Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:11, 2 September 2012

The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food crops and other uses of genetically modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists. The dispute is most intense in Japan and Europe, where public concern about GM food is higher than in other parts of the world such as the United States. In the United States, GM crops are more widely grown and the introduction of these products has been less controversial. These national differences have led to differing regulatory regimes - see regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms.

The key areas of controversy related to genetically engineered (GE) food are food safety, the effect on natural ecosystems, gene flow into non GE crops and corporate control of the food supply. While it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods, to date, no adverse health effects caused by products approved for sale have been documented, although two products failed initial safety testing and were discontinued, due to allergic reactions.

Most feeding trials have observed no toxic effects and saw that GM foods were equivalent in nutrition to unmodified foods, although a few non-peer-reviewed reports speculate physiological changes in response to GM food. Although there is now broad scientific consensus that GE crops on the market are safe to eat, some scientists and advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund call for additional and more rigorous testing of existing GM food and for approval of any new introductions of GM food.

Biological process

The use of genetically modified organisms has sparked significant controversy in many areas. Some groups or individuals see the generation and use of GMO as intolerable meddling with biological states or processes that have naturally evolved over long periods of time, while others are concerned about the limitations of modern science to fully comprehend all of the potential negative ramifications of genetic manipulation. Other people see genetic engineering as a continuation in the role humanity has occupied for thousands of years in selective breeding.

GMOs' proponents note that because of the safety testing requirements imposed on GM foods, the risk of introducing a plant variety with a new allergen or toxin using genetic modification is much smaller than using traditional breeding processes. Transgenesis has less impact on the expression of genomes or on protein and metabolite levels than conventional breeding or plant (non-directed) mutagenesis. An example of an allergenic plant created using traditional breeding is the kiwi.

Labeling

While some groups advocate the complete prohibition of GMOs, others call for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food or other products, while others call for no labeling of GM food.

Outside the U.S., the entire European Union and other countries such as Australia, China, Japan, and Russia require GMO labeling. There are other countries that make GMO labeling voluntary and many other countries have plans to introduce GMO labeling

As of May 2012, the U.S. state of California is scheduled to vote on the labeling of genetically modified food. The argument is that consumers have a right to know the content of their food and to choose to avoid it if they wish, while advocates such as DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta and the Council for Biotechnology Information, which represents agribusinesses, call this an attempt to scare consumers and make them feel that the food is unsafe. Biotechnology labeling is not required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but it has been adopted by over 40 countries. According to public disclosures, the Council for Biotechnology Information and The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which also opposes this initiative, have each made matching donations of $375,000 to fight the initiative.

Availability of GM seed for testing

The value of current independent studies is considered by some to be problematic because, due to restrictive end-user agreements, independent researchers cannot obtain GM plants to study. Cornell University's Elson Shields, the spokesperson for a group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology". Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While recognising that seed companies' intellectual property rights need to be protected, Scientific American calls the practice dangerous and has called for the restrictions on research in the end-user agreements to be lifted immediately and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to GM products for testing. In February 2009, the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) agreed that they "would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops." This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future, but there is little optimism as to whether this agreement has the ability to "alter what has been a research environment rife with obstruction and suspicion."

The Welsh advocacy group GM Free Cymru argues that governments should use independent studies rather than industry studies to assess crop safety. GM Free Cymru has also stated that independently funded researcher, Professor Bela Darvas of Debrecen University was refused Mon 863 Bt corn to use in his studies after previously publishing that a different variety of Monsanto corn was lethal to two Hungarian protected insect species and an insect classified as a rare.

Health risks and benefits of consuming GM food

[Main|Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms}} Governments worldwide assess and manage the risks associated with the release of genetically modified organisms and the marketing of genetically modified food. There are differences in the regulation of GMOs between countries, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the USA and Europe. Regulation also varies within a given country depending on the intended use of the products of the genetic engineering. For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety.

Although there is now broad scientific consensus that GE crops on the market are safe to eat, some scientists and advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund have concerns that GM food is not safe and that current testing regimes are not sufficient to ensure safety.

Present knowledge on GM food safety in humans

The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects. Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population." A 2004 report by Working Group 1 of the ENTRANSFOOD project, a group of scientists funded by the European Commission to identify prerequisites for introducing agricultural biotechnology products in a way that is largely acceptable to European society, concluded that "the combination of existing test methods provides a sound test-regime to assess the safety of GM crops."

Worldwide, there is a range of perspectives within non-governmental organizations on the safety of GM foods. For example, the US pro-GM group AgBioWorld has argued that GM foods have been proven safe, while other advocacy groups and consumer rights groups, such as the Organic Consumers Association, and Greenpeace claim the long-term health risks which GM could pose, or the environmental risks associated with GM, have not yet been adequately investigated. In Japan, the Consumers Union of Japan is opposed to GMO foods. They also claim that truly independent research in these areas is systematically blocked by the GM corporations which own the GM seeds and reference materials. A 2011 article by Séralini et al noted that "it must be said that very few tests on humans have been carried out up to now."

Studies of transgenic plants compared to wild-type plants

A survey of publications describing comparisons between the intrinsic qualities of GM and non-GM reference crop lines (comparing genomes, proteomes, and metabolomes of the plants themselves, not the plants' effects on an organism eating them) indicates that transgenic modification of crops has less impact on gene expression or on protein and metabolite levels than has the variability generated by conventional breeding (which is usually considered as safe).

Reviews of animal feeding studies

A 2012 review of more than 24 long-term animal feeding studies conducted by public research laboratories, concluded that none of these studies discovered any safety problem linked to long-term consumption of GM food.

A 2011 review by Séralini et al., which used 19 published animal feeding studies as well as data from several animal feeding studies submitted for regulatory approval and obtained under court order, found that GM food had liver and kidney effects that were sex and dose dependent, and advocated for longer and more elaborate toxicology tests for regulatory approval.

A 2009 review by Magaña-Gómez et al found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cause any detectable toxic effects in animals, some studies did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by some GM foods, concluding that "More scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any form of health problem".

In 2009 three scientists (Vendômois et al.) published a statistical re-analysis of three rat feeding trials that had previously been published by others as establishing the safety of genetically modified corn. The new article claimed that their statistics instead showed that the three patented crops (MON 810, MON 863, and NK 603) developed and owned by Monsanto cause liver, kidney, and heart damage in mammals. A 2007 analysis of part of this data by the same group of scientists funded by Greenpeace was assessed by a panel of independent toxicologists in a study funded by Monsanto and published in the journal Food and chemical toxicology. Some reviewers reported that the study was statistically flawed and providing no evidence of adverse effects. The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee reviewed the 2009 Vendômois et al. study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs." An evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority of the 2009 and 2007 studies noted that most of the results were within natural variation and they did not consider any of the effects reported biologically relevant. A review by Food Standards Australia New Zealand of the 2009 Vendômois et al. study concluded that the results were due to chance alone.

A review published in 2009 by Dona and Arvanitoyannis concluded that "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters". However responses to this review in 2009 and 2010 note that the Dona and Arvanitoyannis concentrated on articles with an anti-GM bias that have been refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere - for example the 35S promoter, stability of transgenes, antibiotic marker genes and the claims for toxic effects of GM foods. In 2007, a review by Domingo of the toxicity by searching in the Publimed database using 12 search terms, cited 68 references, found that the "number of references" on the safety of GM/transgenic crops was "surprisingly limited" and questioned whether the safety of genetically modified food has been demonstrated; the review also remarked that its conclusions were in agreement with three earlier reviews by Zdunczyk (2001), Bakshi (2003), and Pryme and Lembcke (2003). However, an article in 2007 by Vain found 692 research studies focusing on GM crop and food safety and identified a strong increase in the publication of such articles in recent years. Vain commented that the multidisciplinarian nature of GM research complicates the retrieval of GM studies and requires using many search terms (he used more than 300) and multiple databases.

A 2005 review by Flachowsky et al concluded that first-generation genetically modified foods had been found to be similar in nutrition and safety to non-GM foods, but noted that second-generation foods with "significant changes in constituents" would be more difficult to test, and would require further animal studies.

A 2004 review of animal feeding trials by Aumaitre et al found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.

Safety as defined by substantial equivalence and controversies

Definition of substantial equivalence

The starting point for the safety assessment of genetically engineered food products is to assess if the food is "substantially equivalent" to its natural counterpart.

The issue of GM food safety was first discussed at a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and biotech representatives in 1990. The "substantial equivalence" concept was proposed by the FAO in 1993 and endorsed by the FAO and WHO in early 1996 as a means to reassure consumers by obtaining official approval for genetically modified foods. The testing normally required for new food products can cost millions of dollars and take years of testing before a product gains approval for marketing which was also seen as inhibiting the development of biotechnology companies. The adoption of the concept of substantial equivalence permitted marketing of new foods without any safety or toxicology tests as long as they were not grossly different in chemical composition to foods already on the market.

"Substantial equivalence embodies the concept that if a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety (i.e., the food or food component can be concluded to be as safe as the conventional food or food component)" . The rationale for this approach is that it would be impossible to test all the new crop varieties every year for food safety. Only a few food crops on the market have been shown to cause adverse health effects and all of these were the result of conventional genetic modification, not from genetic engineering To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of components such as toxins, nutrients or allergens that are present in the unmodified food. If these tests show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then no further food safety testing is required. The manufacturer's data is then assessed by an independent regulatory body, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

However, if the product has no natural equivalent, or shows significant differences from the unmodified food, then further safety testing is carried out. A 2003 review in Trends in Biotechnology identified seven main parts of a standard safety test:

1. Study of the introduced DNA and the new proteins or metabolites that it produces;
2. Analysis of the chemical composition of the relevant plant parts, measuring nutrients, anti-nutrients as well as any natural toxins or known allergens;
3. Assess the risk of gene transfer from the food to microorganisms in the human gut;
4. Study the possibility that any new components in the food might be allergens;
5. Estimate how much of a normal diet the food will make up;
6. Estimate any toxicological or nutritional problems revealed by this data;
7. Additional animal toxicity tests if there is the possibility that the food might pose a risk.

This process was examined further in a review published by Kuiper et al. 2002 in the journal Toxicology, which stated that substantial equivalence does not itself measure risks, but instead identifies differences between existing products and new foods, which might pose dangers to health. If differences do exist, identifying these differences is a starting point for a full safety assessment, rather than an end point. The authors concluded that "The concept of substantial equivalence is an adequate tool in order to identify safety issues related to genetically modified products that have a traditional counterpart". However, the review also noted difficulties in applying this standard in practice, including the fact that traditional foods contain many chemicals that have toxic or carcinogenic effects and that our existing diets therefore have not been proven to be safe. This lack of knowledge on unmodified food poses a problem, as GM foods may have differences in anti-nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant, raising the possibility that harmful changes could be missed.

Controversies over definition and application of substantial equivalence

The application of substantial equivalence has been criticized. For example, in a speech in 1999, Andrew Chesson of the University of Aberdeen, stated that substantial equivalence testing "could be flawed in some cases" and that some current safety tests could allow harmful substances to enter the human food chain. In a commentary in Nature, Millstone et al. argued that all GM foods should have extensive biological, toxicological and immunological tests and that the concept of substantial equivalence based solely on chemical analyzes of the components of a food should be abandoned. They stated that this is necessary since it is currently impossible to predict the biological properties of a substance only from knowledge of its chemistry. This commentary was controversial and was criticized for misleading presentation of data and presenting an oversimplified version of safety assessments. For example, Kuiper et al. responded to this criticism by noting that equivalence testing does involve more than chemical tests and may include toxicity testing.

Medical writer Barbara Keeler and Marc Lappé argued in a 2001 article in the Los Angeles Times that the differences between genetically modified and conventional foods challenge the presumption of equivalence. Using Roundup ready soy that has been on the market since 1995 as an example, they noted the differences when compared to its unmodified counterpart. Significantly lower levels of protein than unmodified soy. Significantly lower levels of phenylalanine, an essential amino acid and as a dietary supplement, the reason doctors advise the consumption of soy products. Levels of trypsin inhibitor were 27% higher and after toasting, lectin was double that found in conventional soy; both are known allergens. GM soy also has 29% less choline, a B-complex vitamin. Round up ready soy had also stunted the growth of rats in Monsanto's study but had not affected cattle although it had increased the fat content of their milk. The authors do not maintain that modified soy is a hazard but that the FDA accepting such significant differences as being substantially equivalent illustrates the need for more rigorous testing, and preferably not by the biotech industries themselves.

