Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/235621735
CITATIONS READS
39 581
2 authors, including:
Ali Ardekani
National Institute of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
75 PUBLICATIONS 5,005 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Ardekani on 18 January 2014.
1. Biotechnology Department, Iranian Research for Science and Technology (IROST), Karaj, Iran
2. Reproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Biotechnology is providing us with a wide range of options for how we can use
agricultural and commercial forestry lands. The cultivation of genetically
ID
modified (GM) crops on millions of hectares of lands and their injection into
our food chain is a huge global genetic experiment involving all living beings.
Considering the fast pace of new advances in production of genetically mod-
ified crops, consumers, farmers and policymakers worldwide are challenged to
reach a consensus on a clear vision for the future of world food supply. The
fS
current food biotechnology debate illustrates the serious conflict between two
groups: 1) Agri-biotech investors and their affiliated scientists who consider
agricultural biotechnology as a solution to food shortage, the scarcity of envir-
onmental resources and weeds and pests infestations; and 2) independent
scientists, environmentalists, farmers and consumers who warn that genetically
eo
modified food introduces new risks to food security, the environment and
* Corresponding author: human health such as loss of biodiversity; the emergence of superweeds and
Ali M. Ardekani, Ph.D., superpests; the increase of antibiotic resistance, food allergies and other unin-
Reproductive Biotechnology
Research Center, Avicenna
tended effects. This article reviews major viewpoints which are currently de-
Research Institute, ACECR, bated in the food biotechnology sector in the world. It also lays the ground-
icv
Tehran, Iran work for deep debate on benefits and risks of Biotech-crops for human
Tel: +98 21 22432020 health, ecosystems and biodiversity. In this context, although some regulations
Fax: +98 21 22432021 exist, there is a need for continuous vigilance for all countries involved in pro-
E-mail:
Ardekani@avicenna.ac.ir;
ducing genetically engineered food to follow the international scientific bio-
Iranhealth@hotmail.com safety testing guidelines containing reliable pre-release experiments and post-
ch
Received: 11 May 2011 release track of transgenic plants to protect public health and avoid future
Accepted: 2 Jul 2011 environmental harm.
Avicenna J Med Biotech 2011; 3(3): 109-117
Ar
Introduction
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) The use of recombinant DNA technology
are being made by inserting a gene from an has the potential to allow the creation of an
external source such as viruses, bacteria, ani- organism which is desired and designed by
mals or plants into usually unrelated species. human. Genetically Modified Food (GMF)
Biotechnology has granted us the ability to means any food containing or derived from a
overcome insurmountable physiological bar- genetically engineered organism (1). Describ-
riers and to exchange genetic materials among ing biotechnology methods is beyond the
all living organisms. scope of this paper however, it is informative
Copyright © 2011, Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology. All rights reserved. Vol. 3, No. 3, July-September 2011 109
www.SID.ir
Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns
to only name some of the vastly used tech- when the first biotech-crop was commercially
niques in creating GM crops: Agrobacterium produced (9). Major producers of GM crops
has been used as an intermediate organism for include USA, Argentina, Canada, and China
transferring a desirable gene into plants (2). (10)
. In the US, about 80% of maize, cotton and
This has been a successful method for modifi- soya are biotech varieties (11). In Canada Gen-
cation of trees and cereal crops. Biolistic etically Engineered (GE) ingredients are used
transformation is a physical method by which in more than 70% of the processed food pro-
the genes of interest are bombarded into the ducts (12). The current rate of biotech crop
plant cells and DNA-coated beads are usually adoption is remarkably higher in developing
used as carriers (3). versus industrialized countries (21% vs. 9%)
(9)
Another technique which facilitates the in- . Developing countries are rapidly accepting
corporation of genes into the host genome is the technology with the hope of alleviating
ID
called Electroporation. This is a suitable hunger and poverty. These countries account
method for plant tissues without cell walls. for 40% of the global farmlands used for GM
DNA enters the plant cells through minute crop cultivation (9). It is predicted that, by
pores which are temporarily caused by elec- 2015, more than 200 million hectares of lands
tric pulses (4). These holes can be also created will be planted by biotech crops in about 40
by microscopic crystals. Another recent
method consists of Microinjection which is
direct introduction of DNA into genome (5).
fS countries (9).
