Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:43, 26 March 2009

This article may require cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Genetically modified (GM) foods are made from crops that have been given specific traits through genetic engineering, unlike crops developed through conventional genetic modification(ie, conventional plant breeding) that have been accepted and consumed by the public for years. GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. Typically, genetically modified foods are plant products: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. For example, a GM food might be a strawberry variety that has been designed to survive in colder climates, or a pig which has been designed to have less fat. The methodology behind this is complex. A gene that governs a desirable trait is identified and isolated from another organism. Then a recipient plant or animal is selected, and the gene is inserted and incorporated into its genome. Once part of the recipient, the newly inserted gene is indistinguishable from its native genes and will be used by the recipient like any other gene. If a strawberry plant is given a gene from an alpine plant that is highly tolerant of cold, it may improve the strawberry's resistance to frost, or if a pig receives a genome from a spinach genome which barely has any fat, it will most likely reduce the fat content.

Genetically engineered crops and foods are controversial. Debate commonly focuses on the long-term health effects for those who consume GM foods, environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, environmental conservation, and potential disruption or even possible destruction of the food chain. Proponents claim the technology to be a boon for the human race, while critics believe it to be a potential or actual health or ecological disaster.

Development

The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was the tomato puree(called FlavrSavr), which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian company Calgene. Calgene was allowed to release in 1994 without any special labeling. It was welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at two to five times the price of regular tomatoes. However, production problems and competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the product from becoming profitable. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996. The labeling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment, which proved, at the time, that European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods.

Currently, there are a number of foods of which a genetically modified version exists.

In addition, various micro-organisms have been genetically engineered to produce aspartame, amino acids, and numerous other chemicals.

Growing GM crops

Between 1997 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were in Brazil.

Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2005 the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in Brazil (94,000 km in 2005 versus 50,000 km in 2004.) There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) It is predicted that in 2008/9 32,000 km of GM cotton will be harvested in India (up more than 100 percent from the previous season). Indian national average cotton yields of GM cotton were seven times lower in 2002, because the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered variant was not well suited to the climate of India and failed. The publicity given to transgenic trait Bt insect resistance has encouraged the adoption of better performing hybrid cotton varieties, and the Bt trait has substantially reduced losses to insect predation. Though controversial and often disputed, the economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India have been well documented.

In 2003, countries that grew 99% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (63%), Argentina (21%), Canada (6%), Brazil (4%), China (4%), and South Africa (1%). The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient . In particular, Bt corn, which produces the pesticide within the plant itself, is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These constitute "input-traits" are aimed to financially benefit the producers, have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers.

In the US, by 2006 89% of the planted area of soybeans, 83% of cotton, and 61% maize were genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide-tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensis Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002 to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant maize also increased in sown area.

However, several studies have found that genetically modified varieties of plants do not produce higher yields than normal plants.

A study from Berkeley says that despite claims from the biotech industry and academic researches, there is no indication that biotechnology will solve the shortcomings of industrial agriculture. Compared to the novel and untested crop systems that biotech corporations are pushing as the only solution to food security problems, organic farming has many advantages. The majority of genetically engineered crops currently in cultivation do not appear to show higher yields. For example, contrary to claims by Monsanto, a recent study by Dr. Charles Bendrook, the former director of the Board on Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences, indicates that genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans do not increase yields (Bendrook, 1999). The report reviewed over 8,200 university trials in 1998 and found that Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 7-10% less than similar natural varieties. In addition, the same study found that farmers used 5-10 times more herbicide (Roundup) on Roundup Ready soybeans than on conventional ones. The only reason farmers seem to prefer Roundup Ready soybeans is because they simplify management of large chemically-intensive farms by allowing them, for example, to spray larger doses of herbicides from planes on crops engineered to be resistant to the particular herbicide. Applications of biotechnology continue the legacy of industrial agricultural with monocultures and high energy and chemical inputs.

Coexistence and traceability

In many parts of the world, such as the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia, consumers demand labeling so they can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins. This requires a labeling system as well as the reliable separation of GM and non-GM organisms at production level and throughout the whole processing chain. Research suggests that this may prove impossible, one reason why GM opponents use the 'genie out of a bottle' analogy.

