Genetically modified crops
Genetically modified crops (GMCs, GM crops, or biotech crops) are plants, the DNA of which has been modified using genetic engineering techniques. In most cases the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species. Examples include resistance to certain pests, diseases, or environmental conditions, or resistance to chemical treatments (e.g. resistance to a herbicide), or the production of a certain nutrient or pharmaceutical agent.
Genetic engineering techniques are much more precise than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change. Other techniques by which humans modify plants include selective breeding; plant breeding, and somaclonal variation.
There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits. However, opponents have objected to GM crops per se on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and economic concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.
- 1 Gene transfer in nature and traditional agriculture
- 2 History
- 3 Methods
- 4 Business of GM Crops
- 5 Uses, actual and proposed
- 6 Extent of worldwide use of GM crops
- 7 Examples of genetically modified crops
- 8 Effects on farming practices
- 9 Regulation
- 10 Controversy
- 11 See also
- 12 References
- 13 External links
Gene transfer in nature and traditional agriculture
Scientists first discovered that DNA naturally transfers between organisms in 1946. It is now known that there are several natural mechanisms for flow of genes, or (horizontal gene transfer), and that these occur in nature on a large scale – for example, it is a major mechanism for antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria, and it occurs between plant species. This is facilitated by transposons, retrotransposons, proviruses and other mobile genetic elements that naturally translocate to new sites in a genome. They often move to new species over an evolutionary time scale and play a major role in dynamic changes to chromosomes during evolution.
The introduction of foreign germplasm into crops has been achieved by traditional crop breeders by artificially overcoming fertility barriers. A hybrid cereal was created in 1875, by crossing wheat and rye. Since then important traits have been introduced into wheat, including dwarfing genes and rust resistance. Plant tissue culture and the induction of mutations have also enabled humans to artificially alter the makeup of plant genomes.
The first genetically modified plant was produced in 1982, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant. The first field trials of genetically engineered plants occurred in France and the USA in 1986, when tobacco plants were engineered to be resistant to herbicides. In 1987, Plant Genetic Systems (Ghent, Belgium), founded by Marc Van Montagu and Jeff Schell, was the first company to develop genetically engineered (tobacco) plants with insect tolerance by expressing genes encoding for insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The People’s Republic of China was the first country to allow commercialized transgenic plants, introducing a virus-resistant tobacco in 1992, which was withdrawn from the market in China in 1997.:3 The first genetically modified crop approved for sale in the U.S., in 1994, was the FlavrSavr tomato, which had a longer shelf life. In 1994, the European Union approved tobacco engineered to be resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, making it the first commercially genetically engineered crop marketed in Europe. In 1995, Bt Potato was approved safe by the Environmental Protection Agency, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the USA. The following transgenic crops also received marketing approval in the US in 1995: canola with modified oil composition (Calgene), Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn/maize (Ciba-Geigy), cotton resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil (Calgene), Bt cotton (Monsanto), soybeans resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Monsanto), virus-resistant squash (Asgrow), and additional delayed ripening tomatoes (DNAP, Zeneca/Peto, and Monsanto). As of mid-1996, a total of 35 approvals had been granted to commercially grow 8 transgenic crops and one flower crop of carnations, with 8 different traits in 6 countries plus the EU. In 2000, with the production of golden rice, scientists genetically modified food to increase its nutrient value for the first time.
Genetically engineered plants are generated in a laboratory by altering their genetic makeup. This is usually done by adding one or more genes to a plant's genome using genetic engineering techniques. Most genetically modified plants are generated by the biolistic method (particle gun) or by Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation. Plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.
In research tobacco and Arabidopsis thaliana are the most genetically modified plants, due to well developed transformation methods, easy propagation and well studied genomes. They serve as model organisms for other plant species.
In the biolistic method, DNA is bound to tiny particles of gold or tungsten which are subsequently shot into plant tissue or single plant cells under high pressure. The accelerated particles penetrate both the cell wall and membranes. The DNA separates from the metal and is integrated into plant genome inside the nucleus. This method has been applied successfully for many cultivated crops, especially monocots like wheat or maize, for which transformation using Agrobacterium tumefaciens has been less successful. The major disadvantage of this procedure is that serious damage can be done to the cellular tissue.
Agrobacteria are natural plant parasites, and their natural ability to transfer genes provides another method for the development of genetically engineered plants. To create a suitable environment for themselves, these Agrobacteria insert their genes into plant hosts, resulting in a proliferation of plant cells near the soil level (crown gall). The genetic information for tumour growth is encoded on a mobile, circular DNA fragment (plasmid). When Agrobacterium infects a plant, it transfers this T-DNA to a random site in the plant genome. When used in genetic engineering the bacterial T-DNA is removed from the bacterial plasmid and replaced with the desired foreign gene. The bacterium is a vector, enabling transportation of foreign genes into plants. This method works especially well for dicotyledonous plants like potatoes, tomatoes, and tobacco. Agrobacteria infection is less successful in crops like wheat and maize.
Introducing new genes into plants requires a promoter specific to the area where the gene is to be expressed. For instance, if we want the gene to be expressed only in rice grains and not in leaves, then an endosperm-specific promoter would be used. The codons of the gene must also be optimized for the organism due to codon usage bias. The transgenic gene products should also be able to be denatured by heat so that they are destroyed during cooking.
One of the most famous kinds of GM crops are "Roundup Ready", or glyphosate-resistant trait. Glyphosate, (the active ingredient in Roundup) kills plants by interfering with the shikimate pathway in plants, which is essential for the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. More specifically, glyphosate inhibits the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS).
