You are on page 1of 22








May 12, 2014




The controversies around biotechnology and genetic engineering form a highly complex
and tension filled dialogue in which the often harsh and impetuously clashing opinions can only
be analyzed when the different arguments are clearly differentiated and associated with each
other. Reflected in this dialogue are central issues of technology, the connection between human,
society and nature and the relationship between science and ethics.
The assessment of genetic engineering is therefore a cross-cutting issue that requires both
natural and social science expertise. The public should be especially aware since the research and
application of genetic engineering is not confined to the space of a laboratory; ultimately
everyone has to live with the positive and negative consequences of this technology. Because of
this background, it is understandable that in the debate about genetic engineering not only
conflicts of interest are dealt with but also conviction conflicts about a sustainable technology
and society.
The debate is not only of theoretical relevance, but stands in the middle of context of a
push in genetic research triggered by the progressive development of genetic engineering in
agriculture and food.


A Brief History
Traditional biotechnology has a long history. Domestication of animals and plants can be
traced back as far as 10,000 BC [1]. The first animal to be artificially bred is believed to be the
dog. Scientists have found fossil evidence in Mesopotamia and Canaan dating to about 10,000 to
9,000 BC, where dogs were used as guard & work animals before they became popular pets [1].
Within the next 4,000 years several other species, such as cats, sheep, goats, chicken and wheat
were domesticated. Many more plants were cultivated for the next millennia and by 2,000 BC
the Sumerians were able to brew over 19 different types of beers [1].
It is important to understand that genetic modification has started much earlier than it is
generally realized. For more than 12,000 years, the human has artificially selected and bred
animals and plants. However, it was not until the mid-1900s that the term genetic engineering
was first used. The innovation of computers brought about a genetic revolution which promised
to improve humanity the same way computers improved information. In 1973, which is
generally seen as the birth year of modern day genetic engineering, the two biochemists Stanley
Cohen and Herbert Boyer created the first genetically modified organism (GMO) [2]. Since then,
there have been many genetic engineering projects, from insulin producing bacteria to herbicide
resistant tobacco, however, none of them has been as big as the Human Genome Project (HGP).
The purpose of the HGP was to map the entire human genetic code. It was successfully
completed in April 2003.
One question still remains, what exactly is genetic engineering? According to Dr. Dean, a
University Distinguished Professor in Biochemistry at Virginia Tech, genetic engineering
represents the modification of the DNA of an organism such that it produces a new product not

normally produced by that organism, a modified form of a naturally produced product that has
some added values, or a higher or lower level of a naturally produced product [3].
One thing to note is that artificial selection, as it started, has three very important
differences compared to genetic engineering today.
First, although different species were crossed with one another during early
domestication, they were always closely related. This is drastically different in modern genetic
engineering where genes of humans can be put into animals and genes of bacteria/viruses into
Secondly, the change in the genetic formula occurred at a much slower rate during
early domestication. While the time scale of traditional biotechnology works on a time scale of
years, genetic engineering nowadays only takes weeks.
Thirdly, the number of species that were affected by domestication is relatively small as
compared to the number of species that can be targeted by genetic engineering. Traditional
biotechnology is mainly used to alter species that provide us with food, such as animals and
plants. Genetic engineering goes as far as to change the genetic composition of humans.
With the push in genetic research in the mid-1900s came many fears and moral
objections to the technology. Despite the promise of this new knowledge, many showed and still
show negative reactions to the idea of humans being bred like animals. While some of these
moral objections are based on factual grounds, others are unfounded. Before we discuss these
moral implications, we will briefly look at the science behind genetic engineering.


The Science Behind Genetic Engineering
To summarize, according to Dr. Dean, genetic engineering represents the modification of
the DNA. DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic acid and can be described as the molecule with the
code of life [4]. Wrapped in its double helix structure are the genetic instructions for the
development of any known living organism. DNA is based on a repeated pattern of a backbone
made of sugar groups (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups with nitrogenous bases (nucleobases)
attached to the sugars. The primary nucleobases are cytosine (C), guanine (G), adenine (A) and
thymine (T) [4]. Depending on the combination of the nucleobases, there are three billion
different base pairs. Arranged in different sequences, the three billion base pairs result in
approximately 25,000 different genes [5]. While many of the genes determine cosmetic features,
such as height, eye color and hair color, there are also genes that determine important biological
features such as intelligence and athletic performance. Errors in the genetic sequences result in
genetic disorders, one of the more common ones being Down syndrome. Since DNA is copied
during reproduction, genetic disorders can often times be inherited.
There are two categories in which genetic engineering can be divided into: genetic
therapy and genetic enhancement.
Gene therapy is the modification of genes in order to treat diseases and genetic disorder,
such as Leukemia or Parkinson. It is the ethically more accepted category of genetic engineering.
The more controversial category, gene enhancement, serves the purpose of, as the name says,
enhancing a humans ability in a specific area, whether intelligence, athletic performance or

