• Dna Genetic Testing

9.4 Genetic Engineering KEY CONCEPT DNA sequences of organisms can be changed. 9.4 Genetic Engineering. New genes can be added to an organism’s DNA. • Genetic engineering involves changing an organism’s. • Transgenic animals are used to study diseases and gene functions. – transgenic mice used to study development and.

Know the structure of DNA, be able to label a diagram. Deoxyribose. Phosphate. Adenine. Guanine. Cytosine. Thymine.

Hydrogen Bonds. Double Helix. Nucleotides 2. Who established the structure of DNA? Understand the process of replication.

Why is it called semi-conservative? What makes up a nucleotide? What is a gene? What is the base-pair rule? What does RNA look like? How does it differ from DNA?

What is the relationship between genes, proteins, DNA and traits? Describe transcription & translation 10. Be able to use a codon chart to determine amino acid chains.

Describe chromosome mutations (deletion, duplication, translocation, inversion) Genetic Engineering Know these terms: 1. Selective Breeding 2. Inbreeding 3. Transgenic 4. Hybridization 5.

Restriction Enzyme 6. Gel electrophoresis 7. Recombinant DNA 9. Polyploidy 10.

Polymerase Chain Reaction 11. Understand the diagram and label the appropriate areas.

This post was originally published on GMO Answers'. “Meanwhile people in our country are going hungryBut if we invent new seeds that increase the yield of their land, small farmers can survive.” Photo Credit: Humans of New York (HONY), the popular photo blog dedicated to chronicling intimate moments with people from around the world, recently featured a Facebook about a young man studying agriculture in India who aspires to use biotech to help smallholder farmers improve crop yields.

Within hours, the post garnered hundreds of comments – sparking a heated debate, on both sides about the impact of genetically modified (GMO) seeds have on smallholder farmers in developing countries. This is an important conversation to have, but it should be based on facts and science – not myths. We’ll examine some of the most common misconceptions below.

MYTH: GMOs are bad for smallholder farmers in developing countries FACT: GMOs greatly benefit smallholder farmers in developing countries. According the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), are small. In India, the genetically modified eggplant farmers combat the fruit and shoot borer worm, which threatened an estimated 20-40% of their eggplant crops.

Have developed a Water-Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA), improved cassava, sorghum, bananas, and more, enhancing the nutrition of crops and sustainability of those crops. MYTH: GMOs are not good for the environment FACT: GMOs allow farmers to grow more with less. GMOs can actually reduce the environmental impact of farming, allowing farmers to grow food more. Whether it’s less time spent on a tractor tilling soil, which helps to reduce carbon emissions, or applying fewer insecticides, GMOs help farmers to reduce their environmental footprint in many ways. In 2015, GMOs allowed farmers to use 48 million fewer acres of land to produce the same amount of crops. As the world’s population continues to grow, finding more sustainable ways to produce our food will become even more critical.

MYTH: Big Seed Companies force farmers to buy GMO seeds. FACT: Farmers choose to use or not use GMO seeds based on the needs of their farm. In fact, there are a wide variety of seed options available to farmers, including organic, hybrid, conventional and genetically modified seeds. Jillian Etress, a high school agriculture teacher and family farmer from South Alabama, also offers her perspective in this, where she explains that on her farm, they “choose to use or not use GMOs based on the needs of our farm.” We couldn't agree more.

Dna Genetic Testing

GMOs are one tool in a modern farmer’s toolbox. Liz Caselli-Mechael, agricultural economist put it best in this Forbes when she said, “We need to make technology, including (but not limited to) improved and GMO seed varieties, available in the places that need them most.” Interested in joining the conversation online? You can comment on the HONY Facebook post. This post was originally published on GMO Answers'.

One of today’s most common misconceptions about GMOs and biotechnology is that they are not regulated, when in fact, GMOs are one of the most products in agriculture history. Reached out to law professor and GMO Answers volunteer expert Drew L. Kershen for his perspective on the current U.S.