The rationale behind developing this trait, was that the selective herbicides used on grain and grass crops at the time were highly toxic, and not effective against narrow leaved weeds. Thus, developing crops that could withstand spraying with glyphosate would both reduce environmental and health risks, and give an agricultural edge to the farmer.
The shikimate pathway is not present in animals, which instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diet.
Some micro-organisms have a version of EPSPS that is resistant to glyphosate inhibition. One of these was isolated from an Agrobacterium strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS) that was resistant to glyphosate. This CP4 EPSPS gene was cloned and transfected into soybeans. The CP4 EPSPS gene was engineered for plant expression by fusing the 5' end of the gene to a chloroplast transit peptide derived from the petunia EPSPS. This transit peptide was used because it had shown previously an ability to deliver bacterial EPSPS to the chloroplasts of other plants. The plasmid used to move the gene into soybeans was PV-GMGTO4. It contained three bacterial genes, two CP4 EPSPS genes, and a gene encoding beta-glucuronidase (GUS) from Escherichia coli as a marker. The DNA was injected into the soybeans using the particle acceleration method. Soybean cultivar A54O3 was used for the transformation. The expression of the GUS gene was used as the initial evidence of transformation. GUS expression was detected by a staining method in which the GUS enzyme converts a substrate into a blue precipitate. Those plants that showed GUS expression were then taken and sprayed with glyphosate, and their tolerance was tested over many generations.
Types of genetic engineering
Transgenic plants have genes inserted into them that are derived from another species. The inserted genes can come from species within the same kingdom (plant to plant) or between kingdoms (for example, bacteria to plant). In many cases the inserted DNA has to be modified slightly in order to correctly and efficiently express in the host organism. Transgenic plants are used to express proteins like the cry toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis, herbicide resistant genes and antigens for vaccinations Transgenic carrots have been used to produce the drug Taliglucerase alfa which is used to treat Gaucher's disease. In the laboratory, transgenic plants have been modified to increase their photosynthesis (currently about 2% at most plants to the theoretic potential of 9–10%. This is possible by changing the rubisco enzyme (i.e. changing C3 plants into C4 plants), by placing the rubisco in a carboxysome, by adding CO2 pumps in the cell wall, by changing the leaf form/size. Plants have been engineered to exhibit bioluminescence which might one day be a sustainable alternative to electric lighting. Still other transgenic plants have been modified to fix ambient nitrogen in the plant.
Cisgenic plants are made using genes found within the same species or a closely related one, where conventional plant breeding can occur. Some breeders and scientists argue that cisgenic modification is useful for plants that are difficult to crossbreed by conventional means (such as potatoes), and that plants in the cisgenic category should not require the same level of legal regulation as other genetically modified organisms.
Business of GM Crops
The global value of biotech seed alone was US$13.2 billion in 2011, with the end product of commercial grain from biotech maize, soybean grain and cotton valued at approximately US$160 billion or more per year.
Players in agriculture business markets include seed companies, agrochemical companies, distributors, farmers, grain elevators, and universities that develop new crops and whose agricultural extensions advise farmers on best practices.
The largest share of the GMO crops planted globally are from seed created by the United States firm Monsanto. In 2007, Monsanto's trait technologies were planted on 246 million acres (1,000,000 km2) throughout the world, a growth of 13 percent from 2006. However, patents on the first Monsanto products to enter the marketplace will begin to expire in 2014, democratizing Monsanto products. Syngenta, DuPont (especially via its Pioneer Hi-Bred subsidiary), and Bayer CropScience are also major players in the US and Europe. In addition, a 2007 report from the European Joint Research Commission predicts that by 2015, more than 40 per cent of new GM plants entering the global marketplace will have been developed in Asia.
In the corn market, Monsanto's triple-stack corn—which combines Roundup Ready 2-weed control technology with YieldGard (Bt) Corn Borer and YieldGard Rootworm insect control—is the market leader in the United States. U.S. corn farmers planted more than 32 million acres (130,000 km2) of triple-stack corn in 2008, and it is estimated the product could be planted on 56 million acres (230,000 km2) in 2014–2015. In the cotton market, Bollgard II with Roundup Ready Flex was planted on approximately 5 million acres (20,000 km2) of U.S. cotton in 2008.
According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), in 2010 approximately 15 million farmers grew biotech crops in 29 countries. Over 90% of the farmers were resource-poor in developing countries. 6.5 million farmers in China and 6.3 million small farmers in India grew biotech crops (mostly Bacillus thuringiensis cotton). The Philippines, South Africa (biotech cotton, maize, and soybeans often grown by subsistence women farmers) and another twelve developing countries also grew biotech crops in 2009. 10 million more small and resource-poor farmers may have been secondary beneficiaries of Bt cotton in China.
According to a review published in 2012 and based on data from the late 1990s and early 2000s, much of the GM crop grown each year is used for livestock feed, and increased demand for meat will lead to increased demand for GM crops with which to feed them. Feed grain usage as a percentage of total crop production is 70% for corn and more than 90% of oil seed meals such as soybeans. About 65 million metric tons of GM corn grains and about 70 million metric tons of soybean meals derived from GM soybean are fed to livestock each year.
Uses, actual and proposed
GM crops grown today, or under experimental development, have been modified with traits intended to provide benefit to farmers, consumers, or industry. These traits include improved shelf life, disease resistance, stress resistance, herbicide resistance, pest resistance, production of useful goods such as biofuel or drugs, and ability to absorb toxins, for use in bioremediation of pollution. Due to high regulatory and research costs, the majority of genetically modified crops in agriculture consist of commodity crops, such as soybean, maize, cotton and rapeseed. Recently, some research and development has been targeted to enhancement of crops that are locally important in developing countries, such as insect-resistant cowpea for Africa and insect-resistant brinjal (eggplant) for India.
