Jump to content

Genetically modified food

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.214.67.154 (talk) at 02:56, 14 October 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. These techniques are much more precise than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change. Other techniques by which humans modify food organisms include selective breeding (plant breeding and animal breeding), and somaclonal variation.

GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. Typically, genetically modified foods are transgenic plant products: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. Animal products have also been developed, although as of July 2010 none are currently on the market.[1] In 2006 a pig was controversially[2][3] engineered to produce omega-3 fatty acids through the expression of a roundworm gene.[4] Researchers have also developed a genetically-modified breed of pigs that are able to absorb plant phosphorus more efficiently, and as a consequence the phosphorus content of their manure is reduced by as much as 60%.[5] Scientists believe that they will soon be able to create self cooking fish and angry corn.

Critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including possible safety issues,[6] ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact that these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.

Method

Genetic modification involves the insertion or deletion of genes. In the process of cisgenesis, genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could be conventionally bred. In the process of transgenesis, genes from a different species are inserted, which is a form of horizontal gene transfer. In nature this can occur when exogenous DNA penetrates the cell membrane for any reason. To do this artificially may require attaching genes to a virus or just physically inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host with a very small syringe, or with very small particles fired from a gene gun. However, other methods exploit natural forms of gene transfer, such as the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer genetic material to plants, and the ability of lentiviruses to transfer genes to animal cells.

Development

The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was a tomato (called FlavrSavr), which was modified to ripen without softening, by Calgene, later a subsidiary of Monsanto.[7] Calgene took the initiative to obtain FDA approval for its release in 1994 without any special labeling, although legally no such approval was required.[8] It was welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at a substantial premium over the price of regular tomatoes. However, production problems[7] and competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the product from becoming profitable. A tomato produced using similar technology to the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996.[9][10] The labeling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment, which proved, at the time, that European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods. Currently, there are a number of food species in which a genetically modified version exists (percent modified are mostly 2009/2010 data[11][12][13][14][15][16]).

Food Properties of the genetically modified variety Modification Percent Modified in US Percent Modified in world
Soybeans Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides Herbicide resistant gene taken from bacteria inserted into soybean 93% 77%
Corn, field Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides. Insect resistance via producing Bt proteins, some previously used as pesticides in organic crop production. Vitamin-enriched corn derived from South African white corn variety M37W has bright orange kernels, with 169x increase in beta carotene, 6x the vitamin C and 2x folate.[17] New genes, some from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, added/transferred into plant genome. 86% 26%
Cotton (cottonseed oil) Pest-resistant cotton Bt crystal protein gene added/transferred into plant genome 93% 49%
Alfalfa Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides New genes added/transferred into plant genome. Planted in the US from 2005–2007; no longer planted currently due to court decisions
Hawaiian papaya Variety is resistant to the papaya ringspot virus.[18] New gene added/transferred into plant genome 80%
Tomatoes Variety in which the production of the enzyme polygalacturonase (PG) is suppressed, retarding fruit softening after harvesting.[19] A reverse copy (an antisense gene) of the gene responsible for the production of PG enzyme added into plant genome Taken off the market due to commercial failure. Small quantities grown in China
Rapeseed (Canola) Resistance to herbicides (glyphosate or glufosinate), high laurate canola[20] New genes added/transferred into plant genome 93% 21%
Sugar cane Resistance to certain pesticides, high sucrose content. New genes added/transferred into plant genome
Sugar beet Resistance to glyphosate, glufosinate herbicides New genes added/transferred into plant genome 95% (2010); planting in the US is halted as of 13 Aug. 2010 by court order 9%
Rice Genetically modified to contain high amounts of Vitamin A (beta-carotene) "Golden rice" Three new genes implanted: two from daffodils and the third from a bacterium Forecast to be on the market in 2012[21]
Squash (Zucchini) Resistance to watermelon, cucumber and zucchini yellow mosaic viruses[22][23] Contains coat protein genes of viruses. 13%
Sweet Peppers Resistance to virus[24] Contains coat protein genes of the virus. Small quantities grown in China

