Genetically modified food controversies
Genetically modified foods 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, activists, 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 and some scientific publications claiming dangers have received attention in the media, 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 and nature, including forced evolution of resistant organisms and off-target effects of pesticides and herbicides used in conjunction with GM crops, the rigor of the regulatory process, and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs. Controversy over GMOs has led to international trade disputes, international litigation, and litigation and protests within various countries where GMOs have been introduced, or where their introduction was considered.
- 1 Public perception
- 2 Scientific publishing
- 3 Health
- 4 Environment
- 5 Economics
- 6 Regulation
- 7 African controversies
- 8 Indian controversies
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 External links
There is widespread popular perception that eating genetically modified food is harmful, and based primarily on that concern, but also on wider concerns about the environment, anti-GMO activists have lobbied for restrictions on growing modified crops and on selling such food, and for labels on genetically modified food that is sold. Particular concerns are claims that genetically modified food causes cancer and allergies. 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.
Social science surveys have documented that individuals are more risk averse about food than institutions. There is widespread concern within the public about the risks of biotechnology, a desire for more information about the risks themselves and a desire for choice in being exposed to risk. There is also a widespread sense that social and technological change is speeding up and people feel powerless to affect this change; diffuse anxiety driven by this context becomes focused when it is food that is being changed.
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, there are Jewish groups that dispute this designation.
Genetically modified organisms have come to be seen by the public as "unnatural" which creates a negative halo effect over food that includes them. Some groups or individuals see the generation and use of such organisms as intolerable meddling with biological states or processes that have naturally evolved over long periods of time, while others are concerned about the limitations of modern science to fully comprehend all of the potential negative ramifications of genetic manipulation. Other people see genetic engineering as a continuation in the role humanity has occupied for thousands of years in selective breeding.
With respect to environmental aspects, Friends of the Earth, an international network of environmental organizations, include genetics engineering as part of their environmental and political concerns. Other groups like 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 has no actual effect on public opinion, since scientific facts do not answer the public's "key questions." Unlike common belief, it was also found that the public is actually not demanding "zero risk" in GMO discussions and is "perfectly aware that their lives are full of risks that need to be counter-balanced 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 genetically modified foods and animals was low through the period. During this period there were protests against Calgene's Flavr Savr transgenic tomato that described the GM tomato as being made with fish genes, confusing it with DNA Plant Technology's Fish tomato experimental transgenic organism, which was never commercialized.
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 a strong gender difference in opinion: 10% of men were extremely concerned, compared with 16% of women, and 16% of women were unconcerned, compared with 27% of men. 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 in Europe, found that "cisgenics, GM crops produced by adding only genes from the same species or from plants that are crossable by conventional breeding," evokes a different reaction than transgenic methods, where "genes are taken from other species or bacteria that are taxonomically very different from the gene recipient and transferred into plants." A 2007 survey by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand found that in Australia where labeling is mandatory, 27% of Australians looked at the label to see if it contained GM material when purchasing a grocery product for the first time.
A 2013 poll by The New York Times showed that 93% of Americans wanted GMO labeling.
In October 2013, in reaction to the awarding of the 2013 World Food Prize to employees of Monsanto and Syngenta, and just in time for the vote on the I-522 referendum on food labeling, 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.
Public relations campaigns and protests
Concern about gene flow drives some protesters. In May 2012, a group called "Take the Flour Back" led by Gerald Miles protested against plans by a group from Rothamsted Experimental Station, based in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England, to stage an experimental trial to use genetically modified wheat to repel aphids. The researchers, led by John Pickett, wrote a letter to the group "Take the Flour Back" in early May 2012, asking them to call off their protest, aimed for 27 May 2012. One of the members of Take the Flour Back, Lucy Harrap, said that the group was concerned about spread of the crops into nature, and cited examples of outcomes in the United States and Canada. Rothamsted Research and Sense About Science ran question and answer sessions with scientists about issues of contamination.
On May 25, 2013, the March Against Monsanto movement held rallies in protest against companies like Monsanto and the genetically modified seed they produce. According to the Associated Press, rallies took place in Buenos Aires and other cities in Argentina, and in Portland, Oregon police estimate 6,000 protesters attended. According to the LA Times, hundreds marched in Los Angeles. According to CTV, hundreds of people 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 genetically modified organisms GMOs in crops in the U.S. food supply. GMO Answers was created in part to respond to public concern about the safety of GMOs. GMO Answers “expert resources” include 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.
Vandalism and threats
Earth Liberation Front, Greenpeace, and others have vandalized GMO research around the world. Within the UK and other European countries, 80 crop trials by academic or governmental research institutes have been destroyed by protesters. In some cases, threats and violence against people or property were also carried out. In 1999, anti-GMO-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 the night before the tests occurred, but were re-planted the next day in time for the testing.
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 custodial sentences, while the offenders were given 9 month suspended sentences.
On August 8, 2013 an experimental plot of golden rice being grown in the Philippines was uprooted by protesters. Mark Lynas, a famous former anti-GMO activist, reported in Slate that the vandalism was carried out by a group of activists led by the extreme-left KMP, to the dismay of other protesters. Golden rice could prevent vitamin A deficiency which, according to Helen Keller International, blinds or kills hundreds of thousands of children in developing countries annually.
Scientific publishing on the safety and effects of GMOs intended for the public is controversial because of the public attention on issues around GMOs and the possible policy implications of scientific findings. One of the first incidents occurred in 1999, when Nature published a paper on potential toxic effects of Bt maize in butterflies. The paper produced a public uproar and demonstrations against Bt maize; however by 2001 several 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." After that event, "some scientists were dismayed that a single paper with preliminary data gave so much ammunition to anti-GMO activists and caused an expensive diversion of resources to calm the scare." This has led such scientists to patrol the scientific literature and react strongly, both publicly and privately, to discredit conclusions they view as flawed, in order to prevent flawed conclusions from again causing public outcry and regulatory action. A 2013 Scientific American article noted that there are a "tiny minority" of biologists who 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, some scientists wishing to conduct research on genetically modified plants or seeds were unable to obtain them for study, because of restrictive end-user agreements that limited what could be done with such seeds. Cornell University's Elson Shields was the spokesperson for a group of scientists who opposed this practice. The group submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency 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 later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While arguing that seed companies' intellectual property rights ought to be protected, the Scientific American editors called the practice dangerous and called for the restrictions on research in the end-user agreements to be lifted immediately, and for the Environmental Protection Agency to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to genetically modified products for testing. In December 2009, the American Seed Trade Association agreed that they "would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops." This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future, but there is little optimism as to whether this agreement has the ability to "alter what has been a research environment rife with obstruction and suspicion."
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 currently marketed GM crops. Biofortified, an independent nonprofit organization devoted to providing factual information and fostering discussion about agriculture, especially plant genetics and genetic engineering, plans to add the studies found by the Italian group to its database of studies about GM crops, GENERA.
Independence in research has been studied by a 2011 analysis into conflicts of interest which found a significant correlation between author affiliation to industry and study outcome in scientific work published on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products.
There is a widespread perception that eating food from genetically modified crops is more risky than eating food from conventionally farmed crops. However, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from such crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques." The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse health effects on the human population related to genetically modified food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date. A 2004 report by Working Group 1 of the ENTRANSFOOD project, a group of scientists funded by the European Commission to identify prerequisites for introducing agricultural biotechnology products in a way that is largely acceptable to European society, concluded that "the combination of existing test methods provides a sound test-regime to assess the safety of GM crops." 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 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.":16
Consensus among scientists and regulators points to a continuing need for improved testing technologies and protocols to better identify and manage risk. While generally transgenic and cisgenic organisms are treated similarly when assessed, in 2012 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms said that "novel hazards" could be associated with transgenic crops that will not be present in cisgenic ones. Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Organic Consumers Association, and Center for Food Safety have concerns that potential risks to health and the environment relating to genetic modification have not yet been adequately investigated.
Governments worldwide assess and manage the risks associated with the release of genetically modified organisms and the marketing of genetically modified food on a case by case basis. There are differences in the risk assessment of genetically modified food, and therefore in the regulation of GMOs, among countries. Some of the most marked differences occur between the United States and Europe. Crops not intended for food use are generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety. Food derived from GMOs is not tested in humans before it is marketed as it is not a single chemical, nor is it intended to be ingested in specific doses and times, which makes it difficult to design meaningful clinical studies. Regulators examine the genetic modification, its protein products, and any intended changes that those proteins make to the food. Regulators also check to see whether the food derived from a GMO is "substantially equivalent" to its non-GMO-derived counterpart, which provides a way to detect any negative non-intended consequences of the genetic engineering. If the newly incorporated protein is not similar to that of other proteins found in food or if anomalies arise in the substantial equivalence comparison, further toxicological testing is required.
The starting point for the safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies is to assess if the food is "substantially equivalent" to their counterparts, which themselves are the products of genetic manipulation via traditional methods of cross-breeding and hybridization. The application of substantial equivalence has been criticized. In 1999, Andrew Chesson of the University of Aberdeen warned that substantial equivalence testing "could be flawed in some cases" and that some current safety tests could allow harmful substances to enter the human food chain. The same year Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner and Sue Mayer argued in a commentary in Nature that the substantial equivalence standard was pseudo-scientific and was the product of politics and business lobbying—they claimed it was created primarily to reassure consumers and to aid biotechnology companies in avoiding the time and cost of more rigorous safety testing. They suggested that all genetically modified foods should have extensive biological, toxicological and immunological tests and that the concept of substantial equivalence should be abandoned. This commentary was criticized for providing a misleading presentation of history, for distorting existing data and applying bad logic. Retired scientist Harry Kuiper said it presented an oversimplified version of safety assessments and that equivalence testing involves more than chemical tests and may include toxicity testing. An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2001 by Barbara Keler and Marc Lappe supported legislation in Congress to set aside the substantial equivalence standard and instead mandate that safety studies be performed.
