Genetically Modified Food

Genetically modified food
Genetically modified foods (GM foods), also known as genetically engineered foods (GE foods), or
bioengineered foods are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their
DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering techniques allow for the
introduction of new traits as well as greater control over traits when compared to previous methods, such
as selective breeding and mutation breeding.[1]
Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its
unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-ripening tomato.[2][3] Most food modifications have primarily focused
on cash crops in high demand by farmers such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton. Genetically modified
crops have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides and for better nutrient profiles.
GM livestock have been developed, although, as of November 2013, none were on the market.[4]
There is a scientific consensus[5][6][7][8] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no
greater risk to human health than conventional food,[9][10][11][12][13] but that each GM food needs to be
tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[14][15][16] Nonetheless, members of the public are
much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[17][18][19][20] The legal and regulatory
status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others
permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[21][22][23][24]
However, there are ongoing public concerns related to food safety, regulation, labelling, environmental
impact, research methods, and the fact that some GM seeds, along with all new plant varieties, are
subject to plant breeders' rights owned by corporations.[25]
Contents
Definition
History
Process
Crops
Fruits and vegetables
Corn
Soy
Rice
Wheat
Derivative products
Corn starch and starch sugars, including syrups
Lecithin
Sugar
Vegetable oil
Other uses
Animal feed
Proteins
Livestock
Salmon
Health and safety
Testing
Regulation
United States regulations
Labeling
Detection
Controversies
See also
References
External links
Definition
Genetically modified foods are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into
their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering as opposed to traditional cross breeding.[26][27] In
the U.S., the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) favor the
use of the term genetic engineering over genetic modification as being more precise; the USDA defines
genetic modification to include "genetic engineering or other more traditional methods".[28][29]
According to the World Health Organization, "Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often
referred to as GM foods."[26]
History
Human-directed genetic manipulation of food began with the domestication of plants and animals
through artificial selection at about 10,500 to 10,100 BC.[30]:1 The process of selective breeding, in
which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next
generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is a precursor to the modern concept of genetic
modification (GM).[30]:1[31]:1 With the discovery of DNA in the early 1900s and various advancements
in genetic techniques through the 1970s[32] it became possible to directly alter the DNA and genes within
food.
Genetically modified microbial enzymes were the first application of genetically modified organisms in
food production and were approved in 1988 by the US Food and Drug Administration.[33] In the early
1990s, recombinant chymosin was approved for use in several countries.[33][34] Cheese had typically
been made using the enzyme complex rennet that had been extracted from cows' stomach lining.
Scientists modified bacteria to produce chymosin, which was also able to clot milk, resulting in cheese
curds.[35]
The first genetically modified food approved for release was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994.[2] Developed
by Calgene, it was engineered to have a longer shelf life by inserting an antisense gene that delayed
ripening.[36] China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in 1993 with the introduction
of virus-resistant tobacco.[37] In 1995, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Potato was approved for cultivation,
making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the US.[38] Other genetically modified
crops receiving marketing approval in 1995 were: canola with modified oil composition, Bt maize, cotton
resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, Bt cotton, glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, virus-resistant squash, and
another delayed ripening tomato.[2]
With the creation of golden rice in 2000, scientists had genetically modified food to increase its nutrient
value for the first time.[39]
By 2010, 29 countries had planted commercialized biotech crops and a further 31 countries had granted
regulatory approval for transgenic crops to be imported.[40] The US was the leading country in the
production of GM foods in 2011, with twenty-five GM crops having received regulatory approval.[41] In
2015, 92% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 94% of cotton produced in the US were genetically modified
strains.[42]
The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was AquAdvantage salmon in 2015.[43]
The salmon were transformed with a growth hormone-regulating gene from a Pacific Chinook salmon
and a promoter from an ocean pout enabling it to grow year-round instead of only during spring and
summer.[44]
In April 2016, a white button mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) modified using the CRISPR technique
received de facto approval in the United States, after the USDA said it would not have to go through the
agency's regulatory process. The agency considers the mushroom exempt because the editing process did
not involve the introduction of foreign DNA.[45]
The most widely planted GMOs are designed to tolerate herbicides. By 2006 some weed populations had
evolved to tolerate some of the same herbicides. Palmer amaranth is a weed that competes with cotton. A
native of the southwestern US, it traveled east and was first found resistant to glyphosate in 2006, less
than 10 years after GM cotton was introduced.[46][47][48]
Process
Creating genetically modified food is a multi-step process. The first step is to identify a useful gene from
another organism that you would like to add. The gene can be taken from a cell[49] or artificially
synthesised,[50] and then combined with other genetic elements, including a promoter and terminator
region and a selectable marker.[51] Then the genetic elements are inserted into the targets genome. DNA
is generally inserted into animal cells using microinjection, where it can be injected through the cell's
nuclear envelope directly into the nucleus, or through the use of viral vectors.[52] In plants the DNA is
often inserted using Agrobacterium-mediated recombination,[53][54] biolistics[55] or electroporation. As
only a single cell is transformed with genetic material, the organism must be regenerated from that single
cell. In plants this is accomplished through tissue culture.[56][57] In animals it is necessary to ensure that
the inserted DNA is present in the embryonic stem cells.[53] Further testing using PCR, Southern
hybridization, and DNA sequencing is conducted to confirm that an organism contains the new gene.[58]
Traditionally the new genetic material was inserted randomly within the host genome. Gene targeting
techniques, which creates double-stranded breaks and takes advantage on the cells natural homologous
recombination repair systems, have been developed to target insertion to exact locations. Genome editing
uses artificially engineered nucleases that create breaks at specific points. There are four families of
engineered nucleases: meganucleases,[59][60] zinc finger nucleases,[61][62] transcription activator-like
effector nucleases (TALENs),[63][64] and the Cas9-guideRNA system (adapted from CRISPR).[65][66]
TALEN and CRISPR are the two most commonly used and each has its own advantages.[67] TALENs
have greater target specificity, while CRISPR is easier to design and more efficient.[67]
Crops
Genetically modified crops (GM crops) are genetically modified plants that are used in agriculture. The
first crops developed were used for animal or human food and provide resistance to certain pests,
diseases, environmental conditions, spoilage or chemical treatments (e.g. resistance to a herbicide). The
second generation of crops aimed to improve the quality, often by altering the nutrient profile. Third
generation genetically modified crops could be used for non-food purposes, including the production of
pharmaceutical agents, biofuels, and other industrially useful goods, as well as for bioremediation.[68]
GM crops have been produced to improve harvests through reducing insect pressure, increase nutrient
value and tolerate different abiotic stresses. As of 2018, the commercialised crops are limited mostly to
cash crops like cotton, soybean, maize and canola and the vast majority of the introduced traits provide
either herbicide tolerance or insect resistance.[68]
The majority of GM crops have been modified to be resistant to selected herbicides, usually a glyphosate
or glufosinate based one. Genetically modified crops engineered to resist herbicides are now more
available than conventionally bred resistant varieties.[69] Most currently available genes used to engineer
insect resistance come from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium and code for delta endotoxins. A
few use the genes that encode for vegetative insecticidal proteins.[70] The only gene commercially used
to provide insect protection that does not originate from B. thuringiensis is the Cowpea trypsin inhibitor
(CpTI). CpTI was first approved for use cotton in 1999 and is currently undergoing trials in rice.[71][72]
Less than one percent of GM crops contained other traits, which include providing virus resistance,
delaying senescence and altering the plants composition.[73]
Adoption by farmers has been rapid, between 1996 and 2013, the total surface area of land cultivated
with GM crops increased by a factor of 100.[74] Geographically though the spread has been uneven, with
strong growth in the Americas and parts of Asia and little in Europe and Africa.[68] Its socioeconomic
spread has been more even, with approximately 54% of worldwide GM crops grown in developing
countries in 2013.[74] Although doubts have been raised,[75] most studies have found growing GM crops
to be beneficial to farmers through decreased pesticide use as well as increased crop yield and farm
profit.[76][77][78]
Fruits and vegetables

