Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from genetically modified organisms.

Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic
engineering, using a process of either Cisgenesis or Transgenesis. These techniques are much
more precise than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or
chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change. Other techniques by which humans modify
food organisms include selective breeding (plant breeding and animal breeding), and somaclonal
variation.
GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. Typically, genetically modified foods
are transgenic plant products: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. But animal products
have also been developed. In 2006 a pig was controversially[1][2] engineered to produce omega-3
fatty acids through the expression of a roundworm gene.[3] Researchers have also developed a
genetically-modified breed of pigs that are able to absorb plant phosphorus more efficiently, and
as a consequence the phosphorus content of their manure is reduced by as much as 60%. [4]
Critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including perceived safety issues,[5]
ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact that these organisms are subject to
intellectual property law.

Contents
[hide]
• 1 Method
• 2 Development
• 3 Growing Genetically Modified Crops
• 4 Crop yields
• 5 Coexistence and traceability
○ 5.1 Detection
○ 5.2 PLU codes
• 6 Controversy
• 7 Economic and political effects
• 8 Intellectual property
• 9 Future developments
• 10 Health risks
○ 10.1 Gene transfer
○ 10.2 Allergies
• 11 See also
• 12 References
• 13 External links
• 14 Suggested Reading

[edit] Method
Genetic modification involves the insertion or deletion of genes. In the process of Cisgenesis
genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could be conventionally bred. In the
process of Transgenesis genes from a different species are inserted, which is a form of horizontal
gene transfer. In nature this can occur when exogenous DNA penetrates the cell membrane for
any reason. To do this artificially may require attaching genes to a virus or just physically
inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host with a very small syringe, or with
very small particles fired from a gene gun. However, other methods exploit natural forms of gene
transfer, such as the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer genetic material to plants, and the
ability of lentiviruses to transfer genes to animal cells.
[edit] Development
The first commercially grown genetically modified tomatoes to ripen without softening were
grown by by a Californian subsidiary of Monsanto called Calgene.[6] Calgene took the initiative
to obtain FDA approval for its release in 1994 without any special labeling, although legally no
such approval was required.[7] It was welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at a
substantial premium over the price of regular tomatoes. However, production problems[6] and
competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the product from
becoming profitable. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste
which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996.[8] The labeling and pricing were designed
as a marketing experiment, which proved, at the time, that European consumers would accept
genetically engineered foods. Currently, there are a number of food species in which a
genetically modified version exists.
Properties of the Percent
Percent
Food genetically modified Modification Modified
Modified in US
variety in world
Herbicide resistant gene
Resistant to glyphosate or
Soybeans taken from bacteria 89% TBA
glufosinate herbicides
inserted into soybean
Resistant to glyphosate or
glufosinate herbicides,
Insect resistance - using Bt
proteins some previously
used as pesticides in organic
crop production.
Vitamin-enriched corn
Corn, field derived from South African
white corn variety M37W
has bright orange kernels,
with 169x increase in beta
carotene, 6x the vitamin C
and 2x folate.[9] || New genes
added/transferred into plant
genome. || 60% || TBA