Kuiper examined this process further in a 2002 review published in the journal Toxicology. It stated that substantial equivalence does not measure risks, but instead identifies differences between existing products and new foods, which might pose dangers to health. If differences do exist, identifying these differences is a starting point for a full safety assessment, rather than an end point. It concluded that "The concept of substantial equivalence is an adequate tool in order to identify safety issues related to genetically modified products that have a traditional counterpart". The review also noted difficulties in applying this standard in practice, including the fact that traditional foods contain many chemicals that have toxic or carcinogenic effects and that our existing diets therefore have not been proven to be safe. This lack of knowledge on unmodified food poses a problem, as the modified foods may have differences in anti-nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant, raising the possibility that harmful changes could be missed. The possibility also exists that positive modifications may be missed. For example, corn damaged by insects often contains high levels of fumonisins, carcinogenic toxins made by fungi that are carried on the backs of insects and that grow in the wounds of the damaged corn. Studies show that most Bt corn has lower levels of fumonisins than conventional corn damaged by insects. Regulators are aware of these issues and workshops and consultations organized by the OECD, WHO, and FAO have worked to acquire data and develop standards for conventional foods, for use in assessing substantial equivalence.
A survey of publications describing comparisons between the intrinsic qualities of modified and non-modified reference crop lines (comparing genomes, proteomes, and metabolomes of the plants themselves, not the plants' effects on an organism eating them) indicates that transgenic modification of crops has less impact on gene expression or on protein and metabolite levels than the variability generated by conventional breeding.
In a 2013 review published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Rod A. Herman (Dow AgroSciences) and William D. Price (retired from FDA) argue that transgenesis is less disruptive of composition compared with traditional breeding techniques which routinely involve genetic mutations, deletions, insertions, and rearrangements. The FDA found all of the 148 transgenic events that they evaluated to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, as have the Japanese regulators for 189 submissions including combined-trait products. This equivalence is confirmed by more than 80 peer-reviewed publications. Hence, the authors argue, compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for genetically modified crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty.
One of the well-known risks of genetically modifying a plant or animal later used for food is the introduction of an allergen. Testing for allergens is part of the research and development of GMOs intended for food, and passing those tests is part of the regulatory requirements. Some organizations, such as the European Green Party and Greenpeace, emphasize this risk. A 2005 review in the journal Allergy of the results from allergen testing of genetically modified foods 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 using genetic modification is much smaller than using traditional breeding processes. Transgenic genetic engineering can have less impact on the expression of genomes or on protein and metabolite levels than conventional breeding or plant (non-directed) 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 the production of 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 both in vitro tests for allergy, in which they tested whether serum from people with nut allergies reacted to the transgenic soy; they also did skin prick tests with protein from the transgenic soy. 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 of products that failed safety testing have been viewed as evidence that genetic modification can produce unexpected and dangerous changes in foods, and as evidence that the current tests are effective at identifying safety problems before foods come on the market.
During the Starlink corn recalls in 2000, a variety of genetically modified maize 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.:20–21 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.:3 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 over 300 other products being recalled. 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 International 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 from plants to animals
One concern raised has been the possibility of a horizontal gene transfer from plants used as feed to animals that are used for food, or from plants used as food, to humans.
The risk of horizontal gene transfer between plants and animals is very low and in most cases with GM crops this is expected to be lower than background rates. Two studies on the possible effects of giving genetically modified feed to animals found no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins in any organ or tissue samples obtained from animals fed with modified plants. Studies have 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. Studies from groups at Harvard and Johns Hopkins, however, found no or negligible transfer of plant microRNAs into the blood of humans or any of three model organisms.
Of particular concern is that the antibiotic resistance gene commonly used as a genetic marker in transgenic crops could be transferred to harmful bacteria, creating superbugs that are resistant to multiple antibiotics.:250 In 2004 a study involving human volunteers was conducted to see if the transgene from modified soy would transfer to the bacteria that naturally lives in the human gut. As of 2012[update] it is the only human feeding study conducted with genetically modified food. The transgene was only detected in three volunteers, part 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 during the experiment. In volunteers with complete digestive tracts, the transgene did not survive passage through intact gastrointestinal tract. The antibiotic genes used in genetic engineering are already found in many natural pathogens, commonly used during animal husbandry and not widely prescribed.
Animal feeding studies
A 2012 review of 12 long-term studies and 12 multigenerational studies conducted by public research laboratories concluded that none of them had discovered any safety problem linked to consumption of genetically modified food. A 2009 review by Javier Magaña-Gómez found that although most studies concluded that modified foods do not differ in nutrition or cause any detectable toxic effects in animals, some did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by some 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". A review published in 2009 by Dona and Arvanitoyannis concluded that "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters". But responses to this review in 2009 and 2010 noted that Dona and Arvanitoyannis had concentrated on articles with an anti-modification bias that were refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere. Gerhard Flachowsky concluded in a 2005 review that modified food with only a single 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, José L. Domingo searched the Pubmed database using 12 search terms and concluded that the "number of references" on the safety of genetically modified or transgenic crops was "surprisingly limited," and he questioned whether the safety of genetically modified food had been demonstrated; the review also stated that its conclusions were in agreement with three earlier reviews. In contrast, Philippe Vain found 692 research studies in 2007 that focused on genetically modified crop and food safety, and he identified a strong increase in the publication of such articles in recent years. Vain commented that the multidisciplinarian nature of genetic-modification research complicated the retrieval of studies based on it and required using many search terms (he used more than 300) and multiple databases. Domingo reviewed the literature in 2011 and said that, although there had been a substantial increase in the number of studies since 2006, most were conducted by the biotechnology companies responsible for commercialzing the plants.
Human studies and obstacles
While some groups and individuals have called for more human testing of genetically modified food, there are several obstacles to such studies. The General Accounting Office (in a review of FDA procedures requested by Congress) and a working group of the Food and Agrigultural and World Health organizations have said that long-term studies of the effect of genetically modified food on humans are not feasible. The reasons given have included the problem that there is no plausible hypothesis to test, that very little is known about the potential long-term effects of any foods, that identification of such effects is further confounded by the great variability in the way people react to foods and that epidemiological studies are not likely to differentiate the health effects of modified foods from the many undesirable effects of conventional foods.
Additionally, there are strong ethics that guide the conduct of research on human subjects, which mandate that the intervention being tested must have a potential benefit for the human subjects, such as treatment for a disease or nutritional benefit (ruling out toxicity testing on humans). In this context, scientists and regulators discussing clinical studies of genetically modified food have written that the "ethical and technical constraints of conducting human trials, and the necessity of doing so, is a subject that requires considerable attention." Golden rice has been tested in humans to see if the rice provides a nutritional benefit, namely, increased levels of Vitamin A.
Published studies have suggested negative impacts from eating genetically modified food. The first such peer-reviewed paper, published in 1999, covered research conducted by Arpad Pusztai the previous year. Pusztai had fed rats potatoes transformed with the Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) gene from the Galanthus (snowdrop) plant, allowing the GNA lectin protein to be synthesised. Lectin is known to be toxic, especially to gut epithelium, and while some companies were considering growing genetically modified crops expressing lectin, GNA was an unlikely candidate. On June 22, 1998, an interview was shown on Granada Television's current affairs programme World in Action, with Pusztai saying that rats that had been fed the potatoes had stunted growth and a repressed immune system. A media frenzy resulted, and 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 Pusztai's work and concluded that the data did not support his conclusions. When Pusztai's work was published in The Lancet it reported significant differences in the thickness of the gut epithelium of rats fed genetically modified potatoes (compared to those fed the control diet), but no differences in growth or immune system function were suggested. The published paper was criticized on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet and that any rat fed only on potatoes would suffer from a 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.
A 2011 study, the first to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure to Bt toxin produced in genetically modified maize and to determine exposure levels of the pesticides and their metabolites, reported the presence of pesticides associated with the modified foods in both non-pregnant women and pregnant women and in their fetuses. The paper and the media reports around it were criticized for overstating the results. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) took the unusual step of posting a direct response, saying that the suitability of the ELISA assay method for detecting the Cry1Ab protein was not validated and that there was no evidence that that genetically modified food was the source of the protein. The organization also suggested that even if the protein had been detected it more likely had come from conventional or organic sources.
In 2007, 2009, and 2011, Gilles-Eric 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 the glyphosate-resistant NK603). He concluded that they had actually caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed the data and concluded that the small differences were all within the normal range for control rats. The EFSA review also stated that the statistical methods used were faulty. The EFSA conclusions were supported by FSANZ, a panel of toxicologists funded by Monsanto and the French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB).
In 2012, the Séralini lab published a paper, subsequently retracted by the journal editors, which looked at the long-term effects of feeding rats various levels of genetically modified roundup resistance maize, maize spiked with the roundup chemical and a mixture of the two. The paper concluded that rats fed the modified maize had severe health problems, including liver and kidney damage and large tumors. There was widespread criticism of the published study. Séralini held a press conference just before the paper was released in which he also announced the release of a book and a movie; he allowed reporters access to the paper before his press conference only if they signed a confidentiality agreement under which they could not get other scientists' responses to the paper. The press conference resulted in widespread and sensational media coverage emphasizing a connection between GMOs, roundup, and cancer. This method of announcing the research met with strong criticism from scientists and some journalists as it excluded critical commentary in the breaking stories. Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study and that Sprague-Dawley rats were not appropriate for a lifetime study (as opposed to a shorter toxicity study) because these rats have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan (one study found that more than 80% of them got cancer under normal conditions). For a similar study the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines recommend using 65 rats per experiment, not 10. Questions were also raised about the statistical method chosen to analyse the data and the lack of data regarding the amount of food fed to the rats and their growth rates. Other criticisms included the lack of a dose–response relationship (females fed three times the dose showed a decreased number of tumours) and no identifiable mechanism for the increase in tumours. 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 letters to the editor that expressed strong criticism of the Seralini paper, and a few expressing support. National food safety and regulatory agencies also reviewed the paper and dismissed it. In March 2013, Seralini responded to these criticisms in the same journal that originally published his study, and a small number of scientists supported the validity of his study.:5 In November 2013, the editors of Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper. The retraction was met with protests from Séralini and his supporters.