For traceability, the OECD has introduced a "unique identifier" which is given to any GMO when it is approved. This unique identifier must be forwarded at every stage of processing.

Many countries have established labeling regulations and guidelines on coexistence and traceability. Research projects such as Co-Extra, SIGMEA and Transcontainer are aimed at investigating improved methods for ensuring coexistence and providing stakeholders the tools required for the implementation of coexistence and traceability.

The GM food controversy is a dispute over the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food crops. See Genetically modified food controversies.

Controversy

Some scientists argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production, so people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk. The University of Michigan says that organic farming, can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, than can low-intensive methods on the same land.

A media firestorm erupted in 1999 when scientist Árpád Pusztai found that consumption of potatoes genetically modified to contain lectin had negative intestinal effects on rats. As a consequence, he became the victim of a smear campaign, but was eventually vindicated. The results he argued that the effects could not be attributed entirely to lectin, which is known to have toxic effects, and stated that "other parts of the GM construct, or the transformation, could have contributed to the overall effects". He appeared on television where he said that the government and companies were using the population as guinea pigs. Europeans were outraged, and within a week every major food company on the continent including McDonalds, Nestlé and Burger King, all committed to not purchase GM foods. Later, the Royal Society released a review which concluded that the work was flawed and that no conclusions should be drawn from it.

The attitude towards GM foods only got worse after outbreaks of Mad Cow Disease weakened consumer trust in government regulators, and protesters rallied against the introduction of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soybeans. The next GM crops included insect-resistant cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybeans both of which were commercially released in 1996. GM crops have been widely adopted in the United States. They have also been extensively planted in several other countries (Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) where the agriculture is a major part of the total economy. Other GM crops include insect-resistant maize and herbicide-tolerant maize, cotton, and rapeseed varieties.

Genetic modifications often have significant unforeseen consequences, both in the initially modified organisms and their environments. For example, certain strains of maize have been developed that are toxic to plant eating insects (see Bt corn). It has been alleged those strains cross-pollinated with other varieties of wild and domestic maize and passed on these genes with a putative impact on Maize biodiversity. Subsequent to the publication of these results, several scientists pointed out that the conclusions were based on experiments with design flaws. It is well known that the results from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods of analyzing DNA can often be confounded by sample contamination and experimental artifacts. Appropriate controls can be included in experiments to eliminate these as a possible explanation of the results - however these controls were not included in the methods used by Quist and Chapela. After this criticism Nature, the scientific journal where this data was originally published concluded that "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper". More recent attempts to replicate the original studies have concluded that genetically modified corn is absent from southern Mexico in 2003 and 2004. Also in dispute is the impact on biodiversity of the introgression of transgenes into wild populations. Unless a transgene offers a massive selective advantage in a wild population, a transgene that enters such a population will be maintained at a low gene frequency. In such situations it can be argued that such an introgression actually increases biodiversity rather than lowers it.

Activists and many scientists opposed to genetic engineering say that with current recombinant technology, there is no way to ensure that genetically modified organisms will remain under control, and the use of this technology outside secure laboratory environments represents multiple unacceptable risks to both farmed and wild ecosystems.

Potential impact on biodiversity may occur if herbicide-tolerant crops are sprayed with herbicide to the extent that no wild plants ('weeds') are able to survive. Plants toxic to insects may mean insect-free crops. This could result in declines in other wildlife (e.g. birds) which feed on weed seeds and/or insects for food resources. The recent (2003) farm scale studies in the UK found this to be the case with GM sugar beet and GM rapeseed, but not with GM maize (though in the last instance, the non-GM comparison maize crop had also been treated with environmentally-damaging pesticides subsequently (2004) withdrawn from use in the EU).

Although some scientists have claimed that selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering, (e.g., maize was modified from teosinte, dogs have evolved with human intervention over the course of tens of thousands of years from wolves), others assert that modern transgenesis-based genetic engineering is capable of delivering changes faster than, and sometimes of different types from, traditional breeding methods.

