A Multidisciplinary Approach for Anticipating the Presence of Genetically Modified Fish in France

  • Catherine Mariojouls
  • Muriel Mambrini
  • J. S. Joly
  • F. Sohm
  • S. Barrey
  • L. Boy
  • I. Doussan
  • Y. Bertheau
  • J. Davison
  • A. F. Schmid
  • L. Coutellec
  • F. Varenne
Conference paper

Abstract

Transgenic aquaculture species with improved growth rates are at the premarket stage in the United States and may be produced in countries with less drastic regulations for environmental protection. The French market is widely supplied by imports from all over the world. Regarding the crisis provoked by plant GMO (genetically modified organisms) production, rumors of the unauthorized importation of GMF (genetically modified fish), even if fortuitous, would undoubtedly have detrimental effects on public confidence, and consequently on fish market and innovation systems.

To anticipate such a situation, the DOG.M.ATIS project (2007–2010), funded by the French Research Agency (A.N.R.), proposes to develop dedicated strategies through multidisciplinary approaches and to deliver:
  • A critical analysis of the technological reality and expected evolution of GMF by characterizing the impact of the transgene and transgenesis technique on transgene stability and flow

  • Development of some methodologies and possible routes of GMF detection, based on detection strategies for plants and establishing specific methods for GM fish

  • An assessment of the risk of the fortuitous presence of GM fish in our markets by crossing the data from the scientific literature and an expert analysis of filtered statistics of international trade

  • An assessment of public perception levels, using focus groups for analyzing the opinions of citizens and performing interviews with businesses and NGOs

  • Development of drafts for dedicated regulations and laws, developed based on an analysis of the current regulations for GM organisms and of the gaps existing within the reality of GM fish and the fish market chain

  • A description of examples of GMF and the ethical implications, moving beyond the very classical–theory-driven–scientific descriptions used in the GMO debate up to now

DOG.M.ATIS is a network of scientists in various fields: fish genetics and transgenesis, GMO detection, fish market economy, consumer sociology, law, philosophy, and epistemology. We propose to unravel the multiple dimensions of GMF with progressive interdisciplinary approaches that will deliver results to be exploited both by experts in the different disciplines involved and by the overall network.

Keywords

Foreign Trade Transgenic Fish Ornamental Fish Market Chain Sentinel Fish 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aarset B, Beckmann S, Bigne J, Beveridge MCM, Bjorndal T, Bunting MJ, McDonagh P, Mariojouls C, Muir JF, Prothero A, Smith AP, Tveteras R, Young JA (2004) The European consumers’ understanding and perceptions of the ‘organic’ food regime: the case of aquaculture. Brit Food J 106:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrey S (2006) Formation et calcul des prix des produits de grande consommation: le travail de tarification dans la grande distribution alimentaire. Sociol Trav 48(2):142–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertheau Y, Davison J (2007) The theory and practice of European traceability regulations for genetically modified food and feed. In: Lee C-H (ed) International symposium on traceability for food safety. Rural Development Administration of Korea, Korea, pp 187–204Google Scholar
  4. Boy L (2003) Précaution et traçabilité dans la directive U.E. du 12 mars 2001 relative à la dissémination volontaire d’O.G.M. dans l’environnement. In: de Ph. Pédrot (éd) La traçabilité. EconomicaGoogle Scholar
  5. Boy L (2003) Information, traçabilité et consommateurs. In: Liber amocorum, Jean Calais-Auloy. Dalloz, p 131Google Scholar
  6. Davison J, Bertheau Y (2007) European regulations on genetically modified organisms: their interpretation, implementation and difficulties in compliance. CAB Rev Perspect Agric Vet Sci Nutr Nat Resour 2(7):1–14Google Scholar
  7. Davison J, Bertheau Y (2008 July–August) The theory and the practice of European traceability regulations for G.M. Food and Feed. Cereal Food World 53(4):186–196Google Scholar
  8. Mambrini M (2004) “Transgenèse, faisabilité et risques”. Report for the French National Assembly: information workshop on G.M.O, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  9. Mambrini M (2006) Bio-engineering in aquaculture, knowledge and further studies for biosafety. In: FAO technical consultation “Biosafety within a Biosecurity framework”. Rome 25/02 au 02/03/06Google Scholar
  10. Mariojouls C, Fischer M (2004) Quality schemes and quality labels in the French fishfarming sector. In: Proceedings of the XIIth biennal conference of the International Institute for Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET), Tokyo, Japan, July 20–30, p 7Google Scholar
  11. Rodríguez-Lázaro D, Lombard B, Smith H, Rzezutka A, D’Agostino M, Helmuth R, Schroeter A, Malorny B, Miko A, Guerra B, Davison J, Kobilinsky A, Hernández M, Bertheau Y, Cook N (2007) Trends in analytical methodology in food safety and quality: monitoring microorganisms and genetically modified organisms, trends (a review). Food Sci Technol 18(6):306–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schmid AF (2006) La situation de l’épistémologie, la question des modèles et de la simulation. Pétra, collection “Acta Stoïca”, p 50Google Scholar
  13. Varenne F (2006) Optimalité et morphogenèse: le cas des plantes au 20ème siècle. Bull Hist Epistém Sci Vie 13:89–117Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Mariojouls
    • 1
  • Muriel Mambrini
    • 2
  • J. S. Joly
    • 3
  • F. Sohm
  • S. Barrey
    • 4
  • L. Boy
    • 5
  • I. Doussan
  • Y. Bertheau
    • 6
  • J. Davison
  • A. F. Schmid
    • 7
  • L. Coutellec
    • 7
  • F. Varenne
    • 8
  1. 1.Agro Paris Tech, UMR SAD-APTParis Cedex 05France
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Génétique des PoissonsInstitut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueJouy-en-JosasFrance
  3. 3.DEPSN UPR 2197, CNRSGif-Sur-YvetteFrance
  4. 4.CERTOP UMR CNRS 5044Toulouse cedexFrance
  5. 5.CREDECO/GREDEG, UMR 6227ValbonneFrance
  6. 6.Phytopathologie et Méthodologies de la Détection, INRAVersailles cedexFrance
  7. 7.INSAVilleurbanne cedexFrance
  8. 8.Université de Rouen Place E. BlondelSaint-AignanFrance

Personalised recommendations