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 about effects of genetically engineered crops on other species and about gene flow to other plants, to animals and to bacteria. Some see the modified crops as providing benefits to the environment through a reduction in the use of pesticides and a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. Research, however, shows that the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. A 2012 study on pesticide use in the U.S. over the 16-year period of 1996–2011 showed that herbicide-resistant crop technology had led to a 239 million-kilogram (527 million-pound) increase in herbicide use, while Bt crops had reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kilograms (404 million pounds), or about 7%, largely due to the replacement of older persistent pesticides by glyphosate. As more resistant weeds continue to emerge, some farmers are finding the need to return to the practice of yearly plowing as part of their strategy for weed control.
A major use of genetically modified crops is in insect control through the expression of the cry (crystal delta-endotoxins) and Vip (vegetative insecticidal proteins) genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). There are concerns that these toxins could target predatory and other beneficial or harmless insects as well as the targeted pest. The proteins produced by Bt have been used as organic sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and the United States since 1958 with no reported ill effects on the environment. While cyt proteins are toxic towards the insect orders Coleoptera (beetles) and Diptera (flies), 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 cannot be affected 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 was published in Nature stating that, in a laboratory environment, pollen from Bt maize dusted onto milkweed could harm the monarch butterfly. A collaborative research exercise was carried out over the next two years by several groups of scientists in the United States and Canada to study 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.
An analysis of laboratory settings found that Bt toxins could affect non-target organisms, usually those 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. The methodology used by Lövei et al. has been called into question by a group of academic scientists who wrote: "We are deeply concerned about the inappropriate methods used in their paper, the lack of ecological context, and the authors’ advocacy of how laboratory studies on non-target arthropods should be conducted and interpreted".
There are concerns that the genetic diversity of crops might decrease (as the development of genetically modified varieties would lead to fewer cultivars being used overall) or that they might indirectly affect the diversity of other organisms. There are also concerns that the widespread use of genetic modification designed to resist agrochemicals might lead to the chemicals' increased use, which in turn might cause damage to the environment and to biodiversity.
Studies comparing the genetic diversity of cotton have found that in the United States diversity has either increased or stayed the same, while in India it has been reduced. This distinction has been attributed to the larger number of modified varieties in the U.S. as 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 data from farms 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 study published in 2005 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.
Emergence of secondary pests
Several studies have documented surges in secondary pests (which are not affected by Bt toxins) within a few years of adoption of Bt cotton. In China, the main problem has been with mirids, which have in some cases "completely eroded all benefits from Bt cotton cultivation". A 2009 study in China concluded that the increase in 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 both mealy bugs and aphids.
Genes from a genetically modified organism 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, with newly introduced traits potentially crossing into neighboring plants of the same or closely related species. There are concerns that the spread of genes from modified organisms to unmodified relatives could produce species of weeds resistant to herbicides:99 that could contaminate nearby non-genetically modified crops or organic 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 genetically modified organisms to wild one, 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 the approval of genetically modifying a plant for commercial purposes, and a monitoring plan must be presented to identify potential gene flow effects which had not been anticipated beforehand.
In 2004, Charles Chilcutt and Bruce Tabashnik published a communicated paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America describing findings of Bt protein in kernels of the refuge, which is a non-genetically modified crop planted alongside a genetically modified one to prevent or slow the development of predators resistant to its modified properties. The paper raised concerns about gene flow from Bt to unmodified corn.
In 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Scotts Miracle-Gro $500,000 when modified genetic material from creeping bentgrass, a new golf-course grass Scotts had been testing, was found within close relatives of the same genus (Agrostis) as well as in native grasses up to 21 km (13 mi) away from the test sites, released when freshly cut grass was blown by the wind.
In 2009 the government of Mexico created a regulatory pathway for approval of genetically modified maize, but because Mexico is the center of diversity for maize, concerns have been raised about the effect that modified maize could have on local strains. A 2001 report in Nature presented evidence that Bt maize was cross-breeding with unmodified maize in Mexico, although the data in this paper was later described as originating from an artifact and Nature stated that "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper" though it did not retract the paper. A subsequent large-scale study, in 2005, failed to find any evidence of contamination in Oaxaca. However, other authors have stated that they also found evidence of cross-breeding between natural maize and transgenic maize.
In 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.
A study published in 2010 by scientists at the University of Arkansas, North Dakota State University, California State University and the US Environmental Protection Agency showed that about 83 percent of wild or weedy canola tested contained genetically modified herbicide resistance genes. According to the researchers, the lack of reports in the United States suggested inadequate oversight and monitoring protocols were in place. The development of weeds resistant to glyphosate, the most commonly applied herbicide, could mean that farmers must return to more labour-intensive methods to control weeds, use more dangerous herbicides or till the soil (thus increasing the risk of erosion). A 2010 report by the National Academy of Sciences stated that the advent of glyphosate-herbicide resistant weeds could cause the genetically engineered crops to lose their effectiveness unless farmers also used other weed-management strategies.
One way to avoid environmental contamination is Genetic use restriction technology, also called "Terminator". This uncommercialized technology would allow the production of crops with sterile seeds, which would prevent the escape of genetically modified traits. Groups concerned with control of the food supply had expressed concern that the technology would be used to limit access to viable seeds. Another similar hypothetical trait-specific technology known as "Traitor" or "T-GURT", requires application of a chemical to genetically modified crops to reactivate engineered traits. These technologies have also caused controversy, as there are fears that the technology itself, and the patents on them, would allow companies to control the market for seeds.
Coexistence with conventional crops
In the United States there is no legislation governing the co-existence of neighboring farms growing organic and genetically modified crops; instead the country relies on a "complex but relaxed" combination of three federal agencies (FDA, EPA, and USDA/APHIS) and the common law tort system, governed by state law, to manage risks of co-existence.:44 In the face of continuing concerns about the economic losses that might be suffered by organic farmers by unintended intermixing, the Secretary of Agriculture convened an Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) to study the issue and make recommendations as to whether to address these concerns and if so, how. economic losses to farmers caused by unintended presence of genetically engineered materials, as well as how such mechanisms might work. The members of AC21 include representatives of the biotechnology industry, the organic food industry, farming communities, the seed industry, food manufacturers, State government, consumer and community development groups, the medical profession, and academic researchers. The AC21 recommended that a study should be conducted to answer the question of whether and to what extent there are any economic losses to US organic farmers; recommended that if the losses are serious, that a crop insurance program for organic farmers be put in place, and that an education program should be undertaken to ensure that organic farmers are putting appropriate contracts in place for their crops and that neighboring farmers with genetic modifications are taking appropriate containment measures. Overall the report supported a diverse agriculture system in which many different farming systems could co-exist.
Some countries - notably the European Union - have implemented regulations specifically governing co-existence and traceability. Traceability has become commonplace in the food and feed supply chains of most countries in the world, but the traceability of GMOs is made more challenging by the addition of very strict legal thresholds for unwanted mixing. Within the European Union, since 2001, conventional and organic food and feedstuffs can contain up to 0.9% of authorised modified material without being labelled as such (any trace of non-authorised modification would cause shipments to be rejected.). To be able to monitor and enforce compliance with co-existence regulations, 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 genetic modifications into neighboring crops is of concern to farmers whose crops are exported to countries that have not approved harvests from modified crops.:275
In 1999 scientists in Thailand claimed they had discovered glyphosate-resistant genetically modified wheat that was not yet approved for release in a grain shipment from the American Pacific Northwest, even though transgenic wheat had never been approved for sale and was only grown in test plots. No one could explain how the transgenic wheat got into the food supply.
In 2000, Aventis StarLink corn, which had been approved only as animal feed due to concerns about possible allergic reactions in humans, was found contaminating corn products in U.S. supermarkets and restaurants. This corn became the subject of a widely publicized recall, which started when Taco Bell-branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain the corn, resulting in sales of StarLink seed being discontinued. The registration for the Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000, though no allergic reactions to the corn were ever reported.
In another example, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted in 2006 when the U.S. crop was contaminated with rice containing the LibertyLink modification, which had not been approved for release. An investigation by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was unable to determine the cause of the contamination.
In May 2013, glyphosate-resistant genetically modified wheat that was not yet approved for release (but which had been approved for human consumption) was discovered in a farm in Oregon, growing as a weed or "volunteer plant" in a field that had been planted with winter wheat. The modified wheat was developed by Monsanto, and was a strain that had been field-tested from 1998 to 2005 and was in the regulatory approval process before the company withdrew it based on concern that importers would avoid the crop. The discovery threatened US wheat exports which totaled $8.1 billion in 2012. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan suspended purchases of winter wheat and concerns were raised by advocates for organic food. As of August 30, 2013, while the source of the modified wheat remained unknown, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan had resumed placing orders, and the disruption of the export market was minimal.
The development of glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) plants has changed the herbicide use profile away from the use of more environmentally persistent herbicides with higher toxicity, such as atrazine, metribuzin, and alachlor, and has reduced the dangers of herbicide runoff into drinking water. However, a study published in Environmental Sciences Europe by Chuck Benbrook concluded that the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has increased herbicides applied.