Improved shelf life
The first genetically modified crop approved for sale in the U.S. was the FlavrSavr tomato, which had a longer shelf life. It is no longer on the market. As of 2013, an apple that has been genetically modified to resist browning, known as the Nonbrowning Arctic apple produced by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, is awaiting regulatory approval in the US and Canada. A gene in the fruit has been modified such that the apple produces less polyphenol oxidase, a chemical that manifests the browning. If approved by U.S. regulators in the coming months, they will be one of the first genetically engineered fruits on store shelves in America.
Some GM soybeans on the market today offer improved oil profiles for processing or healthier edible oils.  GM plants are being developed by both private companies and public research institutions such as CIMMYT, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre. Other examples include a genetically modified cassava with lower cyanogen glucosides and enhanced with protein and other nutrients, while golden rice, developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), has been discussed as a possible cure for Vitamin A deficiency. An international group of academics has generated a vitamin-enriched corn derived from South African white corn variety M37W with 169x increase in beta carotene, 6x the vitamin C and 2x folate – it is not in production anywhere, but proves that this can be done. Camelina sativa has been modified in research labs to produce plants that accumulate high levels of oils similar to fish oils.
Plants engineered to tolerate non-biological stresses like drought, frost, high Soil salinity, and nitrogen starvation or with increased nutritional value (e.g. Golden rice) were in development in 2011.
Tobacco plants have been engineered to be resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil. And many crops have created that are resistant to the herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate. As weeds have grown resistant to glyphosate and other herbicides used in concert with resistant GM crops, companies are developing crops engineered to become resistant to multiple herbicides to allow farmers to use a mixed group of two, three, or four different chemicals.
Pathogen resistance – insects or viruses
Tobacco, corn, rice and many other crops, have been generated that express genes encoding for insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Papaya, potatoes, and squash have been engineered to resist viral pathogens, such as cucumber mosaic virus which, despite its name, infects a wide variety of plants.
Production of biofuels
Algae, both hybrid and GM, is under development by several companies for the production of biofuels. Jatropha has also been modified to improve its qualities for fuel product. Swiss-based Syngenta has received USDA approval to market a maize seed trademarked Enogen, which has been genetically modified to convert its own starch to sugar to speed the process of making ethanol for biofuel. In 2013, the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology was investigating poplar trees genetically engineered to contain less lignin so that they would be more suitable for conversion into biofuels. Lignin is the critical limiting factor when using wood to make bio-ethanol because lignin limits the accessibility of cellulose microfibrils to depolymerization by enzymes.
Production of useful by-products
Bananas have been developed, but are not in production, that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B. Tobacco plants have been developed and studied, but are not in production, that can produce therapeutic antibodies.
Scientists at the University of York developed a weed (Arabidopsis thaliana) that contains genes from bacteria that can clean up TNT and RDX-explosive contaminants from the soil: It was hoped that this weed would eliminate this pollution. 16 million hectares in the USA (1.5% of the total surface) are estimated to be contaminated with TNT and RDX. However the weed Arabidopsis thaliana was not tough enough to withstand the environment on military test grounds and research is continuing with the University of Washington to develop a tougher native grass.
Genetically modified plants have also been used for bioremediation of contaminated soils. Mercury, selenium and organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), TNT and RDX explosive contaminants have been removed from soils by transgenic plants containing genes for bacterial enzymes.
Extent of worldwide use of GM crops
|Country||2010– planted area (million hectares)||2009 – Agriculture area (million hectares)||Percentage of agriculture area with GM crops||Biotech crops|
|USA||66.8||403||16.56%||Soybean, Maize, Cotton, Canola, Squash, Papaya, Alfalfa, Sugarbeet|
|Brazil||25.4||265||9.60%||Soybean, Maize, Cotton|
|Argentina||22.9||141||16.30%||Soybean, Maize, Cotton|
|Canada||8.8||68||13.02%||Maize, Soybean, Canola, Sugarbeet|
|Rest of the world||14.7||3,883||0.38%||----|
In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports on the total area of GMO varieties planted. According to National Agricultural Statistics Service, the states published in these tables represent 81–86 percent of all corn planted area, 88–90 percent of all soybean planted area, and 81–93 percent of all upland cotton planted area (depending on the year).
USDA does not collect data for global area. Estimates are produced by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) and can be found in the report, "Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2007".
Farmers have widely adopted GM technology (see figure). Between 1996 and 2011, the total surface area of land cultivated with GM crops had increased by a factor of 94, from 17,000 square kilometers (4,200,000 acres) to 1,600,000 km2 (395 million acres). 10% of the world's crop lands were planted with GM crops in 2010. As of 2011, 11 different transgenic crops were grown commercially on 395 million acres (160 million hectares) in 29 countries such as the USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia, Australia, Philippines, Myanmar, Burkina Faso, Mexico and Spain. One of the key reasons for this widespread adoption is the perceived economic benefit the technology brings to farmers. For example, the system of planting glyphosate-resistant seed and then applying glyphosate once plants emerged provided farmers with the opportunity to dramatically increase the yield from a given plot of land, since this allowed them to plant rows closer together. Without it, farmers had to plant rows far enough apart to control post-emergent weeds with mechanical tillage. Likewise, using Bt seeds means that farmers do not have to purchase insecticides, and then invest time, fuel, and equipment in applying them. However critics have disputed whether yields are higher and whether chemical use is less, with GM crops. See Genetically modified food controversies article for information.