Regulatory review structure for agriculture biotechnology and what we may expect in the future. Many people may think that GMOs are not regulated, when actually, GMOs are one of the most regulated products in agriculture history. A Shared Responsibility Three federal agencies share responsibility for regulating agricultural biotechnology:. The United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) assesses plants bred through biotechnology to assure that the plants are not a plant pest or a noxious weed in farmers’ fields. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses its statutory power over pesticides to regulate agricultural biotechnology when the trait engineered into the plant or animal acts like a pesticide – e.g. Plants that control damaging insects by being toxic to the pest. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses its delegated authority concerning food to assure that food (either whole or ingredients) from genetically engineered plants or animals is safe and substantially equivalent to foods already on the market.

In addition, the FDA uses its power over drugs to regulate biotech animals as if those animals were new veterinary drugs. But, in this blog post, I focus on regulatory review for food safety as consumers are most concerned about regulatory agencies assuring food safety. Building on an Existing Framework USDA-APHIS, EPA, and FDA regulate using statutes that pre-existed agricultural biotechnology.

Under the Coordinated Framework for Biotechnology, promulgated in the 1980s, the United States decided not to create a unique and separate regulatory structure just for agricultural biotechnology. The United States made this decision because the United States wanted to focus on the end products (the plants or animals) of agricultural biotechnology and not on the process of biotechnology itself. Risks (if any) to the environment, human and animal health, or plant and animal performance arise from the genetic traits and not the breeding method by which the plant or animal acquires the genetic trait. The scientific consensus is overwhelming that agricultural biotechnology does not create unique or different risks as compared to other breeding technologies. Although risks (if any) arise from the genetic traits bred into plants and animals by using biotechnology, each of the three U.S. Agencies used biotechnology itself as the trigger to invoke regulatory scrutiny when agricultural biotechnology began to emerge in the 1990s. The agencies did so because of the newness of and lack of familiarity with agricultural biotechnology.

Since the 1990s, thousands of laboratory experiments, trillions of human meals and fed animals, and agronomic performance on more than a billion acres of farmers’ fields has proven that genetically engineered plants and animals create no unique or different risks than conventional or organic plants and animals. Consequently, each of the three U.S. Agencies are presently reviewing their regulatory approaches to agricultural biotechnology. The Next Phase of Regulations As of early 2018, one cannot predict the outcome of this regulatory review. From my point of view, most scientists hope that the review will change the regulatory trigger from the fact of using biotechnology to a focus on identifiable risks (if any) of the engineered traits. If the focus (the trigger) becomes identifiable risks, most scientists expect that the regulatory burdens on biotech plants and animals should and will diminish - without compromising the agencies’ obligations to protect health, safety, the environment and plant and animal performance.

After more than 20 years of agricultural biotechnology, agency review of the regulatory structure is appropriate for another reason. Since the 1990s, scientists have learned much more about molecular biology and genetics.

Scientists have developed additional and even more precise methods for genetic engineering. These new techniques have acronyms, among others, such as TALENs, ZFNs, CRISPR/Cas and synthetic biology. Just as scientists create new knowledge and develop new understandings, so too should regulatory agencies change their regulations to be responsive and current in their knowledge and understanding. As agencies review their regulatory approach to biotechnology, agencies must address two fundamental questions: 1) What is the appropriate level of regulatory scrutiny for agricultural biotechnology, especially for these new, more-precise methods?

2) When and how should an agency exercise appropriate regulation? From my work in agricultural biotechnology law and policy, I think the agencies should answer by focusing on identified risks, if any, of the product (and not on the process) and by invoking regulatory scrutiny only when proportionate to the identified risks. Indeed, I have been a co-author making precisely these recommendations to the agencies reviewing their regulatory policies. So in my opinion, the current U.S. Regulatory approach to agricultural biotechnology is outdated and needs an appropriate and scientifically-sound updating.

The following is an excerpt of a new report about a to help tomatoes fight off pests. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, more than 2.75 million metric tons of pesticides were used worldwide in 2015 with a significant proportion of these chemicals used for insect control.

