Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:53, 4 October 2012

The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food, genetically modified crops used to produce food and other goods, and other uses of genetically modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves consumers. 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 modified (GM) food are: risk of harm from GM food, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on the environment, and GM crops' context as part of the industrial agriculture system.

While it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods, to date no adverse health effects in humans have been documented, and there is now broad scientific consensus that GM food on the market is safe to eat.

Nonetheless, 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.

This article covers controversies over genetic engineering - especially its use in agriculture, animal husbandry, and aquaculture (in other words, food production) and the use of its fruits as food. There are separate articles on other aspects of genetic engineering. The genetic engineering article focuses on history and methods of genetic engineering, and on applications of genetic engineering and of GMOs. The article on GMOs focuses on what organisms have been genetically engineered and for what purposes. The two articles cover much of the same ground but with different organizations (sorted by application in the genetic engineering article; sorted by organism in the GMO article). There are separate articles on genetically modified food per se (what foods that we eat are the products of GM crops or animals?), genetically modified crops (which have more to do with agriculture than food), and regulation.

Public perception

Social science surveys have documented that the public has general concern about what goes into our bodies, and there is widespread concern about the risks of biotechnology, desire for more information about the risks themselves and the risk/benefit distribution of GM food, and a desire for choice in being exposed to risk. The introduction of wonder-products such as DDT and PCBs and their subsequent withdrawal after unforeseen problems were discovered, has undermined public trust in companies that introduce products that are pervasively used, and in the government agencies meant to regulate them. There is also a widespread sense that social and technological change is speeding up and people feel powerless to affect this change; diffuse anxiety driven by this context becomes focused when it is food that is being changed.

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. The 2010 "Eurobarometer" survey, which assesses public attitudes about biotech and the life sciences in Europe, found that "cisgenics, GM crops produced by adding only genes from the same species or from plants that are crossable by conventional breeding, evoke a different reaction than the those with genes from more distant species. In all EU countries, our example of the cisgenic production of apples receives higher support (55%) than transgenic apples (33%), with the former attracting majority support in 24 countries."

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. 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. The irony of this term has been pointed out; in the tragic and ambiguous story of the original novel, the monster is fundamentally decent, is rejected by people who are afraid of its appearance, does violence at first only in self-defense and then in the course of revenge against its creator, and is finally killed by a hysterical mob.

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. The market for organic food products has grown substantially worldwide and in the US, driven to a great extent by concern over the healthiness of the products of industrial agriculture and by environmental concerns, as described in the article on organic food. 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.”

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.

Objectivity of regulatory bodies

Groups opposing the release of genetically modified organisms or their use as food have questioned whether regulatory authorities in various countries are too close to companies that seek approval for their products, or have received bribes from such companies.

Critics in the US have protested in regards to the appointment of pro GM lobbyists to senior positions in the FDA. Michael R. Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety in 1991. Following his tenure at the FDA, Taylor became a vice-president of Monsanto. On July 7, 2009, Taylor returned to government as Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration for the Obama administration.

Also in the US, Dennis Wolff is expected to take up the position of Under-Secretary of the newly created Agriculture for Food Safety. 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 opposing Wolff's appointment and have also conducted letter writing campaigns protesting the conflict of interest.

The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee that reviewed Canada's regulations in 2003 was accused by environmental and citizen groups of not representing the full spectrum of public interests and for being too closely aligned to industry groups.

Most of the Chinese National Biosafety Committee are involved in biotechnology leading to criticisms that they do not represent a wide enough range of public concerns.

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 (although this information was investigated by the European Union who concluded that the results were not scientifically valid and contradicted several other scientifically accepted studies).

Health risks of consuming GM food

There has never been a long-term study of the effects of a diet including GM food on humans, so no one can be certain whether such diet is as more, less, or as harmful as a diet without GM foods. Therefore, discussion of the safety of GM food is a matter of assessing the risk of harm. 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 risk assessment of GM food, and therefore 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. For specific regulatory frameworks, see Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms.

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

In general, little distinction is made in debates over the safety of GM food, concerning the method of genetic engineering. However, in 2012, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) released a "Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis" in a response to a request from the European Commission. The opinion was, that while "the frequency of unintended changes may differ between breeding techniques and their occurrence cannot be predicted and needs to be assessed case by case," "similar hazards can be associated with cisgenic and conventionally bred plants, while novel hazards can be associated with intragenic and transgenic plants." In other words, cisgenic genetic engineering approaches should be considered similar in risk to conventional breeding approaches, each of which are more risky than transgenic approaches.

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."

Safety as defined by substantial equivalence and controversies

Definition of substantial equivalence

The starting point for the safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies is to assess if the food is "substantially equivalent" to their counterparts, which themselves are the products of genetic manipulation via traditional methods of cross-breeding and hybridization. For more detail see Substantial equivalence definition in Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms.

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 in 1999, Millstone et al. argued that the substantial equivalence standard was pseudo-scientific and was the product of politics and business lobbying -- they claimed it was created primarily to reassure consumers and to aid biotechnology companies in avoiding the time and cost of more rigorous safety testing. They argued that all GM foods should have extensive biological, toxicological and immunological tests and that the concept of substantial equivalence should be abandoned. This commentary was controversial and was criticized for providing a misleading presentation of history and for distorting existing data and applying bad logic and of 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. An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2001 by Barbara Keeler and Marc Lappe supported legislation in the US Congress to set aside the substantial equivalence standard and instead mandate that safety studies be performed.

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. Regulators are aware of these issues and workshops and consultations organized by the OECD, WHO, and FAO have worked to acquire data and develop standards for conventional foods, for use in assessing substantial equivalence.

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."

Some academic labs are starting to use contemporary "-omics" techniques to explore the equivalence of GM foods with their conventional counterparts. A 2004 paper found equivalence between a GM tomato variety and its existing counterpart. A 2005 paper used metabolomics approach and found equivalence between one strain of GM potato and its conventional counterpart. 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' proteomic profile.