One of the major environmental benefits of Bt-expressing genetically modified crops such as cotton and maize is a reduction in the use of chemical insecticides.[page needed] A study published by the UK consultancy PG Economics, concluded that globally pesticide spraying 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 has led to higher yields and lower pesticide use. One study concluded insecticide use on cotton and corn during the years 1996 to 2005 fell by 35.6 million kg of insecticide active ingredient, which is roughly equal to the amount of pesticide applied to arable crops in the EU in one year. A study on the effects of using Bt cotton in six northern provinces of China from 1990 to 2010 concluded that Bt cotton halved the use of pesticides and doubled the level of ladybirds, lacewings and spiders, with the environmental benefits extended to neighbouring crops of maize, peanuts and soybeans.
Resistant insect pests
Resistance evolves naturally after a population has been subjected to intense selection pressure in the form of repeated use of a single herbicide or insecticide. In November 2009, Monsanto scientists found the pink bollworm had become resistant to the first generation Bt cotton in parts of Gujarat, India—that generation expresses one Bt gene, Cry1Ac. This was the first instance of Bt resistance confirmed by Monsanto anywhere in the world. Bollworm resistance to first generation Bt cotton has also been identified in Australia, China, Spain, and the United States. One strategy to delay the emergence of Bt-resistant pests is to plant non-modified refuges within the modified crops, thereby diluting any resistant genes that might arise. Another is to develop crops that have multiple Bt genes which target different receptors within the insect. In 2012, a Florida field trial demonstrated that army worms were able to eat pesticide-containing genetically modified corn produced by Dupont-Dow without any ill effects, meaning that the worms had become resistant to it; army-worm resistance was first discovered in Puerto Rico in 2006, prompting Dow and DuPont to stop selling the product on the island, The European corn borer, one of the primary insects Bt is meant to target, has been shown to be capable of developing resistance to the Bt protein.
The economic value derived from growing genetically modified food has been a major selling point for the technology. One of the key reasons for the widespread adoption is the perceived economic benefit the technology brings to farmers, including those in developing nations. A 2010 study found that the economic benefit of Bt corn to farmers in five Midwest states was $6.9 billion over the previous 14 years. They were surprised that the majority ($4.3 billion) of the benefit accrued to non-Bt corn. This was speculated to be because the European Corn Borers that attack the Bt corn die and there are fewer left to attack the non-GM corn nearby. Agriculture economists have calculated that "world surplus [increased by] $240.3 million for 1996. Of this total, the largest share (59%) went to U.S. farmers. The gene developer, Monsanto, received the next largest share (21%), followed by U.S. consumers (9%), the rest of the world (6%), and the germplasm supplier, Delta and Pine Land Company (5%)." A comprehensive 2012 study by PG Economics, a UK company, concluded that GM crops increased farm incomes worldwide by $14 billion in 2010, with over half this total going to farmers in developing countries.
Claims of major benefits to farmers, including poor farmers in developing countries, have been challenged by opponents. The task of isolating impacts of the technology is complicated by the prevalence of biased observers, and by the rarity of controlled comparisons (such as identical seeds, differing only in the presence or absence of the Bt trait, being grown in identical situations). The main Bt crop being grown by small farmers in developing countries is cotton, and a 2006 exhaustive review of findings on Bt cotton by agricultural economists concluded, "the overall balance sheet, though promising, is mixed. Economic returns are highly variable over years, farm type, and geographical location". Mark Lynas, an environmental activist, believes that an outright rejection of the technology 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 European Union to allow the development of GM technologies and their application in agriculture. This would be more sustainable agriculture, because land, water and nutrient resources would be used more sparingly. EASAC also criticizes the "a timeconsuming and expensive regulatory framework in the EU" and says that EU has fallen behind in the adoption of GM technologies.
Genetically modified crops play a key role in intensive crop farming, which involves monoculture, use of herbicides and pesticides, use of equipment that requires large amounts of fossil fuels, and irrigation. Opponents of modified food, like Jonathan Latham of the Bioscience Research Center and Vandana Shiva, often treat industrial agriculture and modified crops as closely related topics, and call for an agriculture that works with the environment instead of controlling it.:527
Proponents of modern agriculture, including genetic modification, point to the low prices and wide array of choices the system has produced and claim that technology must be applied to agriculture if a growing world population is to be fed.
The effect that genetically modified food may have on developing nations is debated. There is agreement that there is a food supply issue, although there is disagreement on the best ways to solve this. Some scientists suggest that a second Green Revolution with increased use of modified crops is needed to meet the demand for food in the developing world.:12 Others say that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production. The potential for genetically modified food to help impoverished nations was recognised by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, but as of 2008 they found no conclusive evidence that they have offered a solution.
Additionally, those who argue against the adoption of food from genetically modified crops in a human diet say that the reason the world has so many people is due to the second green revolution, in which unsustainable agricultural practices have left the world with more mouths to feed than the planet can safely and ecologically sustain.:73 Even if modified crops were successful in feeding the current population using transgenic methods, the world will undergo another population explosion which will require even more drastic agricultural interventions, and with the coming crisis in oil shortages, there will not be enough fuel to make fertilizers, pesticides, or to drive the tractors, combines, transports, factories and distribution centres that modern agricultural methods have required.:1–2
Constraints to the deployment of this technology to impoverished nations are the lack of easy access, expense of modern agricultural equipment, and that certain aspects of the system revolving around intellectual property rights are unfair to "undeveloped countries". Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an aid and research organization, was praised by the World Bank for its efforts but suggested they shift to genetics research and productivity enhancement. This plan has several obstacles such as patents, commercial licenses, and the difficulty that third world countries have in accessing the international collection of genetic resources and other intellectual property rights that would educate them about modern technology. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has attempted to remedy this problem, but results have been inconsistent. As a result, "orphan crops", such as teff, millets, cowpeas, and indigenous plants, 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.
There is also debate over whether the use of genetically modified crops increases or decreases yield. The currently commercialised varieties have traits that reduce yield loss from insect pressure or weed interference. There are however crops and animals being developed with traits aimed at directly increasing the yield, with the closest to commercialisation being salmon with an added growth hormone gene.
A 2010 article supported by CropLife International summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies on GM crops worldwide. On average, farmers in developed countries experienced increase in yield of 6% and in underdeveloped countries of 29%. Tillage was decreased by 25–58% on herbicide resistant soybeans, insecticide applications on Bt crops were reduced by 14–76% and 72% of farmers worldwide experienced positive economic results. Another yield gain can be seen with the planting of glyphosate-resistant crops. It allowed farmers to plant rows closer together as they did not have to control post-emergent weeds with mechanical tillage.
Critics of genetic engineered crops disagree that they result in increased yield. 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 genetic engineered crops—soybeans and maize in the United States. The report concluded that in the United States, other agricultural methods have made a greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering. Such critics also point to a study published in Nature Biotechnology by University of Wisconsin researchers that concluded that the introduction of Roundup Ready crops as well as the Bt trait for corn rootworm actually lowered yields.
The seed industry is dominated by several seed and biotechnology firms. Firms have engaged in vertical integration, causing structural changes in the seed industry. It is reported that in 2011, 73% of the global market is controlled by 10 companies.
In 2001, the USDA published an article showing that the concentration of market power in the seed industry has led to economies of scale that facilitated market efficiency because production costs have decreased, however, the move by some companies to divest their seed operations calls into question the long-term viability of these conglomerates. Two economists, guest speakers on the AgBio Forum cite that the huge market power possessed by the small number of biotechnology companies in crop biotechnology could be beneficial in raising welfare despite the pricing strategies they practice because "even though price discrimination is often considered to be an unwanted market distortion, it may increase total welfare by increasing total output and by making goods available to markets where they would not appear otherwise."
Market power gives seed and biotechnology firms the ability to set or influence price, dictate terms, and act as a barrier to entry into the industry. It also gives firms the bargaining power over governments in policy making. In March 2010, the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture held a meeting in Ankeny, Iowa, to look at the competitive dynamics in the seed industry. Christine Varney, who heads the antitrust division in the Justice Department, said that her team was investigating whether biotech-seed patents are being abused to extend or maintain companies’ dominance in the industry. A key issue is how Monsanto sells and licenses its patented trait that allows farmers to kill weeds with Roundup herbicide while leaving crops unharmed - the gene was in 93 percent of U.S. soybeans grown in 2009. About 250 family farmers, consumers and other critics of corporate agriculture held a town meeting prior to the governmental meeting to protest Monsanto for what they see as manipulation of the market by buying up independent seed companies, patenting the seeds and then raising seed prices.
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 must be purchased each year from seed producers. The offspring of the hybrid corn, while still viable, lose the beneficial traits of the parents, resulting in the loss of hybrid vigor. In these cases, the use of hybrid plants has been the primary reason for growers not saving seed, not intellectual property issues. However, for non-hybrid biotech crops, such as transgenic soybeans, seed companies use intellectual property law and tangible property common law, each expressed in contracts, to forbid farmers from saving seed. For example, Monsanto's typical bailment license (covering transfer of the seeds themselves) forbids saving seeds, and also requires that purchasers sign a separate patent license agreement.
Corporations say that they need product control in order to prevent seed piracy, to fulfill financial obligations to shareholders, and to invest in further development. DuPont spent approximately half its $2 billion R&D budget on agriculture in 2011 while Monsanto spends 9-10% of their sales in their research and development effort every year.
Detractors such as Greenpeace say that patent rights give corporations a dangerous amount of control over their product. Others claim that "patenting seeds gives companies excessive power over something that is vital for everyone." Regarding the issues of intellectual property and patent law, an international report from the year 2000 states: "If the rights to these tools are strongly and universally enforced - and not extensively licensed or provided pro bono in the developing world - then the potential applications of GM technologies described previously are unlikely to benefit the less developed nations of the world for a long time (i.e. until after the restrictions conveyed by these rights have expired).
Monsanto has a strong patent portfolio on its genetically modified seed, and it obligates farmers who choose to buy their seeds to sign a license agreement, agreeing that they cannot save seed from their crop to plant in successive years and can use the seed only to grow a crop that they will store or sell.:213:156 Monsanto has filed patent infringement suits against 145 farmers, but has proceeded to trial with only 11. Although in some of those 11 cases, a defense of unintentional contamination by gene flow was used, Monsanto won all 11 cases. Monsanto Canada's Director of Public Affairs has stated that "It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by accident...Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act."