Cotton Pest-resistant cotton Bt crystal protein gene 83% 62%

(cottonseed added/transferred into
 oil) plant genome
New gene
Hawaiian Variety is resistant to the
added/transferred into +50% TBA
papaya papaya ringspot virus.[10]
plant genome
A reverse copy (an
Variety in which the
antisense gene) of the Taken off the
production of the enzyme
gene responsible for the market due to
Tomatoes polygalacturonase (PG) is None
production of PG commercial
suppressed, retarding fruit
enzyme added into plant failure.
softening after harvesting.[11]
genome
The gene for granule Amflora will be
Amflora variety produces bound starch synthase produced solely
waxy potato starch (GBSS) (the key under contract
composed almost enzyme for the farming
Potatoes TBA
exclusively of the synthesis of amylose) conditions and
amylopectin component of was switched off by not made
starch.[12] inserting antisense copy available on the
of the GBSS gene. general market.
Resistance to herbicides New genes
Rapeseed
(glyphosate or glufosinate), added/transferred into 75% TBA
(Canola)
high laurate canola[13] plant genome
Resistance to certain New genes
Sugar cane pesticides, high-sucrose added/transferred into TBA TBA
cane. plant genome
New genes
Resistance to glyphosate,
Sugar beet added/transferred into TBA TBA
glufosinate herbicides
plant genome
Gene from the
Produces its own bacterium Bacillus
Sweet corn TBA TBA
bioinsecticide (Bt toxin) thuringiensis added to
the plant.
"Golden rice" Three
Genetically modified to new genes implanted:
Rice contain high amounts of two from daffodils and TBA TBA
Vitamin A (beta-carotene) the third from a
bacterium
In addition, various genetically engineered micro-organisms are routinely used as sources of
enzymes for the manufacture of a wide variety of processed foods. These include alpha-amylase
from bacteria, which converts starch to simple sugars, chymosin from bacteria or fungi that clots
milk protein for cheese making, and pectinesterase from fungi which improves fruit juice clarity.
[14]

[edit] Growing Genetically Modified Crops

Between 1997 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a
factor of 50, from 17,000 km2 (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km2 (222 million acres).
Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid
growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2005 the largest increase in crop
area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in Brazil (94,000 km2 in 2005 versus 50,000 km2 in
2004.)[15] There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India
since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) It is predicted
that in 2008/9 32,000 km2 of GM cotton will be harvested in India (up more than 100 percent
from the previous season).
Indian national average cotton yields of GM cotton were seven times lower in 2002, because the
parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered variant was not well suited to the climate of
India and failed. The publicity given to transgenic trait Bt insect resistance has encouraged the
adoption of better performing hybrid cotton varieties, and the Bt trait has substantially reduced
losses to insect predation. Though controversial and often disputed, economic and environmental
benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented.[16][17]

In 2003, countries that grew 97% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (53%),
Argentina (17%), Brazil (11%), Canada (6%), India (4%), China (3%), Paraguay (2%) and South
Africa (1%).[18] The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods
in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient[19] . In particular, Bt corn, which produces the pesticide
within the plant itself, is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate
glyphosate herbicides. These constitute "input-traits" are aimed to financially benefit the
producers, have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers.
In the US, by 2006 89% of the planted area of soybeans, 83% of cotton, and 61% corn were
genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide-tolerant traits
only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter
largely the Bacillus thuringiensis Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002 to 2006, there were
significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant
maize also increased in sown area.[20]
[edit] Crop yields
Some scientific studies have claimed that genetically modified varieties of plants do not produce
higher crop yields than normal plants.[21] However, other scientific studies dispute these claims.
[citation needed]

