Genetically modified food controversies: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Contamination issues: per NPOV concerns.
Reverted 1 edit by WLRoss (talk): How is that neutral and re-read the source. (TW)
Line 143: Line 143:


GeneWatch UK and Greepeace International set up the GM Contamination Register in 2005.<ref>http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/</ref>
GeneWatch UK and Greepeace International set up the GM Contamination Register in 2005.<ref>http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/</ref>

Contamination is a problem for farmers in [[Australia]] where non-GM crops sell for up to 28% more per ton than GM crops. Australia predominantly supplies markets such as the EU and Japan, who demand that crops be certified GM-Free. [[Western Australia]] lifted a ban on planting GM crops in January 2010 and in December, Canola farmer Steve Marsh found his crop had been contaminated by windblown GM Canola seeds leading to the loss of his crop. Marsh had his contracts cancelled and later lost organic certification leading him to sue a neighbouring farmer in what will be a landmark case, as this is the first court case involving GM contamination in Australia. In August 2011, also in Western Australia, a truck spilled 15 tons of GM Canola on a highway resulting in a major clean-up operation that required the removal of topsoil to limit the possibility of contamination of nearby farms. [[South Australia]], the only mainland state to still have a legal ban on commercial GM crop production, which also includes a ban on seeds being transported through the state, has frequently experienced GM contamination on farms bordering [[Victoria]], GM advocates cite the inevitability of contamination as a reason to lift the ban. In October 2011, controversy erupted when Business SA, with the support of the industry [[Advocacy group|lobby group]] AusBiotech, made a push in support of overturning the ban. The following weeks saw newspapers [[Letter to the editor]] pages overwhelmed with letters from angry farmers and the public in support of continuing the ban.<ref name="">{{cite news | last = Kemp | first = Miles | date = October 19, 2011 | title = Business call DROP GM BAN | work = [[The Advertiser (Adelaide)| The Advertiser]] | location = | page = Pg 1 - 6 }}</ref>


==Public perception==
==Public perception==

Revision as of 02:13, 11 November 2011

The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified (GM) food crops and other uses of genetically-modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists. The dispute is most intense in Japan and Europe, where public concern about GM food is higher than in other parts of the world such as the United States. In the United States GM crops are more widely grown and the introduction of these products has been less controversial.

The key areas of political controversy related to genetically engineered (GE) food are food safety, the effect on natural ecosystems, gene flow into non GE crops and corporate control of the food supply. While it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods, to date, no adverse health effects caused by products approved for sale have been documented, although two products failed initial safety testing and were discontinued, due to allergic reactions.[1]

Most feeding trials have observed no toxic effects and saw that GM foods were equivalent in nutrition to unmodified foods, although a few non-peer-reviewed reports speculate physiological changes to GM food. Although there is now broad scientific consensus that GE crops on the market are safe to eat,[2] some scientists[3] and advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund call for additional and more rigorous testing before marketing genetically engineered food.[4]

Health risks and benefits

Present knowledge on GM food safety

Worldwide, there is a range of perspectives within non-governmental organizations on the safety of GM foods. For example, the US pro-GM group AgBioWorld has argued that GM foods have been proven safe,[5] while other pressure groups and consumer rights groups, such as the Organic Consumers Association,[6] and Greenpeace[7] claim the long-term health risks which GM could pose, or the environmental risks associated with GM, have not yet been adequately investigated. In Japan, Consumers Union of Japan are opposed to GMO foods. They also claim that truly independent research in these areas is systematically blocked by the GM corporations which own the GM seeds and reference materials.

The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[8] 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.[9] 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."[2] A 2004 review of feeding trials in the Italian Journal of Animal Science found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.[10] A 2005 review in Archives of Animal Nutrition concluded that first-generation genetically modified foods had been found to be similar in nutrition and safety to non-GM foods, but noted that second-generation foods with "significant changes in constituents" would be more difficult to test, and would require further animal studies.[11] However, a 2009 review in Nutrition Reviews found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cause any detectable toxic effects in animals, some studies did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by some GM foods, concluding that "More scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any form of health problem".[12]

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".[13][14] However responses to this review in 2009 and 2010 note that the Dona and Arvanitoyannis concentrated on articles with an anti-GM bias that have been refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere - for example the 35S promoter, stability of transgenes, antibiotic marker genes and the claims for toxic effects of GM foods.[15][16][17] In 2007, a review by Domingo of the toxicity by searching in the Publimed database using 12 search terms, cited 68 references, found that the "number of references" on the safety of GM/transgenic crops was "surprisingly limited" and questioned whether the safety of genetically modified food has been demonstrated; the review also remarked that its conclusions were in agreement with three earlier reviews by Zdunczyk (2001), Bakshi (2003), and Pryme and Lembcke (2003).[18] However, an article in 2007 by Vain found 692 research studies focusing on GM crop and food safety and identified a strong increase in the publication of such articles in recent years.[19][20] Vain commented that the multidisciplinarian nature of GM research complicates the retrieval of GM studies and requires using many search terms (he used more than 300) and multiple databases.

Safety assessments

The starting point for the safety assessment of genetically engineered food products is to assess if the food is "substantially equivalent" to its natural counterpart.[21]

The issue of GM food safety was first discussed at a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and biotech representatives in 1990. The "substantial equivalence" concept was proposed by the FAO in 1993 and endorsed by the FAO and WHO in early 1996 as a means to reassure consumers by obtaining official approval for genetically modified foods. The testing normally required for new food products can cost millions of dollars and take years of testing before a product gains approval for marketing which was also seen as inhibiting the development of biotechnology companies. The adoption of the concept of substantial equivalence permitted marketing of new foods without any safety or toxicology tests as long as they were not grossly different in chemical composition to foods already on the market.[22]

"Substantial equivalence embodies the concept that if a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety (i.e., the food or food component can be concluded to be as safe as the conventional food or food component)" [23]. The rationale for this approach is that it would be impossible to test all the new crop varieties every year for food safety. Only a few food crops on the market have been shown to cause adverse health effects and all of these were the result of conventional genetic modification, not from genetic engineering[2]: 8  To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of components such as toxins, nutrients or allergens that are present in the unmodified food. If these tests show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then no further food safety testing is required. The manufacturer's data is then assessed by an independent regulatory body, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

However, if the product has no natural equivalent, or shows significant differences from the unmodified food, then further safety testing is carried out.[21] A 2003 review in Trends in Biotechnology identified seven main parts of a standard safety test:[24]

  1. Study of the introduced DNA and the new proteins or metabolites that it produces;
  2. Analysis of the chemical composition of the relevant plant parts, measuring nutrients, anti-nutrients as well as any natural toxins or known allergens;
  3. Assess the risk of gene transfer from the food to microorganisms in the human gut;
  4. Study the possibility that any new components in the food might be allergens;
  5. Estimate how much of a normal diet the food will make up;
  6. Estimate any toxicological or nutritional problems revealed by this data;
  7. Additional animal toxicity tests if there is the possibility that the food might pose a risk.