In addition, various genetically engineered micro-organisms are routinely used as sources of enzymes for the manufacture of a variety of processed foods. These include alpha-amylase from bacteria, which converts starch to simple sugars, chymosin from bacteria or fungi that clots milk protein for cheese making, and pectinesterase from fungi which improves fruit juice clarity.[25]

Growing GM crops

Between 1997 and 2009, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 80, from 17,000 km2 (4.2 million acres) to 1,340,000 km2 (331 million acres).[13]

Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2009 the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in Brazil (214,000 km2 in 2009 versus 158,000 km2 in 2008.)[13] There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) In 2009 84,000 km2 of GM cotton were harvested in India.[13]

In India, GM cotton yields in Andhra Pradesh were no better than non-GM cotton in 2002, the first year of commercial GM cotton planting. This was because there was a severe drought in Andhra Pradesh that year and the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered variant was not well suited to extreme drought. Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu had an average 42% increase in yield with GM cotton in the same year.[26] Drought resistant variants were developed and, with the substantially reduced losses to insect predation, by 2009 87% of Indian cotton was GM.[13] Though disputed[27][28] the economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented.[29][30]

In 2009, countries that grew 95% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (46%), Brazil (16%), Argentina (15%), India (6%), Canada (6%), China (3%), Paraguay (2%) and South Africa (2%).[13] The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient.[31] In particular, Bt corn, which produces the pesticide within the plant itself, is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These constitute "input-traits" are aimed to financially benefit the producers, have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers.

In the US, by 2009/2010, 93% of the planted area of soybeans, 93% of cotton, 86% of corn and 95% of the sugar beet were genetically modified varieties.[11][12] Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide-tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensis Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002 to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant maize also increased in sown area.[32]

Alfalfa

On 21 June 2010, the US Supreme Court has issued its first ruling in regard to a GM crop. This was a ruling in regard to Roundup Ready alfalfa.[33] The case goes back to 2006, when organic farmers, concerned about the impact of GM alfalfa on their crops, sued Monsanto. In response, the California Northern District Court ruled that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was in error when it approved the planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa. According to the presiding judge, the law required the USDA to first conduct a full environmental study, which it had not done. It was the concern of the organic growers that the GM alfalfa could cross-pollinate with their organic alfalfa, making their crops unsalable in countries that forbid the growing of GM crops.

The impact of the current US Supreme Court ruling is somewhat unclear, with both sides appearing to claim victory.[34][35] While Monsanto can claim technical victory in the case, various other issues still remain open, and will likely be litigated in the future. Meanwhile, the planting of GM alfalfa currently remains halted in the US, and it is unclear when it may resume.

Sugar beets

In 2009-2010, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has been considering the case involving the planting of genetically modified sugar beets. This case involves Monsanto's breed of pesticide-resistant sugar beets.[36] Earlier in 2010, Judge Jeffrey S. White allowed the planting of GM sugar beets to continue, but he also warned that this may be blocked in the future while an environmental review was taking place. Finally, on 13 August 2010, Judge White ordered the halt to the planting of the genetically modified sugar beets in the US. He indicated that "the Agriculture Department had not adequately assessed the environmental consequences before approving them for commercial cultivation." The decision was the result of a lawsuit organised by the Center for Food Safety, a US non-governmental organisation that is a critic of biotech crops.[37]

Crop yields

Some scientific studies have claimed that genetically modified varieties of plants do not produce higher crop yields than normal plants.[38]

One study by Charles Benbrook, Chief Scientist of the Organic Center, found that genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans do not increase yields (Bendrook, 1999). The report reviewed over 8,200 university trials in 1998 and found that Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 7-10% less than similar natural varieties. In addition, the same study found that farmers used 5-10 times more herbicide (Roundup) on Roundup Ready soybeans than on conventional ones.[39]

However, research published in Science has shown that genetically modified crops can increase yield while reducing the number of applications of insecticides.[40]

Still more recently, the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized numerous peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of genetic engineering in the United States. This report examined the two most widely grown engineered crops—soybeans and maize.[41] Unlike many other studies, this work separated the yield contribution of the engineered gene from that of the many naturally occurring yield genes in crops.

