautionary principle is both, a threat and a chance, for science. It is a threat because it makes science more expensive and complicated. Scientists have so many rules they must observe that they get quenched by them. Maybe some new innovations got rejected just because it is too expensive or even impossible to prove that they are harmless. On the other hand, it is possible that they find new scientist knowledge during a verification of a new innovation and the precautionary principle forces to rethink an idea twice.

Literature:

Jonathan B. Wiener, Michael D. Rogers. 2002. Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research (2002).

Erik Persson. 2016. What are the core ideas behind the Precautionary Principle?. Science of the Total Environment (2016).

Julian Morris. 2002. The relationship between risk analysis end the precautionary principle. Toxicology (2002).

Comment on Tatjanas Blog

Dear Tatjana,

I like the way you answered the questions: short but straight to the point. When reading your blog entry one get the most important facts about orchid seeds, in vitro orchids and finding appropriate mycorrhiza strains.
As an improvement proposal: in the text I would mention the year of the publication from the paper in the journal not in brackets (example: (Kauth et al., 2008).

Best regards,
Alexia

In vitro orchids (Blog 1)

Orchid seeds:

The seeds of orchids are very minute with a very small embryo and lack on endosperm (Arditti (1992), found in Sathiyadash et al. (2013)). The difference from orchid seeds to other plant seeds is the lack of storage tissues required for seed germination and seedling development (Paudel et al. (2012)). Orchids are mycoheterotrophic during their seedling stage. That means that they are dependent on fungi as a carbohydrate source (Rasmussen (2002)). In nature the seeds of orchids cannot be induced to germinate and grow in the absence of a mycorrhizal fungus (Smith (2008)).

In vitro orchids:

Bio-conservation and in vitro sowing of orchids is an important aspect in the orchid multiplication and conservation. When sugars and various growth factors are supplied it is possible that the dust like tiny orchid seeds develop into complete seedlings without any fungal aid. This does not occur in nature but in vitro it is possible (Paudel et al. (2012)).

Appropriate mycorrhiza strain:

To find an appropriate mycorrhiza strain for In vitro sowing take a mycorrhiza from an orchid in nature. They have to be isolated from the roots of the orchid and they can be identified using the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) and 5.8S rDNA sequences (Ming Tan et al. (2013)). Tan X. M. et al. isolated two Tulasnella strains from roots of endangered species and evaluated seed germination and plant growth of Dendrobium officinale after interaction with the mycorrhiza. They found out that the two different strains of the mycorrhizal fungi Tulasnella sp. have different impact on germination and development of Dendrobium officinale.

Literature:

Kullaiyan Sathiyadash, Thangavelu Muthukumar , Shanmugaraj Bala Murugan , Ramalingam Sathishkumar , Radha Raman Pandey. 2013. In vitro symbiotic seed germination of South Indian endemic orchid Coelogyne nervosa. Mycoscinece 55 (2014).

M.Paudel, S.Pradhan, B.Pant. 2012. In vitro Seed Germination and Seedling Development of Esmeralda clarkei RCH.f. Plant Tissue Cult. & Biotech.

Hanne N.Rasmussen. 2001. Recent developments in the study of orchid mycorrhiza. Plant and soil.

Sally E. Smith, David Read. 2008. 12-The mycorrhizas of green orchids. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis.

Xiao Ming Tan, Chun Lan Wang, Xiao Mei Chen,  Ya Qin Zhou, Yun Qiang Wang, An Xiong Luo, Zhi Hua Liu, Shun Xing Guo. 2013. In vitro seed germination and seedling growth of an endangered epiphytic orchid, Dendrobium officinale, endemic to China using mycorrhizal fungi (Tulasnella sp.). Scienta Horticulturae (2014).