Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
NOVEMBER 2015 39 PACKING PALLETIZING COMPANY PPC PROVIDING CUSTOM BAGGING TAGGING AND PALLETIZING SOLUTIONS BULK BAG FILLER PALLETIZER T 204 331-3000 www.ppcinc.ca E tpppcinc.ca TAG PLACER These new breeding techniques are efficient flexible and low cost in comparison to more traditional techniques. This means plant breeders at universities and public organiza- tions as well as those in corporate companies have access this technology. As of now only Canada and Australia have a product-based rather than a process-based regulatory system. This means the legal parameters in bringing products derived from these breeding methods to market is much less stringent compared to transgenic plants. Education Needed But thats not the case in Europe the United States and many other countries around the world. The question poli- cymakers face with pressure from constituents is whether these techniques should fall under GMO legislation. The use of these new breeding techniques has been stalled at the research and development stage because of uncer- tainty regarding public policy and unclear regulatory status of the new varieties according to a position paper issued by the American Seed Trade Association. Products developed through such breeding techniques might be subject to different regulatory requirements among trading partners potentially leading to trade impedi- ments and enforcement issues globally. It is the general seed industrys belief that unnecessary regulation of products derived through precision breeding tools would result in undue costly regulatory burdens stifle innovation and prevent the adoption of innovative breeding applications. In recognizing this the International Seed Federation launched a Working Group on Plant Breeding and Innovation in 2015 to develop a strategy for political out- reach and communication. The working group in col- laboration with ISFs communications manager Jennifer Clowes is working to develop messages targeting specific stakeholders as part of a campaign. Julie Deering BREEDING METHODS AT A GLANCE Intragenesis Traditional Breeding Cisgenesis Regulatory Elements New compositions of coding sequences and promoters are made. The gene has its native promoter introns and terminator. The gene has its native promoter introns and terminator. Genetic Elements Allows construction of new genetic combinations introducing variability for gene expression Involves both desired and undesired genetic elements of crossed plants Involves exclusively the genes of interest and no undesired genetic elements Linkage Drag Avoided Present Avoided Time Factor Time saving since it is a fast and precise tool Time consuming and requires several generations of breeding and selection Time saving but takes much longer than intragenesis since genesfragmented genes may not be readily accessible Techniques Molecular cloning techniques recombination Crossing mutagenesis and somatic hybridization Molecular techniques Safety Deep concern about safety and impact on health and environment Safe crops being consumed since ages No environmental risk and safe as traditional bred plants Gene Pool Not conserved Preserved Preserved Genetic Make Up Original make up plant is not maintained Maintain original genetic make-up of plant variety Maintain original genetic make-up of plant variety Source Huda Nazeer of the University of Mauritius Moka a country in East Africa.