One example of such litigation is the Monsanto v. Schmeiser case. This case is widely misunderstood: "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." In 1997, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, discovered that a section of one of his fields contained canola that was resistant to herbicide Roundup by spraying it with Roundup, leaving only the resistant plants. He had not purchased roundup-resistant canola; it was apparently sown from seed blown onto his land from neighboring fields. He later harvested the seed from this area; he did not sell it but rather saved it in the back of a pickup truck.:para 61 & 62 After the 1997 harvest and before the 1998 planting, Monsanto representatives visited Schmeiser and informed him of Monsanto's patent and that planting Roundup resistant canola would infringe the patent, and offered him a license, which Schmeiser refused.:para 63 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.":para 63–64 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.":para 68
Different regulations can lead to international trade disputes as well as to 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 genetically modified flax were found in shipments. This led a member of Parliament to propose Private Member's Bill C-474, that 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 of GMOs supported the bill, while opponents of the bill 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 with members of the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition rejecting the bill, and members of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois voting in favor of the bill."
While some groups advocate the complete prohibition of genetically modified organisms, others call for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food or other products, while yet others call for no distinctive labeling.
In 2014 there were 64 countries that required labeling of all genetically modified foods.:7 The European Union, Australia, New Zealand, China, and India require GMO labeling, while other jurisdictions make such labeling voluntary or have had plans to introduce labeling.
GMO labeling is not required by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, as long as there are no differences in health, environmental safety, and consumer expectations based on the packaging. There have been numerous efforts to pass labeling laws in the U.S., especially at the state level. One of the first efforts was on the 2002 Oregon Ballot, which failed to pass 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 the labeling of genetically modified food. In 2013, the Connecticut Legislature passed a law requiring labeling of genetically modified food, the first such law in the nation; Governor Dannel Malloy said he would sign the bill into law. In 2013, Washington state voters rejected Washington Initiative 522, which would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods there. As of September 2013, legislation for GMO labeling was pending in at least 20 U.S. states. On January 9, 2014, Maine's governor signed a bill requiring labeling for foods made with GMOs, with a similar triggering mechanism as Connecticut's bill. In California, on February 21, 2014, Senate Bill 1381 was introduced that requires any food, with certain exceptions, offered for retail sale in California which included GMOs to be labeled "Produced with Genetic Engineering" or "Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering". In May 2014 Vermont passed a law requiring labeling of food containing ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms.
The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have opposed mandatory labeling of genetically modified food because they said there is no scientific evidence of harm. The AMA believes 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".
[Labeling] 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.
However, the American Public Health Association, the British Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients in food. The European Commission believes mandatory labeling and traceability are needed to allow for informed choice, preclude potential misleading of consumers and facilitate the withdrawal of products if adverse effects on health or the environment occur. The American College of Physicians, the Illinois Public Health Association, and the Indiana State Medical Association all state:
A 2007 study on the effect of labeling laws found that once labeling went into effect, few products contained genetically modified ingredients. Businesses stopped carrying products with ingredients that had been genetically modified. 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.
Objectivity of regulatory bodies
Groups opposing the release of genetically modified organisms or their use as food have questioned whether regulatory authorities in various countries are too close to companies that seek approval for their products, or have received bribes from such companies.
Critics in the United States have 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 his tenure at the FDA, Taylor became a vice-president of Monsanto. On 7 July 2009, Taylor returned to government as a senior adviser to the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
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
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. Initially APHIS lost all four cases, with the judges ruling they failed to diligently follow the guidelines set out in the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide ban on genetically modified alfalfa and an appeal court allowed the partial deregulation of modified sugar-beet crops. After APHIS prepared Environmental Impact Statements for both alfalfa and sugar beet they were deregulated again.
Genetic modification has been the subject of international trade disputes, one of which arose between the United States and Europe in the early 2000s. Until the 1990s, Europe's regulation was less strict than in the U.S. In 1998, however, the use of MON810, a Bt expressing maize conferring resistance to the European corn borer, was approved for commercial cultivation in Europe. Moreover, in the 1990s a series of unrelated food crises created consumer apprehension about food safety in general and eroded public trust in government oversight of the food industry - most importantly, the infection of cows with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the mishandling of food safety by European authorities. In 1998, a de facto moratorium led to the suspension of approvals of new genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the European Union pending the adoption of revised rules to govern the approval, marketing and labelling of biotech products.
The approval of genetically modified crops in the United States in the mid-1990s precipitated strong 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 U.S. corn exports, generating about $300 million in sales. Starting in 1997, however, the U.S. largely stopped shipping bulk commodity corn to the EU because such shipments typically commingled corn from many farms, including genetically modified varieties not approved by the EU. The change was dramatic. For example, before 1997, the U.S. sold about 1.75 million tons of corn annually to Spain and Portugal, the two largest importers of U.S. corn in the EU. 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 United States and twelve other countries filed a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization that the European Union was violating international trade agreements, in blocking imports of U.S. farm products through its long-standing ban on genetically modified food. The countries argued that the EU's regulatory process was far too slow and its standards were unreasonable given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence showing that the crops were safe. The case was also lobbied by U.S. biotechnology giant 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 genetically modified food, and in July agreed to new regulations requiring labeling and traceability, as well as an opt-out provision for individual countries. Afterward, the approval of new genetically modified organisms began again in May 2004. While a number of other GMOs have been approved since then, approvals remain controversial and various countries have utilized the 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 U.S. 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 U.S. government diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks.
In May 2014, the Supreme Court of the Australian state of Western Australia handed down a decision in a case called "March v. Baxter". The plaintiff was Steve March, an organic farmer, and the defendant was Michael Baxter, his lifelong neighbor, who grew GMO canola. The case arose in late 2010, when March found seeds from Baxter's GMO crop in his fields. Later, March found volunteer GMO 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 GMO crop that was substandard and negligent, and on the basis that his land had been widely contaminated. The Supreme Court found that Baxter's method was "orthodox and well accepted harvest methodology", and found 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. The judge dismissed the case. While the decision was widely anticipated and called a "landmark", on June 18, 2014 March announced that he had filed an appeal.
In 2002, Zambia refused emergency food aid from developed countries, fearing that the food was unsafe. During a conference in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, Kingsley Amoako, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), encouraged African nations to accept genetically modified food and expressed dissatisfaction in the public's negative opinion of biotechnology. 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 the introduction.
This controversy also opened a debate between world powers. The debate centered around whether the U.S.'s shipment of food to southern Africa was more about ending the famine, or about promoting the adoption of biotech crops in the southern African region. Doing so would expand the market for GMOs, and make the companies who produce these products more profitable. The U.S. 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 genetically-modified maize, they quickly rejected the shipments and would no longer use the food that had been sent to them. The U.S. was accused by European countries of "exploiting the Southern African famine as a public relations tool". The U.S. countered these comments by saying these European nations were letting millions of Africans suffer from hunger and starvation because of "irrational fears over hypothetical and unproven risks".
In India, genetically modified cotton yields in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu resulted in an average 42% increase in yield in 2002, the first year of commercial GMO cotton planting. There was, however, a severe drought in Andhra Pradesh that year, and the parental cotton plant used in the genetically engineered variant was not suited to extreme dryness, so the state saw no increase in yield. Drought-resistant variants were developed and, with the substantially reduced losses to insect predation, by 2011 88% of Indian cotton was genetically modified. Though disputed, the economic and environmental benefits of genetically modified cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented. A study from 2002 through 2008 on the economic impacts of Bt cotton in India, published in the journal PNAS in 2012, 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 the state of Maharashtra banned Bt cotton and ordered a socio-economic study of its use by independent institutes. 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".
On 1 January 2013, a law came into effect that required all packaged foods containing any genetically modified organisms to be labeled as such. 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 implementation and enforcement of the law. 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.
- 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. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547.
- 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)
- 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."
- 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.""
- British Medical Association Board of Science and Education (2004). Genetically modified food and health: A second interim statement. March.
- Public Health Association of Australia (2007) GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS PHAA AGM 2007
- Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (2013) Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms in the Environment and the Marketplace. October, 2013
- Irish Doctors' Environmental Association IDEA Position on Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved 3/25/14
- PR Newswire Genetically Modified Maize: Doctors' Chamber Warns of "Unpredictable Results" to Humans. November 11, 2013
- 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
- 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
- Editorial. Editors of Nature. Nature 497, 5–6 (02 May 2013) doi:10.1038/497005b Fields of gold
- Amy Harmon for The New York Times, Jan 4, 2014. A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops
- Nathanael Johnson for Grist. Jul 8, 2013 The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?
- Keith Kloor for Discover Magazine. October 19, 2012 Liberals Turn a Blind Eye to Crazy Talk on GMOs
- Mike Hughlett Star Tribune (Minneapolis) for the Witchita Eagle. Nov. 5, 2013 Firebrand activist leads organic consumers association
- Alberts B et al. September 20, 2013 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1320.full [Editorial: Standing Up for GMOs] Science 341(6152):1320
- Hunt, Lesley (2004). "Factors determining the public understanding of GM technologies" (Review Article). AgBiotechNet 6 (128): 1–8.
- 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.
- Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues Congressional Research Service: The Library of Congress 2001
- Marlene-Aviva Grunpeter (August 5, 2013). "GMOs, A Global Debate: Israel a Center for Study, Kosher Concerns". Epoch Times.
- Maria Konnikova for the New Yorker. August 8, 2013 The Psychology of Distrusting G.M.O.s
- "GM Contamination Register Official Website". Gmcontaminationregister.org. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- Borel, Brooke (1 November 2012). "Can Genetically Engineered Foods Harm You?". Huffington Post. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
- "Genetic engineering". Friends of the Earth.