Séralini criticisms of toxicity study designs and responses

In 2004 Monsanto sought approval in Europe to introduce a rootworm resistant (MON863) maize, which led to controversy over acceptance by regulatory bodies of industry-funded toxicity studies and over the design of those studies. Pr Gilles Eric Séralini, who was on the committee that reviewed MON863 for the French government, was a major figure in those controversies and continues to be a critic of toxicity study design.

In 2004 the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) twice concluded that it had no reservations about recommending the authorisation of MON863, and published its opinion on MON863 maize. The report described the data that Monsanto provided, and referenced changes in some blood cell parameters and in kidney weights of rats that were tested. Because of concerns in general but specifically referencing these changes, Greenpeace sued for release of the rat feeding studies that Monsanto had provided. A German court released the original study in June 2005. With the full study in hand, critics of GM foods, including Séralini, pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences, as well as the design of the studies, raised questions about the regulatory concept of substantial equivalence.

In 2007, Séralini and two other authors from Caen University and the University of Rouen published a study of these data, funded by Greenpeace. This study found that the weights of female weight increased by 3.7%, while male weight decreased by 3.3%. These weight changes could be indicative of organ dysfunction. Triglyceride levels increased in females, and urine phosphorus and sodium excretions decreased in males. Séralini also claimed that MON 863 adversely affects liver and kidney function, as well as causes varying degrees of damage to the adrenal glands, heart, spleen, and other components of the haematopoietic system. The study concluded that experiments longer than 90-days must be conducted before the safety of MON 863 can be known, as chronic organ problems are rarely evident within such a short amount of time. Greenpeace cited the study in a press release, in which it demanded that MON 863 be completely recalled from the global market and called for a strict review of current testing methods.

The Séralini 2007 paper prompted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to reexamine the safety data on this strain of corn. This task force also asked countries from the European Union if they had any new data on MON 863 or new views on the original Monsanto toxicity study and had a technical meeting with the authors of the 2007 CRIIGEN paper. 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 in Séralini 2007 paper were incorrect.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). These conclusions were reported by Markos Kyprianou (European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy) to the European Parliament on 9 July 2010. The EFSA's critical conclusions (and also those of the French Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire) were the subject of a subsequent article in Le Figaro, titled "European Experts claim GMO is harmless",

Food Standards Australia New Zealand also reviewed the 2007 Séralini study and concluded that "...all of the statistical differences between rats fed MON 863 corn and control rats are attributable to normal biological variation."

The Séralini 2007 paper was also assessed by a panel of independent toxicologists from the US, Germany, UK and Canada funded by Monsanto; that panel also dismissed the findings on the grounds that it "...failed to demonstrate a dose–response relationship, reproducibility over time, association with other relevant changes (e.g., histopathology), occurrence in both sexes, difference outside the normal range of variation, or biological plausibility with respect to cause-and-effect.".

In 2009 the Séralini lab published another re-analysis study. (This paper is often called the "Vendômois et al. 2009" paper as the first author listed on the paper is Joël Spiroux de Vendômois; however the paper came from the Séralini lab and Séralini is listed as the last author.) This paper re-analyzed toxicity data submitted by Monsanto for NK603 (glyphosate resistance) maize, and included three rat feeding studies published by Monsanto scientists on MON 810 (Bt corn). The Séralini 2009 article concluded that the three crops caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats.

The European Food Safety Authority reviewed the 2009 Séralini paper and concluded that the authors' claims were not supported by the data in their paper, that many of their fundamental statistical criticisms of the 2007 paper also applied to the 2009 paper, and that there was no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions that the three GM maize types were safe for human and animal health, and for the environment.

The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB) also reviewed the Séralini 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 authors' independence, noting that, in 2010, the Séralini web page still showed a 2008 Austrian anti-GM article which had been previously withdrawn by the authors themselves as flawed.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results from the 2009 Séralini study were due to chance alone.

A 2011 review by the Séralini lab, which used 19 published animal feeding studies as well as data from several animal feeding studies submitted for regulatory approval, continued to find 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.

In September 2012 the Séralini lab published a paper entitled "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". The abstract indicates: "The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable." The study used 200 Sprague-Dawley rats, 100 male and 100 female, and divided them into twenty groups with 10 rats each; ten experimental conditions were tested on male rats and separately on female rats for two years. The paper's method section states: "For each sex, one control group had access to plain water and standard diet...; six groups were fed with 11, 22 and 33% of GM NK603 maize either treated or not with R (Roundup). The final three groups were fed with the control diet and had access to water supplemented with respectively 1.1x10% of R (0.1 ppb of R or 50 ng/L of glyphosate, the contaminating level of some regular tap waters), 0.09% of R (400 mg/kg, US MRL of glyphosate in some GM feed) and 0.5% of R (2.25 g/L, half of the minimal agricultural working dilution)."

After the study was released there was widespread criticism of the study, and much of the criticism claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study. Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan - 86% of males and 72% of females get cancer under normal conditions. The Séralini experiment lasted the normal lifespan of these rats, so for the experiment to have adequate statistical power, all the groups - control groups and test groups - would have to include a large number of rats in order to sort out any experimentally caused cancers from cancers that would occur anyway - but the Séralini study had only ten per group. Others questioned the statistical methods, and said that the results were difficult to interpret because the amount of food given to the rats was not described nor their growth of rats, both of which factors effect development of cancer in the rat strain used in the study. The Washington Post quoted Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University and food safety advocate: "' can’t figure it out yet....It’s weirdly complicated and unclear on key issues: what the controls were fed, relative rates of tumors, why no dose relationship, what the mechanism might be. I can’t think of a biological reason why GMO corn should do this.....So even though I strongly support labeling, I’m skeptical of this study.'"

