Genetically modified food
Genetically modified foods or GM foods, also known as genetically engineered foods, bioengineered foods, genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, 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 than previous methods such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.
Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-ripening tomato. 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.
There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. 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.
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.
Genetically modified foods, GM foods or genetically engineered 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. In the U.S., the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) favor the use of "genetic engineering" over "genetic modification" as the more precise term; the USDA defines genetic modification to include "genetic engineering or other more traditional methods."
According to the World Health Organization, "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called 'modern biotechnology' or 'gene technology', sometimes also 'recombinant DNA technology' or 'genetic engineering'. ... Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods."
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.: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).:1:1 With the discovery of DNA in the early 1900s and various advancements in genetic techniques through the 1970s it became possible to directly alter the DNA and genes within food.
The first genetically modified plant was produced in 1983, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant. 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. In the early 1990s, recombinant chymosin was approved for use in several countries. 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.
The first genetically modified food approved for release was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994. Developed by Calgene, it was engineered to have a longer shelf life by inserting an antisense gene that delayed ripening. China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in 1993 with the introduction of virus-resistant tobacco. In 1995, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Potato was approved for cultivation, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the US. 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.
By 2010, 29 countries had planted commercialized biotech crops and a further 31 countries had granted regulatory approval for transgenic crops to be imported. The US was the leading country in the production of GM foods in 2011, with twenty-five GM crops having received regulatory approval. In 2015, 92% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 94% of cotton produced in the US were genetically modified strains.
The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was AquAdvantage salmon in 2015. 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.
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.
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.
Genetically engineered organisms are generated and tested in the laboratory for desired qualities. The most common modification is to add one or more genes to an organism's genome. Less commonly, genes are removed or their expression is increased or silenced or the number of copies of a gene is increased or decreased.
Once satisfactory strains are produced, the producer applies for regulatory approval to field-test them, called a "field release." Field-testing involves cultivating the plants on farm fields or growing animals in a controlled environment. If these field tests are successful, the producer applies for regulatory approval to grow and market the crop. Once approved, specimens (seeds, cuttings, breeding pairs, etc.) are cultivated and sold to farmers. The farmers cultivate and market the new strain. In some cases, the approval covers marketing but not cultivation.
According to the USDA, the number of field releases for genetically engineered organisms has grown from four in 1985 to an average of about 800 per year. Cumulatively, more than 17,000 releases had been approved through September 2013.
Fruits and vegetablesEdit
Papaya was genetically modified to resist the ringspot virus. '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'. The New York Times stated, "in the early 1990s, Hawaii’s papaya industry was facing disaster because of the deadly papaya ringspot virus. Its single-handed savior was a breed engineered to be resistant to the virus. Without it, the state’s papaya industry would have collapsed. Today, 80% of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, and there is still no conventional or organic method to control ringspot virus." The GM cultivar was approved in 1998. 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.
The New Leaf potato, a GM food developed using naturally occurring bacteria found in the soil known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), was made to provide in-plant protection from the yield-robbing Colorado potato beetle. 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 and food. The potato was made resistant to late blight by adding resistant genes blb1 and blb2 that originate from the Mexican wild potato Solanum bulbocastanum. In February 2013, BASF withdrew its application.
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 flowers aren't exposed to compatible pollen sources. Importation into Hawaii is banned for "plant sanitation" reasons.
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.
In February 2015 Arctic Apples were approved by the USDA, becoming the first genetically modified apple approved for sale in the US. Gene silencing is used to reduce the expression of polyphenol oxidase (PPO), thus preventing the fruit from browning.
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. About 90% of the corn grown in the US was genetically modified in 2010. In the US in 2015, 81% of corn acreage contained the Bt trait and 89% of corn acreage contained the glyphosate-tolerant trait. 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.
Genetically modified soybean has been modified to tolerate herbicides and produce healthier oils. In 2015, 94% of soybean acreage in the U.S. was genetically modified to be glyphosate-tolerant.