The report found that engineered herbicide tolerant soy and maize did not increase yield at the national, aggregate level. Maize engineered with Bt insect resistance genes increased national yield by about 3 to 4 percent. Engineered crops increased net yield in all cases.

The study concluded that in the United States, other agricultural methods have made a much greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering. United States Department of Agriculture data record maize yield increases of about 28 percent since engineered varieties were first commercialized in the mid 1990s. The yield contribution of engineered genes has therefore been a modest fraction—about 14 percent—of the maize yield increase since the mid 1990s.

Coexistence and traceability

The United States and Canada do not require labeling of genetically modified foods.[42] However in certain other regions, such as the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia, governments have required labeling so consumers can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins.[43][44] This requires a labeling system as well as the reliable separation of GM and non-GM organisms at production level and throughout the whole processing chain.[43][44]

For traceability, the OECD has introduced a "unique identifier" which is given to any GMO when it is approved.[45] This unique identifier must be forwarded at every stage of processing.[citation needed] Many countries have established labeling regulations and guidelines on coexistence and traceability. Research projects such as Co-Extra, SIGMEA and Transcontainer are aimed at investigating improved methods for ensuring coexistence and providing stakeholders the tools required for the implementation of coexistence and traceability.[citation needed]

Detection

Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques like DNA microarrays or qPCR. These tests can be based on screening genetic elements (like p35S, tNos, pat, or bar) or event-specific markers for the official GMOs (like Mon810, Bt11, or GT73). The array-based method combines multiplex PCR and array technology to screen samples for different potential GMOs,[46] combining different approaches (screening elements, plant-specific markers, and event-specific markers).

The qPCR is used to detect specific GMO events by usage of specific primers for screening elements or event-specific markers. Controls are necessary to avoid false positive or false negative results. For example, a test for CaMV is used to avoid a false positive in the event of a virus contaminated sample.

PLU codes

A Price Look-Up code beginning with the digit 8 indicates genetically modified food.[47]

Controversy

Main article: GM food controversy

While it is evident that there is a food supply issue, the question is whether GM can solve world hunger problems, or even if that would be the best way to address the issue. Several scientists argue that in order to meet the demand for food in the developing world, a second green revolution with increased use of GM crops is needed.[48] Others argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production.[49][50] Recently some critics have changed their minds on the issue with respect to the need for additional food supplies.[51] Further, it has been widely noted that there are those who consider over-population the real issue here, and that food production is adequate for any reasonable population size.

“Genetic modification is analogous to nuclear power: nobody loves it, but climate change has made its adoption imperative,” says economist Paul Collier of Oxford University. "Declining genetic modification makes a complicated issue more complex. Genetic modification offers both faster crop adaptation and a biological, rather than chemical, approach to yield increases."[52]

On the other hand, many believe that GM food has not been a success and that we should devote our efforts and money into another solution. “We need biodiversity intensification that works with nature’s nutrient and water cycles, not against them,” says Vandana Shiva. Shiva, the founder of Navdanya, the movement of 500,000 seed keepers and organic farmers in India, argues that GMF’s have not increased yields. Recently, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, published a report called “Failure to Yield”, in which he stated that in a nearly 20 year record, genetically engineered crops have not increased yields substantially of food and livestock feed crops in the United States.[53]

Some claim that genetically modified food help farmers produce, despite the odds or any environmental barriers. “While new technology must be tested before it is commercially released, we should be mindful of the risks of not releasing it at all,” says Per Pinstrup-Andersen, professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University. Per Pinstrup-Anderson argues, “Misguided anti-science ideology and failure by governments to prioritize agricultural and rural development in developing countries brought us the food crisis.” He clearly states the challenge we face is not the challenge of whether we have enough resources to produce, but whether we will change our behavior.[54]

