EDIBLE

ANTIBIOTICS IN
FOOD CROP

BY
GROUP 2
 ANALYSIS
 This case basically deals with phyto pharmaceuticals (drugs that
are derived from plants.)
 Corn was bioengineered to produce large quantities of vital
antibiotic : Pencillin.
 This production would provide a steady , cheap product that can
be easily consumed orally.
 Storage, transportation and use of needles are eliminated.
 There are many issues revolving around this GM
crops.
 The non GM crop gets contaminated with GM crop
like Corn as it is wind pollinated.
 The major problems are pollen drift, storage
contamination and mixing of the supplies.
 Dosing and the intake control are major problems in
consuming antibiotics.
 Isolation of the GM maize crop is necessary.
2.) Should we be doing this ?
• Yes , we should go ahead with this as it could be a profitable venture

3.)How should it be regulated ?

• They should be subjected to very close scrutiny by the regulatory bodies in order to ensure that they never enter the food
supply .
• This will include green house segregation to prevent cross breeding and storage facilities .
• It includes lot to lot consistency, uniformity of dosage and purity of the drug .

4) Will your agronomist become your pharmacist? Will your grocer become your pharmacist?
Grocer can become your pharmacist . Not the agronomist .

5.) should the GM Maize be limited to human use ? To animal use ? How would such a limitation change the risks
and benefits ?
YES The GM Maize should be limited to animal feed . According to European Comission GM Maize is completely safe
for animal feed but not yet extended to human feed
As it is not extended to human consumption the risk as been limtied .

6) Is the opposition based on the actual risk implied or only on the alleged immorality of producing GM
organisms?
- Its mainly based on Actual Risk

7.) Should the university receive benifits financially from this product ?
YES The universty as contributed its efforts in developing the product and the indusrty as finacially helped the university
to compelet its reasearch and develop a new products it as a right to share the profits
7.) Should the university receive benifits financially from this product ?
 YES The universty as contributed its efforts in developing the product and the indusrty as
finacially helped the university to compelet its reasearch and develop a new products it as a
right to share the profits
8.) should the consortium be allowed to be patent, and thus control the product ?
 Yes it should be allowed to patent the product

9.) If industry won't support this type of, or exact research, should the federal government
subsidize the research? If this is to help developing countries then are we morally
obligated to do it? Should government support depend on industry support?
 Yes
10) Should the targeted users/audience have a say in the process? Should it pass though
international aid agencies or the governments of the developing countries?
-- Yes
11) Should U.S. agencies (USDA/FDA/EPA) or other agencies {for example the WHO
(World Health Organization) or FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)} regulate
the product?
 Yes they should be regulated .
12) What might the effects of different cooking/culinary methods on the antibiotic imply
for the consumer who is ill and needs the full benefit of the drug?
Raw food or fruits
 CONCLUSION
 Edible plant vaccines offers significant new
opportunity for making safe and effective oral foreign
vaccines which can be more widely used especially in
developed countries.
 It should undergo more clinical trials in order to make
it risk free for the human consumption.
 The regulatory bodies should monitor the research
process.
 This kind of partnership would produce huge profits
and low cost, high quality drugs.
 Looking from commercial point of view we would
like to go ahead with this project as itz less risk for
human feed .