This process was examined further in a review published by Kuiper et al. 2002 in the journal Toxicology, which stated that substantial equivalence does not itself measure risks, but instead identifies differences between existing products and new foods, which might pose dangers to health. If differences do exist, identifying these differences is a starting point for a full safety assessment, rather than an end point.[25] The authors concluded that "The concept of substantial equivalence is an adequate tool in order to identify safety issues related to genetically modified products that have a traditional counterpart". However, the review also noted difficulties in applying this standard in practice, including the fact that traditional foods contain many chemicals that have toxic or carcinogenic effects and that our existing diets therefore have not been proven to be safe. This lack of knowledge on unmodified food poses a problem, as GM foods may have differences in anti-nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant, raising the possibility that harmful changes could be missed.[25]

The application of substantial equivalence has also been more strongly criticized. For example, in a speech in 1999, Andrew Chesson of the University of Aberdeen, stated that substantial equivalence testing "could be flawed in some cases" and that some current safety tests could allow harmful substances to enter the human food chain.[26] In a commentary in Nature, Millstone et al. argued that all GM foods should have extensive biological, toxicological and immunological tests and that the concept of substantial equivalence based solely on chemical analyzes of the components of a food should be abandoned.[27] They stated that this is necessary since it is currently impossible to predict the biological properties of a substance only from knowledge of its chemistry. This commentary was controversial and was criticized for misleading presentation of data[28] and presenting an over-simplified version of safety assessments.[29] For example, Kuiper et al. responded to this criticism by noting that equivalence testing does involve more than chemical tests and may include toxicity testing.[25]

Medical writer Barbara Keeler and Marc Lappé argued in a 2001 article in the Los Angeles Times[30] that the differences between genetically modified and conventional foods challenge the presumption of equivalence. Using Roundup ready soy that has been on the market since 1995 as an example, they noted the differences when compared to its unmodified counterpart. Significantly lower levels of protein than unmodified soy. Significantly lower levels of phenylalanine, an essential amino acid and as a dietary supplement, the reason doctors advise the consumption of soy products. Levels of trypsin inhibitor were 27% higher and after toasting, lectin was double that found in conventional soy; both are known allergens. GM soy also has 29% less choline, a B-complex vitamin. Round up ready soy had also stunted the growth of rats in Monsanto's study but had not affected cattle although it had increased the fat content of their milk. The authors do not maintain that modified soy is a hazard but that the FDA accepting such significant differences as being substantially equivalent illustrates the need for more rigorous testing, and preferably not by the biotech industries themselves.[31]

However, a 2008 paper by Cheng et al. showed that genetic engineering of soybeans causes smaller unintended changes than are seen with traditional breeding.[32] A 2002 paper by Ridley et al. showed that genetically engineered maize was equivalent to conventional maize for proximates, fiber, amino acids, fatty acids, vitamin E, nine minerals, phytic acid, trypsin inhibitor, and secondary metabolites.[33] Baudo et al. in a 2006 paper[34] compared transgenic wheat with conventionally bred wheat and concluded that "...transgenic plants could be considered substantially equivalent to untransformed parental lines." A 2008 paper by di Carli et al.[35] compared genetically engineered Lycopersicon esculentum (a tomato) and Nicotiana benthamiana (a close relative of tobacco) with their untransformed counterparts and concluded that genetic engineering did not significantly affect the plants proteanic profile.

The value of current independent studies is problematic as, due to restrictive end-user agreements, researchers are forbidden by law from publishing independent research in peer-reviewed journals without the approval of the agritech companies. Cornell University's Elson Shields, the spokesperson for a group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology". Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While recognising that seed companies' intellectual property rights need to be protected, Scientific American calls the practice dangerous and has called for the restrictions on research in the end-user agreements to be lifted immediately and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to GM products for testing.[36]

The Welsh pressure group GM Free Cymru argues that governments should use independent studies rather than industry studies to assess crop safety.[37] GM Free Cymru has also stated that independently funded researcher, Professor Bela Darvas of Debrecen University was refused Mon 863 Bt corn to use in his studies[37] after previously publishing that a different variety of Monsanto corn was lethal to two Hungarian protected insect species and an insect classified as a rare.[38][39]

Allergenicity

Worldwide, reports of allergies to all kinds of foods, particularly nuts, fish and shellfish, seem to be increasing, but it is not known if this reflects a genuine change in the risk of allergy, or an increased awareness of food allergies by the public.[40] Some environmental organizations, such as the European Green Party and Greenpeace, have suggested that GM food might trigger food allergies, although other environmentalists have implicated causes as diverse as the greenhouse effect increasing pollen levels, greater exposure to synthetic chemicals, cleaner lifestyles, or more mold in buildings.[41] A 2005 review in the journal Allergy of the results from allergen testing of current GM foods stated that "no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions".[42]

A well-known case of a GM plant that did not reach the market due to it producing an allergic reaction was a new form of soybean intended for animal feed. The allergen was transferred unintentionally from the Brazil nut into genetically engineered soybeans, in a bid to improve soybean nutritional quality for animal feed use. This new protein increased the levels in the GM soybean of the natural essential amino acid methionine, which is commonly added to poultry feed. Investigation of the GM soybeans revealed that they produced immune reactions in people with Brazil nut allergies, since the methionine rich protein chosen by Pioneer Hi-Bred happened to be a major source of Brazil nut allergy.[43] Although this soybean strain was not developed as a human food, Pioneer Hi-Bred discontinued further development of the GM soybean, due to the difficulty in ensuring that none of these soybeans entered the human food chain.[44]

In November 2005 a pest-resistant field pea developed by the Australian CSIRO for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic reaction in mice.[45] Work on this variety was immediately halted. The protein added to the pea did not cause the reaction in humans or mice in isolation, but when it was expressed in the pea, it exhibited a subtly different structure which may have caused the allergic reaction. The immunologist who tested the pea noted that crops need to be evaluated case-by-case, and a Greenpeace activist commented that to his knowledge, no countries required feeding studies for approval of genetically modified foods.[45]

Plant scientist Maarten J Chrispeels has made these comments about this example:

The recent Prescott et al. paper in JFAC contains a very interesting study on the immunogenicity of amylase [starch digestion enzyme] inhibitor in its native form (isolated from beans) and expressed as a transgene in peas. First of all, amylase inhibitor is a food protein, but also a "toxic" protein because it inhibits our digestive amylases. This is one of the reasons you have to cook your beans! (The other toxic bean protein is phytohemagglutinin and it is much more toxic). This particular amylase inhibitor is found in the common bean (other species have other amylase inhibitors). Even though it is a food protein, it is unlikely ever to be used for genetic engineering of human foods because it inhibits our amylases. What the results show is that the protein, when synthesized in pea cotyledons has a different immunogenicity than when it is isolated from bean cotyledons (the native form). This is somewhat surprising but may be related to the presence of slightly different carbohydrate chains.[46]