Corn starch and starch sugars, including syrupsEdit
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.
- 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 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.[page needed] Sufficiently processed lecithin is often undetectable with standard testing practices.[not in citation given] 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. Nonetheless, consumer concerns about GM food extend to such products.[better source needed] This concern led to policy and regulatory changes in Europe in 2000, when Regulation (EC) 50/2000 was passed 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).[verification needed][page needed]
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. 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. 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. 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.
Most vegetable oil used in the US is produced from GM crops canola, corn, cotton and soybeans. Vegetable oil is sold directly to consumers as cooking oil, shortening and margarine and is used in prepared foods. There is a vanishingly small amount of protein or DNA from the original crop in vegetable oil. 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. 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.
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. 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. In 2011, 49% of the US maize harvest was used for livestock feed (including the percentage of waste from distillers grains). "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."
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.
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.
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. 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. The majority of the applied chymosin is retained in the whey. Trace quantities of chymosin may remain in cheese.
FPC was the first artificially produced enzyme to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. FPC products have been on the market since 1990 and as of 2015 had yet to be surpassed in commercial markets. In 1999, about 60% of US hard cheese was made with FPC. Its global market share approached 80%. By 2008, approximately 80% to 90% of commercially made cheeses in the US and Britain were made using FPC.
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. 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. 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. 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."
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.
Some mammals typically used for food production have been modified to produce non-food products, a practice sometimes called Pharming.
A GM salmon, awaiting regulatory approval since 1997, was approved for human consumption by the American FDA in November 2015, to be raised in specific land-based hatcheries in Canada and Panama.
Health and safetyEdit
There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. 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.
Opponents claim that long-term health risks have not been adequately assessed and propose various combinations of additional testing, labeling or removal from the market. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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 safety.
United States regulationsEdit
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.[better source needed] In 2015 the Obama administration announced that it would update the way the government regulated GM crops.
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.
As of 2015, 64 countries require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace.
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. 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%.
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."
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.
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. The objectivity of scientific research and publications has been challenged. Farming-related disputes include the use and impact of pesticides, seed production and use, side effects on non-GMO crops/farms, and potential control of the GM food supply by seed companies.
The conflicts have continued since GM foods were invented. They have occupied the media, the courts, local, regional and national governments and international organizations.
- California Proposition 37 (2012)
- Genetic engineering
- Genetically modified crops
- Genetically modified food controversies
- Genetically modified organisms
- List of genetically modified crops
- Pharming (genetics) – use of genetically modified mammals to produce drugs
- Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms
- Starlink corn recall
- GM Science Review First Report Archived 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, P 9
- James, Clive (1996). "Global Review of the Field Testing and Commercialization of Transgenic Plants: 1986 to 1995" (PDF). The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Retrieved 17 July 2010.
- Weasel, Lisa H. 2009. Food Fray. Amacom Publishing
- "Consumer Q&A". Fda.gov. 2009-03-06. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
- Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34 (1): 1–12. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 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.
- "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
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).
- Ronald, Pamela (May 5, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC . PMID 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).
- But see also:
Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 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" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 1–32. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381.
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.
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): 1–5. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN 0738-8551. PMID 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.
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 (6): 1851–55. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836.
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.
- "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
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"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
- A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. 2010. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
- "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved March 19, 2016.
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: )
"Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the original on September 7, 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2016.
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.
- "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
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.
- "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects". The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). 2016. p. 149. Retrieved May 19, 2016.
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.
- "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
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.
- Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21 (7): 739–41. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088.
These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.
- 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" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
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.
- Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
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.
- Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO Reports. 2 (7): 545–48. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC . PMID 11463731.
- Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
- Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–24. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243.
- "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
- Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
- Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time.
- 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". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
- Cowan, Tadlock (18 Jun 2011). "Agricultural Biotechnology: Background and Recent Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service (Library of Congress). pp. 33–38. Retrieved 27 September 2015.