The emergence of agricultural biotechnol-
ogy has created social and ethical contradic-
Antisense technology is also a useful method tions. The widespread debate exists as to how
eo
for deactivation of specific genes such as biotechnology can be used for planting high
those responsible for softening of fruits and quality high yield crops while protecting eco-
fighting against plant viral infections (6). system and human health.
With currently available techniques the fa- While it is claimed that food biotechnol-
vorite DNA are inserted to only a few num- ogy, by improvement of the plant productivity
icv
bers of the treated cells. Therefore, in order to and developing nutrient-fortified staple food,
detect whether the incorporation of the gene is the promising solution to malnutrition and
to the cell has taken place, the desired DNA food shortage, the accumulating evidence
are generally attached to marker gene before over 20 years of GMF introduction to the
ch
their transfer. These marker genes allow re- market does not fully support these claims.
searchers to verify whether transfer of the de- The consumers are mainly concerned about
sired DNA has properly occurred. However, the long term human health effects of the bio-
after the successful gene transfer, important tech crops such as antibiotic resistance, aller-
Ar
factors that have triggered debates over the genicity, unnatural nutritional changes and
safety of GM crops are the genotypic and toxicity. Furthermore, Agri-biotech com-
phenotypic stability and permanence inherit- panies and their affiliated scientists present
ance (7). GM food as an environmentally friendly crop.
The majority of the Biotech-crops available It is excessively stated over the media and
on the global market have been genetically through their dependent scientific publica-
manipulated to express one of these basic tions that GM crops containing genes expres-
traits: resistance to insects or viruses, toler- sing herbicide tolerance and pest resistance
ance to certain herbicides and nutritionally lead to reduction of broad spectrum pesticides
enhanced quality. At present, more than 148 and herbicide use. Also, they profess that GM
million hectares of farmland are under culti- crops help diminishing greenhouse global
vation for biotech crops throughout the world emissions by reducing needs for plowing (re-
(8)
. There has been a 60-fold rise in the ap- placement of energy-intensive by low-till
plication of Agri-biotechnology since 1996, agriculture). On the other hand, environmen-
110
11 Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, Vol. 3, No. 3, July-September 2011
www.SID.ir
Mohajer Maghari B and Ardekani AM
talists believe that engineering of the genetic are dynamic and operate in an interactive
materials could deeply transform the global system and intertwined with one another. Fur-
ecosystem from all possible aspects (13). They thermore, proteins do not function separately;
are concerned about the long term conse- rather they behave in interactive network sys-
quences of GM agriculture on biodiversity as tems. Gene traits work in the cell by inter-
it may create superweeds and superpests communication and reciprocity (15). Hence,
which can potentially disturb the balance of one gene might not determine one trait, be it
nature and cause serious hazards for benefi- herbicide tolerance, or resistance to pest.
cial insects. In this article, different views on Therefore, the genetic engineering techniques
agricultural biotechnology which has given seem to be imprecise and must include gene
rise to debates between advocated and oppon- optimization steps to minimize this concern.
ents of GM crop are provided. The new understanding of genome function
ID
The information presented in this review has changed the genetic concept which
was collected through extensive web searches launched biotech industry a couple of decades
of databases such as Regulatory Framework ago (16).
on Food Biosafety implemented by UNEP- To make a GM crop, the gene of interest is
GEF; guidelines of European Parliament's inserted into the crop’s genome using a vec-
committee on the Environment, Public Health
and Food Safety; Food and Agriculture Or-
ganization of the United Nations, biosafety
fS tor. This vector might contain several other
elements, including viral promoters, transcrip-
tion terminators, antibiotic resistance and
guidelines for crop production and food label- marker genes. The genes incorporated into a
eo
ing and also scientific data presented by inde- genome, could reside anywhere, cause muta-
pendent scientists of non-profit international tion in the host genome, and move or rear-
organizations and many others. range after insertion or in the next gener-
ations. Transgenic DNA might break up and
Major Concerns reintegrate into the genome again (recombin-
icv
engineered foods, we point out some of the cluding antibiotic resistance genes (19). This
problems stemming out from genetic modifi- may cause the reduction of the effectiveness
cation techniques. of antibiotics and therefore increasing the risk
of antibiotic-resistant diseases. Some scientif-
GE Techniques ic advices have proposed that such markers
GE techniques have been used to transfer should be replaced by non-antibiotic marker
single gene traits such as herbicide tolerance system in GMF production (20). In this regard,
from soil microbes into plant cells. However, the Food Safety Unit of WHO has been asses-
recent studies in higher eukaryotic cells have sing the safety of antibiotic resistance marker
shown that genes do not function independ- genes (21). However, the proponent of com-
ently from each other. For example, it has mercial production of GMF believe that DNA
been discovered that human genome is not a are abundant in all the foods we eat, but there
simple collection of independent genes. has not been any evidence of the gene transfer
Genes, instead of being constant and static, from the food source to gut bacteria.
