Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:39, 22 February 2015

Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The dispute involves consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food (GMO food) are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population.

While there is concern among the public that eating genetically modified food may be harmful, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food. Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States or Canada and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Opponents of genetically modified food, such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace, say risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. Some groups say there are unanswered questions regarding the potential long-term impact on human health from food derived from GMOs, and propose mandatory labeling or a moratorium on such products. Concerns include contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply, effects of GMOs on the environment, the rigor of the regulatory process, and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs.

Public perception

Consumer concerns about food quality first became prominent long before the advent of GM foods in the 1990s. Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle led to the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, the first major US legislation on the subject. This began an enduring concern over the purity and later "naturalness" of food that evolved from a focus on sanitation to include added ingredients such as preservatives and flavors and sweeteners, residues such as pesticides, the rise of organic food as a category and finally to concerns over GM food. The public came to see the latter as "unnatural" which created a reverse halo effect.

Specific perceptions include genetic engineering as meddling with naturally evolved biological processes, scientific limitations on comprehending potential negative ramifications.

An opposing perception is that genetic engineering is itself an evolution of traditional selective breeding.

Surveys indicate public concerns that eating genetically modified food is harmful, that biotechnology is risky, that more information is needed and that consumers need control over whether to take such risks. A diffuse sense that social and technological change is accelerating and that people cannot affect this change context becomes focused when such changes affect food.

Leaders in driving public perception of the harms of such food in the media include Jeffrey M. Smith, Dr. Oz, Oprah, and Bill Maher; organizations include Organic Consumers Association, Greenpeace (especially with regard to Golden rice) and Union of Concerned Scientists.

Religious groups have raised concerns over whether genetically modified food will remain kosher or halal. In 2001 no such foods had been designated as unacceptable by Orthodox rabbis or Muslim leaders. However, some Jewish groups dispute this designation.

Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, include genetic engineering in general as an environmental and political concern. Other groups such as GMWatch and The Institute of Science in Society concentrate mostly or solely on opposing genetically modified crops.

Reviews and polls

A 2003 EMBO Reports article reported that the Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe project (PABE) found the public neither accepting nor rejecting GMOs. Instead, PABE found that public had "key questions" about GMOs: "Why do we need GMOs? Who benefits from their use? Who decided that they should be developed and how? Why were we not better informed about their use in our food, before their arrival on the market? Why are we not given an effective choice about whether or not to buy these products? Have potential long-term and irreversible consequences been seriously evaluated, and by whom? Do regulatory authorities have sufficient powers to effectively regulate large companies? Who wishes to develop these products? Can controls imposed by regulatory authorities be applied effectively? Who will be accountable in cases of unforeseen harm?" PABE also found that the public's scientific knowledge does not control public opinion, since scientific facts do not answer these questions. PABE also found that the public does not demand "zero risk" in GM food discussions and is "perfectly aware that their lives are full of risks that need to be counterbalanced against each other and against the potential benefits. Rather than zero risk, what they demanded was a more realistic assessment of risks by regulatory authorities and GMO producers."

In 2006, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology made public a review of U.S. survey results from 2001-2006. The review showed that Americans' knowledge of GM foods and animals was low throughout the period. During this period protests against Calgene's Flavr Savr GM tomato mistakenly described it as containing fish genes, confusing it with DNA Plant Technology's Fish tomato experimental transgenic organism, which was never commercialized.

A 2007 survey by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand found that in Australia, where labeling is mandatory, 27% of Australians checked product labels to see whether GM ingredients were present when initially purchasing a food item.

A 2009 review article of European consumer polls concluded that opposition to GMOs in Europe has been gradually decreasing, and that about 80% of respondents did not "actively avoid GM products when shopping". The 2010 "Eurobarometer" survey, which assesses public attitudes about biotech and the life sciences, found that cisgenics, GM crops made from plants that are crossable by conventional breeding, evokes a smaller reaction than transgenic methods, using genes from species that are taxonomically very different.

A 2010 Deloitte survey found that 34% of U.S. consumers were very or extremely concerned about GM food, a 3% reduction from 2008. The same survey found gender differences: 10% of men were extremely concerned, compared with 16% of women, and 16% of women were unconcerned, compared with 27% of men.

A 2013 poll by The New York Times showed that 93% of Americans wanted labeling of GM food.

The 2013 vote rejecting Washington State's GM food labeling I-522 referendum came shortly after the 2013 World Food Prize was awarded to employees of Monsanto and Syngenta.

Public relations campaigns and protests

In May 2012, a group called "Take the Flour Back" led by Gerald Miles protested plans by a group from Rothamsted Experimental Station, based in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England, to conduct an experimental trial wheat genetically modified to repel aphids. The researchers, led by John Pickett, wrote a letter to the group in early May 2012, asking them to call off their protest, aimed for 27 May 2012. Group member 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 about such a potential.

On May 25, 2013, the March Against Monsanto movement held protest rallies. Rallies took place in Buenos Aires and other cities in Argentina. In Portland, Oregon police estimate 6,000 protesters attended. Hundreds marched in Los Angeles. According to CTV, hundreds marched in Kitchener, Ontario. The total number of protesters who took part is uncertain; figures of "hundreds of thousands" or "two million" were variously cited. According to organizers, protesters in 436 cities and 52 countries took part.

In July 2013, the agricultural biotechnology industry launched a GMO transparency initiative called GMO Answers to address consumers’ questions about GM foods in the U.S. food supply. GMO Answers' resources included conventional and organic farmers, agribusiness experts, scientists, academics, medical doctors and nutritionists, and “company experts” from founding members of the Council for Biotechnology Information, which funds the initiative. Founding members include BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta.

In October 2013, a group called The European Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibilities (ENSSER), referred to as an "anti-GMO activist group" by the chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council's (ABC) of Australia, posted a statement claiming that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods, which was signed by about 200 scientists in various fields in its first week. Contrary to this statement, a large number of scientific societies show consensus on the safety of GM food

Vandalism and threats

Earth Liberation Front, Greenpeace and others have vandalized GMO research around the world. Within the UK and other European countries, as of 2014 80 crop trials by academic or governmental research institutes had been destroyed by protesters. In some cases, threats and violence against people or property were carried out. In 1999, activists burned the biotech lab of Michigan State University, destroying the results of years of work and property worth $400,000.

In 1983, environmental groups and protestors delayed the field tests of the genetically modified ice-minus strain of P. syringae 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 bacteria. This was followed by the spraying of a crop of potato seedlings. The plants in both test fields were uprooted by activist groups, but were re-planted the next day.

In 2011, Greenpeace paid reparations when its members broke into the premises of an Australian scientific research organization, CSIRO, and destroyed a genetically modified wheat plot that would have a lower glycemic index and hence benefit people who are diabetic. The sentencing judge accused Greenpeace of cynically using junior members to avoid risking their own freedom. The offenders were given 9 month suspended sentences.

On August 8, 2013 protesters uprooted an experimental plot of golden rice in the Philippines. Mark Lynas, a famous former anti-GMO activist, reported in Slate that the vandalism was carried out by a group led by the extreme-left KMP, to the dismay of other protesters. Golden rice is designed prevent vitamin A deficiency which, according to Helen Keller International, blinds or kills hundreds of thousands of children annually in developing countries.

Scientific publishing

Scientific publishing on the safety and effects of GM foods is controversial. One of the first incidents occurred in 1999, when Nature published a paper on potential toxic effects of Bt maize on butterflies. The paper produced a public uproar and demonstrations; however by 2001 multiple follow-up studies had concluded that "the most common types of Bt maize pollen are not toxic to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would encounter in the fields." and had "brought that particular question to a close." Concerned scientists began to patrol the scientific literature and react strongly, both publicly and privately, to discredit conclusions they view as flawed, in order to prevent unjustified public outcry and regulatory action. A 2013 Scientific American article noted that a "tiny minority" of biologists have published concerns about GM food, and said that scientists who support the use of GMOs in food production are often overly dismissive of them.

Prior to 2010, scientists wishing to conduct research on commercial GM plants or seeds were unable to do so, because of restrictive end-user agreements. Cornell University's Elson Shields was the spokesperson for one group of scientists who opposed such restrictions. The group submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009 protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology". A 2009 Scientific American editorial quoted a scientist who said that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While favoring protection of intellectual property rights, the editors called for the restrictions to be lifted and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to genetically modified products for research. In December 2009, the American Seed Trade Association agreed to "allow public researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops." The companies signed blanket agreements permitting such research. This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future, with one scientist from the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) saying, " is extremely good and specific. ARS will be allowed to do basically everything that could be desired." However, some scientists still express concern as to whether this agreement has the ability to "alter what has been a research environment rife with obstruction and suspicion." Monsanto previously had research agreements (i.e., Academic Research Licenses) with approximately 100 universities that allowed for university scientists to conduct research on their GM products with no oversight.

In the early 2000s, in Europe, large agricultural science companies, as well as universities and public institutions, withdrew from GMO research, citing "the unclear legal situation, low public acceptance of GM products, and an uncertain market" as their biggest reason for cutting back on these projects. Public institutions also cited the "general antagonism" towards GMOs as their main reason for cuts in research spending.

A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 found no plausible evidence of dangers from the use of then marketed GM crops. Biofortified, an independent nonprofit organization devoted to providing factual information and fostering discussion about agriculture, especially plant genetics and genetic engineering, planned to add the studies found by the Italian group to its database of studies about GM crops, GENERA.

A 2011 analysis by Diels et al. reviewed 94 peer-reviewed studies pertaining to GMO safety to assess whether conflicts of interest correlated with outcomes that cast GMOs in a favorable light. They found that financial conflict of interest was not associated with study outcome (p = 0.631) while author affiliation to industry (i.e., a professional conflict of interest) was strongly associated with study outcome (p < 0.001). Of the 94 studies that were analyzed, 52% did not declare funding. 10% of the studies were categorized as "undetermined" with regard to professional conflict of interest. Of the 43 studies with financial or professional conflicts of interest, 28 studies were compositional studies. According to Marc Brazeau, an association between professional conflict of interest and positive study outcomes can be skewed because companies typically contract with independent researchers to perform follow-up studies only after in-house research uncovers favorable results. In-house research that uncovers negative or unfavorable results for a novel GMO is generally not further pursued.

Health

A broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

The ENTRANSFOOD project was a European Commission-funded scientist group chartered to set a research program to address public concerns about the safety and value of agricultural biotechnology. It concluded that "the combination of existing test methods provides a sound test-regime to assess the safety of GM crops." In 2010, the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation reported 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 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."

Consensus among scientists and regulators pointed to the need for improved testing technologies and protocols. Transgenic and cisgenic organisms are treated similarly when assessed. However, in 2012 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel said that "novel hazards" could be associated with transgenic strains.

Substantial equivalence

Most conventional agricultural products are the products of genetic manipulation via traditional cross-breeding and hybridization.

Governments manage the marketing and release of GM foods on a case-by-case basis. Countries differ in their risk assessments and regulations. Marked differences distinguish the US from Europe. Crops not intended as foods are generally not reviewed for food safety. GM foods are not tested in humans before marketing because they are not a single chemical, nor are they intended to be ingested using specific doses and intervals, which complicate clinical study design. Regulators examine the genetic modification, related protein products and any changes that those proteins make to the food.

Regulators check that GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to their conventional counterparts, to detect any negative unintended consequences. New protein(s) that differ from conventional food proteins or anomalies that arise in the substantial equivalence comparison require further toxicological analysis.

"The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."

In 1999, Chesson warned that substantial equivalence testing "could be flawed in some cases" and that current safety tests could allow harmful substances to enter the human food supply. The same year Millstone, Brunner and Mayer argued that the standard was a pseudo-scientific product of politics and lobbying that was created to reassure consumers and aid biotechnology companies to reduce the time and cost of safety testing. They suggested that GM foods have extensive biological, toxicological and immunological tests and that substantial equivalence should be abandoned. This commentary was criticized for misrepresenting history, for distorting existing data and poor logic. Kuiper claimed that it oversimplified safety assessments and that equivalence testing involves more than chemical tests, possibly including toxicity testing. Keler and Lappe supported Congressional legislation to replace the substantial equivalence standard with safety studies.

Kuiper examined this process further in 2002, finding that substantial equivalence does not measure absolute risks, but instead identifies differences between new and existing products. He claimed that characterizing differences is properly a starting point for a safety assessment and "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". Kuiper noted practical difficulties in applying this standard, including the fact that traditional foods contain many toxic or carcinogenic chemicals and that existing diets were never proven to be safe. This lack of knowledge re conventional food means that modified foods may differ in anti-nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant, possibly allowing harmful changes to be missed. In turn, positive modifications may also be missed. For example, corn damaged by insects often contains high levels of fumonisins, carcinogenic toxins made by fungi that travel on insects' backs and that grow in the wounds of damaged corn. Studies show that most Bt corn has lower levels of fumonisins than conventional insect-damaged corn. Workshops and consultations organized by the OECD, WHO, and FAO have worked to acquire data and develop better understanding of conventional foods, for use in assessing GM foods.

A survey of publications comparing the intrinsic qualities of modified and conventional crop lines (examining genomes, proteomes and metabolomes) concluded that GM crops had less impact on gene expression or on protein and metabolite levels than the variability generated by conventional breeding.

In a 2013 review Herman (Dow AgroSciences) and Price (FDA, retired) argued that transgenesis is less disruptive than traditional breeding techniques because the latter routinely involve more changes (mutations, deletions, insertions and rearrangements) than the relatively limited changes (often single gene) in genetic engineering. The FDA found that all of the 148 transgenic events that they evaluated to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, as have Japanese regulators for 189 submissions including combined-trait products. This equivalence was confirmed by more than 80 peer-reviewed publications. Hence, the authors argue, compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for GM food crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

Allergenicity

A well-known risk of genetic modification is the introduction of an allergen. GMO Allergen testing is routine for intended for food, and passing those tests is part of the regulatory requirements. Organizations such as the European Green Party and Greenpeace emphasize this risk. A 2005 review of the results from GM food allergen testing stated that "no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions". Regulatory authorities require that new modified foods be tested for allergenicity before they are marketed.

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 is much smaller than from traditional breeding processes. Genetic engineering can have less impact on the expression of genomes or on protein and metabolite levels than conventional breeding or (non-directed) plant mutagenesis. Toxicologists note that "conventional food is not risk-free; allergies occur with many known and even new conventional foods. For example, the kiwi fruit was introduced into the U.S. and the European markets in the 1960s with no known human allergies; however, today there are people allergic to this fruit."

Genetic modification can also be used to remove allergens from foods, potentially reducing the risk of food allergies. 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 hypoallergenic grass is also possible.

The development of genetically modified products found to cause allergic reactions has been halted by the companies developing them before they were brought to market. In the early 1990s, Pioneer Hi-Bred attempted to improve the nutrition content of soybeans intended for animal feed by adding a gene from the Brazil nut. Because they knew that people have allergies to nuts, Pioneer ran in vitro and skin prick allergy tests. The tests showed that the transgenic soy was allergenic. Pioneer Hi-Bred therefore discontinued further development. In 2005, a pest-resistant field pea developed by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic reaction in mice. Work on this variety was immediately halted. These cases have been used as evidence that genetic modification can produce unexpected and dangerous changes in foods, and as evidence that safety tests effectively protect the food supply.

During the Starlink corn recalls in 2000, a variety of GMmaize containing the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein Cry9C, was found contaminating corn products in U.S. supermarkets and restaurants. It was also found in Japan and South Korea. Starlink corn had only been approved for animal feed as the Cry9C protein lasts longer in the digestive system than other Bt proteins raising concerns about its potential allergenicity. In 2000, Taco Bell-branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain Starlink, resulting in a recall of those products, and eventually led to the recall of over 300 products. Sales of StarLink seed were discontinued and the registration for the Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000. Aid sent by the United Nations and the United States to Central African nations was also found to be contaminated with StarLink corn and the aid was rejected. The U.S. 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 Greenpeace set up the GM Contamination Register in 2005. During the recall, the United States Centers for Disease Control evaluated reports of allergic reactions to StarLink corn, and determined that no allergic reactions to the corn had occurred.

