Insuring Against Losses from Transgenic Contamination: The Case of Pharmaceutical Maize

Concerns about the risk of food supply contamination and the resulting financial losses have limited the development and commercialization of certain pharmaceutical plants. This article develops an insurance pricing model that helps translate these concerns into a cost-benefit analysis. The model first estimates the physical dispersal of maize pollen subject to a number of weather parameters. This distribution is then validated with the limited amount of currently available field trial data. The physical distribution is then used to calculate the premium for a fair-valued insurance policy that would fund the destruction of possibly contaminated fields. The flexible framework can be readily adapted to other crops, management practices, and regions

Agricultural Biotechnology

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release or field testing of certain plants and organisms produced through biotechnology. This factsheet answers frequently asked questions about APHIS’ biotechnology regulations. Who regulates agricultural products of biotechnology? What do APHIS’ biotechnology regulations cover? What plants are exempt from APHIS’ biotechnology regulations? How do I verify a plant’s regulatory status? Where can I find a list of modified crops not subject to APHIS regulation? When can modified crops be safely commercialized? When do I need a permit from APHIS? How does APHIS ensure compliance with biotechnology regulations and permit conditions? How does APHIS address regulatory noncompliance? Does APHIS inspect all field tests? What are common compliance infractions? How does APHIS make sure commercial food and feed is free of field-test materials? How does APHIS comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? Does APHIS involve the public in important policy decisions? Where can I go for more information

Phyllosticta citricarpa and sister species of global importance to Citrus.

Several Phyllosticta species are known as pathogens of Citrus spp., and are responsible for various disease symptoms including leaf and fruit spots. One of the most important species is P. citricarpa, which causes a foliar and fruit disease called citrus black spot. The Phyllosticta species occurring on citrus can most effectively be distinguished from P. citricarpa by means of multilocus DNA sequence data. Recent studies also demonstrated P. citricarpa to be heterothallic, and reported successful mating in the laboratory. Since the domestication of citrus, different clones of P. citricarpa have escaped Asia to other continents via trade routes, with obvious disease management consequences. This pathogen profile represents a comprehensive literature review of this pathogen and allied taxa associated with citrus, focusing on identification, distribution, genomics, epidemiology and disease management. This review also considers the knowledge emerging from seven genomes of Phyllosticta spp., demonstrating unknown aspects of these species, including their mating behaviour.TaxonomyPhyllosticta citricarpa (McAlpine) Aa, 1973. Kingdom Fungi, Phylum Ascomycota, Class Dothideomycetes, Order Botryosphaeriales, Family Phyllostictaceae, Genus Phyllosticta, Species citricarpa.Host rangeConfirmed on more than 12 Citrus species, Phyllosticta citricarpa has only been found on plant species in the Rutaceae.Disease symptomsP. citricarpa causes diverse symptoms such as hard spot, virulent spot, false melanose and freckle spot on fruit, and necrotic lesions on leaves and twigs.Useful websitesDOE Joint Genome Institute MycoCosm portals for the Phyllosticta capitalensis (https://genome.jgi.doe.gov/Phycap1), P. citriasiana (https://genome.jgi.doe.gov/Phycit1), P. citribraziliensis (https://genome.jgi.doe.gov/Phcit1), P. citrichinaensis (https://genome.jgi.doe.gov/Phcitr1), P. citricarpa (https://genome.jgi.doe.gov/Phycitr1, https://genome.jgi.doe.gov/Phycpc1), P. paracitricarpa (https://genome.jgi.doe.gov/Phy27169) genomes. All available Phyllosticta genomes on MycoCosm can be viewed at https://genome.jgi.doe.gov/Phyllosticta

EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2013. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (bovine animals).

A risk ranking process identified Salmonella spp. and pathogenic verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) as current high-priority biological hazards for meat inspection of bovine animals. As these hazards are not detected by traditional meat inspection, a meat safety assurance system for the farm-to-chilled carcass continuum using a risk-based approach was proposed. Key elements of the system are risk-categorisation of slaughter animals for high-priority biological hazards based on improved food chain information, as well as risk-categorisation of slaughterhouses according to their capability to control those hazards. Omission of palpation and incision during post-mortem inspection for animals subjected to routine slaughter may decrease spreading and cross-contamination with the high-priority biological hazards. For chemical hazards, dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls were ranked as being of high potential concern; all other substances were ranked as of medium or lower concern. Monitoring programmes for chemical hazards should be more flexible and based on the risk of occurrence, taking into account the completeness and quality of the food chain information supplied and the ranking of chemical substances, which should be regularly updated to include new hazards. Control programmes across the food chain, national residue control programmes, feed control and monitoring of environmental contaminants should be better integrated. Meat inspection is a valuable tool for surveillance and monitoring of animal health and welfare conditions. Omission of palpation and incision would reduce detection effectiveness for bovine tuberculosis and would have a negative impact on the overall surveillance system especially in officially tuberculosis free countries. The detection effectiveness for bovine cysticercosis, already low with the current meat inspection system, would result in a further decrease, if palpation and incision are removed. Extended use of food chain information could compensate for some, but not all, the information on animal health and welfare lost if only visual post-mortem inspection is applied