These cases of products that failed safety testing can either be viewed as evidence that genetic modification can produce unexpected and dangerous changes in foods, or alternatively that the current tests are effective at identifying any safety problems before foods come on the market.[9]

Genetic modification can also be used to remove allergens from foods, which may, for example, allow the production of soy products that would pose a smaller risk of food allergies than standard soybeans.[47] A hypo-allergenic strain of soybean was tested in 2003 and shown to lack the major allergen that is found in the beans.[48] A similar approach has been tried in ryegrass, which produces pollen that is a major cause of hayfever: here a fertile GM grass was produced that lacked the main pollen allergen, demonstrating that the production of hypoallergenic grass is also possible.[49]

Environmental risks and benefits

The large scale growth of GM plants may have both positive and negative effects on the environment.[50][51] These may be both direct effects, on organisms that feed on or interact with the crops, or wider effects on food chains produced by increases or decreases in the numbers of other organisms. As an example of benefits, insect-resistant Bt-expressing crops will reduce the number of pest insects feeding on these plants, but as there are fewer pests, farmers do not have to apply as much insecticide, which in turn tends to increase the number of non-pest insects in these fields.[52][53] A 2006 study of the global impact of GM crops, published by the UK consultancy PG Economics, concluded that globally, the technology reduced pesticide spraying by 286,000 tons in 2006, decreasing the environmental impact of herbicides and pesticides by 15%. By reducing the amount of ploughing needed, GM technology led to reductions of greenhouse gases from soil equivalent to removing 6.56 million cars from the roads.[54] However, a 2009 study published by the Organic Center stated that the use of genetically engineered corn, soybean, and cotton increased the use of herbicides by 383 million pounds (191,500 tons), and pesticide use by 318.4 million pounds (159,200 tons).[55] As an example of a concern about environmental risk, a lab at Cornell University published an article which caused worry in the US that Bt-corn pollen might affect the monarch butterfly.[56] However this concern was disproved by six comprehensive articles in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2001.[57] Monarch populations increased, despite increased Bt corn probably due to reduced pesticide use. Other possible effects might come from the spread of genes from modified plants to unmodified relatives, which might produce species of weeds resistant to herbicides.[50] In some areas of the US "superweeds" have evolved naturally, these weeds are resistant to herbicides and have forced farmers to return to traditional crop management practices.[58]

There has been controversy over the results of a farm-scale trial in the United Kingdom comparing the impact of GM crops and conventional crops on farmland biodiversity. Some claimed that the results showed that GM crops had a significant negative impact on wildlife. They pointed out that the studies showed that using herbicide resistant GM crops allowed better weed control and that under such conditions there were fewer weeds and fewer weed seeds. This result was then extrapolated to suggest that GM crops would have significant impact on the wildlife that might rely on farm weeds.[59] The President of the Royal Society, the body that had carried out the trials, stated that "To generalize and declare ’all GM is bad’ or ’all GM is good’ for the environment as a result of these experiments is a gross over-simplification", arguing that although the trials showed that the combination of some GM crops with long-lasting herbicides were bad for biodiversity, using other GM crops without these herbicides increased biodiversity.[60]

In July 2005 British scientists showed that transfer of a herbicide-resistance gene from GM oilseed rape to a wild cousin, charlock, and wild turnips was possible.[61]

Many agricultural scientists and food policy specialists view GM crops as an important element in sustainable food security and environmental management.[62] This point of view is summarized in the ABIC Manifesto:

On our planet, 18% of the land mass is used for agricultural production. This fraction cannot be increased substantially. It is absolutely essential that the yield per unit of land increases beyond current levels given that: The human population is still growing, and will reach about nine billion by 2040;70,000 km² of agricultural land (equivalent to 60% of the German agricultural area) are lost annually to growth of cities and other non-agricultural uses; Consumer diets in developing countries are increasingly changing from plant-based proteins to animal protein, a trend that requires a greater amount of crop-based feeds.[63]

Other scientists, such as Dr. Charles Benbrook, argue that improvement of global food security is hardly being addressed by genetic research and that a lack of yield is often not caused by insufficient genetic resources.[64] 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 (ie until after the restrictions conveyed by these rights have expired).[65]

Issues with Bt maize

A well publicized claim associated with Bt crops (or transgenic maize) was the concern that pollen from Bt maize might kill the monarch butterfly.[66] This report was puzzling because the pollen from most maize hybrids contains much lower levels of Bt than the rest of the plant[67] and led to multiple follow-up studies. One possible issue revealed in these studies is the possibility that the initial study was flawed; based on the way the pollen was collected, in that they collected and fed non-toxic pollen that was mixed with anther walls that did contain Bt toxin.[68] A collaborative research exercise was carried out over two years by several groups of scientists in the US and Canada, looking at the effects of Bt pollen in both the field and the laboratory. This resulted in a risk assessment that concluded that any risk posed by the corn to butterfly populations under real-world conditions was negligible.[69] The USDA has stated that the weight of the evidence is that Bt crops do not pose a risk to the monarch butterfly.[70] An independent 2002 review of the scientific literature concluded that "the commercial large-scale cultivation of current Bt–maize hybrids did not pose a significant risk to the monarch population" and noted that despite large-scale planting of GM crops, the butterfly's population is increasing.[71]

In 2007 Andreas Lang, Éva Lauber and Béla Darvas criticized these studies, arguing that there can be a great difference in the effects between the acute exposure tested for and chronic exposure. Moreover, they stated that the "worst case conditions" performed were not in fact worst case scenarios, as laboratory conditions with ample food supply and a favorable climate ensure healthy subjects. They instead believe that in the wild, low temperatures, rain and parasites and disease might exacerbate a Bt effect on butterfly larvae. Their own experiments suggested that some butterfly species were negatively affected by such chronic exposure. Jörg Romeis, who conducted the original studies, replied that if species of Butterfly are affected as Darvas claims that a "more comprehensive assessment will be needed and, depending on the degree and nature of concern, this may extend to field testing".[39]

A 2001 report in Nature presented evidence that Bt maize was cross-breeding with unmodified maize in Mexico,[72] 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".[73] A subsequent large-scale study, in 2005, failed to find any evidence of contamination in Oaxaca.[74] However, other authors have stated that they also found evidence of cross-breeding between natural maize and transgenic maize.[75]

There is also a risk that for example, transgenic maize will crossbreed with wild grass variants, and that the Bt-gene will end up in a natural environment, retaining its toxicity. An event like this would have ecological implications. However, there is no evidence of crossbreeding between maize and wild grasses.