Horizontal gene transfer

Horizontal gene transfer is the movement of genes from one organism to another in a manner other than reproduction.

The risk of horizontal gene transfer between GMO plants and animals is very low and in most cases is expected to be lower than background rates. Two studies on the possible effects of feeding animals with genetically modified food found no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins in any organ or tissue samples. Studies found DNA from the M13 virus, Green fluorescent protein and Rubisco genes in the blood and tissue of animals, and in 2012, a paper suggested that a specific microRNA from rice could be found at very low quantities in human and animal serum. Other studies however, found no or negligible transfer of plant microRNAs into the blood of humans or any of three model organisms.

Another concern is that the antibiotic resistance gene commonly used as a genetic marker in transgenic crops could be transferred to harmful bacteria, creating resistant superbugs. A 2004 study involving human volunteers examined whether the transgene from modified soy would transfer to bacteria that live in the human gut. As of 2012 it was the only human feeding study to have been conducted with GM food. The transgene was detected in three volunteers from a group of seven who had previously had their large intestines removed for medical reasons. As this gene transfer did not increase after the consumption of the modified soy, the researchers concluded that gene transfer did not occur. In volunteers with intact digestive tracts, the transgene did not survive . The antibiotic genes used in genetic engineering are naturally found in many pathogens, commonly used during animal husbandry and not widely prescribed.

Animal feeding studies

Reviews of animal feeding studies mostly found no effects. A 2014 review found that the performance of animals fed GM feed was similar to that of animals fed "isogenic non-GE crop lines". A 2012 review of 12 long-term studies and 12 multigenerational studies conducted by public research laboratories concluded that none had discovered any safety problems linked to consumption of GM food. A 2009 review by Magaña-Gómez found that although most studies concluded that modified foods do not differ in nutrition or cause toxic effects in animals, some did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by specific modified foods. The review concluded 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". Dona and Arvanitoyannis' 2009 review 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". Reactions to this review in 2009 and 2010 noted that Dona and Arvanitoyannis had concentrated on articles with an anti-modification bias that were refuted in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere. Flachowsky concluded in a 2005 review that food with a one-gene modification were similar in nutrition and safety to non-modified foods, but he noted that food with multiple gene modifications would be more difficult to test and would require further animal studies. A 2004 review of animal feeding trials by Aumaitre and others found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.

In 2007, Domingo's search of the Pubmed database using 12 search terms indicated that the "number of references" on the safety of GM or transgenic crops was "surprisingly limited," and he questioned whether the safety of GM food had been demonstrated. The review also stated that its conclusions were in agreement with three earlier reviews. However, Vain found 692 research studies in 2007 that focused on GM crop and food safety and found increasing publication rates of such articles in recent years. Vain commented that the multidisciplinarian nature of GM research complicated the retrieval of studies based on it and required many search terms (he used more than 300) and multiple databases. Domingo reviewed the literature again in 2011 and said that, although there had been a substantial increase in the number of studies since 2006, most were conducted by involved biotechnology companies.

Human studies

While some groups and individuals have called for more human testing of GM food, multiple obstacles complicate such studies. The General Accounting Office (in a review of FDA procedures requested by Congress) and a working group of the Food and Agricultural and World Health organizations both said that long-term human studies of the effect of GM food are not feasible. The reasons included lack of a plausible hypothesis to test, lack of knowledge about the potential long-term effects of conventional foods, variability in the ways humans react to foods and that epidemiological studies were unlikely to differentiate modified from conventional foods, which come with their own suite of unhealthy characteristics.

Additionally, ethical concerns guide human subject research. These mandate that each tested intervention must have a potential benefit for the human subjects, such as treatment for a disease or nutritional benefit (ruling out, e.g., human toxicity testing). Kimber claimed that the "ethical and technical constraints of conducting human trials, and the necessity of doing so, is a subject that requires considerable attention." Food with nutritional benefits may escape this objection. E.g., GM rice has been tested for nutritional benefits, namely, increased levels of Vitamin A.

Controversial studies

Pusztai affair

Arpad Pusztai published the first peer-reviewed paper to find negative effects from GM food consumption in 1999. Pusztai fed rats potatoes transformed with the Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) gene from the Galanthus (snowdrop) plant, allowing the tuber to synthesise the GNA lectin protein. While some companies were considering growing GM crops expressing lectin, GNA was an unlikely candidate. Lectin is toxic, especially to gut epithelia. Pusztai reported significant differences in the thickness of the gut epithelium, but no differences in growth or immune system function.

On June 22, 1998, an interview on Granada Television's current affairs programme World in Action, Pusztai said that rats fed on the potatoes had stunted growth and a repressed immune system. A media frenzy resulted. Pusztai was suspended from the Rowett Institute. Misconduct procedures were used to seize his data and ban him from speaking publicly. The Rowett Institute and the Royal Society reviewed his work and concluded that the data did not support his conclusions. The work was criticized on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet and that any rat fed only potatoes would suffer from protein deficiency. Pusztai responded by stating that all diets had the same protein and energy content and that the food intake of all rats was the same. The incident became known as the Pusztai affair.

Bt corn

A 2011 study was the first to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure to Bt toxin produced in GM maize and to determine exposure levels of the pesticides and their metabolites, reported the presence of pesticides associated with the modified foods in women and in pregnant women's their fetuses. The paper and related media reports were criticized for overstating the results. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) posted a direct response, saying that the suitability of the ELISA method for detecting the Cry1Ab protein was not validated and that no evidence showed that GM food was the protein's source. The organization also suggested that even had the protein been detected its source was more likely conventional or organic food.

Séralini affair

In 2007, 2009, and 2011, Gilles-Éric Séralini published re-analysis studies that used data from Monsanto rat-feeding experiments for three modified maize varieties (insect-resistant MON 863 and MON 810 and glyphosate-resistant NK603). He concluded that the data showed liver, kidney and heart damage. EFSA then concluded that the differences were all within the normal range. EFSA also stated that Séralini's statistics were faulty. EFSA's conclusions were supported by FSANZ, a panel of expert toxicologists, and the French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB).

In 2012, Séralini's lab published a paper that considered the long-term effects of feeding rats various levels of GM glyphosate-resistant maize, conventional glyphosate-treated maize, and a mixture of the two strains. The paper concluded that rats fed the modified maize had severe health problems, including liver and kidney damage and large tumors. The study provoked widespread criticism. Séralini held a press conference just before the paper was released in which he announced the release of a book and a movie. He allowed reporters to have access to the paper before his press conference only if they signed a confidentiality agreement under which they could not report other scientists' responses to the paper. The press conference resulted in media coverage emphasizing a connection between GMOs, glyphosate, and cancer. Séralini's publicity stunt yielded criticism from other scientists for prohibiting critical commentary. Criticisms included insufficient statistical power and that Séralini's Sprague-Dawley rats were inappropriate for a lifetime study (as opposed to a shorter toxicity study) because of their tendency to develop cancer (one study found that more than 80% normally got cancer). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines recommended using 65 rats per experiment instead of the 10 in Séralini's. Other criticisms included the lack of data regarding food amounts and specimen growth rates, the lack of a dose–response relationship (females fed three times the standard dose showed a decreased number of tumours) and no identified mechanism for the tumour increases. Six French national academies of science issued an unprecedented joint statement condemning the study and the journal that published it. Food and Chemical Toxicology published many critical letters, with only a few expressing support. National food safety and regulatory agencies also reviewed the paper and dismissed it. In March 2013, Séralini responded to these criticisms in the same journal that originally published his study, and a few scientists supported his work. In November 2013, the editors of Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper. The retraction was met with protests from Séralini and his supporters. In 2014, the study was republished by a different journal, Environmental Sciences Europe, in an expanded form, including the raw data that Séralini had originally refused to reveal.

Environment

Genetically modified crops are planted in fields much like regular crops. There they interact directly with organisms that feed on the crops and indirectly with other organisms in the food chain. The pollen from the plants is distributed in the environment like that of any other crop. This distribution has led to concerns over the effects of GM crops on the environment. Potential effects include gene flow, pesticide resistance and greenhouse gas emissions.

Non-target organisms

A major use of GM crops is in insect control through the expression of the cry (crystal delta-endotoxins) and Vip (vegetative insecticidal proteins) genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Such toxins could affect other insects in addition to targeted pests such as the European corn borer. Bt proteins have been used as organic sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and the US since 1958, with no reported ill effects. Cry proteins selectively target Lepidopterans (moths and butterflies). As a toxic mechanism, cry proteins bind to specific receptors on the membranes of mid-gut (epithelial) cells, resulting in their rupture. Any organism that lacks the appropriate receptors in its gut is unaffected by the cry protein, and therefore is not affected by Bt. Regulatory agencies assess the potential for transgenic plants to affect non-target organisms before approving their commercial release.

In 1999 a paper stated that, in a laboratory environment, pollen from Bt maize dusted onto milkweed could harm the monarch butterfly. A collaborative research exercise over the following two years by several groups of scientists in the US and Canada studied the effects of Bt pollen in both the field and the laboratory. The study resulted in a risk assessment concluding that any risk posed to butterfly populations was negligible. A 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 genetically modified crops, the butterfly's population was increasing.

Lövei et al. analyzed laboratory settings and found that Bt toxins could affect non-target organisms, generally 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 predators. A group of academic scientists criticized the analysis, writing: "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".

Biodiversity

Crop genetic diversity might decrease due to the development of superior GM strains that crowd others out of the market. Indirect effects might affect other organisms. To the extent that agrochemicals impact biodiversity, modifications that increase their use, either because successful strains require them or because the accompanying development of resistance will require increased amounts of chemicals to offset increased resistance in target organisms.

Studies comparing the genetic diversity of cotton found that in the US diversity has either increased or stayed the same, while in India it has declined. This difference was attributed to the larger number of modified varieties in the US compared to India. A review of the effects of Bt crops on soil ecosystems found that in general they "appear to have no consistent, significant, and long-term effects on the microbiota and their activities in soil".

The diversity and number of weed populations has been shown to decrease in farm-scale trials in the United Kingdom and in Denmark when comparing herbicide-resistant crops to their conventional counterparts. The UK trial suggested that the diversity of birds could be adversely affected by the decrease in weed seeds available for foraging. Published farm data involved in the trials showed that seed-eating birds were more abundant on conventional maize after the application of the herbicide, but that there were no significant differences in any other crop or prior to herbicide treatment. A 2012 study found a correlation between the reduction of milkweed in farms that grew glyphosate-resistant crops and the decline in adult monarch butterfly populations in Mexico. The New York Times reported that the study "raises the somewhat radical notion that perhaps weeds on farms should be protected.

A 2005 study designed to "simulate the impact of a direct overspray on a wetland" with four different agrochemicals (carbaryl (Sevin), malathion, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and glyphosate in a Roundup formulation) by creating artificial ecosystems in tanks and then applying "each chemical at the manufacturer's maximum recommended application rates" found that "species richness was reduced by 15% with Sevin, 30% with malathion, and 22% with Roundup, whereas 2,4-D had no effect". The study has been used by environmental groups to argue that use of agrochemicals causes unintended harm to the environment and to biodiversity.

Secondary pests

Several studies documented surges in secondary pests 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 secondary pests depended on local temperature and rainfall conditions and occurred 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. A 2011 study based on a survey of 1,000 randomly selected farm households in five provinces in China found that the reduction in pesticide use in Bt cotton cultivars was significantly lower than that reported in research elsewhere: The finding was consistent with a hypothesis 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 mealy bugs and aphids.

Gene flow

Genes from a GMO may pass to another organism just like an endogenous gene. The process is known as outcrossing and can occur in any new open-pollinated crop variety. Introduced traits potentially can cross into neighboring plants of the same or closely related species through three different types of gene flow: crop-to-crop, crop-to-weedy, and crop-to-wild. In crop-to-crop, genetic information from a genetically modified crop is transferred to a non-genetically modified crop. Crop-to-weedy transfer refers to the transfer of genetically modified material to a weed, and crop-to-wild indicates transfer from a genetically modified crop to a wild, undomesticated plant and/or crop. There are concerns that the spread of genes from modified organisms to unmodified relatives could produce species of weeds resistant to herbicides that could contaminate nearby non-genetically modified crops, or could disrupt the ecosystem, This is primarily a concern if the transgenic organism has a significant survival capacity and can increase in frequency and persist in natural populations. This process, whereby genes are transferred from GMOs to wild relatives, is different from the development of so-called "superweeds" or "superbugs" that develop resistance to pesticides under natural selection.

In most countries environmental studies are required before approval of a GMO for commercial purposes, and a monitoring plan must be presented to identify unanticipated gene flow effects.

In 2004, Chilcutt and Tabashnik found Bt protein in kernels of in a refuge (a conventional crop planted to harbor pests that might otherwise become resistant a pesticide associated with the GMO) implying that gene flow had occurred.

In 2005, scientists at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology reported the first evidence of horizontal gene transfer of pesticide resistance to weeds, in a few plants from a single season; they found no evidence that any of the hybrids had survived in subsequent seasons.

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Scotts Miracle-Gro $500,000 when modified DNA from GM creeping bentgrass, was found within relatives of the same genus (Agrostis) as well as in native grasses up to 21 km (13 mi) from the test sites, released when freshly cut, wind-blown grass.

In 2009 Mexico created a regulatory pathway for GM maize, but because Mexico is maize's center of diversity, concerns were raised about GM maize's effects on local strains. A 2001 report found Bt maize cross-breeding with conventional maize in Mexico. The data in this paper was later described as originating from an artifact and the publishing journal Nature stated that "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper", although it did not retract the paper. A subsequent large-scale study, in 2005, found no evidence of gene flow in Oaxaca. However, other authors claimed to have found evidence of such gene flow.

A 2010 study showed that about 83 percent of wild or weedy canola tested contained genetically modified herbicide resistance genes. According to the researchers, the lack of reports in the United States suggested that oversight and monitoring were inadequate. A 2010 report stated that the advent of glyphosate-resistant weeds could cause GM crops to lose their effectiveness unless farmers combined glyphosate with other weed-management strategies.

One way to avoid environmental contamination is genetic use restriction technology (GURT), also called "Terminator". This uncommercialized technology would allow the production of crops with sterile seeds, which would prevent the escape of GM traits. Groups concerned about food supplies had expressed concern that the technology would be used to limit access to fertile seeds. Another hypothetical technology known as "Traitor" or "T-GURT", requires application of a chemical to GM crops to activate engineered traits. T-GURT also unleashed fears that companies could control seed markets.

Coexistence with conventional crops

The US has no legislation governing the relationship among mixtures of farms that grow organic, conventional and GM crops. The country relies on a "complex but relaxed" combination of three federal agencies (FDA, EPA, and USDA/APHIS) and states' common law tort systems to manage coexistence. The Secretary of Agriculture convened an Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) to study coexistence and make recommendations about the issue. The members of AC21 included representatives of the biotechnology industry, the organic food industry, farming communities, the seed industry, food manufacturers, State governments, consumer and community development groups, the medical profession, and academic researchers. AC21 recommended that a study assess the potential for economic losses to US organic farmers; that any serious losses lead to a crop insurance program, an education program to ensure that organic farmers put appropriate contracts in place and that neighboring GMO farmers take appropriate containment measures. Overall the report supported a diverse agriculture system supporting diverse farming systems.

The EU implemented regulations specifically governing co-existence and traceability. Traceability has become commonplace in the food and feed supply chains of most countries, but GMO traceability is more challenging given strict legal thresholds for unwanted mixing. Since 2001, conventional and organic food and feedstuffs can contain up to 0.9% of authorised modified material without carrying a GMO label. (any trace of non-authorised modification is cause for a shipment to be rejected). Authorities require the ability to trace, detect and identify GMOs, and the several countries and interested parties created a non-governmental organization, Co-Extra, to develop such methods.