Economic and environmental effects

Adoption of genetically-engineered crops in the United States.[55]
  • Many proponents of genetically engineered crops claim they lower pesticide usage and have brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those in developing nations.[56] For example, a 2010 study by US scientists, found that the economic benefit of Bt corn to farmers in five mid-west states was $6.9 billion over the previous 14 years. They were surprised that the majority ($4.3 billion) of the benefit accrued to non-Bt corn. This was because the European Corn Borers that attack the Bt corn die and there are fewer left to attack the non-GM corn nearby.[57][58]
  • The United States has seen a widespread adoption of genetically-engineered corn, cotton and soybean crops since 1996 (see figure).[55]
  • In 2010, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reported that genetically engineered crops had resulted in reduced pesticide application and reduced soil erosion from tilling. The report also stated that the advent of glyphosate-herbicide resistant weeds—that have developed because of the use of engineered crops—could cause the genetically engineered crops to loose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other established weed management strategies.[59][60]
  • In a study by Scientists at the University of Arkansas published in 2010 showed that about 83 percent of wild or weedy canola they tested contained genetically modified herbicide resistance genes, and they also found some plants that contained resistance to both herbicides, a combination of transgenic traits that had not been developed in canola crops. That leads us to believe that these wild populations that contain modified genes have become established populations.[61][62][63]

Bans

  • In 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme. This left a famine-stricken population without food aid.[64]
  • In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize.[65] However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods."[66][67]
  • In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in Venezuela.[68]
  • In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, which was subsequently authorized by the EU.[69]
  • On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly caused by cross-pollination with conventional crops.[70]
  • On February 9, 2010, Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, imposed a moratorium on the cultivation of GMF "for as long as it is needed to establish public trust and confidence".[71] His decision was made after protest from several groups responding to regulatory approval of the cultivation of Bt brinjal, a GM eggplant in October, 2009.

Intellectual property

Traditionally, farmers in all nations saved their own seed from year to year. Allowing to follow this practice with genetically modified seed would result in seed developers losing the ability to profit from their breeding work[citation needed]. Therefore, genetically-modified seed are subject to licensing by their developers in contracts that are written to prevent farmers from following this traditional practice.[72] Many objections to genetically modified food crops are based on this change.

Main article: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser

Enforcement of patents on genetically modified plants is often contentious, especially because of gene flow. In 1998, 95-98 percent of about 10 km2 planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto Company's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto.[73] The initial source of the plants was undetermined, and could have been through either gene flow or intentional theft. However, the overwhelming predominance of the trait implied that Schmeiser must have intentionally selected for it. The court determined that Schmeiser had saved seed from areas on and adjacent to his property where Roundup had been sprayed, such as ditches and near power poles.[74]

Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly grew Roundup Ready plants without paying royalties(Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor.[73][74] The dissenting judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents covered only the gene itself and glyphosate resistant cells, and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety. All of the judges agreed that Schmeiser would not have to pay any damages since he had not benefited from his use of the genetically modified seed.

In response to criticism, Monsanto Canada's Director of Public Affairs 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."[75]

Future developments

Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B,[76] metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, foods no longer containing properties associated with common intolerances, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.[77] While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also, at the same time, be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development. Plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.[78][79]

Health risks

In the United States, the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition reviews summaries of food safety data developed and voluntarily submitted by developers of engineered foods, in part on the basis of comparability to conventionally-produced foods. There are no specific tests required by FDA to determine safety. FDA does not approve the safety of engineered foods[citation needed], but after its review, acknowledges that the developer of the food has asserted that it is safe. The table below shows the foods that have been reviewed by FDA as of 2002.[80]

FDA GMO approvals

A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[81] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[6] There have, however, been no epidemiological studies to determine whether engineered crops have caused any harm to the public. Without such studies, it is unlikely that harm, if it occurred, would be detected or attributed to engineered foods.[citation needed] Worldwide, there are a range of perspectives within non-governmental organizations on the safety of GM foods. For example, the US pro-GM pressure group AgBioWorld has argued that GM foods have been proven safe,[82] while other pressure groups and consumer rights groups, such as the Organic Consumers Association,[83] and Greenpeace[84] claim the long term health risks which GM could pose, or the environmental risks associated with GM, have not yet been adequately investigated.