In 2009 it was reported that 82,000 hectares (200,000 acres) of Bt corn in South Africa failed to produce seeds.[76] Monsanto claimed average yield was reduced by 25% in those fields affected, it compensated the farmers concerned and the corn varieties were affected by a mistake made in the seed breeding process.[77][78] Marian Mayet an environmental activitist and director of the Africa-centre for biosecurity in Johannesburg called for a government investigation and asserted that the biotechnology was at fault, "You cannot make a 'mistake' with three different varieties of corn".[76] In 2009 South African farmers planted 1,900,000 hectares (4,700,000 acres) of GM maize (73% of the total crop).[79]

As of 2007, a phenomenon called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) was noticed in bee hives all over North America, and elsewhere. Although it is not certain if this is a new phenomenon, initial ideas on the possible causes ranged from poor nutrition, infections, parasites and pesticide use.[80] More unusual speculations included radio waves from cellphone base stations, climate change, and the use of transgenic crops containing Bt.[81][82] The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium published a report on 2007-03-27 that found no evidence that pollen from Bt crops is adversely affecting bees. Several researchers in the US have since attributed CCD to the spread of a new virus called Israeli acute paralysis virus,[81] although other parasites have also been implicated.[83]

Legal issues in the US

Alfalfa

In 2006, a coalition of groups led by the Center for Food Safety raised concerns about environmental impacts that they believe the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) failed to address before approving planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa. Organic growers were concerned that the GM alfalfa could cross-pollinate with their organic alfalfa, making their crops unsalable in countries that ban the growing of GM crops.[84] In response, the California Northern District Court ruled that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was in error when it approved planting. According to the presiding judge, Charles Breyer, the law required the USDA to first conduct a full environmental study, which had not been done. In June 2009, a divided three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Breyer's decision.[85] Monsanto appealed to the US Supreme Court[85] and on 21 June 2010, in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, they issued its first ruling regarding GM crop.[86] The impact of the US Supreme Court ruling was somewhat unclear, with both sides appearing to claim victory.[87][88] While Monsanto claimed technical victory the planting of GM alfalfa was halted.

In January 2011, despite protests from organic groups, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the USDA had approved the unrestricted planting of genetically modified alfalfa.[89][90] Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack commented "After conducting a thorough and transparent examination of alfalfa ... APHIS [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] has determined that Roundup Ready alfalfa is as safe as traditionally bred alfalfa."[91] About 20 million acres (8 million hectares) of alfalfa were grown in the US, the fourth-biggest crop by acreage, of which about 1% were organic. Some biotechnology officials forecast that half of the US alfalfa acreage could eventually be planted with GM alfalfa.[92]

Christine Bushway, CEO of the Organic Trade Association said "A lot of people are shell shocked. While we feel Secretary Vilsack worked on this issue, which is progress, this decision puts our organic farmers at risk."[92] The Organic Trade Association issued a press release in 2011 saying that the USDA recognized the impact that cross contamination could have on organic alfalfa and urged them to place restrictions to minimise any such contamination.[93] Following the decision, organic farming groups, organic food outlets, and activists responded by publishing an open letter saying that planting the "alfalfa without any restrictions flies in the face of the interests of conventional and organic farmers, preservation of the environment, and consumer choice."[94] Commenting on the ruling, in a Joint Statement U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Peter DeFazio said the USDA had the "opportunity to address the concerns of all farmers", but instead "surrender[ed] to business as usual for the biotech industry."[95] The Center for Food Safety said they will be suing on the decision.[96]

Sugar beets

There is also a somewhat similar case involving sugar beets before the same California Northern District Court. This is a case involving Monsanto's breed of pesticide-resistant sugar beets.[85] While Judge Jeffrey S. White (issuing his ruling in the spring of 2010) allowed the planting of GM sugar beets to continue, he also warned that this may be blocked in the future while an environmental review is taking place.

On 13 August 2010, Judge Jeffrey S. 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."[97]

In 2010, before the ruling, 95% of the sugar beet grown in the US was GM.[98] About half the sugar supply in the US came from sugar beet.[99]

In February 2011, a federal appeals court for the Northern district of California in San Francisco overturned a previous ruling by Judge Jeffrey S. White to destroy juvenile GM sugar beets, ruling in favor of Monsanto, the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and four seed companies. The court concluded that " The Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of irreparable injury. Biology, geography, field experience, and permit restrictions make irreparable injury unlikely."[100]

In February 2011, The USDA allowed commercial planting of GM sugar beet in the US under closely controlled conditions.[101][102] Michael Gregoire from APHIS said "After conducting an environmental assessment, accepting and reviewing public comments and conducting a plant pest risk assessment, APHIS has determined that the Roundup Ready sugar beet root crop, when grown under APHIS imposed conditions, can be partially deregulated without posing a plant pest risk or having a significant effect on the environment." GM sugar beet opponents such as Earthjustice said the USDA action circumvents court orders, and vowed they would fight the USDA in court.[103]

Control of the market

Patent holder companies use their control of their own GMO to corner the market and gain profit. However, other companies often compete for the little market share available to GM foods worldwide.[104] Detractors such as Greenpeace say that patent rights give corporations a dangerous amount of control over their product[105] while corporations claim that they need product control in order to prevent seed piracy, fulfill financial obligations to shareholders and invest in further GM development.[106] Governments have also sought to protect their commercial interests through punitive measures against countries resisting GM foods on ethical or scientific grounds: after moves in France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety, the US embassy recommended that 'we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU'.[107]

Controversial cases

Pusztai affair

The Pusztai affair is a controversy that began in 1998 after Arpad Pusztai, an expert on plant lectins, went public with research he was conducting with genetically modified potatoes.[108] In a short interview in 1998 he reported that rats fed potatoes engineered to express lectin, a natural insecticide in snowdrop plants, had stunted growth and a repressed immune system.[109] Confusion arose as to what gene had been inserted into the potato and Pusztai was suspended by the Rowett Institute's director, Philip James.[108] A media frenzy resulted, Pusztai's contract was not renewed and he and his wife were banned from speaking publicly.[108]

In October 1998 the Rowett Institute published an audit criticizing Pusztai's results,[110] which, along with Pusztai's raw data, was sent to six anonymous reviewers who criticized Pusztai's results.[111][112] Pusztai responded that the raw data was "never intended for publication under intense scrutiny".[108] Pusztai sent the audit report and his rebuttal to scientists who requested it, and in February 1999, twenty-one European and American scientists released a memo supporting Pusztai.[113] Stanley Ewen, who worked with Pusztai, conducted a followup study supporting Pusztai's work and presented the work to a lectin meeting in Sweden.[113]