The method by which the Séralini team publicized their 2012 paper has been widely criticized as well. The original Agence France-Presse story noted: "Breaking with a long tradition in scientific journalism, the authors allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to the paper, provided they signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from consulting other experts about the research before publication." An editorial at the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, noted: "With such strong claims and the predictably large effect they will have on public opinion, researchers should take care how they present their findings to the public and the media. They should spell out their results clearly; emphasize the limitations and caveats; and make it clear that the data still need to be assessed, and replicated, by the scientific community. That didn’t happen. The paper was promoted in a public-relations offensive, with a related book and film set for release this week. Furthermore, journalists wishing to report the research had to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from contacting other scientists for comment on the paper until after the embargo had expired. Some, to their credit, refused, or accepted and then revisited the story critically once their hands were no longer tied by these outrageous restrictions. The result was the exclusion of critical comment in many of the breaking stories — the ones that most people will remember." National Public Radio's program, On the Media, discussed the way the paper was released to the media on Sept 28, 2012, with Carl Zimmer, a science journalist, who was especially critical of science journalists who allowed themselves to be manipulated, saying "Science journalists need to talk to scientists whenever they are reporting on research. It's especially important when it's extremely controversial. We've had this huge debate over genetically modified food, screaming matches around the world. In California they are considering whether to label genetically modified food, and the people who are advocating for that immediately grabbed onto this study.... So, you have to be able to check with other scientists, other experts, to see whether the science really holds up. And in this case, as soon as other scientists took a look at this paper, they said, 'Whoa, the science is a mess.'... This (signing confidentiality agreements and reporting only what the authors have to say) is wrong. I learned that the BBC ... had been offered the paper a day in advance, if they signed this confidentiality agreement. And they just said, 'Forget it.' They walked away. You are not going to be doing any legitimate reporting if you take that paper and can't talk to anybody else. What you're going to come out with, is bad journalism." Zimmer had earlier posted on his blog at Discover magazine, "This is a rancid, corrupt way to report about science. It speaks badly for the scientists involved, but we journalists have to grant that it speaks badly to our profession, too. If someone dangles a press conference in your face but won’t let you do your job properly by talking to other scientists, WALK AWAY. If someone hands you confidentiality agreements to sign, so that you will have no choice but to produce a one-sided article, WALK AWAY. Otherwise, you are being played."

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 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".

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.

See also the discussion of the Séralini lab's studies, above.

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 and the media reports around it were criticized for overstating the results. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), the food safety regulatory authority for New Zealand and Australia, took the unusual step of posting a direct response: "The assay method (ELISA) used for Cry1Ab protein was not tested (validated) for its suitability to measure Cry1Ab in human blood. Other reports in the scientific literature have shown that the ELISA assay is not suitable for this purpose. In mammals, the Cry1Ab protein is degraded in the stomach. If any fragments of the Cry1Ab protein were to pass through into the blood stream, they would be present at levels much lower than could be quantified by the assay method used in the study. The authors do not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the protein. No information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative. Several insecticidal formulations (e.g. Delfin, Dipel) contain a blend of crystallised proteins, (including Cry1Ab) and livingBtkspores that germinate into the bacterium that then produces the proteins. These formulations have been applied worldwide, including in Australia, for decades. They are applied to crops such as broccoli, cauliflower, celery, melons, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, cucumbers, turnip, grapes, kiwi-fruit, citrus, avocados. They are used both commercially and by home gardeners and are permitted for use on organically-certified crops. In comparison, the consumption of food derived from GM corn containing the Cry1Ab protein (no other currently commercialised GM crop species contain this gene) is recent and relatively minor. The corn lines containing the Cry1Ab protein are mostly used for animal feed and for processing into refined products such as corn syrup and corn starch which, because of processing, contain negligible levels of any protein. None of the GM corns produced so far are popcorn or sweetcorn lines and are therefore not consumed directly. Therefore, ingestion of Cry1Ab by humans via GM corn is not likely to be significant compared to conventional and organic produce sources. There have been claims in the media that the paper is proof GM foods are not safe for human consumption. However, the paper does not discuss the safety implications of finding Cry1Ab in the human body and the authors make no mention of any abnormalities in either the subjects or, in the case of those who were pregnant at the time of the study, the subsequent process of birth or the health of the mothers and babies postpartum.. 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 GM salmon has been developed and presented to the FDA for approval, which as of May 2012 has not been granted. Concerns have been raised that GM fish could exacerbate or cause fish allergies

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. In a bid to use genetic engineering to improve soybean nutritional quality for animal feed use, a gene coding for a protein was transferred from the Brazil nut into soybeans. This new protein increased the levels in the GM soybean of the natural essential amino acid methionine, which is commonly added to poultry feed. Investigations 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 - it turned out to be an allergen. 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. In another example, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted in 2006 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.

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

Use of agrochemicals

A 2009 study published by Charles Benbrook of the Organic Center stated that the use of genetically engineered corn, soybean, and cotton increased the use of agrochemicals by a net 318.4 million pounds (159,200 tons) over the preceding 13 years. Use of Bt corn and cotton had delivered a reduction in insecticide use totaling 64.2 million pounds over the period, but use of herbicide-resistant crops had increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds (191,500 tons). The report noted that herbicide use on GE acres veered sharply upward in crop years 2007 and 2008 - the increase in those years accounted for 46% of the increase in herbicide use over the 13 years - and accounted for that sharp increase by the proliferation of herbicide-resistant weeds. The report notes that over the period, a total of 3,826,546,336 pounds of herbicide were applied, so the 383 million pounds represents an increase of 10%.

Environmental impacts for Bt crops appear to be positive during the first ten years of Bt crop use (1996–2005). One study concluded insecticide use on cotton and corn during this period fell by 35.6 million kg of insecticide active ingredient, which is roughly equal to the amount of pesticide applied to arable crops in the EU in one year. Using the environmental impact quotient (EIQ) measure of the impact of pesticide use on the environment, the adoption of Bt technology over this ten-year period resulted in 24.3% and 4.6% reduction, respectively, in the environmental impact associated with insecticide use on the cotton and corn area using the technology.

n 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.

