Zukunftstrend:
personalisierte
Ernährung für
problematische
Punkt-
mutationen
Nutrigenomics:
Verbindung von
Ernährungs-
konzepten und
genetischen
Veranlagungen -
persnalisierte
Ernährungs-
empfehlungen
Was getan
werden
sollte
Verbreiten von
biofortifizierten
Nahrungsmitteln in
Afrika
Regulatorische
Prozesse
adaptieren
Verschiebung der
öffentlichen
Meinung
Verminderung der
Profitorientierung
von Forschung und
Landwirtschaft
Nicht (nur) Bio
sondern Qualität
etablieren
Sources
All Slides:
Salim Al-Babili and Peter Beyer, „Golden Rice – five years on the road – five years to go?“, Review: Trends in Plant
Science, Vol. 10 No. 12 December 2005
Roukayatou Zimmermann, Matin Qaim: „Potential health benefits of Golden Rice – a Philippine case study“ – Food
policy 29 (2004)
Ross M. Welch, Robin D. Graham: „Breeding for micronutrients in staple food crops from a human nutrition
perspective“, Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 55, No. 396
Peter Bayer et al.: „Golden Rice: Indroducing the β-Carotene Biosynthesis Pathway into Rice Endosperm by
Genetic Engineering to Defeat Vitamin A Defiency“, Symposium The Journal of Nutrition, 2002 American Society
for Nutritional Science
Slide 1: The Golden Rice project
Slide 2: Google Earth, Terrametrics, DigitalGlobe
Undata, www.thematicmapping.org
Slide 3: http://www.cehjournal.org/extra/40_15_01.html , Photos: Simon Franken, Allen Foster, Donald McLaren &
Gordon Johnson
Alfred Sommer (ophthalmologist) http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/sommer_vitA.html
Slide 7:
DER SPIEGEL 48/2008 http://www.spiegel.de/media/0,4906,19439,00.pdf
„Kampagne für gentechnisch veränderten Reis am Scheideweg“ Christoph Then, www.scouting-
biotechnology.net, Januar 2009, im Auftrag von foodwatch e. V.
http://www.foodwatch.de/e10/e1026/e19431/e23453/GoldenRice_deutsch_final_ger.pdf
„All that glitters is not Gold: The false hope of Golden Rice“, Greenpeace, May 2005,
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/all-that-glitters-is-not-gold.pdf
Slide 9: http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why3_FAQ.html
Slide 10:
The Positech-system
Certain simple sugars such as mannose cannot generally be utilised as an energy source by many
plants like maize, potato or sugar beet, when grown in tissue culture. However, transformed plant
cells containing the gene that encodes for the enzyme phosphomannose isomerase (PMI) are able
to convert mannose-6-phosphate to fructose-6-phosphate and use it as an energy source. When
grown on a medium containing mannose as a sole sugar source, only transformed cells that
produce - or express - the PMI enzyme will grow.
When the gene that encodes for the PMI enzyme, called ‘manA’, is used as a selectable marker,
the end product is a common sugar.
This system, called ‘Positech’, is currently being used in research on maize, wheat, barley, sugar
beet and vegetables. Positech offers an effective alternative to antibiotic resistance or herbicide
tolerance marker genes in many crops.
Safety of the Positech marker
The manA gene is naturally present and expressed in mammals. Therefore, the metabolites
produced by the Positech system are already widely present.
There have been no observed agronomic differences, such as yield, compared with equivalent
conventional maize varieties. As part of the ongoing safety assessment of the Positech system,
the following results were found:
No measurable allergenic potential was found. Glycoprotein profiles remained the same in
transformed plants. Transgenic maize using Positech was indistinguishable from conventional
maize when analysed for moisture, ash, fibre, fat, protein, beta-carotene, xanthophylls and
vitamin C. No adverse effects of the PMI enzyme were found during an acute oral mouse toxicity
study.