In the US, by 2009/10, 93% of the planted area of soybeans, 93% of cotton, 86% of corn and 95% of the sugar beet were genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide-tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensis Bt insecticidal protein). These constitute "input-traits" which are aimed to financially benefit the producers, but may have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers. The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimated in 2003 that 70–75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contained a GM ingredient.
Europe has relatively few genetically engineered crops with the exception of Spain where one fifth of maize grown is genetically engineered, and smaller amounts in five other countries. The EU had a 'de facto' ban on the approval of new GM crops, from 1999 until 2004; in a controversial move. GM crops are now regulated by the EU. Developing countries grew 50 percent of genetically engineered crops in 2011.
In recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. A total of 29 countries worldwide grew GM crops in 2011 by approximately 16.7 million farmers and 50% of GM crops grown worldwide were grown in developing countries. For example, the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops in 2011 was in Brazil (303,000 km2 versus 254,000 km2 in 2010). There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002 with 106,000 km2 of GM cotton harvested in India in 2011. However the use of GM crops in India has been controversial, as discussed in detail in the GM controversies article.
According to the 2011 ISAAA brief: "While 29 countries planted commercialized biotech crops in 2010, an additional 31 countries, totaling 60 have granted regulatory approvals for biotech crops for import for food and feed use and for release into the environment since 1996.... A total of 1,045 approvals have been granted for 196 events (NB: an "event" is a specific genetic modification in a specific species) for 25 crops. Thus, biotech crops are accepted for import for food and feed use and for release into the environment in 60 countries, including major food importing countries like Japan, which do not plant biotech crops. Of the 60 countries that have granted approvals for biotech crops, USA tops the list followed by Japan, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, New Zealand, the European Union, and Taiwan. Maize has the most events approved (65) followed by cotton (39), canola (15), potato and soybean (14 each). The event that has received regulatory approval in most countries is herbicide tolerant soybean event GTS-40-3-2 with 25 approvals (EU=27 counted as 1 approval only), followed by insect resistant maize MON810 with 23 approvals, herbicide tolerant maize NK603 with 22 approvals each, and insect resistant cotton (MON1445) with 14 approvals worldwide."
Examples of genetically modified crops
Currently, there are a number of food species for which a genetically modified version is being commercially grown (percent modified in the table below are mostly 2009/2010 data).
|Crop||Properties of the genetically modified variety||Modification[specify]||Percent modified in US||Percent modified in world|
|Alfalfa||Resistance to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides||New genes added/transferred into plant genome.||Planted in the US from 2005–2007; 2007–2010 court injunction; 2011 deregulated|
|Canola/ Rapeseed||Resistance to herbicides (glyphosate or glufosinate), see Roundup Ready Canola high laurate canola, Oleic acid canola||New genes added/transferred into plant genome||87% (2005 data)||21%|
|Corn, field (Maize)||Resistance to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides. Insect resistance via producing Bt proteins, some previously used as pesticides in organic crop production. Added enzyme, alpha amylase, that converts starch into sugar to facilitate ethanol production.||New genes, some from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, added/transferred into plant genome.||86%||26%|
|Cotton (cottonseed oil)||Kills susceptible insect pests||gene for one or more Bt crystal proteins transferred into plant genome||93%||49%|
|Papaya (Hawaiian)||Resistance to the papaya ringspot virus.||New gene added/transferred into plant genome||80%|
|Potato (food)||NewLeaf: Bt resistance against Colorado beetle and resistance against Potato virus Y (removed from market in 2001)||New Leaf: Bt cry3A, coat protein from PVY||0%||0%|
|Potato (starch)||Amflora: resistance gene against an antibiotic, used for selection, in combination with modifications for better starch production||Amflora – antibiotic resistance gene from bacteria; modifications to endogenous starch-producing enzymes||0%||0%|
|Rice||Golden Rice: genetically modified to contain beta-carotene (a source of vitamin A)||Current version of Golden Rice under development contains genes from maize and a common soil microorganism. Previous prototype version contained three new genes: two from daffodils and the third from a bacterium||Forecast to be on the market in 2014 or 2015|
|Soybeans||Resistance to glyphosate (see Roundup Ready soybean) or glufosinate herbicides; make less saturated fats; Kills susceptible insect pests||Herbicide resistant gene taken from bacteria inserted into soybean; knocked out native genes that catalyze saturation; gene for one or more Bt crystal proteins transferred into plant genome||93%||77%|
|Squash (Zucchini/Courgette)||Resistance to watermelon, cucumber and zucchini/courgette yellow mosaic viruses||Contains coat protein genes of viruses.||13% (figure is from 2005)|
|Sugar beet||Resistance to glyphosate, glufosinate herbicides||New genes added/transferred into plant genome||95% (2010); regulated 2011; deregulated 2012||9%|
|Sugarcane||Resistance to certain pesticides, high sucrose content.||New genes added/transferred into plant genome|
|Sweet peppers||Resistance to cucumber mosaic virus||Contains coat protein genes of the virus.||Small quantities grown in China|
|Tomatoes||Suppression of the enzyme polygalacturonase (PG), retarding fruit softening after harvesting, while at the same time retaining both the natural color and flavor of the fruit||A reverse copy (an antisense gene) of the gene responsible for the production of PG enzyme added into plant genome||Taken off the market due to commercial failure.||Small quantities grown in China|
|Wheat||Resistance to glyphosate herbicide||New genes added/transferred into plant genome||unknown||unknown|
Effects on farming practices
|This section requires expansion with: examples and additional citations of how farmers's use of GM crops changes their practices. (September 2012)|
Managing emergence of resistance
Constant exposure to a toxin creates evolutionary pressure for pests resistant to that toxin.