Escape of modified crops

The escape of genetically modified seed into neighboring fields, and the mixing of harvested products, is of concern to farmers who sell to countries that do not allow GMO imports.

In 1999 scientists in Thailand claimed they had discovered unapproved glyphosate-resistant GM wheat in a grain shipment, even though it was only grown in test plots. No mechanism for the escape was identified.

In 2000, Aventis StarLink GM corn was found in US markets and restaurants. It became the subject of a recall that started when Taco Bell-branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain it. StarLink was then discontinued. Registration for Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000.

American rice exports to Europe were interrupted in 2006 when the LibertyLink modification was found in commercial crops, although it had not been approved for release. An investigation by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) failed to determine the cause of the contamination.

In May 2013, unapproved glyphosate-resistant GM wheat (but that had been approved for human consumption) was discovered in a farm in Oregon in a field that had been planted with winter wheat. The strain was developed by Monsanto, and had been field-tested from 1998 to 2005. The discovery threatened US wheat exports which totaled $8.1 billion in 2012, leading the company to withdraw it. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan suspended winter wheat purchases amid concerns raised by organic food advocates. As of August 30, 2013, while the source of the modified wheat remained unknown, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan had resumed placing orders.

Chemical use

Herbicides

The development of glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) plants has changed the herbicide use profile away from more environmentally persistent herbicides with higher toxicity, such as atrazine, metribuzin and alachlor, and reduced the volume and danger of herbicide runoff. However, Benbrook concluded that the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds had increased herbicide use.

Insecticides

An environmental benefit of Bt-cotton and maize is reduced use of chemical insecticides. A PG Economics study concluded that global pesticide use was reduced by 286,000 tons in 2006, decreasing the environmental impact of herbicides and pesticides by 15%. A survey of small Indian farms between 2002 and 2008 concluded that Bt cotton adoption had led to higher yields and lower pesticide use. Another study concluded insecticide use on cotton and corn during the years 1996 to 2005 fell by 35,600,000 kilograms (78,500,000 lb) of active ingredient, which is roughly equal to the annual amount applied in the EU. A Bt cotton study in six northern Chinese provinces from 1990 to 2010 concluded that it halved the use of pesticides and doubled the level of ladybirds, lacewings and spiders and extended environmental benefits to neighbouring crops of maize, peanuts and soybeans.

Resistant insect pests

Resistance evolves naturally after a population has been subjected to selection pressure via repeated use of a single pesticide. In November 2009, Monsanto scientists found that the pink bollworm had become resistant to 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. Similar resistance was later identified in Australia, China, Spain and the US.

One strategy to delay Bt-resistance is to plant pest refuges using conventional crops, thereby diluting any resistant genes. Another is to develop crops with multiple Bt genes that target different receptors within the insect. In 2012, a Florida field trial demonstrated that army worms were resistant Dupont-Dow's Dupont-Dowto pesticide-contain. This resistance was discovered in Puerto Rico in 2006, prompting Dow and DuPont to stop selling the product there. The European corn borer, one of Bt's primary targets, is also capable of developing resistance.

Economy

GM food's economic value to farmers is one of its major benefits, including in developing nations. A 2010 study found that Bt corn provided economic benefits of $6.9 billion over the previous 14 years in five Midwestern states. The majority ($4.3 billion) accrued to farmers producing non-Bt corn. This was attributed to European corn borer populations reduced by exposure to Bt corn, leaving fewer to attack conventional corn nearby. Agriculture economists calculated that "world surplus $240.3 million for 1996. Of this total, the largest share (59%) went to U.S. farmers. Seed company Monsanto received the next largest share (21%), followed by US consumers (9%), the rest of the world (6%), and the germplasm supplier, Delta and Pine Land Company (5%)." PG Economics comprehensive 2012 study concluded that GM crops increased farm incomes worldwide by $14 billion in 2010, with over half this total going to farmers in developing countries.

Critics challenged the claimed benefits to farmers over the prevalence of biased observers and by the absence of randomized controlled trials. The main Bt crop grown by small farmers in developing countries is cotton. A 2006 review of Bt cotton findings by agricultural economists concluded, "the overall balance sheet, though promising, is mixed. Economic returns are highly variable over years, farm type, and geographical location". However, environmental activist Mark Lynas said that complete rejection of genetic engineering is "illogical and potentially harmful to the interests of poorer peoples and the environment".

In 2013 the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) asked the EU to allow the development of agricultural GM technologies to enable more sustainable agriculture, by employing fewer land, water and nutrient resources. EASAC also criticizes the EU's "timeconsuming and expensive regulatory framework" and said that the EU had fallen behind in the adoption of GM technologies.

Industrial agriculture

GM crops play a key role in intensive crop farming, which involves monoculture, use of herbicides and pesticides, use of equipment requiring large amounts of fuel and irrigation. Opponents such as Jonathan Latham of the Bioscience Resource Project and Vandana Shiva treat industrial agriculture and modified crops as closely related topics, and call for agriculture to adopt practices drastically reducing disruptions to the environment.

Proponents of conventional agriculture point to its high yields, low prices, and wider choices and claim that technology is necessary to feed a growing world population.

Developing nations

Disagreements about developing nations include the claimed need for increased food supplies, and how to achieve such an increase.

Skeptics such as Avise claim that apparent shortages are caused by problems in food distribution and politics, rather than production.

Some scientists suggest that a second Green Revolution including use of modified crops is needed to provide suffficient food. The potential for genetically modified food to help developing nations was recognised by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, but as of 2008 they had found no conclusive evidence of a solution.

Other critics say that the world has so many people because the second green revolution adopted unsustainable agricultural practices that left the world with more mouths to feed than the planet can sustain. Pfeiffer claimed that even if technological farming could feed the current population, its dependence on fossil fuels, which in 2006 he incorrectly predicted would reach peak output in 2010, would lead to a catastrophic rise in energy and food prices.

Claimed deployment constraints to developing nations include the lack of easy access, equipment costs and intellectual property rights that hurt developing countries. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an aid and research organization, was praised by the World Bank for its efforts, but the bank recommended that they shift to genetics research and productivity enhancement. Obstacles include access to patents, commercial licenses and the difficulty that developing countries have in accessing genetic resources and other intellectual property. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture attempted to remedy this problem, but results have been inconsistent. As a result, "orphan crops", such as teff, millets, cowpeas and indigenous plants, which are important in these countries receive little investment.

Writing about Norman Borlaug's 2000 publication Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry, the authors argued that Borlaug's warnings were still true in 2010:

GM crops are as natural and safe as today’s bread wheat, opined Dr. Borlaug, who also reminded agricultural scientists of their moral obligation to stand up to the antiscience crowd and warn policy makers that global food insecurity will not disappear without this new technology and ignoring this reality would make future solutions all the more difficult to achieve.

Yield

US maize yields were flat until the 1930s, when the adoption of conventional hybrid seeds caused them to increase by ~.8 bushels/acre (1937-1955). Thereafter a combination of improved genetics, fertilizer and pesticide availability and mechanization raised the rate of increase to 1.9 bushels per acre per year. In the years since the advent of GM maize, the rate increased slightly to 2.0. Average US maize yields were 174.2 bushels per acre in 2014.

Commercial GM crops have traits that reduce yield loss from insect pressure or weed interference.

2014 review

In 2014 the largest review yet concluded that GM crops’ effects on farming were positive. The meta-analysis considered all published English-language examinations of the agronomic and economic impacts between 1995 and March 2014. The study found that herbicide-tolerant crops have lower production costs, while for insect-resistant crops the reduced pesticide use was offset by higher seed prices, leaving overall production costs about the same.

Yields increased 9% for herbicide tolerance and 25% for insect resistance. Farmers who adopted GM crops made 69% higher profits than those who did not. The review found that GM crops help farmers in developing countries, increasing yields by 14 percentage points.

The researchers considered some studies that were not peer-reviewed, and a few that did not report sample sizes. They attempted to correct for publication bias, by considering sources beyond academic journals. The large data set allowed the study to control for potentially confounding variables such as fertiliser use. Separately, they concluded that the funding source did not influence study results.

2010 review

A 2010 article supported by CropLife International summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies. On average, farmers in developed countries increased yields by 6% and 29% in developing countries.

Tillage decreased by 25–58% on herbicide-resistant soybeans. Glyphosate-resistant crops allowed farmers to plant rows closer together as they did not have to control post-emergent weeds with mechanical tillage. Insecticide applications on Bt crops were reduced by 14–76%. 72% of farmers worldwide experienced positive economic results.

2009 review

In 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group opposed to genetic engineering and cloning of food animals, summarized peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of GM soybeans and maize in the US. The report concluded that other agricultural methods had made a greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering.

Wisconsin study

A study unusually published as correspondence rather than as an article examined maize modified to express four traits (resistance to European corn borer, resistance to corn root worm, glyphosate tolerance and glyfosinate tolerance) singly and in combination in Wisconsin fields from 1990-2010. The variance in yield from year to year was reduced, equivalent to a yield increase of 0.8-4.2 bushels per acre. Bushel per acre yield changes were +6.4 for European corn borer resistance, +5.76 for glufosinate tolerance, -5.98 for glyphosate tolerance and -12.22 for corn rootworm resistance. The study found interactions among the genes in multi-trait hybrid strains, such that the net effect varied from the sum of the individual effects. For example, the combination of European corn borer resistance and glufosinate tolerance increased yields by 3.13, smaller than either of the individual traits

Crops and animals under development express traits aimed at directly increasing yield. The closest to market is salmon that produces an added growth hormone gene that doubles growth rates.

Market dynamics

The seed industry is dominated by a small number of vertically integrated firms. In 2011, 73% of the global market was controlled by 10 companies.

In 2001, the USDA reported that industry consolidation led to economies of scale, but noted that the move by some companies to divest their seed operations questioned the long-term viability of these conglomerates. Two economists, guest speakers on the AgBio Forum cite that the seed companies' market power could raise welfare despite their pricing strategies, 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."

Market share gives firms the ability to set or influence price, dictate terms, and act as a barrier to entry. It also gives firms bargaining power over governments in policy making. In March 2010, the US Department of Justice and the US 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 were being abused. A key issue was how Monsanto licenses its patented glyphosate-tolerance trait that was in 93 percent of US soybeans grown in 2009. About 250 family farmers, consumers and other critics of corporate agriculture held a town meeting prior to the government meeting to protest Monsanto's purchase of independent seed companies, patenting seeds and then raising seed prices.

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 are purchased each year from seed producers. The offspring of the hybrid corn, while still viable, lose hybrid vigor (the beneficial traits of the parents). This benefit of first-generation hybrid seeds is the primary reason for not planting second-generation seed. However, for non-hybrid GM crops, such as GM soybeans, seed companies use intellectual property law and tangible property common law, each expressed in contracts, to prevent farmers from planting saved seed. For example, Monsanto's typical bailment license (covering transfer of the seeds themselves) forbids saving seeds, and also requires purchasers to sign a separate patent license agreement.

Corporations say that they need to prevent seed piracy, to fulfill financial obligations to shareholders, and to finance further development. DuPont spent approximately half its $2 billion research and development (R&D) budget on agriculture in 2011 while Monsanto spends 9-10% of sales on R&D.

Detractors such as Greenpeace say that patent rights give corporations excessive control over agriculture. The Center for Ecoliteracy claimed that "patenting seeds gives companies excessive power over something that is vital for everyone." A 2000 report stated, "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 expire).

Monsanto has patented its seed and it obligates farmers who choose to buy its seeds to sign a license agreement, obligating them store or sell, but not plant, all the crops that they grow. Monsanto has filed patent infringement suits against 145 farmers, but proceeded to trial with only 11. In some of the latter, the defendants claimed unintentional contamination by gene flow, but Monsanto won every case. Monsanto Canada's Director of Public Affairs stated, "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." In 2009 Monsanto announced that after its soybean patent expires in 2014, it will no longer prohibit farmers from planting soybean seeds that they grow.

One example of such litigation is the Monsanto v. Schmeiser case. This case is widely misunderstood. In 1997, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, discovered that one of his fields had canola that was resistant to Roundup. He had not purchased this seed, which had blown onto his land from neighboring fields. He later harvested the area and saved the crop in the back of a pickup truck. Before the 1998 planting, Monsanto representatives informed Schmeiser that using this crop for seed would infringe the patent, and offered him a license, which Schmeiser refused. According to the Canadian Supreme Court, after this conversation "Schmeiser nevertheless took the harvest he had saved in the pick-up truck to a seed treatment plant and had it treated for use as seed. Once treated, it could be put to no other use. Mr. Schmeiser planted the treated seed in nine fields, covering approximately 1,000 acres in all....A series of independent tests by different experts confirmed that the canola Mr. Schmeiser planted and grew in 1998 was 95 to 98 percent Roundup resistant." After further negotiations between Schmeiser and Monsanto broke down, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement and prevailed in the initial case. Schmeiser appealed and lost, and appealed again to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto's favor, stating that "it is clear on the findings of the trial judge that the appellants saved, planted, harvested and sold the crop from plants containing the gene and plant cell patented by Monsanto."

International trade

GM crops have been the source of international trade disputes and tensions within food-exporting nations over whether introduction of genetically modified crops would endanger exports to other countries.

In Canada in 2010, flax exports to Europe were rejected when traces of an experimental GM flax were found in shipments. This led a member of Parliament to propose Private Member's Bill C-474, which would have required that "an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted." Opponents claimed that "incorporating stringent socio-economic standards into the science-based regulatory system could spell the end of private research funding; because if private biotechnology companies can't see the possibility of a return on their investment, they'll invest their research budget elsewhere." The bill was defeated in 2011, in a "vote of 176 to 97."

Regulation

Labeling

In 2014, 64 countries required labeling of all GM foods. The European Union, Australia, New Zealand, China and India require GMO labeling, while other jurisdictions make such labeling voluntary or have had plans to require labeling. The American Public Health Association, the British Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia support mandatory labeling. The European Commission argued that mandatory labeling and traceability are needed to allow for informed choice, avoid potential misleading of consumers and facilitate the withdrawal of products if adverse effects on health or the environment are discovered. A 2007 study on the effect of labeling laws found that once labeling went into effect, few products continued to contain GM ingredients. The study also found that costs were higher in food-exporting than in food-importing countries. Food exporters like the United States, Argentina, and Canada have adopted voluntary labeling approaches, while importers have generally adopted mandatory labeling.

In the United States GMO labeling is not required by the Food and Drug Administration as long as there are no differences in health, environmental safety, and consumer expectations based on the packaging. The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have opposed mandatory labeling absent scientific evidence of harm. The AMA said that even voluntary labeling is misleading unless accompanied by focused consumer education. The AAAS stated that mandatory labeling "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers".

efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.

There have been numerous attempts to pass labelling laws in the US, especially at the state level. The American College of Physicians, the Illinois Public Health Association, and the Indiana State Medical Association all state:

ack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food.

One of the first efforts was a 2002 initiative in Oregon, which failed by a ratio of 7 to 3. Eighteen state legislatures debated GM labeling legislation in early 2012. In 2012, the State of California voted against Proposition 37, which would have required labeling. In 2013, Connecticut enacted a labeling law, the nation's first, with the caveat that it would not take effect until other states followed suit. In 2013, voters rejected Washington Initiative 522. As of September 2013, GMO labeling legislation was pending in at least 20 U.S. states. On January 9, 2014, Maine enacted a law requiring labeling for GM foods, with a triggering mechanism similar to Connecticut's. In California, on February 21, 2014, Senate Bill 1381 was introduced that requires labeling. In May 2014 Vermont enacted a labeling law.

Objectivity of regulatory bodies

Groups opposing the release of GMOs or their use as food have questioned whether regulatory authorities are too close to companies that seek approval for their products.