- "GE-Agriculture". The Institute of Science in Society.
- "About GMWatch". GMWatch.
- Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe homepage
- Marris, Claire (2003). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO teports 2 (7): 545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142.PMCID: PMC1083956
- Memo from The Mellman Group, Inc. to The Pew Initiative On Food And Biotechnology, 16 November 2006. Review Of Public Opinion Research
- 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
- 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."
- Deloitte 2010 Food Survey Genetically Modified Foods retrieved 10 October 2012
- "Opposition decreasing or acceptance increasing?: An overview of European consumer polls on attitudes to GMOs". GMO Compass. 16 April 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
- 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
- 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 (February 2011). "The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences". Nat. Biotechnol. 29 (2): 113–4. doi:10.1038/nbt.1771. PMID 21301431.
- "Genetically modified (GM) foods". Food Standards Australia and New Zealand. 4 October 2012. Retrieved 5 November 2012.
- "Consumer Attitudes Survey 2007, A benchmark survey of consumers' attitudes to food issues". Food Standards Australia New Zealand. January 2008. Retrieved 5 November 2012.
- Allison Kopicki for The New York Times, July 27, 2013 Strong Support for Labeling Modified Foods
- Dave Fusaro for Food Processing. November 7, 2013 European Scientists Ask for GMO Research
- Nina Shapiro for Seattle Weekly. October 24, 2013. GMOs: Group Refutes Claim of ‘Scientific Consensus’
- Philip Case for Farmer's Weekly. October 25, 2013 Scientific consensus on GM crops safety 'overwhelming'
- Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety, ENSSER, 10/21/12013
- Take the Flour Back Press Release, 27/05/12 European activists link up to draw the line against GM
- Alistair Driver for Farmers Guardian, 2 May 2012 Scientists urge protestors not to trash GM trials
- "GM wheat trial belongs in a laboratory". BBC News. 2 May 2012.
- "Don't Destroy Research Q & A". Sense About Science. 25 July 2012.
- Protesters Rally Against U.S. Seed Giant And GMO Products. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 25 May 2013
- Associated Press (May 25, 2013). Protesters around the world march against Monsanto. USA Today.
- Xia, Rosanna (May 25, 2013). Hundreds in L.A. march in global protest against Monsanto, GMOs. Los Angeles Times.
- CTV Kitchener (May 25, 2013). 'March Against Monsanto' comes to King Street in Kitchener. CTV Television Network.
- Amy Harmon, July 27, 2013 A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA
- 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.
- Millions march against Monsanto in over 400 cities - Yahoo News
- 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.
- Pollack, Andrew. "Seeking Support, Biotech Food Companies Pledge Transparency". New York Times. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
- "Experts". GMO Answers. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
- "The Council for Biotechnology Information: Founding Members". GMO Answers. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
- GMO crops vandalized in Oregon, Karl Haro von Mogel, Biology Fortified, 24 June 2013.
- Fighting GM Crop Vandalism With a Government-Protected Research Site, Science Daily, Feb. 28, 2013.
- Scientists speak out against vandalism of genetically modified rice, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Fri 20 Sep 2013.
- 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".
- Oregon: Genetically modified crops vandalized, Karl Haro von Mogel, Genetic Literacy Project, June 25, 2013.
- Kuntz, Marcel (2012). "Destruction of public and governmental experiments of GMO in Europe". GM crops & food 3 (4): 258. doi:10.4161/gmcr.21231.
- Dr. Strangelunch Or: Why we should learn to stop worrying and love genetically modified food, The Reason, Ronald Bailey, January 2001.
- Rebecca Bratspies (2007) Some Thoughts on the American Approach to Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 16:393 
- BBC News 14 June 2002 GM crops: A bitter harvest?
- 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
- "Greenpeace activists in costly GM protest". Sydney Morning Herald. 2012-08-02. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "GM crop destroyers given suspended sentences". Canberra Times. 2012-11-19. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- Amy Harmon (August 24, 2013). "Golden Rice: Lifesaver?" (News Analysis). The New York Times. Retrieved August 25, 2013.
- Michael Slezak (August 9, 2013). "Militant Filipino farmers destroy Golden Rice GM crop". NewScientist. Retrieved Oct 26, 2013.
- The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop, Mark Lynas, Slate, Aug 26, 2013
- 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, BBC News, 9 August 2013.
- Waltz, Emily (2009). "GM crops: Battlefield". Nature 461 (7260): 27–32. doi:10.1038/461027a. PMID 19727179.
- 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."
- Bruce Stutz (1 July 2010). "Wanted: GM Seeds for Study". Seed Magazine. Archived from the original on 5 July 2010.
- The editors, "Do seed companies control GM crop research?" (article originally printed with the title "A seedy practice"), Scientific American, vol. 301, August 2009.
- Emily Waltz for Nature BIotechnology. October 2010. Monsanto relaxes restrictions on sharing seeds for research
- Mitchell, P. (2003). Europe sees sharp decline in GMO research. Nature Biotechnology, 468–470.
- 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 PMID 24041244
- About page, Biofortified.org
- Karl Haro von Mogel for Biofortified, October 25, 2013 Making sense of lists of studies
- 2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable, Forbes, 10/14/2013.
- 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.
- World Health Organization. Food safety: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Accessed December 22, 2012.
- 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)."
- 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". Trends in Biotechnology 27 (3): 129–130. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2008.11.004. PMID 19185375.
- 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.
- 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.
- Dr. Christopher Preston, AgBioWorld 2011. Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods.
- 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."
- CORDIS - Community Research and Development Information Service. 2005-01-06 EU project publishes conclusions and recommendations on GM foods
- 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.
- OECD (2010) Consensus Document on Molecular Characterisation of Plants Derived from Modern Biotechnology
- 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.
- van Eijck, Paul (10 March 2010). "The History and Future of GM Potatoes". PotatoPro.
- Winter, CK and Gallegos, LK. 2006. University of California Agricultural and Natural Resource Service. ANR Publication 8180. Safety of Genetically Engineered Food
- EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) (2011) EFSA Journal 9(5) 2150 [37 pp.]. Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants
- "Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles". Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
- König, A.; Cockburn, A.; Crevel, R.W.R.; Debruyne, E.; Grafstroem, R.; Hammerling, U.; Kimber, I.; Knudsen, I.; Kuiper, H.A.; Peijnenburg, A.A.C.M.; Penninks, A.H.; Poulsen, M.; Schauzu, M.; Wal, J.M. (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.
- Marianna Schauzu. The concept of substantial equivalence in safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified organisms AgBiotechNet 2000, Vol. 2 April, ABN 044
- UK GM expert calls for tougher tests BBC 7 September 1999
- 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.
- Burke D (October 1999). "No GM conspiracy". Nature 401 (6754): 640–1. Bibcode:1999Natur.401..640.. doi:10.1038/44262. PMID 10537098.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Keeler, Barbara; Lappe, Marc (7 January 2001). "Some Food for FDA Regulation". Los Angeles Times.
- 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.
- Jennifer Ackerman for National Geographic magazine. May 2002 Genetically Modified Foods
- "OECD harmonization webpage". Oecd.org. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- 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
- 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.
- Drake Bennett Our allergies, ourselves Boston Globe 7 May 2006
- 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.
- Staff, GMO Compass. February 15, 2006. Food Safety Evaluation: The Allergy Check
- 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.
- 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.
- Herman EM (May 2003). "Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies". J. Exp. Bot. 54 (386): 1317–9. doi:10.1093/jxb/erg164. PMID 12709477.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Warren Leary Genetic Engineering of Crops Can Spread Allergies, Study Shows The New York Times, Thursday, 14 March 1996
- 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.
- 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. Lay summary – New Scientist.
- 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
- "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
- 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.
- Fulmer, Melinda (23 September 2000). "Taco Bell Recalls Shells That Used Bioengineered Corn". Los Angeles Times.
- 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
- Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefit Estimates, Janet E. Carpenter and Leonard P. Gianessi 2001, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
- North American Millers' Association Press Release, Apr. 28, 2008.
- GM Contamination Register Official Website
- "StarLink Corn: What Happened". University of California, Davis. Retrieved August 12, 2013.
- 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.
- Flachowsky, Gerhard; Chesson, Andrew; Aulrich, Karen (2005). "Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants". Archives of Animal Nutrition 59 (1): 1–40. doi:10.1080/17450390512331342368. PMID 15889650.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Nelson, Gerald C, ed. (2001). Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: economics and politics. Academic Press. ISBN 9780080488868. Retrieved 2013-05-12.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Amman, Klaus (2009) Rebuttal to a review of Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009 Retrieved on 28 October 2010
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Vain, Philippe (2007) Trends in GM crop, food and feed safety literature (2007)
- 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.
- "Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology Official Website". Psrast.org. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- Staff, United States General Accounting Office. May 23, 2002. GAO-02-566 Report to Congressional Requesters: Genetically Modified Foods pp 30-32
- 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).
- 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.)
- 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.
- Tang G, et al. (2009) Golden Rice is an effective source of vitamin A. Am J Clin Nutr. 89(6) 1776-83.
- 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.
- By Corinne Segal for the Tufts Daily. September 17, 2012, Updated September 20, 2012 Alleged ethics violations surface in Tufts-backed study
- 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.
- 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.
- Staff, Rowett Research Institute Press Office. Rowett Research Institute: Audit Report Overview
- Enserink, M. (1998). "SCIENCE IN SOCIETY:Institute Copes with Genetic Hot Potato". Science 281 (5380): 1124b. doi:10.1126/science.281.5380.1124b.
- Randerson J. (2008). Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide. The Guardian.
- Bourne, F.J., et al. (1998) Audit Report Overview Rowett Research Institute, 28 October 1998. Retrieved 28 November 2010
- Murray, Noreen et al., (1999) Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes The Royal Society, 1 June 1999. Retrieved 28 November 2010
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Rhodes, J. M (1999). "Genetically modified foods and the Pusztai affair". BMJ 318 (7193): 1284. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1284.