One method of reducing resistance is the creation of non-Bt crop refuges to allow some nonresistant insects to survive and maintain a susceptible population. To reduce the chance an insect would become resistant to a Bt crop, the commercialization of transgenic cotton and maize in 1996 was accompanied with a management strategy to prevent insects from becoming resistant to Bt crops, and insect resistance management plans are mandatory for Bt crops planted in the USA and other countries. The aim is to encourage a large population of pests so that any resistance genes that are recessive are greatly diluted within the population.
This means that with sufficiently high levels of transgene expression, nearly all of the heterozygotes (S/s), i.e., the largest segment of the pest population carrying a resistance allele, will be killed before they reach maturity, thus preventing transmission of the resistance gene to their progeny. The planting of refuges (i. e., fields of nontransgenic plants) adjacent to fields of transgenic plants increases the likelihood that homozygous resistant (s/s) individuals and any surviving heterozygotes will mate with susceptible (S/S) individuals from the refuge, instead of with other individuals carrying the resistance allele. As a result, the resistance gene frequency in the population would remain low.
Nevertheless, limitations can affect the success of the high-dose/refuge strategy. For example, expression of the Bt gene can vary. For instance, if the temperature is not ideal, this stress can lower the toxin production and make the plant more susceptible. More importantly, reduced late-season expression of toxin has been documented, possibly resulting from DNA methylation of the promoter. So, while the high-dose/refuge strategy has been successful at prolonging the durability of Bt crops, this success has also had much to do with key factors independent of management strategy, including low initial resistance allele frequencies, fitness costs associated with resistance, and the abundance of non-Bt host plants that have supplemented the refuges planted as part of the resistance management strategy.
Companies that produce Bt seed are addressing this as well, by introducing plants with multiple Bt proteins. Monsanto did this with Bt cotton in India, where the product was rapidly adopted.
The regulation of genetic engineering concerns the approaches taken by governments to assess and manage the risks associated with the development and release of genetically modified crops. There are differences in the regulation of GM crops between countries, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the USA and Europe. Regulation varies in a given country depending on the intended use of the products of the genetic engineering. For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety
The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the use of food and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of from conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The dispute involves consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food are: whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population.
There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in many countries, in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace, nor does it recognize a distinction between GMO and non-GMO foods.
Some advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have concerns that risks of GM food have not been adequately identified and managed, and have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. Other environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy and former anti-GMO campaigner Mark Lynas support the use of GMOs as beneficial for the environment.
- Genetic engineering
- Genetically modified food
- Genetically modified food controversies
- Genetically modified organisms
- Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms
- GM Science Review First Report, Prepared by the UK GM Science Review panel (July 2003). Chairman Professor Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government, P 9: "...it is necessary to produce about 100 GM plants to obtain one that has the desirable characters for its use as a basis of a new GM crop variety. ...Most of these so-called conventional plant breeding methods (such as gene transfer by pollination, mutation breeding, cell selection and induced polyploidy) have a substantially greater discard rate. Mutation breeding, for instance, involves the production of unpredictable and undirected genetic changes and many thousands, even millions, of undesirable plants are discarded in order to identify plants with suitable qualities for further breeding."
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers
- 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)"
- Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics 188 (1): 11–20.
- American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods
- 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)."
- Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. April 13, 2010 Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops
- Lederberg J, Tatum EL (1946). "Gene recombination in E. coli". Nature 158 (4016): 558. Bibcode:1946Natur.158..558L. doi:10.1038/158558a0.
- Bock, R. (2010). "The give-and-take of DNA: horizontal gene transfer in plants". Trends in Plant Science 15 (1): 11–22. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2009.10.001. PMID 19910236.
- Morgante, M.; Brunner, S.; Pea, G.; Fengler, K.; Zuccolo, A.; Rafalski, A. (2005). "Gene duplication and exon shuffling by helitron-like transposons generate intraspecies diversity in maize". Nature Genetics 37 (9): 997–1002. doi:10.1038/ng1615. PMID 16056225.
- Monroe D. (2006). "Jumping Genes Cross Plant Species Boundaries". PLoS Biology 4 (1): e35. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040035.
- Feschotte, C.; Osterlund, M. T.; Peeler, R.; Wessler, S. R. (2005). "DNA-binding specificity of rice mariner-like transposases and interactions with Stowaway MITEs". Nucleic Acids Research 33 (7): 2153. doi:10.1093/nar/gki509. PMC 1079968. PMID 15831788.
- Cordaux, R.; Udit, S.; Batzer, M.; Feschotte, C. (2006). "Birth of a chimeric primate gene by capture of the transposase gene from a mobile element". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 (21): 8101–8106. Bibcode:2006PNAS..103.8101C. doi:10.1073/pnas.0601161103. PMC 1472436. PMID 16672366.
- Long, M.; Betrán, E.; Thornton, K.; Wang, W. (2003). "The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old". Nature reviews. Genetics 4 (11): 865–875. doi:10.1038/nrg1204. PMID 14634634.
- Chen, Z. (2010). "Molecular mechanisms of polyploidy and hybrid vigor". Trends in Plant Science 15 (2): 57–71. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2009.12.003. PMC 2821985. PMID 20080432.
- Hoisington D, Khairallah M, Reeves T, Ribaut JM, Skovmand B, Taba S, Warburton M (1999). "Plant genetic resources: What can they contribute toward increased crop productivity?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96 (11): 5937–43. Bibcode:1999PNAS...96.5937H. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.11.5937. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 34209. PMID 10339521.