The dangers of various insecticides and their misapplication have been a topic of interest since Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring about DDT in 1962. A promising control method is the use of a bacteria-derived protein to protect plants from insect attack and damage. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil bacterium that produces insecticidal crystal proteins which bind to receptors in the insect’s gut. These receptors are not found in vertebrates including humans; therefore, these organisms are not harmed. Application of Bt crystal proteins to crop plants has been used in organic farming for more than 50 years. Different types of crystal proteins exist and can provide protection against one or more target insect species. An alternative to external application of Bt crystal proteins is genetic engineering of the crop plant to produce the protein itself using Bt crystal protein (cry) genes. Bt crops were first developed in 1996 and are now widely used in many parts of the world.

Work in our lab was aimed at determining if the expression of a Bt cry gene in tomato could provide control of the leaf miner Tuta absoluta. This insect was initially only a threat to crops in South America but within the past decade it has spread to Europe and Africa where it has earned the nickname ‘tomato Ebola.’ Control of this pest is especially difficult in developing countries which may not have access to insecticides or may not be able to afford the repeated sprays that are needed to eliminate leaf miner. Indeed alternatives to chemical formulations such as camel urine are being tested in parts of Africa for leaf miner control. In our research, the cry1Ac gene was introduced into tomato plants. The transgenic plants were then examined for their response to leaf miner infection. Up to 100% of leaf miner larvae died after feeding on leaves producing crystal proteins. Moreover, gallery formation by the insect was reduced by 57 to 100%, ensuring that the leaves suffered limited damage and that marketable fruits could be produced.

These results indicate that, if adopted, Bt tomato could reduce the use of insecticides for the control of leaf miner and potentially other insects. To read the entire report, please visit the. This post was originally published on GMO Answers'.

Modern agriculture, specifically GMOs, can not only feed the world’s growing population, but do so in far more sustainable, environmentally friendly ways. Purdue University President Mitch Daniels recently published an in The Washington Post about the importance of GMOs – and how they will help feed the world’s growing population.

Daniels’ op-ed makes several critical points. There is a clear lack of scientific evidence behind those that argue against GMOs. “Here, there are no credibly conflicting studies, no arguments about the validity of computer models, no disruption of an ecosystem nor any adverse human health or even digestive problems, after 5 billion acres have been cultivated cumulatively and trillions of meals consumed.” 2. GMOs are the latest technology in a long line of crop science – and they’re sustainable.

“Today, their scientific successors are giving birth to a new set of miracles in plant production and animal husbandry that cannot only feed the world's growing billions but do so in far more sustainable, environmentally friendly ways. And though the new technologies are awe-inspiring, they are just refinements of cruder techniques that have been used for centuries.” 3. Agriculture leaders in developing countries want access to GMOs.

“Travel to Africa with any of Purdue University's three recent World Food Prize winners, and you won't find the conversation dominated by anti-GMO protesters. There, where more than half of the coming population increase will occur, consumers and farmers alike are eager to share in the life-saving and life-enhancing advances that modern science alone can bring.” 4.

Wealthy countries advocating against the use of GMOs is immoral. “For the rich and well-fed to deny Africans, Asians or South Americans the benefits of modern technology is not merely anti-scientific. It's cruel, it's heartless, it's inhumane — and it ought to be confronted on moral grounds that ordinary citizens, including those who have been conned into preferring non-GMO Cheerios, can understandEfforts to persuade them otherwise, or simply block their access to the next round of breakthroughs, are worse than anti-scientific. They're immoral.” You can read Daniels’ here.

This post was originally published on GMO Answers'. From refreshed educational content and sparking more interactive conversations, GMO Answers this year took its commitment to communicating science and engaging with consumers to new heights. (Image Credit: GMO Answers) GMO Answers is dedicated to answering consumers' questions about genetically modified foods and encourage ongoing conversations about science and biotechnology. In 2017, we introduced more innovative and interactive ways to engage with you about these important topics. This year was filled with a lot of new experiences and several “firsts” that built on our mission to create a much better educational experience. Introduced new platforms, better experience GMO Answers revamped to offer more multimedia content, enhance the site’s search functionality and provide refreshed educational resources, while continuing to answer any questions related to GMOs and biotechnology. You can now more easily find rich, dynamic content – including videos and interactive tools – that explain the science behind GMOs.