In 1998 Rowett Research Institute scientist Árpád Pusztai reported that consumption of potatoes genetically modified to contain lectin had adverse intestinal effects on rats.[85] Pusztai eventually published a paper, co-authored by Stanley Ewen, in the journal, The Lancet. The paper claimed to show that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes.[86] The experiment modified potatoes to add a toxin (snowdrop lectin), but the experiment failed to include a control for the toxin alone or a control for genetic modifications alone (without added toxin); therefore, no conclusion could be made about the safety of the genetic engineering. The experiment has been criticised by other scientists on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet and that all the rats may have been sick, due to them being fed a diet of only potatoes.[87]

In 2010 three scientists published a statistical re-analysis of three feeding trials that had previously been published by others as establishing the safety of genetically modified corn.[88][89][90] The new article claimed that their statistics instead showed that the three patented crops (Mon 810, Mon 863, and NK 603) developed and owned by Monsanto cause liver, kidney, and heart damage in mammals.[91] A previous re-analysis of part of this data by the same group of scientists was assessed by a panel of independent toxicologists in a study funded by Monsanto and published in the journal Food and chemical toxicology, the reviewers reported that the study was statistically flawed and providing no evidence of adverse effects.[92]

Gene transfer

As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had previously had their large intestines removed. These volunteers were to eat GM soy to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the bacteria that naturally lives in the human gut. Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soya transferred into the bacteria living in their gut before the start of the feeding experiment. As this low-frequency transfer did not increase after the consumption of GM Soya, 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.[93] Anti-GM advocates believe the study should prompt additional testing to determine its significance.[94]. Other studies have found DNA from M13 virus, GFP and even ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (Rubisco) genes in the blood and tissue of ingesting animals (reviewed by[95][96]

Two studies on the possible effects of feeding genetically modified feeds to animals found that there was no significant differences in the safety and nutritional value of feedstuffs containing material derived from genetically modified plants.[97][98] Specifically, the studies noted that no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins have been found in any organ or tissue samples obtained from animals fed with GMP plants.

Allergies

In the mid 1990s Pioneer Hi-Bred tested the allergenicity of a transgenic soybean that expressed a Brazil nut seed storage protein in hope that the seeds would have increased levels of the amino acid methionine. The tests (radioallergosorbent testing, immunoblotting, and skin-prick testing) showed that individuals allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the new GM soybean.[99] Pioneer has indicated that it will not develop commercial cultivars containing Brazil nut protein because the protein is likely to be an allergen.[100]

DNA Content in Oils

In a January 2010 study by Costa et al. it was found that genetically modified (GM) DNA was detectable in purified soybean oil see abstract excerpt below: "The amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was successfully achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes, until the fully refined soybean oil. The amplification of RR {Roundup Ready} soybean by PCR assays using event-specific primers was also achieved for all the extraction and refining steps, except for the intermediate steps of refining (neutralisation, washing and bleaching) possibly due to sample instability. The real-time PCR assays using specific probes confirmed all the results and proved that it is possible to detect and quantify genetically modified organisms in the fully refined soybean oil."

