Kontent qismiga oʻtish

Genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan ekinlar

ZiyoSfera, erkin ensiklopediya
Genetik muhandislik
Kirish qismi
Genetik modifikatsiyalangan organizmlar
Tarix va tartibga solish
Jarayon
Qo‘llanilishi
Bahs-munozaralar

Genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan ekinlar — DNKsi genetik muhandislik usullari yordamida oʻzgartirilgan, qishloq xoʻjaligida foydalaniladigan oʻsimliklardir. Oʻsimlik genomlari fizik usullar bilan yoki T-DNK binar vektorlarida joylashgan ketma-ketliklarni yetkazib berish uchun Agrobacteriumdan foydalanish orqali oʻzgartirilishi mumkin. Aksariyat hollarda maqsad oʻsimlik turida tabiiy ravishda uchramaydigan yangi belgini kiritishdan iborat boʻladi. Oziq-ovqat ekinlariga oid misollar qatoriga maʼlum zararkunandalar, kasalliklar va atrof-muhit sharoitlariga chidamlilik, nobud boʻlishning kamayishi, kimyoviy ishlovlarga (masalan, gerbitsidlarga) chidamlilik yoki ekinning ozuqaviy profilini yaxshilash kiradi. Nooziq-ovqat ekinlariga oid misollar sifatida oʻrmon xoʻjaligi uchun genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan daraxtlar, farmatsevtika vositalari, bioyoqilgʻi va boshqa sanoat uchun foydali mahsulotlar ishlab chiqarish, shuningdek, bioremediatsiya (atrof-muhitni tozalash) maqsadida foydalaniladigan oʻsimliklarni keltirish mumkin[1].

Fermerlar genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan texnologiyalarni keng miqyosda qabul qildilar. Ekin maydonlari 1996-yildagi 1,7 million gektardan 2016-yilda 185,1 million gektarga yetdi, bu global ekin maydonlarining qariyb 12 foizini tashkil etadi. 2016-yil holatiga koʻra, asosiy ekinlarning (soya, makkajoʻxori, raps va paxta) belgilari gerbitsidlarga chidamlilik (95,9 million gektar), hasharotlarga chidamlilik (25,2 million gektar) yoki har ikkalasini (58,5 million gektar) oʻz ichiga oladi. 2015-yilda 53,6 million gektar maydonda genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan makkajoʻxori yetishtirildi (bu umumiy makkajoʻxori hosilining qariyb 1/3 qismidir). Genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan makkajoʻxori oʻzidan oldingilaridan ustun keldi: hosildorlik 5,6 foizdan 24,5 foizgacha yuqori boʻldi, mikotoksinlar (−28,8%), fumonizin (−30,6%) va trikotetsenlar (−36,5%) miqdori esa kamaydi. Maqsadli boʻlmagan organizmlarga taʼsir koʻrsatilmadi, faqatgina zararkunanda xoʻjayini boʻlmish Yevropa makkajoʻxori parvonasi populyatsiyasi kamaygani sababli ayrim parazitoid arilar soni kamaydi; Yevropa makkajoʻxori parvonasi kapalaksimonlarga (Lepidoptera) qarshi faol Bt-makkajoʻxorining nishoni hisoblanadi. Lignin miqdori kabi biogeokimyoviy koʻrsatkichlar oʻzgarmadi, biomassaning parchalanishi esa yuqoriroq boʻldi[2].

2014-yilgi meta-tahlil xulosasiga koʻra, genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan texnologiyaning joriy etilishi kimyoviy pestitsidlardan foydalanishni 37 foizga, ekin hosildorligini 22 foizga va fermerlarning daromadini 68 foizga oshirgan[3]. Pestitsidlar qoʻllanilishining bunday kamayishi ekologik jihatdan foydali boʻldi, biroq meʼyordan ortiq foydalanish bu foydani kamaytirishi mumkin[4]. Hosildorlikning oʻsishi va pestitsidlar kamayishi koʻrsatkichlari gerbitsidga chidamli ekinlarga qaraganda hasharotlarga chidamli ekinlarda yuqoriroqdir. Hosildorlik va foydaning oʻsishi rivojlangan mamlakatlarga qaraganda rivojlanayotgan mamlakatlarda koʻproq kuzatilmoqda[5][3]. Faqatgina Hindistonning oʻzida pestitsidlardan zaharlanish holatlari yiliga 2,4 milliondan 9 milliongacha kamaydi[6]. Bt-paxta yetishtirish va Hindistondagi fermerlar oʻrtasidagi oʻz joniga qasd qilish holatlari oʻrtasidagi bogʻliqlik boʻyicha 2011-yilda oʻtkazilgan tadqiqot shuni koʻrsatdiki, „mavjud maʼlumotlar fermerlar oʻz joniga qasd qilishining „qayta avj olishi“ haqida hech qanday dalil keltirmaydi“ va „Bt-paxta texnologiyasi Hindistonda umuman olganda juda samarali boʻlgan“[7]. Hindistonda Bt-paxta joriy etilgan davrda fermerlar oʻrtasidagi oʻz joniga qasd qilish holatlari, aksincha, 25 foizga kamaygan.

Hozirgi vaqtda genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan ekinlardan olingan oziq-ovqat mahsulotlari inson salomatligi uchun odatdagi oziq-ovqat mahsulotlariga qaraganda koʻproq xavf tugʻdirmasligi borasida ilmiy konsensus mavjud boʻlsa-da, har bir genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan oziq-ovqat mahsuloti joriy etilishidan oldin alohida tekshirilishi kerak[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Shunga qaramay, keng jamoatchilik vakillari olimlarga qaraganda genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan mahsulotlarni xavfsiz deb qabul qilishga ancha kam moyildirlar[17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. Genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan oziq-ovqat mahsulotlarining huquqiy va tartibga solish maqomi mamlakatga qarab farq qiladi: baʼzi davlatlar ularni taqiqlaydi yoki cheklaydi, boshqalari esa turli darajadagi nazorat ostida ruxsat beradi[24][25][26][27].