However, a 2008 paper by Cheng et al. showed that genetic engineering of soybeans causes smaller unintended changes than are seen with traditional breeding. A 2002 paper by Ridley et al. showed that genetically engineered maize was equivalent to conventional maize for proximates, fiber, amino acids, fatty acids, vitamin E, nine minerals, phytic acid, trypsin inhibitor, and secondary metabolites. Baudo et al. in a 2006 paper compared transgenic wheat with conventionally bred wheat and concluded that "...transgenic plants could be considered substantially equivalent to untransformed parental lines." A 2008 paper by di Carli et al. compared genetically engineered Lycopersicon esculentum (a tomato) and Nicotiana benthamiana (a close relative of tobacco) with their untransformed counterparts and concluded that genetic engineering did not significantly affect the plants proteanic profile.

Human exposure to pesticides produced in GM foods

A 2011 study, the first to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure to BT toxin (a protein having insecticidal effects on certain insects, produced by a gene from a soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis) produced in genetically modified maize and to determine exposure levels of the pesticides and their metabolites, reported the presence of pesticides associated with GM foods in both non-pregnant women and pregnant women and their fetuses. The paper did not discuss safety implications or find any health problems. The paper has been found to be unconvincing by several authors and organizations.

Gene transfer from food to humans

As of January 2009, there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had had previously had their large intestines removed for medical reasons. These volunteers were to eat GM soy to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the bacteria that naturally lives in the human gut. Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soya transferred into the bacteria living in their gut before the start of the feeding experiment. As this low-frequency transfer did not increase after the consumption of GM soy, the researchers concluded that gene transfer did not occur during the experiment. In volunteers with complete digestive tracts, the transgene did not survive passage through intact gastrointestinal tract. Anti-GM advocates believe the study should prompt additional testing to determine its significance. Other studies have found DNA from M13 virus, GFP and even ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (Rubisco) genes in the blood and tissue of ingesting animals.

Two studies on the possible effects of giving genetically modified feed to animals found that there was no significant differences in the safety and nutritional value of feedstuffs containing material derived from genetically modified plants. Specifically, the studies noted that no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins have been found in any organ or tissue samples obtained from animals fed with GMP plants.

Allergenicity

Worldwide, reports of allergies to all kinds of foods, particularly nuts, fish and shellfish, seem to be increasing, but it is not known if this reflects a genuine change in the risk of allergy, or an increased awareness of food allergies by the public. Some environmental organizations, such as the European Green Party and Greenpeace, have suggested that GM food might trigger food allergies, although other environmentalists have implicated causes as diverse as the greenhouse effect increasing pollen levels, greater exposure to synthetic chemicals, cleaner lifestyles, or more mold in buildings. A 2005 review in the journal Allergy of the results from allergen testing of current GM foods stated that "no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions".

A well-known case of a GM plant that did not reach the market due to it producing an allergic reaction was a new form of soybean developed by Pioneer Hi-Bred in the early 1990s, intended for animal feed. The allergen was transferred unintentionally from the Brazil nut into genetically engineered soybeans, in a bid to improve soybean nutritional quality for animal feed use. This new protein increased the levels in the GM soybean of the natural essential amino acid methionine, which is commonly added to poultry feed. Investigation of the allergenicity of the GM soybeans were conducted by Pioneer, including radioallergosorbent testing, immunoblotting, and skin-prick testing. The tests revealed that they produced immune reactions in people with Brazil nut allergies, since the methionine rich protein chosen by Pioneer Hi-Bred happened to be a major source of Brazil nut allergy. Although this soybean strain was not developed as a human food, Pioneer Hi-Bred discontinued further development of the GM soybean, due to the difficulty in ensuring that none of these soybeans entered the human food chain.

In November 2005 a pest-resistant field pea developed by the Australian CSIRO for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic reaction in mice. Work on this variety was immediately halted. The protein added to the pea did not cause the reaction in humans or mice in isolation, but when it was expressed in the pea, it exhibited a subtly different structure which may have caused the allergic reaction. The immunologist who tested the pea noted that crops need to be evaluated case-by-case.

Plant scientist Maarten J Chrispeels has made these comments about this example:

The recent Prescott et al. paper in JFAC contains a very interesting study on the immunogenicity of amylase inhibitor in its native form (isolated from beans) and expressed as a transgene in peas. First of all, amylase inhibitor is a food protein, but also a "toxic" protein because it inhibits our digestive amylases. This is one of the reasons you have to cook your beans! (The other toxic bean protein is phytohemagglutinin and it is much more toxic). This particular amylase inhibitor is found in the common bean (other species have other amylase inhibitors). Even though it is a food protein, it is unlikely ever to be used for genetic engineering of human foods because it inhibits our amylases. What the results show is that the protein, when synthesized in pea cotyledons has a different immunogenicity than when it is isolated from bean cotyledons (the native form). This is somewhat surprising but may be related to the presence of slightly different carbohydrate chains.

These cases of products that failed safety testing can either be viewed as evidence that genetic modification can produce unexpected and dangerous changes in foods, or alternatively that the current tests are effective at identifying any safety problems before foods come on the market.

Genetic modification can also be used to remove allergens from foods, which may, for example, allow the production of soy products that would pose a smaller risk of food allergies than standard soybeans. A hypo-allergenic strain of soybean was tested in 2003 and shown to lack the major allergen that is found in the beans. A similar approach has been tried in ryegrass, which produces pollen that is a major cause of hay fever: here a fertile GM grass was produced that lacked the main pollen allergen, demonstrating that the production of hypoallergenic grass is also possible.

Purity of Foodchain

Another concern is inclusion of GM commodities, intended not for human consumption (for example, approved only for animal feed or industrial use) into the human food supply. In 2000, Aventis StarLink corn, which had been approved only as animal feed due to concerns about possible allergic reactions in humans, was found contaminating corn products in U.S. supermarkets. An episode involving Taco Bell taco shells was particularly well publicized which resulted in sales of StarLink seed being discontinued. The registration for the Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000. Aid sent by the UN and the US to Central African nations was also found to be contaminated with StarLink corn and the aid was rejected. The US corn supply has been monitored for Starlink Bt proteins since 2001 and no positive samples have been found since 2004. In response, GeneWatch UK and Greepeace International set up the GM Contamination Register in 2005.

Environmental risks and benefits

Concerns have been raised about effects of genetically-engineered crops on non-target species, and about gene flow to other plants and to bacteria. On the other hand, GM crops have their supports from an environmental standpoint. These may be both direct effects, on organisms that feed on or interact with the crops, or wider effects on food chains produced by increases or decreases in the numbers of other organisms.

Environmental benefits

Many agricultural scientists and food policy specialists view GM crops as an important element in sustainable food security and environmental management. This point of view is summarized in the ABIC Manifesto:

On our planet, 18% of the land mass is used for agricultural production. This fraction cannot be increased substantially. It is absolutely essential that the yield per unit of land increases beyond current levels given that: The human population is still growing, and will reach about nine billion by 2040; 70,000 km² of agricultural land (equivalent to 60% of the German agricultural area) are lost annually to growth of cities and other non-agricultural uses; Consumer diets in developing countries are increasingly changing from plant-based proteins to animal protein, a trend that requires a greater amount of crop-based feeds.

As an example of benefits, insect-resistant Bt-expressing crops will reduce the number of pest insects feeding on these plants, but as there are fewer pests, farmers do not have to apply as much insecticide, which in turn tends to increase the number of non-pest insects in these fields.

A 2012 study on the effects of using Bt cotton in six northern provinces of China from 1990 to 2010 concluded that GM crops deliver significant environmental benefits. Bt cotton halved the use of pesticides and doubled the level of ladybirds, lacewings and spiders. The environmental benefits extended to neighbouring crops of maize, peanuts and soybeans.

A 2006 study of the global impact of GM crops, published by the UK consultancy PG Economics, concluded that globally, the technology reduced pesticide spraying by 286,000 tons in 2006, decreasing the environmental impact of herbicides and pesticides by 15%. By reducing the amount of ploughing needed, GM technology led to reductions of greenhouse gases from soil equivalent to removing 6.56 million cars from the roads.

Environmental concerns

Increased use of agrochemicals

A 2009 study published by the Organic Center stated that the use of genetically engineered corn, soybean, and cotton increased the use of herbicides by 383 million pounds (191,500 tons), and pesticide use by 318.4 million pounds (159,200 tons).

Unintended toxicity or effects on non-target species

There has been controversy over the results of a farm-scale trial in the United Kingdom comparing the impact of GM crops and conventional crops on farmland biodiversity. Some claimed that the results showed that GM crops had a significant negative impact on wildlife. They pointed out that the studies showed that using herbicide resistant GM crops allowed better weed control and that under such conditions there were fewer weeds and fewer weed seeds. This result was then extrapolated to suggest that GM crops would have significant impact on the wildlife that might rely on farm weeds. The President of the Royal Society, the body that had carried out the trials, stated that "To generalize and declare 'all GM is bad' or 'all GM is good' for the environment as a result of these experiments is a gross over-simplification", arguing that although the trials showed that the combination of some GM crops with long-lasting herbicides were bad for biodiversity, using other GM crops without these herbicides increased biodiversity.

Bt crops and butterflies

A well publicized claim associated with Bt crops was the concern that pollen from Bt maize might kill the monarch butterfly. This report was puzzling because the pollen from most maize hybrids contains much lower levels of Bt than the rest of the plant and led to multiple follow-up studies. One possible issue revealed in these studies is the possibility that the initial study was flawed; based on the way the pollen was collected, in that they collected and fed non-toxic pollen that was mixed with anther walls that did contain Bt toxin. A collaborative research exercise was carried out over two years by several groups of scientists in the US and Canada, looking at the effects of Bt pollen in both the field and the laboratory. This resulted in a risk assessment that concluded that any risk posed by the corn to butterfly populations under real-world conditions was negligible. The USDA has stated that the weight of the evidence is that Bt crops do not pose a risk to the monarch butterfly. An independent 2002 review of the scientific literature concluded that "the commercial large-scale cultivation of current Bt–maize hybrids did not pose a significant risk to the monarch population" and noted that despite large-scale planting of GM crops, the butterfly's population is increasing.

In 2007 Andreas Lang, Éva Lauber and Béla Darvas criticized these studies, arguing that there can be a great difference in the effects between the acute exposure tested for and chronic exposure. Moreover, they stated that the "worst case conditions" performed were not in fact worst case scenarios, as laboratory conditions with ample food supply and a favorable climate ensure healthy subjects. They instead believe that in the wild, low temperatures, rain and parasites and disease might exacerbate a Bt effect on butterfly larvae. Their own experiments suggested that some butterfly species were negatively affected by such chronic exposure. Jörg Romeis, who conducted the original studies, replied that if species of Butterfly are affected as Darvas claims that a "more comprehensive assessment will be needed and, depending on the degree and nature of concern, this may extend to field testing".

Bt and colony collapse disorder

As of 2007, a phenomenon called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) was noticed in bee hives all over North America, and elsewhere. Although it is not certain if this is a new phenomenon, initial ideas on the possible causes ranged from poor nutrition, infections, parasites, pesticide use, and Bt crops. More unusual speculations included radio waves from cellphone base stations, climate change, and the use of transgenic crops containing Bt. The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium published a report on 2007-03-27 that found no evidence that pollen from Bt crops is adversely affecting bees. Several researchers in the US have since attributed CCD to the spread of a new virus called Israeli acute paralysis virus, although other parasites and the increase in use of neonicotinoid pesticides have also been implicated.

Environmental contamination via evolution of resistant pests

In some areas of the US "superweeds" have evolved naturally; these weeds are resistant to herbicides and have forced farmers to return to traditional crop management practices.

Environmental contamination via gene flow

Other possible negative effects might come from the spread of genes from modified plants to unmodified relatives, which might produce species of weeds resistant to herbicides.

Genetically modified plants can spread the trans gene to other plants or – theoretically – even to bacteria. Depending on the transgene, this may pose a threat to the environment by changing the composition of the local ecosystem. Therefore, in most countries environmental studies are required prior to the approval of a GM plant for commercial purposes, and a monitoring plan must be presented to identify potential effects which have not been anticipated prior to the approval.