Papaya was genetically modified to resist the ringspot virus (PSRV). "SunUp" is a transgenic red-fleshed
Sunset papaya cultivar that is homozygous for the coat protein gene PRSV; "Rainbow" is a yellow-
fleshed F1 hybrid developed by crossing 'SunUp' and nontransgenic yellow-fleshed "Kapoho".[79]The
GM cultivar was approved in 1998[80] and by 2010 80% of Hawaiian papaya was genetically
engineered.[81] The New York Times stated, "without it, the state's papaya industry would have
collapsed".[81] In China, a transgenic PRSV-resistant papaya was developed by South China Agricultural
University and was first approved for commercial planting in 2006; as of 2012 95% of the papaya grown
in Guangdong province and 40% of the papaya grown in Hainan province was genetically modified.[82]
In Hong Kong, where there is an exemption on growing and releasing any varieties of GM papaya, more
than 80% of grown and imported papayas were transgenic.[83][84]
The New Leaf potato, a GM food developed using Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt), was made to provide in-plant protection
from the yield-robbing Colorado potato beetle.[85] The
New Leaf potato, brought to market by Monsanto in the
late 1990s, was developed for the fast food market. It was
withdrawn in 2001 after retailers rejected it and food
processors ran into export problems.In 2011, BASF
requested the European Food Safety Authority's approval
for cultivation and marketing of its Fortuna potato as feed
Three views of a papaya, cultivar "Sunset",
and food. The potato was made resistant to late blight by which was genetically modified to create the
adding resistant genes blb1 and blb2 that originate from the cultivar 'SunUp', which is resistant to
Mexican wild potato Solanum bulbocastanum. [86][87] In Papaya ringspot virus[79]
February 2013, BASF withdrew its application.[88][89] In
2014, the USDA approved a genetically modified potato
developed by J. R. Simplot Company that contained ten genetic modifications that prevent bruising and
produce less acrylamide when fried. The modifications eliminate specific proteins from the potatoes, via
RNA interference, rather than introducing novel proteins.[90][91]
As of 2005, about 13% of the Zucchini (a form of squash) grown in the US was genetically modified to
resist three viruses; that strain is also grown in Canada.[92][93]
In 2013, the USDA approved the import of a GM pineapple that

is pink in color and that "overexpresses" a gene derived from
tangerines and suppress other genes, increasing production of
lycopene. The plant's flowering cycle was changed to provide for
more uniform growth and quality. The fruit "does not have the
ability to propagate and persist in the environment once they have
been harvested", according to USDA APHIS. According to Del
Monte's submission, the pineapples are commercially grown in a
"monoculture" that prevents seed production, as the plant's
Plums genetically engineered for
flowers aren't exposed to compatible pollen sources. Importation resistance to plum pox, a disease
into Hawaii is banned for "plant sanitation" reasons.[94] carried by aphids
In February 2015 Arctic Apples were approved by the USDA,[95]

becoming the first genetically modified apple approved for sale in the US.[96] Gene silencing is used to
reduce the expression of polyphenol oxidase (PPO), thus preventing the fruit from browning.[97]
Corn
Corn used for food and ethanol has been genetically modified to tolerate various herbicides and to
express a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that kills certain insects.[98] About 90% of the corn
grown in the US was genetically modified in 2010.[99] In the US in 2015, 81% of corn acreage contained
the Bt trait and 89% of corn acreage contained the glyphosate-tolerant trait.[42] Corn can be processed
into grits, meal and flour as an ingredient in pancakes, muffins, doughnuts, breadings and batters, as well
as baby foods, meat products, cereals and some fermented products. Corn-based masa flour and masa
dough are used in the production of taco shells, corn chips and tortillas.[100]
Soy
Soybeans accounted for half of all genetically modified crops planted in 2014.[73] Genetically modified
soybean has been modified to tolerate herbicides and produce healthier oils.[101] In 2015, 94% of
soybean acreage in the U.S. was genetically modified to be glyphosate-tolerant.[42]
Rice
Golden rice is the most well known GM crop that is aimed at increasing nutrient value. It has been
engineered with three genes that biosynthesise beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible parts
of rice.[102] It is intended to produce a fortified food to be grown and consumed in areas with a shortage
of dietary vitamin A,[103] a deficiency which each year is estimated to kill 670,000 children under the age
of 5[104] and cause an additional 500,000 cases of irreversible childhood blindness.[105] The original
golden rice produced 1.6μg/g of the carotenoids, with further development increasing this 23 times.[106]
In 2018 it gained its first approvals for use as food.[107]
Wheat
As of December 2017, genetically modified wheat has been evaluated in field trials, but has not been
released commercially.[108][109][110]
Derivative products
Corn starch and starch sugars, including syrups

Starch or amylum is a polysaccharide produced by all green plants as an energy store. Pure starch is a
white, tasteless and odourless powder. It consists of two types of molecules: the linear and helical
amylose and the branched amylopectin. Depending on the plant, starch generally contains 20 to 25%
amylose and 75 to 80% amylopectin by weight.[111]
Starch can be further modified to create modified starch for specific purposes,[112] including creation of
many of the sugars in processed foods. They include:
Maltodextrin, a lightly hydrolyzed starch product used as a bland-tasting filler and thickener.
Various glucose syrups, also called corn syrups in the US, viscous solutions used as
sweeteners and thickeners in many kinds of processed foods.
Dextrose, commercial glucose, prepared by the complete hydrolysis of starch.
High fructose syrup, made by treating dextrose solutions with the enzyme glucose
isomerase, until a substantial fraction of the glucose has been converted to fructose.
Sugar alcohols, such as maltitol, erythritol, sorbitol, mannitol and hydrogenated starch
hydrolysate, are sweeteners made by reducing sugars.
Lecithin
Lecithin is a naturally occurring lipid. It can be found in egg yolks and oil-producing plants. It is an
emulsifier and thus is used in many foods. Corn, soy and safflower oil are sources of lecithin, though the
majority of lecithin commercially available is derived from soy.[113][114][115] Sufficiently processed
lecithin is often undetectable with standard testing practices.[111] According to the FDA, no evidence
shows or suggests hazard to the public when lecithin is used at common levels. Lecithin added to foods
amounts to only 2 to 10 percent of the 1 to 5 g of phosphoglycerides consumed daily on average.[113][114]
Nonetheless, consumer concerns about GM food extend to such products.[116] This concern led to policy
and regulatory changes in Europe in 2000, when Regulation (EC) 50/2000 was passed[117] which
required labelling of food containing additives derived from GMOs, including lecithin. Because of the
difficulty of detecting the origin of derivatives like lecithin with current testing practices, European
regulations require those who wish to sell lecithin in Europe to employ a comprehensive system of
Identity preservation (IP).[118][119]
Sugar
The US imports 10% of its sugar, while the remaining 90% is extracted from sugar beet and sugarcane.
After deregulation in 2005, glyphosate-resistant sugar beet was extensively adopted in the United States.
95% of beet acres in the US were planted with glyphosate-resistant seed in 2011.[120] GM sugar beets are
approved for cultivation in the US, Canada and Japan; the vast majority are grown in the US. GM beets
are approved for import and consumption in Australia, Canada, Colombia, EU, Japan, Korea, Mexico,
New Zealand, Philippines, the Russian Federation and Singapore.[121] Pulp from the refining process is
used as animal feed. The sugar produced from GM sugar beets contains no DNA or protein – it is just
sucrose that is chemically indistinguishable from sugar produced from non-GM sugar beets.[111][122]
Independent analyses conducted by internationally recognized laboratories found that sugar from
Roundup Ready sugar beets is identical to the sugar from comparably grown conventional (non-Roundup
Ready) sugar beets.[123]
Vegetable oil
Most vegetable oil used in the US is produced from GM crops canola,[124] corn,[125][126] cotton[127] and
soybeans.[128] Vegetable oil is sold directly to consumers as cooking oil, shortening and margarine[129]
and is used in prepared foods. There is a vanishingly small amount of protein or DNA from the original
crop in vegetable oil.[111][130] Vegetable oil is made of triglycerides extracted from plants or seeds and
then refined and may be further processed via hydrogenation to turn liquid oils into solids. The refining
process removes all, or nearly all non-triglyceride ingredients.[131] Medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs)
offer an alternative to conventional fats and oils. The length of a fatty acid influences its fat absorption
during the digestive process. Fatty acids in the middle position on the glycerol molecules appear to be
absorbed more easily and influence metabolism more than fatty acids on the end positions. Unlike
ordinary fats, MCTs are metabolized like carbohydrates. They have exceptional oxidative stability, and
prevent foods from turning rancid readily.[132]
Other uses
Animal feed
Livestock and poultry are raised on animal feed, much of which is composed of the leftovers from
processing crops, including GM crops. For example, approximately 43% of a canola seed is oil. What
remains after oil extraction is a meal that becomes an ingredient in animal feed and contains canola
protein.[133] Likewise, the bulk of the soybean crop is grown for oil and meal. The high-protein defatted
and toasted soy meal becomes livestock feed and dog food. 98% of the US soybean crop goes for
livestock feed.[134][135] In 2011, 49% of the US maize harvest was used for livestock feed (including the
percentage of waste from distillers grains).[136] "Despite methods that are becoming more and more
sensitive, tests have not yet been able to establish a difference in the meat, milk, or eggs of animals
depending on the type of feed they are fed. It is impossible to tell if an animal was fed GM soy just by
looking at the resulting meat, dairy, or egg products. The only way to verify the presence of GMOs in
animal feed is to analyze the origin of the feed itself."[137]
A 2012 literature review of studies evaluating the effect of GM feed on the health of animals did not find
evidence that animals were adversely affected, although small biological differences were occasionally
found. The studies included in the review ranged from 90 days to two years, with several of the longer
studies considering reproductive and intergenerational effects.[138]
Enzymes produced by genetically modified microorganisms are also integrated into animal feed to
enhance availability of nutrients and overall digestion. These enzymes may also provide benefit to the
gut microbiome of an animal, as well as hydrolyse antinutritional factors present in the feed.[139]
Proteins
Rennet is a mixture of enzymes used to coagulate milk into cheese. Originally it was available only from
the fourth stomach of calves, and was scarce and expensive, or was available from microbial sources,
which often produced unpleasant tastes. Genetic engineering made it possible to extract rennet-producing
genes from animal stomachs and insert them into bacteria, fungi or yeasts to make them produce
chymosin, the key enzyme.[140][141] The modified microorganism is killed after fermentation. Chymosin
is isolated from the fermentation broth, so that the Fermentation-Produced Chymosin (FPC) used by
cheese producers has an amino acid sequence that is identical to bovine rennet.[142] The majority of the
applied chymosin is retained in the whey. Trace quantities of chymosin may remain in cheese.[142]
FPC was the first artificially produced enzyme to be approved by the US Food and Drug
Administration.[33][34] FPC products have been on the market since 1990 and as of 2015 had yet to be
surpassed in commercial markets.[143] In 1999, about 60% of US hard cheese was made with FPC.[144]
Its global market share approached 80%.[145] By 2008, approximately 80% to 90% of commercially
made cheeses in the US and Britain were made using FPC.[142]
In some countries, recombinant (GM) bovine somatotropin (also called rBST, or bovine growth hormone
or BGH) is approved for administration to increase milk production. rBST may be present in milk from
rBST treated cows, but it is destroyed in the digestive system and even if directly injected into the human
bloodstream, has no observable effect on humans.[146][147][148] The FDA, World Health Organization,
American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association and the National Institutes of Health have
independently stated that dairy products and meat from rBST-treated cows are safe for human
consumption.[149] However, on 30 September 2010, the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit,
analyzing submitted evidence, found a "compositional difference" between milk from rBGH-treated
cows and milk from untreated cows.[150][151] The court stated that milk from rBGH-treated cows has:
increased levels of the hormone Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1); higher fat content and lower protein
content when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle; and more somatic cell counts, which
may "make the milk turn sour more quickly".[151]
Livestock
Genetically modified livestock are organisms from the group of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, birds, horses
and fish kept for human consumption, whose genetic material (DNA) has been altered using genetic
engineering techniques. In some cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the animals which does not
occur naturally in the species, i.e. transgenesis.
A 2003 review published on behalf of Food Standards Australia New Zealand examined transgenic
experimentation on terrestrial livestock species as well as aquatic species such as fish and shellfish. The
review examined the molecular techniques used for experimentation as well as techniques for tracing the
transgenes in animals and products as well as issues regarding transgene stability.[152]
Some mammals typically used for food production have been modified to produce non-food products, a
practice sometimes called Pharming.
Salmon
A GM salmon, awaiting regulatory approval[153][154][155] since 1997,[156] was approved for human
consumption by the American FDA in November 2015, to be raised in specific land-based hatcheries in
Canada and Panama.[157]
Health and safety