- Predieri, S. (2001). Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 64 (2/3): 185–210. doi:10.1023/A:1010623203554.
- Duncan, R. (1996). Tissue Culture-Induced Variation and Crop Improvement 58. pp. 201–200. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60256-4.
- Fraley, RT et al. (1983) Expression of bacterial genes in plant cells. Proc. NatL. Acad. Sci. USA 80: 4803–4807 
- James, Clive (1996). "Global Review of the Field Testing and Commercialization of Transgenic Plants: 1986 to 1995". The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Retrieved 17 July 2010.
- Vaeck, M et al. (1987) Transgenic plants protected from insect attack. Nature 328, 33–37 Transgenic plants protected from insect attack 
- James, C (1997). "Global Status of Transgenic Crops in 1997". ISAAA Briefs No. 5.: 31.
- Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap JP. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment Plant J. 2003 Jan;33(1):19-46.
- Bruening, G.; Lyons, J. M. (2000). "The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato". California Agriculture 54 (4): 6–7. doi:10.3733/ca.v054n04p6.
- Debora MacKenzie (18 June 1994). "Transgenic tobacco is European first". New Scientist.
- Genetically Altered Potato Ok'd For Crops Lawrence Journal-World – 6 May 1995
- Rebecca Boyle for Popular Science. January 24, 2011. How To Genetically Modify a Seed, Step By Step
- Proteomic profiling and unintended effects in genetically modified crops, Sirpa O. Kärenlampi and Satu J. Lehesranta 2006
- Catchpole, G. S. (2005). "Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102 (40): 14458. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10214458C. doi:10.1073/pnas.0503955102.
- Koornneef, M.; Meinke, D. (2010). "The development of Arabidopsis as a model plant". The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology 61 (6): 909–921. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.04086.x. PMID 20409266.
- Shrawat, A.; Lörz, H. (2006). "Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of cereals: a promising approach crossing barriers". Plant biotechnology journal 4 (6): 575–603. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2006.00209.x. PMID 17309731.
- Carpenter J. & Gianessi L. (1999). Herbicide tolerant soybeans: Why growers are adopting Roundup Ready varieties. AgBioForum, 2(2), 65-72.
- G. R. Heck, et al. (1 January 2005). "Development and Characterization of a CP4 EPSPS-Based, Glyphosate-Tolerant Corn Event" (Free full text). Crop Sci. 45 (1): 329–339. doi:10.2135/cropsci2005.0329.
- T. Funke et al. (2006). "Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops" (Free full text). PNAS 103 (35): 13010–13015. Bibcode:2006PNAS..10313010F. doi:10.1073/pnas.0603638103. PMC 1559744. PMID 16916934.
- Walmsley, A.; Arntzen, C. (2000). "Plants for delivery of edible vaccines". Current Opinion in Biotechnology 11 (2): 126. doi:10.1016/S0958-1669(00)00070-7. PMID 10753769.
- Maxmen, Amy (2 May 2012) First plant-made drug on the market Nature, Biology & Biotechnology, Industry. Retrieved 26 June 2012
- NWT magazine, april 2011
- Project at IRRI making C3 into C4 plants
- Project by Dean Price increasing photosynthesis by 15 to 25%
- Additional project by Dean Price; adding of CO²-concentrating cage
- Project by Gerrit Beemster changing leaf size
- Project by Neelima Sinha changing leaf shape
- Projects changing respectively plant growth and plant flowers
- Project changing number of stomata in plants conducted by Ikuko Hara-Nishimura
- (4 May 2013) One Per Cent: Grow your own living lights The New Scientist, Issue 2915, Retrieved 7 May 2013
- Project by Andreas Weber described at The Plant Journal, january 2011
- MacKenzie, Deborah (2 August 2008). "How the humble potato could feed the world" (cover story) New Scientist. No 2667 pp.30–33
- James, C (2011). "ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011". ISAAA Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Retrieved 2012-06-02.
- Company Profile Monsanto. Retrieved 6 August 2010.
- Alexander J. Stein and Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo (2009) The global pipeline of new GM crops, Implications of asynchronous approval for international trade. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the European Commission Joint Research Centre. Retrieved 18 January 2011
- Kaskey, Jack Monsanto, Dow Chemical Win Approval for Modified Corn (Update3) Bloomberg News, 20 July 2009. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
- Monsanto's Bollgard II with Roundup Ready Flex cotton delivers positive results in 2008 7 January 2009. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
- James, Clive (2010) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010 ISAAA Brief No. 42. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. Retrieved 10 October 2011
- Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009 The first fourteen years, 1996 to 2009 ISAAA Brief 41-2009, 23 February 2010. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
- Rajib Deb, et al. "Genetically Modified (Gm) Crops Lifeline For Livestock – A Review." Agricultural Reviews 31.4 (2010): 279–285.
- Qaim, Matin The Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops—and the Costs of Inefficient Regulation Resources for the Future, 2 April 2010. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
- Field areas 2009: Genetically modified plants: Global cultivation on 134 million hectares GMO Compass, 29 March 2010. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
- CSIRO 2006 press release on SeedQuest website
- ISAAA Pocket K No. 35: Bt Brinjal in India
- Haroldsen, Victor M.; Paulino, Gabriel; Chi-ham, Cecilia; Bennett, Alan B. (2012). "Research and adoption of biotechnology strategies could improve California fruit and nut crops". California Agriculture 66 (2): 62–69. doi:10.3733/ca.v066n02p62.