- 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.
- Poulter, Sean (20 May 2011). "GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies". Daily Mail (London). Retrieved 7 February 2012.
- "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.
- "FSANZ response to study linking Cry1Ab protein in blood to GM foods". Food Standards Australia New Zealand. 27 May 2011. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
- "FSANZ response to study linking Cry1Ab protein in blood to GM foods". FSANZ.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 
- "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.
- "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". European Food Safety Authority report. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- 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
- "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.
- "FSANZ reaffirms its risk assessment of genetically modified corn MON 863". FSANZ fact sheets 2007. 25 July 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- "Feeding studies and GM corn MON863". Food Standards Australia New Zealand. July 2012. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
- 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.
- "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.
- Allen, Kate (28 November 2013). "Science journal retracts French study on GM foods". Toronto Star. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
- "Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology". Elsevier. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
- 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. (Retracted)
- "Tous cobayes? (2012) - IMDb". IMDB. IMDB.com.
- Thomas Lumley for Stats Chat website. 20 September 2012 Roundup scare
- "Poison postures". Nature 489 (7417): 474. 2012. doi:10.1038/489474a. PMID 23025010.
- Séralini, Gilles-Eric (2012). Tous Cobayes !: OGM, pesticides et produits chimiques. Editions Flammarion. ISBN 9782081262362.
- Carl Zimmer on Discovery Magazine blog, The Loom. 21 September 2012 From Darwinius to GMOs: Journalists Should Not Let Themselves Be Played
- Andrew Kniss for Control Freaks Blog. 19 September 2012 Explanation of rat study
- 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.
- "Mortality and In-Life Patterns in Sprague-Dawley". Huntingdon Life Sciences. Retrieved 26 October 2012.
- "Sprague Dawley". Harlan. Retrieved 26 October 2012.
- Butler, Declan (2012). "Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny". Nature 490 (7419): 158. doi:10.1038/490158a. PMID 23060167.
- Hirschler, Ben (September 19, 2012). "UPDATE 3-Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws scepticism". Reuters.
- By Ben Hirschler and Kate Kelland. Reuters "Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism" 20 September 2012 
- MacKenzie, Deborah (19 September 2012) Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned New Scientist. Retrieved 26 September 2012
- Elizabeth Finkel (9 October 2012). "GM corn and cancer: the Séralini affai".
- Tim Carman for the Washington Post. Posted at 07:30 PM ET, 19 September 2012. French scientists question safety of GM corn 
- 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
- "RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". ScienceDirect.com. 2013-05-03. Retrieved May 2, 2014.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Staff (8 October 2012) VIB concludes that Séralini study is not substantiated VIB Life Sciences Research Institute, Belgium. Retrieved 14 October 2012
- Staff (October 2012) GMO study fails to meet scientific standards Technical University of Denmark, Danish National Food Institute, Retrieved 2 May 2014
- Staff, Food Standards Australia New Zealand November 2013. Response to Séralini paper
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Retraction Watch. November 28, 2013. Controversial Seralini GMO-rats paper to be retracted
- Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. November 28, 2013 Paper Tying Rat Cancer to Herbicide Is Retracted
- 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.
- Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer PR (December 2000). "The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants". Science 290 (5499): 2088–93. Bibcode:2000Sci...290.2088W. doi:10.1126/science.290.5499.2088. PMID 11118136.
- 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
- Environmental Sciences Europe | Full text | Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. - the first sixteen years
- Neuman, William; Pollack, Andrew (3 May 2010). "Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds". The New York Times.
- "History of Bt". University of California. Retrieved 8 February 2010.
- Hall, H. "Bt corn: is it worth the risk?". The Science Creative Quarterly.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Lövei GL, Andow DA, Arpaia S (April 2009). "Transgenic insecticidal crops and natural enemies: a detailed review of laboratory studies". Environ. Entomol. 38 (2): 293–306. doi:10.1603/022.038.0201. PMID 19389277.
- 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.
- Carpenter JE (2011). "Impact of GM crops on biodiversity". GM Crops 2 (1): 7–23. doi:10.4161/gmcr.2.1.15086. PMID 21844695.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Andre Pollack for The New York Times, 11 July 2011. In Midwest, Flutters May Be Far Fewer
- Relyea RA (2005). "The Impact of Insecticides and Herbicides on The Biodiversity and Productivity of Aquatic Communities". Ecological Applications 15 (2): 618–627. doi:10.1890/03-5342. PMID 17069392.
- Robin Meadows (2005)Common Herbicide Lethal to Wetland Species Conservation Magazine 6(3)
- 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.
- Lang, Susan (25 July 2006). "Profits die for Bt cotton in China". Cornell Chronicle. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Goswami, Bhaskar (September 2007). "Making a meal of Bt cotton". InfoChange. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
- "Bug makes meal of Punjab cotton, whither Bt magic?". IANS. 2 September 2007. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
- 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.
- Arencibia, A. Plant Genetic Engineering: Towards the Third Millennium. Elsevier, 2000.
- U.S. Department of Energy Genome Programs (2008). "Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms". Archived from the original on May 5, 2013. Retrieved August 28, 2013.
- Ben Lilliston for The Progressive Magazine, September 2001 Farmers Fight to Save Organic Crops
- Andrew Pollack for The New York Times "An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon" Published: 21 May 2012. Accessed 3 September 2012 
- Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Congressional Research ServiceGenetically Engineered Fish and Seafood: Environmental Concerns. 7 June 2011. Retrieved 3 September 2012. 
- GMO Compass 12 December 2006 Genetically Modified Plants: Out-crossing and Gene Flow accessdate 23 April 2011
- 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.
- 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.
- Hamer, Ed; Anslow, Mark (1 March 2008). "10 reasons why organic can feed the world". Ecologist.
- GMO Compass. 5 June 2009 Mexico: controlled cultivation of genetically modified maize
- Mike Shanahan for Science and Development Network, 10 November 2004. Warning issued on GM maize imported to Mexico - SciDev.Net
- Katie Mantell for Science and Development Network, 30 November 2001 GM maize found ‘contaminating’ wild strains - SciDev.Net
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- "Scientists play down 'superweed'" BBC, 25 July 2005 (source report)
- "First Wild Canola Plants With Modified Genes Found in United States". Arkansas Newswire. University of Arkansas. 6 August 2010. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
- Genetically Modified Canola 'Escapes' Farm Fields. NPR. Retrieved 8 February 2011.
- Black, Richard. (2010-08-06) BBC News – GM plants 'established in the wild'. Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 8 February 2011.
- Eisberg, Neil GM crops are on the move Chemistry and Industry Ten Alps Publishing 7 November 2011 HighBeam Research accessed 7 July 2012
- William Neuman and Andrew Pollack (May 3, 2010). "Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds". The New York Times.
- 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.
- 1:51 PM (2010-04-13). "Biotech Crops Are Good For Earth, Report Finds". Npr.org. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- "Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide". Cls.casa.colostate.edu. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
- BBC News, Tuesday, 5 October 1999. Terminator gene halt a 'major U-turn'
- Masood, Ehsan (1999). "Compromise sought on 'Terminator' seed technology". Nature 399 (6738): 721. doi:10.1038/21491.
- Haider Rizvi (Mar 21, 2006). "BIODIVERSITY: Don't Sell "Suicide Seeds", Activists Warn". Inter Press Service.
- 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.
- Dan Flynn for Food Safety News November 12, 2012 AC21 Wants USDA to Investigate Crop Insurance for Genetic Harm To Organic Crops
- 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
- 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
- Jeremy Smith, Reuters. December 7, 2007. EU caught in quandary over GMO animal feed imports
- Co-Extra official website
- Pollack, M. and Shaffer, G. When Cooperation Fails: the international law and politics of genetically modified foods. (2009) p. 275
- Hannelore Sudermann for the Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA). October 14, 1999 Genetically Altered Wheat Flagged – Thailand Detects Shipment Not Cleared for Commercial Sales
- Marc Gunther for Fortune Magazine. July 2, 2007. Attack of the mutant rice
- "APHIS Report of LibertyLink Rice Incidents" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- Andy Coghlan (2013-06-03). "Monsanto modified wheat mystery deepens in Oregon". New Scientist.
- Alan Bjerga for Bloomberg News. May 29, 2013. Monsanto Modified Wheat Not Approved by USDA Found in Field
- Reuters (2013-05-29). "Unapproved Monsanto GMO Wheat Found in Oregon". CNBC. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- Allison M (2013-06-05). "Japan's wheat-import suspension worries state growers". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2013-06-05.
- Andrew Pollack for The New York Times, May 29, 2013 Modified Wheat Is Discovered in Oregon
- Associated Press. August 30, 2013. Source of GMO wheat in Oregon remains mystery
- Melissa Allison for the Seattle Times June 18, 2013, updated June 20, 2013 Wheat scare leaves farmers in limbo
- 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.
- 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.
- "How GMOs Unleashed a Pesticide Gusher". October 3, 2012.
- 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.
- 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. Bibcode:2007Sci...316.1475M. doi:10.1126/science.1139208. PMID 17556584.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- Carrington, Damien (13 June 2012) GM crops good for environment, study finds The Guardian. Retrieved 16 June 2012
- 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.
- "Cotton in India". Monsanto. 5 May 2010.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Jack Kaskey for Bloomberg News Nov 16, 2012 DuPont-Dow Corn Defeated by Armyworms in Florida: Study
- Staff, University of Minnesota Extension. Section: Can European corn borer develop resistance to Bt corn? in the Bt Corn & European Corn Borer
- Economic Impact of Transgenic Crops in Developing Countries. Agbioworld.org. Retrieved 8 February 2011.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Karnowski, Steve High-Tech Corn Fights Pests at Home and Nearby Sci-Tech today, 8 October 2010. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
- 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.