See also

References

  1. ^ Bob Holmes (14 July 2010). "Altered animals: Creatures with bonus features". New Scientist.
  2. ^ Kang JX; et al. (2007). "Why the omega-3 should go to market". Nature Biotechnology. 25 (5): 505–506. doi:10.1038/nbt0507-505. PMID 17483827. Retrieved 2009-03-29. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  3. ^ Fiester, A. (2006). "Why the omega-3 piggy should not go to market". Nature Biotechnology. 24 (12): 1472–1473. doi:10.1038/nbt1206-1472. PMID 17160035. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
  4. ^ Lai L; et al. (2006). "Generation of cloned transgenic pigs rich in omega-3 fatty acids" (PDF). Nature Biotechnology. 24 (4): 435–436. doi:10.1038/nbt1198. PMID 16565727. Retrieved 2009-03-29. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  5. ^ Guelph Transgenic Pig Research Program: EnviropigTM an environmentally friendly breed of pigs that utilizes plant phosphorus efficiently. November 04, 2005.
  6. ^ a b NRC. (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full text. Cite error: The named reference "NRC2004" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Martineau, Belinda (2001). First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods. McGraw-Hill. p. 269. ISBN 978-0071360562.
  8. ^ FDA Consumer Letter (September 1994): First Biotech Tomato Marketed
  9. ^ GEO-PIE Project - Cornell University
  10. ^ Center for Environmental Risk Assessment. "GM Crop Database:Tomato". International Life Sciences Institute.
  11. ^ a b Acreage NASS National Agricultural Statistics Board annual report, June 30, 2010, accessed July 23, 2010
  12. ^ a b USA:Cultivation of GM Plants in 2009, Maize, soybean, cotton: 88 percent genetically modified GMO Compass, Accessed July 25, 2010
  13. ^ a b c d e f Field areas 2009, Genetically modified plants: Global cultivation on 134 million hectares GMO Compass, Accessed July 25, 2010
  14. ^ Ronald, Pamela and McWilliams, James Genetically Engineered Distortions The New York Times, May 14, 2010, Mentions that today 80% of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, accessed July 26, 2010
  15. ^ Wright, Brierley How Healthy Is Canola Oil Really? "Eating Well", March/April 2010 edition, Mentions 93% of rapeseed in the US is GM, accessed July 26, 2010
  16. ^ Johnson, Stanley R. et al Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006 National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington DC, February 2008, retrieved August 12, 2010
  17. ^ Shaista Naqvi, et al. Transgenic multivitamin corn through biofortification of endosperm with three vitamins representing three distinct metabolic pathways PNAS April 27, 2009.
  18. ^ Richard M. Manshardt ‘UH Rainbow’ Papaya: A High-Quality Hybrid with Genetically Engineered Disease Resistance. Cooperative Extension Service/CTAHR, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
  19. ^ U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Biotechnology of Food. FDA Backgrounder: May 18, 1994.
  20. ^ Rapeseed (canola) has been genetically engineered to modify its oil content with a gene encoding a "12:0 thioesterase" (TE) enzyme from the California bay plant (Umbellularia californica) to increase medium length fatty acids, see: Geo-pie.cornell.edu
  21. ^ Potrykus, Ingo (2010) Regulation must be revolutionized Nature, Vol 466, P561, doi:10.1038/466561a; retrieved August 10, 2010
  22. ^ Pocket K No. 2: Plant Products of Biotechnology ISAAA, August 2009, retrieved August 11, 2010
  23. ^ [1] Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Oxnard, California, retrieved August 12, 2010
  24. ^ Paroda, Raj (Secretary) Biosafety Regulations of Asia-Pacific Countries FAO, APCoAB, APAARI, 2008, ISBN 978–92–5–105828–9, retrieved August 11, 2010
  25. ^ GE Enzymes and Microorganisms
  26. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00272.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00272.x instead.
  27. ^ India’s Bt Cotton Fraud Institute of Science in Society, science society sustainability, ISIS report 03/05/05, Retrieved 26 September 2010
  28. ^ 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
  29. ^ Economic Impact of Genetically Modified Cotton in India
  30. ^ Comparing the Performance of Official and Unofficial Genetically Modified Cotton in India
  31. ^ Genetic Engineering: The Future of Foods?
  32. ^ Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. USDA ERS July 14, 2006
  33. ^ Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms at ScotusWiki - Briefs and Documents, etc.
  34. ^ Hollow victory for Monsanto in alfalfa court case New Scientist, 22 June 2010 (accessed 22 June 2010)
  35. ^ Supreme Court on Modified Foods: Who Won?, by Barry Estabrook, 'The Atlantic'. June 22, 2010 (accessed June 22, 2010)
  36. ^ Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Planting GM Alfalfa by JENNIFER KOONS, NYT, June 21, 2010 (accessed June 21, 2010)