Along with a refreshed website, we relaunched our Medium page, where we’ve featured blog posts from nearly 30 volunteer experts and contributors this year on a wide range of agricultural and scientific topics. Check out our most popular post about the! Developed more interactive opportunities As part of this year’s “Get to Know GMOs Month,” GMO Answers launched its first ever, an interactive social media video contest! The contest challenged anyone to submit a 15–30 second video answering the question: If you could use biotechnology to solve any food problem around the world, what would it be and why? Following a host of submissions, GMO Answers awarded high school senior the first place prize for his entry demonstrating how genetically modified, nutritionally-enriched white corn may help solve widespread vitamin A deficiency in East Africa.

Check out highlights from all the participants in our recap video! On this year, GMO Answers wanted to take a deeper look at plant science and biotechnology’s positive impact on agriculture and on farmers, so we hosted our first with volunteer expert and sixth generation Florida farmer Lawson Mozley! Check out his on the technology behind food production.

Offered better ways to communicate the basics & benefits of GMOs Communicating the is crucial to understanding how your food is grown. Since 2013, GMO Answers' volunteer experts have answered more than 1,400 questions – a level of engagement far beyond what we ever expected. As a more interactive way to answer these questions, we’ve featured some of our volunteer experts in videos discussing GMO basics. Here’s fourth generation, family farmer explaining what GMOs are and Registered Dietitian talking about their safety. In addition to health and safety, has always been a topic of concern among our audience. We addressed these concerns on this year’s, highlighting the release of the, which found that crop biotechnology has significantly reduced agriculture’s environmental impact and contributed to preserving the earth’s natural resources, while boosting the global economy by allowing farmers to grow more, high-quality crops.

And to show more simply how GMOs benefit the environment, we created a fun, animated video! Dispelled trending GMO myths Finally, GMO Answers has focused on busting the surrounding GMOs. Do GMOs cause a? Is there a between GMO and non-GMO foods? No difference. Do GMOs cause allergies?

Rest easy because the scientific and academic community concluded that genetically modified crops are safe to eat, have the same nutrition and composition as non-genetically modified crops and have no links to new allergies, cancer, celiac or other diseases. Understanding the science behind GMOs and searching for the facts is crucial now more than ever as even some of today’s top perpetuate fear about GMOs over the facts. As we head into 2018, GMO Answers is strengthening its commitment to fight fearmongering and communicate factual, science-based information about biotechnology, so stay tuned for what’s to come in the New Year! This post was originally published on GMO Answers'. In light of a recent Shape Magazine and a First For Women newspaper edition that made misinformed claims against the safety of genetically modified foods, GMO Answers reached out to volunteer expert Dr.

Felicia Stoler for her perspective on the articles. Felicia speaks to the importance of evidence-based, factual science communication around GMOs at a time when it can feel difficult to know what sources to trust when making food choices. I proudly volunteer for GMO Answers because as a doctorally trained, registered dietitian nutritionist, exercise physiologist AND journalist I make a living trying to translate the science into consumer-friendly messaging.

That also means I spend a lot of time debunking “fake news.” I totally understand that many websites want to attract readers, followers or “clicks” at all costs, but to do so in a manner akin to spreading propaganda that is factually incorrect is dangerous. Established media outlets must demand a higher level of responsibility on behalf of “writers” to do real investigation of facts before putting them into articles or posts because consumers assume that you do. In the scientific world, lying or misstating facts is certain to be professional suicide because ultimately peers will figure it out and in no quiet manner, make a lot of noise. Let’s start with anything coming from Jeffrey Smith related to nutrition, health, science or GMOs.

2005 polaris ranger 700 service manual. View and Download Polaris RANGER XP 700 4X4 service manual online. RANGER XP 700 4X4 Automobile pdf manual download. Also for: 2008 ranger 700.