www.SID.ir
Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns
However, there is a concern that the exist- The aforementioned reports performed by
ence of viral promoters in the vectors carrying independent GM researchers have lead to a
the foreign genes might expose the consumer concern about the risks of GMFs and the in-
to the viral infection. For example: the Cauli- herent risks associated with the genetic tech-
flower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter is nology. It is therefore essential that the safety
exploited to induce the expression of trans- and long-term effects of GM crops should be
genes in almost all GM crops commercially examined before their release into the food
released- in Round Up ready soy of Mon- chain by all organizations responsible to pro-
santo, Bt-maize of Novaris, and GM cotton duce GMFs.
and canola. It is of concern that this promoter In order to give the public the option of
could potentially becomes activated in human making informed decision about the con-
and animal cells (22,23). sumption of GMF, enough information on the
ID
Seed companies argue that viruses have safety tests of such product is required. Un-
been engineered to be dormant in plant cells fortunately, such data are scarce due to a
and therefore they are safe. Contrary to these number of factors. For example it is hard to
claims, studies have shown that viruses, lack- compare the nutritional contents of GM crops
ing the gene needed for movement, can easily with their conventional counterparts because
gain it from neighboring genes (24,25).
Bt-maize, GM cottonseed and certain biotech GM crops equal to its conventional crops
corn showed complications including early when no major differences are detected bet-
deliveries, abortions, infertility and also many ween the compound compositions in both
died (26-30). However, this is a controversial products. Such approach is argued to guaran-
ch
subject as studies conducted by company pro- tee that the GM crop is safe enough to be
ducing the biotech crops did not show any patented and commercially produced (38,39). It
negative effects of GM crops on mice (31). Al- is strongly believed that animal trials should
though Agri-biotech companies do not accept be used to evaluate the probable toxic effects
Ar
the direct link between the GMFs consump- of genetically modified foods (38,40). Herbicide
tion and human health problems, there are and glyphosphate resistant soybeans (41-43) as
some examples given by the opponents. For well as GM cotton resistant to insects are
example: The foodborne diseases such as claimed to be substantially equal to conven-
soya allergies have increased over the past 10 tional soybeans or cotton (43). However, in
years in USA and UK (32) and an epidemic of these studies other than the use of inappropri-
Morgellons disease in the US (33). There are ate statistics, instead of comparing GM crops
also reports on hundreds of villagers and cot- with the control grown at same locations,
ton handlers who developed skin allergy in samples from different areas were measured,
India (34,35). Recent studies have revealed that while it is known that environmental condi-
Bacillus thuringiensis corn expresses an aller- tions could have major effects on the com-
genic protein which alters overall immuno- ponents levels (41,44,45). Another example are
logical reactions in the body (36,37). from the results of toxicological studies con-
112
11 Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, Vol. 3, No. 3, July-September 2011
www.SID.ir
Mohajer Maghari B and Ardekani AM
ducted on a variety of animals fed with gly- set up in proximate future. Nevertheless, dif-
phosate-resistant soybean (GTS) which were ferent GMF labeling schemes have been es-
shown to be similar for GTS fed and control tablished in different countries, ranging from
group. However, these experiments were not stringent to extremely lenient or even non ex-
scientifically sound since high dietary protein istent legislations (52). While the EU has estab-
concentration and very low level of GTS have lished strict GMF labeling regulations, in the
hidden any real effects of GM and basically US, Canada and Argentina, three big produ-
these experiments were more a commercial cers of GM food, such laws have been put
and not scientific studies (46). Also, there are forward but not enacted by these governments
(53)
some false claims on the improvement of the .
protein content of GM crops expressing the A proper labeling represents the “GM”
desired protein from an inserted gene. For ex- word, along with additional information on
ID
ample, studies on GM potato and containing changed characteristics and the external
soybean glycine gene did not show consider- source of the inserted gene (i.e. GM soya
able increase in the protein content or even bean with gene from X source). Negative
amino acid profile and as for GM rice the rise labeling such as “GM free” is not suggested,
in protein content was due to the decline in because it might give the wrong impression to
moisture rather than the increase in protein
content (28,47).