There is a scientific consensus[5][6][7][8] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no
greater risk to human health than conventional food,[9][10][11][12][13] but that each GM food needs to be
tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[14][15][16] Nonetheless, members of the public are
much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[17][18][19][20] The legal and regulatory
status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others
permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[21][22][23][24]
Opponents claim that long-term health risks have not been adequately assessed and propose various
combinations of additional testing, labeling[158] or removal from the market.[159][160][161][162] The
advocacy group European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility
(ENSSER), disputes the claim that "science" supports the safety of current GM foods, proposing that
each GM food must be judged on case-by-case basis.[163]
Testing
The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting
them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[21][22][23][24] Countries
such as the United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt use substantial equivalence to determine if further
testing is required, while many countries such as those in the European Union, Brazil and China only
authorize GMO cultivation on a case-by-case basis. In the U.S. the FDA determined that GMO's are
"Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) and therefore do not require additional testing if the GMO
product is substantially equivalent to the non-modified product.[164] If new substances are found, further
testing may be required to satisfy concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity, possible gene transfer to
humans or genetic outcrossing to other organisms.[26]
Regulation
Government regulation of GMO development and release varies
widely between countries. Marked differences separate GMO
regulation in the U.S. and GMO regulation in the European
Union.[24] Regulation also varies depending on the intended
product's use. For example, a crop not intended for food use is
generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food Green: Mandatory labeling required;
safety.[165] Red: Ban on import and cultivation of
genetically engineered food.
United States regulations

In the U.S., three government organizations regulate GMOs. The FDA checks the chemical composition
of organisms for potential allergens. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) supervises
field testing and monitors the distribution of GM seeds. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is responsible for monitoring pesticide usage, including plants modified to contain
proteins toxic to insects. Like USDA, EPA also oversees field testing and the distribution of crops that
have had contact with pesticides to ensure environmental safety.[166] In 2015 the Obama administration
announced that it would update the way the government regulated GM crops.[167]
In 1992 FDA published "Statement of Policy: Foods derived from New Plant Varieties". This statement is
a clarification of FDA's interpretation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to foods
produced from new plant varieties developed using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA)
technology. FDA encouraged developers to consult with the FDA regarding any bioengineered foods in
development. The FDA says developers routinely do reach out for consultations. In 1996 FDA updated
consultation procedures.[168][169]
The StarLink corn recalls occurred in the autumn of 2000, when over 300 food products were found to
contain a genetically modified corn that had not been approved for human consumption.[170] It was the
first-ever recall of a genetically modified food.
Labeling
As of 2015, 64 countries require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace.[171]
US and Canadian national policy is to require a label only given significant composition differences or
documented health impacts, although some individual US states (Vermont, Connecticut and Maine)
enacted laws requiring them.[172][173][174][175] In July 2016, Public Law 114-214 was enacted to regulate
labeling of GMO food on a national basis.
In some jurisdictions, the labeling requirement depends on the relative quantity of GMO in the product.
A study that investigated voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-
free had a GM content above 1.0%.[176]
In the European Union all food (including processed food) or feed that contains greater than 0.9% GMOs
must be labelled.[177]
Detection
Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques such as PCR and
bioinformatics.[178]
In a January 2010 paper, the extraction and detection of DNA along a complete industrial soybean oil
processing chain was described to monitor the presence of Roundup Ready (RR) soybean: "The
amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was successfully
achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes, until the fully refined soybean oil. The
amplification of RR soybean by PCR assays using event-specific primers was also achieved for all the
extraction and refining steps, except for the intermediate steps of refining (neutralisation, washing and
bleaching) possibly due to sample instability. The real-time PCR assays using specific probes confirmed
all the results and proved that it is possible to detect and quantify genetically modified organisms in the
fully refined soybean oil. To our knowledge, this has never been reported before and represents an
important accomplishment regarding the traceability of genetically modified organisms in refined
oils."[179]
According to Thomas Redick, detection and prevention of cross-pollination is possible through the
suggestions offered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). Suggestions include educating farmers on the importance of coexistence, providing farmers
with tools and incentives to promote coexistence, conduct research to understand and monitor gene flow,
provide assurance of quality and diversity in crops, provide compensation for actual economic losses for
farmers.[180]
Controversies
The genetically modified foods controversy consists of a set of disputes over the use of food made from
genetically modified crops. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies,
governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, environmental and political activists and
scientists. The major disagreements include whether GM foods can be safely consumed, harm the
environment and/or are adequately tested and regulated.[160][181] The objectivity of scientific research
and publications has been challenged.[159] Farming-related disputes include the use and impact of
pesticides, seed production and use, side effects on non-GMO crops/farms,[182] and potential control of
the GM food supply by seed companies.[159]
The conflicts have continued since GM foods were invented. They have occupied the media, the
courts,[183] local, regional, national governments, and international organizations.
See also
List of genetically modified crops
Genetically modified crops
Genetically modified food controversies
Genetically modified organisms
California Proposition 37 (2012) - rejected labeling iniative
Chemophobia
Pharming (genetics) – use of genetically modified mammals to produce drugs
Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms
StarLink corn recall in 2000
References
1. GM Science Review First Report (http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file15655.pdf) Archived (https://
web.archive.org/web/20131016100707/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file15655.pdf) October
16, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, Prepared by the UK GM Science Review panel (July
2003). Chairman Professor Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government,
P9
2. James, Clive (1996). "Global Review of the Field Testing and Commercialization of
Transgenic Plants: 1986 to 1995" (http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/pdfs/isaaabriefs/Brie
fs%201.pdf) (PDF). The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications. Retrieved 17 July 2010.
3. Weasel, Lisa H. 2009. Food Fray. Amacom Publishing
4. "Consumer Q&A" (https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/developmentapprovalprocess/gene
ticengineering/geneticallyengineeredanimals/ucm113672.htm). FDA. 2009-03-06. Retrieved
2012-12-29.
5. Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An
overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (https://www.p
ps.net/cms/lib/OR01913224/Centricity/Domain/3337/peer%20reviewed%20meta%20stud
y%20on%20GMOs%20copy.pdf) (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34 (1): 77–88.
doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595 (https://doi.org/10.3109%2F07388551.2013.823595).
PMID 24041244 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24041244). "We have reviewed the
scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific
consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can
conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant
hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.
The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted
in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the
statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part
of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted
by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns."
6. "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs
of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops" (http://www.fao.org/docr
ep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The). Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. Retrieved August 30, 2019. "Currently available transgenic crops and foods
derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety
have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the
scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of
the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for
increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia,
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their
national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally
deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically
modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel).
Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize,
soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU)."
7. Ronald, Pamela (May 1, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food
Security" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120150). Genetics. 188 (1): 11–
20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553 (https://doi.org/10.1534%2Fgenetics.111.128553).
PMC 3120150 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120150). PMID 21546547
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21546547). "There is broad scientific consensus that
genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of
cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or
environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops
(Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts
Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and
Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the
Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory
and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a
comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of
genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects
of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004;
European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports
conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no
different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment
(European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)."
8. But see also:
Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety
assessment of genetically modified plants" (http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pd
f) (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003 (http
s://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.envint.2011.01.003). PMID 21296423 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/21296423). "In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety
assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first
time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of
their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as
safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still
serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies
demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional
breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also
responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable
advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific
journals by those companies."
Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (https://
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1128/7f26b85d049b3270acc1058011a2e7bdf9a6.pdf) (PDF).
Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381
(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0162243915598381). "I began this article with the testimonials
from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health
effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story."
And contrast:
Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies
find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in
Biotechnology. 37 (2): 213–217. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684 (https://doi.org/10.31
09%2F07388551.2015.1130684). ISSN 0738-8551 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0738-855
1). PMID 26767435 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26767435). "Here, we show that a
number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion
on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common
flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude
that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO
harm.
The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention.
However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of
substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published
articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have
reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such
differences exist in reality."
and
Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health".
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96 (4): 1851–1855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1002%2Fjsfa.7523). PMID 26536836 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/265
36836). "It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have
been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a
broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk
than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations
have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported
or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science
organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with
conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most
cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome."
9. "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (htt
p://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf) (PDF). American Association
for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved August 30, 2019. "The EU,
for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its
recent report states: "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." The World Health
Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,
the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the
evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients
derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients
from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."
Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM
Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers" " (https://www.aaas.org/sites/de
fault/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf) (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of
Science. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
10. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociet
y/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research
and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European
Union. 2010. doi:10.2777/97784 (https://doi.org/10.2777%2F97784). ISBN 978-92-79-
16344-9. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
11. "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)" (https://www.isaa
a.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/ama.htm). American Medical Association.
January 2001. Retrieved August 30, 2019. "A report issued by the scientific council of the
American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been
detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these
foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary
prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have
been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date.
These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.
(from original report by AMA: [1] (https://web.archive.org/web/20010610122221/http://www.

ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-4030.html))""REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON
SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-
bioengineeredfoods.pdf) (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the
original (http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pd
f) (PDF) on |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help). Retrieved August 30,
2019. "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that
time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in
the peer-reviewed literature."
12. "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly
Opinion" (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php#Opinion). Library of
Congress. June 30, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2019. "Several scientific organizations in
the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that
there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally
bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US
opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming
organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have
criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs."
13. National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering; Division on Earth Life Studies; Board on
Agriculture Natural Resources; Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past
Experience Future Prospects (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and
Prospects (http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/7#149). The National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). p. 149. doi:10.17226/23395 (https://doi.org/10.1
7226%2F23395). ISBN 978-0-309-43738-7. PMID 28230933 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.g
ov/28230933). Retrieved August 30, 2019. "Overall finding on purported adverse effects on
human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of
comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis,
acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods,
and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher
risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts."
14. "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods" (http://www.who.int/foodsafety/a
reas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/). World Health Organization.
Retrieved August 30, 2019. "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in
different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on
a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of
all GM foods.
GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments
and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health
have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in
the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety
assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate
post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods."
15. Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of
unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21 (7): 739–741. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739 (http
s://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnbt0703-739). PMID 12833088 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12
833088). "These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an
evaluation of both direct and unintended effects."
16. Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further
caution based upon the precautionary principle:
"Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (http://www.argenbio.or