Smith is an activist – not a scientist. He is very talented at misleading the public and being a fear monger by trying to imply a cause and affect by using CORRELATION. RULE #1 IN SCIENCE – CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. RULE #2 – OUTCOMES/FINDINGS MUST BE REPRODUCABLE (REPEATED MEASURE YIELD SAME RESULTS) IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE FACTUALLY CORRECT.

Lucky for me, I had the chance to attend the screening of “Food Evolution” right before I sat down to write this blog. I would urge anyone reading this blog to watch this documentary. I have seen just about every SHOCKUMENTARY that has been made about food, the food supply, health, nutrition and diet. This is the one film on the subject of GMOs and organic that has the least amount of BIAS and is the most objective and balanced information. In a nutshell based upon a consensus statement by, there are no cause and effect relationships between genetically engineered (GE) food and human health. The actual consumption of GE related food items is impossible to quantify for the general public – not because it is so widespread, but because it is not as pervasive or ubiquitous as the fear mongers would have you believe. GMOs are safe to eat and are not linked to any allergies or diseases.

Learn the facts about GMOs in order to make informed food choices the next time you’re walking through the grocery aisle. (Image Credit: GMO Answers) Organic is not any healthier for humans or the planet. Organic food does use “chemical” products to kill insects, microbes and fungus many of which may be harmful to human health in large quantities. The number of people on this planet is growing at a rate for which traditional organic methods cannot be sustained.

Let me rephrase that – organic food methods cannot feed all the people on this planet. Internet search results and misleading news articles can confuse consumers, leading them to believe GMOs cause allergies, illness, cancer, etc. However, GM crops are safe to eat, have the same nutrition and composition conventional crops and have no links to new allergies, cancer, celiac or other diseases. This is where science comes into play how do we feed more people using less resources (including land), in a manner that is safe, efficient and effective? So using GE or other processes like greenhouses or aero or hydroponics is not a bad thing.

Neither are fish farms. Food elitism comes from a place of wealth and privilege. It is not what the majority of our fellow humans, who share this planet, can afford to be harmed by our prejudiced views. Talk to farmers and ask them what they want.

They want science. They want to be productive. They even would like a little profit (and last I checked, I haven’t seen ANY farmers topping the list of high net worth individuals). They make food that they would feed their families. Science has saved and made our lives better.

Demand excellence in writing and news. The following is an excerpt of a press release posted to the website announcing the results of a new study that could help water efficiency in plants. A discovery by Texas A&M AgriLife Research scientists in Dallasprovides new insights about the biological or circadian clock, how it regulates high water-use efficiency in some plants, and how others, including food plants, might be improved for the same efficiency, possibly to grow in conditions uninhabitable for them today.

The scientists in their study, published in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution at, identify 1,398 transcription factors, proteins that regulate expression of certain genes in pineapple. Of those, nearly half exhibited time-of-day specific or diurnal gene expression patterns, which could be important in uncovering the genetic controls for water use in plants. “This is an important step in understanding the overall circadian regulation of water-efficient photosynthesis and how that efficiency might be replicated in other plants, namely food crops,” said Dr. Qingyi Yu, AgriLife Research associate professor of plant genomics in Dallas. Her team’s study comes on the heels of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, awarded this year for discoveries related to the molecular mechanisms that control circadian rhythm. Yu’s group focused on pineapple, a water-efficient tropical plant that uses crassulacean acid metabolism or CAM photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, CAM plants open their stomata at night to facilitate water-efficient gas exchange compared to C3 plants, whose less water-efficient gas exchange occurs during the day.

The majority of food crops, including rice, wheat, soybean and cotton, use C3 photosynthesis. To learn more about this research, please visit the. This post was originally published on GMO Answers'.

For thousands of years, genetic engineering has helped enhance our food supply, and the future of this innovative technology is no different (Image Credit: GMO Answers) Agriculture could be defined as the manipulation of plant and animal DNA to suit the needs of humans. We have been changing the DNA of our food for 10,000 years. For most of agricultural history, we’ve had no idea what DNA changes occurred in our food. The discovery of recombinant DNA technologies in the 1970s began to change that. For the past twenty years we have been using genetic engineering (GE) to engineer precise DNA changes in our food. Globally over 15% of all crop acres are planted with genetically engineered varieties. GE crops are a significant part of modern agriculture and include many traits beyond herbicide tolerance.