Critics in the US protested the appointment of lobbyists to senior positions in the Food and Drug Administration. Michael R. Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety in 1991. After leaving the FDA, Taylor became a vice-president of Monsanto. On 7 July 2009, Taylor returned to government as a senior adviser to the FDA Commissioner.

In 2001, when the Starlink corn recall became public, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was criticized for being slow to react by Joseph Mendelson III of the Center for Food Safety. He also criticized the EPA and Aventis CropScience for statements at the time of the recall, that indicated they did not anticipate that such a thing would happen.

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, a situation that led led to criticisms that they do not represent a wide enough range of public concerns.

Litigation and regulation disputes

United States

Four federal district court suits have been brought against Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 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. APHIS lost all four cases at trial, with the judges ruling they failed to diligently follow the guidelines set out in the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide ban on GM alfalfa and an appeal court allowed the partial deregulation of GM sugar beets. After APHIS prepared Environmental Impact Statements for both alfalfa and sugar beets they were approved.

In 2014 Maui County, Hawaii approved an initiative calling for a moratorium on GMO production and research. The initiative specified penalties including fines and jail for knowing violations and did not limit its scope to commercial agriculture. The initiative passed by about 50.2 to 47.9 percent.

European Union

Until the 1990s, Europe's regulation was less strict than in the U.S. In 1998 the use of MON810, a Bt expressing maize conferring resistance to the European corn borer, was approved for commercial cultivation in Europe. However, in the 1990s a series of unrelated food crises created consumer apprehension about food safety in general and eroded public trust in government oversight. A bovine spongiform encephalopathy outbreak was the most publicized. In 1998, a de facto moratorium led to the suspension of approvals of new GMOs in the EU pending the adoption of revised rules.

The mid-1990s US mid-1990s approval of precipitated public concern in Europe and led to a dramatic decrease in American exports to Europe. "Prior to 1997, corn exports to Europe represented about 4% of total US corn exports, generating about $300 million in sales....For example, before 1997, the U.S. sold about 1.75 million tons of corn annually to Spain and Portugal....But in the 1998–99 crop year, Spain bought less than a tenth of the previous year’s amount and Portugal bought none at all."

In May 2003, the US and twelve other countries filed a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization that the EU was violating international trade agreements, by blocking imports of US farm products through its ban on GM food. The countries argued that the EU's regulatory process was far too slow and its standards were unreasonable given the scientific evidence showing that the crops were safe. The case was lobbied by Monsanto and France's Aventis, as well as by US agricultural groups such as the National Corn Growers Association. In response, in June 2003, the European Parliament ratified a U.N. biosafety protocol regulating international trade in GM food, and in July agreed to new regulations requiring labeling and traceability, as well as an opt-out provision for individual countries. The approval of new GMOs resumed in May 2004. While GMOs have been approved since then, approvals remain controversial and various countries have utilized opt-out provisions. In 2006, the World Trade Organization ruled that the pre-2004 restrictions had been violations, although the ruling had little immediate effect since the moratorium had already been lifted.

In late 2007, the US ambassador to France recommended "moving to retaliation" to cause "some pain" 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 US government diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks.

Australia

In May 2014, the Supreme Court of the Australian state of Western Australia dismissed "March v. Baxter". The plaintiff was Steve March, an organic farmer, and the defendant was Michael Baxter, his lifelong neighbor, who grew GM canola. In late 2010 March found seeds from Baxter's crop in his fields. Later, March found escaped GM canola growing amidst his crop. March reported the seed and plants to his local organic certification board, and lost his organic certification. March sued on the grounds that Baxter used a method of harvesting his crop that was substandard and negligent, and on the basis that his land had been widely contaminated. The Court found that Baxter's method was "orthodox and well accepted harvest methodology", and that "In 2011, eight GM canola plants were found to have grown up as self-sown volunteer plants on Eagle Rest,” which “were identified and pulled out" and that "no more volunteer RR canola plants grew on Eagle Rest in subsequent years." The judge also found that March's land had been incorrectly decertified. While the decision was widely anticipated and called a "landmark", on June 18, 2014 March announced that he had filed an appeal.

Innovation in technology and regulatory law

The first genetically modified crops were made with transgenic approaches, introducing foreign genes and sometimes using bacteria to transfer the genes. In the US, these foreign genetic elements placed the resulting plant under the jurisdiction of the USDA under the Plant Protection Act. However, as of 2010, newer genetic engineering technologies like genome editing have allowed scientists to modify plant genomes without adding foreign genes, thus escaping USDA regulation. Critics have called for regulation to be changed to keep up with changing technology.

African controversies

In 2002, in the midst of a famine, Zambia refused emergency food aid that contained food from genetically modified crops, based on the precautionary principle.

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 GM food and expressed dissatisfaction in the public's negative opinion of biotechnology.

Studies for Uganda showed that transgenic bananas had a high potential to reduce rural poverty but that urban consumers with a relatively higher income might reject them.

Critics claimed that shipment of US food to southern Africa was more about promoting the adoption of biotech crops in the region than about hunger. The US was supplying Africa with meals and support during a food crisis they were facing in the early 2000s. However, once some of the African countries realized that these shipments contained GM maize, they rejected the shipments and stopped releasing the food that had been sent to them. Critics accused the US of "exploiting the Southern African famine as a public relations tool". The U.S. countered these comments by saying that European nations were letting millions of Africans suffer from hunger and starvation because of "irrational fears over hypothetical and unproven risks". The US had a pre-GMO policy of shipping US crops as food aid, rather than buying crops in/near the countries that needed aid. The US policy was claimed to be more costly than Europe's.

Indian controversies

In India, GM cotton yields in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu resulted in an average 42% increase in yield in 2002, the first year of commercial planting. A severe drought in Andhra Pradesh that year prevented any increase in yield, because the GM strain was not drought tolerant. Drought-tolerant variants were later developed. Driven by substantially reduced losses to insect predation, by 2011 88% of Indian cotton was modified. Though disputed, the economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton to farmers have been documented. A study from 2002 through 2008 on the economic impacts of Bt cotton in India, showed that Bt cotton increased yields, profits and living standards of smallholder farmers. However, recently cotton bollworm has been developing resistance to Bt cotton. Consequently, in 2012 Maharashtra banned Bt cotton and ordered an independent socioeconomic study of its use. Indian regulators cleared the Bt brinjal, a genetically modified eggplant, for commercialisation in October 2009. After opposition by some scientists, farmers and environmental groups, a moratorium was imposed on its release in February 2010 "for as long as it is needed to establish public trust and confidence".

As of 1 January 2013, all foods containing GMOs must be labelled. The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 states that "every package containing the genetically modified food shall bear at the top of its principal display panel the letters 'GM.'" The rules apply to 19 products including biscuits, breads, cereals and pulses, and a few others. The law faced criticism from consumer rights activists as well as from the packaged-food industry; both sides had major concerns that no logistical framework or regulations had been established to guide the law's implementation and enforcement. On March 21, 2014, the Indian government revalidated 10 GM-based food crops and allowed field trials of GM food crops, including wheat, rice and maize.