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.

With respect to transgenic crops expressing Bt toxins, there are two key environmental advantages:

• The toxin expression is contained within the plant system, hence only those insects that feed on the crop perish.
• The toxin expression replaces the use of synthetic pesticides in the environment. The latter observation has been documented.

The proteins produced by Bt have been used in sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and the USA since 1958 with no ill effects on the environment reported.

Bt toxins are a potential alternative to broad-spectrum insecticides. The toxicity of each Bt type is limited to one or two insect orders; it is nontoxic to vertebrates and many beneficial arthropods, because Bt works by binding to the appropriate receptor on the surface of midgut epithelial cells. Any organism that lacks the appropriate receptors in its gut cannot be affected by Bt.

An analysis of laboratory settings by an academic lab (Lövei et al.) found that Bt toxins can affect nontarget organisms, usually organisms closely related to the intended targets. Typically, exposure occurs through the consumption of plant parts, such as pollen or plant debris, or through Bt ingestion by their predatory food choices. The methodology used by Lövei et al. has been called into question by a group of academic scientists who wrote "We are deeply concerned about the inappropriate methods used in their paper, the lack of ecological context, and the authors’ advocacy of how laboratory studies on non-target arthropods should be conducted and interpreted".

Emergence of secondary pests

Several studies have documented surges in "sucking pests" (which are not affected by Bt toxins) within a few years of adoption of Bt cotton. In China, the main problem has been with mirids, which have in some cases "completely eroded all benefits from Bt cotton cultivation”. A 2009 study in China concluded that the increase in sucking pests depended on local temperature and rainfall conditions and increased in half the villages studied. The increase in insecticide use for the control of these secondary insects was far smaller than the reduction in total insecticide use due to Bt cotton adoption. Another study published in 2011 was based on a survey of 1,000 randomly selected farm households in five provinces in China and found that the reduction in pesticide use in Bt cotton cultivars is significantly lower than that reported in research elsewhere, consistent with the hypothesis suggested by recent studies that more pesticide sprayings are needed over time to control emerging secondary pests, such as aphids, spider mites, and lygus bugs.

Similar problems have been reported in India, with both mealy bugs and aphids although a survey of small Indian farms between 2002 and 2008 concluded that Bt cotton adoption has led to higher yields and lower pesticide use, decreasing over time.

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

For herbicide-resistant crops, 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.

For Bt-crops, in November 2009, Monsanto scientists found the pink bollworm had become resistant to the first generation Bt cotton in parts of Gujarat, India - that generation expresses one Bt gene, Cry1Ac. This was the first instance of Bt resistance confirmed by Monsanto anywhere in the world. Bollworm resistance to first generation Bt cotton has also been identified in the Australia, China, Spain and the United States.

Environmental contamination via gene flow

Other possible negative effects might come from the spread of genes from modified organisms to unmodified relatives, which in the case of GM crops, would produce species of weeds resistant to herbicides. and in the case of GM fish, could disrupt the ecosystem. In 2009 the government of Mexico created a regulatory pathway for approval of genetically modified maize, but because Mexico is the center of diversity for maize, concerns have been raised about the effect that genetically modified maize could have on local strains.

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.

Contamination is a problem for farmers in Australia where non-GM crops sell for up to 28% more per ton than GM crops. Australia predominantly supplies GM-Free markets such as the EU and Japan. Western Australia lifted a ban on planting GM crops in January 2010 and in December, Canola farmer Steve Marsh found his crop had been contaminated by windblown GM Canola seeds leading to the loss of his crop. Marsh had his contracts cancelled and later lost organic certification leading him to sue a neighbouring farmer in what will be a landmark case, as this is the first court case involving GM contamination in Australia. South Australia is the only mainland Australian state to still have a legal ban on commercial GM crop production, which also includes a ban on seeds being transported through the state. GM advocates cite the inevitability of contamination as a reason to lift the ban. In October 2011, controversy erupted when Business SA, with the support of the industry lobby group AusBiotech, made a push in support of overturning the ban.

"Terminator" and "traitor"

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.

Claims of major benefits to farmers, including poor farmers in developing countries, have been made by advocates of the technology, and have been challenged by opponents. The task of isolating impacts of the technology is complicated by the prevalence of biased observers, and by the rarity of controlled comparisons (such as identical seeds, differing only in the presence or absence of the Bt trait, being grown in identical situations). The main Bt crop being grown by small farmers in developing countries is cotton, and a recent exhaustive review of findings on Bt cotton by respected and unbiased agricultural economists concluded, "the overall balance sheet, though promising, is mixed. Economic returns are highly variable over years, farm type, and geographical location".

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

This section needs expansion with: examples and additional citations for whether farmers are having to spend more or less on chemicals - environmental issues are handled above. You can help by making an edit requestadding to it . (September 2012)

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."

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 reduce the 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.

A long-term study on the economic impacts of Bt cotton in India, published in the Journal PNAS in 2012, showed that Bt cotton has increased yields, profits, and living standards of smallholder farmers.

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."

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.

Religious issues

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

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".

Protests

In 1983, a biotech company, Advanced Genetic Sciences (AGS) applied for U.S. government authorization to perform field tests with the ice-minus strain of P. syringae, but environmental groups and protestors delayed the field tests for four years with legal challenges. In 1987, the ice-minus strain of P. syringae became the first genetically modified organism (GMO) to be released into the environment when a strawberry field in California was sprayed with the ice-minus strain of P. syringae. The results were promising, showing lowered frost damage to the treated plants. Dr. Lindow also conducted an experiment on a crop of potato seedlings sprayed with ice-minus P. syringae. He was successful in protecting the potato crop from frost damage with a strain of ice-minus P. syringae. Both test fields were attacked by activist groups the night before the tests occurred: "The world's first trial site attracted the world's first field trasher."

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. 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).