- World Health Organization. "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". Retrieved 29 March 2016.
- "Genetically engineered foods". University of Maryland Medical Center. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
- "Glossary of Agricultural Biotechnology Terms". United States Department of Agriculture. 27 February 2013. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
- "Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants". US Food and Drug Administration. 22 Jun 2015. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
- Daniel Zohary; Maria Hopf; Ehud Weiss (2012). Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Plants in the Old World. Oxford University Press.
- Clive Root (2007). Domestication. Greenwood Publishing Groups.
- 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". PNAS. 69 (10): 2904–09. Bibcode:1972PNAS...69.2904J. doi:10.1073/pnas.69.10.2904. PMC . PMID 4342968.
- Bawa, A. S.; Anilakumar, K. R. (2016-12-04). "Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns – a review". Journal of Food Science and Technology. 50 (6): 1035–46. doi:10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1. ISSN 0022-1155. PMC . PMID 24426015.
- "FDA Approves 1st Genetically Engineered Product for Food". Los Angeles Times. 24 March 1990. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
- Staff, National Centre for Biotechnology Education (2006). "Chymosin". Archived from the original on May 22, 2016.
- Campbell-Platt, Geoffrey (26 August 2011). Food Science and Technology. Ames, IA: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-5782-0.
- Bruening, G.; Lyons, J. M. (2000). "The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato". California Agriculture. 54 (4): 6–7. doi:10.3733/ca.v054n04p6.
- 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.
- Genetically Altered Potato Ok'd For Crops Lawrence Journal-World - 6 May 1995
- 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. doi:10.1126/science.287.5451.303. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 10634784.
- Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011 ISAAA Brief ISAAA Brief 43-2011. Retrieved 14 October 2012
- James, C (2011). "ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011". ISAAA Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Retrieved 2012-06-02.
- "Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S." Economic Research Service. USDA. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
- "Aquabounty Cleared to Sell Salmon in the USA for Commercial Purposes".
- Bodnar, Anastasia (October 2010). "Risk Assessment and Mitigation of AquAdvantage Salmon" (PDF). ISB News Report.
- Waltz, Emily. "Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation". nature.com. Nature. Retrieved 18 April 2016.
- 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.
- Gallant, Andre. "Pigweed in the Cotton: A superweed invades Georgia". Modern Farmer.
- 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.
- Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell L (February 2014). "Genetically engineered crops in the United States". Economic Research Service.
- Gonsalves, D. (2004). "Transgenic papaya in Hawaii and beyond". AgBioForum. 7 (1&2): 36–40.
- Ronald, Pamela; McWilliams, James (May 14, 2010). "Genetically Engineered Distortions". The New York Times. Retrieved July 26, 2010.
- "The Rainbow Papaya Story". Hawaii Papaya Industry Association. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved April 17, 2015.
- 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. PMID 24493253.
- "The History and Future of GM Potatoes". Potatopro.com. 2010-03-10. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
- Johnson, Stanley R. (February 2008). "Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006" (PDF). Washington DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
- "GMO Database: Zucchini (courgette)". GMO Compass. November 7, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
- "Business BASF applies for approval for another biotech potato". Research in Germany. November 17, 2011.
- Burger, Ludwig (October 31, 2011). "BASF applies for EU approval for Fortuna GM potato". Frankfurt: Reuters. Retrieved December 29, 2011.
- Turley, Andrew (February 7, 2013). "BASF drops GM potato projects". Royal Society of Chemistry News.
- Perkowski, Mateisz (April 16, 2013). "Del Monte Gets Approval to Import GMO Pineapple". Food Democracy Now.
- Pollack, Andrew (November 7, 2014). "U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French Fry Fans". The New York Times.
- "Availability of Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Potato Genetically Engineered for Low Acrylamide Potential and Reduced Black Spot Bruise". Federal Register. May 3, 2013.