GM proponents point out that outcrossing, as this process is known, is not new. The same thing happens with any new open-pollinated crop variety—newly introduced traits can potentially cross out into neighboring crop plants of the same species and, in some cases, to closely related wild relatives. Defenders of GM technology point out that each GM crop is assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if there is any risk associated with the outcrossing of the GM trait into wild plant populations. The fact that a GM plant may outcross with a related wild relative is not, in itself, a risk unless such an occurrence has negative consequences. If, for example, an herbicide-resistance trait were to cross into a wild relative of a crop plant it can be predicted that this would not have any consequences except in areas where herbicides are sprayed, such as a farm. In such a setting the farmer can manage this risk by rotating herbicides.

Transgenes have the potential for significant ecological impact if the plants can increase in frequency and persist in natural populations. These concerns are similar to those surrounding conventionally bred plant breeds. Several risk factors should be considered:

• Can the transgenic plant pass its genes to a local wild species, and are the offspring also fertile?
• Does the introduction of the transgene confer a selective advantage to the plant or to hybrids in the wild?

Many domesticated plants can mate and hybridise with wild relatives when they are grown in proximity, and whatever genes the cultivated plant had can then be passed to the hybrid. This applies equally to transgenic plants and conventionally bred plants, as in either case there are advantageous genes that may have negative consequences to an ecosystem upon release. This is normally not a significant concern, despite fears over 'mutant superweeds' overgrowing local wildlife: although hybrid plants are far from uncommon, in most cases these hybrids are not fertile due to polyploidy, and will not multiply or persist long after the original domestic plant is removed from the environment. However, this does not negate the possibility of a negative impact.

In some cases, the pollen from a domestic plant may travel many miles on the wind before fertilising another plant. This can make it difficult to assess the potential harm of crossbreeding; many of the relevant hybrids are far away from the test site. Among the solutions under study for this concern are systems designed to prevent transfer of transgenes, such as Terminator Technology, and the genetic transformation of the chloroplast only, so that only the seed of the transgenic plant would bear the transgene. With regard to the former, there is some controversy that the technologies may be inequitable and might force dependence upon producers for valid seed in the case of poor farmers, whereas the latter has no such concern but has technical constraints that still need to be overcome. Solutions are being developed by EU funded research programmes such as Co-Extra and Transcontainer.

There are at least three possible avenues of hybridization leading to escape of a transgene:

• Hybridization with non-transgenic crop plants of the same species and variety.
• Hybridization with wild plants of the same species.
• Hybridization with wild plants of closely related species, usually of the same genus.

However, there are a number of factors which must be present for hybrids to be created.

• The transgenic plants must be close enough to the wild species for the pollen to reach the wild plants.
• The wild and transgenic plants must flower at the same time.
• The wild and transgenic plants must be genetically compatible.

In order to persist, these hybrid offspring:

• Must be viable, and fertile.
• Must carry the transgene.

Studies suggest that a possible escape route for transgenic plants will be through hybridization with wild plants of related species.

1. It is known that some crop plants have been found to hybridize with wild counterparts.
2. It is understood, as a basic part of population genetics, that the spread of a transgene in a wild population will be directly related to the fitness effects of the gene in addition to the rate of influx of the gene to the population.  Advantageous genes will spread rapidly, neutral genes will spread with genetic drift, and disadvantageous genes will only spread if there is a constant influx.
3. The ecological effects of transgenes are not known, but it is generally accepted that only genes which improve fitness in relation to abiotic factors would give hybrid plants sufficient advantages to become weedy or invasive.  Abiotic factors are parts of the ecosystem which are not alive, such as climate, salt and mineral content, and temperature. Genes improving fitness in relation to biotic factors could disturb the (sometimes fragile) balance of an ecosystem. For instance, a wild plant receiving a pest resistance gene from a transgenic plant might become resistant to one of its natural pests, say, a beetle. This could allow the plant to increase in frequency, while at the same time animals higher up in the food chain, which are at least partly dependent on that beetle as food source, might decrease in abundance. However, the exact consequences of a transgene with a selective advantage in the natural environment are almost impossible to predict reliably.

The European Union funds research programs such as Co-Extra that investigate options and technologies on the coexistence of GM and conventional farming. This also includes research on biological-containment strategies and other measures to prevent outcrossing and enable the implementation of coexistence.

Examples of gene flow or other contamination

A 2001 report in Nature presented evidence that Bt maize was cross-breeding with unmodified maize in Mexico, although the data in this paper was later described as originating from an artifact and Nature stated that "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper". A subsequent large-scale study, in 2005, failed to find any evidence of contamination in Oaxaca. However, other authors have stated that they also found evidence of cross-breeding between natural maize and transgenic maize.

In July 2005 British scientists showed that transfer of a herbicide-resistance gene from GM oilseed rape to a wild cousin, charlock, and wild turnips was possible.

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. An investigation by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was unable to determine the cause of the contamination.

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Scotts Miracle-Gro $500,000 when modified genetic material from creeping bentgrass, a new golf-course grass Scotts had been testing, was found within close relatives of the same genus (Agrostis) as well as in native grasses up to 21 km (13 mi) away from the test sites, released when freshly cut grass was blown by the wind.

A study published in 2010 by scientists at the University of Arkansas, North Dakota State University, California State University and the US Environmental Protection Agency showed that about 83 percent of wild or weedy canola tested contained genetically modified herbicide resistance genes, and they also found some plants that contained resistance to both herbicides, a combination of transgenic traits that had not been developed in canola crops. "That leads us to believe that these wild populations that contain modified genes have become established populations." According to the researchers, the lack of reports in the US suggests inadequate oversight and monitoring protocols are in place in the US.

"Terminator" and "traitor"

[[main|Genetic use restriction technology}} One means that has been explored to avoid environmental contamination is a technology dubbed 'Terminator'. This uncommercialized technology would allow the production of first-generation crops that would not generate seeds in the second generation because the plants yield sterile seeds, which would prevent the escape of genetically modified traits from cross-pollinating crops into wild-type species by sterilizing any resultant hybrids. Some environmentalist groups, while considering outcrossing of GM plants dangerous, feel the technology would prevent re-use of seed by farmers growing such terminator varieties in the developing world and is ostensibly a means to exercise patent claims. However, other environmental groups welcome the terminator gene as a means of preventing GM crops from mixing with natural crops. Similarly, the hypothetical trait-specific Genetic Use Restriction Technology, also known as 'Traitor' or 'T-GURT', requires application of a chemical to genetically modified crops to reactivate engineered traits. This technology is intended both to limit the spread of genetically engineered plants. Genetic Use-Restriction Technology is under development by the US government, many academic labs, and companies including Monsanto and AstraZeneca. There are technologies evolving that contain the transgene by biological means and still can provide fertile seeds using fertility-restorer functions. Such methods are being developed by several EU research programs, among them Transcontainer and Co-Extra.

These technologies have also caused controversy, as the technology itself, and the patents on them, would allow companies to further control the market for seeds, and would be another means to require farmers to pay yearly to reactivate the genetically engineered traits of their crops.

World Hunger

Some claim that the use of GM technology is important to help farmers to increase food production to avoid existing poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. “While new technology must be tested before it is commercially released, we should be mindful of the risks of not releasing it at all,” says Per Pinstrup-Andersen, professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University. Per Pinstrup-Andersen argues, “Misguided anti-science ideology and failure by governments to prioritize agricultural and rural development in developing countries brought us the food crisis.” He states that the challenge we face is not the challenge of whether we have enough resources to produce, but whether we will change our behavior.

While it is evident that there is a food supply issue, the question is whether GM can solve world hunger problems, or if there are better ways to address the issue. Several scientists argue that a second Green Revolution with increased use of GM crops is needed to meet the demand for food in the developing world. Others 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. Recently, environmentalist Mark Lynas has changed his mind on the issue with respect to the need for additional food supplies.

“Genetic modification is analogous to nuclear power: nobody loves it, but climate change has made its adoption imperative,” says economist Paul Collier of Oxford University. "Declining genetic modification makes a complicated issue more complex. Genetic modification offers both faster crop adaptation and a biological, rather than chemical, approach to yield increases."

Impoverished nations

Some groups believe that impoverished nations will not reap the benefits of biotechnology because they do not have easy access to these developments, cannot afford modern agricultural equipment, and certain aspects of the system revolving around intellectual property rights are unfair to "undeveloped countries". For example, The CGIAR (Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research) is an aid and research organization that has been working to achieve sustainable food security and decrease poverty in undeveloped countries since its formation in 1971. In an evaluation of CGIAR, the World Bank praised its efforts but suggested a shift to genetics research and productivity enhancement. This plan has several obstacles such as patents, commercial licenses, and the difficulty that third world countries have in accessing the international collection of genetic resources and other intellectual property rights that would educate them about modern technology. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has attempted to remedy this problem, but results have been inconsistent. As a result, "orphan crops", such as teff, millets, cowpeas, and indigenous plants, are important in the countries where they are grown, but receive little investment.

Some have raised concerns that industrialized nations have not tested GM technology on tropical plants, focusing on those that grow in temperate climates, even though undeveloped nations and the people that need the extra food live primarily in tropical climates.

Agricultural surpluses

Patrick Mulvany, Chairman of the UK Food Group, accused some governments, especially the Bush administration, of using GM food aid as a way to dispose of unwanted agricultural surpluses. The UN blamed food companies and accused them of violating human rights, calling on governments to regulate these profit-driven firms. It is widely believed that the acceptance of biotechnology and genetically modified foods will also benefit rich research companies and could possibly benefit them more than consumers in underdeveloped nations.

Agricultural economics

One of the key reasons for this widespread adoption is the perceived economic benefit the technology brings to farmers, including those in developing nations.. For example, the system of planting glyphosate-resistant seed and then applying glyphosate once plants emerged provided farmers with the opportunity to dramatically increase the yield from a given plot of land, since this allowed them to plant rows closer together. Without it, farmers had to plant rows far enough apart to control post-emergent weeds with mechanical tillage. Likewise, using Bt seeds means that farmers do not have to purchase insecticides, and then invest time, fuel, and equipment in applying them.

Critics contend that yields are not higher, and argue that chemical use is higher for herbicide-resistant GM crops.

Overall economics

A 2010 study by US scientists, found that the economic benefit of Bt corn to farmers in five mid-west states was $6.9 billion over the previous 14 years. They were surprised that the majority ($4.3 billion) of the benefit accrued to non-Bt corn. This was speculated to be because the European Corn Borers that attack the Bt corn die and there are fewer left to attack the non-GM corn nearby.

Yield

A 1999 study by Charles Benbrook, Chief Scientist of the Organic Center, found that genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans did not increase yields, on a plant-by-basis (not taking into account the increased number of plants that can be grown in field due to closer row-spacing). The report reviewed over 8,200 university trials in 1998 and found that Roundup Ready soybeans had a yield drag of 5.3% across all varieties tested. This "yield drag" is similar to what is observed when other traits are introduced into soybeans by conventional breeding and may not be due to the Roundup Ready trait or the genetically modified nature of the crop since Monsanto has recently released Roundup Ready 2 soybeans, which are claimed to yield 7–11% higher than RR version 1. There have been no reports of "yield drag" with the other Roundup Ready crops maize, sorghum or canola.

Research published in Science in 2003 has shown that the use of genetically modified Bt cotton in India increased yields by 60% over the period 1998–2001 while the number of applications of insecticides against bollworm were three times less on average.

In 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized numerous peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of genetic engineering in the United States. This report examined the two most widely grown engineered crops—soybeans and maize (corn). Unlike many other studies, this work separated the yield contribution of the engineered gene from that of the many naturally occurring yield genes in crops, but it did not take into account the closer row-spacing that herbicide-resistant crops permit. The report found that engineered herbicide tolerant soy and maize did not increase yield at the national, aggregate level. Maize engineered with Bt insect resistance genes increased national yield by about 3 to 4 percent. Engineered crops increased net yield in all cases. The study concluded that in the United States, other agricultural methods have made a much greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering. United States Department of Agriculture data record maize yield increases of about 28 percent since engineered varieties were first commercialized in the mid 1990s. The yield contribution of engineered genes has therefore been a modest fraction—about 14 percent—of the maize yield increase since the mid 1990s.

A 2010 article supported by CropLife International summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies on GM crops worldwide. On average, farmers in developed countries experienced increase in yield of 6% and in underdeveloped countries of 29%. Tillage was decreased by 25–58% on herbicide resistant soybeans, insecticide applications on Bt crops were reduced by 14–76% and 72% of farmers worldwide experienced positive economic results.