g/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf) (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved
August 30, 2019. "In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is
very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally
derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the
basis of information currently available.
When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the
side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any
new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and
risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in
relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by
a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the
conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the
moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions
were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury
expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety
and other potential health effects.
The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with
the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for
caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of
evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The
BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are
unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing
evidence of safety and benefit."
17. Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and
Society" (http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and
-society/). Pew Research Center. Retrieved August 30, 2019. "The largest differences
between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating
genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe
to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage
points."
18. Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths" (https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083956). EMBO Reports. 2 (7): 545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-
reports/kve142 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fembo-reports%2Fkve142). PMC 1083956 (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083956). PMID 11463731 (https://pubmed.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/11463731).
19. Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of
Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170525042822/htt
p://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.doc). Commission of European
Communities. Archived from the original (http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs/pabe_fin
alreport.doc) on 2017-05-25. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
20. Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition
to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (http://yoelinbar.net/papers/gmo_absolut
e.pdf) (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–324.
doi:10.1177/1745691615621275 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691615621275).
PMID 27217243 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27217243).
21. "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms" (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-o
n-gmos/). Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
22. Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs" (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20180621044554/https://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_h
ealth_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html). American Bar
Association. Archived from the original (http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publi
cations/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html) on June
21, 2018. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
23. Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of
GMOs" (http://time.com/4060476/eu-gmo-crops-european-union-opt-out/). Time. Retrieved
August 30, 2019.
24. Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (April 5, 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the
United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics" (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20160929200540/http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europ
e-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688). Council on
Foreign Relations. Archived from the original (http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulatio
n-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688)
on September 29, 2016. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
25. Cowan, Tadlock (18 Jun 2011). "Agricultural Biotechnology: Background and Recent
Issues" (http://www.justlabelit.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/CRS%20Agricultural_Biotec
hnology2011.pdf) (PDF). Congressional Research Service (Library of Congress). pp. 33–
38. Retrieved 27 September 2015.
26. World Health Organization. "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods" (htt
p://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/).
Retrieved 29 March 2016.
27. "Genetically engineered foods" (http://umm.edu/health/medical/ency/articles/genetically-eng
ineered-foods). University of Maryland Medical Center. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
28. "Glossary of Agricultural Biotechnology Terms" (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdah
ome?navid=BIOTECH_GLOSS&navtype=RT&parentnav=BIOTECH). United States
Department of Agriculture. 27 February 2013. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
29. "Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants" (https://www.fda.gov/F
ood/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm). US Food and Drug
Administration. 22 Jun 2015. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
30. Daniel Zohary; Maria Hopf; Ehud Weiss (2012). Domestication of Plants in the Old World:
The Origin and Spread of Plants in the Old World (https://books.google.com/books?id=tc6vr
0qzk_4C). Oxford University Press.
31. Clive Root (2007). Domestication (https://books.google.com/books?id=WGDYHvOHwmwC).
Greenwood Publishing Groups.
32. Jackson, DA; Symons, RH; Berg, P (1 October 1972). "Biochemical Method for Inserting
New Genetic Information into DNA of Simian Virus 40: Circular SV40 DNA Molecules
Containing Lambda Phage Genes and the Galactose Operon of Escherichia coli" (https://w
ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC389671). Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America. 69 (10): 2904–09. Bibcode:1972PNAS...69.2904J
(https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972PNAS...69.2904J). doi:10.1073/pnas.69.10.2904 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.69.10.2904). PMC 389671 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm
c/articles/PMC389671). PMID 4342968 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4342968).
33. "FDA Approves 1st Genetically Engineered Product for Food" (http://articles.latimes.com/19
90-03-24/news/mn-681_1_genetically-engineered-product-for-food). Los Angeles Times. 24
March 1990. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
34. Staff, National Centre for Biotechnology Education (2006). "Chymosin" (https://web.archive.
org/web/20160522102627/http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/ncbe/gmfood/chymosin.html).
Archived from the original (http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/ncbe/gmfood/chymosin.html) on
May 22, 2016.
35. Campbell-Platt, Geoffrey (26 August 2011). Food Science and Technology. Ames, Iowa:
John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-5782-0.
36. Bruening, G.; Lyons, J. M. (2000). "The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato" (http://ucanr.org/r
epository/CAO/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v054n04p6&fulltext=yes). California Agriculture.
54 (4): 6–7. doi:10.3733/ca.v054n04p6 (https://doi.org/10.3733%2Fca.v054n04p6).
37. James, Clive (2010). "Global Review of the Field Testing and Commercialization of
Transgenic Plants: 1986 to 1995: The First Decade of Crop Biotechnology". ISAAA Briefs
No. 1: 31.
38. Genetically Altered Potato Ok'd For Crops (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=A0YyA
AAAIBAJ&sjid=jOYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4631,1776980&dq=bacillus+thuringiensis+potato+1996
+approved&hl=) Lawrence Journal-World - 6 May 1995
39. Ye, Xudong; Al-Babili, Salim; Klöti, Andreas; Zhang, Jing; Lucca, Paola; Beyer, Peter;
Potrykus, Ingo (2000-01-14). "Engineering the Provitamin A (β-Carotene) Biosynthetic
Pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) Rice Endosperm". Science. 287 (5451): 303–05.
Bibcode:2000Sci...287..303Y (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Sci...287..303Y).
doi:10.1126/science.287.5451.303 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.287.5451.303).
40. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011 (http://www.isaaa.org/resources/
publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp) ISAAA Brief ISAAA Brief 43-2011.
Retrieved 14 October 2012
41. James, C (2011). "ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:
2011"
(http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp).
ISAAA Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA). Retrieved 2012-06-02.
42. "Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S." (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-produ
cts/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx)
Economic Research Service, USDA. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
43. "Aquabounty Cleared to Sell Salmon in the USA for Commercial Purposes" (https://www.fd
a.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngi
neeredAnimals/ucm280853.htm). FDA. 2019-06-19.
44. Bodnar, Anastasia (October 2010). "Risk Assessment and Mitigation of AquAdvantage
Salmon" (https://www.aquabounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Risk_Assessment_Miti
gation_of_AAS-Oct2010.pdf) (PDF). ISB News Report.
45. Waltz, Emily (2016). "Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation". Nature. 532
(7599): 293. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..293W (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.5
32..293W). doi:10.1038/nature.2016.19754 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature.2016.19754).
46. Culpepper, Stanley A; et al. (2006). "Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus
palmeri) confirmed in Georgia". Weed Science. 54 (4): 620–26. doi:10.1614/ws-06-001r.1 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1614%2Fws-06-001r.1).
47. Gallant, Andre. "Pigweed in the Cotton: A superweed invades Georgia". Modern Farmer.
48. Webster, TM; Grey, TL (2015). "Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus
palmeri) Morphology, Growth, and Seed Production in Georgia". Weed Science. 63 (1):
264–72. doi:10.1614/ws-d-14-00051.1 (https://doi.org/10.1614%2Fws-d-14-00051.1).
49. Nicholl DS (2008-05-29). An Introduction to Genetic Engineering (https://books.google.co
m/?id=g1v6WMHVkTgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Genetic+Engineering:+Principles+and+M
ethods#v=onepage&q=Genetic%20Engineering:%20Principles%20and%20Methods&f=fals
e). Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 9781139471787.
50. Liang J, Luo Y, Zhao H (2011). "Synthetic biology: putting synthesis into biology" (https://ww
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057768). Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems
Biology and Medicine. 3 (1): 7–20. doi:10.1002/wsbm.104 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fwsb
m.104). PMC 3057768 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057768).
51. Berg P, Mertz JE (January 2010). "Personal reflections on the origins and emergence of
recombinant DNA technology" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815933).
Genetics. 184 (1): 9–17. doi:10.1534/genetics.109.112144 (https://doi.org/10.1534%2Fgene
tics.109.112144). PMC 2815933 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815933).
52. Chen I, Dubnau D (March 2004). "DNA uptake during bacterial transformation". Nature
Reviews. Microbiology. 2 (3): 241–9. doi:10.1038/nrmicro844 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnr
micro844). PMID 15083159 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15083159).
53. National Research Council (US) Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended
Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health (2004-01-01). Methods and
Mechanisms for Genetic Manipulation of Plants, Animals, and Microorganisms (https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/). National Academies Press (US).
54. Gelvin SB (March 2003). "Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation: the biology behind
the "gene-jockeying" tool" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC150518).
Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 67 (1): 16–37, table of contents.
doi:10.1128/MMBR.67.1.16-37.2003 (https://doi.org/10.1128%2FMMBR.67.1.16-37.2003).
PMC 150518 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC150518). PMID 12626681 (htt
ps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12626681).