In October 1999 Pusztai's research was published in the journal The Lancet.[109] Because of the controversial nature of his research the data in this paper, co-authored by Stanley Ewen, was seen by a total of six reviewers when presented for peer review; five of these reviewers judged the work acceptable, although one of the five "deemed the study flawed but favored publication to avoid suspicions of a conspiracy against Pusztai and to give colleagues a chance to see the data for themselves".[114] The paper did not mention stunted growth or immunity issues, but reported that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had "thickening in the mucosal lining of their colon and their jejunum" when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes.[114] Three Dutch scientists criticized the study on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet, and that any rats fed only on potatoes will suffer from a protein deficiency;[115] Pusztai responded to these criticisms by stating that the protein and energy were comparable, and that "a sample size of six is perfectly normal in studies like this".[114]

Bioequivalence study of a corn cultivar

A controversy arose around biotech company Monsanto's data on a 90-Day Rat Feeding Study on the MON863 strain of GM corn.[116] In May 2005, critics of GM foods pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences raises questions about the regulatory concept of substantial equivalence. Anti-GM campaigner Jeffrey M. Smith, writing in Biophile Magazine, quoting comments from Pusztai and Seralini,has stated that nutritional studies typically use young, fast-growing animals with starting weights not varying by more than 2% from the average whereas Monsanto's research design used a mix of young and old animals with starting weights ranging from 198.4 to 259.8 grams.[117] Seralini and two other authors published a study of these data, funded by Greenpeace,[118] in 2007 making similar points.[119]

The raising of this issue prompted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to reexamine the safety data on this strain of corn. The EFSA concluded that the observed small numerical decrease in rat kidney weights were not biologically meaningful, and the weights were well within the normal range of kidney weights for control animals. There were no corresponding microscopic findings in the relevant organ systems, and they stated that all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the "normal range of historical control values" for rats.[120] In addition the EFSA review stated that the statistical methods used by Séralini et al. in the analysis of the data were incorrect.[121][122] The European Commission has approved the ΜΟΝ863 corn for animal and human consumption.[123] Food Standards Australia New Zealand reviewed the 2007 Seralini et al. study and concluded that "...all of the statistical differences between rats fed MON 863 corn and control rats are attributable to normal biological variation."[124][125]

Greenpeace stated in a 2007 press release that Séralini et al. had completed a similar analysis of the NK603 strain of corn and came to similar conclusions as they did in their previous study.[126] Séralini et al. included this in a re-analysis of three existing rat feeding studies published in 2009.[127]

The European Food Safety Authority reviewed the 2009 Seralini et al. paper and concluded that the author's claims were not supported by the data in their paper. They noted that many of their fundamental statistical criticisms of the 2007 paper also applied to the 2009 paper. There was no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions that the three GM maize types were safe for human, animal health and the environment[128] The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB) also reviewed the 2009 study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."[129] The HCB also questioned the author's independence. Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results from the 2009 Séralini et al. study were due to chance alone.[130]

Contamination issues

In the 1990s genetically modified Flax tolerant to herbicide residues in soil was developed by the Crop Development Centre (CDC) at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. Named Flax variety FP967, but commonly called CDC Triffid, research was controversially halted following protests from Canadian farmers who stood to lose up to 70% of their traditional export markets if it was introduced. GM Flax was deregistered, its sale was criminalized and in 2001 all modified seeds were destroyed. No modified crops had been planted and no seed had been sold but GM industry proponent Alan McHughen controversially passed out sample packets of seeds at presentations. In early September 2009, Flax imported into Germany was found to be contaminated with CDC Triffid causing the price of Canadian Flax to fall 32 percent. By mid November 35 countries reported contamination of imported Canadian Flax which has now been banned by the European Union. Canadian farmers are expected to be responsible for the cost of the cleanup and testing of future crops.[131][132]

In 2000, Aventis StarLink corn, which had been approved only as animal feed due to concerns about possible allergic reactions in humans, was found contaminating corn products in U.S. supermarkets. An episode involving Taco Bell taco shells was particularly well publicized[133] which resulted in sales of StarLink seed being discontinued. The registration for the Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000.[134] Aid sent by the UN and the US to Central African nations was also found to be contaminated with StarLink corn and the aid was rejected. The US corn supply has been monitored for Starlink Bt proteins since 2001 and no positive samples have been found since 2004.[135]

GeneWatch UK and Greepeace International set up the GM Contamination Register in 2005.[136]

Public perception

Research by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology has shown that in 2005 Americans' knowledge of genetically modified foods and animals continues to remain low, and their opinions reflect that they are particularly uncomfortable with animal cloning. In one instance of consumer confusion, DNA Plant Technology's Fish tomato transgenic organism was conflated with Calgene's Flavr Savr transgenic food product.[137] The Pew survey also showed that despite continuing concerns about GM foods, American consumers do not support banning new uses of the technology, but rather seek an active role from regulators to ensure that new products are safe.[138]

Only 2% of Britons were said to be "happy to eat GM foods", and more than half of Britons were against GM foods being available to the public, according to a 2003 study.[139] However a 2009 review article of European consumer polls concluded that opposition to GMOs in Europe has been gradually decreasing.[140] Approximately half of European consumers accepted gene technology, particularly when benefits for consumers and for the environment could be linked to GMO products. 80 % of respondents did not cite the application of GMOs in agriculture as a significant environmental problem. Many consumers seem unafraid of health risks from GMO products and most European consumers did not actively avoid GMO products while shopping.

In Australia, GM foods that have novel DNA, novel protein, altered characteristics or has to be cooked or prepared in a different way compared to the conventional food have, since December 2001, had to be identified on food labels.[141] However, multiple surveys have shown that while 45% of the public will accept GM foods, some 93% demand all genetically modified foods be labelled as such. A 2007 survey by the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand found that 27% of Australians looked at the label to see if it contained GM material when purchasing a grocery product for the first time.[142] Labelling legislation has been introduced and rejected several times since 1996 on the grounds of "restraint of trade" due to the cost of labelling.[143] The controversy erupted again in 2009 when Graincorp, the nations largest grain handler, announced it would mix GM Canola with its unmodified grain. Traditional growers, who largely rely on GM-free markets, had been told they would need to pay to have their produce certified GM free. Graincorp reversed its decision the same year.[144][145] Critics such as Greenpeace and the Gene Ethics Network have renewed calls for more labelling.[146]

Opponents of genetically modified food often refer to it as "Frankenfood", after Mary Shelley's character Frankenstein and the monster he creates, in her novel of the same name. The term was coined in 1992 by Paul Lewis, an English professor at Boston College who used the word in a letter he wrote to the New York Times in response to the decision of the US Food and Drug Administration to allow companies to market genetically modified food. The term "Frankenfood" has become a battle cry of the European side in the US-EU agricultural trade war.[147]