Also, there are some difficulties with asses-
fS the consumers. The law for compulsory label-
ing of genetically modified food products has
been established in more than 40 countries (54).
sing the allergenicity of GM crops. When the Surveys commissioned by different organiza-
eo
gene causing allergenicity is known, such as tions have shown that people across the world
the gene for the alpha-amylase trypsin inhibi- are seeking for transparency and consumer
tors, or cod proteins, it is easier to recognize choice and believe that compulsory labeling
whether the GMF is allergenic by using in scheme on GM ingredients is highly required:
vitro tests (48-51). Of course to test the stability 88% Canadians, 92% Americans and 93%
icv
of GMF products in the digestive systems, French (54,55). However, the opponents of GMF
human/animal trials are required and data labeling believe that such a tag resembles a
bank studies are effective. Since insertion of a skull and cross bones on a food which makes
non-allergenic gene might cause over expres- consumers reluctant in using any bio-engin-
ch
sion of already existing minor allergen, it is eered products. On the other hand they are
difficult to specifically identify whether a new concerned that obligatory labeling holds back
GM crop with a gene transferred from a the progress of Agri-biotechnology (52) and
source with unknown allergenicity is aller- also it would lead to extra costs and logistical
Ar
www.SID.ir
Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns
undesirable traits is a slow process and re- those carried out in universities are funded by
quires trial and errors through several gener- the industry (60). Therefore, independent scien-
ations of plants breeding. In this context, tists should urgently follow strict precaution-
modern biotechnology has allowed us to go ary approach in designing experiments on
beyond natural physiological reproductive GMF. GM plants have to meet the criteria of
barriers in a manner that gene transfer among the guidelines in order to get approval for en-
evolutionarily divergent organisms is now tering the market. However, the regulatory
possible and therefore, individual genes ex- and scientific capacities to implement such
pressing certain traits in animals or microor- guidelines need to be built up worldwide
ganisms can be precisely incorporated to the specifically in developing countries.
plant genome. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are one
GM advocates believe that conventional of the important factors in the current debate
ID
breeding can achieve similar results using on GMF. The GM crops are patented by Agri-
transferred gene but only within related business companies leading to monopoliza-
species and in a lengthy and imprecise pro- tion of the global agricultural food and con-
cess. However, GMF opponents explain that trolling distribution of the world food supply.
genetic engineering bears no resemblance to Social activists believe that the hidden reason
natural breeding as it forcibly combines genes
from unrelated species together; species that
were perfectly separated over billions of years
fS why biotech companies are eager to produce
GM crops is because they can be privatized,
unlike ordinary crops which are the natural
of evolution (56). They believe that the genetic property of all humanity (57,61). It is argued for
eo
engineering is not an alternative to traditional example that to achieve this monopoly, the
breeding as natural crossing of plants con- large Agri-biotech company, Monsanto, has
tributes thousands of genes to the offspring taken over small seed companies in the past
through the elegant dance of life. 10 years and has become the biggest Agri-
Agri-biotech companies claim that recom- biotech Corporation in the world. The patent
icv
binant DNA techniques can bring advantages right for vegetable forms of life also affect the
for consumers such as nutritional enhance- livelihoods of family farmers as they are
ment as well as improving the quality and required to sign a contract preventing them
yield of food and non-food plants such as cot- from saving and re-planting the seeds, thus
ch
ton and pharmaceuticals (57,58). Most of the they have to pay for seeds each year (62).