See also

• Arpad Pusztai
• Corngate
• Environmental issues with agriculture
• Ice-minus bacteria
• International trade of genetically modified foods
• 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. ^ Scientific American Cite error: The named reference "SciAm" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. ^ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Report of the Task Force for the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds C(2000)86/ADD1. May 17, 2000 Quote: "Much experience has been gained in the safety assessment of the first generation of foods derived through modern biotechnology, and those countries that have conducted assessments are confident that those GM foods they have approved are as safe as other foods."
4. ^ NRC. (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text.
5. ^ 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):96–602 Pubmed Abstract [full link to seralini 2007 http://www.rapaluruguay.org/transgenicos/Maiz/Genetically_Maize.pdf Full text]
6. ^ 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
7. ^ Lesley Hunt (2004) "Factors determining the public understanding of GM technologies." AgBiotechNet 6(128): 1–8 Review Article
8. Richard J Lazarus. (1991) "The Tragedy of Distrust in the Implementation of Federal Environmental Law." Law and Contemporary Problems 54(4):311-374
9. McHughen, Alan (2000-09-14). Picnic Basket. ISBN 978-0-19-850674-4.
10. Public Sentiments About Genetically Modified Food, The Pew Initiative.
11. "Most Britons 'oppose GM crops'". BBC News. 2003-09-24. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
12. Opposition decreasing or acceptance increasing? An overview of European consumer polls on attitudes to GMOs GMO Compass, April 16, 2009, rertrieved August 14, 2010
13. Gaskell G et al. The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nat Biotechnol. 2011 Feb;29(2):113-4.
14. "Genetically modified (GM)". Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, last updated. August 6, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
15. "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.
16. Hansard Legislative Council July 12, 2000
17. "Graincorp confident it will be able to keep GM canola separate". Ben Cubby, The Sydney Morning Herald. 26 September 2009. Retrieved 19 October 2010.
18. "GrainCorp won't charge for GM tests on canola". ABC Rural. 28 September 2009. Retrieved 19 October 2010.
19. The Advertiser (Adelaide). GM grain in everyday foods. May 3, 2009 Pg 17.
20. 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.
21. "Twitter post". DC Turner. 2012-05-24. Retrieved 2012-05-31.
22. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/22/51740/5337
23. Henk van den Belt. Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the Meaning of Life Nanoethics. 2009 December; 3(3): 257–268
24. "Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger?". The New York Times. October 26, 2009. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
25. http://www.agbioforum.org/v10n1/v10n1a06-gruere.pdf
26. http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/gm/gm_labelling
27. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/13/california-gm-referendum-change-america-food
28. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-02/california-heads-for-vote-on-modified-food-labeling
29. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2009/ucm170842.htm
30. Don't Let Obama Put GMO Boosters in Charge of Food Safety! Organic Consumers Association July 22, 2009
31. Making the Market "Safe" for GM Foods: The Case of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee | Prudham | Studies in Political Economy
32. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144810, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144810 instead.
33. ^ http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/DocumentSet/gmo_technicalmeeting_gmfreecymru1,0.pdf?ssbinary=true
34. Hungary Bans GM Maize Seed Third World Network Biosafety Information Service February 1, 2005
35. ^ "Early Tier Tests Insufficient for GMO Risk Assessment" (PDF). Nature Biotechnology Volume 25 Number 1. January 2007. Retrieved 2009-03-27.
36. Staff (8 June 2005} Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on a request from the Commission related to the safeguard clause invoked by Hungary according to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC The EFSA Journal (2005) 228, 1-14, Question No EFSA-Q-2005-055, Retrieved 1 October 2012
37. PotatoPro
38. European Food Safety Authority, 2012. Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA Journal 2012;10(2):2561ff
39. 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.
40. ^ 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)
41. http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&DOC=1&CAT=NEWS&QUERY=1173302230405&RCN=23144
42. 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.
43. Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods. AgBioWorld.
44. "Organic Consumers Association".
45. "True Food Now!".
46. ^ Séralini et al. (2011) "Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements" Environmental Sciences Europe 23:10
47. "Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
48. UK GM expert calls for tougher tests BBC September 7, 1999
49. Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S. Beyond 'substantial equivalence'. Nature. 1999 Oct 7;401(6753):525-6.
50. Burke D. No GM conspiracy. Nature. 1999 Oct 14;401(6754):640-1.
51. Trewavas A, Leaver CJ. Conventional crops are the test of GM prejudice. Nature. 1999 Oct 14;401(6754):640.
52. Gasson MJ. Genetically modified foods face rigorous safety evaluation. Nature. 1999 Nov 18;402(6759):229.
53. ^ 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)
54. Barbara Keeler and Marc Lappe "Some Food for FDA Regulation" Los Angeles Times,January 07, 2001
55. OECD (2010) Consensus Document on Molecular Characterisation of Plants Derived from Modern Biotechnology
56. OECD harmonization webpage
57. 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.
58. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12452638, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=12452638 instead.
59. 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.
60. Corpillo D, Gardini G, Vaira AM, Basso M, Aime S, Accotto GP, Fasano M. Proteomics as a tool to improve investigation of substantial equivalence in genetically modified organisms: the case of a virus-resistant tomato. Proteomics. 2004 Jan;4(1):193-200.
61. Sirpa O. Kärenlampi and Satu J. Lehesranta 2006 Proteomic profiling
62. Catchpole and others 2005 Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops
63. 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.
64. Seralini bio on CRIIGEN
65. ^ Opinion of the Scientific Panel on genetically modified organisms on a request from the Commission related to the safety of foods and food ingredients derived from insect-protected genetically modified maize MON 863 and MON 863 x MON 810, for which a request for placing on the market was submitted under Article 4 of the Novel Food Regulation (EC) No 258/97 by Monsanto, April 2004.
66. 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 Note, original links to document at Monsanto site are dead as of Sept 2012 - dead links are http://monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf and http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/technicalandsafety/fullratstudy.pdf. Internet archive has the document here
67. MON863 maize: Court orders disclosure of all documents: No secrets in safety matters
68. Jeffrey Smith Study reveals GM threats
69. "GM maize MON863: French scientists doubt safety". GMO Compass. 16 March 2007. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
70. Ananda, Rady (2010). "Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage" (PDF). Z Magazine. 23 (3). Retrieved 2010-07-21. The data "clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen, and haematopoietic system," reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at Caen University.