- Iritani, Evelyn. "Who's Banking on GMO Apples?". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
- Canadian Food Inspection Agency. DD2009-76: Determination of the Safety of Pioneer Hi-Bred Production Ltd.'s Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) Event 305423 Issued: 2009-04 . Retrieved January 2011
- Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. November 15, 2013 In a Bean, a Boon to Biotech
- http://dtma.cimmyt.org. Retrieved 21 January 2011
- Sayre, R.; Beeching, J. R.; Cahoon, E. B.; Egesi, C.; Fauquet, C.; Fellman, J.; Fregene, M.; Gruissem, W.; Mallowa, S.; Manary, M.; Maziya-Dixon, B.; Mbanaso, A.; Schachtman, D. P.; Siritunga, D.; Taylor, N.; Vanderschuren, H.; Zhang, P. (2011). "The BioCassava Plus Program: Biofortification of Cassava for Sub-Saharan Africa". Annual Review of Plant Biology 62: 251–272. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103751. PMID 21526968.
- About Golden Rice International Rice Research Institute. Retrieved 20 August 2012
- Shaista Naqvi, et al. Transgenic multivitamin corn through biofortification of endosperm with three vitamins representing three distinct metabolic pathways PNAS April 27, 2009.
- Crop plants – "green factories" for fish oils, Rothamsted Research 14-11-2013.
- Successful high-level accumulation of fish oil omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in a transgenic oilseed crop, Ruiz-Lopez, Noemi et al., The Plant Journal, accepted article, DOI:10.1111/tpj.12378, 2013.
- Paarlburg, Robert Drought Tolerant GMO Maize in Africa, Anticipating Regulatory Hurdles International Life Sciences Institute, January 2011. Retrieved 25 April 2011
- Australia continues to test drought-resistant GM wheat GMO Compass, 16 July 2008. Retrieved 25 April 2011
- Staff (14 May 2011) USA: USDA allows large-scale GM eucalyptus trial GMO Cmpass. Retrieved 29 September 2011
- Lundmark, C. (2006). "Searching Evolutionary Pathways: Antifreeze Genes from Antarctic Hairgrass". BioScience 56 (6): 552. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[552:SEP]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0006-3568.
- Kenward, Kimberly D. et al. (1999). "Type II fish antifreeze protein accumulation in transgenic tobacco does not confer frost resistance" Transgenic Research, vol 8, no 2, pp 105–117
- Banjara, Manoj; Longfu Zhu, Guoxin Shen, Paxton Payton, Hong Zhang (2012). "Expression of an Arabidopsis sodium/proton antiporter gene ( AtNHX1 ) in peanut to improve salt tolerance". Plant Biotechnol Rep 6. doi:10.1007/s11816-011-0200-5.
- Rennie, Rob and Heffer, Patrick Anticipated Impact of Modern Biotechnology on Nutrient Use Efficiency TFI/FIRT Fertilizer Outlook and Technology Conference 16–18 November 2010, Savannah (GA), Web page. Retrieved 25 April 2011
- Nayar, A. (2011). "Grants aim to fight malnutrition". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2011.233.
- Kasey J. (8 September 2011)Attack of the Superweed. Bloomberg Businessweek.
- Template:Hfdss vice city san adresa cite doi
- Carrington, Damien (19 January 2012) GM microbe breakthrough paves way for large-scale seaweed farming for biofuels The Guardian. Retrieved 12 March 2012
- Carolyn Lochhead for the San Francisco Chronicle. 30 April 2012 Genetically modified crops' results raise concern
- Hope, Alan (3 April 2013, News in brief: The Bio Safety Council..." Flanders Today, Page 2, Retrieved 27 April 2013
- (2013) Wout Boerjan Lab VIB (Flemish Institute for Biotechnology) Gent, Retrieved 27 April 2013
- Kumar, G. B. Sunil; T. R. Ganapathi, C. J. Revathi, L. Srinivas and V. A. Bapat (October 2005). "Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic banana plants". Planta 222 (3): 484–493. doi:10.1007/s00425-005-1556-y. PMID 15918027.
- Jha, Alok (14 August 2012) Julian Ma: I'm growing antibodies in tobacco plants to help prevent HIV The Guardian. Retrieved 12 March 2012
- van Beilen, Jan B.; Yves Poirier (May 2008). "Harnessing plant biomass for biofuels and biomaterials:Production of renewable polymers from crop plants". The Plant Journal 54 (4): 684–701. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03431.x. PMID 18476872.
- "The History and Future of GM Potatoes". PotatoPro Newsletter. March 10, 2010.
- Strange, Amy (20 September 2011) Scientists engineer plants to eat toxic pollution The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 September 2011
- Chard, Abigail (2011) Growing a grass that loves bombs The British Science Association. Retrieved 20 September 2011
- Meagher, RB (2000). "Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants". Current Opinion in Plant Biology 3 (2): 153–162. doi:10.1016/S1369-5266(99)00054-0. PMID 10712958.
- http://chartsbin.com/view/578 apud Global Distribution of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), viewed 7 February 2011, <http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummary/default.asp>
- Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge (1 July 2009). Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.. Data Sets. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. OCLC 53942168. Archived from the original on 24 September 2009. Retrieved 24 September 2009.
- James, Clive (2007). "Executive Summary". G lobal Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007. ISAAA Briefs 37. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). ISBN 978-1-892456-42-7. OCLC 262649526. Archived from the original on 24 September 2009. Retrieved 24 September 2009.
- Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. – Economic Research Service, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
- Acreage NASS National Agricultural Statistics Board annual report, 30 June 2010. Retrieved 23 July 2010.
- USA:Cultivation of GM Plants in 2009, Maize, soybean, cotton: 88 percent genetically modified GMO Compass. Retrieved 25 July 2010.
- Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge (5 July 2012) Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. – Recent Trends USDA Economic Research Service. Retrieved 29 September 2012
- Genetic Engineering: The Future of Foods?