One study by Charles Benbrook, Chief Scientist of the Organic Center, found that genetically
engineered Roundup Ready soybeans do not increase yields (Bendrook, 1999). The report
reviewed over 8,200 university trials in 1998 and found that Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 7-
10% less than similar natural varieties. In addition, the same study found that farmers used 5-10
times more herbicide (Roundup) on Roundup Ready soybeans than on conventional ones.[22]
[edit] Coexistence and traceability
The United States and Canada do not require labeling of genetically modified foods.[23] However
in certain other regions, such as the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia,
governments have required labeling so consumers can exercise choice between foods that have
genetically modified, conventional or organic origins.[24][25] This requires a labeling system as
well as the reliable separation of GM and non-GM organisms at production level and throughout
the whole processing chain.[24][25] Research suggests that this may prove impossible.[citation needed]
For traceability, the OECD has introduced a "unique identifier" which is given to any GMO
when it is approved. This unique identifier must be forwarded at every stage of processing.[citation
needed]
Many countries have established labeling regulations and guidelines on coexistence and
traceability. Research projects such as Co-Extra, SIGMEA and Transcontainer are aimed at
investigating improved methods for ensuring coexistence and providing stakeholders the tools
required for the implementation of coexistence and traceability.[citation needed]
[edit] Detection
Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques like DNA
microarrays or qPCR. These tests can be based on screening genetic elements (like p35S, tNos,
pat, or bar) or event-specific markers for the official GMOs (like Mon810, Bt11, or GT73). The
array-based method combines multiplex PCR and array technology to screen samples for
different potential GMOs [26], combining different approaches (screening elements, plant-specific
markers, and event-specific markers).
The qPCR is used to detect specific GMO events by usage of specific primers for screening
elements or event-specific markers. Controls are necessary to avoid false positive or false
negative results. For example, a test for CaMV is used to avoid a false positive in the event of a
virus contaminated sample.
[edit] PLU codes
A Price Look-Up code beginning with the digit 8 indicates genetically modified food. [3]
[edit] Controversy
Main article: GM food controversy
While it is evident that there is a food supply issue; the question is whether GM can solve world
hunger problems. Several scientists argue that in order to meet the demand for food in the
developing world, a second green revolution with increased use of GM crops is needed.[27] Others
argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by
problems in food distribution and politics, not production.[28][29] Recently some critics have
changed their minds on the issue with respect to the need for additional food supplies.[30]
“Genetic modification is analogous to nuclear power: nobody loves it, but climate change has
made its adoption imperative,” says economist Paul Collier of Oxford University. "Declining
genetic modification makes a complicated issue more complex. Genetic modification offers both
faster crop adaptation and a biological, rather than chemical, approach to yield increases."[31]
On the other hand, many believe that GMF’s have not been a success and that we should devote
our efforts and money into another solution. “We need biodiversity intensification that works
with nature’s nutrient and water cycles, not against them,” says Vandana Shiva. Shiva, the
founder of Navdanya, the movement of 500,000 seed keepers and organic farmers in India,
argues that GMF’s have not increased yields. Recently, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a member of the
Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, published a report called
“Failure to Yield”, in which he stated that in a nearly 20 year record, genetically engineered
crops have not increased yields. [32]
Taking a more technical approach, GMF’s help farmers produce, despite the odds or any
environmental barriers. “While new technology must be tested before it is commercially
released, we should be mindful of the risks of not releasing it at all,” says Per Pinstrup-Andersen
professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University. Per Pinstrup-Anderson
argues, “Misguided anti-science ideology and failure by governments to prioritize agricultural
and rural development in developing countries brought us the food crisis.” He clearly states the
challenge we face is not the challenge of whether we have enough resources to produce, but
whether we will change our behavior. [33]
[edit] Economic and political effects

Adoption of genetically-engineered crops in the United States.[34]

• Many proponents of genetically engineered crops claim they lower pesticide usage and
have brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those in
developing nations.[35]
• The United States has seen a widespread adoption of genetically-engineered corn, cotton
and soybean crops over the last decade (see figure).
• In August 2003, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize)
from UN's World Food Programme. This left a famine-stricken population without food
aid.
• In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further
famine and allowed the importation of GM maize.[36] However, the Zambian Minister for
Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize
remains, saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that
all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods."[37][38]
• In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in
Venezuela.[39]
• In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting
of genetic modified maize seeds, which was subsequently authorized by the EU.[40]
 • On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of
the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes,
possibly due to accidental cross-pollination with conventional crops.[41]
• On February 9, 2010, Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, imposed a
moratorium on the cultivation of GMF "for as long as it is needed to establish public trust
and confidence".[42] His decision was made after protest from several groups responding
to regulatory approval of the cultivation of Bt Brinjal, a GM eggplant in October, 2009.
[edit] Intellectual property
Traditionally, farmers in all nations saved their own seed from year to year. Allowing to follow
this practice with genetically modified seed would result in seed developers losing the ability to
profit from their breeding work. Therefore, genetically-modified seed are subject to licensing by
their developers in contracts that are written to prevent farmers from following this traditional
practice.[43] Many objections to genetically modified food crops are based on this change.
Main article: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
Enforcement of patents on genetically modified plants is often contentious, especially because of
gene flow. In 1998, 95-98 percent of about 10 km2 planted with canola by Canadian farmer
Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto Company's patented Roundup Ready gene
although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto.[44] The initial source of the plants
was undetermined, and could have been through either gene flow or intentional theft. However,
the overwhelming predominance of the trait implied that Schmeiser must have intentionally
selected for it. The court determined that Schmeiser had saved seed from areas on and adjacent
to his property where Roundup had been sprayed, such as ditches and near power poles.[45]
Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly
grew Roundup Ready plants without paying royalties(Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian
Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto’s favor.[44][45] The dissenting judges
focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents covered only the gene itself and glyphosate
resistant cells, and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety. All of the judges agreed that
Schmeiser would not have to pay any damages since he had not benefited from his use of the
genetically modified seed.
In response to criticism, Monsanto Canada's Director of Public Affairs stated that "It is not, nor
has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when
they are present on a farmer's field by accident...Only when there has been a knowing and
deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act."[46]
[edit] Future developments
Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that
produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B,[47] metabolically
engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, foods no
longer containing properties associated with common intolerances, and plants that produce new
plastics with unique properties.[48] While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production
has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product
development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to
organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also, at
the same time, be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the
perceived and hidden costs of development. Plant scientists, backed by results of modern
comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM
techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.[49][50]
[edit] Health risks
In the United States, the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition must approve the
nutritional characteristics of GMO foods on the basis of comparability to conventionally-
produced foods. The table below shows the foods that had received FDA approval as of 2002.[51]