71. "Regulatory systems for GE crops a failure: the case of MON863" (PDF). Greenpeace. Retrieved 2010-07-21. Greenpeace demands an immediate and complete recall of MON863 from the global market. We also call upon governments to undertake an urgent reassessment of all other authorised GE products and a strict review of current testing methods.
72. 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
73. ^ Les experts européens innocentent un OGM Le Figaro, 13 July 2007, Retrieved 27 October 2010
74. Les Organismes Génétiquement Modifiés Annexe B Avis de la commission du génie biomoléculaire sur l’étude statistique du CRIIGEN du maïs MON863 Report prepared for the French Prime Minister by the Centre d'Analyse Strategique, 20 July 2007, Retrieved 11 November 2010
75. "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.
76. "FSANZ reaffirms its risk assessment of genetically modified corn MON 863". FSANZ fact sheets 2007. 25 July 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
77. Doull J, et al (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)" Food Chem. Toxicol. 45(11):2073–85
78. Hammond BG, et al (2004) "Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn" Food Chem. Toxicol. 42(6):1003–14
79. Hammond BG 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
80. Hammond BG, et al (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
81. "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.
82. "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.
83. "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.
84. ^ Séralini GE et al (2012) "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize" Food and Chemical Toxicology xxx: xxx–xxx (in press as of Sept 20, 2012)
85. ^ http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/09/why-i-think-the-seralini-gm-feeding-trial-is-bogus/ Explanation of rat study
86. By Ben Hirschler and Kate Kelland. Reuters "Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism" September 20, 2012
87. MacKenzie, Deborah (19 September 2012) Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned New Scientist, Retrieved 26 September 2012
88. Tim Carman for the Washington Post. Posted at 07:30 PM ET, 09/19/2012. French scientists question safety of GM corn
89. Stats Chat
90. Nature Editorial. Poison postures: Researchers working on controversial topics must take care how they promote their results. 25 September 2012
91. On the Media
92. The Loom, September 21st, 2012 5:17 PMThe Loom
93. 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
94. 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
95. 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)
96. 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)
97. 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
98. 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
99. Amman, Klaus (2009) Rebuttal to a review of Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009 Retrieved on 28 October 2010
100. 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
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. Vain, Philippe (2007) Trends in GM crop, food and feed safety literature (2007)
104. ^ 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).
105. 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.
106. "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides ass... [Reprod Toxicol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI". ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. 2011-10-03. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
107. Sean Poulter. "GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
108. "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)
109. "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.
110. 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)
111. Smith, Jeffrey. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, p. 130, 2007
112. 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.
113. 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.
114. ^ 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)
115. 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)
116. Drake Bennett Our allergies, ourselves Boston Globe May 7, 2006
117. 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)
118. ^ Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. "An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon" Published: May 21, 2012. Accessed September 3, 2012
119. Fish allergy site
120. "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".
121. Warren Leary Genetic Engineering of Crops Can Spread Allergies, Study Shows New York Times Thursday, March 14, 1996
122. 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.
123. ^ 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
124. "Comments Australian GM Pea Research Maarten J. Chrispeels".
125. 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)
126. 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)
127. 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)
128. 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.
129. Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefit Estimates, Janet E. Carpenter and Leonard P. Gianessi 2001, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
130. North American Millers' Association (press release), Apr. 28, 2008,http://www.namamillers.org/PR_StarLink_04_28_08.html
131. http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/
132. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100122123/index.htm
133. APHIS Report
134. ^ 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)
135. 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)
136. "Agricultural efficiency to save wilderness".
137. "The ABIC 2004 Manifesto: Science Helps To Improve Agricultural Systems".
138. 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)
139. 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)
140. Carrington, Damien (13 June 2012) GM crops good for environment, study finds The Guardian, Retrieved 16 June 2012
141. 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.
142. 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
143. Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years by Charles Benbrook
144. Kovach J, Petzoldt C, Degni J, Tette J. "A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides". New York State Agricultural Experiment Station. Retrieved 2008-11-23.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
145. ^ Brookes G, Barfoot P (2006). "GM crops: the first ten years - global socio-economic and environmental impacts" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-11-23.
146. 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.
147. Biotech Crops Are Good For Earth, Report Finds
148. 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)
149. 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)
150. Damning verdict on GM crop, Guardian.
151. "Results of GM farm trials have been misrepresented, says Lord May". The Royal Society, London. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
152. "History of Bt". University of California. Retrieved 8 February 2010.
153. Gill SS, Cowles EA, Pietrantonio PV (1992). "The mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxins". Annu. Rev. Entomol. 37: 615–36. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.003151. PMID 1311541.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
154. Knowles BH (1994). "Mechanism of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal delta-endotoxins". Advances in Insect Physiology. 24: 275–308. doi:10.1016/S0065-2806(08)60085-5.
155. Lövei GL, Andow DA, Arpaia S. (2009) "Transgenic Insecticidal Crops and Natural Enemies: A Detailed Review of Laboratory Studies" Environ. Entomol. 38(2): 293-306
156. Shelton et. al (2009). Setting the record straight: a rebuttal to an erroneous analysis on transgenic insecticidal crops and natural enemies. J Transgenic Res.
157. Lu Y et al (2010) Mirid Bug Outbreaks in Multiple Crops Correlated with Wide-Scale Adoption of Bt Cotton in China. Science 328(5982):1151-4
