Dr. Stuart Smyth

Ambassador Expert

Dr. Stuart Smyth

Assistant Professor, Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan

Dr. Stuart Smyth is an assistant professor in the Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics at the University of Saskatchewan. He is part of a group of academics that received $5.4 million in funding in 2009 from Genome Canada to examine the genomic, economic, environmental, ethical, legal and social (GE³LS) issues pertaining to bioproducts and biofuels. His research focuses on innovation and agriculture and the resulting impacts. Part of this research was compiled in a 2010 book published by Edward Elgar titled, Innovation and Liability in Biotechnology: Transnational and Comparative Perspectives. He is currently involved in the production of three books that will be published in 2014: co-author of Plant Biotechnology: Principles & Practices, to be published by Wiley-Blackwell; co-editor of Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development, to be published by Edward Elgar; and co-editor of Socio-Economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation, to be published by Springer.

From this Expert

Posted on: May 4, 2018
Response from Dr. Stuart Smyth, Assistant Professor, Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan • July 12, 2018
There would be more public seed development if genome editing technologies like CRISPR are not regulated as GMOs. Single point mutations are an extension of the undirected mutation breeding that is commonly used now. Having genome editing regulated like conventional plant breeding would allow university plant breeders to use the technology to develop new varieties without the stigmatism of them being GMOs. As for would it allow for more start-up seed companies, this is more doubtful. It is... Read More
Posted on: May 4, 2018
Response from Dr. Stuart Smyth, Assistant Professor, Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan • July 12, 2018
There would be more public seed development if genome editing technologies like CRISPR are not regulated as GMOs. Single point mutations are an extension of the undirected mutation breeding that is commonly used now. Having genome editing regulated like conventional plant breeding would allow university plant breeders to use the technology to develop new varieties without the stigmatism of them being GMOs. As for would it allow for more start-up seed companies, this is more doubtful. It is... Read More
Posted on: March 1, 2018
Response from Dr. Stuart Smyth, Assistant Professor, Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan • April 30, 2018
The top organizations that benefit from GMOs are the producer organizations and ultimately the farmers themselves. When famers grow any crop, regardless of whether it is GM or not, they pay a small fee, known as a ‘check-off’ that goes to fund further research into the development of new crop varieties. Each commodity has a check-off fee specific to that commodity and the check-off fees are not necessarily the same for each commodity. For example, in the production of canola in... Read More
Posted on: February 7, 2018
Response from Dr. Stuart Smyth, Assistant Professor, Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan • March 8, 2018
Many people have commented on this, offering a variety to reasons for the opposition to GMOs and GM crops. They offer examples such as the detection of BSE in British cattle and the UK Minister for Agriculture publicly announcing British beef was perfectly safe to eat to the detection of dioxins in chocolate, all of which occurred in the late 1990s. At this time, GM food products were entering the market and in some instances even labelled as being GM products, such as GM tomato paste in... Read More
Answer:
Posted on: September 4, 2017
Response from Dr. Stuart Smyth, Assistant Professor, Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, University of Saskatchewan • December 4, 2017
The principle reason that GM products such as Arctic apples are not available in Germany or any other country of the European Union is due to the GMO labelling legislation in place there. Presently, any food product that contains GM ingredients of greater than 0.9 percent has to be labelled as being a GM food product. The environmental non-governmental organizations have led extensive public relation campaigns to convince European consumers that GM labels are to be viewed as a warning, or... Read More
Answer:
No Studies were Found.