In 2009 it was reported that 82,000 hectares (200,000 acres) of Bt corn in South Africa failed to produce seeds. Monsanto claimed average yield was reduced by 25% in those fields affected, it compensated the farmers concerned and the corn varieties were affected by a mistake made in the seed breeding process. Marian Mayet, an environmental activitist and director of the Africa Centre for Biosecurity in Johannesburg, called for a government investigation and asserted that the biotechnology was at fault, "You cannot make a 'mistake' with three different varieties of corn". In 2009 South African farmers planted 1,900,000 hectares (4,700,000 acres) of GM maize (73% of the total crop).

Agrochemical use

In 2010, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reported that genetically engineered crops had resulted in reduced pesticide application and reduced soil erosion from tilling. The report also stated that the advent of glyphosate-herbicide resistant weeds—that have developed because of the use of engineered crops—could cause the genetically engineered crops to lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other established weed management strategies.

The use of glyphosate in fields with glyphosate-resistant crops changed the herbicide use profile away from atrazine, metribuzin, and alachlor, which reduced the dangers of herbicide runoff into drinking water.

Development of resistance and effect on herbicide use

In September 2011, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that "superweeds" which are resistant to glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup) have become an emerging problem; in response, plants are being engineered to become resistant to multiple herbicides to allow farmers to use a mixed group of two, three, or four different chemicals.

A non-peer reviewed report, published in November, 2009, "Impacts of Genetically Engineered(GE) Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years" using USDA data shows US farmers have applied 383 million more pounds of herbicides on GE crops since 1996, including soybeans than they likely would have applied on non-GE varieties of these crops. The same report states the rise in pounds per acre is associated with the replacement of older, higher risk herbicides with glyphosate. Forty-six percent of the total increase occurred in the last two years studied (2007 and 2008). It also identifies the problem as an increase in herbicide-resistant-weeds. However when asked about a peer-reviewed 2010 study saying the GE crops had reduced pesticide use, the 2009 author did not dispute the reduced usage, instead choosing to talk about the questions of future use as the amount of resistance rises.

Intellectual property and market dynamics

Intellectual property

Traditionally, farmers in all nations saved their own seed from year to year. However since the early 1900s hybrid crops have been widely used in the developed world and seeds to grow these crops much be purchased each year from seed producers. The offspring of the hybrid corn, while still viable, lose the beneficial traits of the parents, resulting in the loss of hybrid vigor. In these cases, the use of hybrid plants has been the primary reason for growers not saving seed, not intellectual property issues. However, for non-hybrid biotech crops, such as transgenic soybeans, seed companies use intellectual property law and tangible property common law, each expressed in contracts, to forbid farmers from saving seed. For example, Monsanto's typical bailment license (covering transfer of the seeds themselves) forbids saving seeds, and also requires that purchasers sign a separate patent license agreement: "The purchase of these seeds/bailment/transfer of these seeds conveys no license under said patents to use these seeds or perform any of the methods covered by these patents. A license must first be obtained before these seeds can be used in any way... Progeny of these seeds cannot be cleaned or used as planting seed or transferred to others for planting. This seed may only be offered for sale and distribution by authorized seed companies or their dealers."

Corporations say that they need product control in order to prevent seed piracy, to fulfill financial obligations to shareholders, and to invest in further GM development. DuPont spends $1.4 billion in research and development while Monsanto spends 9-10% of their sales in their research and development effort every year. The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration reported in 2008, "Monsanto, BSAF, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow (and their biotech partners) have filled 532 patent documents on so-called "climate ready" genes at patent offices around the world."

Detractors such as Greenpeace say that patent rights give corporations a dangerous amount of control over their product. Others claim that "patenting seeds gives companies excessive power over something that is vital for everyone." Regarding the issues of intellectual property and patent law, an international report from the year 2000 states:

If the rights to these tools are strongly and universally enforced - and not extensively licensed or provided pro bono in the developing world - then the potential applications of GM technologies described previously are unlikely to benefit the less developed nations of the world for a long time (i.e. until after the restrictions conveyed by these rights have expired).

Monsanto has filed patent infringement suits against 145 farmers, but has proceeded to trial with only 11. Although in some of those 11 cases, a defense of unintentional contamination by gene flow was used, Monsanto won all 11 cases. There have, however, been documented cases of contamination in which suppliers mixed GM seeds with non-GM seeds. Monsanto Canada's Director of Public Affairs has 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."

One example of such litigation is the Monsanto v. Schmeiser case. In 1998, 95–98 percent of about 10 km planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto Company's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto. While Schmeiser claimed contamination by gene flow, the court found 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. The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor. 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.

Market dynamics

The seed industry is dominated by several seed and biotechnology firms. Firms have engaged in vertical integration, causing structural changes in the seed industry. It is reported that the speed of alliances within the industry makes competition almost non-existent.

Monsanto has purchased Asgrow and DEKALB Genetics Corporation to increase their market to 14 percent. Monsanto has also purchased Holden, which increased their influence in the branded seeds sales. They have also acquired Cargill's international seed business. Novartis combined with Ciba-Geigy and Northrup King to increase their market share in the seed industry. Dow Agrosciences bought Mycogen and a portion of Illinois Foundation Seeds. It is reported that in 2011, 73% of the global market is controlled by 10 companies.

Market power gives seed and biotechnology firms the ability to set or influence price, dictate terms, and act as a barrier to entry into the industry. It also gives firms the bargaining power over governments in policy making. Keith Mudd from the Organization for Competitive Markets says: "The lack of competition and innovation in the marketplace has reduced farmer's choices and enabled Monsanto to raise prices unencumbered."

In 2001, the USDA published an article showing that the concentration of market power in the seed industry has led to economies of scale that facilitated market efficiency because production costs have decreased, however, the move by some companies to divest their seed operations calls into question the long-term viability of these conglomerates.. Two economists, guest speakers on the AgBio Forum cite that the huge market power possessed by the small number of biotechnology companies in crop biotechnology could be beneficial in raising welfare despite the pricing strategies they practice because "even though price discrimination is often considered to be an unwanted market distortion, it may increase total welfare by increasing total output and by making goods available to markets where they would not appear otherwise." In the case of Bt cotton in the United States, agriculture economists calculated that "world surplus $240.3 million for 1996. Of this total, the largest share (59%) went to U.S. farmers. The gene developer, Monsanto, received the next largest share (21%), followed by U.S. consumers (9%), the rest of the world (6%), and the germplasm supplier, Delta and Pine Land Company (5%)."

In March 2010, the US Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture held a meeting in Ankeny, Iowa to look at the competitive dynamics in the seed industry. Christine Varney, who heads the antitrust division in the Justice Department, said that her team was investigating whether biotech-seed patents are being abused to extend or maintain companies’ dominance in the industry. A key issue is how Monsanto sells and licenses its patented trait that allows farmers to kill weeds with Roundup herbicide while leaving crops unharmed - the gene was in 93 percent of U.S. soybeans grown in 2009. About 250 family farmers, consumers and other critics of corporate agriculture held a town meeting prior to the governmental meeting to protest Monsanto for what they see as manipulation of the market by buying up independent seed companies, patenting the seeds and then raising seed prices. One corn and soybean farmer said he has a hard time finding seed to plant that is not controlled by Monsanto: "This monopolistic system is rigged against family farmers." The group hopes to re-establish farmer rights to save seed from their harvested crops and replant it. However, as an attorney who is not directly involved stated: "'At the end of the day, they (state and federal prosecutors and farmers) may not be able to do much with it because of the scope of those patents. In almost all the cases, the courts come out on the side of intellectual property.'"

Trade in Europe and Africa

In response to negative public opinion, Monsanto announced its decision to remove their seed cereal business from Europe, and environmentalists crashed a World Trade Organization conference in Cancun that promoted GM foods and was sponsored by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Some African nations have refused emergency food aid from developed countries, fearing that the food is unsafe. During a conference in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, Kingsley Amoako, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), encouraged African nations to accept genetically modified food and expressed dissatisfaction in the public's negative opinion of biotechnology.

In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, which was subsequently authorized by the EU. In March 2010, Bulgaria imposed a complete ban on genetically modified crop growing either commercially or for trials. The cabinet of Boyko Borisov initially imposed a 5-year moratorium, but later extended it to a permanent ban after widespread public protests against the introduction of genetically modified crops in the country. In late 2011 several diplomatic cables were leaked, revealing that GMO imports and cultivation policies in Bulgaria were supported by the United States through its diplomatic mission in Sofia.

In recent years, France and several other European countries banned cultivation of Monsanto's MON-810 corn and similar genetically modified food crops. In late 2007, the U.S. ambassador to France recommended "moving to retaliation" against France and the European Union in an attempt to fight the French ban and changes in European policy toward genetically modified crops, according to a U.S. government diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks. The U.S. ambassador to France recommended retaliation to cause "some pain across the EU."

Industrial agriculture

GM crops play a key role in contemporary large scale agriculture, which involves monoculture, heavy use of herbicides and pesticides, use of equipment that requires large amounts of fuel, and heavy water use. Vandana Shiva, the founder of the group Navdanya, is an example of those who protest this paradigm: “We need biodiversity intensification that works with nature’s nutrient and water cycles, not against them.”

Litigation in the US

Four federal district court suits have been brought against Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the agency within USDA that regulates genetically modified plants. Two involved field trials (herbicide-tolerant turfgrass in Oregon; pharmaceutical-producing corn and sugar in Hawaii) and two the deregulation of GM alfalfa. and GM sugar beet. Initially APHIS lost all four cases, with the judges ruling they failed to diligently follow the guidelines set out in the National Environmental Policy Act.

Alfalfa

In 2005, after completing a 28-page Environmental Assessment (EA) the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) nonregulated status under Code of Federal Regulations Title 7 Part 340, called, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” which regulates, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Monsanto had to seek deregulation to conduct field trials of RRA, because the RRA contains a promoter sequence derived from the plant pathogen figwort mosaic virus. The USDA granted the application for deregulation, stating that the RRA with its modifications: "(1) Exhibit no plant pathogenic properties; (2) are no more likely to become weedy than the nontransgenic parental line or other cultivated alfalfa; (3) are unlikely to increase the weediness potential of any other cultivated or wild species with which it can interbreed; (4) will not cause damage to raw or processed agricultural commodities; (5) will not harm threatened or endangered species or organisms that are beneficial to agriculture; and (6) should not reducethe ability to control pests and weeds in alfalfa or other crops." Monsanto started selling RRA and within two years, more than 300,000 acres were devoted to the plant in the US.

The granting of deregulation was opposed by many groups, including growers of non-GM alfalfa who were concerned about gene flow into their crops. In 2006, the Center for Food Safety, a US non-governmental organization that is a critic of biotech crops, and others challenged this deregulation in the California Northern District Court Organic growers were concerned that the GM alfalfa could cross-pollinate with their organic alfalfa, making their crops unsalable in countries that ban the growing of GM crops. The District Court ruled that the USDA's EA did not address two issues concerning RRA's effect on the environment and in 2007, required the USDA to complete a much more extensive Environmental impact statement (EIS). Until the EIS was completed, they banned further planting of RRA but allowed land already planted to continue. The USDA proposed a partial deregulation of RRA but this was also rejected by the District Court. Planting of RRA was halted.

In June 2009, a divided three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Breyer's decision. Monsanto and others appealed to the US Supreme Court

On 21 June 2010, in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, the Supreme Court overturned the District Court decision to ban planting RRA nationwide as there was no evidence of irreparable injury. They ruled that the USDA could partially deregulate RRA before an EIS was completed. The Supreme court did not consider the district court's ruling disallowing RRA's deregulation and consequently RRA was still a regulated crop waiting for USDA's completion of an EIS. The USDA chose not to allow partial deregulation as the EIS was almost complete. Their 2,300 page EIS was published in December 2010. It concluded that RRA would not affect the environment.

In January 2011, despite protests from organic groups, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the USDA had approved the unrestricted planting of genetically modified alfalfa and planting resumed. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack commented "After conducting a thorough and transparent examination of alfalfa ... APHIS has determined that Roundup Ready alfalfa is as safe as traditionally bred alfalfa." About 20 million acres (8 million hectares) of alfalfa were grown in the US, the fourth-biggest crop by acreage, of which about 1% were organic. Some biotechnology officials forecast that half of the US alfalfa acreage could eventually be planted with GM alfalfa.