Each of those two categories can then be divided into two subcategories: somatic and
germline. In somatic genetic modification, whether therapy or enhancement, genes are
transferred into non-sex cells. This means that only the organism affected will receive the gene
modification. On the other hand, in germline genetic modification, genes are transferred into sex-
cells, meaning that future generations of that organism will also be affected by the therapy or

Important and Controversial Figures in Genetic Engineering
Genentech is the very first biotechnology company and was founded in 1976 by investor
Robert A. Swanson and Herbert Boyer, the scientist who laid the foundation for modern genetic
engineering. The companys research focuses on five disease categories: Oncology,
Immunology, Tissue Growth and Repair, Neurosciences and Infectious diseases. Developed in
1982, Genentechs first licensed product was a genetically engineered synthetic human insulin
called Humulin. Today, Genentech is the second largest biotechnology company in the world
based on revenue.
Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell
Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell ( 5 October, 2012) were British scientists working in
the field of embryology and animal development. They are best known as the fathers of Dolly
the Sheep, the first mammal to ever be cloned. Dolly was used to show that cloned animals can
live and reproduce the same way as normal ones would do.

Founded in 1980, Amgen is the largest independent biotechnology company in the world.
Like Genentech, Amgens main focus is the healthcare field.

Myriad Genetics, Inc.
Myriad Genetics is a biotechnology company working in the health care field. The
company was founded in Salt Lake City in 1992 and focuses on the risk assessment of several
types of cancer, including breast and ovary cancer. The company drew a lot of controversy when
patenting the two human genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 which can help predict breast cancer risk.
Myriad started charging more than $3000 for a breast cancer test, a price that many considered as
too high. After a lawsuit against the company, which led to the patents being invalidated and
revalidated several times, the patents on the two genes were ultimately invalidated in June 2013
leading to a landmark ruling against the patenting of naturally occurring DNA sequences.
The Big Six
The Big Six biotechnology companies in agriculture are Monsanto, Bayer
CropSciences, BASF, DuPont, Syngenta AG and Dow AggroSciences, Monsanto being the
market leader. Together these six companies account for around 75% of worldwide seed sales.
Together these six companies have amassed many controversies, however, none of them has
made as many headlines as Monsanto.
Monsanto Company
Monsanto was founded in 1901 in St. Louis, Missouri and was one of the largest
chemical companies in the world before becoming the market leader in agricultural
biotechnology [11]. It is one of the most controversial companies in modern days and has made

headlines several times. The company became famous for having produced the herbicide Agent
Orange which was used as a chemical weapon during the Vietnam War. Some other products in
the companys assortment are the synthetic sweetener Aspartame, the growth hormone rBST
(recombinant Bovine Somatotropin) which increases the level of milk production I cows and the
highly toxic substance PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl) which was vastly used in the industry
[11]. More than 90 percent of todays genetically modified organisms, Soy, Canola, Corn and
Cotton among others, are Monsanto patents. Many people criticize Monsantos purchasing
policy and believe that the company already is a monopoly in agricultural biotechnology. Some
of the other controversies include the falsification of test results and amalgamation with politics.

The Ethical and Moral Issues
The capabilities of genetic engineering make life itself to a subject of technical
transformation. They touch on questions of a humans self and world understanding and lead to a
whole new series of moral and ethical issues. Qualitatively new in genetic engineering is the
ability to cause both a time reversal and a time acceleration in evolution, something not
achievable with traditional methods such as selective breeding. Given the depth of intrusion
caused by genetic engineering, fundamental questions about the authorization for and the limits
of genetic manipulation of life arise.
Moral issues are relevant in all areas of genetic engineering, however, the several areas of
research and application are connected with different problems and thus need to be differentiated
accordingly. Therefore, in connection with genetic engineering applications on humans,
questions about medical safety, potential threats to autonomy and social consequences are at the
center of discussion.