A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten
by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[52] Similarly a
2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health
effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[5]
Worldwide, there are a range of perspectives within non-governmental organizations on the
safety of GM foods. For example, the US pro-GM pressure group AgBioWorld has argued that
GM foods have been proven safe,[53] while other pressure groups and consumer rights groups,
such as the Organic Consumers Association,[54] and Greenpeace[55] claim the long term health
risks which GM could pose, or the environmental risks associated with GM, have not yet been
adequately investigated.
In 1998 Rowett Research Institute scientist Árpád Pusztai reported that consumption of potatoes
genetically modified to contain lectin had adverse intestinal effects on rats.[56] Pusztai eventually
published a paper, co-authored by Stanley Ewen, in the journal, The Lancet. The paper claimed
to show that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual
changes to their gut tissue when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes.[57] The
experiment has been criticised by other scientists on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes
were not a fair control diet and that all the rats may have been sick, due to them being fed a diet
of only potatoes.[58]
In 2010 three scientists published a statistical re-analysis of three feeding trials that had
previously been published by others as establishing the safety of genetically modified corn.[59][60]
[61]
The new article claimed that their statistics instead showed that the three patented crops (Mon
810, Mon 863, and NK 603) developed and owned by Monsanto cause liver, kidney, and heart
damage in mammals.[62] A previous re-analysis of part of this data by the same group of scientists
was assessed by a panel of independent toxicologists in a study funded by Monsanto and
published in the journal Food and chemical toxicology, the reviewers reported that the study was
statistically flawed and providing no evidence of adverse effects.[63]
[edit] Gene transfer
As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of
genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had previously had
their large intestines removed. These volunteers were to eat GM soy to see if the DNA of the
GM soy transferred to the bacteria that naturally lives in the human gut. Researchers identified
that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soy transferred into the bacteria living
in their gut, though none of the gene transfers occurred during the course of the study. In
volunteers with complete digestive tracts, the transgene did not survive passage through intact
gastrointestinal tract.[64] Anti-GM advocates believe the study should prompt additional testing to
determine its significance.[65]
A study on the possible effects of feeding genetically modified feeds to animals found that there
was no significant differences in the safety and nutritional value of feedstuffs containing material
derived from genetically modified plants.[66] Specifically, the study noted that no residues of
recombinant DNA or novel proteins have been found in any organ or tissue samples obtained
from animals fed with GMP plants.
[edit] Allergies
In the mid 1990s Pioneer Hi-Bred tested the allergenicity of a transgenic soybean that expressed
a Brazil nut seed storage protein in hope that the seeds would have increased levels of the amino
acid methionine. The tests (radioallergosorbent testing, immunoblotting, and skin-prick testing)
showed that individuals allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the new GM soybean.[67]
Pioneer has indicated that it will not develop commercial cultivars containing Brazil nut protein
because the protein is likely to be an allergen.[68]
[edit] See also
• Plant breeding
• Transgenic plant
• International trade of genetically modified foods
[edit] References
1. ^ Kang JX et al. (2007). "Why the omega-3 should go to market". Nature Biotechnology 25 (5):
505–506. doi:10.1038/nbt0507-505. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n5/full/nbt0507-
505.html. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
2. ^ Fiester, A. (2006). "Why the omega-3 piggy should not go to market". Nature Biotechnology
24: 1472–1473. doi:10.1038/nbt1206-1472. http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1053&context=bioethics_papers. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
3. ^ Lai L et al. (2006). "Generation of cloned transgenic pigs rich in omega-3 fatty acids". Nature
Biotechnology 24 (4): 435–436. doi:10.1038/nbt1198.
http://pmbcii.psy.cmu.edu/evans/2006_Lia.pdf. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
4. ^ Guelph Transgenic Pig Research Program: EnviropigTM an environmentally friendly breed of