  37. ^ Judge Revokes Approval of Modified Sugar Beets, by ANDREW POLLACK, New York Times, August 13, 2010
  38. ^ Press Releases 2008
  39. ^ Organic Farming can Feed The World!
  40. ^ Qaim, Matim; Zilberman, D (2003). "Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries". Science. 299 (5608): 900–902. doi:10.1126/science.1080609. PMID 12574633. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  41. ^ D. Gurian-Sherman. 2009. Failure to Yield. UCSUSA.org
  42. ^ Trade barriers seen in EU label for bio-engineered ingredients. (Regulatory and Policy Trends). Business and the Environment 13.11 (Nov 2002): p14(1).
  43. ^ a b Northwestern.edu Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Paper on: "Consumer Protection" Consumer Strategies and the European Market in Genetically Modified Foods Quote: The recent Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) Statement on the WTO decision makes this clear: "clearly consumers' preference for non-GM food is the true engine of the market collapse for American crops." and For instance, Evenson notes that the politicization of GMOs is not merely a question of labeling as information, but unlabeled GM products as catalysts in the "globalization backlash."
  44. ^ a b CBC Identifying genetically modified products. Quote: Yet as seen in this report from CBC's Marketplace, no such labeling law exists in Canada despite numerous surveys indicating up to 90 per cent of Canadians want mandatory labeling of GM food. Canada's leading national consumer group does not support mandatory labeling. It appeared to reverse its stance on December 3, 2003: Consumer.ca
  45. ^ BioTrack Product Database OECD , Retrieved 11 October 2010
  46. ^ BGMO.jrc.ec.europa.eu
  47. ^ Plucodes.com
  48. ^ Raney, Terri, and Prahbu Pingali. "Sowing A Gene Revolution." Scientific American September 2007. 11 September 2008, SCIAM.com
  49. ^ 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 978-0802135919.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  50. ^ Boucher Dedited by Douglas H. Boucher. (1999). The Paradox of Plenty: Hunger in a Bountiful World. Food First. p. 342. ISBN 978-0935028713. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  51. ^ Valley, Paul. Strange fruit: Could genetically modified foods offer a solution to the world's food crisis? The Independent, 18 April 2009.
  52. ^ Put Aside Prejudices
  53. ^ "Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger?". The New York Times. October 26, 2009. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
  54. ^ A green Revolution Done Right
  55. ^ a b Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. - Economic Research Service, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
  56. ^ Economic Impact of Transgenic Crops in Developing Countries
  57. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1126/science.1190242, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1126/science.1190242 instead.
  58. ^ Karnowski, Steve High-Tech Corn Fights Pests at Home and Nearby Sci-Tech today, 8 October 2010, Retrieved 9 October 2010
  59. ^ Report by the US National Academies "Genetically Engineered Crops Benefit Many Farmers, but the Technology Needs proper Management to Remain Effective" - press release on the report "The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States" Office of News and Public Information, News from the Academies, 13 April, 2010, Retrieved 11 October 2010
  60. ^ Biotech Crops Are Good For Earth, Report Finds
  61. ^ First Wild Canola Plants With Modified Genes Found in United States
  62. ^ Genetically Modified Canola 'Escapes' Farm Fields
  63. ^ GM plants 'established in the wild'
  64. ^ NYtimes.com
  65. ^ Zambia Allows Its People To Eat
  66. ^ The Peninsula On-line: Qatar's leading English Daily
  67. ^ World Environment News - Planet Ark
  68. ^ Venezuela: Chavez Dumps Monsanto - Social and Economic Policy - Global Policy Forum
  69. ^ Home
  70. ^ Agriculture Department Probes Rice Flap: NPR
  71. ^ "India says no to first GM food crop". Agence France-Presse (AFP). New Delhi. 9 February 2010.
  72. ^ United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research, and Specialty Crops, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives. Information on Prices of Genetically Modified Seeds in the United States and Argentina. January 2000
  73. ^ a b Munzer, Stephen R. (2006). "Plants, Torts, and Intellectual Property". Oxford University Press: 1–30. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  74. ^ a b Federal court of Canada. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser Date: 20010329 Docket: T-1593-98 Retrieved 26 March 2006.
  75. ^ Schubert, Robert: "Schmeiser Wants to Take It to The Supreme Court", CropChoice News, September 9, 2002