In agricultural applications concerns do not only include the right to intervene in nature
but also the risk of releasing transgenic organisms. In the area of plant breeding the issues of
biodiversity and the formation of resistance are discussed. In the area of animal breeding
consequences of genetic engineering are at the center of attention; the balance between the
suffering of animals and the benefits of the human are an important topic.
Since a humans ethics and morals are influenced by time, culture, religion and society, it
is a variable factor and changes as new developments and technologies come along. Therefore,
we can see a variety of objections to controversial topics such as genetic engineering. In this
paper we will divide these objections into two main categories, religious issues and secular
Religious Point of View
To analyze the religious point of view on genetic engineering we have to first answer the
question of whether the human is allowed to intervene in nature. This question is to be discussed
on a creation-theological basis. The argument that genetic engineering allows the human to take
on the role of god and interfere in the order of creation or that genetic engineering is against
nature is too general and not justified. The generalization and vagueness of terminology is one of
the biggest weak points of the ethical discussion and often times leads to proponents and
opponents of genetic engineering to talk at cross purposes. According to the cultural mandate,
which according to the bible was given to humanity by God and says that the human should
subdue nature and have dominion over every living thing, there cannot be any creation-
theological objections to genetic engineering [12][13]. The human has a cultural order which
does not exclude interventions in nature.

Another thing to note when talking about religious objections is that it is often assumed
that religion in general is opposed to genetic technology. According to Professor John Bryant at
the University of Exeter this is not true [7]. Bryant argues that religious attitudes are mainly
concerned with what is done with the technology rather than whether it should be done; God-
given talents should be used for the well-being of others [7]. While many religious arguments do
not oppose the use of somatic therapy to cure genetic disorders, there are also those that oppose
any kind of invasion in human development. It is argued that altering the genome of an organism
is considered as taking on the role of the creator and therefore violating the will of God. This
argument can be invalidated with the cultural mandate. As we can see, the problem with all
moral arguments based on Gods commands is that everyones interpretation of God and his
commands is different.
Those that believe genetic engineering violates Gods will must also see selective
breeding as will defying as it is qualitatively the same concept. Selective breeding should not be
acceptable merely on the fact that it takes a lot longer than genetic engineering. The argument of
Gods will is a very biased and factually unfounded argument.
The other method of genetic engineering, genetic enhancement, whether somatic or
germline, is fundamentally opposed by religious groups. The general argument made is that
genetic enhancement does not provide to the well-being of human beings and therefore is an
unnecessary intrusion in the development of organisms; it is a luxury rather than a necessity.

Secular Point of View
Since genetic engineering is still in its early phases, there are many secular arguments
that say that genetic modification is morally unacceptable.

A central question is whether the massive use of genetic engineering negatively affects
biodiversity and eliminates locally grown cultivar. Closely related is the loss of locally grown
knowledge of sustainable relationships, since genetically modified crops and plants
automatically adapt to their ecological environment without much care on the part of the human.
Pest-resistant crops can have a direct impact on nature and the environment, if they have any
kind of pests they are resistant to, other groups of organisms could be affected and destroyed by
those pests. Under certain circumstances, such harmful effects are only visible in the long term,
for example through gradual accumulation in the soil or by slow decline of population sizes [23].
A cultivation of herbicide-resistant crops can kill all other plants because it allows the use of
nonselective herbicides. Proponents of this argument believe that if GMO seeds are continued to
be planted across the world, naturally occurring seeds will eventually be extinct.
Another one of the main arguments are the health issues of genetic engineering. Genetic
manipulation that is done in order to solve a problem, such as a disorder, can cause several other
problems. It is of highest interest to guarantee that genetically modified foods are harmless.
However, this cannot even be proven by long term studies because in addition to long term
effects, there is the influence of individual eating habits and preparation forms. In defense of the
technology, the health risks of genetically engineering are widely regarded as hypothetical and so
far, there have not been any scientifically accepted empirical studies which establish a
differentiated biological and medical risk statement. And while there have been many
experiments on plants and animals that provided short term success, they still cannot be applied
to human beings because of the complexity of the human genome.
An especially sensitive topic is the manipulation of germline DNA. Using germline
therapy to prevent a genetic disorder such as diabetes being inherited by off-spring can possibly