pigs that utilizes plant phosphorus efficiently. November 04, 2005.
5. ^ a b NRC. (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended
Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full text.
6. ^ a b Martineau, Belinda (2001). First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth
of Biotech Foods. McGraw-Hill. pp. 269. ISBN 978-0071360562.
7. ^ FDA Consumer Letter (September 1994): First Biotech Tomato Marketed
8. ^ GEO-PIE Project - Cornell University
9. ^ Shaista Naqvi, et al. Transgenic multivitamin corn through biofortification of endosperm with
three vitamins representing three distinct metabolic pathways PNAS April 27, 2009.
10.^ [http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/NPH-1.pdf Richard M. Manshardt ‘UH
Rainbow’ Papaya: A High-Quality Hybrid with Genetically Engineered Disease Resistance.
Cooperative Extension Service/CTAHR, University of Hawaii at Manoa.]
11.^ [http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/biotechn.html U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Biotechnology of Food. FDA Backgrounder: May 18, 1994.]
12.^ Amflora - A star(ch) is born: Amylose and Amylopectin - two sides to one potato.
13.^ Rapeseed (canola) has been genetically engineered to modify its oil content with a gene
encoding a "12:0 thioesterase" (TE) enzyme from the California bay plant (Umbellularia
californica) to increase medium length fatty acids, see: [1]
14.^ GE Enzymes and Microorganisms
15.^ Need a more specific citation for this data than the ISAAA homepage.
16.^ Economic Impact of Genetically Modified Cotton in India
17.^ Comparing the Performance of Official and Unofficial Genetically Modified Cotton in India
18.^ Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms
19.^ Genetic Engineering: The Future of Foods?
20.^ Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. USDA ERS July 14, 2006
21.^ Press Releases 2008
22.^ Organic Farming can Feed The World!
23.^ Trade barriers seen in EU label for bio-engineered ingredients. (Regulatory and Policy Trends).
Business and the Environment 13.11 (Nov 2002): p14(1).
24.^ a b northwestern.edu Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Paper on:
"Consumer Protection" Consumer Strategies and the European Market in Genetically Modified
Foods Quote: The recent Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) Statement on the WTO
decision makes this clear: "clearly consumers' preference for non-GM food is the true engine of
the market collapse for American crops." and For instance, Evenson notes that the politicization
of GMOs is not merely a question of labeling as information, but unlabeled GM products as
catalysts in the "globalization backlash."
25.^ a b CBC Identifying genetically modified products. Quote: Yet as seen in this report from CBC's
Marketplace, no such labeling law exists in Canada despite numerous surveys indicating up to 90
per cent of Canadians want mandatory labeling of GM food. Canada's leading national
consumer group does not support mandatory labeling. It appeared to reverse its stance on
December 3, 2003: http://www.consumer.ca/1626
26.^ [2]
27.^ Raney, Terri, and Prahbu Pingali. "Sowing A Gene Revolution." Scientific American
September 2007. 11 September 2008 < http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sowing-a-gene-
revolution>.
28.^ Lappe FM, Collins J, Rosset P, and Esparza LFrances Moore Lappé ; Joseph Collins; Peter
Rosset. With Luis Esparza. (1998). World Hunger: Twelve Myths. Grove Press. pp. 224.
ISBN 978-0802135919.
29.^ Boucher Dedited by Douglas H. Boucher. (1999). The Paradox of Plenty: Hunger in a
Bountiful World. Food First. pp. 342. ISBN 978-0935028713.
30.^ Valley, Paul. Strange fruit: Could genetically modified foods offer a solution to the world's
food crisis? The Independent, 18 April 2009.
31.^ http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/can-biotech-food-cure-world-hunger/#paul
Put Aside Prejudices
32.^ http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/can-biotech-food-cure-world-
hunger/#vandana The Failure of Gene Altered Crops]
33.^ http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/can-biotech-food-cure-world-hunger/#per
A green Revolution Done Right
34.^ http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ US Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. July 2, 2008
35.^ Economic Impact of Transgenic Crops in Developing Countries
36.^ Zambia Allows Its People To Eat
37.^ The Peninsula On-line: Qatar's leading English Daily
38.^ World Environment News - Planet Ark
39.^ Venezuela: Chavez Dumps Monsanto - Social and Economic Policy - Global Policy Forum
40.^ Home
41.^ Agriculture Department Probes Rice Flap: NPR
42.^ "India says no to first GM food crop", Agence France-Presse (AFP) (New Delhi), 9 February
2010, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hx8gKVOxrM8-
7Pkj6nWSsPwbXBIw
43.^ United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Risk
