GMO Biosafety Research 2015, Vol.6, No.2, 1-6
4
species levels. How shall the world evaluate
contamination of gene banks with GMOs? In 2003,
scientists of California University requested the seeds
of 30 types of tomatoes which they had given 7 years
ago to several USA and world’s universities and
colleges for planting. Genetic analysis on returned
seeds showed that they changed significantly. During
the research, new genes were discovered in seeds;
NPT II gene was discovered in some of the returned
seeds.
UC Davis officials have determined that the seeds
carrying the PG trait originated from a 20-gram seed
sample donated to UC Davis in 1996 by Petoseed
Company, which has since been acquired by Seminis
Vegetable Seeds. It is unclear when or where the seeds
were mislabeled.
Seminis Vegetable Seeds were given to California
University, in 1996, by Petoseed Company as a
present. Until now, it is not known, when were these
seeds contaminated (Koppenjan G et al., 2003). The
most effective way to prevent negative influence of
GMOs on biodiversity is stabile preserving of their
components. There are different ways to preserve
purity and stability of both wild nature and agriculture
in order to safe biodiversity. This includes use of the
most modern methods in cultivation, propagation,
transportation and technological works. Ultimately the
only way is to create gene bank of components of
biodiversity and to preserve them. Nowadays most
countries create centers for genetic resources and there
establish gene banks of each species of flora and fauna
existing in the country.
In 2013, the European Commission prepared a pack of
proposals and recommendations for prevention of
GMOs pollution of ecologically pure and traditional
plants. The main purpose and idea of this normative
document was the elaboration of non-mandatory
recommendations for European Union counties. In
this document, they worked out national strategies
against spread of GMOs for each country. These
recommendations have been elaborated first of all
taking into account specific features, flora and fauna,
condition of ecosystem of each region. Elaboration of
such recommendations for our Republic could have
impact to decrease of GMOs influence (Wolfenbarger
L. L. and P. R. Phifer, 2000).
As genetically modified sorts of plants, genes and
genomes from the legal point of view is considered as
“invention” and “intellectual property”, the companies
which produce them have the right to obtain fee for
that. This leads to the situation where agriculture
becomes dependent on transnational biotechnological
corporations and in this way national food security/
sovereignty is brought to danger. Number of
opponents to GMOs in the world is growing. One of
their biggest achievements is implementation of rule
on labeling of GMO products. 60 countries already
label GMOs for use. This process should have been
since 2003. Labeling of GMOs in South Africa
became stricter. Brazil obligated “Nestle” company to
label their products; labeling rules have been
expanding in Turkey.
Impact of GM crops on biodiversity of Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan is a biodiversity rich country . The flora
and fauna in his territory has at least three
biogeographic provinces converge. A significant
contributor to this diversity comes from the Caspian
Sea also. In the regions of Azerbaijan we find species
that are typical of Europe (e.g., bear, lynx, chamois,
red deer), Central Asia (e.g., wild goat, with leopard),
and Asia Minor (e.g., striped hyena, Persian gazelle).
The varied terrain and climatic conditions contribute
to a diversity of ecosystems and species.
Approximately 4,200 species of vascular plants, 600
species of vertebrate animals, and 14,000 species of
insects were identified. An estimate of 270 species of
plants are endemic to Azerbaijan. A much greater
percentage of both plants and animals are unique to
the Caucasus region. Azerbaijan also possesses rich
agricultural biodiversity that is gradually being
replaced by more cosmopolitan varieties, especially
after gaining independence. The Caucasus region,
including Azerbaijan, harbors several wild close
relatives of domestic food plants such as wild rye,
wheat, barley, millet, wild pears, cherry, and more
than 200 varieties of grapes.
In recent years, Azerbaijan faces serious
environmental challenges. The main environmental
issues for Azerbaijan are deforestation, water and air
pollution, excessive use of fertilizers, oil pollution,
high rate of genetic mutation, loss of some of the most
productive lands in the country due to Armenian
occupation, loss of crops such as grapes, cotton and