cause other genetic disorders to develop in the baby and carry on into future generations [8]. This
brings up the question of the moral status of embryos or not yet born humans. Often times the
debate about who can be called a person is sparked. The different concepts typically
implement a number of specific properties to distinguish between human and non-human
individuals. Utilitarian definitions, for example, require certain abilities, such as thinking,
perception of pain or self-respect. Others, especially religiously inclined people, argue that life
starts when the sperm merges with the egg cell.
With this argument comes the aspect of dignity. Many see genetic engineering as a threat
to human dignity. This argument is often times defended with the reasoning that individuality is
closely related to dignity. Genetic enhancement can result in a world where everybody wants to
achieve the perfect genome which will most likely have similar, if not the same traits among
different cultures. If everybodys genetic material is altered to match that perfect genome, the
concept of individuality will be lost and with access to their hereditary material, people could be
exploited and manipulated.
Finally, from a virtue ethics standpoint, the application of genetic therapy and
enhancement suggests that the accessibility of genetic manipulation will be limited to those
parents who can afford it, thus creating discrimination between sectors of society [8]. If a
technology is available to eliminate disease and achieve a better quality of life, should it not be
available to all individuals? Genetic engineering in humans implies that we can create an elite
race of human beings which are superior to the common man. Because of this, many opponents
of genetic engineering say that the technology is the modern day version of Eugenics, a concept
developed by the English psychologist Francis Galton in the 19
century. The belief of Eugenics
says that the genetic quality of the human population can be improved by promoting the

reproduction of people with desired traits, positive eugenics, and therefore eliminating people
with less desired traits, negative eugenics [14]. While very popular in the early 20
century, after
World War II, many countries gave up on the concept of eugenics. However, if genetic
engineering can be used to improve the genes in every human being, how is it any different than
eugenics? This is even up to the current days a very controversial topic.
The Proponents
There are many supporters of genetic engineering, especially companies that benefit
financially from the technology. The ten largest companies that support GMOs are Nestle,
PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Mars Inc., Kellogs, Mondelez International,
Johnson & Johnson and General Mills [21]. These companies along with the Big Six are
currently fighting the push for GMO-labeling laws arguing that labels may mislead consumers
into thinking that GMO foods are a health hazard, something that has not been scientifically
proven, they claim.
Many Scientists knowledgeable in the field of genetic engineering support the technology
as it is not proven to harm human health. In an email interview, Dr. Dennis Dean of Virginia
Techs biotechnology department said that There are many values associated with the
production of useful agricultural products more cheaply, the development of new drugs, the
ability to produce organisms for bioremediation etc. A biologist by the name if Ingo Potrykus
has just that, the production of a useful agricultural product that is cheap and even has the
potential to save thousands of lives [22]. Potrykus invented the so called Golden Rice, a
genetically modified rice grain that contains beta-carotene to fight the vitamin A deficiency that
children in most African countries as well as South and Southeast Asian countries have [22].

Although the golden rice seems very promising, it has encountered many barriers set by
opponents of GMOs.
Another important and controversial actor is Mark Lynas, a British journalist and
environmental activist. He made headlines for being a GMO convert. Having helped start the
anti-GMO movement of the early 1990s, it was surprising when he announced that he will be
supporting genetic engineering in January 2013 [20]. In his speech, he apologized for
demonizing GMO foods and said that he was not educated enough on the technology to make
such claims. The reason for controversy around his speech was a set of leaked documents from
EuropaBio, Europes largest biotechnology company. In these documents, EuropaBio had
expressed interest to have Mark Lynas act as an ambassador of genetic modification in Europe.
Many believe that Lynas was paid off to convert to a pro-GMO stance and help EuropaBio, a
company that has many ties to the Big Six, overcome the objections of Europeans regarding
GMO crops and foods [20].

The Opponents
One of the most prominent individuals in the fight against genetic engineering is
Vandana Shiva. Born in India on 5 November 1952, she is known as an avid environmentalist
and anti-globalist [15]. After receiving her masters degrees in Particle Physics and Philosophy
of Science, she finished her PhD in Philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. In the
1970s Shiva was highly engaged in the Chipko-Movement in India. During this movement,
villagers, mainly women, hugged trees in order to stop them from being felled. In 1982 Shiva
founded the organization Navdanya (meaning Nine Crops) which fights against genetic
engineering companies and promotes the protection of biological and cultural diversity. The