- Pollack, A. (February 13, 2015). "Gene-Altered Apples Get U.S. Approval". The New York Times.
- Tennille, Tracy (February 13, 2015). "First Genetically Modified Apple Approved for Sale in U.S." Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 13, 2015.
- "How'd we "make" a nonbrowning apple?". Okanagan Specialty Fruits. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
- "Know Before You Grow". National Corn Growers Association. Archived from the original on October 23, 2011.
- "Acreage NASS" (PDF). National Agricultural Statistics Board annual report. June 2010. Retrieved July 23, 2010.
- "Corn-Based Food Production in South Dakota: A Preliminary Feasibility Study" (PDF). South Dakota State University, College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Station. June 2004.
- Padgette SR, et al (1995) Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci 35:1451-1461.
- Staff, USDA Economic Research Service. Last updated: January 24, 2013 Wheat Background
- "Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status". USDA. Retrieved 9 March 2018.
- Regalado, Antonio. "These are not your father's GMOs". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 9 March 2018.
- 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". Atlantic.
- "International Starch: Production of corn starch". Starch.dk. Retrieved 2011-06-12.
- "Lecithin". October 2015. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
- "Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) Opinion: Lecithin". August 10, 2015. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
- "Corn Oil, 5th Edition" (PDF). Corn Refiners Association. 2006.
- "Regulation (EC) 50/2000". Eur-lex.europa.eu.
- Marx, Gertruida M. (December 2010). "Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Health Sciences" (PDF). Monitoring of Genetically Modified Food Products in South Africa]. South Africa: University of the Free State. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-01-09.
- Davison, John; Bertheau, Yves Bertheau (2007). "EU regulations on the traceability and detection of GMOs: difficulties in interpretation, implementation and compliance". CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources. 2 (77). doi:10.1079/pavsnnr20072077.
- "ISAAA Brief 43-2011. Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011". Isaaa.org. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-01. Retrieved 2016-02-19.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009). Sugar Beet: White Sugar (PDF). p. 9.
- 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. PMID 9608751.
- "Soyatech.com". Soyatech.com. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
- "Poster of corn products" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-12-29.
- "Food Fats and Oils" (PDF). Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils. 2006. Retrieved 2011-11-19.
- "Twenty Facts about Cottonseed Oil". National Cottonseed Producers Association. Archived from the original on October 17, 2015.
- Simon, Michelle (August 24, 2011). "ConAgra Sued Over GMO '100% Natural' Cooking Oils". Food Safety News.
- "ingredients of margarine". Imace.org. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
- "USDA Protein(g) in Fats and Oils". Retrieved 2015-05-31.
- "How Cooking Oil is Made". Madehow.com. 1991-04-27. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
- 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. PMID 10722892.
- Beatrice, Trum Hunter (1999). "Modified Vegetable Oils". Consumers' Research Magazine. 03: 8–9.
- "What is Canola Oil?". CanolaInfo. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
- David Bennett for Southeast Farm Press, February 5, 2003 World soybean consumption quickens Archived 2006-06-05 at the Wayback Machine.
- "Soybean". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved February 18, 2012.
- "2012 World of Corn, National Corn Growers Association" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-12-29.
- Staff, GMO Compass. December 7, 2006. Genetic Engineering: Feeding the EU's Livestock
- 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. PMID 22155268.
- Fellows, P.J. (2009). Food Processing Technology: Principles and Practice. Woodhead Publishing Limited. p. 236. ISBN 978-1845692162.
- Emtage, JS; Angal, S; Doel, MT; Harris, TJ; Jenkins, B; Lilley, G; Lowe, PA (1983). "Synthesis of calf prochymosin (prorennin) in Escherichia coli". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 80 (12): 3671–75. Bibcode:1983PNAS...80.3671E. doi:10.1073/pnas.80.12.3671. PMC . PMID 6304731.