55. Head G, Hull RH, Tzotzos GT (2009). Genetically Modified Plants: Assessing Safety and
Managing Risk. London: Academic Pr. p. 244. ISBN 978-0-12-374106-6.
56. Tuomela M, Stanescu I, Krohn K (October 2005). "Validation overview of bio-analytical
methods". Gene Therapy. 12 Suppl 1 (S1): S131-8. doi:10.1038/sj.gt.3302627 (https://doi.or
g/10.1038%2Fsj.gt.3302627). PMID 16231045 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16231045).
57. Narayanaswamy S (1994). Plant Cell and Tissue Culture (https://books.google.com/?id=-M4
lR-pxqJMC). Tata McGraw-Hill Education. pp. vi. ISBN 9780074602775.
58. Setlow JK (2002-10-31). Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods (https://books.googl
e.com/?id=aGkXFmqOcyIC&dq=Genetic+Engineering+analysis+of+DNA+PCR+Southern+s
equencing). Springer Science & Business Media. p. 109. ISBN 9780306472800.
59. Grizot S, Smith J, Daboussi F, Prieto J, Redondo P, Merino N, Villate M, Thomas S, Lemaire
L, Montoya G, Blanco FJ, Pâques F, Duchateau P (September 2009). "Efficient targeting of
a SCID gene by an engineered single-chain homing endonuclease" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760784). Nucleic Acids Research. 37 (16): 5405–19.
doi:10.1093/nar/gkp548 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fnar%2Fgkp548). PMC 2760784 (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760784). PMID 19584299 (https://pubmed.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/19584299).
60. Gao H, Smith J, Yang M, Jones S, Djukanovic V, Nicholson MG, West A, Bidney D, Falco
SC, Jantz D, Lyznik LA (January 2010). "Heritable targeted mutagenesis in maize using a
designed endonuclease". The Plant Journal. 61 (1): 176–87. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
313X.2009.04041.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1365-313X.2009.04041.x).
61. Townsend JA, Wright DA, Winfrey RJ, Fu F, Maeder ML, Joung JK, Voytas DF (May 2009).
"High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases" (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743854). Nature. 459 (7245): 442–5.
Bibcode:2009Natur.459..442T (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.459..442T).
doi:10.1038/nature07845 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature07845). PMC 2743854 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743854). PMID 19404258 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/19404258).
62. Shukla VK, Doyon Y, Miller JC, DeKelver RC, Moehle EA, Worden SE, Mitchell JC, Arnold
NL, Gopalan S, Meng X, Choi VM, Rock JM, Wu YY, Katibah GE, Zhifang G, McCaskill D,
Simpson MA, Blakeslee B, Greenwalt SA, Butler HJ, Hinkley SJ, Zhang L, Rebar EJ,
Gregory PD, Urnov FD (May 2009). "Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea
mays using zinc-finger nucleases". Nature. 459 (7245): 437–41.
Bibcode:2009Natur.459..437S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.459..437S).
doi:10.1038/nature07992 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature07992). PMID 19404259 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19404259).
63. Christian M, Cermak T, Doyle EL, Schmidt C, Zhang F, Hummel A, Bogdanove AJ, Voytas
DF (October 2010). "Targeting DNA double-strand breaks with TAL effector nucleases" (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2942870). Genetics. 186 (2): 757–61.
doi:10.1534/genetics.110.120717 (https://doi.org/10.1534%2Fgenetics.110.120717).
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20660643).
64. Li T, Huang S, Jiang WZ, Wright D, Spalding MH, Weeks DP, Yang B (January 2011). "TAL
nucleases (TALNs): hybrid proteins composed of TAL effectors and FokI DNA-cleavage
domain" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017587). Nucleic Acids Research.
39 (1): 359–72. doi:10.1093/nar/gkq704 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fnar%2Fgkq704).
65. Esvelt KM, Wang HH (2013). "Genome-scale engineering for systems and synthetic
biology" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3564264). Molecular Systems
Biology. 9: 641. doi:10.1038/msb.2012.66 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fmsb.2012.66).
66. Tan WS, Carlson DF, Walton MW, Fahrenkrug SC, Hackett PB (2012). "Precision editing of
large animal genomes" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3683964). Advances
in Genetics. 80: 37–97. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-404742-6.00002-8 (https://doi.org/10.1016%
2FB978-0-12-404742-6.00002-8). ISBN 9780124047426. PMC 3683964 (https://www.ncbi.n
lm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3683964). PMID 23084873 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2
3084873).
67. Malzahn A, Lowder L, Qi Y (2017-04-24). "Plant genome editing with TALEN and CRISPR"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5404292). Cell & Bioscience. 7: 21.
doi:10.1186/s13578-017-0148-4 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs13578-017-0148-4).
68. Qaim M (2016-04-29). "Introduction". Genetically Modified Crops and Agricultural
Development. Springer. pp. 1–10. ISBN 9781137405722.
69. Darmency H (August 2013). "Pleiotropic effects of herbicide-resistance genes on crop yield:
a review". Pest Management Science. 69 (8): 897–904. doi:10.1002/ps.3522 (https://doi.or
g/10.1002%2Fps.3522). PMID 23457026 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23457026).
70. Fleischer SJ, Hutchison WD, Naranjo SE (2014). "Sustainable Management of Insect-
Resistant Crops". Plant Biotechnology. pp. 115–127. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06892-3_10 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-319-06892-3_10). ISBN 978-3-319-06891-6.
71. "SGK321" (http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/event/default.asp?EventID=78&Event
=SGK321). GM Approval Database. ISAAA.org. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
72. Qiu J (October 2008). "Is China ready for GM rice?". Nature. 455 (7215): 850–2.
doi:10.1038/455850a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F455850a). PMID 18923484 (https://pubme
d.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18923484).
73. "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014" (http://w
ww.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/default.asp). ISAAA.org. Retrieved
2016-09-15.
74. ISAAA 2013 Annual Report Executive Summary, Global Status of Commercialized
Biotech/GM Crops: 2013 (http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/executivesu
mmary/) ISAAA Brief 46-2013, Retrieved 6 August 2014
75. Hakim, Danny (2016-10-29). "Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified
Crops" (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html). The
New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331). Retrieved
2017-05-05.
76. Areal FJ, Riesgo L, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (February 2013). "Economic and agronomic
impact of commercialized GM crops: a meta-analysis". The Journal of Agricultural Science.
151 (1): 7–33. doi:10.1017/S0021859612000111 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0021859612
000111). ISSN 0021-8596 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0021-8596).
77. Finger R, El Benni N, Kaphengst T, Evans C, Herbert S, Lehmann B, Morse S, Stupak N
(2011-05-10). "A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops".
Sustainability. 3 (5): 743–62. doi:10.3390/su3050743 (https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fsu305074
3).
78. Klümper W, Qaim M (2014-11-03). "A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified
crops" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791). PLOS ONE. 9 (11):
e111629. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9k1629K (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PLoSO...
9k1629K). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111
629). PMC 4218791 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791).
79. Gonsalves, D. (2004). "Transgenic papaya in Hawaii and beyond" (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20100706225255/http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n12/v7n12a07-gonsalves.htm).
AgBioForum. 7 (1&2): 36–40. Archived from the original (http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n12/v
7n12a07-gonsalves.htm) on 2010-07-06. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
80. "The Rainbow Papaya Story" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150107073644/http://www.ha
waiipapaya.com/rainbow.htm). Hawaii Papaya Industry Association. Archived from the
original (http://www.hawaiipapaya.com/rainbow.htm) on 2015-01-07. Retrieved April 17,
2015.
81. Ronald, Pamela; McWilliams, James (May 14, 2010). "Genetically Engineered Distortions"
(https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/opinion/15ronald.html?_r=2&ref=opinion). The New
York Times. Retrieved July 26, 2010.
82. Li, Y; et al. (April 2014). "Biosafety management and commercial use of genetically modified
crops in China". Plant Cell Reports. 33 (4): 565–73. doi:10.1007/s00299-014-1567-x (http
s://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00299-014-1567-x). PMID 24493253 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/24493253).
83. Loo, Jacky Fong-Chuen; But, Grace Wing-Chiu; Kwok, Ho-Chin; Lau, Pui-Man; Kong, Siu-
Kai; Ho, Ho-Pui; Shaw, Pang-Chui (2019). "A rapid sample-to-answer analytical detection of
genetically modified papaya using loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay on lab-on-
a-disc for field use". Food Chemistry. 274: 822–830. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.049
(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.foodchem.2018.09.049). ISSN 0308-8146 (https://www.worldc
at.org/issn/0308-8146). PMID 30373016 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30373016).
84. "Genetically Modified Organisms (Control of Release) Ordinance Cap. 607: Review of the
Exemption of Genetically Modified Papayas in Hong Kong" (https://www.afcd.gov.hk/englis
h/conservation/con_gmo/gmo_exp/files/Discussion_Paper_GMO_04_2015.pdf.pdf) (PDF).
85. Bawa, A. S.; Anilakumar, K. R. (2016-12-04). "Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and
public concerns – a review" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249).
Journal of Food Science and Technology. 50 (6): 1035–46. doi:10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1
(https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13197-012-0899-1). ISSN 0022-1155 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/issn/0022-1155). PMC 3791249
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249). PMID 24426015 (https://pubmed.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24426015).
86. "Business BASF applies for approval for another biotech potato" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20130602111343/http://www.research-in-germany.de/84190/2011-11-17-business-basf-a
pplies-for-approval-for-another-biotech-potato.html). Research in Germany. November 17,
2011. Archived from the original (http://www.research-in-germany.de/84190/2011-11-17-bus
iness-basf-applies-for-approval-for-another-biotech-potato.html) on June 2, 2013. Retrieved
October 18, 2012.
87. Burger, Ludwig (October 31, 2011). "BASF applies for EU approval for Fortuna GM potato"
(https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/us-basf-idUSTRE79U41Q20111031). Reuters.
Frankfurt. Retrieved December 29, 2011.
88. Turley, Andrew (February 7, 2013). "BASF drops GM potato projects" (http://www.rsc.org/ch
emistryworld/2013/02/basf-gm-potato-amflora). Royal Society of Chemistry News.
89. "The History and Future of GM Potatoes" (https://www.potatopro.com/newsletters/2010031
0.htm). Potatopro.com. 2010-03-10. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
90. Pollack, Andrew (November 7, 2014). "U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French
Fry Fans" (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/business/genetically-modified-potato-from-
simplot-approved-by-usda.html). The New York Times.
91. "Availability of Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Potato Genetically
Engineered for Low Acrylamide Potential and Reduced Black Spot Bruise" (https://www.fed
eralregister.gov/articles/2013/05/03/2013-10504/jr-simplot-co-availability-of-petition-for-deter
mination-of-nonregulated-status-of-potato#h-7). Federal Register. May 3, 2013.
92. Johnson, Stanley R. (February 2008). "Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of
Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006" (http://www.ncfap.org/documents/2007biotec
h_report/Quantification_of_the_Impacts_on_US_Agriculture_of_Biotechnology_Executive_
Summary.pdf) (PDF). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.
Retrieved August 12, 2010.
93. "GMO Database: Zucchini (courgette)" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170225224346/http://
www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/74.zucchini.html). GMO Compass. November
7, 2007. Archived from the original (http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/74.z
ucchini.html) on February 25, 2017. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
94. Perkowski, Mateisz (April 16, 2013). "Del Monte Gets Approval to Import GMO Pineapple".