Proponents of current genetic techniques as applied to food plants cite hypothetical benefits that the technology may have; for example, in the harsh agricultural conditions of Africa. They say that with modifications, existing crops could possibly be able to thrive under the relatively hostile conditions providing much needed food to their people. Proponents also cite golden rice and golden rice 2, genetically engineered rice varieties (still under development) that contain genetically-modified elevated vitamin A levels. Some hope that this rice may alleviate vitamin A deficiency that contributes to the death of millions and permanent blindness of 500,000 annually.

Proponents claim that genetically-engineered crops, although patented for economic benefit, are not significantly different from those modified by nature or humans in the past. They also argue that modified crops are as safe, or even safer, than those created through such time-tested methods. There is gene transfer between unicellular eukaryotes and prokaryotes. They argue that animal husbandry, Food irradiation and crop breeding are also forms of genetic engineering that use artificial selection instead of modern genetic modification techniques. It is politics, they argue, not economics or science, that causes their work to be closely investigated, and for different standards to apply to it than those applied to other forms of agricultural technology.

Proponents also believe the technology could possibly prove harmless because species or genetic barriers have been crossed in nature in the past, sometimes utilizing other better time-tested and natural methods. An oft-cited example is today's modern red wheat variety, which is the result of two natural crossings made long ago. It is made up of three groups of seven chromosomes. Each of those three groups came from a different wild wheat grass. First, a cross between two of the grasses occurred, creating the durum wheats, which were the commercial grains of the first civilizations up through the Roman Republic. Then a cross occurred between that 14-chromosome durum wheat and another wild grass to create what became modern red wheat at the time of the Roman Empire.

Economic and political effects

• Many proponents of some current genetic engineering techniques claim that it will lower pesticide usage and has brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those in developing nations. A few genetic engineering licenses allow farmers in less economically developed countries to save seeds for next year's planting.

• In August 2003, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme. This left a famine-stricken population without food aid.
• In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize. However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods."
• In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in Venezuela.
• In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, although these were agreed authorized by the EU.
• On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly due to accidental cross-pollination with conventional crops.

Intellectual property

Enforcement of patents on genetically modified plants is often contentious, especially because of gene flow. In 1998, 95-98 percent of about 10 km planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto. The initial source of the plants was undetermined, and could have been through either gene flow or intentional theft. However, the overwhelming predominance of the trait implied that Schmeiser must have intentionally selected for it. The court determined that Schmeiser had saved seed from areas on and adjacent to his property where Roundup had been sprayed, such as ditches and near power poles.

Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly grew Roundup Ready plants without paying royalties(Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor. The dissenting judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents covered only the gene itself and glyphosate resistant cells, and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety. All of the judges agreed that Schmeiser would not have to pay any damages since he had not benefited from his use of the genetically modified seed.

In response to criticism, Monsanto Canada's Director of Public Affairs stated that "It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by accident...Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act." Currently Percy Schmeiser spends a large amount of his time traveling and speaking about how Monsanto ruined his career as a farmer. He also talks about the possible harms of genetic modification and why others in addition to himself should be protesting it.

Future developments

Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, foods no longer containing properties associated with common intolerances, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. There are natural non genetically engineered alternatives to plastic being considered such as liquid wood While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also, at the same time, be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development. Plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.

Health Risks

Currently there are only a few dozen peer reviewed studies completed on the health effects of genetically modified foods. The results of many of these studies strongly challenges the industry and government standard of substantial equivalence.

Gene transfer

As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had their large intestines removed. These volunteers were to eat GM soy to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the human gut bacteria. Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soy transferred into their gut bacteria.

"This transgene was stable inside the bacteria and appeared to produce herbicide-tolerant protein... In the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM crops, long standing assumptions that genes would not transfer to human gut bacteria were overturned. The findings should prompt immediate comprehensive follow-up tests to determine the implications for health among both the general population and at-risk groups."

Allergies

Since 2004, some cotton workers in India have experienced allergic reactions to only Bt cotton, and not to other conventional varieties. The longer the workers were exposed to the genetically modified Bt cotton, the more severe their symptoms were. An investigation concluded that reactions included: "mild to severe itching; in severe cases, eyes also became red, and swollen" One doctor reported that he had seen approximately 150 cases of allergies to Bt Cotton in 2005, and another 100 in 2004.