  76. ^ Kumar, G. B. Sunil (October 2005). "Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic banana plants". Planta. 222 (3): 484–493. doi:10.1007/s00425-005-1556-y. PMID 15918027. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  77. ^ van Beilen, Jan B. (May 2008). "Harnessing plant biomass for biofuels and biomaterials:Production of renewable polymers from crop plants". The Plant Journal. 54 (4): 684–701. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03431.x. PMID 18476872. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  78. ^ Proteomic profiling and unintended effects in genetically modified crops, Sirpa O. Kärenlampi and Satu J. Lehesranta 2006
  79. ^ Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops, G S Catchpole and others PNAS October 4, 2005 vol. 102 no. 40 14458-14462
  80. ^ US GAO, "Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regimen of Safety Tests as Adequate, but FDA's Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced." GAO-02-566 Genetically Modified Foods,
  81. ^ Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM (2008). "Genetically modified plants and human health". J R Soc Med. 101 (6): 290–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. PMID 18515776. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  82. ^ Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods. AgBioWorld.
  83. ^ Organic Consumers Association
  84. ^ True Food Now!
  85. ^ Randerson, James (January 15, 2008). "Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide". The Guardian. London. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
  86. ^ Ewen SW, Pusztai A (1999). "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine". Lancet. 354 (9187): 1353–4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7. PMID 10533866. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  87. ^ Martin Enserink The Lancet Scolded Over Pusztai Paper Science 22 October 1999: Vol. 286. no. 5440, p. 656 DOI 10.1126/science.286.5440.656a
  88. ^ Hammond B, Lemen J, Dudek R; et al. (2006). "Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 44 (2): 147–60. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2005.06.008. PMID 16084637. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  89. ^ Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M (2004). "Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 42 (6): 1003–14. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.013. PMID 15110110. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  90. ^ Hammond BG, Dudek R, Lemen JK, Nemeth MA (2006). "Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 44 (7): 1092–9. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2006.01.003. PMID 16487643. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  91. ^ Spiroux de Vendômois, et al, "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health" Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726 ©Ivyspring International Publisher
  92. ^ Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, Lovell DP, Lynch B, Munro IC (2007). "Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863)" (PDF). Food Chem. Toxicol. 45 (11): 2073–85. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2007.08.033. PMID 17900781. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  93. ^ Netherwood et al., "Assessing the survival of transgenic planic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004):2.
  94. ^ Smith, Jeffrey. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, p.130, 2007
  95. ^ Brigulla, Matthias (2010) Molecular aspects of gene transfer and foreign DNA acquisition in prokaryotes with regard to safety issues. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology).
  96. ^ Guertler, Patrick (2009) Sensitive and highly specific quantitative real-time PCR and ELISA for recording a potential transfer of novel DNA and Cry1Ab protein from feed into bovine milk. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
  97. ^ "Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants", Prof. Dr Gerhard Flachowsky; Andrew Chesson; Karen Aulrich
  98. ^ 64. Beagle J. M, G. A. Apgar, K. L. Jones, K. E. Griswold, J. S. Radcliffe, X. Qui, D. A. Lightfoot, M.J. Iqbal. 2006. The digestive fate of Escherichia coli glutamate dehydrogenase deoxyribonucleic acid from transgenic corn in diets fed to weanling pigs. J. Anim Si 84:597-607
  99. ^ Julie A. Nordlee, "Identification of Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans," New England Journal of Medicine, 334 (1996):688-692.
  100. ^ Streit, L.G., L.R. Beach, J.C. Register, III, R. Jung, and W.R. Fehr. 2001. Association of the Brazil nut protein gene and Kunitz trypsin inhibitor alleles with soybean protease inhibitor activity and agronomic traits. Crop Sci. 41:1757–1760.

Suggested Reading

Pros and Cons of GM food.

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Genes, Technology and Policy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_food&oldid=390625279"