Critics have protested in regards to the appointment of pro GM lobbyists to senior positions in the FDA. Michael R. Taylor has been appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety and Dennis Wolff is expected to take up the position of Under-Secretary of the newly created Agriculture for Food Safety. Taylor is a former Monsanto lobbyist credited as being responsible for the implementation of "substantial equivalence" in place of food safety studies and for his advocacy that resulted in the Delaney clause that prohibited the inclusion of "any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man.. or animals" in processed foods being amended in 1996 to allow the inclusion of pesticides in GMOs. Wolff is the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture who successfully lobbied to ban organic farmers from labeling their products as being GM free and was a proponent of the "ACRE" initiative which gave the Pennsylvania state attorney general’s office the authority to sue municipalities that banned GMOs. Several anti-GMO organisations have organised petitions demanding Taylor's resignation and opposing Wolff's appointment and also conducted letter writing campaigns protesting the conflict of interest.[148]

Religious issues

As of yet, no GM foods have been designated as unacceptable by religious authorities.[149]

See also

References

  1. ^ 20 questions on genetically modified foods World Health Organization
  2. ^ a b c NRC. (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text.
  3. ^ Seralini, G.E., Cellier, D. & Spiroux de Vendomois, J. (2007). "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity". Arch. Contamin. Environ. Toxicol. 52: 596-602.doi:10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5 PMID 17356802
  4. ^ Le Curieux-Belfond, O., Vandelac, L., Caron, J., Seralini, G.E. (2009). "Factors to consider before production and commercialization of aquatic genetically modified organisms: the case of transgenic salmon". Env. Sci. Policy 12: 170–189.doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.10.001
  5. ^ Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods. AgBioWorld.
  6. ^ "Organic Consumers Association".
  7. ^ "True Food Now!".
  8. ^ A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) (pdf). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union. 2010. p. 16. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9.
  9. ^ a b 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)
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ Flachowsky G, Chesson A, Aulrich K (2005). "Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants". Archives of Animal Nutrition. 59 (1): 1–40. doi:10.1080/17450390512331342368. PMID 15889650.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ Magaña-Gómez JA, de la Barca AM (2009). "Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health". Nutr. Rev. 67 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00130.x. PMID 19146501. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  13. ^ Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS (2009). "Health risks of genetically modified foods". Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 49 (2): 164–75. doi:10.1080/10408390701855993. PMID 18989835. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  14. ^ Dona, Artemis et al (2009) Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods Full version of paper in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49:164–175 (2009), Retrieved on 28 October 2010
  15. ^ Amman Klaus (2009) Human and Animal Health - Rebuttal to a Review of Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009, part one European Federation of Biotechnology, 31 August 2009, Retrieved on 28 October 2010
  16. ^ Amman, Klaus (2009) Rebuttal to a review of Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009 Retrieved on 28 October 2010
  17. ^ Craig, Richard (2010) Response to "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods" from Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009) in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (49:164-175) Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2010, vol. 50, no 1, pp. 85–91, Retrieved on 28 October 2010
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1038/nbt0607-624b, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1038/nbt0607-624b instead.
  20. ^ Vain, Philippe (2007) Trends in GM crop, food and feed safety literature (2007)
  21. ^ a b "Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
  22. ^ BEYOND 'SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE' Millstone, Brunner and Mayer Nature 401, 525-526 (7 October 1999) doi:10.1038/44006 (Greenpeace archive)
  23. ^ Joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report, 1996, p. 4
  24. ^ Kok EJ, Kuiper HA (2003). "Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops". Trends Biotechnol. 21 (10): 439–44. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2003.08.003. PMID 14512230. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  25. ^ a b c Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HP, Kok EJ (2002). "Substantial equivalence--an appropriate paradigm for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods?". Toxicology. 181–182: 427–31. doi:10.1016/S0300-483X(02)00488-2. PMID 12505347. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  26. ^ UK GM expert calls for tougher tests BBC September 7, 1999
  27. ^ Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S (1999). "Beyond 'substantial equivalence'". Nature. 401 (6753): 525–6. doi:10.1038/44006. PMID 10524614. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. ^ Trewavas A, Leaver CJ (1999). "Conventional crops are the test of GM prejudice". Nature. 401 (6754): 640. doi:10.1038/44258. PMID 10537097. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  29. ^ Gasson MJ (1999). "Genetically modified foods face rigorous safety evaluation". Nature. 402 (6759): 229. doi:10.1038/46147. PMID 10580485. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  30. ^ Keeler, Barbara and Lappe, Marc Some Food for FDA Regulation 7 January 2001, Retrieved on 30 November 2010
  31. ^ "Biotech: Some Food For FDA Regulation".
  32. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1021/jf073505i, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1021/jf073505i instead.
  33. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12452638, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=12452638 instead.
  34. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2006.00197.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1111/j.1467-7652.2006.00197.x instead.
  35. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1021/pr800359d, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1021/pr800359d instead.
  36. ^ "A Seedy Practice". Scientific American. 301 (2): 22. August 2009.
  37. ^ a b http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/DocumentSet/gmo_technicalmeeting_gmfreecymru1,0.pdf?ssbinary=true
  38. ^ Hungary Bans GM Maize Seed Third World Network Biosafety Information Service February 1, 2005
  39. ^ a b "Early Tier Tests Insufficient for GMO Risk Assessment" (PDF). Nature Biotechnology Volume 25 Number 1. January 2007. Retrieved 2009-03-27.
  40. ^ Kuehn BM (2008). "Food allergies becoming more common". JAMA. 300 (20): 2358. doi:10.1001/jama.2008.706. PMID 19033580. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  41. ^ Drake Bennett Our allergies, ourselves Boston Globe May 7, 2006
  42. ^ Lehrer SB, Bannon GA (2005). "Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: perception and reality". Allergy. 60 (5): 559–64. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00704.x. PMID 15813800. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  43. ^ "Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans Julie A. Nordlee, M.S., Steve L. Taylor, Ph.D., Jeffrey A. Townsend, B.S., Laurie A. Thomas, B.S., and Robert K. Bush, M.D. NEJM Volume 334:688-692 March 14, 1996 Number 11".