In the mid 1990's Pioneer Hi-Bred began to genetically modify a soybean that would take a gene from a Brazil nut in the hopes that soy would increase the production of the amino acid methionine. While this particular new crop was being designed for animal feed, as the case of StarLink corn clearly showed, that food only for animal consumption will undoubtedly enter the human food supply. Pioneer Hi-Bred decided to test the new GM soybean with the Brazil nut gene for allergens as many people are allergic to Brazil nuts. To the company's surprise in three separate tests (radioallergosorbent testing, immunoblotting, and skin-prick testing), all studies showed that individuals allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the new GM soybean. "In trying to build a better soybean the company had made a potentially deadly one."

In 1999 soy allergies in the United Kingdom increased from 10%-15% in a single year. Coincidentally, GM soy entered the UK shortly before 1999. One study using skin prick test showed that of the 49 subjects, 13 individuals experienced a positive reaction to non-GM soy, 8 individuals reacted to the GM soybeans, and "one patient had a positive skin test result to GMO soybeans only."

New Diseases

In the 1980s one brand of L-Tryptophan that was genetically engineered and created by Showa Denko in Japan, caused a deadly epidemic in the United States. Symptoms of those individuals whom contracted this disease, later named Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS), included: swelling, coughs, rashes, physical weakness, pneumonia, breathing difficulties, hardening of skin, mouth ulcers, nausea, shortness of breath, muscle spasms, visual problems, hair loss, difficulty with concentration, memory and paralysis. Discovering the cause of EMS required numerous coincidences which suggest that adverse reactions to genetically engineered foods may be difficult to identify. In 1984, progressively the more genes that Showa Denko added to the L-Tryptophan supplement corresponded to the higher levels of contamination. "The final strain, which caused the most illness, contained five separate transgenes.".

Some individuals from the FDA disputed that it was the genetically engineered L-Tryptophan that was to blame, but rather tryptophan itself; however, this theory was unsubstantiated. According to Edwin Kilbourne, who investigated EMS with the Center for Disease Control (CDC), if L-Tryptophan itself was to blame, "all tryptophan products of equal dose produced from different companies should have the same effect." However, Kilbourne insists that there is currently no evidence to support this claim. According to the CDC, the genetically engineered supplement killed about 100 people and caused between 5,000 and 10,000 to fall sick or become disabled.

See also

• Green revolution
• Plant breeding
• Transgenic plant
• GM food controversy
• International trade of genetically modified foods