Christine Bushway, CEO of the Organic Trade Association said "A lot of people are shell shocked. While we feel Secretary Vilsack worked on this issue, which is progress, this decision puts our organic farmers at risk." The Organic Trade Association issued a press release in 2011 saying that the USDA recognized the impact that cross contamination could have on organic alfalfa and urged them to place restrictions to minimise any such contamination. Following the decision, organic farming groups, organic food outlets, and activists responded by publishing an open letter saying that planting the "alfalfa without any restrictions flies in the face of the interests of conventional and organic farmers, preservation of the environment, and consumer choice." Commenting on the ruling, in a Joint Statement U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Peter DeFazio said the USDA had the "opportunity to address the concerns of all farmers", but instead "surrender to business as usual for the biotech industry."

The Center for Food Safety appealed this decision in March 2011 but the District Court for Northern California rejected this motion in 2012.

Sugar beets

In 2005, based on the results of an Environmental Assessment and a Plant Pest Risk Assessment the USDA deregulated Monsanto's Roundup Ready genetically engineered sugar beets.

In 2008 the Center for Food Safety and others filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California challenging this deregulation. In 2009, the district court ordered the USDA to prepare a much more detailed Environmental Impact Statement. In August 2010, Judge White of the District Court ordered a halt to the planting of the genetically modified sugar beets in the US. He said that "the Agriculture Department had not adequately assessed the environmental consequences before approving them for commercial cultivation."

In February 2011, a federal appeals court for the Northern district of California in San Francisco, citing the decision by the Supreme Court on GM alfalfa, overturned the previous ruling by Judge Jeffrey S. White to destroy juvenile GM sugar beets, ruling in favor of Monsanto, the USDA and four seed companies. The appeals court concluded that "The Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of irreparable injury. Biology, geography, field experience, and permit restrictions make irreparable injury unlikely."

Also in February 2011, The USDA allowed commercial planting of GM sugar beet in the US under closely controlled conditions. Michael Gregoire from APHIS said "After conducting an environmental assessment, accepting and reviewing public comments and conducting a plant pest risk assessment, APHIS has determined that the Roundup Ready sugar beet root crop, when grown under APHIS imposed conditions, can be partially deregulated without posing a plant pest risk or having a significant effect on the environment." GM sugar beet opponents such as Earthjustice said the USDA action circumvents court orders, and vowed they would fight the USDA in court.

In 2010, before the ruling, 95% of the sugar beet grown in the US was GM. About half the sugar supply in the US came from sugar beet.

India

Controversies over GM crops and GM food in India have recapitulated many of the issues discussed in this article, but have unique aspects as well.

In India, GM cotton yields in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu had an average 42% increase in yield with GM cotton in 2002, the first year of commercial GM cotton planting. However, there was a severe drought in Andhra Pradesh that year and the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered variant was not well suited to extreme drought, so Andhra Pradesh saw no increase in yield. Drought resistant variants were developed and, with the substantially reduced losses to insect predation, by 2011 88% of Indian cotton was GM. Though disputed the economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented. However, recently cotton bollworm has been developing resistance to Bt cotton and the Indian Agriculture Ministry linked farmers' suicides in India to the declining performance of Bt cotton for the first time. Consequently, in 2012 the state of Maharashtra banned Bt cotton and ordered a socio-economic study of its use by independent institutes.

Controversial cases

Pusztai affair

The Pusztai affair is a controversy that began in 1998 after Arpad Pusztai, an expert on plant lectins, went public with research he was conducting with genetically modified potatoes. Prior to Pusztai's research, no peer-reviewed studies regarding the safety of genetically modified food had been published and the controversy led to Pusztai's research being peer reviewed in 1999.. In a short interview in 1998, he reported that rats fed potatoes engineered to express lectin, a natural insecticide in snowdrop plants, had stunted growth and a repressed immune system. Confusion arose as to what gene had been inserted into the potato and Pusztai was suspended by the Rowett Institute's director, Philip James. A media frenzy resulted, Pusztai's contract was not renewed and he and his wife were banned from speaking publicly.

In October 1998 the Rowett Institute published an audit criticizing Pusztai's results, which, along with Pusztai's raw data, was sent to six anonymous reviewers who criticized Pusztai's results. Pusztai responded that the raw data was "never intended for publication under intense scrutiny". Pusztai sent the audit report and his rebuttal to scientists who requested it, and in February 1999, twenty-one European and American scientists released a memo supporting Pusztai. Stanley Ewen, who worked with Pusztai, conducted a followup study supporting Pusztai's work and presented the work to a lectin meeting in Sweden.

In October 1999 Pusztai's research was published (co-authored with Stanley Ewen) in the journal The Lancet. Because of the controversial nature of his research, the data in this paper was seen by a total of six reviewers when presented for peer review; four of these reviewers judged the work acceptable, although a fifth "deemed the study flawed but favored publication to avoid suspicions of a conspiracy against Pusztai and to give colleagues a chance to see the data for themselves". The paper did not mention stunted growth or immunity issues, but reported that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had "thickening in the mucosal lining of their colon and their jejunum" when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes. Three Dutch scientists criticized the study on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet, and that any rats fed only on potatoes will suffer from a protein deficiency; Pusztai responded to these criticisms by stating that the protein and energy were comparable, and that "a sample size of six is perfectly normal in studies like this".

Bioequivalence study of a corn cultivar

A controversy arose around biotech company Monsanto's data on a 90-Day Rat Feeding Study on the MON863 strain of GM corn. In May 2005, critics of GM foods pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences raises questions about the regulatory concept of substantial equivalence. Anti-GM campaigner Jeffrey M. Smith, writing in Biophile Magazine, quoting comments from Pusztai and Seralini,has stated that nutritional studies typically use young, fast-growing animals with starting weights not varying by more than 2% from the average whereas Monsanto's research design used a mix of young and old animals with starting weights ranging from 198.4 to 259.8 grams. Seralini and two other authors published a study of these data, funded by Greenpeace, in 2007 making similar points.

The raising of this issue prompted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to reexamine the safety data on this strain of corn. The EFSA concluded that the observed small numerical decrease in rat kidney weights were not biologically meaningful, and the weights were well within the normal range of kidney weights for control animals. There were no corresponding microscopic findings in the relevant organ systems, and they stated that all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the "normal range of historical control values" for rats. In addition the EFSA review stated that the statistical methods used by Séralini et al. in the analysis of the data were incorrect. The European Commission has approved the ΜΟΝ863 corn for animal and human consumption. Food Standards Australia New Zealand reviewed the 2007 Seralini et al. study and concluded that "...all of the statistical differences between rats fed MON 863 corn and control rats are attributable to normal biological variation."

Greenpeace stated in a 2007 press release that Séralini et al. had completed a similar analysis of the NK603 strain of corn and came to similar conclusions as they did in their previous study. Séralini et al. included this in a re-analysis of three existing rat feeding studies published in 2009.

The European Food Safety Authority reviewed the 2009 Seralini et al. paper and concluded that the author's claims were not supported by the data in their paper. They noted that many of their fundamental statistical criticisms of the 2007 paper also applied to the 2009 paper. There was no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions that the three GM maize types were safe for human, animal health and the environment The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB) also reviewed the 2009 study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs." The HCB also questioned the author's independence. Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results from the 2009 Séralini et al. study were due to chance alone.

Protests

Concern about gene flow drives some protesters. In May 2012, a group called "Take the Flour Back" led by Gerald Miles protested against plans by a group from Rothamsted Experimental Station, based in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England, to stage an experimental trial to use genetically modified wheat to repel aphids. The researchers, led by John Pickett, wrote a letter to the group "Take the Flour Back" in early May 2012, asking them to call off their protest, aimed for May 27, 2012.. One of the members of Take the Flour Back, Lucy Harrap, said that the group was concerned about spread of the crops into nature, and cited examples of outcomes in the United States and Canada. Rothamsted Research and Sense About Science ran question and answer sessions with scientists about issues of contamintion.

Within the UK and many other European countries many trial crops have been destroyed by protesters: for public research experiments alone, 80 acts of destruction have been compiled. The protesters claim the destruction of the crops creates opportunities to be heard. The primary concern of the campaigners though is contamination of existing crops could destroy existing markets. (organic produce) Scientists take many precautions to minimise the risks as much as possible and admit the risk of contamination is small. However, campaigners counter with examples of widespread contamination that has already occurred despite assurances and promises from scientists. The scientists give several reasons for the need for trials - climate change, a growing global population and reduced use of chemicals. The campaigners draw attention to natural and organic solutions to reduce chemical use and question the usefulness of the trials (e.g. field trials in the UK for a crop designed for Africa) k Environment News Service (http://s.tt/1ktea)

Public perception

Research by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology has shown that in 2005 Americans' knowledge of genetically modified foods and animals continues to remain low, and their opinions reflect that they are particularly uncomfortable with animal cloning. In one instance of consumer confusion, DNA Plant Technology's Fish tomato transgenic organism was conflated with Calgene's Flavr Savr transgenic food product. The Pew survey also showed that despite continuing concerns about GM foods, American consumers do not support banning new uses of the technology, but rather seek an active role from regulators to ensure that new products are safe.

Only 2% of Britons were said to be "happy to eat GM foods", and more than half of Britons were against GM foods being available to the public, according to a 2003 study. However a 2009 review article of European consumer polls concluded that opposition to GMOs in Europe has been gradually decreasing. Approximately half of European consumers accepted gene technology, particularly when benefits for consumers and for the environment could be linked to GMO products. 80 % of respondents did not cite the application of GMOs in agriculture as a significant environmental problem. Many consumers seem unafraid of health risks from GMO products and most European consumers did not actively avoid GMO products while shopping.

In Australia, GM foods that have novel DNA, novel protein, altered characteristics or has to be cooked or prepared in a different way compared to the conventional food have, since December 2001, had to be identified on food labels. However, multiple surveys have shown that while 45% of the public will accept GM foods, some 93% demand all genetically modified foods be labelled as such. A 2007 survey by the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand found that 27% of Australians looked at the label to see if it contained GM material when purchasing a grocery product for the first time. Labelling legislation has been introduced and rejected several times since 1996 on the grounds of "restraint of trade" due to the cost of labelling. The controversy erupted again in 2009 when Graincorp, the nations largest grain handler, announced it would mix GM Canola with its unmodified grain. Traditional growers, who largely rely on GM-free markets, had been told they would need to pay to have their produce certified GM free. Graincorp reversed its decision the same year. Critics such as Greenpeace and the Gene Ethics Network have renewed calls for more labelling.

Opponents of genetically modified food often refer to it as "Frankenfood", after Mary Shelley's character Frankenstein and the monster he creates, in her novel of the same name. The term was coined in 1992 by Paul Lewis, an English professor at Boston College who used the word in a letter he wrote to the New York Times in response to the decision of the US Food and Drug Administration to allow companies to market genetically modified food. The term "Frankenfood" has become a battle cry of the European side in the US-EU agricultural trade war.

Critics have protested in regards to the appointment of pro GM lobbyists to senior positions in the FDA. Michael R. Taylor has been appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety and Dennis Wolff is expected to take up the position of Under-Secretary of the newly created Agriculture for Food Safety. Taylor is a former Monsanto lobbyist credited as being responsible for the implementation of "substantial equivalence" in place of food safety studies and for his advocacy that resulted in the Delaney clause that prohibited the inclusion of "any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man.. or animals" in processed foods being amended in 1996 to allow the inclusion of pesticides in GMOs. Wolff is the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture who successfully lobbied to ban organic farmers from labeling their products as being GM free and was a proponent of the "ACRE" initiative which gave the Pennsylvania state attorney general's office the authority to sue municipalities that banned GMOs. Several anti-GMO organisations have organised petitions demanding Taylor's resignation and opposing Wolff's appointment and also conducted letter writing campaigns protesting the conflict of interest.

Religious issues

As of yet, no GM foods have been designated as unacceptable by religious authorities.

See also

• International trade of genetically modified foods
• Environmental issues with agriculture
• Ice-minus bacteria
• Corngate
• Arpad Pusztai
• Nayakrishi

External links

Pros and Cons of GM food.