- Lemaux, Peggy (19 February 2008). "Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part I)". Annual Review of Plant Biology 59: 771–812. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840. PMID 18284373. Retrieved 9 May 2009.
- Spain, Bt maize prevails GMO Compass, 31 March 2010. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
- GM plants in the EU in 2009 Field area for Bt maize decreases GMO Compass, 29 March 2010. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
- "EU GMO ban was illegal, WTO rules". Euractiv.com. 12 May 2006. Retrieved 5 January 2010.
- "GMO Update: US-EU Biotech Dispute; EU Regulations; Thailand". International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. Retrieved 5 January 2010.
- "Genetically Modified Food and Feed". Retrieved 5 January 2010.
- Field areas 2009, Genetically modified plants: Global cultivation on 134 million hectares GMO Compass. Retrieved 25 July 2010.
- Ronald, Pamela and McWilliams, James Genetically Engineered Distortions The New York Times, 14 May 2010, Mentions that "in the early 1990s, Hawaii’s papaya industry was facing disaster because of the deadly papaya ringspot virus. Its single-handed savior was a breed engineered to be resistant to the virus. Without it, the state’s papaya industry would have collapsed. Today, 80 percent of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, and there is still no conventional or organic method to control ringspot virus." Retrieved 26 July 2010.
- Wright, Brierley How Healthy Is Canola Oil Really? "Eating Well", March/April 2010 edition, Mentions 93% of rapeseed in the US is GM. Retrieved 26 July 2010.
- Johnson, Stanley R. et al Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006 National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington DC, February 2008. Retrieved 12 August 2010.
- Rapeseed (canola) has been genetically engineered to modify its oil content with a gene encoding a "12:0 thioesterase" (TE) enzyme from the California bay plant (Umbellularia californica) to increase medium length fatty acids, see: Geo-pie.cornell.edu
- Pocket K No. 2: Plant Products of Biotechnology ISAAA, August 2009. Retrieved 8 September 2012.
- Pollack, Andrew (11 February 2011). U.S. Approves Corn Modified for Ethanol, New York Times
- For a list of all traits, see table at at National Corn Growers Association website As of September 2012 that site listed 13 traits in nearly 30 different products.
- Richard M. Manshardt ‘UH Rainbow’ Papaya: A High-Quality Hybrid with Genetically Engineered Disease Resistance. Cooperative Extension Service/CTAHR, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
- Staff, CERA. NewLeaf Entry in CERA
- James Kanter for the New York Times. January 16, 2012. BASF to Stop Selling Genetically Modified Products in Europe
- International Rice Research Institute website: About Golden Rice
- (2012) When will Golden Rice be available to farmers and consumers? PhilRice, Department of Agriculture, Phillipine Rice Research Institute, Retrieved 2 March 2013
- Melody M. Bomgardner (2012) Replacing Trans Fat: New crops from Dow Chemical and DuPont target food makers looking for stable, heart-healthy oils. Chemical and Engineering News 90(11):30–32 
- APHIS Deregulation documents
- CERES database – Squash entry
- Lee SL et al (2012) Pollen allergic risk assessment of genetically modified virus resistant pepper and functional Chinese cabbage" Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology 53(2): 167–174, DOI: 10.1007/s13580-012-0092-5 
- Paroda, Raj (Secretary) Biosafety Regulations of Asia-Pacific Countries FAO, APCoAB, APAARI, 2008. Retrieved 2 September 2012.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Biotechnology of Food. FDA Backgrounder: May 18, 1994.
- Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: Lessons from the Laboratory and Field, Tabashnik et al. J. Econ. Entomol. 96(4): 1031Ð1038 (2003)
- Roush RT (1997). "Bt-transgenic crops: just another pretty insecticide or a chance for a new start in the resistance management?". Pestic. Sci. 51 (3): 328–34. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9063(199711)51:3<328::AID-PS650>3.0.CO;2-B.
- Dong, H. Z.; Li, W. J. (2007). "Variability of Endotoxin Expression in Bt Transgenic Cotton". Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science 193: 21–9. doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2006.00240.x. Unknown parameter
- Tabashnik BE, Carrière Y, Dennehy TJ (August 2003). "Insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops: lessons from the laboratory and field". J. Econ. Entomol. 96 (4): 1031–8. doi:10.1603/0022-0493-96.4.1031. PMID 14503572.
- Monsanto website on Bt cotton in India
- Wesseler, J. and N. Kalaitzandonakes (2011): Present and Future EU GMO policy. In Arie Oskam, Gerrit Meesters and Huib Silvis (eds.), EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas. Second Edition, pp. 23-323 – 23-332. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers
- Beckmann, V., C. Soregaroli, J. Wesseler (2011): Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-modified (non GM) crops: Are the two main property rights regimes equivalent with respect to the coexistence value? In "Genetically modified food and global welfare" edited by Colin Carter, GianCarlo Moschini and Ian Sheldon, pp 201-224. Volume 10 in Frontiers of Economics and Globalization Series. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing
- Bett, Charles; Ouma, James Okuro; Groote, Hugo De (August 2010). "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food". Food Policy 35 (4): 332–340. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.003.
- 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. See pp11ff on need for better standards and tools to evaluate GM food.
- 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.
- Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. "An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon" Published: May 21, 2012. Accessed September 3, 2012
- Could Conservation-Friendly Farming Include GMOs?, by Peter Kareiva, Conservancy Talk, August 11, 2012.
- Biotechnology: Answers to Common Questions, by Kevin Keener, North Carolina State University, June 16, 2013.
|Library resources about