Difference between revisions of "Team:Paris Bettencourt/Sustainability/Acceptance"
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
use food grade vector system to make sure our product is safe for consumption and to reduce issues arising form the | use food grade vector system to make sure our product is safe for consumption and to reduce issues arising form the | ||
use of genetically modified bacteria. Again, she showed her concerns about the compatibility of the different species | use of genetically modified bacteria. Again, she showed her concerns about the compatibility of the different species | ||
− | living in fermentation batter and how we need to make sure they can live alltogether. To finish, | + | living in fermentation batter and how we need to make sure they can live alltogether. To finish, her major |
− | concern is safety. According to | + | concern is safety. According to Sunita Grover, our project needs to undergo phase I and II trials, to assess safety and |
scientifically proven health benefits. | scientifically proven health benefits. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
− | Finally, we had the chance to interview Samir K. Brahmachari, the former director of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research in India. He participated to our first workshop during the NightScience and we met him again at the 2nd Annual Open Source Pharma Conference in Frankfurt, Germany. | + | Finally, we had the chance to interview Samir K. Brahmachari, the former director of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research in India. He participated to our first workshop during the NightScience and we met him again at the 2nd Annual Open Source Pharma Conference in Frankfurt, Germany. Regarding the law, there is no GM microorganisms that are allowed because of the use of antibiotic markers that makes them unsafe to eat. But if we can add a safe vitamin pathway on already eaten bacteria (lactic bacteria for example) that will be sterilized but producing enough vitamin to fortify the food, it should be possible. For him, regulatory issues can undergo changes. Concerning the GMO debate in Europe and India, the main points are different: in India, people don't want GMO to be associated with farmers, they don't want them to be dependant and no one want a monopoly of a particular plant. This issues doesn't apply to our project for Samir Brahmachari, but labelling would be an problem: the use of our product only depends of people wish. If people find it beneficial and safe, they would take it. To continue, an accelerated evolution can be more acceptable for a project like ours for the GMO regulation. Also, since our project doesn't imply a big company producing and giving a product, it is more likely to work and be more accepted, as well as the way we want to implement it (give power to people, let them have their own "mini-lab" and produce their bacteria and yeast for their consumption) according to him. |
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> |
Revision as of 21:13, 17 September 2015