See also

• Food sovereignty

References

1. ^ American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers
2. ^ A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union. 2010. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. "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." (p. 16)
3. ^ Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547.
4. ^ Hollingworth RM et al. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol Sci. 2003 Jan;71(1):2-8. PMID 12520069 Quote: "The guiding principle in the evaluation of BD foods by regulatory agencies in Europe and the U.S. is that their human and environmental safety is most effectively considered, relative to comparable products and processes currently in use. From this arises the concept of 'substantial equivalence.'"
5. ^ Substantial Equivalence in Food Safety Assessment, Council for Biotechnology Information, March 11, 2001 Archived July 29, 2013
6. ^ Winter, CK and Gallegos, LK. 2006. University of California Agricultural and Natural Resource Service. ANR Publication 8180. Safety of Genetically Engineered Food
7. ^ Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HP, Kok EJ (December 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}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. ^ American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature." (first page)
9. ^ United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text. National Academies Press. pp R9-10: "In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food."
10. ^ Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM (June 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. +pp 292-293. "Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA."{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
11. ^ British Medical Association Board of Science and Education (2004). Genetically modified food and health: A second interim statement. March.
12. ^ Public Health Association of Australia (2007) GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS PHAA AGM 2007
13. ^ Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (2013) Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms in the Environment and the Marketplace. October, 2013
14. ^ Irish Doctors' Environmental Association IDEA Position on Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved 3/25/14
15. ^ PR Newswire Genetically Modified Maize: Doctors' Chamber Warns of "Unpredictable Results" to Humans. November 11, 2013
16. Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (2006) Proposals for managing the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops Response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation paper. October 2006
17. American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods. "To better detect potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement." page 7
18. Swann, Ph.D., John P. "The 1906 Food and Drugs Act and Its Enforcement". FDA History - Part I. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved 10 April 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
19. Maria Konnikova for the New Yorker. August 8, 2013 The Psychology of Distrusting G.M.O.s
20. "GM Contamination Register Official Website". Gmcontaminationregister.org. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
21. Borel, Brooke (1 November 2012). "Can Genetically Engineered Foods Harm You?". Huffington Post. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
22. Editorial. Editors of Nature. Nature 497, 5–6 (02 May 2013) doi:10.1038/497005b Fields of gold
23. ^ Amy Harmon for The New York Times, Jan 4, 2014. A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops
24. ^ Nathanael Johnson for Grist. Jul 8, 2013 The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?
25. ^ Hunt, Lesley (2004). "Factors determining the public understanding of GM technologies" (Review Article). AgBiotechNet. 6 (128): 1–8.
26. Lazarus, Richard J (1991). "The Tragedy of Distrust in the Implementation of Federal Environmental Law". Law and Contemporary Problems. 54 (4): 311–74. doi:10.2307/1191880. JSTOR 1191880.
27. Keith Kloor for Discover Magazine. October 19, 2012 Liberals Turn a Blind Eye to Crazy Talk on GMOs
28. Mike Hughlett Star Tribune (Minneapolis) for the Witchita Eagle. Nov. 5, 2013 Firebrand activist leads organic consumers association
29. Alberts B et al. September 20, 2013 Editorial: Standing Up for GMOs Science 341(6152):1320
30. JoAnna Wendel for the Genetic Literacy Project. 10 September 2013 Scientists, journalists and farmers join lively GMO forum
31. Keith Kloor for Discover Magazine's CollideAScape 22 August 2014 On Double Standards and the Union of Concerned Scientists
32. Union of Concerned Scientists. Alternatives to Genetic Engineering. Page source description: "Biotechnology companies produce genetically engineered crops to control insects and weeds and to manufacture pharmaceuticals and other chemicals. The Union of Concerned Scientists works to strengthen the federal oversight needed to prevent such products from contaminating our food supply."
33. ^ Emily Marden, Risk and Regulation: U.S. Regulatory Policy on Genetically Modified Food and Agriculture 44 B.C.L. Rev. 733 (2003). Quote: "By the late 1990s, public awareness of GM foods reached a critical level and a number of public interest groups emerged to focus on the issue. One of the early groups to focus on the issue was Mothers for Natural Law ("MFNL"), an Iowa based organization that aimed to ban GM foods from the market....The Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS"), an alliance of 50,000 citizens and scientists, has been another prominent voice on the issue.... As the pace of GM products entering the market increased in the 1990s, UCS became a vocal critic of what it saw as the agency’s collusion with industry and failure to fully take account of allergenicity and other safety issues."
34. Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues Congressional Research Service: The Library of Congress 2001
35. Marlene-Aviva Grunpeter (August 5, 2013). "GMOs, A Global Debate: Israel a Center for Study, Kosher Concerns". Epoch Times.
36. "Genetic engineering". Friends of the Earth.
37. "GE-Agriculture". The Institute of Science in Society.
38. ^ "About GMWatch". GMWatch.
39. "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe homepage". Retrieved 26 October 2014.
40. ^ Marris, Claire (2003). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO teports. 2 (7): 545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142.PMCID: PMC1083956
41. Memo from The Mellman Group, Inc. to The Pew Initiative On Food And Biotechnology, 16 November 2006. Review Of Public Opinion Research
42. Jennie Addario. Ryerson Review of Journalism. Spring, 2002. Horror Show: Why the debate over genetically modified organisms and other complex science stories freak out newspapers
43. Example of protester confusion. Sara Chamberlain. New Internationalist Magazine. Issued 293. Published on 5 August 1997 "Sara Chamberlain Dissects The Food That We Eat And Finds Some Alarming Ingredients. Article On Genetically Engineered/modified Foods For New Internationalist Magazine" Quote: "What would you think if I said that your dinner resembles Frankenstein an unnatural hodgepodge of alien ingredients? Fish genes are swimming in your tomato sauce, microscopic bacterial genes in your tortillas, and your veg curry has been spiked with viruses."
44. "Genetically modified (GM) foods". Food Standards Australia and New Zealand. 4 October 2012. Retrieved 5 November 2012.
45. "Consumer Attitudes Survey 2007, A benchmark survey of consumers' attitudes to food issues". Food Standards Australia New Zealand. January 2008. Retrieved 5 November 2012.
46. "Opposition decreasing or acceptance increasing?: An overview of European consumer polls on attitudes to GMOs". GMO Compass. 16 April 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
47. Gaskell G et al. October 2010. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change? A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research European Commission Directorate-General for Research 2010 Science in Society and Food, Agriculture & Fisheries, & Biotechnology, EUR 24537 EN
48. Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, Fischler C, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Hampel J, Mejlgaard N, Quintanilha A, Rammer A, Revuelta G, Stares S, Torgersen H, Wager W; Allansdottir; Allum; Castro; Esmer; Fischler; Jackson; Kronberger; Hampel; Mejlgaard; Quintanilha; Rammer; Revuelta; Stares; Torgersen; Wager (February 2011). "The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences". Nat. Biotechnol. 29 (2): 113–4. doi:10.1038/nbt.1771. PMID 21301431.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
49. Deloitte 2010 Food Survey Genetically Modified Foods retrieved 10 October 2012
50. Allison Kopicki for The New York Times, July 27, 2013 Strong Support for Labeling Modified Foods
51. Nina Shapiro for Seattle Weekly. October 24, 2013. GMOs: Group Refutes Claim of ‘Scientific Consensus’
52. ^ Dave Fusaro for Food Processing. November 7, 2013 European Scientists Ask for GMO Research
53. Take the Flour Back Press Release, 27/05/12 European activists link up to draw the line against GM
54. Alistair Driver for Farmers Guardian, 2 May 2012 Scientists urge protestors not to trash GM trials
55. "GM wheat trial belongs in a laboratory". BBC News. 2 May 2012.
56. "Don't Destroy Research Q & A". Sense About Science. 25 July 2012.
57. Protesters Rally Against U.S. Seed Giant And GMO Products. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 25 May 2013
58. ^ Associated Press (May 25, 2013). Protesters around the world march against Monsanto. USA Today. Cite error: The named reference "AP" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
59. Xia, Rosanna (May 25, 2013). Hundreds in L.A. march in global protest against Monsanto, GMOs. Los Angeles Times.
60. CTV Kitchener (May 25, 2013). 'March Against Monsanto' comes to King Street in Kitchener. CTV Television Network.
61. Amy Harmon, July 27, 2013 A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA
62. Note: Editors have been unable to locate any reliable source that applied crowd counting techniques to estimate the crowds. A few sources reported numbers in the hundreds of thousands; most sources followed an AP article that used the organizers' number of 2 million.
63. Millions march against Monsanto in over 400 cities - Yahoo News
64. Quick, David (26 May 2013). "More than 100 participate in Charleston’s March Against Monsanto, one of 300+ in world on Saturday". The Post and Courier. Retrieved 18 June 2013.
65. ^ Pollack, Andrew. "Seeking Support, Biotech Food Companies Pledge Transparency". New York Times. Retrieved 19 June 2014. Cite error: The named reference "nytimes" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
66. "Experts". GMO Answers. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
67. "The Council for Biotechnology Information: Founding Members". GMO Answers. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
68. Philip Case for Farmer's Weekly. October 25, 2013 Scientific consensus on GM crops safety 'overwhelming'
69. Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety, ENSSER, 10/21/12013
70. Statement: The new ‘is GM food safe?’ meme., Frewin, 07/18/2013
71. ^ GMO crops vandalized in Oregon, Karl Haro von Mogel, Biology Fortified, 24 June 2013.
72. Fighting GM Crop Vandalism With a Government-Protected Research Site, Science Daily, Feb. 28, 2013.
73. Scientists speak out against vandalism of genetically modified rice, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Fri 20 Sep 2013.
74. Vandals hack down Hawaii’s genetically modified papaya trees: The destruction is believed to have been the work of anti-GMO activists, LINDSAY ABRAMS, Salon, SEP 30, 2013. Citation: "Papaya vandals strike again".
75. Oregon: Genetically modified crops vandalized, Karl Haro von Mogel, Genetic Literacy Project, June 25, 2013.
76. ^ Kuntz, Marcel (2012). "Destruction of public and governmental experiments of GMO in Europe". GM crops & food. 3 (4): 258. doi:10.4161/gmcr.21231.
77. Dr. Strangelunch Or: Why we should learn to stop worrying and love genetically modified food, The Reason, Ronald Bailey, January 2001.
78. Rebecca Bratspies (2007) Some Thoughts on the American Approach to Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 16:393
79. ^ BBC News 14 June 2002 GM crops: A bitter harvest?
80. Thomas H. Maugh II for the Los Angeles Times. 9 June 1987. Altered Bacterium Does Its Job : Frost Failed to Damage Sprayed Test Crop, Company Says
81. "Greenpeace activists in costly GM protest". Sydney Morning Herald. 2012-08-02. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
82. "GM crop destroyers given suspended sentences". Canberra Times. 2012-11-19. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
83. Amy Harmon (August 24, 2013). "Golden Rice: Lifesaver?" (News Analysis). The New York Times. Retrieved August 25, 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
84. Michael Slezak (August 9, 2013). "Militant Filipino farmers destroy Golden Rice GM crop". NewScientist. Retrieved Oct 26, 2013.
85. The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop, Mark Lynas, Slate, Aug 26, 2013
86. 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, BBC News, 9 August 2013.
87. ^ Waltz, Emily (2009). "GM crops: Battlefield". Nature. 461 (7260): 27–32. doi:10.1038/461027a. PMID 19727179.
88. ^ David H. Freedman. The Truth about Genetically Modified Food Scientific American, August 26, 2013. "despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat, the debate over their use continues to rage, and in some parts of the world, it is growing ever louder."
89. ^ Bruce Stutz (1 July 2010). "Wanted: GM Seeds for Study". Seed Magazine. Archived from the original on 5 July 2010.
90. The editors, "Do seed companies control GM crop research?" (article originally printed with the title "A seedy practice"), Scientific American, vol. 301, August 2009.
91. Emily Waltz for Nature Biotechnology. October 2010. Monsanto relaxes restrictions on sharing seeds for research
92. "Unearthed: Are patents the problem?". Washington Post. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
93. ^ Mitchell, P. (2003). Europe sees sharp decline in GMO research. Nature Biotechnology, 468–470.
94. Nicolia A et al. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research Crit Rev Biotechnol, Early Online: 1–12, 2013 doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595 PMID 24041244
95. About page, Biofortified.org
96. Karl Haro von Mogel for Biofortified, October 25, 2013 Making sense of lists of studies
97. 2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable, Forbes, 10/14/2013.
98. Diels, Johan; Mário Cunha; Célia Manaia; Bernardo Sabugosa-Madeira; Margarida Silva (2011). "Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products". Food Policy. 36 (2): 197–203. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.016.
99. Marc Brazeau. "About Those Industry Funded GMO Studies".
100. World Health Organization. Food safety: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Accessed December 22, 2012.
101. FAO, 2004. State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU)."
102. Other sources:
     • "Contrary to popular belief". Nature Biotechnology. 31 (9): 767. 2013. doi:10.1038/nbt.2700. PMID 24022131.
     • Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (German Union of Academies of Science and Humanities) Commission Green Biotechnology Are there health hazards for the consumer from eating genetically modified food? . Accessed in 2013. "food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from "conventional" food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health."
     • French Academy of Sciences French Academy of Sciences Announces Support For Genetically Modified Crops, French Academy of Science. "Les plantes génétiquement modifiées", Décembre 2002.
     • 14 Italian scientific societies produced a Food Safety Consensus Document that said: "GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, to be safe for use in human and animal foods."
     • Tamar Haspel for the Washington Post. October 15, 2013. Genetically modified foods: What is and isn’t true
     • Winter CK and Gallegos LK (2006). Safety of Genetically Engineered Food. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Communications, Publication 8180.
     • Miller, Henry (2009). "A golden opportunity, squandered" (PDF). Trends in Biotechnology. 27 (3): 129–130. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2008.11.004. PMID 19185375.
     • Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas (2004). "Effects of information on consumers' willingness to pay for GM-corn-fed beef". Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization. 2 (2): 1–16. doi:10.2202/1542-0485.1058.
     • International Council for Science (ICSU)New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries - Societal Dilemmas (2003) "Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat." Their benefits include "improved nutritional quality", "removing allergens and/or toxic compounds from certain foods (e.g. peanuts)", "Pest tolerant crops can be grown with lower levels of chemical pesticides, resulting in reduced chemical residues in food, and less exposure to pesticides. Disease resistant crops may have lower levels of potentially carcinogenic mycotoxins."
103. CORDIS - Community Research and Development Information Service. 2005-01-06 EU project publishes conclusions and recommendations on GM foods
104. König A, Cockburn A, Crevel RW, Debruyne E, Grafstroem R, Hammerling U, Kimber I, Knudsen I, Kuiper HA, Peijnenburg AA, Penninks AH, Poulsen M, Schauzu M, Wal JM (July 2004). "Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops". Food Chem. Toxicol. 42 (7): 1047–88. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.019. PMID 15123382.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
105. ^ OECD (2010) Consensus Document on Molecular Characterisation of Plants Derived from Modern Biotechnology
106. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) (2012). "Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis". EFSA Journal. 10 (2): 12561. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2561.
107. "Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
108. König, A. (1 July 2004). "Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops". Food and Chemical Toxicology. 42 (7): 1047–1088. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.019. PMID 15123382. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
109. Marianna Schauzu. The concept of substantial equivalence in safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified organisms AgBiotechNet 2000, Vol. 2 April, ABN 044
110. van Eijck, Paul (10 March 2010). "The History and Future of GM Potatoes". PotatoPro.
111. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) (2011) EFSA Journal 9(5) 2150 . Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants
112. UK GM expert calls for tougher tests BBC 7 September 1999
113. Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S (October 1999). "Beyond 'substantial equivalence'". Nature. 401 (6753): 525–6. Bibcode:1999Natur.401..525M. doi:10.1038/44006. PMID 10524614.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
114. Burke D (October 1999). "No GM conspiracy". Nature. 401 (6754): 640–1. Bibcode:1999Natur.401..640.. doi:10.1038/44262. PMID 10537098.
115. Trewavas A, Leaver CJ (October 1999). "Conventional crops are the test of GM prejudice". Nature. 401 (6754): 640. Bibcode:1999Natur.401..640T. doi:10.1038/44258. PMID 10537097.
116. Gasson MJ (November 1999). "Genetically modified foods face rigorous safety evaluation". Nature. 402 (6759): 229. Bibcode:1999Natur.402..229G. doi:10.1038/46147. PMID 10580485.
117. Keeler, Barbara; Lappe, Marc (7 January 2001). "Some Food for FDA Regulation". Los Angeles Times.
118. Ostry V, Ovesna J, Skarkova J, Pouchova V, Ruprich J. (2010). "A review on comparative data concerning Fusarium mycotoxins in Bt maize and non-Bt isogenic maize". Mycotoxin Res. 26 (3): 141–5. doi:10.1007/s12550-010-0056-5. PMID 23605378.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
119. Jennifer Ackerman for National Geographic magazine. May 2002 Genetically Modified Foods
120. "OECD harmonization webpage". Oecd.org. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
121. 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
122. Herman, Rod A.; Price, William D. (2013). "Unintended Compositional Changes in Genetically Modified (GM) Crops: 20 Years of Research". Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry: 130225161039001. doi:10.1021/jf400135r.
123. Drake Bennett Our allergies, ourselves Boston Globe 7 May 2006
124. Lehrer SB, Bannon GA (May 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.