  44. ^ Warren Leary Genetic Engineering of Crops Can Spread Allergies, Study Shows New York Times Thursday, March 14, 1996
  45. ^ a b Prescott VE; et al. (2005). Expression of Bean-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity (PDF). Vol. 53. pp. 9023–9030. doi:10.1021/jf050594v. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help) Lay summary: Emma Young S. (2005). GM pea causes allergic damage in mice. New Scientist
  46. ^ "Comments Australian GM Pea Research Maarten J. Chrispeels".
  47. ^ Herman EM (2003). "Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies". J. Exp. Bot. 54 (386): 1317–9. doi:10.1093/jxb/erg164. PMID 12709477. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  48. ^ Herman EM, Helm RM, Jung R, Kinney AJ (2003). "Genetic modification removes an immunodominant allergen from soybean". Plant Physiol. 132 (1): 36–43. doi:10.1104/pp.103.021865. PMC 1540313. PMID 12746509. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  49. ^ Bhalla PL, Swoboda I, Singh MB (1999). "Antisense-mediated silencing of a gene encoding a major ryegrass pollen allergen". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (20): 11676–80. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.20.11676. PMC 18093. PMID 10500236. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  50. ^ a b Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap JP (2003). "The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment". Plant J. 33 (1): 19–46. doi:10.1046/j.0960-7412.2002.001607.x. PMID 12943539. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  51. ^ Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer PR (2000). "The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants". Science. 290 (5499): 2088–93. doi:10.1126/science.290.5499.2088. PMID 11118136. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  52. ^ Roh JY, Choi JY, Li MS, Jin BR, Je YH (2007). "Bacillus thuringiensis as a specific, safe, and effective tool for insect pest control". J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 17 (4): 547–59. PMID 18051264. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  53. ^ Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P (2007). "A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates". Science. 316 (5830): 1475–7. doi:10.1126/science.1139208. PMID 17556584. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  54. ^ Brookes, Graham & Barfoot, Peter (2008) Global Impact of Biotech Crops: Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects, 1996-2006 AgBioForum, Volume 11, Number 1, Article 3, Retrieved on August 12, 2010
  55. ^ http://civileats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/13Years20091112.pdf
  56. ^ Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999). "Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae". Nature. 399 (6733): 214–214. doi:10.1038/20338. PMID 10353241. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  57. ^ Mark K. Sears, Richard L. Hellmich, Diane E. Stanley-Horn, Karen S. Oberhauser, John M. Pleasants, Heather R. Mattila, Blair D. Siegfried, and Galen P. Dively (2001)Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (October 9): 11937–11942. doi:10.1073/pnas.211329998. PMID 11559842. PMC 59819.
  58. ^ http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops
  59. ^ Damning verdict on GM crop, Guardian.
  60. ^ "Results of GM farm trials have been misrepresented, says Lord May". The Royal Society, London. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
  61. ^ Oilseed gene leak 'unsurprising', BBC News.
  62. ^ "Agricultural efficiency to save wilderness".
  63. ^ "The ABIC 2004 Manifesto: Science Helps To Improve Agricultural Systems".
  64. ^ "Who Controls and Who Will Benefit from Plant Genomics?".
  65. ^ "Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture" (PDF).
  66. ^ Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999). "Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae". Nature. 399 (6733): 214. doi:10.1038/20338. PMID 10353241. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  67. ^ Mendelsohn M, Kough J, Vaituzis Z, Matthews K (2003). "Are Bt crops safe?". Nat. Biotechnol. 21 (9): 1003–9. doi:10.1038/nbt0903-1003. PMID 12949561. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  68. ^ Hellmich RL, Siegfried BD, Sears MK; et al. (2001). "Monarch larvae sensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis- purified proteins and pollen". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (21): 11925–30. doi:10.1073/pnas.211297698. PMC 59744. PMID 11559841. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  69. ^ Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE; et al. (2001). "Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98 (21): 11937–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.211329998. PMC 59819. PMID 11559842. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  70. ^ "Bt Corn and Monarch Butterflies". USDA Agricultural Research Service. 2004-03-29. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
  71. ^ Gatehouse AM, Ferry N, Raemaekers RJ (2002). "The case of the monarch butterfly: a verdict is returned". Trends Genet. 18 (5): 249–51. doi:10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02664-1. PMID 12047949. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  72. ^ Quist D, Chapela IH (2001). "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico". Nature. 414 (6863): 541–3. doi:10.1038/35107068. PMID 11734853. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  73. ^ Kaplinsky N, Braun D, Lisch D, Hay A, Hake S, Freeling M (2002). "Biodiversity (Communications arising): maize transgene results in Mexico are artefacts". Nature. 416 (6881): 601–2, discussion 600, 602. doi:10.1038/nature739. PMID 11935145. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  74. ^ Ortiz-García S, Ezcurra E, Schoel B, Acevedo F, Soberón J, Snow AA (2005). "Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003-2004)". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (35): 12338–43. doi:10.1073/pnas.0503356102. PMC 1184035. PMID 16093316. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  75. ^ PIÑEYRO-NELSON, A.; VAN HEERWAARDEN, J.2; PERALES, H. R.; SERRATOS-HERNÁNDEZ, J. A.; RANGEL, A.; HUFFORD, M. B.; GEPTS, P.; GARAY-ARROYO, A.; RIVERA-BUSTAMANTE, R.; ÁLVAREZ-BUYLLA, E. R.; "Transgenes in Mexican maize: molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations." in Molecular Ecology ; Feb2009, Vol. 18 Issue 4, p750-761, 12p
  76. ^ a b "Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa". Digital Journal. 29 March 2009. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
  77. ^ "Clearing up Stories on Monsanto's South Africa Corn Crop". Beyond the Rows blog by Monsanto. 30 April 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
  78. ^ "Trends in the Agricultural Sector 2009" (PDF). Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa, 2010, ISSN 1025-5028. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
  79. ^ Brasher, Philip (2010) Biotech in Africa: In South Africa, the welcome mat is out Des Moines Register, 10 May 2010, Retrieved on 24 October 2010
  80. ^ "ARS : Questions and Answers: Colony Collapse Disorder". ARS News. 2008-05-29. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
  81. ^ a b Black R (2007-09-06). "Virus implicated in bee decline". Science/Nature. BBC News. Retrieved 2008-11-23.
  82. ^ Latsch G (2007-03-22). "Are GM Crops Killing Bees?". Spiegel (International). Retrieved 2008-11-23.
  83. ^ Higes M, Martín-Hernández R, Botías C; et al. (2008). "How natural infection by Nosema ceranae causes honeybee colony collapse". Environ. Microbiol. 10 (10): 2659–69. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01687.x. PMID 18647336. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  84. ^ Supreme Court on Modified Foods: Who Won?, by Barry Estabrook, 'The Atlantic'. June 22, 2010 . Retrieved June 22, 2010.
  85. ^ a b c Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Planting GM Alfalfa by Jennifer Koons, NYT, June 21, 2010 (accessed June 21, 2010)