158. Susan Lang, Cornell Chronicle "Profits die for Bt cotton in China" Retrieved on 2009-4-6
159. Wang, S et al (2008) Bt-cotton and secondary pests. International Journal of Biotechnology 10: 113–121
160. Wang ZJ et al (2009) "Bt Cotton in China: Are Secondary Insect Infestations Offsetting the Benefits in Farmer Fields?" Agricultural Sciences in China 8(1):83–90
161. Zhao JH, et al (2011) Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China. Environ Monit Assess. 173(1-4):985-94; Erratum published 2012 Aug 5.
162. Bhaskar Goswami, InfoChange "Making a meal of Bt cotton" Retrieved on 2009-4-6
163. India Times "Bug makes meal of Punjab cotton, whither Bt magic?" Retrieved on 2009-4-6
164. Stone, G. D. (2010). "Field versus Farm in Warangal: Bt Cotton, Higher Yields, and Larger Questions". World Development. 39 (3): 387–398. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.09.008.
165. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.11.005, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.agsy.2011.11.005 instead.
166. 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)
167. 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)
168. 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)
169. 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)
170. "Bt Corn and Monarch Butterflies". USDA Agricultural Research Service. 2004-03-29. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
171. 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)
172. "ARS : Questions and Answers: Colony Collapse Disorder". ARS News. 2008-05-29. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
173. ^ Black R (2007-09-06). "Virus implicated in bee decline". Science/Nature. BBC News. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
174. Latsch G (2007-03-22). "Are GM Crops Killing Bees?". Spiegel (International). Retrieved 2008-11-23.
175. 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)
176. 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
177. http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops
178. Cotton in India
179. Pallava Bagla. (2010) Hardy Cotton-Munching Pests Are Latest Blow to GM Crops Science 327(5972): 1439
180. Tabashnik BE et al (2008) Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory Nature Biotechnology 26: 199 - 202
181. Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Congressional Research ServiceGenetically Engineered Fish and Seafood: Environmental Concerns. June 7, 2011. Accessed September 3, 2012.
182. Mexico: controlled cultivation of genetically modified maize
183. Warning issued on GM maize imported to Mexico - SciDev.Net
184. GM maize found ‘contaminating’ wild strains - SciDev.Net
185. U.S. Department of Energy Genome Progrmas (2008). "Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms". Retrieved 15 November 2010.
186. "Genetically Modified Plants: Out-crossing and Gene Flow". GMO Compass. 12 December 2006. Retrieved 23 April 2011.
187. 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)
188. 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)
189. 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)
190. 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
191. Oilseed gene leak 'unsurprising', BBC News.
192. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100122123/index.htm
193. APHIS Report
194. "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.
195. 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)
196. 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.
197. Genetically Modified Canola 'Escapes' Farm Fields. NPR. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
198. Black, Richard. (2010-08-06) BBC News – GM plants 'established in the wild'. Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
199. Eisberg, Neil GM crops are on the move Chemistry and Industry Ten Alps Publishing 7 November, 2011 HighBeam Research accessed 7 July, 2012
200. Kemp, Miles (October 19, 2011). "Business call DROP GM BAN". The Advertiser. p. Pg 1 - 6. {{cite news}}: |page= has extra text (help)
201. ^ "Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide". Cls.casa.colostate.edu. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
202. "Nature World Conference on Science". Nature.com. 24 June 1999. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
203. Editors, The. (2009-10-26) Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger? – NYTimes.com. Roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
204. 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
205. Gillis, Justin A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself The New York Times, 5 June 2011, Retrieved 11 August 2011
206. 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
207. Raney, Terri, and Prahbu Pingali. "Sowing A Gene Revolution." Scientific American September 2007. 11 September 2008, SCIAM.com
208. 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)
209. 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)
210. Valley, Paul. Strange fruit: Could genetically modified foods offer a solution to the world's food crisis? The Independent, 18 April 2009.
211. Lynas, Mark (2010) Why we Greens Keep Getting it Wrong The New Statesman, 28 January 10. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
212. Lynas, Mark (2010) What the Green Movement Got Wrong: A turncoat explains The Daily Telegraph, 4 November 2010. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
213. Editors, The. (2009-10-26) Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger? – NYTimes.com. Roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
214. 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.
215. ^ 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.
216. Economic Impact of Transgenic Crops in Developing Countries. Agbioworld.org. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
217. 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.
218. ^ http://www.hpj.com/archives/2010/aug10/aug2/0716SeedMACOAug2sr.cfm
219. 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)
220. Karnowski, Steve High-Tech Corn Fights Pests at Home and Nearby Sci-Tech today, 8 October 2010. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
221. Smale, M., P. Zambrano, and M. Cartel (2006). "Bales and balance: A review of the methods used to assess the economic impact of Bt cotton on farmers in developing economies" (PDF). AgBioForum. 9 (3): 195–212.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
222. Organic-center
223. 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.
224. 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
225. Roundup Ready 2 Yield- Monsanto Web site http://www.monsanto.com/rr2y/
226. Qaim et al (2003) Science 299(5608): 900–902
227. ^ D. Gurian-Sherman. 2009. Failure to Yield. UCSUSA.org
228. 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)
229. 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.
230. ^ "Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa". Digital Journal. 29 March 2009. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
231. "Clearing up Stories on Monsanto's South Africa Corn Crop". Beyond the Rows blog by Monsanto. 30 April 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
232. "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.
233. 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
234. Agricultural Research Service: Improving Corn.
235. http://www.eagleseed.com/roundup.html
237. http://www2.dupont.com/Media_Center/en_CA/pressrelease20090528.html
238. http://www.monsanto.com/investors/Pages/corporate-profile.aspx
239. 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
240. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx
241. http://www.foodincmovie.com/img/downloads/foodinc_PDF_091008.pdf p.73
242. "Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture" (PDF).
243. ^ http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx
244. http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,5657053,00.htm