Food Democracy Now.
95. Pollack, A. (February 13, 2015). "Gene-Altered Apples Get U.S. Approval" (https://www.nyti
mes.com/2015/02/14/business/gmo-apples-are-approved-for-growing-in-us.html). The New
York Times.
96. Tennille, Tracy (February 13, 2015). "First Genetically Modified Apple Approved for Sale in
U.S." (https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-genetically-modified-apple-approved-for-sale-in-u-s-
1423863994) The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 13, 2015.
97. "How'd we 'make' a nonbrowning apple?" (http://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-n
onbrowning-apple/). Okanagan Specialty Fruits. 2011-12-07. Retrieved September 19,
2016.
98. "Know Before You Grow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20111023113815/http://www.ncga.co
m/know-before-you-grow/). National Corn Growers Association. Archived from the original
(http://www.ncga.com/know-before-you-grow/) on October 23, 2011.
99. "Acreage NASS" (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2010/Acre-06-30-2
010.pdf) (PDF). National Agricultural Statistics Board annual report. June 2010. Retrieved
July 23, 2010.
100. "Corn-Based Food Production in South Dakota: A Preliminary Feasibility Study" (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20160303211540/http://www.agrisk.umn.edu/cache/ARL03021.pdf)
(PDF). South Dakota State University, College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences,
Agricultural Experiment Station. June 2004. Archived from the original (http://www.agrisk.um
n.edu/cache/ARL03021.pdf) (PDF) on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2013-01-19.
101. Padgette SR, et al (1995) Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-
tolerant soybean line (https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/abstracts/35/5/CS0350051451?
access=0&view=pdf). Crop Sci 35:1451-1461.
102. Ye X, Al-Babili S, Klöti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I (January 2000).
"Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free)
rice endosperm". Science. 287 (5451): 303–5. Bibcode:2000Sci...287..303Y (https://ui.adsa
bs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Sci...287..303Y). doi:10.1126/science.287.5451.303 (https://doi.or
g/10.1126%2Fscience.287.5451.303). PMID 10634784 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10
634784).
103. Frist B (21 November 2006). " 'Green revolution' hero" (http://www.washtimes.com/comment
ary/20061120-094716-8709r.htm). Washington Times. "One existing crop, genetically
engineered "golden rice" that produces vitamin A, already holds enormous promise for
reducing blindness and dwarfism that result from a vitamin-A deficient diet."
104. Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA, Caulfield LE, de Onis M, Ezzati M, Mathers C, Rivera J
(January 2008). "Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and
health consequences". Lancet. 371 (9608): 243–60. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61690-0
(https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0140-6736%2807%2961690-0). PMID 18207566 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18207566).
105. Humphrey JH, West KP, Sommer A (1992). "Vitamin A deficiency and attributable mortality
among under-5-year-olds" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2393289).
Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 70 (2): 225–32. PMC 2393289 (https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2393289). PMID 1600583 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1
600583).
106. Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, Howells RM, Kennedy MJ, Vernon G, Wright SY,
Hinchliffe E, Adams JL, Silverstone AL, Drake R (April 2005). "Improving the nutritional
value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content". Nature Biotechnology. 23
(4): 482–7. doi:10.1038/nbt1082 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnbt1082). PMID 15793573 (htt
ps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15793573).
107. "US FDA approves GMO Golden Rice as safe to eat" (https://geneticliteracyproject.org/201
8/05/29/us-fda-approves-gmo-golden-rice-as-safe-to-eat/). Genetic Literacy Project. 2018-
05-29. Retrieved 2018-05-30.
108. Staff, USDA Economic Research Service. Last updated: January 24, 2013 Wheat
Background (http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/wheat/background.aspx#.UbTFBPYaeP
U)
109. "Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status" (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourf
ocus/biotechnology/permits-notifications-petitions/petitions/petition-status). USDA.
Retrieved 9 March 2018.
110. Regalado, Antonio. "These are not your father's GMOs" (https://www.technologyreview.com/
s/609230/these-are-not-your-fathers-gmos/). MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 9 March
2018.
111. Jaffe, Greg (Director of Biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest)
(February 7, 2013). "What You Need to Know About Genetically Engineered Food" (https://
www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/what-you-need-to-know-about-genetically-engi
neered-food/272931/). Atlantic.
112. "International Starch: Production of corn starch" (http://www.starch.dk/isi/starch/tm18www-c
orn.htm). Starch.dk. Retrieved 2011-06-12.
113. "Lecithin" (https://web.archive.org/web/20151101031047/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/
database/e-numbers/137.lecithin.html). October 2015. Archived from the original (http://ww
w.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/e-numbers/137.lecithin.html) on 1 November 2015.
Retrieved 18 October 2015.
114. "Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) Opinion: Lecithin" (https://www.fda.gov/
food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/gras/scogs/ucm260453.htm). August 10, 2015. Retrieved
18 October 2015.
115. "Corn Oil, 5th Edition" (http://www.corn.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CornOil.pdf) (PDF).
Corn Refiners Association. 2006.
116. "Danisco emulsifier to substitute non-GM soy lecithin as demand outstrips supply" (http://ww
w.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Danisco-emulsifier-to-subsitute-non-GM-soy-lecithin-
as-demand-outstrips-supply). FoodNavigator.com. July 1, 2005.
117. "Regulation (EC) 50/2000" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexap
i!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32000R0050&model=guichett). Eur-lex.europa.eu.
118. Marx, Gertruida M. (December 2010). "Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of requirements
for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Health Sciences" (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20150109042604/http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-10042011-0946
27/unrestricted/MarxGM.pdf) (PDF). Monitoring of Genetically Modified Food Products in
South Africa]. South Africa: University of the Free State. Archived from the original (http://et
d.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-10042011-094627/unrestricted/MarxGM.pdf)
(PDF) on 2015-01-09.
119. Davison, John; Bertheau, Yves Bertheau (2007). "EU regulations on the traceability and
detection of GMOs: difficulties in interpretation, implementation and compliance" (https://ww
w.researchgate.net/publication/228628711). CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture,
Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources. 2 (77). doi:10.1079/pavsnnr20072077
(https://doi.org/10.1079%2Fpavsnnr20072077).
120. "ISAAA Brief 43-2011. Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM
Crops: 2011" (http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/defa
ult.asp). Isaaa.org. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
121. "Archived copy" (https://web.archive.org/web/20160301224326/http://www.gmo-compass.or
g/eng/database/plants/13.sugar_beet.html). Archived from the original (http://www.gmo-com
pass.org/eng/database/plants/13.sugar_beet.html) on 2016-03-01. Retrieved 2016-02-19.
122. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009). Sugar Beet: White Sugar
(http://www.eastagri.org/publications/pub_docs/4_Sugar_web.pdf) (PDF). p. 9.
123. Klein, Joachim; Altenbuchner, Josef; Mattes, Ralf (1998-02-26). "Nucleic acid and protein
elimination during the sugar manufacturing process of conventional and transgenic sugar
beets". Journal of Biotechnology. 60 (3): 145–53. doi:10.1016/S0168-1656(98)00006-6 (http
s://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0168-1656%2898%2900006-6). PMID 9608751 (https://pubmed.nc
bi.nlm.nih.gov/9608751).
124. "Soyatech.com" (https://web.archive.org/web/20121025141529/http://www.soyatech.com/ca
nola_facts.htm). Soyatech.com. Archived from the original (http://www.soyatech.com/canola
_facts.htm) on 2012-10-25. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
125. "Poster of corn products" (http://www.ncga.com/uploads/useruploads/cornusesposter.pdf)
(PDF). Retrieved 2012-12-29.
126. "Food Fats and Oils" (https://web.archive.org/web/20070214081043/http://www.iseo.org/Fo
odFatsOils2006.pdf) (PDF). Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils. 2006. Archived from the
original (http://www.iseo.org/FoodFatsOils2006.pdf) (PDF) on 2007-02-14. Retrieved
2011-11-19.
127. "Twenty Facts about Cottonseed Oil" (https://web.archive.org/web/20151017083204/http://w
ww.cottonseed.com/publications/facts.asp). National Cottonseed Producers Association.
Archived from the original (http://www.cottonseed.com/publications/facts.asp) on October
17, 2015.
128. Simon, Michelle (August 24, 2011). "ConAgra Sued Over GMO '100% Natural' Cooking
Oils" (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/08/conagra-sued-over-gmo-100-natural-cooking
-oils/). Food Safety News.
129. "ingredients of margarine" (http://www.imace.org/about-margarine/how-to-produce-and-use-
margarine/). Imace.org. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
130. "USDA Protein(g) in Fats and Oils" (http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/report/nutrientsfr
m?max=25&offset=0&totCount=0&nutrient1=203&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&subset=1&fg=4&s
ort=c&measureby=m). Retrieved 2015-05-31.
131. Crevel, R.W.R.; Kerkhoff, M.A.T.; Koning, M.M.G (2000). "Allergenicity of refined vegetable
oils". Food and Chemical Toxicology. 38 (4): 385–93. doi:10.1016/S0278-6915(99)00158-1
(https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0278-6915%2899%2900158-1). PMID 10722892 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10722892).
132. Beatrice, Trum Hunter (1999). "Modified Vegetable Oils". Consumers' Research Magazine.
Vol. 3. pp. 8–9.
133. "What is Canola Oil?" (http://www.canolainfo.org/canola/index.php). CanolaInfo. Retrieved
2012-12-29.
134. David Bennett for Southeast Farm Press, February 5, 2003 World soybean consumption
quickens (http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_world_soybean_consumption/index.
html) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20060605232122/http://southeastfarmpress.co
m/mag/farming_world_soybean_consumption/index.html) 2006-06-05 at the Wayback
Machine
135. "Soybean" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/557184/soybean). Encyclopædia
Britannica Online. Retrieved February 18, 2012.
136. "2012 World of Corn, National Corn Growers Association" (http://www.ncga.com/uploads/us
eruploads/woc_2012.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 2012-12-29.
137. Staff, GMO Compass. December 7, 2006. Genetic Engineering: Feeding the EU's Livestock
(http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/153.animal_feed_ge
netic_engineering.html) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170112235640/http://www.
gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/153.animal_feed_genetic_engin
eering.html) 2017-01-12 at the Wayback Machine
138. Snell C; Bernheim A; Berge JB; Kuntz M; Pascal G; paris A; Ricroch AE (2012).
"Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational
animal feeding trials: A literature review". Food and Chemical Toxicology. 50 (3–4): 1134–
48. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.fct.2011.11.048).
139. Fellows, P.J. (2009). Food Processing Technology: Principles and Practice. Woodhead
Publishing Limited. p. 236. ISBN 978-1845692162.
140. Emtage, JS; Angal, S; Doel, MT; Harris, TJ; Jenkins, B; Lilley, G; Lowe, PA (1983).
"Synthesis of calf prochymosin (prorennin) in Escherichia coli" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/pmc/articles/PMC394112). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. 80 (12): 3671–75. Bibcode:1983PNAS...80.3671E (https://ui.adsa
bs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PNAS...80.3671E). doi:10.1073/pnas.80.12.3671 (https://doi.org/1
0.1073%2Fpnas.80.12.3671). PMC 394112 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
394112). PMID 6304731 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6304731).
141. Harris TJ, Lowe PA, Lyons A, Thomas PG, Eaton MA, Millican TA, Patel TP, Bose CC,
Carey NH, Doel MT (April 1982). "Molecular cloning and nucleotide sequence of cDNA
coding for calf preprochymosin" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320601).