• TechCast Article Series, Whitney Tull, "Why Do People Fear or Accept Genetically Modified Foods?
• Genetic Imperialism? from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
• ORNL.gov

• 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.
• Database detailing all currently accepted GM crops
• New Scientist article on GMO foods
• The FDA List of Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods
• Coextra research project on coexistence and tracebility of GM and non-GM supply chains
• STEPS Centre Biotechnology Research Archive
• Controlling Our Food a documentary film by Marie-Monique Robin
• bEcon - Economics literature about the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) crops in developing economies
• Plant Transformation Lab

References

1. 20 questions on genetically modified foods World Health Organization
2. ^ NRC. (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text.
3. ^ Seralini G.E., Cellier D., Spiroux, de Vendomois J. (2007). "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity". Arch. Contamin. Environ. Toxicol. 52 (4): 596–602. doi:10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. PMID 17356802.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Le Curieux-Belfond O., Vandelac L., Caron J., Seralini G.E. (2009). "Factors to consider before production and commercialization of aquatic genetically modified organisms: the case of transgenic salmon". Env. Sci. Policy. 12 (2): 170–189. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.10.001.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?". Csa.com. 20 May 1999. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
6. http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/
7. http://www.monsanto.com/Pages/default.aspx
8. AE Ricroch, JB Bergé, M Kuntz Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling techniques Plant Physiology February 2011 pp.111.173609
9. Stewart Brand. "Annotated Whole Earth Discipline: Green Genes". Retrieved 20 February 2010.
10. http://www.agbioforum.org/v10n1/v10n1a06-gruere.pdf
11. http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/gm/gm_labelling
12. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/13/california-gm-referendum-change-america-food
13. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-02/california-heads-for-vote-on-modified-food-labeling
14. ^ Bruce Stutz (1 July 2010). "Wanted: GM Seeds for Study". Seed Magazine.
15. The Editors. A Seedy Practice Scientific American 301(2): 22, August 2009
16. ^ http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/DocumentSet/gmo_technicalmeeting_gmfreecymru1,0.pdf?ssbinary=true
17. Hungary Bans GM Maize Seed Third World Network Biosafety Information Service February 1, 2005
18. ^ "Early Tier Tests Insufficient for GMO Risk Assessment" (PDF). Nature Biotechnology Volume 25 Number 1. January 2007. Retrieved 2009-03-27.
19. PotatoPro
20. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) (pdf). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union. 2010. p. 16. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9.
21. ^ Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM (2008). "Genetically modified plants and human health". J R Soc Med. 101 (6): 290–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. PMC 2408621. PMID 18515776. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
22. http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&DOC=1&CAT=NEWS&QUERY=1173302230405&RCN=23144
23. König A, et al. (2004) Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004 Jul;42(7):1047-88.
24. Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods. AgBioWorld.
25. "Organic Consumers Association".
26. "True Food Now!".
27. ^ Séralini et al. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements Environmental Sciences Europe 2011 23:10 doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-10
28. Ricroch, AE, Bergé, JB, Kuntz, M. Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiology (2011) vol. 155(4) 1752-1761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.173609
29. Snell, C, Bernheim, A, Bergé, JB, Kuntz, M, Pascal, G, Paris, A, Ricroch, AE. Assessment of the Health Impact of GM Plant Diets in Long-Term and Multigenerational Animal Feeding Trials: a Literature Review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 1134–1148
30. Magaña-Gómez JA, de la Barca AM (2009). "Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health". Nutr. Rev. 67 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00130.x. PMID 19146501. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
31. Hammond B; Lemen J; Dudek R; et al. (2006). "Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 44 (2): 147–60. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2005.06.008. PMID 16084637. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |author-separator= ignored (help)
32. Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M (2004). "Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 42 (6): 1003–14. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.013. PMID 15110110.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
33. Hammond BG, Dudek R, Lemen JK, Nemeth MA (2006). "Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 44 (7): 1092–9. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2006.01.003. PMID 16487643.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
34. De Vend�mois, JS; Roullier, F; Cellier, D; S�ralini, GE (2009). "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health". International journal of biological sciences. 5 (7): 706–26. doi:10.7150/ijbs.5.706. PMC 2793308. PMID 20011136. {{cite journal}}: replacement character in |last1= at position 8 (help); replacement character in |last4= at position 2 (help)
35. GM maize MON863: French scientists doubt safety GMO Compass, 16 March 2007. Retrieved 30 October 2010.
36. Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, Lovell DP, Lynch B, Munro IC (2007). "Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863)" (PDF). Food Chem. Toxicol. 45 (11): 2073–85. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2007.08.033. PMID 17900781.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
37. Opinion relating to the deposition of 15 December 2009 by the Member of Parliament, François Grosdidier, as to the conclusions of the study entitled “A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health” English translation of French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee document. Retrieved 9 November 2010.
38. Avis relatif à la saisine du 15 décembre 2009 de Monsieur le Député François Grosdidier, quant aux conclusions de l'étude intitulée “A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health”... Original document in French by the French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee document. Retrieved 9 November 2010.
39. EFSA Minutes of the 55th Plenary Meeting of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Mofified Organisms Held on 27–28 January 2010 IN Parma, Italy, Annex 1, Vendemois et al 2009 European Food Safety Authority report. Retrieved 9 November 2010.
40. Statement of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the analysis of data from a 90-day rat feeding study with MON 863 maize European Food Safety Authority, 25 June 2010. Retrieved 27 October 2010.
41. FSANZ response to A comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, Int. J. Biol. Sci. 5 (7): 706–726 FSANZ fact sheets 2009. Retrieved 26 October 2010.
42. Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS (2009). "Health risks of genetically modified foods". Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 49 (2): 164–75. doi:10.1080/10408390701855993. PMID 18989835. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
43. Dona, Artemis et al (2009) Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods Full version of paper in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49:164–175 (2009), Retrieved on 28 October 2010
44. Amman Klaus (2009) Human and Animal Health - Rebuttal to a Review of Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009, part one European Federation of Biotechnology, 31 August 2009, Retrieved on 28 October 2010
45. Amman, Klaus (2009) Rebuttal to a review of Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009 Retrieved on 28 October 2010
46. Craig, Richard (2010) Response to "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods" from Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009) in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (49:164-175) Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2010, vol. 50, no 1, pp. 85–91, Retrieved on 28 October 2010
47. Domingo JL (2007). "Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature". Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 47 (8): 721–33. doi:10.1080/10408390601177670. PMID 17987446.
48. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1038/nbt0607-624b, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1038/nbt0607-624b instead.
49. Vain, Philippe (2007) Trends in GM crop, food and feed safety literature (2007)
50. ^ Flachowsky G, Chesson A, Aulrich K (2005). "Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants". Archives of Animal Nutrition. 59 (1): 1–40. doi:10.1080/17450390512331342368. PMID 15889650.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Cite error: The named reference "Flachowsky2005" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
51. Aumaitre A (2004). "Safety assessment and feeding value for pigs, poultry and ruminant animals of pest protected (Bt) plants and herbicide tolerant (glyphosate, glufosinate) plants: interpretation of experimental results observed worldwide on GM plants". Italian Journal of Animal Science. 3 (2): 107–121.
52. ^ "Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
53. Millstone, Erik; Brunner, Eric; Mayer, Sue (1999). "Beyond 'substantial equivalence'" (PDF). Nature. 401 (6753): 525–6. doi:10.1038/44006. PMID 10524614.
54. Joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report, 1996, p. 4
55. Kok EJ, Kuiper HA (2003). "Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops". Trends Biotechnol. 21 (10): 439–44. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2003.08.003. PMID 14512230. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
56. ^ Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HP, Kok EJ (2002). "Substantial equivalence--an appropriate paradigm for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods?". Toxicology. 181–182: 427–31. doi:10.1016/S0300-483X(02)00488-2. PMID 12505347. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
57. UK GM expert calls for tougher tests BBC September 7, 1999
58. Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S (1999). "Beyond 'substantial equivalence'". Nature. 401 (6753): 525–6. doi:10.1038/44006. PMID 10524614. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
59. Trewavas A, Leaver CJ (1999). "Conventional crops are the test of GM prejudice". Nature. 401 (6754): 640. doi:10.1038/44258. PMID 10537097. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
60. Gasson MJ (1999). "Genetically modified foods face rigorous safety evaluation". Nature. 402 (6759): 229. doi:10.1038/46147. PMID 10580485. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
61. Keeler, Barbara and Lappe, Marc Some Food for FDA Regulation 7 January 2001, Retrieved on 30 November 2010
62. "Biotech: Some Food For FDA Regulation".
63. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1021/jf073505i, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1021/jf073505i instead.
64. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12452638, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=12452638 instead.
65. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2006.00197.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1111/j.1467-7652.2006.00197.x instead.
66. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1021/pr800359d, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1021/pr800359d instead.
67. "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides ass... [Reprod Toxicol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI". ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. 2011-10-03. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
68. Sean Poulter. "GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
69. Allain de Weck: Une protéine pesticide OGM (Cry1ab) dans le sang de femmes gravides et de leur fœtus? Un travail bâclé et un scénario catastrophe très probablement inexistant
70. "Many Women, no Cry - OGM : environnement, santé et politique" (in English and French). Marcel-kuntz-ogm.over-blog.fr. 2012-01-16. Retrieved 2012-02-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
71. "FSANZ response to study linking Cry1Ab protein in blood to GM foods - Food Standards Australia New Zealand". foodstandards.gov.au. 2011-05-27. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
72. Netherwood; et al. (2004). "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract". Nature Biotechnology. 22 (2): 204. doi:10.1038/nbt934. PMID 14730317. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); replacement character in |last2= at position 5 (help)
73. Smith, Jeffrey. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, p. 130, 2007
74. Brigulla, M; Wackernagel, W (2010). "Molecular aspects of gene transfer and foreign DNA acquisition in prokaryotes with regard to safety issues". Applied microbiology and biotechnology. 86 (4): 1027–41. doi:10.1007/s00253-010-2489-3. PMID 20191269.
75. Guertler, P; Paul, V; Albrecht, C; Meyer, HH (2009). "Sensitive and highly specific quantitative real-time PCR and ELISA for recording a potential transfer of novel DNA and Cry1Ab protein from feed into bovine milk". Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 393 (6–7): 1629–38. doi:10.1007/s00216-009-2667-2. PMID 19225766.
76. ^ Beagle J. M; et al. (2006). "The digestive fate of Escherichia coli glutamate dehydrogenase deoxyribonucleic acid from transgenic corn in diets fed to weanling pigs". J. Anim Sci. 84 (3): 597–607. PMID 16478951. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |author-separator= ignored (help)
77. Kuehn BM (2008). "Food allergies becoming more common". JAMA. 300 (20): 2358. doi:10.1001/jama.2008.706. PMID 19033580. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
78. Drake Bennett Our allergies, ourselves Boston Globe May 7, 2006
79. Lehrer SB, Bannon GA (2005). "Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: perception and reality". Allergy. 60 (5): 559–64. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00704.x. PMID 15813800. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
80. "Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans Julie A. Nordlee, M.S., Steve L. Taylor, Ph.D., Jeffrey A. Townsend, B.S., Laurie A. Thomas, B.S., and Robert K. Bush, M.D. NEJM Volume 334:688-692 March 14, 1996 Number 11".
81. Warren Leary Genetic Engineering of Crops Can Spread Allergies, Study Shows New York Times Thursday, March 14, 1996
82. Streit, L.G.; et al. (2001). "Association of the Brazil nut protein gene and Kunitz trypsin inhibitor alleles with soybean protease inhibitor activity and agronomic traits". Crop Sci. 41 (6): 1757–1760. doi:10.2135/cropsci2001.1757.
83. ^ Prescott VE (2005). Expression of Bean-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity (PDF). Vol. 53. pp. 9023–9030. doi:10.1021/jf050594v. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help); Invalid |display-authors=1 (help); Unknown parameter |author-separator= ignored (help) Lay summary: Emma Young S. (2005). GM pea causes allergic damage in mice. New Scientist