Management, Research, and Specialty Crops, Committee on Agriculture, House of
Representatives. Information on Prices of Genetically Modified Seeds in the United States and
Argentina. January 2000
44.^ a b Munzer, Stephen R. (2006). Plants, Torts, and Intellectual Property. Oxford University
Press. pp. 1–30.
45.^ a b Federal court of Canada. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser Date: 20010329 Docket: T-
1593-98 Retrieved 26 March 2006.
46.^ Schubert, Robert: "Schmeiser Wants to Take It to The Supreme Court", CropChoice News,
September 9, 2002
47.^ Kumar, G. B. Sunil; T. R. Ganapathi, C. J. Revathi, L. Srinivas and V. A. Bapat (October
2005). "Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic banana plants". Planta 222: 484–
493. doi:10.1007/s00425-005-1556-y. http://www.springerlink.com/content/j28573pu42212114/.
48.^ van Beilen, Jan B.; Yves Poirier (May 2008). "Harnessing plant biomass for biofuels and
biomaterials:Production of renewable polymers from crop plants". The Plant Journal 54 (4): 684–
701. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03431.x. http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03431.x.
49.^ Proteomic profiling and unintended effects in genetically modified crops, Sirpa O. Kärenlampi
and Satu J. Lehesranta 2006
50.^ Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between
genetically modified and conventional potato crops, G S Catchpole and others PNAS October 4,
2005 vol. 102 no. 40 14458-14462
51.^ http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02566.pdf US GAO. "Genetically Modified Foods: Experts
View Regimen of Safety Tests as Adequate, but FDA's Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced."
GAO-02-566 Genetically Modified Foods,
52.^ Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM (June 2008). "Genetically modified plants and human health". J R
Soc Med 101 (6): 290–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. PMID 18515776.
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/101/6/290.
53.^ Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods. AgBioWorld.
54.^ Organic Consumers Association
55.^ True Food Now!
56.^ James Randerson interviews biologist Arpad Pusztai | Education | The Guardian
57.^ Ewen SW, Pusztai A (October 1999). "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine". Lancet 354 (9187): 1353–4.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7. PMID 10533866.
58.^ Martin Enserink The Lancet Scolded Over Pusztai Paper Science 22 October 1999: Vol. 286.
no. 5440, p. 656 DOI 10.1126/science.286.5440.656a
59.^ Hammond B, Lemen J, Dudek R, et al. (February 2006). "Results of a 90-day safety assurance
study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 44 (2): 147–
60. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2005.06.008. PMID 16084637.
60.^ Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M (June 2004). "Results of a 13 week safety
assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 42 (6):
1003–14. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.013. PMID 15110110.
61.^ Hammond BG, Dudek R, Lemen JK, Nemeth MA (July 2006). "Results of a 90-day safety
assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 44 (7):
1092–9. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2006.01.003. PMID 16487643.
62.^ Spiroux de Vendômois, et al, "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on
Mammalian Health" Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726 ©Ivyspring International Publisher
63.^ Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, Lovell DP, Lynch B, Munro IC (November 2007). "Report of an
Expert Panel on the reanalysis by of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the
safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863)". Food Chem. Toxicol. 45 (11): 2073–
85. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2007.08.033. PMID 17900781.
http://150.161.28.147/homepage/professores/ppa/biolmol/stacking/Doull_et_al-2007.pdf.
64.^ Netherwood et al., "Assessing the survival of transgenic planic plant DNA in the human
gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004):2.
65.^ Smith, Jeffrey. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered
Foods, p.130, 2007
 66.^ http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?
content=10.1080/17450390512331342368 "Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically
modified plants" Prof. Dr Gerhard Flachowsky; Andrew Chesson; Karen Aulrich
67.^ Julie A. Nordlee, "Identification of Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans," New England
Journal of Medicine, 334 (1996):688-692.
68.^ Streit, L.G., L.R. Beach, J.C. Register, III, R. Jung, and W.R. Fehr. 2001. Association of the
Brazil nut protein gene and Kunitz trypsin inhibitor alleles with soybean protease inhibitor
activity and agronomic traits. Crop Sci. 41:1757–1760.