125. Staff, GMO Compass. February 15, 2006. Food Safety Evaluation: The Allergy Check
126. Ricroch AE, Bergé JB, Kuntz M (April 2011). "Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic profiling techniques". Plant Physiol. 155 (4): 1752–61. doi:10.1104/pp.111.173609. PMC 3091128. PMID 21350035.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
127. Hollingworth RM; et al. (2003). "The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology". Toxicol Sci. 71 (1): 2–8. doi:10.1093/toxsci/71.1.2. PMID 12520069. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
128. Herman EM (May 2003). "Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies". J. Exp. Bot. 54 (386): 1317–9. doi:10.1093/jxb/erg164. PMID 12709477.
129. Herman EM, Helm RM, Jung R, Kinney AJ (May 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}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
130. Bhalla PL, Swoboda I, Singh MB (September 1999). "Antisense-mediated silencing of a gene encoding a major ryegrass pollen allergen". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (20): 11676–80. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9611676B. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.20.11676. PMC 18093. PMID 10500236.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
131. Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA, Bush RK (March 1996). "Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans". N. Engl. J. Med. 334 (11): 688–92. doi:10.1056/NEJM199603143341103. PMID 8594427.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
132. Warren Leary Genetic Engineering of Crops Can Spread Allergies, Study Shows The New York Times, Thursday, 14 March 1996
133. 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.
134. Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, Mattes J, Rothenberg ME, Foster PS, Higgins TJ, Hogan SP (November 2005). "Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity". Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 53 (23): 9023–30. doi:10.1021/jf050594v. PMID 16277398. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
135. Michael R. Taylor and Jody S. Tick of Resources for the Future, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. The StarLink Case: Issues for the Future
136. "While EPA had no specific data to indicate that Cry9C was an allergen, the protein expressed in StarLink corn did exhibit certain characteristics (i.e. relative heat stability and extended time to digestion) that were common to known food allergens such as those found in peanuts, eggs, etc. EPA’s concern was that StarLink corn may be a human food allergen and in the absence of more definitive data, EPA has not made a decision whether or not to register the human food use." Staff, EPA. November 2000 Executive Summary: EPA Preliminary Evaluation of Information Contained in the October 25, 2000 Submission from Aventis Cropscience
137. ^ 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.
138. ^ Fulmer, Melinda (23 September 2000). "Taco Bell Recalls Shells That Used Bioengineered Corn". Los Angeles Times.
139. Sarah Lueck, Amy Merrick, Joel Millman and Stephen D. Moore for the Wall Street Journal. November 3, 2000. Corn-Recall Cost Could Reach Into the Hundreds of Millions
140. ^ Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefit Estimates, Janet E. Carpenter and Leonard P. Gianessi 2001, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
141. North American Millers' Association Press Release, Apr. 28, 2008.
142. "GM Contamination Register Official Website". Retrieved 26 October 2014.
143. Department of Soil and Crop Sciences at Colorado State University, Page last updated March 11, 2004 StarLink Corn
144. "StarLink Corn: What Happened". University of California, Davis. Retrieved August 12, 2013.
145. Keese, Paul (2008). "Risks from GMOs due to Horizontal Gene Transfer". Environmental Biosafety Research. 7 (3): 123–49. doi:10.1051/ebr:2008014. PMID 18801324.
146. ^ Flachowsky, Gerhard; Chesson, Andrew; Aulrich, Karen (2005). "Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants" (PDF). Archives of Animal Nutrition. 59 (1): 1–40. doi:10.1080/17450390512331342368. PMID 15889650.
147. Beagle JM, Apgar GA, Jones KL, Griswold KE, Radcliffe JS, Qiu X, Lightfoot DA, Iqbal MJ (March 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}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
148. Brigulla M, Wackernagel W (April 2010). "Molecular aspects of gene transfer and foreign DNA acquisition in prokaryotes with regard to safety issues". Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 86 (4): 1027–41. doi:10.1007/s00253-010-2489-3. PMID 20191269.
149. Guertler P, Paul V, Albrecht C, Meyer HH (March 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". Anal Bioanal Chem. 393 (6–7): 1629–38. doi:10.1007/s00216-009-2667-2. PMID 19225766.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
150. Zhang, Lin; Hou, Dongxia; Chen, Xi; Li, Donghai; Zhu, Lingyun; Zhang, Yujing; Li, Jing; Bian, Zhen; Liang, Xiangying; Cai, Xing; Yin, Yuan; Wang, Cheng; Zhang, Tianfu; Zhu, Dihan; Zhang, Dianmu; Xu, Jie; Chen, Qun; Ba, Yi; Liu, Jing; Wang, Qiang; Chen, Jianqun; Wang, Jin; Wang, Meng; Zhang, Qipeng; Zhang, Junfeng; Zen, Ke; Zhang, Chen-Yu (2011). "Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: Evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA". Cell Research. 22 (1): 107–26. doi:10.1038/cr.2011.158. PMC 3351925. PMID 21931358.
151. Snow, Jonathan W.; Hale, Andrew E.; Isaacs, Stephanie K.; Baggish, Aaron L.; Chan, Stephen Y. (2013). "Ineffective delivery of diet-derived microRNAs to recipient animal organisms". RNA Biology. 10 (7): 1107–16. doi:10.4161/rna.24909. PMID 23669076.
152. Witwer, Kenneth W.; McAlexander, Melissa A.; Queen, Suzanne E.; Adams, Robert J. (2013). "Real-time quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR for plant miRNAs in mammalian blood provide little evidence for general uptake of dietary miRNAs: Limited evidence for general uptake of dietary plant xenomiRs". RNA Biology. 10 (7): 1080–6. doi:10.4161/rna.25246. PMID 23770773.
153. ^ Uzogara, Stella G. (2000). "The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century". Biotechnology Advances. 18 (3): 179–206. doi:10.1016/S0734-9750(00)00033-1. PMID 14538107.
154. Nelson, Gerald C, ed. (2001). Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: economics and politics. Academic Press. ISBN 9780080488868. Retrieved 2013-05-12. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
155. Netherwood T, Martín-Orúe SM, O'Donnell AG, Gockling S, Graham J, Mathers JC, Gilbert HJ (February 2004). "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract". Nat. Biotechnol. 22 (2): 204–9. doi:10.1038/nbt934. PMID 14730317.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
156. ^ Käppeli, O (1998). "How safe is safe enough in plant genetic engineering?". Trends in Plant Science. 3 (7): 276. doi:10.1016/S1360-1385(98)01251-5.
157. Bakshi, Anita (2003). "Potential Adverse Health Effects of Genetically Modified Crops". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B. 6 (3): 211. doi:10.1080/10937400306469.
158. Van Eenennaam, A. L.; Young, A. E. (2 September 2014). "Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations". Journal of Animal Science. doi:10.2527/jas.2014-8124. PMID 25184846.
159. Snell, Chelsea; Bernheim, Aude; Bergé, Jean-Baptiste; Kuntz, Marcel; Pascal, Gérard; Paris, Alain; Ricroch, Agnès E. (2012). "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 (3–4): 1134–48. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048. PMID 22155268.
160. Magaña-Gómez, Javier A; De La Barca, Ana M (2009). "Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health". Nutrition Reviews. 67 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00130.x. PMID 19146501.
161. Dona, Artemis; Arvanitoyannis, Ioannis S. (2009). "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods". Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 49 (2): 164–75. doi:10.1080/10408390701855993. PMID 18989835.
162. 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 28 October 2010
163. Amman, Klaus (2009) Rebuttal to a review of Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009 Retrieved on 28 October 2010
164. Rickard, Craig (2009). "Letter to the Editor". Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 50 (1): 85–91, author reply 92–5. doi:10.1080/10408390903467787. PMID 20047140.
165. 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. doi:10.4081/ijas.2004.107.
166. 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.
167. Vain, Philippe (2007). "Trends in GM crop, food and feed safety literature". Nature Biotechnology. 25 (6): 624–6. doi:10.1038/nbt0607-624b. PMID 17557092.
168. Vain, Philippe (2007) Trends in GM crop, food and feed safety literature (2007)
169. Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants". Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.
170. "Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology Official Website". Psrast.org. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
171. Staff, United States General Accounting Office. May 23, 2002. GAO-02-566 Report to Congressional Requesters: Genetically Modified Foods pp 30-32
172. FAO/WHO (2000b) Safety Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods of Plant Origin. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology (Geneva, Switzerland, May 29 –June 2, 2000).
173. Wendler, David. First published Fri Jan 30, 2009; substantive revision Thu Sep 20, 2012 The Ethics of Clinical Research The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
174. Germolec, Dori R.; Kimber, Ian; Goldman, Lynn; Selgrade, Maryjane (2002). "Key Issues for the Assessment of the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Foods: Breakout Group Reports". Environmental Health Perspectives. 111 (8): 1131–9. doi:10.1289/ehp.5814. PMC 1241563. PMID 12826486.
175. Tang G, et al. (2009) Golden Rice is an effective source of vitamin A. Am J Clin Nutr. 89(6) 1776-83.
176. Tang, G.; Hu, Y.; Yin, S.-a.; Wang, Y.; Dallal, G. E.; Grusak, M. A.; Russell, R. M. (2012). "-Carotene in Golden Rice is as good as -carotene in oil at providing vitamin a to children". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 96 (3): 658–64. doi:10.3945/ajcn.111.030775. PMC 3417220. PMID 22854406.
177. By Corinne Segal for the Tufts Daily. September 17, 2012, Updated September 20, 2012 Alleged ethics violations surface in Tufts-backed study
178. ^ Ewen, Stanley WB; Pusztai, Arpad (1999). "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine". The Lancet. 354 (9187): 1353–4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7. PMID 10533866.
179. Staff, Rowett Research Institute Press Office. Rowett Research Institute: Audit Report Overview
180. Vasconcelos, Ilka M; Oliveira, José Tadeu A (2004). "Antinutritional properties of plant lectins". Toxicon. 44 (4): 385–403. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.05.005. PMID 15302522.
181. ^ Enserink M (October 1999). "Transgenic food debate. The Lancet scolded over Pusztai paper". Science. 286 (5440): 656. doi:10.1126/science.286.5440.656a. PMID 10577214.
182. Enserink, M. (1998). "SCIENCE IN SOCIETY:Institute Copes with Genetic Hot Potato". Science. 281 (5380): 1124b. doi:10.1126/science.281.5380.1124b.
183. Randerson J. (2008). Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide. The Guardian.
184. Bourne, F.J., et al. (1998) Audit Report Overview Rowett Research Institute, 28 October 1998. Retrieved 28 November 2010
185. Murray, Noreen et al., (1999) Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes The Royal Society, 1 June 1999. Retrieved 28 November 2010
186. Key, S.; Ma, J. K-C; Drake, P. M. (2008). "Genetically modified plants and human health". JRSM. 101 (6): 290–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. PMC 2408621. PMID 18515776.
187. Kuiper, Harry A; Noteborn, Hub PJM; Peijnenburg, Ad ACM (1999). "Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods". The Lancet. 354 (9187): 1315–6. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00341-4. PMID 10533854.
188. Rhodes, J. M (1999). "Genetically modified foods and the Pusztai affair". BMJ. 318 (7193): 1284. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1284.
189. Aris, Aziz; Leblanc, Samuel (2011). "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada". Reproductive Toxicology. 31 (4): 528–33. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004. PMID 21338670.
190. Poulter, Sean (20 May 2011). "GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies". Daily Mail. London. Retrieved 7 February 2012.
191. "Many Women, no Cry - OGM : environnement, santé et politique" (in English and French). Marcel-kuntz-ogm.over-blog.fr. 16 January 2012. Retrieved 7 February 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
192. "FSANZ response to study linking Cry1Ab protein in blood to GM foods". Food Standards Australia New Zealand. 27 May 2011. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
193. "FSANZ response to study linking Cry1Ab protein in blood to GM foods". FSANZ.
194. Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS (May 2007). "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity". Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52 (4): 596–602. doi:10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. PMID 17356802.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
195. De Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE (2009). "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health". Int J Biol Sci. 5 (7): 706–26. doi:10.7150/ijbs.5.706. PMC 2793308. PMID 20011136.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
196. Séralini, Gilles-Eric; Mesnage, Robin; Clair, Emilie; Gress, Steeve; De Vendômois, Joël; Cellier, Dominique (2011). "Genetically modified crops safety assessments: Present limits and possible improvements". Environmental Sciences Europe. 23: 10. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-10.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
197. 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
198. "EFSA review of statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 863 90-day rat feeding study". EFSA Journal. 5 (6). doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2007.19r.
199. "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.
200. EFSA Scientific Committee (2011)EFSA guidance on conducting repeated-dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rodents on whole food/feed. EFSA Journal 2011;9(12) 2438
201. "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.
202. "FSANZ reaffirms its risk assessment of genetically modified corn MON 863". FSANZ fact sheets 2007. 25 July 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
203. "Feeding studies and GM corn MON863". Food Standards Australia New Zealand. July 2012. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
204. Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, Lovell DP, Lynch B, Munro IC (November 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. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2007.08.033. PMID 17900781.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
205. "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.
206. ^ Allen, Kate (28 November 2013). "Science journal retracts French study on GM foods". Toronto Star. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
207. ^ "Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology". Elsevier. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
208. ^ Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS (September 2012). "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". Food Chem. Toxicol. 50 (11): 4221–31. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. PMID 22999595.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (Retracted)
209. "Tous cobayes? (2012) - IMDb". IMDB. IMDB.com.
210. Thomas Lumley for Stats Chat website. 20 September 2012 Roundup scare
211. ^ "Poison postures". Nature. 489 (7417): 474. 2012. doi:10.1038/489474a. PMID 23025010.
212. Séralini, Gilles-Eric (2012). Tous Cobayes !: OGM, pesticides et produits chimiques. Editions Flammarion. ISBN 9782081262362.
213. Carl Zimmer on Discovery Magazine blog, The Loom. 21 September 2012 From Darwinius to GMOs: Journalists Should Not Let Themselves Be Played
214. Hirschler, Ben (September 19, 2012). "UPDATE 3-Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws scepticism". Reuters.
215. Andrew Kniss for Control Freaks Blog. 19 September 2012 Explanation of rat study
216. Suzuki H, Mohr U, Kimmerle G (October 1979). "Spontaneous endocrine tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats". J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 95 (2): 187–96. doi:10.1007/BF00401012. PMID 521452.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
217. ^ "Mortality and In-Life Patterns in Sprague-Dawley" (PDF). Huntingdon Life Sciences. Retrieved 26 October 2012.
218. ^ "Sprague Dawley" (PDF). Harlan. Retrieved 26 October 2012.
219. Butler, Declan (2012). "Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny". Nature. 490 (7419): 158. doi:10.1038/490158a. PMID 23060167.
220. By Ben Hirschler and Kate Kelland. Reuters "Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism" 20 September 2012
221. MacKenzie, Deborah (19 September 2012) Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned New Scientist. Retrieved 26 September 2012
222. Elizabeth Finkel (9 October 2012). "GM corn and cancer: the Séralini affai".
223. Tim Carman for the Washington Post. Posted at 07:30 PM ET, 19 September 2012. French scientists question safety of GM corn
224. Avis des Académies nationales d’Agriculture, de Médecine, de Pharmacie, des Sciences, des Technologies, et Vétérinaire sur la publication récente de G.E. Séralini et al. sur la toxicité d’un OGM Communiqué de presse 19 octobre 2012
225. "RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". ScienceDirect.com. 2013-05-03. Retrieved May 2, 2014.
226. Staff (1 October 2012) A study of the University of Caen neither constitutes a reason for a re-evaluation of genetically modified NK603 maize nor does it affect the renewal of the glyphosate approval German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). Retrieved 14 October 2012
227. Staff (5 October 2012) BVL prüft Rattenfütterungsstudie mit gentechnisch verändertem Mais und glyphosathaltigen Pflanzenschutzmitteln (Seralini et al. 2012) (in German) "BVL checks rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize and glyphosate pesticide (Seralini et al. 2012.)", The German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL). Retrieved 14 October 2012
228. Staff (22 October 2012) French panel rejects study linking GM corn to cancer Agence France Presse. Retrieved 23 October 2012. From Internet Archive, archived February 1, 2013
229. Staff (8 October 2012) VIB concludes that Séralini study is not substantiated VIB Life Sciences Research Institute, Belgium. Retrieved 14 October 2012
230. Staff (October 2012) GMO study fails to meet scientific standards Technical University of Denmark, Danish National Food Institute, Retrieved 2 May 2014
231. Staff, Food Standards Australia New Zealand November 2013. Response to Séralini paper
232. Garcia, Jose Fernando et al. (2012) CTNBio Considered Opinion on Sep. 2012 publication of Seralini et al. Brazilian Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation, National Biosafety Technical Commission, Retrieved 7 December 2012
233. EFSA, 4 October 2012. Press release with summary of findings. Full review: EFSA (2012) Review of the Séralini et al.. (2012) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology EFSA Journal 2012;10(10) 2910 doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2910
234. Séralini GE, Mesnage R, Defarge N (March 2013). "Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide". Food Chem. Toxicol. 53: 476–483. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.11.007. PMID 23146697.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
235. Retraction Watch. November 28, 2013. Controversial Seralini GMO-rats paper to be retracted
236. Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. November 28, 2013 Paper Tying Rat Cancer to Herbicide Is Retracted
237. Séralini1,, Gilles-Eric; Clair1, Emilie; Mesnage1, Robin; Gress, Steeve; Defarge, Nicolas; Malatesta, Manuela; Hennequin, Didier; Spiroux de Vendômois, Joël (Jun 24, 2014). "Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". Environmental Sciences Europe. doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
238. "History of Bt". University of California. Retrieved 8 February 2010.
239. Hall, H. "Bt corn: is it worth the risk?". The Science Creative Quarterly.