84. "Comments Australian GM Pea Research Maarten J. Chrispeels".
85. Herman EM (2003). "Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies". J. Exp. Bot. 54 (386): 1317–9. doi:10.1093/jxb/erg164. PMID 12709477. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
86. Herman EM, Helm RM, Jung R, Kinney AJ (2003). "Genetic Modification Removes an Immunodominant Allergen from Soybean". Plant Physiol. 132 (1): 36–43. doi:10.1104/pp.103.021865. PMC 1540313. PMID 12746509. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
87. Bhalla PL, Swoboda I, Singh MB (1999). "Antisense-mediated silencing of a gene encoding a major ryegrass pollen allergen". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (20): 11676–80. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.20.11676. PMC 18093. PMID 10500236. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
88. King D, Gordon A. Contaminant found in Taco Bell taco shells. Food safety coalition demands recall (press release), vol 2001. Washington, DC: Friends of the Earth, 2000. Available: http://www.foe.org/act/getacobellpr.html. 3 November 2001.
89. Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefit Estimates, Janet E. Carpenter and Leonard P. Gianessi 2001, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
90. North American Millers' Association (press release), Apr. 28, 2008,http://www.namamillers.org/PR_StarLink_04_28_08.html
91. http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/
92. ^ Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap JP (2003). "The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment". Plant J. 33 (1): 19–46. doi:10.1046/j.0960-7412.2002.001607.x. PMID 12943539. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
93. Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer PR (2000). "The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants". Science. 290 (5499): 2088–93. doi:10.1126/science.290.5499.2088. PMID 11118136. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
94. "Agricultural efficiency to save wilderness".
95. "The ABIC 2004 Manifesto: Science Helps To Improve Agricultural Systems".
96. Roh JY, Choi JY, Li MS, Jin BR, Je YH (2007). "Bacillus thuringiensis as a specific, safe, and effective tool for insect pest control". J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 17 (4): 547–59. PMID 18051264. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
97. Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P (2007). "A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates". Science. 316 (5830): 1475–7. doi:10.1126/science.1139208. PMID 17556584. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
98. Carrington, Damien (13 June 2012) GM crops good for environment, study finds The Guardian, Retrieved 16 June 2012
99. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1038/nature11153, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1038/nature11153 instead.
100. Brookes, Graham & Barfoot, Peter (2008) Global Impact of Biotech Crops: Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects, 1996-2006 AgBioForum, Volume 11, Number 1, Article 3, Retrieved on August 12, 2010
101. http://civileats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/13Years20091112.pdf
102. Damning verdict on GM crop, Guardian.
103. "Results of GM farm trials have been misrepresented, says Lord May". The Royal Society, London. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
104. Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999). "Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae". Nature. 399 (6733): 214. doi:10.1038/20338. PMID 10353241. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
105. Mendelsohn M, Kough J, Vaituzis Z, Matthews K (2003). "Are Bt crops safe?". Nat. Biotechnol. 21 (9): 1003–9. doi:10.1038/nbt0903-1003. PMID 12949561. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
106. Hellmich RL; Siegfried BD; Sears MK; et al. (2001). "Monarch larvae sensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis- purified proteins and pollen". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (21): 11925–30. doi:10.1073/pnas.211297698. PMC 59744. PMID 11559841. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |author-separator= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
107. Sears MK; Hellmich RL; Stanley-Horn DE; et al. (2001). "Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (21): 11937–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.211329998. PMC 59819. PMID 11559842. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |author-separator= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
108. "Bt Corn and Monarch Butterflies". USDA Agricultural Research Service. 2004-03-29. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
109. Gatehouse AM, Ferry N, Raemaekers RJ (2002). "The case of the monarch butterfly: a verdict is returned". Trends Genet. 18 (5): 249–51. doi:10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02664-1. PMID 12047949. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
110. "ARS : Questions and Answers: Colony Collapse Disorder". ARS News. 2008-05-29. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
111. ^ Black R (2007-09-06). "Virus implicated in bee decline". Science/Nature. BBC News. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
112. Latsch G (2007-03-22). "Are GM Crops Killing Bees?". Spiegel (International). Retrieved 2008-11-23.
113. Higes M; Martín-Hernández R; Botías C; et al. (2008). "How natural infection by Nosema ceranae causes honeybee colony collapse". Environ. Microbiol. 10 (10): 2659–69. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01687.x. PMID 18647336. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |author-separator= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
114. Lu, Chensheng et al (13 March 2012) In situ replication of honey bee colony collapse disorder Bulletin of Insectology 65 (1), 2012, ISSN 1721-8861, Accessed 7 April 2012
115. http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops
116. U.S. Department of Energy Genome Progrmas (2008). "Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms". Retrieved 15 November 2010.
117. "Genetically Modified Plants: Out-crossing and Gene Flow". GMO Compass. 12 December 2006. Retrieved 23 April 2011.
118. Quist D, Chapela IH (2001). "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico". Nature. 414 (6863): 541–3. doi:10.1038/35107068. PMID 11734853. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
119. Kaplinsky N, Braun D, Lisch D, Hay A, Hake S, Freeling M (2002). "Biodiversity (Communications arising): maize transgene results in Mexico are artefacts". Nature. 416 (6881): 601–2, discussion 600, 602. doi:10.1038/nature739. PMID 11935145. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
120. Ortiz-García S, Ezcurra E, Schoel B, Acevedo F, Soberón J, Snow AA (2005). "Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003–2004)". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (35): 12338–43. doi:10.1073/pnas.0503356102. PMC 1184035. PMID 16093316. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
121. PIÑEYRO-NELSON, A.; VAN HEERWAARDEN, J.2; PERALES, H. R.; SERRATOS-HERNÁNDEZ, J. A.; RANGEL, A.; HUFFORD, M. B.; GEPTS, P.; GARAY-ARROYO, A.; RIVERA-BUSTAMANTE, R.; ÁLVAREZ-BUYLLA, E. R.; "Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations." in Molecular Ecology ; Feb2009, Vol. 18 Issue 4, p750-761, 12p
122. Oilseed gene leak 'unsurprising', BBC News.
123. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100122123/index.htm
124. APHIS Report
125. "Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker—PNAS". Pnas.org. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
126. Hamer Ed, Anslow Mark (2008). "Going organic: 10 reasons why (and how) organics can feed the world". CCPA Monitor. 15 (6): 21–24. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
127. First Wild Canola Plants With Modified Genes Found in United States | Arkansas Newswire | University of Arkansas. Newswire.uark.edu (2010-08-06). Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
128. Genetically Modified Canola 'Escapes' Farm Fields. NPR. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
129. Black, Richard. (2010-08-06) BBC News – GM plants 'established in the wild'. Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
130. Eisberg, Neil GM crops are on the move Chemistry and Industry Ten Alps Publishing 7 November, 2011 HighBeam Research accessed 7 July, 2012
131. ^ "Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide". Cls.casa.colostate.edu. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
132. "Nature World Conference on Science". Nature.com. 24 June 1999. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
133. Editors, The. (2009-10-26) Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger? – NYTimes.com. Roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
134. Diouf, Jacques and Sheeran, Josette The State of Food Insecurity in the World Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2010, Retrieved 11 August 2011
135. Gillis, Justin A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself The New York Times, 5 June 2011, Retrieved 11 August 2011
136. Burke, Marshall Half the world's population faces major food crisis by 2100, Science study finds Stanford University, 8 January 2009, Retrieved 11 August 2011
137. Raney, Terri, and Prahbu Pingali. "Sowing A Gene Revolution." Scientific American September 2007. 11 September 2008, SCIAM.com
138. 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 978-0-8021-3591-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
139. Boucher Dedited by Douglas H. Boucher. (1999). The Paradox of Plenty: Hunger in a Bountiful World. Food First. p. 342. ISBN 978-0-935028-71-3. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
140. Valley, Paul. Strange fruit: Could genetically modified foods offer a solution to the world's food crisis? The Independent, 18 April 2009.
141. Lynas, Mark (2010) Why we Greens Keep Getting it Wrong The New Statesman, 28 January 10. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
142. Lynas, Mark (2010) What the Green Movement Got Wrong: A turncoat explains The Daily Telegraph, 4 November 2010. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
143. Editors, The. (2009-10-26) Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger? – NYTimes.com. Roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
144. Naylor, R.L.; Falcon, W.P.; Goodman, R.M.; Jahn, M.M.; Sengooba, T.; Tefera, H.; Nelson, R.J. (2004). "Biotechnology in the developing world: a case for increased investments in orphan crops. Also Tammy and Stedry shouldn't be allowed to show affection in public areas" (PDF). Food Policy. 29 (1): 15–44. Retrieved 9 April 2009.
145. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1142/S0219030303002623, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1142/S0219030303002623 instead.
146. Economic Impact of Transgenic Crops in Developing Countries. Agbioworld.org. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
147. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1017/S0021859612000111, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1017/S0021859612000111 instead.
148. ^ http://www.hpj.com/archives/2010/aug10/aug2/0716SeedMACOAug2sr.cfm
149. Hutchison, W. D.; Burkness, E. C.; Mitchell, P. D.; Moon, R. D.; Leslie, T. W.; Fleischer, S. J.; Abrahamson, M.; Hamilton, K. L.; Steffey, K. L. (2010). "Areawide Suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt Maize Reaps Savings to Non-Bt Maize Growers". Science. 330 (6001): 222. Bibcode:2010Sci...330..222H. doi:10.1126/science.1190242. PMID 20929774. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
150. Karnowski, Steve High-Tech Corn Fights Pests at Home and Nearby Sci-Tech today, 8 October 2010. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
151. Organic-center
152. Benbrook, Charles Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998 Mindfully Green, 13 July 1999. Retrieved 27 October 2010.
153. Caviness, C.E., and H.J. Walters. 1971. Effect of phytophthora rot on yield and chemical composition of soybean seed. Crop Science 11:83-84
154. Roundup Ready 2 Yield- Monsanto Web site http://www.monsanto.com/rr2y/
155. Qaim et al (2003) Science 299(5608): 900–902
156. ^ D. Gurian-Sherman. 2009. Failure to Yield. UCSUSA.org
157. Carpenter, Janet E (2010). "Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops". Nature Biotechnology. 28 (4): 319. doi:10.1038/nbt0410-319. PMID 20379171. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
158. Carpenter, Janet (2010) Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops Slide presentation of article in Nature Biotechnology, 28, 319 – 321 (2010). Retrieved 25 October 2010.
159. ^ "Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa". Digital Journal. 29 March 2009. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
160. "Clearing up Stories on Monsanto's South Africa Corn Crop". Beyond the Rows blog by Monsanto. 30 April 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
161. "Trends in the Agricultural Sector 2009" (PDF). Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa, 2010, ISSN 1025-5028. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
162. Brasher, Philip (2010) Biotech in Africa: In South Africa, the welcome mat is out Des Moines Register, 10 May 2010, Retrieved on 24 October 2010
163. Report by the US National Academies "Genetically Engineered Crops Benefit Many Farmers, but the Technology Needs proper Management to Remain Effective" – press release on the report "The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States" Office of News and Public Information, News from the Academies, 13 April 2010. Retrieved 11 October 2010.
164. Biotech Crops Are Good For Earth, Report Finds
165. Shipitalo MJ, Malone RW, Owens LB (2008). "Impact of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean and Glufosinate-Tolerant Corn Production on Herbicide Losses in Surface Runoff". Journal of Environment Quality. 37 (2): 401–8. doi:10.2134/jeq2006.0540. PMID 18268303.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
166. Shipitalo MJ, Malone RW, Owens LB (2008). "Impact of glyphosate-tolerant soybean and glufosinate-tolerant corn production on herbicide losses in surface runoff". J. Environ. Qual. 37 (2): 401–8. doi:10.2134/jeq2006.0540. PMID 18268303.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
167. Kasey J. (2011 Sept 8)Attack of the Superweed. Bloomberg Businessweek.
168. ^ "Resisting Roundup". The New York Times. May 16, 2010. Cite error: The named reference "nytimes.com" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
169. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/report-documents-pesticide.html
170. Pollack, Andrew (April 13, 2010). "Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops". The New York Times.
171. Neuman, William; Pollack, Andrew (May 3, 2010). "Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds". The New York Times.
172. "Toxic Weed Control". The New York Times. May 12, 2010.
173. Agricultural Research Service: Improving Corn.
174. http://www.eagleseed.com/roundup.html
176. http://www2.dupont.com/Media_Center/en_CA/pressrelease20090528.html
177. http://www.monsanto.com/investors/Pages/corporate-profile.aspx
178. ETC Group. (2008). 'Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life." p. 14 http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/707/01/etc_won_report_final_color.pdf
179. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx
180. http://www.foodincmovie.com/img/downloads/foodinc_PDF_091008.pdf p.73
181. "Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture" (PDF).
182. ^ http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx
183. http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,5657053,00.htm
184. Schubert, Robert: "Schmeiser Wants to Take It to The Supreme Court", CropChoice News, September 9, 2002
185. ^ Munzer, Stephen R. (2006). "Plants, Torts, and Intellectual Property". Oxford University Press: 1–30. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
186. ^ Federal court of Canada. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser Date: 20010329 Docket: T-1593-98. Retrieved 26 March 2006.
187. ^ Hayenga, Marvin. (1998). Structural change in the biotech seed and chemical industrial complex. AgBioForum, 1(2), 43-55. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
188. ETC Group. (2008). 'Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life." p. 11 http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/707/01/etc_won_report_final_color.pdf
189. ETC Group. (2011). 'Who will control the Green Economy?" p. 22. http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/ETC_wwctge_14dec2011_4web.pdf
190. Murphy, S., 2006. Concentrated Market Power and Agricultural Trade. EcoFair Trade Dialog Discussion Paper #1. p.18
191. quoted in ETC Group. (2008). 'Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life." p. 14 http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/707/01/etc_won_report_final_color.pdf
192. USDA (2001). "Concentration and Technology in Agricultural Input Industries." http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib763/
193. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/AgBioForum
194. Acquaye, A.K.A., & Traxler, G. (2005). Monopoly power, price discrimination, and access to biotechnology innovations. AgBioForum, 8(2&3), 127-133. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
195. Falck-Zepeda, et al. (2000). "Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of Biotechnology Innovation." 360.
196. ^ Reuters.com
197. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXnemqNlsotQ Bloomberg
198. GRIST.org
199. "Bulgaria Puts Total Ban on GM Crops". Novinite. 18 March 2010. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
200. "WikiLeaks: US Embassy in Sofia Backed Pro-GMO Lobby". 28 August 2011. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
201. Ludwig, Mike (2010-12-21). "WikiLeaks: US Ambassador Planned "Retaliation" Against France Over Ban on Monsanto Corn". Truthout. Archived from the original on 2011-01-11. Retrieved 2011-01-11.
202. Stapleton, Craig (2007-12-14). "France and the WTO ag biotech case" (Document). WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks cable: 07PARIS4723. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |archivedate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |archiveurl= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
203. "Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger?". The New York Times. October 26, 2009. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
204. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00300.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00300.x instead.
205. Judge Revokes Approval of Modified Sugar Beets, by ANDREW POLLACK, New York Times, August 13, 2010
206. ^ USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, October 2004, Retrieved 13 November 2011
207. Monsanto Co. and Forage Genetics International; Availability Determination of Nonregulated Status for Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate Federal Register, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 27 June 2005, Retrieved 12 November 2011
208. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple&c=ecfr&cc=ecfr&idno=7&region=DIV1&q1=340&rgn=Part+Number
209. ^ http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/2011/files/talks/11WAS-25_Orloff_RRAlfalfa.pdf
210. ^ Monsanto et al v Geertson Seed Farms et al, Supreme Court of the United States, Decision no 09-475, 21 June 2010, Retrieved 13 November 2011
211. Supreme Court on Modified Foods: Who Won?, by Barry Estabrook, 'The Atlantic'. June 22, 2010 . Retrieved June 22, 2010.
212. These two issues were: 1) evaluation of the risk that complete deregulation of RRA would lead to cross-pollination or the transmission of the gene conferring glyphosate tolerance from RRA to conventional alfalfa 2) evaluation of the risk that growing RRA might lead to the development of Roundup-resistant weeds.
213. Memorandum and Order Re: Permanent Injunction United States District Court for Northen California, Case No C 06-01075 CR, 3 May 2007, Retrieved 13 November 2011
214. Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms at ScotusWiki – Briefs and Documents, etc.
215. Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa Events J101 and J163: Request for Nonregulated Status Final Environmental Impact Statement, United States Department of Agriculture, December 2010, Retrieved 13 November 2011
216. USDA - Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), United States Department of Agriculture, December 2010, Retrieved 13 November 2011
217. Gilla, Carey and Doering, Christopher UPDATE 3-U.S. farmers get approval to plant GMO alfalfa Reuters US Edition, 27 January 2011, Retrieved 28 April 2011
218. Vilsack's USDA Officially Approves Controversial Genetifically Modified Alfalfa. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
219. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2011/01/0035.xml
220. ^ Tomson, Bill and Kilman, Scott USDA Won't Impose Restrictions on Biotech Alfalfa Crop Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2011, Retrieved 27 April 2011
221. Organic Trade Association's Organic Newsroom: Organic industry wants farmers protected in the marketplace. Organicnewsroom.com (2011-01-20). Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
222. "We Stand United in Opposition to GE Alfalfa". January 31, 2011. Retrieved March 19, 2011.
223. Leahy.senate.gov
224. Maria Rodale: We Stand in Opposition to GE Alfalfa. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
225. Complaint for Declatory and Injunctive Relief United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No CV11 1310, 18 March 2011, Retrieved 15 November 2011
226. Staff (12 May 2012) Challenge to Genetically Engineered Alfalfa Rejected 31 Biotechnology Law Report 151, Number 2 2012, Retrieved 25 July 2012
227. ^ Gregoire, Michael C. (19 July 2012) Record of Decision; Glyphosphate Tolerant Event H7-1 Sugar Beet: Petition for Nonregulated Status Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, USDA, Retrieved 28 August 2012
228. OTA.com
229. Judge Revokes Approval of Modified Sugar Beets, by ANDREW POLLACK, New York Times, August 13, 2010
230. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No. 10-17719, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-04038-JSW Filed 25 February 2011, accessed 28 August 2012
231. Kilman, Scott and Tomson, Bill Modified Beet Gets New Life The Wall Street Journal, 5 February 2011, retrieved 22 April 2011
232. USDA 2011 Agricultural Forum Sugar Outlook 25 February 2011, Retrieved 22 April 2011
233. Gillam, Carey and Abott, Chuck USDA partially deregulating biotech sugar beets Reuters News Agency, 5 February 2011, Retrieved 27 April 2011
234. "Sugar Beet". GMO Compass. 16 August 2010. Retrieved 25 October 2010.
235. Doering, Christopher (2010) US sees 2-yr environmental review of GM sugar beets Reuters, 1 September 2010. Retrieved on 25 October 2010
236. Qaim, Matin; Subramanian, Arjunan; Naik, Gopal; Zilberman, David (2006). "Adoption of Bt Cotton and Impact Variability: Insights from India". Review of Agricultural Economics. 28: 48. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00272.x.
237. James, C (2011). "ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011". ISAAA Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Retrieved 2012-06-02.
238. India’s Bt Cotton Fraud Institute of Science in Society, science society sustainability, ISIS report 03/05/05. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
239. Monsanto's Bt Cotton Kills the Soil as Well as Farmers Global Research.ca Centre for research on Globalization, 24 February 2009. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
240. Economic Impact of Genetically Modified Cotton in India
241. Subramanian, Arjunan; Qaim, Matin (2010). "The Impact of Bt Cotton on Poor Households in Rural India". Journal of Development Studies. 46 (2): 295. doi:10.1080/00220380903002954.
242. http://ens-newswire.com/2012/08/09/maharashtra-state-revokes-monsantos-cotton-seed-license/
243. ^ Randerson J. (2008). Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide. The Guardian.
244. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1080/10408390601177670, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1080/10408390601177670 instead.
245. Academicsreview.org. Retrieved June 21, 2012. "4. Science should be published in peer-reviewed literature and not on TV."
246. ^ 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)
247. Bourne, F.J., et al (1998) Audit Report Overview Rowett Research Institute, 28 October 1998, Retrieved on 28 November 2010
248. Bowden, Rebecca (10 May 1999). "Six referees comments on Pusztai potato data". e-mail from Royal Society to Pusztai. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
249. Murray, Noreen et al, (1999) Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes The Royal Society, 1 June 1999, Retrieved on 28 November 2010
250. ^ Enserink, M. (1999). "BIOENGINEERING: Preliminary Data Touch Off Genetic Food Fight". Science. 283 (5405): 1094–5. doi:10.1126/science.283.5405.1094. PMID 10075564. Retrieved 2009-06-26.
251. ^ Enserink, M. (1999). "TRANSGENIC FOOD DEBATE:The Lancet Scolded over Pusztai Paper". Science. 286 (5440): 656a. doi:10.1126/science.286.5440.656a.
252. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00341-4, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00341-4 instead.
253. Monsanto, 2002. 13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002
254. Jeffrey Smith Study reveals GM threats
255. "GM maize MON863: French scientists doubt safety". GMO Compass. 16 March 2007. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
256. Séralini, G.E., Cellier, D., de Vendomois, J.,S., 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 52, 596-602.
257. Rat study, European Food Safety Authority.
258. EFSA review of statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 863 90-day rat feeding study
259. "EFSA ::. EFSA review of statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 863 90-day rat feeding study" (PDF).
260. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on a request from the Commission related to the Notification (Reference C/DE/02/9) for the placing on the market of insect-protected genetically modified maize MON 863 and MON 863 x MON 810, for import and processing, under Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC from Monsanto, The EFSA Journal (2004) 49, 1-25
261. "Review of the report by Séralini et al., (2007): "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity"". FSANZ final assessment report. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
262. "FSANZ reaffirms its risk assessment of genetically modified corn MON 863". FSANZ fact sheets 2007. 25 July 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
263. "Greenpeace - Europe Press Release".
264. de Vendômois, Joël Spiroux (2009-12-10). "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health". International Journal of Biological Sciences. 5 (7): 706–726. doi:10.7150/ijbs.5.706. PMC 2793308. PMID 20011136. Retrieved 2010-07-21. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
265. "EFSA Minutes of the 55th Plenary Meeting of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms Held on 27–28 January 2010 IN Parma, Italy, Annex 1, Vendemois et al 2009" (PDF). European Food Safety Authority report. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
266. "Opinion relating to the deposition of 15 December 2009 by the Member of Parliament, François Grosdidier, as to the conclusions of the study entitled "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health"". English translation of French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee document. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
267. "FSANZ response to de Vendomois et al. (2009), A comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, Int. J. Biol. Sci. 5 (7): 706-726". FSANZ fact sheets 2009. Retrieved 26 October 2010.
268. http://taketheflourback.org/
269. http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/arable/scientists-urge-protestors-not-to-trash-gm-trials/46673.article
270. "GM wheat trial belongs in a laboratory". BBC News. 2 May 2012.
271. "Don't Destroy Research Q & A". Sense About Science. 25 July 2012.
272. Kuntz, Marcel. Destruction of public and governmental experiments of GMO in Europe. GM Crops & Food, Vol. 3(4), pages 1-7, October/November/December 2012. http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/article-vandalism-108181917.html
273. BBC Newsnight 17 May 2012 Newsnight debate about GM trials
274. McHughen, Alan (2000-09-14). Picnic Basket. ISBN 978-0-19-850674-4.
275. Public Sentiments About Genetically Modified Food, The Pew Initiative.
276. "Most Britons 'oppose GM crops'". BBC News. 2003-09-24. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
277. Opposition decreasing or acceptance increasing? An overview of European consumer polls on attitudes to GMOs GMO Compass, April 16, 2009, rertrieved August 14, 2010
278. "Genetically modified (GM)". Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, last updated. August 6, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
279. "Consumer Attitudes Survey 2007, A benchmark survey of consumers' attitudes to food issues" (PDF). Food Standards Australia New Zealand. January 2008. Retrieved August 14, 2010.
280. Hansard Legislative Council July 12, 2000
281. "Graincorp confident it will be able to keep GM canola separate". Ben Cubby, The Sydney Morning Herald. 26 September 2009. Retrieved 19 October 2010.
282. "GrainCorp won't charge for GM tests on canola". ABC Rural. 28 September 2009. Retrieved 19 October 2010.
283. The Advertiser GM grain in everyday foods. May 3, 2009 Pg 17.
284. Julia A. Moore and Gilbert Winham (2002-12-20). "Let's not escalate the 'Frankenfood' war". Christian Science Monitor. The European public calls GM products "Frankenstein food." They're afraid it could pose a health threat, or create an environmental disaster where genes jump from GM crops to wild plants and reduce biodiversity or create superweeds.
285. "Twitter post". DC Turner. 2012-05-24. Retrieved 2012-05-31.
286. Don't Let Obama Put GMO Boosters in Charge of Food Safety! Organic Consumers Association July 22, 2009
287. Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues Congressional Research Service: The Library of Congress 2001

External links

Opponents

• Soil Association
• Center for Food Safety
• Greenpeace
• Sierra Club

Advocates

• Council for Biotechnology Information
• AgBioWorld
• BioTech Now

Governmental

• German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
• UK Food Standards Agency
• European Food Safety Authority
• Government of Canada BioPortal

Medical and scientific

• NIH National Library of Medicine
• Royal Society

• Genetic engineering
• Genetically modified organisms in agriculture
• Environmental issues
• Criticisms