Nucleic Acids Research. 10 (7): 2177–87. doi:10.1093/nar/10.7.2177 (https://doi.org/10.109
3%2Fnar%2F10.7.2177). PMC 320601 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320
601). PMID 6283469 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6283469).
142. "Chymosin" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150326181805/http://www.gmo-compass.org/en
g/database/enzymes/83.chymosin.html). GMO Compass. Archived from the original (http://
www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/enzymes/83.chymosin.html) on 2015-03-26.
Retrieved 2016-11-03.
143. Law, Barry A. (2010). Technology of Cheesemaking (http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitl
e/productCd-1405182989.html). UK: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 100–101. ISBN 978-1-4051-8298-
0.
144. "Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues" (https://fpc.stat
e.gov/6176.htm). U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2006-08-14.
145. Johnson, M.E.; Lucey, J.A. (2006). "Major Technological Advances and Trends in Cheese".
Journal of Dairy Science. 89 (4): 1174–78. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72186-5 (https://
doi.org/10.3168%2Fjds.S0022-0302%2806%2972186-5). PMID 16537950 (https://pubmed.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16537950).
146. Baumana, Dale E.; Collier, Robert J (September 15, 2010). "Use of Bovine Somatotropin in
Dairy Production" (http://www.agribiotech.info/details/2010%20rBST%20article%20for%20N
ABC_Bauman%2009-15%20Final%2004.pdf) (PDF).
147. Staff (2011-02-18). Last Medical Review. American Cancer Society. Missing or empty
|title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
148. "Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone" (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/other
carcinogens/athome/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone).
149. Brennand, Charlotte P. "Bovine Somatotropin in Milk" (https://extension.usu.edu/files/publica
tions/factsheet/FN-250_6.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 2011-03-06.
150. Cima, Greg (November 18, 2010). "Appellate court gives mixed ruling on Ohio rBST
labeling rules" (https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/101201m.aspx). JAVMA
News.
151. leafcom. "International Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Boggs – Argued: June 10, 2010" (http://www.le
agle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in%20fco%2020100930180.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007
-curr). Leagle.com.
152. Harper, G.S., Brownlee, A., Hall, T.E., Seymour, R., Lyons, R. and Ledwith, P. (2003).
"Global progress toward transgenic food animals: A survey of publicly available information"
(http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/Transgenic%20Livestock%20Rev
iew%20CSIRO%20FINAL%2012Dec20031.pdf) (PDF). Food Standards Australia and New
Zealand. Retrieved August 27, 2015.
153. Rick MacInnes-Rae, Rick (November 27, 2013). "GMO salmon firm clears one hurdle but
still waits for key OKs AquaBounty began seeking American approval in 1995" (http://www.c
bc.ca/news/gmo-salmon-firm-clears-one-hurdle-but-still-waits-for-key-oks-1.2442553). CBC
News.
154. Pollack, Andrew (May 21, 2012). "An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered
Salmon" (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/business/kakha-bendukidze-holds-fate-of-ge
ne-engineered-salmon.html?pagewanted=all). The New York Times. Retrieved
September 3, 2012.
155. Staff (December 26, 2012). "Draft Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Finding of No
Significant Impact Concerning a Genetically Engineered Atlantic Salmon" (http://www.gpo.g
ov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-26/pdf/2012-31118.pdf) (PDF). Federal Register. Retrieved
January 2, 2013.
156. Naik, Gautam (September 21, 2010). "Gene-Altered Fish Closer to Approval" (https://www.
wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703989304575503891676987232). The Wall Street
Journal.
157. "FDA takes several actions involving genetically engineered plants and animals for food" (ht
tps://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm473249.htm) (Press
release). Office of the Commissioner of the FDA. Retrieved 2015-12-03.
158. "Genetically modified foods" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140120113716/http://www.pha
a.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf) (PDF). Public Health Association of Australia.
2007. Archived from the original (http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf)
(PDF) on January 20, 2014.
159. "CAPE's Position Statement on GMOs" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140326015525/htt
p://cape.ca/capes-position-statement-on-gmos/). Canadian Association of Physicians for the
Environment. November 11, 2013. Archived from the original (http://cape.ca/capes-position-
statement-on-gmos/) on March 26, 2014. Retrieved March 26, 2014.
160. "IDEA Position on Genetically Modified Foods" (https://web.archive.org/web/201403260157
14/http://ideaireland.org/library/idea-position-on-genetically-modified-foods/). Irish Doctors'
Environmental Association. Archived from the original (http://ideaireland.org/library/idea-pos
ition-on-genetically-modified-foods/) on 2014-03-26. Retrieved 2014-03-25.
161. "American Academy of Environmental Medicine Calls for Immediate Moratorium on
Genetically Modified Foods, position paper" (http://aaemonline.org/aaemonline/oldsite/gmop
ost.html). American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Retrieved 3 August 2017.
162. "Press Advisory" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150428190623/http://www.aaemonline.org/
gmopressrelease.html). American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Archived from the
original (http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopressrelease.html) on 28 April 2015. Retrieved
18 October 2015.
163. Hilbeck; et al. (2015). "No scientific consensus on GMO safety" (http://www.biomedcentral.c
om/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf) (PDF). Environmental Sciences Europe. 27.
doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12302-014-0034-1).
164. Emily Marden, Risk and Regulation: U.S. Regulatory Policy on Genetically Modified Food
and Agriculture (http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2236&context
=bclr) 44 B.C.L. Rev. 733 (2003).
165. "The History and Future of GM Potatoes" (https://www.potatopro.com/newsletters/2010031
0.htm). PotatoPro.com. 2013-12-11.
166. APPDMZ\ccvivr. "Commonly Asked Questions about the Food Safety of GMOs" (http://ww
w.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/food-safety.aspx#q3). monsanto.com.
167. Pollack, Andrew (2015-07-02). "White House Orders Review of Rules for Genetically
Modified Crops" (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/business/white-house-orders-review-
of-biotechnology-regulations.html). The New York Times. Retrieved 2015-07-03.
168. "Food from Genetically Engineered Plants" (https://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearc
h/GEPlants/default.htm). FDA. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
169. "Statement of Policy – Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (https://www.fda.gov/Food/
GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm09609
5.htm). Retrieved 18 October 2015.
170. Andrew Pollack for The New York Times. September 23, 2000 "Kraft Recalls Taco Shells
With Bioengineered Corn" (https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/23/business/kraft-recalls-taco-
shells-with-bioengineered-corn.html)
171. "International Labeling Laws" (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labelin
g/international-labeling-laws). Center for Food Safety.
172. Chokshi, Niraj (9 May 2014). "Vermont just passed the nation's first GMO food labeling law.
Now it prepares to get sued" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/04/2
9/how-vermont-plans-to-defend-the-nations-first-gmo-law/). The Washington Post.
Retrieved 19 January 2016.
173. "The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food" (https://web.archive.org/web/201706101701
04/http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php). Archived from the
original (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php) on 2017-06-10.
Retrieved 2013-11-22.
174. Van Eenennaam, Alison; Chassy, Bruce; Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas; Redick, Thomas
(2014). "The Potential Impacts of Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Engineered Food in
the United States" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140529142024/http://www.cast-science.o
rg/file.cfm/media/products/digitalproducts/CAST_Issue_Paper_54_web_optimized_29B2AB
16AD687.pdf) (PDF). Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 54 (April
2014). ISSN 1070-0021 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1070-0021). Archived from the
original (https://www.cast-science.org/file.cfm/media/products/digitalproducts/CAST_Issue_
Paper_54_web_optimized_29B2AB16AD687.pdf) (PDF) on 2014-05-29. Retrieved
2014-05-28. "To date, no material differences in composition or safety of commercialized
GE crops have been identified that would justify a label based on the GE nature of the
product."
175. Hallenbeck, Terri (2014-04-27). "How GMO labeling came to pass in Vermont" (http://www.b
urlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/27/gmo-labeling-came-pass-vermont/81
66519/). Burlington Free Press. Retrieved 2014-05-28.
176. Botha, Gerda M.; Viljoen, Christopher D. (2009). "South Africa: A case study for voluntary
GM labelling". Food Chemistry. 112 (4): 1060–64. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.06.050 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.foodchem.2008.06.050).
177. Davison, John (2010). "GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations". Plant Science.
178 (2): 94–98. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.12.005 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.plantsci.20
09.12.005).
178. "EU GMO testing homepage" (https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/gmos). European
Commission Join Research Centre. 2012-11-20. Retrieved May 31, 2015.
179. Costa, Joana; Mafra, Isabel; Amaral, Joana S.; Oliveira, M.B.P.P. (2010). "Monitoring
genetically modified soybean along the industrial soybean oil extraction and refining
processes by polymerase chain reaction techniques". Food Research International. 43:
301–06. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2009.10.003 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.foodres.2009.10.0
03).
180. "Redirecting..." (https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/dragl19&div=6&start
_page=39&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults) heinonline.org.
181. American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public
Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods. (http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a
12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf) "To better detect potential harms of bioengineered
foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary
notification process to a mandatory requirement." p. 7
182. Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (2006) Proposals for managing the coexistence
of GM, conventional and organic crops Response to the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs consultation paper. (http://www.cieh.org/uploadedFiles/Core/Policy/CIEH_
consultation_responses/Response_GM_final.pdf) October 2006
183. Paull, John (2013) "The threat of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to organic
agriculture: A case study update" (https://www.academia.edu/13681599/The_threat_of_gen
etically_modified_organisms_GMOs_to_organic_agriculture_A_case_study_update).
Agriculture & Food, 3:.56-63
External links
Library resources in your library (https://tools.wmflabs.org/ftl/cgi-bin/ftl?st=wp&su=Geneticall
y+modified+food) and in other libraries (https://tools.wmflabs.org/ftl/cgi-bin/ftl?st=wp&su=Ge
netically+modified+food&library=0CHOOSE0) about Genetically modified food
Media related to Genetically modified food at Wikimedia Commons
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_food&oldid=934849538"
This page was last edited on 8 January 2020, at 21:16 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Genetically Modified Food

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Genetically Modified Food

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Genetically modified food

Fruits and vegetables

In 2013, the USDA approved the import of a GM pineapple that

In February 2015 Arctic Apples were approved by the USDA,[95]

Corn starch and starch sugars, including syrups

Health and safety

United States regulations

(from original report by AMA: [1] (https://web.archive.org/web/20010610122221/http://www.

"Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (http://www.argenbio.or

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_food&oldid=934849538"

This page was last edited on 8 January 2020, at 21:16 (UTC).

You might also like