organization has collected several kinds of local seeds in India and planted them in seedbanks in
order to preserve their existence.
Shivas opinion on genetic engineering is very clear: there should not be any intrusion in
nature by humankind. She calls genetically engineered crops seeds of slavery and suicide and
argues that the soaring seed prices in India have resulted in many farmers being mired in debt
and turning to suicide. 75 percent of Indian farmers debt comes from seed purchase and,
according to Shiva, Monsantos seed monopoly is to be blamed [16]. Having reign over more
than 90 percent of todays GMO patents, Monsanto can and does increase the royalty costs of
seeds at will
Another GMO product criticized by Shiva is golden rice, the genetically modified rice
grain that contains beta-carotene. Shiva, being a proponent of biodiversity, believes that golden
rice is more harmful than beneficial and says that the vitamin A deficiency could be fought with
the introduction of other vegetables into the diet of children.
Vandana Shiva is not alone in the fight against GMO foods and companies. The
environmental organization Green Peace has a similar opinion about golden rice claiming that its
introduction would lead to a contamination of other naturally occurring rice grains. The
organization went on to say that even if implemented, children would have to eat several
kilograms of golden rice in order to meet the daily vitamin A requirements. Scientists said that
this claim was unfounded and that 400 to 500 grams a day would suffice. Greenpeace was also a
large promoter of the March Against Monsanto, a protest against the largest of the Big Six.
Other opponents of genetic engineering include celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey, Bill
Maher, the activist Jeffrey M. Smith and Mehmet Oz.


The Opinion and Values of Different Cultures
The opinions on genetic engineering differ vastly depending on the cultural background
of the people questioned. According to Dr. Dean, the publics opinion on genetic engineering is
highly mixed. A small proportion of the population adamantly opposed to genetic engineering
but most people dont care, or are not sufficiently aware of the debate to have an informed
In a US study in 1996, the first year that genetically modified foods were commercially
grown, it was determined that most Americans had a positive view on the use of biotechnology,
with 78% of the respondents believing that genetic engineering would provide benefits to them.
It was not until the cloning of animals that awareness increased and the approval rate dropped to
63% [9]. In Oceania the attitude towards biotechnology was quite different than in the US. In
New Zealand for example, the percentage of people having a positive attitude towards genetic
engineering was much lower, with only 32% of the questioned people believing that life could be
improved using genetic engineering [9]. With 54% having faith in genetic engineering, the
opinion of the Europeans was in between that of the New Zealanders and Americans [9]. An
important detail to point out is that, generally, the support for genetic modification was highest in
countries that tended to have low levels of knowledge of the technology [9].
To understand why people from different regions have different attitudes towards genetic
engineering, we must identify the values and beliefs in those cultures. When talking about values
we have to differentiate between values shared by people from the same culture and values of

According to Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist, there are four dimensions that
affect the values of a culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-
collectivism and masculine-feminine [9].
Individual values are affected by factors such as environmental attitude, religion, age,
income level and education [9]. Generally, environmentally conscious people, religious people,
older people, people with lower income and people with a higher level of education were found
to be more cautious when asked about genetic engineering.

Current News and Controversies
Genetically modified foods have been making news more and more as people have
picked up on the current controversy surrounding the topic. Recently Vermont signed a bill
making it mandatory that GMOs are clearly labeled for consumers to see while they are
purchasing at retailers. More than 60 countries have already restricted or labeled these foods,
and now one stateVermontwill also ensure that we know whats in the food we buy and
serve our families, Gov. Shumlin explained to CNN [17]. Though this new law could make
average grocery costs increase for the average family and will not take effect until 2016, it is the
first step towards a more health-conscious America.
While European Union ruled in favor of mandatory labeling of GMO products back in
1997, a brief 3 years after America introduced the product to its consumers, interestingly enough,
European scientist and policymakers have made several attempts in promoting the use of

genetically modified food in Africa in 2014. Needless to say that most of the European Union
opposed GM in their own food, the proposal is to work with African scientists to allow them to
grow crops more easily and provide better nutrition for their country. The talks take place as
industry data shows the increase in the planting of GM crops has practically halted in the US and
as G8 countries, led by the US and Britain, press African states to liberalize their farming as part
of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition initiative, reports John Vidal of the
Guardian [18]. Sadly many African farmers view the attempt as a new form of colonialism in
their countries.
China too has been pushing for a market that is less crowded with GMO foods. Since
November 2013, China has rejected a total of 908,000 tons genetically modified US corn [19].
Finally, another current controversy is the ongoing search for a gay-gene. This
terminology has been swirling around in the media for some time now. Biologists have been
researching the same-sex activities of rams, monkeys and even fruit flies, trying to come up with
possible science-based theories to explain human sexual behavior. Thankfully homosexuality
was removed from the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in
1973, which no longer categorized it as a disease.