References

1. ^ Martineau, Belinda (2001). First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods. McGraw-Hill. p. 269. ISBN 978-0071360562.
2. FDA Consumer Letter (September 1994): First Biotech Tomato Marketed
3. GEO-PIE Project - Cornell University
4. Canadian Organic Canola growers claim their crop has been contaminated by cross pollination of GMO canola pollen and have subsequently launched litigation against Monsanto for destroying their ability to grow non-GMO canola Canadian Organic Association
5. Smith, Jeffrey. Genetic Roulette.
6. Need a more specific citation for this data than the ISAAA homepage.
7. Economic Impact of Genetically Modified Cotton in India
8. Comparing the Performance of Official and Unofficial Genetically Modified Cotton in India
9. Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms
10. Genetic Engineering: The Future of Foods?
11. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. USDA ERS July 14, 2006
12. UK Organic Group Exposes Myth that Genetically Engineered Crops Have Higher Yields
13. http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html
14. ^ northwestern.edu Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Paper on: "Consumer Protection" Consumer Strategies and the European Market in Genetically Modified Foods Quote: The recent Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) Statement on the WTO decision makes this clear: "clearly consumers' preference for non-GM food is the true engine of the market collapse for American crops." and For instance, Evenson notes that the politicization of GMOs is not merely a question of labeling as information, but unlabeled GM products as catalysts in the "globalization backlash."
15. ^ CBC Identifying genetically modified products. Quote: Yet as seen in this report from CBC's Marketplace, no such labeling law exists in Canada despite numerous surveys indicating up to 90 per cent of Canadians want mandatory labeling of GM food. Canada's leading national consumer group does not support mandatory labeling. It appeared to reverse its stance on December 3, 2003: http://www.consumer.ca/1626
16. Raney, Terri, and Prahbu Pingali. "Sowing A Gene Revolution." Scientific American September 2007. 11 September 2008 < http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sowing-a-gene-revolution>.
17. Lappe FM, Collins J, Rosset P, and Esparza LFrances Moore Lappé ; Joseph Collins; Peter Rosset. With Luis Esparza. (1998). World Hunger: Twelve Myths. Grove Press. p. 224. ISBN 978-0802135919.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
18. Boucher Dedited by Douglas H. Boucher. (1999). The Paradox of Plenty: Hunger in a Bountiful World. Food First. p. 342. ISBN 978-0935028713. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
19. http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936
20. ^ Ewen SW, Pusztai A (1999). "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine". Lancet. 354 (9187): 1353–4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7. PMID 10533866. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
21. Smeared GM expert vindicated, The Independent, Sunday, 3 October 1999
22. Natasha Loder, “Royal Society: GM food hazard claim is 'flawed'”, Nature 399, 188, 20 May 1999.
23. A Cotton Conundrum, Perspectives on Line, North Carolina State University
24. Cotton Update 2006, Western Australian Dept. of Agriculture and Food, page 6
25. History of Monsanto at Monsanto.com
26. Quist D and Chapela IH Quist, David (2001). "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico". Nature. 414 (6863): 541–543. doi:10.1038/35107068.
27. Christou, Paul (2002). "No Credible Scientific Evidence is Presented to Support Claims that Transgenic DNA was Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico". Transgenic Research. 11 (1): 3–5. doi:10.1023/A:1013903300469.
28. Metz, Matthew (2002). "Biodiversity (Communications arising): Suspect evidence of transgenic contamination" ( – ). Nature. 416 (6881): 600–601. doi:10.1038/nature738. {{cite journal}}: External link in |format= (help)
29. Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003–2004), S. Ortiz-García et al 2005 PNAS 102 p12338-12343
30. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/extract/102/37/13003
31. Fedoroff, Nina V. Fedoroff, N. V. (2003). "Prehistoric GM corn". Science. 302: 1158–1159. doi:10.1126/science.1092042. PMID 14615520.
32. Schubert D "Regulatory regimes for transgenic crops". Nat Biotechnol. 23: 785–787. 2005.
33. Halford NCordell, Halford. N (2003). Genetically Modified Crops. Imperial College Press. ISBN 1-86094-353-5.
34. http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/raney.html
35. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2936
36. http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Business_News&subsection=market+news&month=February2006&file=Business_News200602097277.xml
37. http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=34357
38. http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2004/0505venezuela.htm
39. http://www.eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/PRonHungaryBan.pdf
40. Agriculture Department Probes Rice Flap: NPR
41. ^ Munzer, Stephen R. (2006). "Plants, Torts, and Intellectual Property". Oxford University Press: 1–30. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
42. ^ Federal court of Canada. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser Date: 20010329 Docket: T-1593-98 Retrieved 26 March 2006.
43. Schubert, Robert: "Schmeiser Wants to Take It to The Supreme Court", CropChoice News, September 9, 2002
44. Kumar, G. B. Sunil (October 2005). "Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic banana plants". Planta. 222: 484–493. doi:10.1007/s00425-005-1556-y. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
45. van Beilen, Jan B. (May 2008). "Harnessing plant biomass for biofuels and biomaterials:Production of renewable polymers from crop plants". The Plant Journal. 54 (4): 684–701. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03431.x. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
46. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28283260/
47. Proteomic profiling and unintended effects in genetically modified crops, Sirpa O. Kärenlampi and Satu J. Lehesranta 2006
48. Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops, G S Catchpole and others PNAS October 4, 2005 vol. 102 no. 40 14458-14462
49. Netherwood et al, "Assessing the survival of transgenic planic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004):2.
50. Smith, Jeffery. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, p.130, 2007
51. Ashish Gupta, "Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers' Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Predesh)," Investigation Report, October-December 2005.
52. Ashish Gupta, "Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers' Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Predesh)," Investigation Report, October-December 2005.
53. Julie A. Nordlee, "Identification of Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans," New England Journal of Medicine, 334 (1996):688-692.
54. Rick Weiss, "Biotech Food Raises a Crop of Questions," Washington Post, August 15, 1999: A1
55. Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, "Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An Immunologic comparison," Allergy and Asthma Proceeding 26, no.3 (May-June 2005): 210-216(7).
56. Smith, Jeffrey M. "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods" 2007: 60-61, Yes! Books, Iowa, USA
57. A.N. Mayeno and G.J. Gleich, eds, "Ecsinophilia-Myalgia Syndrom and Tryptophan Production: A cautionary Tale." Trends Biotechnol 12 (1994): 346-352; as quoted in William E. Crist, "The Toxic L-Tryptophan Epidemic"
58. Edwin M. Kilbourne "Tryptophan Produced by Showa Denko and Ecsinophilia-Myalgia Syndrom," Journal of Rheumatology Supplement 23, no.46 (October 1996): 81-92.