- 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". AgBioForum 9 (3): 195–212.
- Lynas, Mark (2010) What the Green Movement Got Wrong: A turncoat explains The Daily Telegraph, 4 November 2010. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
- Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using crop genetic improvement technologies for sustainable agriculture, EASAC policy report 21, 27.06.13.
- Staff, Bioscience Research Center. April 2, 2013 BSR News: Jonathan Latham’s Second Interview on talkradioeurope
- "Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger?". The New York Times. 26 October 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
- Staff, PBS. Interview with Jeremy Rifkin
- Miguel A. Altieri (1998) Modern Agriculture: Ecological impacts and the possibilities for truly sustainable farming Monthly Review 50(3)
- Plant Genetics/Genomics: Crops and Models Vol. 7: Genetics and Genomics of the Triticeae. Feuillet, C. and Muehlbauer, G. (eds.)
- Bruce Erickson and Jim Mintert. Giving Thanksfor Contemporary Agriculture Top Farmer Crop Workshop Newsletter, November 2009
- William C. Motes March 2010. Modern Agriculture and Its Benefits – Trends, Implications and Outlook
- Staff, Monsanto. Monsanto: Who we are
- Staff, Bayer CropScience. Bayer CropScience: Our purpose
- 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
- Gillis, Justin A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself The New York Times, 5 June 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2011
- 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
- Raney, Terri, and Prahbu Pingali. "Sowing A Gene Revolution." Scientific American September 2007. 11 September 2008, SCIAM.com
- Lal, Rattan; Hobbs, Peter R; Uphoff, Norman et al., eds. (2004). Sustainable Agriculture and the International Rice-Wheat System. CRC Press. ISBN 9780824754914. Retrieved 2013-05-12.
- Lappe FM, Collins J, Rosset P, and Esparza LFrances Moore Lappé ; Joseph Collins; Peter Rosset. With Luis Esparza. (1998). World Hunger: Twelve Myths. Grove Press. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-8021-3591-9.
- Boucher Dedited by Douglas H. Boucher. (1999). The Paradox of Plenty: Hunger in a Bountiful World. Food First. p. 342. ISBN 978-0-935028-71-3.
- 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.
- 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.
- Pfeiffer, D. Eating Fossil Fuel: Oil, Food, and the Coming Crisis in Agriculture. (2006).
- 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.
- 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
- Kagale, Sateesh; Rozwadowski, Kevin (October 2010). "Global Food Security: The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology Commentary" (PDF). Plant Physiology (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,) 154: 1. Retrieved 12 January 2014.
- 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". Report to the European Commission, March 2011.
- Wesseler, J. (ed.) (2005): Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops. Dordrecht, NL: Springer Press
- Dunwell, Jim M. (2013). "Transgenic cereals: Current status and future prospects". Journal of Cereal Science. doi:10.1016/j.jcs.2013.08.008.
- Katia Moskvitch (23 January 2013). "Salmon steak from GM fish could soon be on your plate". BBC News.
- 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.
- 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.
- "Roundup Ready soybean trait patent nears expiration in 2014". Hpj.com. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- D. Gurian-Sherman. 2009. Failure to Yield. UCSUSA.org
- Do GM Crops Really Have Higher Yields?
- 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.
- Hayenga, Marvin (1998). "Structural change in the biotech seed and chemical industrial complex". AgBioForum 1 (2): 43–55.
- Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life. ETC Group. 2008. p. 11.
- Who will control the Green Economy?. ETC Group. 2011. p. 22.
- USDA (2001). "Concentration and Technology in Agricultural Input Industries." http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib763/
- "AgBioForum - Powerbase". Powerbase.info. 2010-05-18. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- Acquaye, Albert K. A.; Traxler, Greg 2005. "Monopoly power, price discrimination, and access to biotechnology innovations". AgBioForum 8 (2&3): 127–33.
- Murphy, S., 2006. Concentrated Market Power and Agricultural Trade. EcoFair Trade Dialog Discussion Paper #1. p.18
- Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life. ETC Group. 2008. p. 14.
- Carey Gillam for Reuters. 11 March 2010. Farm groups call on U.S. to "bust up big ag"
- Jack Kaskey and William McQuillen for Bloomberg News, 12 March 2010 Monsanto’s Seed Patents May Trump Antitrust Claims (Update2)
- 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.
- Eagle Seed Company, Roundup Ready Seed webpage Has example of license language
- Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement 2011.
- Syngenta Stewardship Agreement
- Dupont 2011 Annual Report (10-K Filing) See page 2 for ag R&D percentage, page 19 for total R&D spending.
- "Monsanto Investors's page". Monsanto.com. 2008-11-03. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- 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.
- "p.73" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- "Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture".
- 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
- "Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits". Monsanto. 2008-11-03. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- Schubert, Robert: "Schmeiser Wants to Take It to The Supreme Court", CropChoice News, 9 September 2002
- "Canadian Supreme Court Decision". Scc.lexum.org. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
- 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.
- Bernard Simon for The New York Times, May 22, 2004 Monsanto Wins Patent Case On Plant Genes
- Sheldon, M. Regulation of Biotechnology: will we ever 'freely' trade GMOs? Eur Rev Agric Econ (2002) 29 (1): 155-176.
- BJ Siekierski for iPolitics. Feb 2, 2011 Agriculture Committee continues study on biotechnology while Bill C-474 is debated
- Private Member's Bill C-474
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Terri Hallenbeck, for the Burlington Free Press. April 27, 2014 How GMO labeling came to pass in Vermont
- 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
- 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"
- 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"
- Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2012). "Labelling of GM Foods". Retrieved 2013-03-14.
- Anne Sewell for the DIgital Journal. Jan 11, 2013 GMO labeling signed into law in India
- 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.
- Food Standards Agency, Last updated on 7 April 2008 GM labelling advisory
- Schiffman, Richard (13 June 2012). "How California's GM food referendum may change what America eats". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 10 October 2012.
- 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."
- Amy Harmon and Andrew Pollack for The New York Times, 24 May 2012 Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food
- Associated Press, Published in the Wall Street Journal 22 February 2012 Conn. bill looks to add labels to engineered food
- Vaughan, Adam (7 November 2012). "Prop 37: Californian voters reject GM food labeling". London: guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-11-07.
- "California General Election, Tuesday, November 6, 2012: Official Voter Information Guide". State of California. Retrieved 26 October 2012.
- Connecticut Approves Labeling Genetically Modified Foods
- Initiative 522. November 5, 2013 General Election Results
- Gillam, Carey (November 8, 2013). "After Washington GMO label battle, both sides eye national fight". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 10 November 2013.
- The Editors of Scientific American. September 6, 2013 Editorial: Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea
- Herling, Daniel J.; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. (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.
- "The California Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.SENATE BILL No. 1381". 21 February 2014.
- 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.
- Terri Hallenbeck for The Burlington Free Press. May 8, 2014 Vermont gov signs law to require labels on GMO foods
- AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION (2001) Support of the Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods Policy Number: 200111
- 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
- Illinois Public Health Association (2011) Resolution No. 3, 2011, Labeling of Foods Containing Genetically Engineered Ingredients
- Indiana Delegation (2010) Supporting Legislation and / or Regulations that Require Clearly Labeling Food with Genetically Engineered Ingredients Resolution: 509 (A-11)
- 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.
- FDA News Release 7 July 2009 Noted Food Safety Expert Michael R. Taylor Named Advisor to FDA Commissioner
- Pollack, Andrew (September 4, 2001). Altered Corn Surfaced Earlier. New York: The New York Times. p. 1. Retrieved August 7, 2013
- 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 (0): 145–75.
- 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.
- 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.
- Judge Revokes Approval of Modified Sugar Beets, by ANDREW POLLACK, The New York Times, 13 August 2010
- 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
- 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
- Staff (7 August 2012) Roundup Ready® Sugar Beet News USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology, Retrieved 14 March 2013
- USDA - Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), United States Department of Agriculture, December 2010. Retrieved 14 March 2013
- Lynch D, Vogel D. (2001). The Regulation of Gmos in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics..
- Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology • DECEMBER 2005 U.S. vs. EU: An Examination of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically Modiﬁed Food
- Staff (updated 23 May 2007) Euractive.com EU GMO ban was illegal, WTO rules Retrieved 7 October 2011
- Staff EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (Disputes DS291, 292, 293) World Trade Organisation. Retrieved 7 October 2011
- 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.
- 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.
- Colin Bettles and Bobbie Hinkley for The Land. 28 May 2014 Baxter wins GM case
- Supreme Court of Western Australia Supreme Court of Western Australia Judgement Summary: Marsh V Baxter [2014 WASC 187 (Civ 1561 Of 2012)
- Ian Walker for the Global Mail. February 2014. Steve Marsh and the Bad Seeds Accessed July 8, 2014
- Slater & Gordon Lawyers. June 18, 2014. Media statement: Marsh v Baxter appeal
- "Agriculture". Asia-Pacific Biotech News 07 (25): 1613. 2003. doi:10.1142/S0219030303002623.
- 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.
- 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.
- Zerbe, N. (2004). Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in Southern Africa. Food Policy, 29(6), 593–608.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Kathage J, Qaim M (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.
- Environment News Service 9 August 2012 Maharashtra State Revokes Monsanto’s Cotton Seed License
- "India says no to first GM food crop". Agence France-Presse (AFP) (New Delhi). 9 February 2010.
- "India puts on hold first GM food crop on safety grounds". BBC. 9 February 2010. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
- "Govt says no to Bt brinjal for now". The Times of India. 9 February 2010. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
- "GM food labelling comes into force amid fears over 'lack of planning'". The Daily Mail (London). 1 January 2013. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
- "Govt regulator paves way for field trials of GM food crops including wheat, rice and maize - The Times of India". The Times Of India.
|Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Genes, Technology and Policy|
- 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
- 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