Genetic engineering reaches much farther back than most people know. This new
technology is the offspring of early selective breeding which first started around 10,000 BC.
Throughout the millennia we have domesticated many species; today, almost every dog race in
existence is a product of selective breeding. What really gave birth to genetic engineering, as we
know it today, was the computer revolution as it allowed for fast knowledge gains in the field of

genetics. Because it is still a very young technology, genetic modification remains very
controversial. There are several ethical issues, both religious and secular, brought up in the
debate even though not all of them are warranted.
While many religious people accept genetic therapy to cure genetic disorders, almost all
oppose genetic enhancement. Those that completely reject the technology base their opinions on
the argument that genetic engineering defies the will of God. Still, many seem to be accepting
selective breeding although it is qualitatively the same as genetic modification, the major
difference being the time scale genetic engineering and selective breeding work on.
Pointing out many of the dangers genetic engineering can bring with it, secular arguments
are wider ranging and more factually based. The argument that genetic engineering destroys
individuality and causes discrimination between sectors of society are, at this point, farfetched.
Nevertheless, we need to consider the possibility of destroying biodiversity. GMO seeds are used
in more and more places around the world and could contaminate locally growing crops. Also,
since there are no empirically proven studies, side effects during genetic therapy are still an
important aspect that needs to be further researched.
While there are many proponents and opponents with valid arguments, the opinion of the
public has been found to be a mixed bag. Depending on the cultural background, the responses to
genetic engineering varied from almost no acceptance, for example in New Zealand, to the
majority of the population supporting it, such as in the US.
Since its emergence, genetic engineering has been subject of public debate and
controversies. The ability to control genetic information of organisms, and consequently the
diversity of nature, evokes conflicting emotions like no other topic. The ethical debate is far from

being over, however, if approached the right way genetic engineering has the potential to be a
very promising technology.

[1] Michael J. Reiss, Roger Straughan, Improving Nature?: The Science and Ethics of Genetic
Engineering, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

[2] Genetic Engineering. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. April 2, 2014.

[3] Dennis Dean, Genetic Engineering Interview Email Interview, March 24, 2014.

[4] DNA. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. April 2, 2014.

[5] David Koepsell, The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, Washington DC: Center for Inquirt, Inc.,
August, 2007.

[6] John H. Evans, Playing God?: Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public
Bioethical Debate, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002.

[7] John Bryant, " Faraday Paper No. 7: Ethical Issues in Genetic Modification," Faraday Papers,
Cambridge: Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, April, 2007.


[8] John C. Fletcher, "Moral Problems and Ethical Issues in Human Gene Therapy," Virginia
Law Review, vol. 69, no. 3, April, 1983.

[9] Joanna Gamble, Sue Muggleston, Duncan Hedderley, Terry Parminter, Nicola Richardson-
Harman, Genetic Engineering: The Public's Point of View, Auckland: Horticulture & Food
Research Institute of New Zealand, 2000

[10] Susanna Hornig Priest, US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature
Biotechnology, vol. 18, 2000.

[11] Friedrich Hunold, Monsanto, mit Gift und Genen, Konzern Kritik, May 12, 2014.

[12] Markus Vogt, GenEthik: Grne Gentechnik in ethischer Sicht, Bayreuth: Universitaet
Bayreuth, March 30, 2014.

[13] Cultural Mandate. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. May 12, 2014

[14] Eugenics. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. May 12, 2014

[15] Vandana Shiva. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. May 12, 2014

[16] Vandana Shiva, Seeds of suicide and slavery versus seeds of life and freedom, Al Jazeera,
March 30, 2014.

[17] Dana Ford, Lorenzo Ferrigno, Vermont governor signs GMO food labeling into law,
CNN, May 8, 2014.

[18] John Vidal, GM crops: European scientists descend on Africa to promote biotech, The
Guardian, February 24, 2014.

[19] Joseph Radford, China rejects more U.S. corn due to GMO as state sales approach,
Reuters, March 25, 2014.

[20] Zack Kaldveer, Katherine Paul, Uncovering the Real Story Behind the 'Conversion' of
Mark Lynas from Climate Change Journalist to Cheerleader for Genetically Modified Foods,
AlterNet, May 12, 2014.


[21] Unveiled: GMO Labeling Opponents Come Out of the Shadows. Cornucopia Institute,
October 22, 2013.

[22] Ingo Potrykus, " Golden Rice and Beyond", Zurich: American Society of Plant Biologists,
vol. 1 2001.

[23] Bundesamt fuer Naturschutz, Kann die Agro-Gentechnik zur naturvertrglichen und
nachhaltigen Sicherung der Welternhrung beitragen? , Germany: Bundesamt fuer Naturschutz,
December, 2008.