245. Schubert, Robert: "Schmeiser Wants to Take It to The Supreme Court", CropChoice News, September 9, 2002
246. ^ Munzer, Stephen R. (2006). "Plants, Torts, and Intellectual Property". Oxford University Press: 1–30. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
247. ^ Federal court of Canada. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser Date: 20010329 Docket: T-1593-98. Retrieved 26 March 2006.
248. ^ 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.
249. 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
250. ETC Group. (2011). 'Who will control the Green Economy?" p. 22. http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/ETC_wwctge_14dec2011_4web.pdf
251. Murphy, S., 2006. Concentrated Market Power and Agricultural Trade. EcoFair Trade Dialog Discussion Paper #1. p.18
252. 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
253. USDA (2001). "Concentration and Technology in Agricultural Input Industries." http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib763/
254. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/AgBioForum
255. 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.
256. Falck-Zepeda, et al. (2000). "Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of Biotechnology Innovation." 360.
257. ^ Reuters.com
258. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXnemqNlsotQ Bloomberg
259. GRIST.org
260. "Bulgaria Puts Total Ban on GM Crops". Novinite. 18 March 2010. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
261. "WikiLeaks: US Embassy in Sofia Backed Pro-GMO Lobby". 28 August 2011. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
262. 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.
263. 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)
264. 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.
265. Judge Revokes Approval of Modified Sugar Beets, by ANDREW POLLACK, New York Times, August 13, 2010
266. ^ USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, October 2004, Retrieved 13 November 2011
267. 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
268. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple&c=ecfr&cc=ecfr&idno=7&region=DIV1&q1=340&rgn=Part+Number
269. ^ http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/2011/files/talks/11WAS-25_Orloff_RRAlfalfa.pdf
270. ^ 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
271. Supreme Court on Modified Foods: Who Won?, by Barry Estabrook, 'The Atlantic'. June 22, 2010 . Retrieved June 22, 2010.
272. 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.
273. 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
274. ^ Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Planting GM Alfalfa by Jennifer Koons, NYT, June 21, 2010 (accessed June 21, 2010)
275. Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms at ScotusWiki – Briefs and Documents, etc.
276. 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
277. USDA - Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), United States Department of Agriculture, December 2010, Retrieved 13 November 2011
278. 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
279. Vilsack's USDA Officially Approves Controversial Genetifically Modified Alfalfa. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
280. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2011/01/0035.xml
281. ^ Tomson, Bill and Kilman, Scott USDA Won't Impose Restrictions on Biotech Alfalfa Crop Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2011, Retrieved 27 April 2011
282. Organic Trade Association's Organic Newsroom: Organic industry wants farmers protected in the marketplace. Organicnewsroom.com (2011-01-20). Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
283. "We Stand United in Opposition to GE Alfalfa". January 31, 2011. Retrieved March 19, 2011.
284. Leahy.senate.gov
285. Maria Rodale: We Stand in Opposition to GE Alfalfa. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
286. 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
287. Staff (12 May 2012) Challenge to Genetically Engineered Alfalfa Rejected 31 Biotechnology Law Report 151, Number 2 2012, Retrieved 25 July 2012
288. ^ 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
289. OTA.com
290. Judge Revokes Approval of Modified Sugar Beets, by ANDREW POLLACK, New York Times, August 13, 2010
291. 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
292. Kilman, Scott and Tomson, Bill Modified Beet Gets New Life The Wall Street Journal, 5 February 2011, retrieved 22 April 2011
293. USDA 2011 Agricultural Forum Sugar Outlook 25 February 2011, Retrieved 22 April 2011
294. Gillam, Carey and Abott, Chuck USDA partially deregulating biotech sugar beets Reuters News Agency, 5 February 2011, Retrieved 27 April 2011
295. "Sugar Beet". GMO Compass. 16 August 2010. Retrieved 25 October 2010.
296. Doering, Christopher (2010) US sees 2-yr environmental review of GM sugar beets Reuters, 1 September 2010. Retrieved on 25 October 2010
297. 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.
298. 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.
299. India’s Bt Cotton Fraud Institute of Science in Society, science society sustainability, ISIS report 03/05/05. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
300. 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.
301. Economic Impact of Genetically Modified Cotton in India
302. 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.
303. http://ens-newswire.com/2012/08/09/maharashtra-state-revokes-monsantos-cotton-seed-license/
304. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/29/11652.short
305. ^ Bruce Stutz (1 July 2010). "Wanted: GM Seeds for Study". Seed Magazine.
306. "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?". Csa.com. 20 May 1999. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
307. http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/
308. http://www.monsanto.com/Pages/default.aspx
309. 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
310. Stewart Brand. "Annotated Whole Earth Discipline: Green Genes". Retrieved 20 February 2010.
311. Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues Congressional Research Service: The Library of Congress 2001
312. ^ Randerson J. (2008). Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide. The Guardian.
313. 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.
314. Academicsreview.org. Retrieved June 21, 2012. "4. Science should be published in peer-reviewed literature and not on TV."
315. ^ 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)
316. Bourne, F.J., et al (1998) Audit Report Overview Rowett Research Institute, 28 October 1998, Retrieved on 28 November 2010
317. Bowden, Rebecca (10 May 1999). "Six referees comments on Pusztai potato data". e-mail from Royal Society to Pusztai. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
318. 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
319. ^ 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.
320. ^ Enserink, M. (1999). "TRANSGENIC FOOD DEBATE:The Lancet Scolded over Pusztai Paper". Science. 286 (5440): 656a. doi:10.1126/science.286.5440.656a.
321. 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.
322. Rebecca Bratspies (2007) Some Thoughts on the American Approach to Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 16:393
323. ^ BBC News 14 June, 2002GM crops: A bitter harvest?
324. Thomas H. Maugh II for the Los Angeles Times. June 09, 1987. Altered Bacterium Does Its Job : Frost Failed to Damage Sprayed Test Crop, Company Says
325. http://taketheflourback.org/
326. http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/arable/scientists-urge-protestors-not-to-trash-gm-trials/46673.article
327. "GM wheat trial belongs in a laboratory". BBC News. 2 May 2012.
328. "Don't Destroy Research Q & A". Sense About Science. 25 July 2012.
329. 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
330. BBC Newsnight 17 May 2012 Newsnight debate about GM trials

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