claims about the benefits of GMF have been
proposed by the seed industry. However, in- Conclusion
dependent scientists warn that the publica- Taking everything into consideration, GM
Ar
tions on the success of the GM in offering crops are alive; they can migrate and spread
more nutritious and safe food is not based on worldwide. In this regard, clear signals should
expected scientific standards. be sent to biotech companies to proceed with
Drug studies funded by pharmaceutical caution and avoid causing unintended harm to
companies are more likely to report positive human health and the environment. It is wide-
result in favor of the sponsor than independ- ly believed that it is the right of consumers to
ently funded studies (59). The biased results demand mandatory labeling of GM food
might be achieved by the type of experiment products, independent testing for safety and
design, selection of data and briefing the environmental impacts, and liability for any
actual findings to what is expected. The same damage associated with GM crops. We are
might be happening with researches conduct- aware that many regulatory laws already exist
ed by the seed industry. The majority of re- for risk assessments which are performed on
search experiments on transgenic plants are three levels of impacts on Agriculture (gene
being performed by the private sector and flow, reducing biodiversity), Food and Food
114
11 Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, Vol. 3, No. 3, July-September 2011
www.SID.ir
Mohajer Maghari B and Ardekani AM
safety (allergenicity, toxicity), and Environ- 10. Brookes G, Barfoot P. GM crops The First Ten
ment (including non target organism); And at Years-Global Socio-economic and Environmental
Impacts. PG Economics Ltd., UK: The Internation-
the same time, in recent years Cartagena al Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Ap-
protocol has created laws and guidelines and plications (ISAAA); 2006.
has obliged countries and companies to obey
11. Rikki Stancich. GM food special report: Crops that
them for production, handling and consump- survive climate change. Climate Change group;
tion of GM materials. In this article, we have 2008 Feb. Available from: http://www.climate
not reviewed the regulatory issues involved in changecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5157.
GMFs production. However, we are certain 12. Improving the Regulation of Genetically Modified
that the interested readers will follow the Foods and Other Novel Foods in Canada. Canadian
debates on GMFs and the related regulatory Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Report to the
issues in the years to come. Government of Canada Biotechnology Ministerial
ID
Coordinating Committee; 2002 Aug. Available
from: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/C2-
References
589-2001-1E.pdf.
1. Halford NG, Shewry PR. Genetically modified
crops: methodology, benefits, regulation and public 13. Altieri MA, Rosset P. Strengthening the case for
concerns. Br Med Bull 2000;56(1):62-73. why biotechnology will not help. The developing
2. Caiping MA, Stauss SH, Meilan R. Agrobacterium-
mediated transformation of the genome-sequenced
polar clone nisqually-1 (Populus trichocarpa). Plant
Mol Biol Rep 2004;22:1-9.
fS world: A response to MCGloughlin. AgBioForum
1999;2(3-4):226-236.
14. Pusztai A. Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a
Risk to Human/Animal Health? ActionBioscience;
2001 June. Available from: http://www.ask-force.
eo
3. Lee YS, Wetzel ED, Wagner NJ. The ballistic im-
org/web/Pusztai/Pusztai-GM-Foods-Risk-Human-
pact characteristics of Kevlar® woven fabrics im-
Animal-Health-2001.pdf.
pregnated with a colloidal shear thickening fluid. J
Mater Sci 2003;38(13):2825-2833. 15. GM Crops-the health effects. Soil Association.
www.soilassociation.org. February (2008).
4. Obert B, Ponya Z, Pret’ova A, Barnabas B. Optim-
ization of electroporation conditions for maize 16. Mae-Wan Ho. Genetic Engineering Dream or
icv
microspores. Maydica 2004;49:15-19. Nightmare?: Turning the Tide on the Brave New
World of Bad Science and Big Business. 2 Rev
5. Darabani B, Farajnia S, Toorchi M, Zakerbostan-
Upd edition. International Publishing Group Con-
abad S, Noeparvar S, Stewart N. DNA-delivery
tinuum; 2000.
methods to produce transgenic plants. Biotechnol-
ch
www.SID.ir
Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns
bial Resistance: Scientific assessment. Joint FAO/ Aug. Available from: http://www.globalresearch.
OIE/WHO Expert Workshop: Geneva, 2003 Dec. ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9891.
Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/
34. Kurunganti K. Mass Protests against GM Crops in
publications/micro/en/amr.pdf.
India. Institute of science in technology. 2008
22. Ho MW, Cummins J. New evidence links CaMV Apr. Available from: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gm
35S promoter to HIV transcription. Microb Ecol ProtestsIndia.php
Health Dis 2009;21(3-4):172-174.
35. Bernstein IL, Bernstein JA, Miller M, Tierzieva S,
23. Myhre MR, Fenton KA, Eggert J, Nielsen KM, Bernstein DI, Lummus Z, et al. Immune responses
Traavik T. The 35S CaMV plant virus promoter is in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thurin-
active in human enterocyte-like cells. Eur Food Res giensis pesticides. Environ Health Perspect 1999;
Technol 2006;222(1-2): 185-193. 107(7):575-582.