Large and small farmers alike have benefited from this technology. Insect pests of brinjal (eggplant) force developing world farmers to spray insecticides up to 100 times a growing season. Using genetic engineering, scientists inserted a gene from a common soil bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt) into eggplants. The Bt protein is only toxic to target pests and is considered for use (whole Bt bacteria) in organic agriculture. The Bt eggplant protects itself from insect attack. Increased yields and reduced insecticide applications have convinced farmers of the benefits of this GE crop. Currently 6000 grow Bt eggplant and Filipino farmers are beginning to it as well.

Sub Saharan Africa produces a third of the worlds’ banana crop. Banana wilt disease threatens most of the banana production in the region.

Bananas are sterile and must be propagated by cuttings. Unfortunately this practice has accelerated the spread of the disease. By inserting a gene from a pepper plant, African scientists have developed genetically engineered varieties of bananas.

Field trials have been very positive. As GE crop legislation matures in African countries, farmers will gain access to BXW resistant bananas. Globally almost two billion people suffer from malnutrition. Perhaps the greatest need is Vitamin A.

Close to a billion people suffer from Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD). This deficiency can cause a wide range of health problems, particularly in the very young. Each year over 100 million pre-school children suffer from VAD, often leading to blindness and death. Scientists have bio-fortified bananas, cassava, potatoes, sorghum and rice with beta carotene (which our bodies turn into Vitamin A). Golden Rice (beta carotene changes the color of rice) is in advanced stages of field trials. Every indication has this rice alleviating VAD in those whose primary food is rice. Other beta carotene bio-fortified crops are working their way through the research and development process.

Both traditional breeding and biotechnology are being employed to reduce the massive suffering from VAD. Golden rice (right) as the potential to help reduce VAD in the developing world. (Image Credit: Rob Wager) Drought tolerant maize has been available to North American farmers since 2011.

Although 17 countries permit this type of GE crop for food and animal feed, only four allow it to be cultivated. This may soon change. Eastern African countries have been interested in drought tolerance for a long time.

Traditional maize breeding for drought tolerance has had some success. Donation of drought tolerant genes by a North American biotech company is starting to show significant yield advantages in. This year, Kenya authorized field trials and Uganda has just passed their, which will facilitate field trials of GE crops in that country. Millions of developing world farmers may soon have access to GE drought tolerant maize. Viral disease in plants often destroys the entire crop.

Most plant viruses are spread by biting/sucking insect pests. Traditionally farmers spray broad spectrum insecticides to try to reduce crop losses. There is a better way. Scientists have developed methods that “immunize” crops from viral disease. It is called interfering RNA. Similar to vaccines in animals, placing a small part of the virus genes (RNA form) into a plant protects it from the virus attack. The first viral resistant GE crop was the papaya.

Papayas suffer from a destructive virus called papaya ring spot virus (PRSV). Scientists at Cornell University used genetic engineering to insert one gene from the PRS virus. The resulting papayas are completely immune to the PRS virus.

This GE crop saved the Hawaiian papaya industry. By planting GE papayas, Hawaiian farmers have reduced insecticide spraying, while maintaining good yields. Today, over 85% of all the papayas grown in Hawaii are genetically engineered to resist PRSV.

Variation in the PRSV around the world has encouraged other papaya growing countries to develop their own ring spot resistant GE varieties. A field of papayas, some that are resistant to PRSV and some that aren’t. (Image Credit: Rob Wager) Five hundred million people (many in Sub Saharan Africa) rely on cassava (potato like root crop that grows in poor soil conditions).

Brown streak virus (BSV) has become a large problem in this region. African scientists, in collaboration with U.S. Scientists, have developed transgenic BSV resistant using the same RNAi technique that is so successful in papayas. African farmers may soon have access to this GE crop. Cassava impacted by BSV (left) and GE cassava (right). (Image Credit: Rob Wager) Fungus produce some of the most toxic compounds on the planet.