Yana qarang

Manbalar

  1. ↑ „ISAAA 2013 Annual Report“. ISAAA Brief 46-2013 (2013). — „Executive Summary, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops“. Qaraldi: 2014-yil 6-avgust.
  2. ↑ "Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data" (En). Scientific Reports 8 (1). February 2018. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2. PMID 29449686. PMC 5814441. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=5814441. ""The introduction of an EU directive to shift GM approvals from the EU commission to the member states was immediately accepted by 19 of the 28 members who opted to ban GM crops in their countries."" 
  3. ↑ 3,0 3,1 "A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops". PLOS ONE 9 (11). 2014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629. PMID 25365303. PMC 4218791. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=4218791.  Open access icon
  4. ↑ „Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops“. The New York Times (2010-yil 13-aprel).
  5. ↑ "Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybeans". Science Advances 2 (8). August 2016. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600850. PMID 27652335. PMC 5020710. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=5020710. 
  6. ↑ Smyth, Stuart J. (April 2020). "The human health benefits from GM crops". Plant Biotechnology Journal 18 (4): 887–888. doi:10.1111/pbi.13261. PMID 31544299. PMC 7061863. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=7061863. 
  7. ↑ Gruère, G.; Sengupta, D. (2011). "Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-based Assessment". Journal of Development Studies 47 (2): 316–337. doi:10.1080/00220388.2010.492863. PMID 21506303. https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-development-studies_2011-02_47_2/page/316. 
  8. ↑ "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 34 (1): 77–88. March 2014. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. Archived from the original on 2022-10-09. https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.pps.net/cms/lib/OR01913224/Centricity/Domain/3337/peer%20reviewed%20meta%20study%20on%20GMOs%20copy.pdf. Qaraldi: 2026-03-17. "We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

    The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns."     Genetik jihatdan oʻzgartirilgan ekinlar]]
  9. ↑ „State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops“. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. — „Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).“. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.
  10. ↑ "Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security". Genetics 188 (1): 11–20. May 2011. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMID 21546547. PMC 3120150. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=3120150. ""There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)."" 
  11. ↑

    But see also:

    "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants". Environment International 37 (4): 734–42. May 2011. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf. "In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies." 

    "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment". Science, Technology, & Human Values 40 (6): 883–914. 2015. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. https://archive.org/details/sim_science-technology-human-values_science-technology-human-values_2015-11_40_6/page/n1. "I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story." 

    And contrast:

    "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 37 (2): 213–217. March 2017. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. PMID 26767435. "Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

    The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality."     

    and

    "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 96 (6): 1851–5. April 2016. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. "It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food ... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

    Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome."     
  12. ↑ „Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods“. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2012-yil 20-oktyabr). — „"The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."“. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.

    „AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"“. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2012-yil 25-oktyabr). Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.
  13. ↑ A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union., 2010. DOI:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust. 
  14. ↑ „AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)“. American Medical Association (2001-yil yanvar). — „"A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts." "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts."“. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.

    „Report 2 of the Council On Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods“. American Medical Association (2012). — „Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.“. 2012-yil 7-sentyabrda asl nusxadan arxivlangan. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.
  15. ↑ „Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion“. Library of Congress (2015-yil 30-iyun). — „"Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs."“. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.
  16. ↑ National Academies Of Sciences; Division on Earth Life Studies Engineering; Board on Agriculture Natural Resources; Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience Future Prospects. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US), 2016 — 149-bet. DOI:10.17226/23395. ISBN 978-0-309-43738-7. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust. „"Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts."“ 
  17. ↑ „Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods“. World Health Organization. — „Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

    GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.“. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.
  18. ↑ "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology 21 (7): 739–41. July 2003. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. https://archive.org/details/sim_nature-biotechnology_2003-07_21_7/page/738. "These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects." 
  19. ↑ Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:

    „Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement“. British Medical Association (2004-yil mart). — „In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

    When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

    The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.“. 2014-yil 22-martda asl nusxadan arxivlangan. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.
  20. ↑ „Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society“. Pew Research Center (2015-yil 29-yanvar). — „The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.“. 2019-yil 9-yanvarda asl nusxadan arxivlangan. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.
  21. ↑ "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they really understand the public?". EMBO Reports 2 (7): 545–8. July 2001. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMID 11463731. PMC 1083956. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1083956. 
  22. ↑ Final Report of the PABE research project. „Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe“. Commission of European Communities (2001-yil dekabr). 2017-yil 25-mayda asl nusxadan arxivlangan. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.
  23. ↑ "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States". Perspectives on Psychological Science 11 (3): 315–24. May 2016. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243. http://yoelinbar.net/papers/gmo_absolute.pdf. 
  24. ↑ „Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms“. Library of Congress (2015-yil 9-iyun). Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.
  25. ↑ Bashshur, Ramona „FDA and Regulation of GMOs“. American Bar Association (2013-yil fevral). 2018-yil 21-iyunda asl nusxadan arxivlangan. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.
  26. ↑ Sifferlin A (3 October 2015). „Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs“. Time. 2020-02-21da asl nusxadan arxivlandi. Qaraldi: 30 August 2019.
  27. ↑ Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David „The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics“. Council on Foreign Relations (2001-yil 5-aprel). 2016-yil 29-sentyabrda asl nusxadan arxivlangan. Qaraldi: 2019-yil 30-avgust.

Havolalar

"https://ziyosfera.uz/index.php?title=Genetik_jihatdan_oʻzgartirilgan_ekinlar&oldid=448161" dan olindi