  86. ^ Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms at ScotusWiki – Briefs and Documents, etc.
  87. ^ Hollow victory for Monsanto in alfalfa court case New Scientist, 22 June 2010 (accessed 22 June 2010)
  88. ^ Supreme Court on Modified Foods: Who Won?, by Barry Estabrook, 'The Atlantic'. June 22, 2010 (accessed June 22, 2010)
  89. ^ Gilla, Carey and Doering, Christopher UPDATE 3-U.S. farmers get approval to plant GMO alfalfa Reuters US Edition, 27 January 2011, Retrieved 28 April 2011
  90. ^ Vilsack's USDA Officially Approves Controversial Genetifically Modified Alfalfa. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
  91. ^ http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2011/01/0035.xml
  92. ^ a b Tomson, Bill and Kilman, Scott USDA Won't Impose Restrictions on Biotech Alfalfa Crop Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2011, Retrieved 27 April 2011
  93. ^ Organic Trade Association's Organic Newsroom: Organic industry wants farmers protected in the marketplace. Organicnewsroom.com (2011-01-20). Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
  94. ^ "We Stand United in Opposition to GE Alfalfa". January 31, 2011. Retrieved March 19, 2011.
  95. ^ Leahy.senate.gov
  96. ^ Maria Rodale: We Stand in Opposition to GE Alfalfa. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
  97. ^ Andrew Pollack (August 13, 2010). "Judge Revokes Approval of Modified Sugar Beets". New York Times.
  98. ^ "Sugar Beet". GMO Compass. 16 August 2010. Retrieved 25 October 2010.
  99. ^ Doering, Christopher (2010) US sees 2-yr environmetal review of GM sugar beets Reuters, 1 September 2010. Retrieved on 25 October 2010
  100. ^ 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 22 April 2011
  101. ^ Kilman, Scott and Tomson, Bill Modified Beet Gets New Life The Wall Street Journal, 5 February 2011, retrieved 22 April 2011
  102. ^ USDA 2011 Agricultural Forum Sugar Outlook 25 February 2011, Retrieved 22 April 2011
  103. ^ Gillam, Carey and Abott, Chuck USDA partially deregulating biotech sugar beets Reuters News Agency, 5 February 2011, Retrieved 27 April 2011
  104. ^ http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=589
  105. ^ http://weblog.greenpeace.org/ge/power.html
  106. ^ http://www.monsanto.ca/_pdfs/seed_piracy_newsletter_oct_2009.pdf
  107. ^ Vidal, John (3 January 2011). "WikiLeaks: US targets EU over GM crops". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 January 2011.
  108. ^ a b c d Randerson J. (2008). Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide. The Guardian.
  109. ^ a b 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)
  110. ^ Bourne, F.J., et al (1998) Audit Report Overview Rowett Research Institute, 28 October 1998, Retrieved on 28 November 2010
  111. ^ Bowden, Rebecca (10 May 1999). "Six referees comments on Pusztai potato data". e-mail from Royal Society to Pusztai. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
  112. ^ Murray, Noreen et al, (1999) Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes The Royal Society, 1 June 1999, Retrieved on 28 November 2010
  113. ^ a b Enserink, M. (1999). "BIOENGINEERING: Preliminary Data Touch Off Genetic Food Fight". Science. 28 (5405): 1094. doi:10.1126/science.283.5405.1094. PMID 10075564. Retrieved 2009-06-26.
  114. ^ a b c 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
  115. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00341-4, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00341-4 instead.
  116. ^ Monsanto, 2002. 13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002
  117. ^ Jeffrey Smith Study reveals GM threats
  118. ^ "GM maize MON863: French scientists doubt safety". GMO Compass. 16 March 2007. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
  119. ^ Séralini, G.E., Cellier, D., de Vendomois, J.,S., 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 52, 596-602.
  120. ^ Rat study, European Food Safety Authority.
  121. ^ EFSA review of statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 863 90-day rat feeding study
  122. ^ "EFSA ::. EFSA review of statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 863 90-day rat feeding study" (PDF).
  123. ^ Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on a request from the Commission related to the Notification (Reference C/DE/02/9) for the placing on the market of insect-protected genetically modified maize MON 863 and MON 863 x MON 810, for import and processing, under Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC from Monsanto, The EFSA Journal (2004) 49, 1-25 [1]
  124. ^ "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.
  125. ^ "FSANZ reaffirms its risk assessment of genetically modified corn MON 863". FSANZ fact sheets 2007. 25 July 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
  126. ^ "Greenpeace - Europe Press Release".
  127. ^ de Vendômois, Joël Spiroux (2009-12-10). "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health". International Journal of Biological Sciences. 5 (7): 706–726. PMC 2793308. PMID 20011136. Retrieved 2010-07-21. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  128. ^ "EFSA Minutes of the 55th Plenary Meeting of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms Held on 27–28 January 2010 IN Parma, Italy, Annex 1, Vendemois et al 2009" (PDF). European Food Safety Authority report. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
  129. ^ "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.
  130. ^ "FSANZ response to de Vendomois et al. (2009), A comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, Int. J. Biol. Sci. 5 (7): 706-726". FSANZ fact sheets 2009. Retrieved 26 October 2010.
  131. ^ Contaminated Canadian flax barred from Europe Grain.org January 2010
  132. ^ Flax industry, CGC race to trace GMO source Manitoba Cooperator October 1, 2009
  133. ^ 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.
  134. ^ Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefit Estimates, Janet E. Carpenter and Leonard P. Gianessi 2001, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
  135. ^ North American Millers' Association (press release), Apr. 28, 2008,http://www.namamillers.org/PR_StarLink_04_28_08.html
  136. ^ http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/
  137. ^ Picnic Basket.
  138. ^ Public Sentiments About Genetically Modified Food, The Pew Initiative.
  139. ^ "Most Britons 'oppose GM crops'". BBC News. 2003-09-24. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
  140. ^ Opposition decreasing or acceptance increasing? An overview of European consumer polls on attitudes to GMOs GMO Compass, April 16, 2009, rertrieved August 14, 2010
  141. ^ "Genetically modified (GM)". Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, last updated. August 6, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
  142. ^ "Consumer Attitudes Survey 2007, A benchmark survey of consumers' attitudes to food issues" (PDF). Food Standards Australia New Zealand. January 2008. Retrieved August 14, 2010.
  143. ^ Hansard Legislative Council July 12, 2000
  144. ^ "Graincorp confident it will be able to keep GM canola separate". Ben Cubby, The Sydney Morning Herald. 26 September 2009. Retrieved 19 October 2010.
  145. ^ "GrainCorp won't charge for GM tests on canola". ABC Rural. 28 September 2009. Retrieved 19 October 2010.
  146. ^ The Advertiser GM grain in everyday foods. May 3, 2009 Pg 17.
  147. ^ "Let's not escalate the 'Frankenfood' war". Christian Science Monitor. 2002-12-20. The European public calls GM products "Frankenstein food." They're afraid it could pose a health threat, or create an environmental disaster where genes jump from GM crops to wild plants and reduce biodiversity or create superweeds. {{cite news}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  148. ^ Don't Let Obama Put GMO Boosters in Charge of Food Safety! Organic Consumers Association July 22, 2009
  149. ^ Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues Congressional Research Service: The Library of Congress 2001

External links

Opponents
Advocates
Governmental
Medical and scientific