240. Dorsch, J.A; Candas, M; Griko, N.B; Maaty, W.S.A; Midboe, E.G; Vadlamudi, R.K; Bulla Jr, L.A (2002). "Cry1A toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis bind specifically to a region adjacent to the membrane-proximal extracellular domain of BT-R1 in Manduca sexta:". Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 32 (9): 1025–36. doi:10.1016/S0965-1748(02)00040-1. PMID 12213239.
241. Romeis, Jörg; Hellmich, Richard L.; Candolfi, Marco P.; Carstens, Keri; De Schrijver, Adinda; Gatehouse, Angharad M. R.; Herman, Rod A.; Huesing, Joseph E.; McLean, Morven A.; Raybould, Alan; Shelton, Anthony M.; Waggoner, Annabel (2010). "Recommendations for the design of laboratory studies on non-target arthropods for risk assessment of genetically engineered plants". Transgenic Research. 20 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1007/s11248-010-9446-x. PMC 3018611. PMID 20938806.
242. Romeis, Jörg; Bartsch, Detlef; Bigler, Franz; Candolfi, Marco P; Gielkens, Marco M C; Hartley, Susan E; Hellmich, Richard L; Huesing, Joseph E; Jepson, Paul C; Layton, Raymond; Quemada, Hector; Raybould, Alan; Rose, Robyn I; Schiemann, Joachim; Sears, Mark K; Shelton, Anthony M; Sweet, Jeremy; Vaituzis, Zigfridas; Wolt, Jeffrey D (2008). "Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods". Nature Biotechnology. 26 (2): 203–8. doi:10.1038/nbt1381. PMID 18259178.
243. Losey, John E.; Rayor, Linda S.; Carter, Maureen E. (1999). "Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae". Nature. 399 (6733): 214. doi:10.1038/20338. PMID 10353241.
244. Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP (October 2001). "Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (21): 11937–42. Bibcode:2001PNAS...9811937S. doi:10.1073/pnas.211329998. JSTOR 3056827. PMC 59819. PMID 11559842.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
245. Gatehouse AM, Ferry N, Raemaekers RJ (May 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}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
246. Lövei GL, Andow DA, Arpaia S (April 2009). "Transgenic insecticidal crops and natural enemies: a detailed review of laboratory studies". Environmental. Entomology. 38 (2): 293–306. doi:10.1603/022.038.0201. PMID 19389277.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
247. Shelton AM, Naranjo SE, Romeis J, Hellmich RL, Wolt JD, Federici BA, Albajes R, Bigler F, Burgess EP, Dively GP, Gatehouse AM, Malone LA, Roush R, Sears M, Sehnal F (June 2009). "Setting the record straight: a rebuttal to an erroneous analysis on transgenic insecticidal crops and natural enemies". Transgenic Res. 18 (3): 317–22. doi:10.1007/s11248-009-9260-5. PMID 19357987.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
248. Carpenter JE (2011). "Impact of GM crops on biodiversity". GM Crops. 2 (1): 7–23. doi:10.4161/gmcr.2.1.15086. PMID 21844695.
249. Icoz, Isik; Stotzky, Guenther (2008). "Fate and effects of insect-resistant Bt crops in soil ecosystems". Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 40 (3): 559. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.11.002.
250. Bohan, D. A; Boffey, C. W.H; Brooks, D. R; Clark, S. J; Dewar, A. M; Firbank, L. G; Haughton, A. J; Hawes, C.; Heard, M. S; May, M. J; Osborne, J. L; Perry, J. N; Rothery, P.; Roy, D. B; Scott, R. J; Squire, G. R; Woiwod, I. P; Champion, G. T (2005). "Effects on weed and invertebrate abundance and diversity of herbicide management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant winter-sown oilseed rape". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 272 (1562): 463. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3049.
251. Strandberg, Beate; Bruus Pedersen, Marianne; Elmegaard, Niels (2005). "Weed and arthropod populations in conventional and genetically modified herbicide tolerant fodder beet fields". Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 105: 243. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2004.03.005.
252. Gibbons, D. W; Bohan, D. A; Rothery, P.; Stuart, R. C; Haughton, A. J; Scott, R. J; Wilson, J. D; Perry, J. N; Clark, S. J; Dawson, R. J.G; Firbank, L. G (2006). "Weed seed resources for birds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 273 (1596): 1921. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3522.
253. Chamberlain, D.E.; Freeman, S.N.; Vickery, J.A. (2007). "The effects of GMHT crops on bird abundance in arable fields in the UK". Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 118: 350. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.012.
254. Pleasants, John M.; Oberhauser, Karen S. (2013). "Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: Effect on the monarch butterfly population". Insect Conservation and Diversity. 6 (2): 135. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00196.x.
255. Andre Pollack for The New York Times, 11 July 2011. In Midwest, Flutters May Be Far Fewer
256. Relyea RA (2005). "The Impact of Insecticides and Herbicides on The Biodiversity and Productivity of Aquatic Communities" (PDF). Ecological Applications. 15 (2): 618–627. doi:10.1890/03-5342. PMID 17069392.
257. Robin Meadows (2005)Common Herbicide Lethal to Wetland Species Conservation Magazine 6(3)
258. Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, Xia B, Li P, Feng H, Wyckhuys KA, Guo Y (May 2010). "Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China". Science. 328 (5982): 1151–4. Bibcode:2010Sci...328.1151L. doi:10.1126/science.1187881. PMID 20466880.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
259. Lang, Susan (25 July 2006). "Profits die for Bt cotton in China". Cornell Chronicle. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
260. Wang, Shenghui; Just, David R.; Andersen, Pinstrup-Andersen (2008). "Bt-cotton and secondary pests". International Journal of Biotechnology. 10 (2/3): 113–21. doi:10.1504/IJBT.2008.018348.
261. Wang, Zi-jun; Lin, Hai; Huang, Ji-kun; Hu, Rui-fa; Rozelle, Scott; Pray, Carl (2009). "Bt Cotton in China: Are Secondary Insect Infestations Offsetting the Benefits in Farmer Fields?". Agricultural Sciences in China. 8: 83–90. doi:10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60012-2.
262. Zhao JH, Ho P, Azadi H (August 2012). "Erratum to: Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China". Environ Monit Assess. 184 (11): 7079. doi:10.1007/s10661-012-2699-5. PMID 22864609.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
263. Goswami, Bhaskar (September 2007). "Making a meal of Bt cotton". InfoChange. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
264. "Bug makes meal of Punjab cotton, whither Bt magic?". IANS. 2 September 2007. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
265. Stone, Glenn Davis (2011). "Field versus Farm in Warangal: Bt Cotton, Higher Yields, and Larger Questions". World Development. 39 (3): 387–98. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.09.008.
266. Lu, Bao-Rong, and Allison A. Snow. "Gene Flow from Genetically Modified Rice and Its Environmental Consequences." BioScience 55.8 (2005): 669. Academic Search Elite.
267. Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap JP (January 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}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
268. Andrew Pollack for The New York Times "An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon" Published: 21 May 2012. Accessed 3 September 2012
269. Buck, Eugene H. (7 June 2011). "Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood: Environmental Concerns" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 3 September 2012.
270. GMO Compass 12 December 2006 Genetically Modified Plants: Out-crossing and Gene Flow accessdate 23 April 2011
271. Chilcutt, Charles; Tabashnik, BE. (18 May 2004). "Contamination of refuges by Bacillus thuringiensis toxin genes from transgenic maize". Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. 101 (20): 7526–7529. Bibcode:2004PNAS..101.7526C. doi:10.1073/pnas.0400546101. PMC 419639. PMID 15136739.
272. "Scientists play down 'superweed'" BBC, 25 July 2005 (source report)
273. Watrud LS, Lee EH, Fairbrother A, Burdick C, Reichman JR, Bollman M, Storm M, King G, Van de Water PK (October 2004). "Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (40): 14533–8. Bibcode:2004PNAS..10114533W. doi:10.1073/pnas.0405154101. PMC 521937. PMID 15448206.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
274. Hamer, Ed; Anslow, Mark (1 March 2008). "10 reasons why organic can feed the world". Ecologist.
275. GMO Compass. 5 June 2009 Mexico: controlled cultivation of genetically modified maize
276. Mike Shanahan for Science and Development Network, 10 November 2004. Warning issued on GM maize imported to Mexico - SciDev.Net
277. Katie Mantell for Science and Development Network, 30 November 2001 GM maize found ‘contaminating’ wild strains - SciDev.Net
278. Quist D, Chapela IH (November 2001). "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico". Nature. 414 (6863): 541–3. doi:10.1038/35107068. PMID 11734853.
279. Kaplinsky N, Braun D, Lisch D, Hay A, Hake S, Freeling M (April 2002). "Biodiversity (Communications arising): maize transgene results in Mexico are artefacts". Nature. 416 (6881): 601–2, discussion 600, 602. Bibcode:2002Natur.416..601K. doi:10.1038/nature739. PMID 11935145.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
280. Ortiz-Garcia, S.; Ezcurra, E.; Schoel, B.; Acevedo, F.; Soberon, J.; Snow, A. A. (2005). "Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003-2004)". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 102 (35): 12338–43. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10212338O. doi:10.1073/pnas.0503356102. PMC 1184035. PMID 16093316.
281. Piñeyro-Nelson A, Van Heerwaarden J, Perales HR, Serratos-Hernández JA, Rangel A, Hufford MB, Gepts P, Garay-Arroyo A, Rivera-Bustamante R, Alvarez-Buylla ER (February 2009). "Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations". Mol. Ecol. 18 (4): 750–61. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03993.x. PMC 3001031. PMID 19143938.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
282. "First Wild Canola Plants With Modified Genes Found in United States". Arkansas Newswire. University of Arkansas. 6 August 2010. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
283. Genetically Modified Canola 'Escapes' Farm Fields. NPR. Retrieved 8 February 2011.
284. Black, Richard. (2010-08-06) BBC News – GM plants 'established in the wild'. Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 8 February 2011.
285. Eisberg, Neil GM crops are on the move Chemistry and Industry Ten Alps Publishing 7 November 2011 HighBeam Research accessed 7 July 2012
286. Report by the U.S. 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.
287. "Biotech Crops Are Good For Earth, Report Finds". Npr.org. 2010-04-13. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
288. ^ "Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide". Cls.casa.colostate.edu. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
289. BBC News, Tuesday, 5 October 1999. Terminator gene halt a 'major U-turn'
290. Masood, Ehsan (1999). "Compromise sought on 'Terminator' seed technology". Nature. 399 (6738): 721. doi:10.1038/21491.
291. Haider Rizvi (Mar 21, 2006). "BIODIVERSITY: Don't Sell "Suicide Seeds", Activists Warn". Inter Press Service.
292. Michael Baram. "Governance of GM Crop and Food Safety in the United States" pp 15-56 in Governing Risk in GM Agriculture, eds. Michael Baram, Mathilde Bourrier. Cambridge University Press 2011.
293. Dan Flynn for Food Safety News November 12, 2012 AC21 Wants USDA to Investigate Crop Insurance for Genetic Harm To Organic Crops
294. USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21). November 19, 2012 ) Enhancing Coexistence: A Report of the AC21 to the Secretary of Agriculture
295. ^ Czarnak-Klos, Marta et al. (2010) Best Practice documents for coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Crops JRC, European Commission, Retrieved 13 October 2012
296. Jeremy Smith, Reuters. December 7, 2007. EU caught in quandary over GMO animal feed imports
297. USDA National Agriculture Library CO-EXTRA - GM and Non-GM Supply Chains: Their CO-EXistence and TRAceability
298. Project description
299. Pollack, M. and Shaffer, G. When Cooperation Fails: the international law and politics of genetically modified foods. (2009) p. 275
300. Ben Lilliston for The Progressive Magazine, September 2001 Farmers Fight to Save Organic Crops
301. Hannelore Sudermann for the Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA). October 14, 1999 Genetically Altered Wheat Flagged – Thailand Detects Shipment Not Cleared for Commercial Sales
302. Marc Gunther for Fortune Magazine. July 2, 2007. Attack of the mutant rice
303. "APHIS Report of LibertyLink Rice Incidents" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-05-30.
304. Andy Coghlan (2013-06-03). "Monsanto modified wheat mystery deepens in Oregon". New Scientist.
305. Alan Bjerga for Bloomberg News. May 29, 2013. Monsanto Modified Wheat Not Approved by USDA Found in Field
306. Reuters (2013-05-29). "Unapproved Monsanto GMO Wheat Found in Oregon". CNBC. Retrieved 2013-05-30. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
307. Allison M (2013-06-05). "Japan's wheat-import suspension worries state growers". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2013-06-05.
308. Andrew Pollack for The New York Times, May 29, 2013 Modified Wheat Is Discovered in Oregon
309. Associated Press. August 30, 2013. Source of GMO wheat in Oregon remains mystery
310. Melissa Allison for the Seattle Times June 18, 2013, updated June 20, 2013 Wheat scare leaves farmers in limbo
311. 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)
312. Benbrook, Charles M (2012). "Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years". Environmental Sciences Europe. 24: 24. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-24-24.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
313. "How GMOs Unleashed a Pesticide Gusher". October 3, 2012.
314. Roh JY, Choi JY, Li MS, Jin BR, Je YH (April 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}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
315. Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P (June 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}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
316. 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 12 August 2010
317. Krishna, Vijesh V.; Qaim, Matin (2012). "Bt cotton and sustainability of pesticide reductions in India". Agricultural Systems. 107: 47–55. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.11.005.
318. Kovach J, Petzoldt C, Degni J, Tette J. "A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides". New York State Agricultural Experiment Station. Retrieved 23 November 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
319. Carrington, Damien (13 June 2012) GM crops good for environment, study finds The Guardian. Retrieved 16 June 2012
320. Lu, Yanhui; Wu, Kongming; Jiang, Yuying; Guo, Yuyuan; Desneux, Nicolas (2012). "Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services". Nature. 487 (7407): 362–5. doi:10.1038/nature11153. PMID 22722864.
321. "Cotton in India". Monsanto. 5 May 2010.
322. Bagla P (March 2010). "India. Hardy cotton-munching pests are latest blow to GM crops". Science. 327 (5972): 1439. Bibcode:2010Sci...327.1439B. doi:10.1126/science.327.5972.1439. PMID 20299559.
323. Tabashnik, Bruce E; Gassmann, Aaron J; Crowder, David W; Carriére, Yves (2008). "Insect resistance to Bt crops: Evidence versus theory". Nature Biotechnology. 26 (2): 199–202. doi:10.1038/nbt1382. PMID 18259177.
324. Christou, Paul; Capell, Teresa; Kohli, Ajay; Gatehouse, John A.; Gatehouse, Angharad M.R. (2006). "Recent developments and future prospects in insect pest control in transgenic crops". Trends in Plant Science. 11 (6): 302–8. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2006.04.001. PMID 16690346.
325. Jack Kaskey for Bloomberg News Nov 16, 2012 DuPont-Dow Corn Defeated by Armyworms in Florida: Study
326. Staff, University of Minnesota Extension. Section: Can European corn borer develop resistance to Bt corn? in the Bt Corn & European Corn Borer
327. Economic Impact of Transgenic Crops in Developing Countries. Agbioworld.org. Retrieved 8 February 2011.
328. Areal, F. J.; Riesgo, L.; Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. (2012). "Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: A meta-analysis". The Journal of Agricultural Science. 151: 7. doi:10.1017/S0021859612000111.
329. Finger, Robert; El Benni, Nadja; Kaphengst, Timo; Evans, Clive; Herbert, Sophie; Lehmann, Bernard; Morse, Stephen; Stupak, Nataliya (2011). "A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops". Sustainability. 3 (12): 743. doi:10.3390/su3050743.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
330. Hutchison WD, Burkness EC, Mitchell PD, Moon RD, Leslie TW, Fleischer SJ, Abrahamson M, Hamilton KL, Steffey KL, Gray ME, Hellmich RL, Kaster LV, Hunt TE, Wright RJ, Pecinovsky K, Rabaey TL, Flood BR, Raun ES (October 2010). "Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers". Science. 330 (6001): 222–5. Bibcode:2010Sci...330..222H. doi:10.1126/science.1190242. PMID 20929774.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
331. Karnowski, Steve High-Tech Corn Fights Pests at Home and Nearby Sci-Tech today, 8 October 2010. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
332. Falck-Zepeda, José Benjamin; Traxler, Greg; Nelson, Robert G. (2000). "Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of a Biotechnology Innovation". American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 82 (2): 360–9. doi:10.1111/0002-9092.00031. JSTOR 1244657.
333. Brookes, Graham and Barfoot, Peter (May 2012) GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2010 PG Economics Ltd. UK, Retrieved 3 January 2012
334. 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)
335. Lynas, Mark (4 November 2010). "What the Green Movement Got Wrong: A turncoat explains]". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
336. Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using crop genetic improvement technologies for sustainable agriculture, EASAC policy report 21, 27.06.13.
337. Staff, Bioscience Resource Project. April 2, 2013 BSR News: Jonathan Latham’s Second Interview on talkradioeurope
338. "Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger?". The New York Times. 26 October 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
339. Staff, PBS. Interview with Jeremy Rifkin
340. Miguel A. Altieri (1998) Modern Agriculture: Ecological impacts and the possibilities for truly sustainable farming Monthly Review 50(3)
341. Plant Genetics/Genomics: Crops and Models Vol. 7: Genetics and Genomics of the Triticeae. Feuillet, C. and Muehlbauer, G. (eds.)
342. Bruce Erickson and Jim Mintert. Giving Thanksfor Contemporary Agriculture Top Farmer Crop Workshop Newsletter, November 2009
343. William C. Motes March 2010. Modern Agriculture and Its Benefits – Trends, Implications and Outlook
344. Staff, Monsanto. Monsanto: Who we are
345. Staff, Bayer CropScience. Bayer CropScience: Our purpose
346. 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
347. Gillis, Justin A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself The New York Times, 5 June 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2011
348. 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
349. Lappé, Frances Moore; Collins, Joseph; Rosset, Peter; Esparza, Luis (1998). World Hunger: Twelve Myths. Grove Press. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-8021-3591-9.
350. Boucher, Douglas H. (1999). The Paradox of Plenty: Hunger in a Bountiful World. Food First Books. p. 342. ISBN 978-0-935028-71-3.
351. Avise, John C (2004). The Hope, Hype and Reality of Genetic Engineering: Remarkable Stories from Agriculture, Industry, Medicine and the Environment (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-803790-3. Retrieved 2013-05-12.
352. Raney, Terri; Pingali, Prabhu (September 2007). "Sowing a Gene Revolution". Scientific American. Retrieved October 26, 2014.
353. Lal, Rattan; Hobbs, Peter R; Uphoff, Norman; Hansen, David O, eds. (2004). Sustainable Agriculture and the International Rice-Wheat System. CRC Press. ISBN 9780824754914. Retrieved 2013-05-12. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
354. Kiers, E. T.; Leakey, R. R. B.; Izac, A.-M.; Heinemann, J. A.; Rosenthal, E.; Nathan, D.; Jiggins, J. (2008). "ECOLOGY: Agriculture at a Crossroads". Science. 320 (5874): 320–1. doi:10.1126/science.1158390. PMID 18420917.
355. Joel K. Bourne Jr for National Geographic. June 2009 The Global Food Crisis: The End of Plenty
356. Pfeiffer, D. (2006). Eating Fossil Fuel: Oil, Food, and the Coming Crisis in Agriculture.
357. Naylor, Rosamond L.; Falcon, Walter P.; Goodman, Robert M.; Jahn, Molly M.; Sengooba, Theresa; Tefera, Hailu; Nelson, Rebecca J. (2004). "Biotechnology in the developing world: A case for increased investments in orphan crops". Food Policy. 29: 15–44. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.01.002.