[edit] External links

Cons and Pros of GM food.
• http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of

Genes, Technology and Policy

• Resolution To Label GMO Food Resolution to secure mandatory labeling of GMO food.
• Website Citizens To Label GMO Food Information on GMO food labeling.
• FAO Agriculture Department and its SOFA report on Agricultural Biotechnology
addressing GM food safety
• GMO Compass Information on the use of genetic engineering in the agri-food industry.
Authorization database with all GM plants in the EU.
• GMO Safety Information about research projects on the biological safety of genetically
modified plants.
• Approved GM crop database
• New Scientist article on GMO foods
• The FDA List of Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods
• Coextra research project on coexistence and tracebility of GM and non-GM supply chains
• STEPS Centre Biotechnology Research Archive
• Controlling Our Food a documentary film by Marie-Monique Robin
[edit] Suggested Reading
• Mark Pollack & Gregory Shaffer, When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and
Politics of Genetically Modified Foods (Oxford University Press 2009).
• Mendel in the Kitchen, by Nina Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown
• The environmental food crisis A study done by the UN on feeding the world population
(2009)
• Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, Ronald and
Adamchak (2008) ISBN 978-0195301755
• Biotechnology, Agriculture, and Food Security in Southern Africa Edited by Steven
Were Omamo and Klaus von Grebmer (2005) (Brief and Book available)
 • Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by
Jeffrey M. Smith.
• Beth H. Harrison (2007) Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food: What You
Don't Know About the Food You're Eating and What You Can Do to Protect Yourself
• World Hunger by Brian Kenneth Swain is a new fiction book concerning the topic of
genetically-modified food and some potential consequences on society. ISBN 978-
0595686254
• McHughen, A. Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically
Modified Foods, Oxford University Press, 2000
• Tokar, B.(ed.) Redesigning Life? Zed Books, 2001.
• Let Them Eat Precaution. How Politics Is Undermining the Genetic Revolution in
Agriculture. By Byrne, J., Conko, G., Entine, J., Gilland, T., Hoban, T. H., Moore, P.,
Natsios, A. S, Newell-McGloughlin, M., Paarlberg, R. L., Prakash, C. S., Tucker
Foreman, C., Edited by Jon Entine AEI Press (Washington) 2006. Facets of the GM crop
debate not covered by antagonists to the technology.
• Genetics by Nina V. Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown
• Helena Norberg-Hodge, "The Pressure to Modernize and Globalize", in The Case
Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward the Local 45 (J. Mander & E.
Goldsmith eds., 1996)
• Ellen Ruppel Shell, New World Syndrome, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, June 2001
• Vandana Shiva, A World View of Abundance, ORION, Summer 2000
• Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal (2001)
• Michael Pollan, The Futures of Food: The Industry Has Found a Way to Co-opt the
Threat from Organics and ‘Slow Food.’ Remember the Meal in a Pill?, NY TIMES
MAG., Sun., May 4, 2003, at sec. 6, p. 63
• Matt Lee and Ted Lee, The Next Big Flavor: Searching For the Taste of Tomorrow, id. at
66
• Amanda Hesser, Vintage Cuts, id. at 72
• Danylo Hawaleshka with Brian Bethune and Sue Ferguson, Tainted Food, (Kraft to
develop nanoparticles that can change food color, flavor, and nutrient value to suit a
person’s health or palate)
• Gary Ruskin, The Fast Food Trap: How Commercialism Creates Overweight Children,
Mothering Mazagine, Nov./December 2003
• Kate Zernike, Is Obesity the Responsibility of the Body Politic?, NY TIMES, Sun.,
November 9, 2003, at sec. 4, p. 3
• Carl Hulse, Vote in House Bars Some Suits Citing Obesity, NY TIMES, Thurs., March
11, 2004, at sec. A., p. 1
• Garcia, Deborah Koons (Director). 2004. The Future of Food. film.