Fungal toxins impair the immune system, stunt growth in children and can be carcinogenic. North America, Europe and most of the developed world have strict enforcement of fungal toxin levels in food and feed. Unfortunately in the developing world, a significant amount of highly contaminated food still reaches the market. Billions of people in the suffer from fungus contaminated food. Collaborative research between CGIAR (formerly the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research), and their U.S.

Partners has produced a fungus resistant groundnut. The blocked fungal infection of the nuts with fungal resistance genes and fungal toxin production with RNAi.

There is every reason to believe this research methodology can lead to the development of many safer food crops. The past decade has seen a dramatic in GE crops grown in the developing world. In fact today the developing world grows more acres of GE crops than the developed world. With the advancements in research and development of GE crops in Africa there is every reason to believe significant GE crop advances will soon reach their farmers. The first twenty years of GE crops dealt mainly with traits that benefitted farmers (better weed control and insect resistance). Along with reduced environmental impact, the future will see many GE products that benefit the consumer.

More abundant, healthier and nutritionally enhanced GE crops will be common. Soon 9-10 billion people will inhabit the planet. We will need the best of every form of agriculture if we are to feed everyone on the same amount of land more sustainably.

The European Academies of Science 2013 report said it well. “It is vital that sustainable agricultural production and food security harnesses the potential of biotechnology in all its facets.' The following is an excerpt of an article in the newspaper about efforts to save the redwood and giant sequioa trees through genetic engineering.

Redwood trees, those ancient living monuments to California’s past, are as mysterious to science as they are magnificent, so a team of researchers led by a San Francisco conservation group is attempting to unlock the genetic secrets of the towering conifers. Scientists affiliated with the nonprofit Save the Redwoods League are attempting for the first time to sequence the genomes of coast redwood trees and their higher-elevation cousins, the giant sequoias, a complex and expensive undertaking that experts hope will help preserve the trees’ ancient groves as the climate changes over the next century.

The five-year, $2.6 million Redwood Genome Project is the most intensive scientific study ever done on the state’s famous primeval forests. The goal is to enable scientists to maintain forest resiliency and genetic diversity by choosing the most robust, adaptable genes when planting or doing regeneration or habitat protection work. “This is by far the greatest challenge that anyone has taken on (relating to redwoods), and it has an infinite number of uses,” said David Neale, a UC Davis plant scientist and the projects’ lead researcher. “These conifers are very, very old and have been accumulating DNA for millions of years.” Sequencing the coast redwood genome will be especially difficult, he said, because it is 10 times larger than the human genome. Coast redwoods, for instance, have six sets of chromosomes compared with two for humans, an evolutionary adaptation that researchers believe helped the trees adjust successfully to changing conditions over thousands of years.

To read the entire article, please visit the. The following is an excerpt of an article posted to the Genetic Literacy Project website about. To meet the food demands of a rising global population, innovative strategies are required to increase crop yields. Improvements in plant photosynthesis by genetic engineering show considerable potential towards this goal. One prospective approach is to introduce a CO2 concentrating mechanism into crop plants to increase carbon fixation by supplying the central carbon-fixing enzyme, Rubisco, with a higher concentration of its substrate, CO2.

A promising donor organism for the molecular machinery of this mechanism is the eukaryotic alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. The Chlamydomonas CCM CO2 concentrating mechanism elevates CO2around Rubisco, thereby enhancing photosynthesisIt is anticipated that the pace of advancement will accelerate with both the availability of the Chlamydomonas mutant library and the maturation of large-scale systems biology approaches. Modeling studies are urgently needed to guide the stepwise transfer of components from Chlamydomonas to higher plants. In addition, approaches adapted from synthetic biology and pathway-engineering fields could facilitate the assembly of a CCM in a fast growing, ‘stepping stone’ organism, which could aid our understanding of the minimal components needed for a functional CCM.

Engineering a Chlamydomonas or hybrid CCM into a C3 crop plant is a grand challenge and with the correct resources could become a reality. To read the excerpt of this study, please visit the.