358. Borlaug, N.E. (2000), "Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry", Plant Physiology, 124: 487–490, doi:10.1104/pp.124.2.487
359. Kagale, Sateesh; Rozwadowski, Kevin (October 2010). "Global Food Security: The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology Commentary" (PDF). Plant Physiology. 154. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,: 1. Retrieved 12 January 2014.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
360. Nielsen, R.L. (Bob) (August 2012). "Historical Corn Grain Yields for Indiana and the U.S." Corny News Network. Purdue University. Retrieved October 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
361. "Feed grains yearbook tables - recent". National Agricultural Statistics Service. October 2014. Retrieved October 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
362. Kaphengst, Timo; Nadja El Benni; Clive Evans; Robert Finger; Sophie Herbert; Stephen Morse; Nataliya Stupak (2010). "Assessment of the economic performance of GM crops worldwide" (PDF). Report to the European Commission, March 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
363. Wesseler, J. (ed.) (2005): Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops. Dordrecht, NL: Springer Press
364. Klümper, W; Qaim, M (2014). "A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops". PloS one. 9 (11): e111629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629. PMID 25365303.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
365. ^ "Genetically modified crops - Field research". Economist. Nov 8, 2014. Retrieved November 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
366. Carpenter, Janet E (2010). "Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops". Nature Biotechnology. 28 (4): 319–21. doi:10.1038/nbt0410-319. PMID 20379171.
367. 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.
368. "Roundup Ready soybean trait patent nears expiration in 2014". Hpj.com. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
369. D. Gurian-Sherman. 2009. Failure to Yield. UCSUSA.org
370. "Do GM Crops Really Have Higher Yields?". Mother Jones. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
371. Shi, Guanming; Chavas, Jean-Paul; Lauer, Joseph (2013). "Commercialized transgenic traits, maize productivity and yield risk". Nature Biotechnology. 31 (2): 111–4. doi:10.1038/nbt.2496. PMID 23392505.
372. Dunwell, Jim M. (2013). "Transgenic cereals: Current status and future prospects". Journal of Cereal Science. doi:10.1016/j.jcs.2013.08.008.
373. Katia Moskvitch (23 January 2013). "Salmon steak from GM fish could soon be on your plate". BBC News.
374. Hayenga, Marvin (1998). "Structural change in the biotech seed and chemical industrial complex". AgBioForum. 1 (2): 43–55.
375. Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life. ETC Group. 2008. p. 11.
376. Who will control the Green Economy?. ETC Group. 2011. p. 22.
377. USDA (2001). "Concentration and Technology in Agricultural Input Industries." http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib-agricultural-information-bulletin/aib763.aspx#.VE1CW_l4rYg
378. "AgBioForum - Powerbase". Powerbase.info. 2010-05-18. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
379. Acquaye, Albert K. A.; Traxler, Greg 2005. "Monopoly power, price discrimination, and access to biotechnology innovations". AgBioForum. 8 (2&3): 127–33.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
380. Murphy, S., 2006. Concentrated Market Power and Agricultural Trade. EcoFair Trade Dialog Discussion Paper #1. p.18
381. Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life. ETC Group. 2008. p. 14.
382. ^ Carey Gillam for Reuters. 11 March 2010. Farm groups call on U.S. to "bust up big ag"
383. Jack Kaskey and William McQuillen for Bloomberg News, 12 March 2010 Monsanto’s Seed Patents May Trump Antitrust Claims (Update2)
384. History of Research at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Research Service Agricultural Research Service: Improving Corn. Last Modified: 6 June 2008. Originally published in U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1894–1992. Yearbooks of agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
385. Eagle Seed Company, Roundup Ready Seed webpage Has example of license language
386. Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement 2011.
387. Syngenta Stewardship Agreement
388. Dupont 2011 Annual Report (10-K Filing) See page 2 for ag R&D percentage, page 19 for total R&D spending.
389. "Monsanto Investors's page". Monsanto.com. 2008-11-03. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
390. Amy Goodman (24 October 2012). "Michael Pollan: California's Prop 37 Fight to Label GMOs Could Galvanize Growing U.S. Food Movement". Democracy Now!. Retrieved 26 October 2012.
391. "Discussion Guide for the film Food Inc" (PDF). Center for Ecoliteracy. p. 73. Retrieved October 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
392. "Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
393. Kerstin Mechlem and Terry Raney (2007). "Agricultural Technology and the Right to Food". In Francesco Francioni. Biotechnologies and International Human Rights. Hart Publishing. ISBN 1-84113-703-0
394. ^ "Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits". Monsanto. 2008-11-03. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
395. Schubert, Robert: "Schmeiser Wants to Take It to The Supreme Court", CropChoice News, 9 September 2002
396. POLLACK, ANDREW (December 17, 2009). "As Patent Ends, a Seed's Use Will Survive". New York Times. Retrieved October 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
397. ^ "Canadian Supreme Court Decision". Scc.lexum.org. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
398. McHughen A, Wager R (2010). "Popular misconceptions: agricultural biotechnology". N Biotechnol. 27 (6): 724–8. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2010.03.006. PMID 20359558. The fear about a company claiming ownership of a farmer's crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed is...widespread and ...unfounded.
399. Bernard Simon for The New York Times, May 22, 2004 Monsanto Wins Patent Case On Plant Genes
400. Sheldon, M. Regulation of Biotechnology: will we ever 'freely' trade GMOs? Eur Rev Agric Econ (2002) 29 (1): 155-176.
401. ^ BJ Siekierski for iPolitics. Feb 2, 2011 Agriculture Committee continues study on biotechnology while Bill C-474 is debated
402. "Private Member's Bill C-474". Retrieved 26 October 2014.
403. USDA Foreign Agriculture Service: Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN) February 7, 2011. This Week in Canadian Agriculture Issue 4 Bill to Reform Approval Process for GM Seeds Voted Down
404. ^ Terri Hallenbeck, for the Burlington Free Press. April 27, 2014 How GMO labeling came to pass in Vermont
405. Van Eenennaam A, et al. CAST Issue Paper Number 54: The Potential Impacts of Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Engineered Food in the United States April 2014
406. ^ The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2003) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 On Genetically Modified Food And Feed. Official Journal of the European Union L 268/3 (21) "The labelling should include objective information to the effect that a food or feed consists of, contains or is produced from GMOs. Clear labelling, irrespective of the detectability of DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification in the final product, meets the demands expressed in numerous surveys by a large majority of consumers, facilitates informed choice and precludes potential misleading of consumers as regards methods of manufacture or production"
407. ^ THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2003) Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC. Official Journal L 268, 18/10/2003 P. 0024 - 0028 " (3) Traceability requirements for GMOs should facilitate both the withdrawal of products where unforeseen adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, including ecosystems, are established, and the targeting of monitoring to examine potential effects on, in particular, the environment. Traceability should also facilitate the implementation of risk management measures in accordance with the precautionary principle. (4) Traceability requirements for food and feed produced from GMOs should be established to facilitate accurate labelling of such products"
408. ^ Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2012). "Labelling of GM Foods". Retrieved 2013-03-14.
409. ^ Anne Sewell for the DIgital Journal. Jan 11, 2013 GMO labeling signed into law in India
410. Gruère, Guillaume P.; Rao, S. R. (2007). "A Review of International Labeling Policies of Genetically Modified Food to Evaluate India's Proposed Rule". AgBioForum. 10 (1): 51–64.
411. Food Standards Agency, Last updated on 7 April 2008 GM labelling advisory
412. Schiffman, Richard (13 June 2012). "How California's GM food referendum may change what America eats". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
413. AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION (2001) Support of the Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods Policy Number: 200111
414. Gruère, G.P, & Rao, S.R. (2007). AgBioForum, 10(1), 51–64. A review of international labeling policies of genetically modified food to evaluate India's proposed rule.
415. Scatasta, Sara; Wesseler, Justus; Hobbs, Jill (2007). "Differentiating the consumer benefits from labeling of GM food products". Agricultural Economics. 37 (2–3): 237. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00269.x.
416. Molly Ball for The Atlantic. May 14, 2014 Want to Know If Your Food Is Genetically Modified? Across the country, an aggressive grassroots movement is winning support with its demands for GMO labeling. If only it had science on its side
417. Van Eenennaam, Alison; Chassy, Bruce; Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas; Redick, Thomas (2014). "The Potential Impacts of Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Engineered Food in the United States" (PDF). Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 54 (April 2014). ISSN 1070-0021. Retrieved 2014-05-28. To date, no material differences in composition or safety of commercialized GE crops have been identified that would justify a label based on the GE nature of the product.
418. Amy Harmon and Andrew Pollack for The New York Times, 24 May 2012 Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food
419. ^ American College of Physicians (2011) Resolution 14-S11. Supporting Federal Legislation and/or Regulations that Require Clearly Labeling Food with Genetically Engineered Ingredients Spring 2011 BOG Resolutions pages 108–112
420. ^ Illinois Public Health Association (2011) Resolution No. 3, 2011, Labeling of Foods Containing Genetically Engineered Ingredients
421. ^ Indiana Delegation (2010) Supporting Legislation and / or Regulations that Require Clearly Labeling Food with Genetically Engineered Ingredients Resolution: 509 (A-11)
422. Associated Press, Published in the Wall Street Journal 22 February 2012 Conn. bill looks to add labels to engineered food
423. Vaughan, Adam (7 November 2012). "Prop 37: Californian voters reject GM food labeling". London: guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-11-07.
424. "California General Election, Tuesday, November 6, 2012: Official Voter Information Guide" (PDF). State of California. Retrieved 26 October 2012.
425. Connecticut Approves Labeling Genetically Modified Foods
426. Initiative 522. November 5, 2013 General Election Results
427. Gillam, Carey (November 8, 2013). "After Washington GMO label battle, both sides eye national fight". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 10 November 2013.
428. The Editors of Scientific American. September 6, 2013 Editorial: Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea
429. Herling, Daniel J. (12 January 2014). "As Maine Goes, So Goes The Nation? Labeling for Foods Made with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)". The National Law Review. Retrieved 8 March 2014. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
430. "The California Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.SENATE BILL No. 1381" (PDF). 21 February 2014.
431. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Daniel J. (4 March 2014). "California Reenters the Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Food Labeling Arena; This Time Through the Legislature". The National Law Review. Retrieved 6 March 2014.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
432. Terri Hallenbeck for The Burlington Free Press. May 8, 2014 Vermont gov signs law to require labels on GMO foods
433. FDA News Release 7 July 2009 Noted Food Safety Expert Michael R. Taylor Named Advisor to FDA Commissioner
434. ^ Pollack, Andrew (September 4, 2001). "Altered Corn Surfaced Earlier". The New York Times. p. 1. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
435. Prudham, Scott; Morris, Angela (2006). "Making the Market 'Safe' for GM Foods: The Case of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee". Studies in Political Economy. 78: 145–75.
436. Chen, Mao; Shelton, Anthony; Ye, Gong-yin (2011). "Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Rice in China: From Research to Commercialization". Annual Review of Entomology. 56: 81–101. doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144810. PMID 20868281.
437. McHughen, Alan; Smyth, Stuart (2007). "US regulatory system for genetically modified \genetically modified organism (GMO), rDNA or transgenic crop cultivars". Plant Biotechnology Journal. 6 (1): 071024233955001. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00300.x. PMID 17956539.
438. Judge Revokes Approval of Modified Sugar Beets, by ANDREW POLLACK, The New York Times, 13 August 2010
439. Monsanto et al. v Geertson Seed Farms et al., Supreme Court of the United States, Decision no 09-475, 21 June 2010, Retrieved 14 March 2013
440. 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 14 March 2013
441. Staff (7 August 2012) Roundup Ready® Sugar Beet News USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology, Retrieved 14 March 2013
442. USDA - Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), United States Department of Agriculture, December 2010. Retrieved 14 March 2013
443. "A Bill Placing a Moratorium on the Cultivation of Genetically Engineered Organims". SHAKA Movement. Retrieved October 18, 2014.
444. Joaquin, Tannya (October 7, 2014). "Voters to decide on Maui GMO debate in one month". Hawaii News Now. Retrieved October 18, 2014.
445. Shikina, Robert (November 5, 2014). "Voters adopt GMO ban". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
446. Lynch D, Vogel D. (2001). The Regulation of Gmos in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics..
447. ^ Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology • DECEMBER 2005 U.S. vs. EU: An Examination of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified Food
448. Staff (updated 23 May 2007) Euractive.com EU GMO ban was illegal, WTO rules Retrieved 7 October 2011
449. Staff EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (Disputes DS291, 292, 293) World Trade Organisation. Retrieved 7 October 2011
450. Ludwig, Mike (21 December 2010). "WikiLeaks: US Ambassador Planned "Retaliation" Against France Over Ban on Monsanto Corn". Truthout. Archived from the original on 11 January 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2011.
451. Stapleton, Craig (14 December 2007). "France and the WTO ag biotech case". WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks cable: 07PARIS4723. Archived from the original on 26 December 2010. Retrieved 26 December 2010. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
452. ^ Colin Bettles and Bobbie Hinkley for The Land. 28 May 2014 Baxter wins GM case
453. Supreme Court of Western Australia Supreme Court of Western Australia Judgement Summary: Marsh V Baxter [2014 WASC 187 (Civ 1561 Of 2012)
454. ^ Ian Walker for the Global Mail. February 2014. Steve Marsh and the Bad Seeds Accessed July 8, 2014
455. Slater & Gordon Lawyers. June 18, 2014. Media statement: Marsh v Baxter appeal
456. ^ Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. Jan 1, 2015 By ‘Editing’ Plant Genes, Companies Avoid Regulation
457. Heidi Ledford for Nature News 20 August 2013 US regulation misses some GM crops Gaps in oversight of transgenic technologies allow scientists to test the waters for speciality varieties.
458. Alexandria C Lewin. 2007 Zambia and Genetically Modified Food Aid. Case Study #4-4 of the Program: "Food Policy for Developing Countries: The Role of Government in the Global Food System"
459. "Agriculture". Asia-Pacific Biotech News. 07 (25): 1613. 2003. doi:10.1142/S0219030303002623.
460. Kikulwe, Enoch M.; Wesseler, Justus; Falck-Zepeda, Jose (2011). "Attitudes, perceptions, and trust. Insights from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in Uganda". Appetite. 57 (2): 401–13. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.06.001. PMID 21704665.
461. Kikulwe, Enoch M.; Birol, Ekin; Wesseler, Justus; Falck-Zepeda, José (2011). "A latent class approach to investigating demand for genetically modified banana in Uganda". Agricultural Economics. 42 (5): 547. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00529.x.
462. Zerbe, N. (January 2004). "Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in Southern Africa" (PDF). Food Policy. 29 (6): 593–608. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.09.002. Retrieved October 27, 2014.
463. Qaim, Matin; Subramanian, Arjunan; Naik, Gopal; Zilberman, David (2006). "Adoption of Bt Cotton and Impact Variability: Insights from India". Review of Agricultural Economics. 28: 48–58. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00272.x. JSTOR 3700846.
464. 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 2 June 2012.
465. 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.
466. R.M. Bennett, Y. Ismael, U. Kambhampati, and S. Morse (2005-01-26). "Economic Impact of Genetically Modified Cotton in India". Agbioforum.org. Retrieved 2013-05-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
467. Subramanian, Arjunan; Qaim, Matin (2010). "The Impact of Bt Cotton on Poor Households in Rural India". Journal of Development Studies. 46 (2): 295–311. doi:10.1080/00220380903002954.
468. Kathage J, Qaim M; Qaim (July 2012). "Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 109 (29): 11652–6. Bibcode:2012PNAS..10911652K. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203647109. PMC 3406847. PMID 22753493.
469. Environment News Service 9 August 2012 Maharashtra State Revokes Monsanto’s Cotton Seed License
470. "India says no to first GM food crop". Agence France-Presse (AFP). New Delhi. 9 February 2010.
471. "India puts on hold first GM food crop on safety grounds". BBC. 9 February 2010. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
472. "Govt says no to Bt brinjal for now". The Times of India. 9 February 2010. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
473. ^ "GM food labelling comes into force amid fears over 'lack of planning'". The Daily Mail. London. 1 January 2013. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
474. "Govt regulator paves way for field trials of GM food crops including wheat, rice and maize - The Times of India". The Times Of India.

External links

General

• GMO Compass Information on the use of genetic engineering in the agri-food industry. Authorization database with all GM plants in the EU.
• Center for Environmental Risk Assessment Database detailing all currently accepted GM crops.
• Coextra Research project on coexistence and traceability of GM and non-GM supply chains.
• Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods A website posted by P. Bryne of the Colorado State University Extension, provides a concise list of pros and cons of labeling food derived from genetically modified organisms
• Genetic Imperialism?: the First and Third World's face-off on the frontiers of science from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives

Opponents

• Soil Association
• Center for Food Safety
• Greenpeace
• Sierra Club
• Institute for Responsible Technology

Advocates

• Council for Biotechnology Information
• AgBioWorld
• BioTech Now

Governmental

• German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
• UK Food Standards Agency
• European Food Safety Authority
• EU legislation documents on genetically modified organisms
• Government of Canada BioPortal

Medical and scientific

• NIH National Library of Medicine
• Royal Society

• Genetic engineering
• Genetically modified organisms in agriculture
• Environmental issues
• Criticisms
• Criticism of science