External links

• Resolution To Label GMO Food Resolution to secure mandatory labeling of GMO food.
• Website Citizens To Label GMO Food Information on GMO food labeling.
• FAO Agriculture Department and its SOFA report on Agricultural Biotechnology addressing GM food safety
• GMO Compass Information on the use of genetic engineering in the agri-food industry. Authorization database with all GM plants in the EU.
• GMO Safety Information about research projects on the biological safety of genetically modified plants.
• Approved GM crop database
• New Scientist article on GMO foods
• The FDA List of Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods

Suggested Reading

Mendel in the Kitchen, by Nina Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown

• The environmental food crisis A study done by the UN on feeding the world population (2009)
• Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, Ronald and Adamchak (2008) ISBN 978-0195301755
• Biotechnology, Agriculture, and Food Security in Southern Africa Edited by Steven Were Omamo and Klaus von Grebmer (2005) (Brief and Book available)
• Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey M. Smith.
• Beth H. Harrison (2007) Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food: What You Don't Know About the Food You're Eating and What You Can Do to Protect Yourself
• World Hunger by Brian Kenneth Swain is a new fiction book concerning the topic of genetically-modified food and some potential consequences on society. ISBN 978-0595686254
• McHughen, A. Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, Oxford University Press, 2000
• Tokar, B.(ed.) Redesigning Life? Zed Books, 2001.
• Let Them Eat Precaution. How Politics Is Undermining the Genetic Revolution in Agriculture. By Byrne, J., Conko, G., Entine, J., Gilland, T., Hoban, T. H., Moore, P., Natsios, A. S, Newell-McGloughlin, M., Paarlberg, R. L., Prakash, C. S., Tucker Foreman, C., Edited by Jon Entine AEI Press (Washington) 2006. Facets of the GM crop debate not covered by antagonists to the technology.
• Genetics by Nina V. Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown
• Helena Norberg-Hodge, "The Pressure to Modernize and Globalize", in The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward the Local 45 (J. Mander & E. Goldsmith eds., 1996)
• Ellen Ruppel Shell, New World Syndrome, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, June 2001
• Vandana Shiva, A World View of Abundance, ORION, Summer 2000
• Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal (2001)
• Michael Pollan, The Futures of Food: The Industry Has Found a Way to Co-opt the Threat from Organics and ‘Slow Food.’ Remember the Meal in a Pill?, NY TIMES MAG., Sun., May 4, 2003, at sec. 6, p. 63
• Matt Lee and Ted Lee, The Next Big Flavor: Searching For the Taste of Tomorrow, id. at 66
• Amanda Hesser, Vintage Cuts, id. at 72
• Danylo Hawaleshka with Brian Bethune and Sue Ferguson, Tainted Food, (Kraft to develop nanoparticles that can change food color, flavor, and nutrient value to suit a person’s health or palate)
• Gary Ruskin, The Fast Food Trap: How Commercialism Creates Overweight Children, Mothering Mazagine, Nov./December 2003
• Kate Zernike, Is Obesity the Responsibility of the Body Politic?, NY TIMES, Sun., November 9, 2003, at sec. 4, p. 3
• Carl Hulse, Vote in House Bars Some Suits Citing Obesity, NY TIMES, Thurs., March 11, 2004, at sec. A., p. 1
• Garcia, Deborah Koons (Director). 2004. The Future of Food. film.

• Articles with dead external links from June 2008
• Articles needing cleanup from March 2009
• Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field from March 2009
• Misplaced Pages pages needing cleanup from March 2009
• Biotechnology
• Food industry
• Genetically modified organisms in agriculture
• Anti-globalization