24. Lai MM. RNA recombination in animal and plant 36. Vazquez-Padron RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan
viruses. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 1992;56(1):61-79. L, Martinez-Gil AF, de la Riva, GA, Lopez-Revilla
ID
R. Characterization of the mucosal and systemic
25. Teycheney PY, Tepper M. Possible roles of endo- immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from
genous plant viral sequences and transgenes con- Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz J Med
taining viral sequences in both virus resistance and Biol Res 2000;33(2):147-155.
virus emergence. Environ Biosafety Res 2007;6(4):
219-221. 37. Pasini G, Simonato B, Curioni A, Vincenzi S, Cris-
26. Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in
the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated
potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins 1998;
6(6):219-233.
fS taudo A, Santucci B, et al. IgE-mediated allergy to
corn: a 50 kDa protein, belonging to the reduced
soluble proteins, is a major allergen. Allergy 2002;
57(2):98-106.
38. Pusztai A. Can science give us the tools for recog-
eo
27. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effects of diets containing nizing possible health risks of GM foods. Nutr
genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus Health 2002;16:73-84.
nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 1999;
354(9187):1353-1354. 39. Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S. Beyond substan-
tial equivalence. Nature 1999;401(6753) 525-526.
28. Hashimoto W, Momma K, Katsube T, OhkawaY,
icv
Ishige T, Kito M, et al. Safety assessment of gen- 40. Redenbaugh K, Hatt W, Martineau B, Kramer M,
etically engineered potatoes with designed soybean Sheehy R, Sanders R, Houck C, Emlay D. A case
glycinin: compositional analyses of the potato study of the FLAVR SAVRTM tomato. In: Safety
tubers and digestibility of the newly expressed pro- Assessment of Genetically Engineered Fruits and
tein in transgenic potatoes. J Sci Food Agric 1999; Vegetables. USA: CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton;
79(12):1607-1612. 1992.
ch
29. Momma K, Hashimoto W, Ozawa S, Kawai S, Kat- 41. Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL, Bailey MR,
sube T, Takaiwa F, et al. Quality and safety evalu- MacDonald J, Holden L, Fuchs RL. The com-
ation of genetically engineered rice with soybean position of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is
glycinin: Analyses of the grain composition and equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J Nutr
Ar
32. Daniel KT. The Hidden Dangers of Soy Allergens. 44. Novak WK, Haslberger AG. Substantial equiva-
Nexus Magazine 2004 Sep. Available from: www. lence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in
nexusmagazine.com. genetically modified novel foods. Food Chem Tox
2000;38(6):473-483.
33. Ho MW, Cummins J. Agrobacterium & Morgellons
Disease, A GM Connection? Global Research 2008 45. Lappe MA, Bailey EB, Childress C, Setchell KDR.
116
11 Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, Vol. 3, No. 3, July-September 2011
www.SID.ir
Mohajer Maghari B and Ardekani AM
ID
digestibility of glycinin in transgenic rice. Biosci
56. Lendman S. Potential Health Hazards of Genetical-
Biotechnol Biochem 1999;63(2):314-318.
ly Engineered Foods. 2008 Feb. Available from:
48. Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA, www.truehealthfacts.com.
Bush RK. Identification of a Brazil nut allergen in
57. Genetically modified foods. Better health Channel.
transgenic soybean. N Engl J Med 1996;334:688-
692.
49. Bindslev-Jensen C, Poulsen LK. Hazards of unin-
tentional/intentional introduction of allergens into
fS 2010 Feb. Available from: www.betterhealth.vic.
gov.au.
58. Soybeans Monsanto. Available from: http://www.
monsanto.com/products/Documents/pipeline-
foods. Allergy 1997;52(12):1184-1186.
brochures/soybeans.pdf.
eo
50. Burks AW, Fuchs RL. Assessment of the endo-
59. Bourgeois F. Drug trials funded by industry are
genous allergens in glyphosate-tolerant and com-
more likely to publish favorable results. Ann Int
mercial soybean varieties. J Allergy Clin Immunol
Med 2010;153:158-166.
1995;96(6 pt 1):1008-1010.
60. Saunders P. Corporate Monopoly of Science. Insti-
51. Nakamura R, Matsuda T. Rice allergenic protein
icv
www.SID.ir