- 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". Nucleic Acids Res. 10 (7): 2177–87. doi:10.1093/nar/10.7.2177. PMC . PMID 6283469.
- "Chymosin". GMO Compass. Archived from the original on 2015-03-26. Retrieved 2016-11-03.
- Law, Barry A. (2010). Technology of Cheesemaking. UK: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 100–101. ISBN 978-1-4051-8298-0.
- "Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2006-08-14.
- 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. PMID 16537950.
- Baumana, Dale E.; Collier, Robert J (September 15, 2010). "Use of Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production" (PDF).
- Staff (2011-02-18). Last Medical Review. American Cancer Society. Missing or empty
- "Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone".
- Brennand, Charlotte P. "Bovine Somatotropin in Milk" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-03-06.
- Cima, Greg (November 18, 2010). "Appellate court gives mixed ruling on Ohio rBST labeling rules". JAVMA News.
- leafcom. "INTERNATIONAL DAIRY FOODS ASS'N v. BOGGS – Argued: June 10, 2010". Leagle.com.
- 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" (PDF). Food Standards Australia and New Zealand. Retrieved August 27, 2015.
- 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". CBC News.
- Pollack, Andrew (May 21, 2012). "An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon". The New York Times. Retrieved September 3, 2012.
- Staff (December 26, 2012). "Draft Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact Concerning a Genetically Engineered Atlantic Salmon" (PDF). Federal Register. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
- Naik, Gautam (September 21, 2010). "Gene-Altered Fish Closer to Approval". Wall Street Journal.
- Commissioner, Office of the. "Press Announcements - FDA takes several actions involving genetically engineered plants and animals for food". www.fda.gov. Retrieved 2015-12-03.
- "Genetically modified foods" (PDF). Public Health Association of Australia. 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 20, 2014.
- "CAPE's Position Statement on GMOs". Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. November 11, 2013.
- "IDEA Position on Genetically Modified Foods". Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association. Archived from the original on 2014-03-26. Retrieved 2014-03-25.
- "American Academy of Environmental Medicine Calls for Immediate Moratorium on Genetically Modified Foods, position paper". American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Retrieved 3 August 2017.
- "Press Advisory". American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
- Hilbeck; et al. (2015). "No scientific consensus on GMO safety" (PDF). Environmental Sciences Europe. 27. doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1.
- Emily Marden, Risk and Regulation: U.S. Regulatory Policy on Genetically Modified Food and Agriculture 44 B.C.L. Rev. 733 (2003).
- "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States | Council on Foreign Relations". Cfr.org. Retrieved 2018-03-30.
- "The History and Future of GM Potatoes". PotatoPro.com.
- APPDMZ\ccvivr. "Commonly Asked Questions about the Food Safety of GMOs". monsanto.com.
- Pollack, Andrew (2015-07-02). "White House Orders Review of Rules for Genetically Modified Crops". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2015-07-03.
- "Food from Genetically Engineered Plants". FDA. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
- "Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties". Retrieved 18 October 2015.
- "International Labeling Laws". Center for Food Safety.
- Chokshi, Niraj (9 May 2014). "Vermont just passed the nation's first GMO food labeling law. Now it prepares to get sued". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2016.
- "The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food".
- Van Eenennaam, Alison; Chassy, Bruce; Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas; Redick, Thomas (2014). "The Potential Impacts of Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Engineered Food in the United States" (PDF). Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 54 (April 2014). ISSN 1070-0021. 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.
- Hallenbeck, Terri (2014-04-27). "How GMO labeling came to pass in Vermont". Burlington Free Press. Retrieved 2014-05-28.
- 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.
- Davison, John (2010). "GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations". Plant Science. 178 (2): 94–98. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.12.005.
- "EU GMO testing homepage". European Commission Join Research Centre. Retrieved May 31, 2015.
- 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.
- American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods. "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
- 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. October 2006