[hide]
v•d•e
 Consumer Food Safety

Adulterants/Food 3-MCPD · Aldicarb · Cyanide · Formaldehyde · Lead

contaminants poisoning · Melamine · Mercury in fish · Sudan red dye

Aflatoxin · Arsenic contamination of groundwater ·

Toxins/Poisons Benzene in soft drinks · Bisphenol A · Mycotoxins ·
Shellfish poisoning

Botulism · Campylobacter jejuni · Clostridium

Microorganisms perfringens · Escherichia coli O157:H7 · Hepatitis A ·
Hepatitis E · Listeria · Norovirus · Rotavirus · Salmonella

Chlorpyrifos · DDT · Lindane · Malathion ·

Pesticides Overuse/Residues
Methamidophos

Preservatives Benzoic acid · EDTA · Sodium benzoate

Acesulfame potassium · Aspartame controversy ·

Sweeteners Cyclamate · High fructose corn syrup · Saccharin ·
Sorbitol · Sucralose

2005 Indonesia food scare · 2006 North American E. coli

outbreak · 2007 Vietnam food scare · 2008 Canadian
listeriosis outbreak · 2008 Chinese milk scandal · 2008
Irish pork crisis · 2008 United States salmonellosis
Food Scares
outbreak · Bradford sweets poisoning · Chilean grape
scare · ICA meat repackaging controversy · Minamata
disease · Toxic oil syndrome · List of foodborne illness
outbreaks · List of food contamination incidents

Acceptable daily intake · E number · Early history of food

regulation in the United States · European Food Safety
Authority · Food and Drug Administration · Food
Regulatory/Watchdog labeling regulations · Food law · Food Safety Act 1990 ·
Food Standards Agency · International Food Safety
Network · Pure Food and Drug Act · Quality Assurance
International · List of food safety organisations

Food Processing 4-Hydroxynonenal · Acrylamide · Creutzfeldt–Jakob

disease · Food irradiation · Heterocyclic amines ·
 Hydrolyzed vegetable protein · Modified starch ·
Nitrosamines · Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ·
Shortening · Trans fat

Curing (food preservation) · Foodborne illness · Food

marketing · Food politics · Food preservation · Food
Misc
quality · Food safety in the People's Republic of China ·
Food safety (science) · Genetically modified food
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food"
Categories: Food industry | Genetically modified organisms in agriculture | Genetic engineering |
Environmental issues
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements
from January 2010 | Articles with unsourced statements from April 2009
Views
• Article
• Discussion
• Edit this page
• History
Personal tools
• Try Beta
• Log in / create account
Navigation
• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
Search
Top of Form

S p e c ia l:S e a r c h Go Se a r c h

Bottom of Form
Interaction
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
• Donate to Wikipedia
 • Help
Toolbox
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Cite this page
Languages
• ‫العربية‬
• Azərbaycan
• Deutsch
• Eesti
• Español
• Français
• िहनदी
• Íslenska
• Lietuvių
• Norsk (bokmål)
• Norsk (nynorsk)
• Русский
• Svenska
• Українська
• 中文

• This page was last modified on 24 March 2010 at 13:09.

• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers