|Part of a series on|
|Genetically modified organisms|
|History and regulation|
Genetically modified crops (GM crops or biotech crops) are plants used in agriculture, the DNA of which has been modified using genetic engineering methods. In most cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species. Examples in food crops include resistance to certain pests, diseases, environmental conditions, reduction of spoilage, resistance to chemical treatments (e.g. resistance to a herbicide), or improving the nutrient profile of the crop. Examples in non-food crops include production of pharmaceutical agents, biofuels, and other industrially useful goods, as well as for bioremediation. 
Farmers have widely adopted GM technology. Acreage increased from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 185.1 million hectares in 2016, some 12% of global cropland. As of 2016, major crop (soybean, maize, canola and cotton) traits consist of herbicide tolerance (95.9 million hectares) insect resistance (25.2 million hectares), or both (58.5 million hectares). In 2015, 53.6 million ha of GM maize were under cultivation (almost 1/3 of the maize crop). GM maize outperformed its predecessors: yield was 5.6 to 24.5% higher with less mycotoxins (−28.8%), fumonisin (−30.6%) and thricotecens (−36.5%). Non-target organisms were unaffected, except for Braconidae, represented by a parasitoid of European corn borer, the target of Lepidoptera active Bt maize. Biogeochemical parameters such as lignin content did not vary, while biomass decomposition was higher. 
A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.  This reduction in pesticide use has been ecologically beneficial, but benefits may be reduced by overuse.  Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops.  Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries. 
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, opponents have objected to GM crops on grounds including environmental impacts, food safety, whether GM crops are needed to address food needs, whether they are sufficiently accessible to farmers in developing countries  and concerns over subjecting crops to intellectual property law. Safety concerns led 38 countries, including 19 in Europe, to officially prohibit their cultivation. 
- 1 History
- 2 Methods
- 3 Types of modifications
- 4 Economics
- 5 Yield
- 6.1 Extended shelf life
- 6.2 Improved photosynthesis
- 6.3 Improved nutritional value
- 6.4 Stress resistance
- 6.5 Pest resistance
- 6.6 By-products
- 6.7 Bioremediation
- 6.8 Asexual reproduction
- 6.9 Other
- 7 Crops
- 8 Farming practices
- 9 Regulation
- 10 Production
- 11 Controversy
- 12 Notes
- 13 References
- 14 External links
Multiple natural mechanisms allow gene flow from one species to another.  These occur in nature on a large scale – for example, it is one mechanism for the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.  This is facilitated by transposons, retrotransposons, retroviruses, proviruses and other mobile genetic elements that naturally translocate DNA to new loci in a genome.   Movement occurs over an evolutionary time scale.   
Traditional crop breeders have long introduced foreign germplasm into crops by creating novel crosses. A hybrid cereal grain was created in 1875, by crossing wheat and rye.  Since then traits including dwarfing genes and rust resistance have been introduced in that manner.  Plant tissue culture and deliberate mutations have enabled humans to alter the makeup of plant genomes.  
The term genetic engineering is applied to genetic modifications made using biotechnology. The first plant produced in that way came in 1982, an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant.  The first field trials occurred in France and the USA in 1986, using tobacco plants engineered for herbicide resistance.  In 1987, Plant Genetic Systems ( Ghent, Belgium), founded by Marc Van Montagu and Jeff Schell, was the first company to genetically engineer insect-resistant ( tobacco) plants by incorporating genes that produced insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). 
The People's Republic of China was the first country to allow commercialized transgenic plants, introducing a virus-resistant tobacco in 1992,  which was withdrawn in 1997. :3 The first genetically modified crop approved for sale in the U.S., in 1994, was the FlavrSavr tomato. It had a longer shelf life, because it took longer to soften after ripening.  In 1994, the European Union approved tobacco engineered to tolerate the herbicide bromoxynil, making it the first commercially genetically engineered crop marketed in Europe. 
In 1995, Bt Potato was approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency, making it the country's first-pesticide producing crop.  In 1995 canola with modified oil composition ( Calgene), Bt maize ( Ciba-Geigy), bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Calgene), Bt cotton ( Monsanto), glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (Monsanto), virus-tolerant squash ( Asgrow), and additional delayed ripening tomatoes ( DNAP, Zeneca/Peto and Monsanto) were approved.  As of mid-1996, 35 approvals had been granted to commercially grow 8 transgenic crops and one flower crop (carnation), with 8 different traits in 6 countries plus the EU.  In 2000, Vitamin A-enriched golden rice was developed, though as of 2016 it was not yet in commercial production.
In 2013 the leaders of the three research teams that first applied genetic engineering to crops, Robert Fraley, Marc Van Montagu and Mary-Dell Chilton, were awarded the World Food Prize for improving the "quality, quantity or availability" of food in the world. 
In the US, by 2014, 94% of the planted area of soybeans, 96% of cotton and 93% of corn were genetically modified varieties.  In developing countries, about 18 million farmers planted 54% of GM crops worldwide by 2013. 
Genetically engineered crops have genes added or removed using genetic engineering techniques,  originally including gene guns, electroporation, microinjection and agrobacterium. More recently, CRISPR and TALEN offered much more precise and convenient editing techniques.
Gene guns (also known as biolistics) "shoot" (direct high energy particles or radiations against ) target genes into plant cells. It is the most common method. DNA is bound to tiny particles of gold or tungsten which are subsequently shot into plant tissue or single plant cells under high pressure. The accelerated particles penetrate both the cell wall and membranes. The DNA separates from the metal and is integrated into plant DNA inside the nucleus. This method has been applied successfully for many cultivated crops, especially monocots like wheat or maize, for which transformation using Agrobacterium tumefaciens has been less successful.  The major disadvantage of this procedure is that serious damage can be done to the cellular tissue.
Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation is another common technique. Agrobacteria are natural plant parasites.  Their natural ability to transfer genes provides another engineering method. To create a suitable environment for themselves, these Agrobacteria insert their genes into plant hosts, resulting in a proliferation of modified plant cells near the soil level ( crown gall). The genetic information for tumor growth is encoded on a mobile, circular DNA fragment ( plasmid). When Agrobacterium infects a plant, it transfers this T-DNA to a random site in the plant genome. When used in genetic engineering the bacterial T-DNA is removed from the bacterial plasmid and replaced with the desired foreign gene. The bacterium is a vector, enabling transportation of foreign genes into plants. This method works especially well for dicotyledonous plants like potatoes, tomatoes, and tobacco. Agrobacteria infection is less successful in crops like wheat and maize.
Electroporation is used when the plant tissue does not contain cell walls. In this technique, "DNA enters the plant cells through miniature pores which are temporarily caused by electric pulses."
Microinjection is used to directly inject foreign DNA into cells. 
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.  
In research tobacco and Arabidopsis thaliana are the most frequently modified plants, due to well-developed transformation methods, easy propagation and well studied genomes.   They serve as model organisms for other plant species.
Introducing new genes into plants requires a promoter specific to the area where the gene is to be expressed. For instance, to express a gene only in rice grains and not in leaves, an endosperm-specific promoter is used. The codons of the gene must be optimized for the organism due to codon usage bias.
Transgenic plants have genes inserted into them that are derived from another species. The inserted genes can come from species within the same kingdom (plant to plant), or between kingdoms (for example, bacteria to plant). In many cases the inserted DNA has to be modified slightly in order to be correctly and efficiently expressed in the host organism. Transgenic plants are used to express proteins, like the cry toxins from B. thuringiensis, herbicide-resistant genes, antibodies,  and antigens for vaccinations.  A study led by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also found viral genes in transgenic plants. 
Transgenic carrots have been used to produce the drug
Taliglucerase alfa which is used to treat
 In the laboratory, transgenic plants have been modified to increase
photosynthesis (currently about 2% at most plants versus the theoretic potential of 9–10%).
 This is possible by changing the
rubisco enzyme (i.e. changing
C3 plants into
), by placing the rubisco in a
carboxysome, by adding CO
2 pumps in the cell wall,   or by changing the leaf form or size.     Plants have been engineered to exhibit bioluminescence that may become a sustainable alternative to electric lighting. 
Cisgenic plants are made using genes found within the same species or a closely related one, where conventional plant breeding can occur. Some breeders and scientists argue that cisgenic modification is useful for plants that are difficult to crossbreed by conventional means (such as potatoes), and that plants in the cisgenic category should not require the same regulatory scrutiny as transgenics. 
Genetically modified plants can also be developed using gene knockdown or gene knockout to alter the genetic makeup of a plant without incorporating genes from other plants. In 2014, Chinese researcher Gao Caixia filed patents on the creation of a strain of wheat that is resistant to powdery mildew. The strain lacks genes that encode proteins that repress defenses against the mildew. The researchers deleted all three copies of the genes from wheat's hexaploid genome. Gao used the TALENs and CRISPR gene editing tools without adding or changing any other genes. No field trials were immediately planned.   The CRISPR technique has also been used by Penn State researcher Yinong Yang to modify white button mushrooms ( Agaricus bisporus) to be non-browning,  and by DuPont Pioneer to make a new variety of corn. 
With multiple trait integration, several new traits may be integrated into a new crop. 
The neutrality of this section is disputed. (December 2015) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message)
GM food's economic value to farmers is one of its major benefits, including in developing nations.    A 2010 study found that Bt corn provided economic benefits of $6.9 billion over the previous 14 years in five Midwestern states. The majority ($4.3 billion) accrued to farmers producing non-Bt corn. This was attributed to European corn borer populations reduced by exposure to Bt corn, leaving fewer to attack conventional corn nearby.   Agriculture economists calculated that "world surplus [increased by] $240.3 million for 1996. Of this total, the largest share (59%) went to U.S. farmers. Seed company Monsanto received the next largest share (21%), followed by US consumers (9%), the rest of the world (6%), and the germplasm supplier, Delta & Pine Land Company of Mississippi (5%)." 
According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), in 2014 approximately 18 million farmers grew biotech crops in 28 countries; about 94% of the farmers were resource-poor in developing countries. 53% of the global biotech crop area of 181.5 million hectares was grown in 20 developing countries.  PG Economics comprehensive 2012 study concluded that GM crops increased farm incomes worldwide by $14 billion in 2010, with over half this total going to farmers in developing countries. 
Critics challenged the claimed benefits to farmers over the prevalence of biased observers and by the absence of randomized controlled trials.[ citation needed] The main Bt crop grown by small farmers in developing countries is cotton. A 2006 review of Bt cotton findings by agricultural economists concluded, "the overall balance sheet, though promising, is mixed. Economic returns are highly variable over years, farm type, and geographical location". 
In 2013 the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) asked the EU to allow the development of agricultural GM technologies to enable more sustainable agriculture, by employing fewer land, water, and nutrient resources. EASAC also criticizes the EU's "time-consuming and expensive regulatory framework" and said that the EU had fallen behind in the adoption of GM technologies. 
Participants in agriculture business markets include seed companies, agrochemical companies, distributors, farmers, grain elevators and universities that develop new crops/traits and whose agricultural extensions advise farmers on best practices.[ citation needed] According to a 2012 review based on data from the late 1990s and early 2000s, much of the GM crop grown each year is used for livestock feed and increased demand for meat leads to increased demand for GM feed crops.  Feed grain usage as a percentage of total crop production is 70% for corn and more than 90% of oil seed meals such as soybeans. About 65 million metric tons of GM corn grains and about 70 million metric tons of soybean meals derived from GM soybean become feed. 
In 2014 the global value of biotech seed was US$15.7 billion; US$11.3 billion (72%) was in industrial countries and US$4.4 billion (28%) was in the developing countries.  In 2009, Monsanto had $7.3 billion in sales of seeds and from licensing its technology; DuPont, through its Pioneer subsidiary, was the next biggest company in that market.  As of 2009, the overall Roundup line of products including the GM seeds represented about 50% of Monsanto's business. 
Some patents on GM traits have expired, allowing the legal development of generic strains that include these traits. For example, generic glyphosate-tolerant GM soybean is now available. Another impact is that traits developed by one vendor can be added to another vendor's proprietary strains, potentially increasing product choice and competition.  The patent on the first type of Roundup Ready crop that Monsanto produced (soybeans) expired in 2014  and the first harvest of off-patent soybeans occurs in the spring of 2015.  Monsanto has broadly licensed the patent to other seed companies that include the glyphosate resistance trait in their seed products.  About 150 companies have licensed the technology,  including Syngenta  and DuPont Pioneer. 
In 2014, the largest review yet concluded that GM crops' effects on farming were positive. The meta-analysis considered all published English-language examinations of the agronomic and economic impacts between 1995 and March 2014 for three major GM crops: soybean, maize, and cotton. The study found that herbicide-tolerant crops have lower production costs, while for insect-resistant crops the reduced pesticide use was offset by higher seed prices, leaving overall production costs about the same.  
Yields increased 9% for herbicide tolerance and 25% for insect resistant varieties. Farmers who adopted GM crops made 69% higher profits than those who did not. The review found that GM crops help farmers in developing countries, increasing yields by 14 percentage points. 
The researchers considered some studies that were not peer-reviewed and a few that did not report sample sizes. They attempted to correct for publication bias, by considering sources beyond academic journals. The large data set allowed the study to control for potentially confounding variables such as fertilizer use. Separately, they concluded that the funding source did not influence study results. 
GM crops grown today, or under development, have been modified with various traits. These traits include improved shelf life, disease resistance, stress resistance, herbicide resistance, pest resistance, production of useful goods such as biofuel or drugs, and ability to absorb toxins and for use in bioremediation of pollution.
Recently, research and development has been targeted to enhancement of crops that are locally important in developing countries, such as insect-resistant cowpea for Africa  and insect-resistant brinjal (eggplant). 
The first genetically modified crop approved for sale in the U.S. was the FlavrSavr tomato, which had a longer shelf life.  First sold in 1994, FlavrSavr tomato production ceased in 1997.  It is no longer on the market.
In February 2015 Arctic Apples were approved by the USDA,  becoming the first genetically modified apple approved for US sale.  Gene silencing was used to reduce the expression of polyphenol oxidase (PPO), thus preventing enzymatic browning of the fruit after it has been sliced open. The trait was added to Granny Smith and Golden Delicious varieties.   The trait includes a bacterial antibiotic resistance gene that provides resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin. The genetic engineering involved cultivation in the presence of kanamycin, which allowed only resistant cultivars to survive. Humans consuming apples do not acquire kanamycin resistance, per arcticapple.com.  The FDA approved the apples in March 2015. 
Plants use non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) to protect them from excessive amounts of sunlight. Plants can switch on the quenching mechanism almost instantaneously but it takes much longer for it to switch off again. During the time that it is switched off, the amount of energy that is wasted increases.[ citation needed] A genetic modification in three genes allows to correct this (in a trial with tobacco plants). As a result, yields were 14-20% higher, in terms of the weight of the dry leaves harvested. The plants had bigger leaves, were taller and had more vigorous roots.  
Another improvement that can be made on the photosynthesis process (with C3 pathway plants) is on photorespiration. By inserting the C4 pathway into C3 plants, productivity may increase by as much as 50% for cereal crops, such as rice.     
Golden rice, developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), provides greater amounts of vitamin A targeted at reducing vitamin A deficiency.   As of January 2016, golden rice has not yet been grown commercially in any country. 
In November 2014, the USDA approved a potato that prevents bruising and produces less acrylamide when fried.   They do not employ genes from non-potato species. The trait was added to the Russet Burbank, Ranger Russet and Atlantic varieties. 
Plants have been engineered to tolerate non-biological stressors, such as drought,     frost,  and high soil salinity.  In 2011, Monsanto's DroughtGard maize became the first drought-resistant GM crop to receive US marketing approval. 
Drought resistance occurs by modifying the plant's genes responsible for the mechanism known as the crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM), which allows the plants to survive despite low water levels. This holds promise for water-heavy crops such as rice, wheat, soybeans and poplar to accelerate their adaptation to water-limited environments.   Several salinity tolerance mechanisms have been identified in salt-tolerant crops.  For example, rice, canola and tomato crops have been genetically modified to increase their tolerance to salt stress.  
As of 1999, the most prevalent GM trait was glyphosate-tolerance. [ needs update] Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicide products) kills plants by interfering with the shikimate pathway in plants, which is essential for the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. The shikimate pathway is not present in animals, which instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diet. More specifically, glyphosate inhibits the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS).
This trait was developed because the herbicides used on grain and grass crops at the time were highly toxic and not effective against narrow-leaved weeds. Thus, developing crops that could withstand spraying with glyphosate would both reduce environmental and health risks, and give an agricultural edge to the farmer. 
Some micro-organisms have a version of EPSPS that is resistant to glyphosate inhibition. One of these was isolated from an Agrobacterium strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS) that was resistant to glyphosate.   The CP4 EPSPS gene was engineered for plant expression by fusing the 5' end of the gene to a chloroplast transit peptide derived from the petunia EPSPS. This transit peptide was used because it had shown previously an ability to deliver bacterial EPSPS to the chloroplasts of other plants. This CP4 EPSPS gene was cloned and transfected into soybeans.
The plasmid used to move the gene into soybeans was PV-GMGTO4. It contained three bacterial genes, two CP4 EPSPS genes, and a gene encoding beta-glucuronidase (GUS) from Escherichia coli as a marker. The DNA was injected into the soybeans using the particle acceleration method. Soybean cultivar A54O3 was used for the transformation.
Crops have been commercialized that are resistant to the herbicide glufosinate, as well.  Crops engineered for resistance to multiple herbicides to allow farmers to use a mixed group of two, three, or four different chemicals are under development to combat growing herbicide resistance.  
In October 2014 the US EPA registered Dow's Enlist Duo maize, which is genetically modified to be resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D, in six states.   Inserting a bacterial aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase gene, aad1 makes the corn resistant to 2,4-D.   The USDA had approved maize and soybeans with the mutation in September 2014. 
Monsanto has requested approval for a stacked strain that is tolerant of both glyphosate and dicamba. The request includes plans for avoiding herbicide drift to other crops.  Significant damage to other non-resistant crops occurred from dicamba formulations intended to reduce volatilization drifting when sprayed on resistant soybeans in 2017.  The newer dicamba formulation labels specify to not spray when average wind speeds are above 10–15 miles per hour (16–24 km/h) to avoid particle drift, average wind speeds below 3 miles per hour (4.8 km/h) to avoid temperature inversions, and rain or high temperatures are in the next day forecast. However, these conditions typically only occur during June and July for a few hours at a time.  
Tobacco, corn, rice and some other crops have been engineered to express genes encoding for insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).   The introduction of Bt crops during the period between 1996 and 2005 has been estimated to have reduced the total volume of insecticide active ingredient use in the United States by over 100 thousand tons. This represents a 19.4% reduction in insecticide use. 
Papaya, potatoes, and squash have been engineered to resist viral pathogens such as cucumber mosaic virus which, despite its name, infects a wide variety of plants.  Virus resistant papaya were developed in response to a papaya ringspot virus (PRV) outbreak in Hawaii in the late 1990s. They incorporate PRV DNA.   By 2010, 80% of Hawaiian papaya plants were genetically modified.  
Yellow squash that were resistant to at first two, then three viruses were developed, beginning in the 1990s. The viruses are watermelon, cucumber and zucchini/courgette yellow mosaic. Squash was the second GM crop to be approved by US regulators. The trait was later added to zucchini. 
Many strains of corn have been developed in recent years to combat the spread of Maize dwarf mosaic virus, a costly virus that causes stunted growth which is carried in Johnson grass and spread by aphid insect vectors. These strands are commercially available although the resistance is not standard among GM corn variants. 
Algae is under development for use in biofuels.  Researchers in Singapore were working on GM jatropha for biofuel production.  Syngenta has USDA approval to market a maize trademarked Enogen that has been genetically modified to convert its starch to sugar for ethanol.  Some trees have been genetically modified to either have less lignin, or to express lignin with chemically labile bonds. Lignin is the critical limiting factor when using wood to make bio-ethanol because lignin limits the accessibility of cellulose microfibrils to depolymerization by enzymes.  Besides with trees, the chemically labile lignin bonds are also very useful for cereal crops such as maize,   barley, and oats. 
Companies and labs are working on plants that can be used to make bioplastics.  Potatoes that produce industrially useful starches have been developed as well.  Oilseed can be modified to produce fatty acids for detergents, substitute fuels and petrochemicals.
Scientists at the University of York developed a weed ( Arabidopsis thaliana) that contains genes from bacteria that could clean TNT and RDX-explosive soil contaminants in 2011.  16 million hectares in the US (1.5% of the total surface) are estimated to be contaminated with TNT and RDX. However A. thaliana was not tough enough for use on military test grounds.  Modifications in 2016 included switchgrass and bentgrass. 
Marine environments are especially vulnerable since pollution such as oil spills are not containable. In addition to anthropogenic pollution, millions of tons of petroleum annually enter the marine environment from natural seepages. Despite its toxicity, a considerable fraction of petroleum oil entering marine systems is eliminated by the hydrocarbon-degrading activities of microbial communities. Particularly successful is a recently discovered group of specialists, the so-called hydrocarbonoclastic bacteria (HCCB) that may offer useful genes. 
Crops such as maize reproduce sexually each year. This randomizes which genes get propagated to the next generation, meaning that desirable traits can be lost. To maintain a high-quality crop, some farmers purchase seeds every year. Typically, the seed company maintains two inbred varieties and crosses them into a hybrid strain that is then sold. Related plants like sorghum and gamma grass are able to perform apomixis, a form of asexual reproduction that keeps the plant's DNA intact. This trait is apparently controlled by a single dominant gene, but traditional breeding has been unsuccessful in creating asexually-reproducing maize. Genetic engineering offers another route to this goal. Successful modification would allow farmers to replant harvested seeds that retain desirable traits, rather than relying on purchased seed. 
Genetic modifications to some crops also exist, which make it easier to process the crop.[ citation needed] Also, some crops (such as tomatoes) have been genetic modified to contain no seed at all. 
|Crop||Use||Countries approved in||First approved ||Notes|
|Alfalfa||Animal feed ||US||2005||Approval withdrawn in 2007  and then re-approved in 2011 |
Animal feed 
|European Union||1998||Grown in Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania |
|Sugar Beet||Food ||Canada||2001|
|US||1998||Commercialised 2007,  production blocked 2010, resumed 2011. |
|Crop||Use||Countries approved in||First approved ||Notes|
Animal feed 
|India||2002||Largest producer of Bt cotton |
|Myanmar||2006 [N 1]|
|Pakistan||2010 [N 1]|
|Eggplant||Food||Bangladesh||2013||12 ha planted on 120 farms in 2014 |
|Mexico||1996||Centre of origin for maize |
|Poplar||Tree||China||1998||543 ha of bt poplar planted in 2014 |
|Crop||Use||Trait||Countries approved in||First approved ||Notes|
Emulsifiers in packaged foods 
|High laurate canola||Canada||1996|
|Modified flower colour||Australia||1995|
|Colombia||2000||In 2014 4 ha were grown in greenhouses for export |
|European Union||1998||Two events expired 2008, another approved 2007|
|Malaysia||2012||For ornamental purposes|
|Maize||Animal feed||Increased lysine||Canada||2006|
|Papaya||Food ||Virus resistance||China||2006|
|US||1996||Mostly grown in Hawaii |
|Petunia||Ornamental||Modified flower colour||China||1997 |
|Potato||Food ||Virus resistance||Canada||1999|
|Industrial ||Modified starch||US||2014|
|Rose||Ornamental||Modified flower colour||Australia||2009||Surrendered renewal|
|Colombia||2010 [N 2]||Greenhouse cultivation for export only.|
|Soybean||Animal feed||Increased oleic acid production||Argentina||2015|
|Stearidonic acid production||Canada||2011|
|Squash||Food ||Virus resistance||US||1994|
|Sugar Cane||Food||Drought tolerance||Indonesia||2013||Environmental certificate only|
The number of USDA-approved field releases for testing grew from 4 in 1985 to 1,194 in 2002 and averaged around 800 per year thereafter. The number of sites per release and the number of gene constructs (ways that the gene of interest is packaged together with other elements) – have rapidly increased since 2005. Releases with agronomic properties (such as drought resistance) jumped from 1,043 in 2005 to 5,190 in 2013. As of September 2013, about 7,800 releases had been approved for corn, more than 2,200 for soybeans, more than 1,100 for cotton, and about 900 for potatoes. Releases were approved for herbicide tolerance (6,772 releases), insect resistance (4,809), product quality such as flavor or nutrition (4,896), agronomic properties like drought resistance (5,190), and virus/fungal resistance (2,616). The institutions with the most authorized field releases include Monsanto with 6,782, Pioneer/DuPont with 1,405, Syngenta with 565, and USDA’s Agricultural Research Service with 370. As of September 2013 USDA had received proposals for releasing GM rice, squash, plum, rose, tobacco, flax, and chicory. 
This section needs expansion with: examples and additional citations of how farmers' use of GM crops changes their practices. You can help by adding to it. (September 2012)
Constant exposure to a toxin creates evolutionary pressure for pests resistant to that toxin. Over-reliance on glyphosate and a reduction in the diversity of weed management practices allowed the spread of glyphosate resistance in 14 weed species in the US,  and in soybeans. 
To reduce resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops, the 1996 commercialization of transgenic cotton and maize came with a management strategy to prevent insects from becoming resistant. Insect resistance management plans are mandatory for Bt crops. The aim is to encourage a large population of pests so that any (recessive) resistance genes are diluted within the population. Resistance lowers evolutionary fitness in the absence of the stressor, Bt. In refuges, non-resistant strains outcompete resistant ones. 
With sufficiently high levels of transgene expression, nearly all of the heterozygotes (S/s), i.e., the largest segment of the pest population carrying a resistance allele, will be killed before maturation, thus preventing transmission of the resistance gene to their progeny.  Refuges (i. e., fields of nontransgenic plants) adjacent to transgenic fields increases the likelihood that homozygous resistant (s/s) individuals and any surviving heterozygotes will mate with susceptible (S/S) individuals from the refuge, instead of with other individuals carrying the resistance allele. As a result, the resistance gene frequency in the population remains lower.
Complicating factors can affect the success of the high-dose/refuge strategy. For example, if the temperature is not ideal, thermal stress can lower Bt toxin production and leave the plant more susceptible. More importantly, reduced late-season expression has been documented, possibly resulting from DNA methylation of the promoter.  The success of the high-dose/refuge strategy has successfully maintained the value of Bt crops. This success has depended on factors independent of management strategy, including low initial resistance allele frequencies, fitness costs associated with resistance, and the abundance of non-Bt host plants outside the refuges. 
Companies that produce Bt seed are introducing strains with multiple Bt proteins. Monsanto did this with Bt cotton in India, where the product was rapidly adopted.  Monsanto has also; in an attempt to simplify the process of implementing refuges in fields to comply with Insect Resistance Management(IRM) policies and prevent irresponsible planting practices; begun marketing seed bags with a set proportion of refuge (non-transgenic) seeds mixed in with the Bt seeds being sold. Coined "Refuge-In-a-Bag" (RIB), this practice is intended to increase farmer compliance with refuge requirements and reduce additional labor needed at planting from having separate Bt and refuge seed bags on hand.  This strategy is likely to reduce the likelihood of Bt-resistance occurring for corn rootworm, but may increase the risk of resistance for lepidopteran corn pests, such as European corn borer. Increased concerns for resistance with seed mixtures include partially resistant larvae on a Bt plant being able to move to a susceptible plant to survive or cross pollination of refuge pollen on to Bt plants that can lower the amount of Bt expressed in kernels for ear feeding insects.  
Best management practices (BMPs) to control weeds may help delay resistance. BMPs include applying multiple herbicides with different modes of action, rotating crops, planting weed-free seed, scouting fields routinely, cleaning equipment to reduce the transmission of weeds to other fields, and maintaining field borders.  The most widely planted GM crops 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.  
Farmers generally use less insecticide when they plant Bt-resistant crops. Insecticide use on corn farms declined from 0.21 pound per planted acre in 1995 to 0.02 pound in 2010. This is consistent with the decline in European corn borer populations as a direct result of Bt corn and cotton. The establishment of minimum refuge requirements helped delay the evolution of Bt resistance. However, resistance appears to be developing to some Bt traits in some areas. 
By leaving at least 30% of crop residue on the soil surface from harvest through planting, conservation tillage reduces soil erosion from wind and water, increases water retention, and reduces soil degradation as well as water and chemical runoff. In addition, conservation tillage reduces the carbon footprint of agriculture.  A 2014 review covering 12 states from 1996 to 2006, found that a 1% increase in herbicde-tolerant (HT) soybean adoption leads to a 0.21% increase in conservation tillage and a 0.3% decrease in quality-adjusted herbicide use. 
The regulation of genetic engineering concerns the approaches taken by governments to assess and manage the risks associated with the development and release of genetically modified crops. There are differences in the regulation of GM crops between countries, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the US and Europe. Regulation varies in a given country depending on the intended use of each product. For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety.  
In 2013, GM crops were planted in 27 countries; 19 were developing countries and 8 were developed countries. 2013 was the second year in which developing countries grew a majority (54%) of the total GM harvest. 18 million farmers grew GM crops; around 90% were small-holding farmers in developing countries. 
|Country||2013– GM planted area (million hectares) ||Biotech crops|
|US||70.1||Maize, Soybean, Cotton, Canola, Sugarbeet, Alfalfa, Papaya, Squash|
|Brazil||40.3||Soybean, Maize, Cotton|
|Argentina||24.4||Soybean, Maize, Cotton|
|Canada||10.8||Canola, Maize, Soybean, Sugarbeet|
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports every year on the total area of GM crop varieties planted in the United States.   According to National Agricultural Statistics Service, the states published in these tables represent 81–86 percent of all corn planted area, 88–90 percent of all soybean planted area, and 81–93 percent of all upland cotton planted area (depending on the year).
Global estimates are produced by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) and can be found in their annual reports, "Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops".  
Farmers have widely adopted GM technology (see figure). Between 1996 and 2013, the total surface area of land cultivated with GM crops increased by a factor of 100, from 17,000 square kilometers (4,200,000 acres) to 1,750,000 km2 (432 million acres).  10% of the world's arable land was planted with GM crops in 2010.  As of 2011, 11 different transgenic crops were grown commercially on 395 million acres (160 million hectares) in 29 countries such as the US, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia, Australia, Philippines, Myanmar, Burkina Faso, Mexico and Spain.  One of the key reasons for this widespread adoption is the perceived economic benefit the technology brings to farmers. For example, the system of planting glyphosate-resistant seed and then applying glyphosate once plants emerged provided farmers with the opportunity to dramatically increase the yield from a given plot of land, since this allowed them to plant rows closer together. Without it, farmers had to plant rows far enough apart to control post-emergent weeds with mechanical tillage.  Likewise, using Bt seeds means that farmers do not have to purchase insecticides, and then invest time, fuel, and equipment in applying them. However critics have disputed whether yields are higher and whether chemical use is less, with GM crops. See Genetically modified food controversies article for information.
In the US, by 2014, 94% of the planted area of soybeans, 96% of cotton and 93% of 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 Bt protein).  These constitute "input-traits" that are aimed to financially benefit the producers, but may have indirect environmental benefits and cost benefits to consumers. The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimated in 2003 that 70–75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contained a GM ingredient. 
Europe grows relatively few genetically engineered crops  with the exception of Spain, where one fifth of maize is genetically engineered,  and smaller amounts in five other countries.  The EU had a 'de facto' ban on the approval of new GM crops, from 1999 until 2004.   GM crops are now regulated by the EU.  In 2015, genetically engineered crops are banned in 38 countries worldwide, 19 of them in Europe.   Developing countries grew 54 percent of genetically engineered crops in 2013. 
In recent years GM crops expanded rapidly in developing countries. In 2013 approximately 18 million farmers grew 54% of worldwide GM crops in developing countries.  2013's largest increase was in Brazil (403,000 km2 versus 368,000 km2 in 2012). GM cotton began growing in India in 2002, reaching 110,000 km2 in 2013. 
According to the 2013 ISAAA brief: "...a total of 36 countries (35 + EU-28) have granted regulatory approvals for biotech crops for food and/or feed use and for environmental release or planting since 1994... a total of 2,833 regulatory approvals involving 27 GM crops and 336 GM events (NB: an "event" is a specific genetic modification in a specific species) have been issued by authorities, of which 1,321 are for food use (direct use or processing), 918 for feed use (direct use or processing) and 599 for environmental release or planting. Japan has the largest number (198), followed by the U.S.A. (165, not including "stacked" events), Canada (146), Mexico (131), South Korea (103), Australia (93), New Zealand (83), European Union (71 including approvals that have expired or under renewal process), Philippines (68), Taiwan (65), Colombia (59), China (55) and South Africa (52). Maize has the largest number (130 events in 27 countries), followed by cotton (49 events in 22 countries), potato (31 events in 10 countries), canola (30 events in 12 countries) and soybean (27 events in 26 countries). 
Direct genetic engineering has been controversial since its introduction. Most, but not all of the controversies are over GM foods rather than crops per se. GM foods are the subject of protests, vandalism, referenda, legislation, court action  and scientific disputes. The controversies involve consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists.
Opponents have objected to GM crops on multiple grounds including environmental impacts, food safety, whether GM crops are needed to address food needs, whether they are sufficiently accessible to farmers in developing countries  and concerns over subjecting crops to intellectual property law. Secondary issues include labeling, the behavior of government regulators, the effects of pesticide use and pesticide tolerance.
A significant environmental concern about using genetically modified crops is possible cross-breeding with related crops, giving them advantages over naturally occurring varieties. One example is a glyphosate-resistant rice crop that crossbreeds with a weedy relative, giving the weed a competitive advantage. The transgenic hybrid had higher rates of photosynthesis, more shoots and flowers, and more seeds than the non-transgenic hybrids.  This demonstrates the possibility of ecosystem damage by GM crop usage.
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.    
No reports of ill effects from GM food have been documented in the human population.    GM crop labeling is required in many countries, although the United States Food and Drug Administration does not, nor does it distinguish between approved GM and non-GM foods.  The United States enacted a law that requires labeling regulations to be issued by July 2018. It allows indirect disclosure such as with a phone number, bar code, or web site. 
Advocacy groups such as Center for Food Safety, Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund claim that risks related to GM food have not been adequately examined and managed, that GM crops are not sufficiently tested and should be labelled, and that regulatory authorities and scientific bodies are too closely tied to industry.[ citation needed] Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm;   a 2016 review that reanalyzed the data from six of these studies found that their statistical methodologies were flawed and did not demonstrate harm, and said that conclusions about GM crop safety should be drawn from "the totality of the evidence... instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies". 
- No official public documentation available
- No public documents
- ISAAA 2013 Annual Report Executive Summary, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013 ISAAA Brief 46-2013, Retrieved 6 August 2014
- Pellegrino, Elisa; Bedini, Stefano; Nuti, Marco; Ercoli, Laura (15 February 2018). "Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data". Scientific Reports. 8 (1): 3113. Bibcode: 2018NatSR...8.3113P. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 5814441. PMID 29449686.
- Klümper, W; Qaim, M (2014). "A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops". PLoS ONE. 9 (11): e111629. Bibcode: 2014PLoSO...9k1629K. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629. PMC 4218791. PMID 25365303.
- Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. 13 April 2010 Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops
- Perry, E. D; Ciliberto, F; Hennessy, D. A; Moschini, G (2016). "Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. Maize and soybeans". Science Advances. 2 (8): e1600850. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600850. PMID 27652335.
- 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.
24041244. Archived from
the original (PDF) on 17 September 2016. Retrieved 8 July 2016.
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 8 February 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 (5 May 2011).
"Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20.
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. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 February 2016. Retrieved 9 February 2016.
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. (14 January 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 GM 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. 20 October 2012. Retrieved 8 February 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 (25 October 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 8 February 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 8 February 2016.
"AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved 19 March 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 7 September 2012. Retrieved 19 March 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.CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown ( link)
"Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. 9 June 2015. Retrieved 8 February 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 19 May 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 8 February 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.
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
"Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved 21 March 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 (29 January 2015).
"Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 24 February 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 1083956. PMID 11463731.
- Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Retrieved 24 February 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. 9 June 2015. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
- Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
- Sifferlin, Alexandra (3 October 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time.
- Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (5 April 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
- 4. Azadi, H., A.Samiee, H. Mahmoudi, Z. Jouzi, P. Rafiaani Khachak, P. De Maeyer & F. Witlox "Genetically modified crops and small-scale farmers: main opportunities and challenges". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, (2015): 1-13
- Lederberg J, Tatum EL; Tatum (1946). "Gene recombination in E. coli". Nature. 158 (4016): 558. Bibcode: 1946Natur.158..558L. doi: 10.1038/158558a0.
- Bock, R. (2010). "The give-and-take of DNA: horizontal gene transfer in plants". Trends in Plant Science. 15 (1): 11–22. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2009.10.001. PMID 19910236.
- Morgante, M.; Brunner, S.; Pea, G.; Fengler, K.; Zuccolo, A.; Rafalski, A. (2005). "Gene duplication and exon shuffling by helitron-like transposons generate intraspecies diversity in maize". Nature Genetics. 37 (9): 997–1002. doi: 10.1038/ng1615. PMID 16056225.
- Monroe D. (2006). "Jumping Genes Cross Plant Species Boundaries". PLoS Biology. 4 (1): e35. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040035.
- Feschotte, C.; Osterlund, M. T.; Peeler, R.; Wessler, S. R. (2005). "DNA-binding specificity of rice mariner-like transposases and interactions with Stowaway MITEs". Nucleic Acids Research. 33 (7): 2153–65. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki509. PMC 1079968. PMID 15831788.
- Cordaux, R.; Udit, S.; Batzer, M.; Feschotte, C. (2006). "Birth of a chimeric primate gene by capture of the transposase gene from a mobile element". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 103 (21): 8101–06. Bibcode: 2006PNAS..103.8101C. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0601161103. PMC 1472436. PMID 16672366.
- Long, M.; Betrán, E.; Thornton, K.; Wang, W. (2003). "The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old". Nature Reviews Genetics. 4 (11): 865–75. doi: 10.1038/nrg1204. PMID 14634634.
- Chen, Z. (2010). "Molecular mechanisms of polyploidy and hybrid vigor". Trends in Plant Science. 15 (2): 57–71. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2009.12.003. PMC 2821985. PMID 20080432.
- Hoisington D, Khairallah M, Reeves T, Ribaut JM, Skovmand B, Taba S, Warburton M; Khairallah; Reeves; Ribaut; Skovmand; Taba; Warburton (1999). "Plant genetic resources: What can they contribute toward increased crop productivity?" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 96 (11): 5937–43. Bibcode: 1999PNAS...96.5937H. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.11.5937. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 34209. PMID 10339521.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list ( link)
- Predieri, S. (2001). "Mutation induction and tissue culture in improving fruits". Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 64 (2/3): 185–210. doi: 10.1023/A:1010623203554.
- Duncan, R. (1996). "Tissue Culture-Induced Variation and Crop Improvement". Advances in Agronomy. 58: 201–40. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60256-4. ISBN 9780120007585.
- Fraley, RT; et al. (1983). "Expression of bacterial genes in plant cells" (PDF). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 80 (15): 4803–07. Bibcode: 1983PNAS...80.4803F. doi: 10.1073/pnas.80.15.4803. PMC 384133.
- 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.
- Vaeck, M; et al. (1987). "Transgenic plants protected from insect attack" (PDF). Nature. 328 (6125): 33–37. Bibcode: 1987Natur.328...33V. doi: 10.1038/328033a0.
- James, C (1997). "Global Status of Transgenic Crops in 1997" (PDF). ISAAA Briefs No. 5.: 31.
- Conner, AJ; Glare, TR; Nap, JP (January 2003). "The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment". Plant J. 33 (1): 19–46. doi: 10.1046/j.0960-7412.2002.001607.x. PMID 12943539.
- Bruening, G.; Lyons, J. M. (2000). "The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato". California Agriculture. 54 (4): 6–7. doi: 10.3733/ca.v054n04p6.
- Debora MacKenzie (18 June 1994). "Transgenic tobacco is European first". New Scientist.
- Genetically Altered Potato Ok'd For Crops Lawrence Journal-World – 6 May 1995
- Andrew Pollack (19 June 2013). "Executive at Monsanto wins global food honor". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- "USDA ERS - Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S." www.ers.usda.gov.
- Rebecca Boyle for Popular Science. 24 January 2011. How To Genetically Modify a Seed, Step By Step
- "Bombarded - Define Bombarded at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.com.
- Shrawat, A.; Lörz, H. (2006). "Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of cereals: a promising approach crossing barriers". Plant Biotechnology Journal. 4 (6): 575–603. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2006.00209.x. PMID 17309731.
- G., Halford, Nigel (2012). Genetically modified crops. World Scientific (Firm) (2nd ed.). London: Imperial College Press. ISBN 978-1848168381. OCLC 785724094.
- Maghari, Behrokh Mohajer, and Ali M. Ardekani. "Genetically Modified Foods And Social Concerns." Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology 3.3 (2011): 109-117. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 November 2014.
- "Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report".
- Catchpole, G. S.; Beckmann, M.; Enot, D. P.; Mondhe, M.; Zywicki, B.; Taylor, J.; Hardy, N.; Smith, A.; King, R. D.; Kell, D. B.; Fiehn, O.; Draper, J. (2005). "Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 102 (40): 14458–62. Bibcode: 2005PNAS..10214458C. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0503955102. PMC 1242293. PMID 16186495.
- Koornneef, M.; Meinke, D. (2010). "The development of Arabidopsis as a model plant". The Plant Journal. 61 (6): 909–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.04086.x. PMID 20409266.
- Banjara, Manoj; Zhu, Longfu; Shen, Guoxin; Payton, Paxton; Zhang, Hong (1 January 2012). "Expression of an Arabidopsis sodium/proton antiporter gene (AtNHX1) in peanut to improve salt tolerance". Plant Biotechnology Reports. 6: 59–67. doi: 10.1007/s11816-011-0200-5. Retrieved 19 December 2013.
- Robin McKie. "GM corn set to stop man spreading his seed". the Guardian.
- Walmsley, A.; Arntzen, C. (2000). "Plants for delivery of edible vaccines". Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 11 (2): 126–29. doi: 10.1016/S0958-1669(00)00070-7. PMID 10753769.
- Nancy Podevina; Patrick du Jardin (2012). "Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants". GM Crops & Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain. 3 (4): 296–300. doi: 10.4161/gmcr.21406. PMID 22892689.
- Maxmen, Amy (2 May 2012) First plant-made drug on the market Nature, Biology & Biotechnology, Industry. Retrieved 26 June 2012
- NWT magazine, April 2011
- "Molecular Physiology".
- "Project by Dean Price increasing photosynthesis by 15 to 25%" (PDF).
- Additional project by Dean Price; adding of CO²-concentrating cage
- "Brocade Desktop: irua".
- "Auxin patterns Solanum lycopersicum leaf morphogenesis".
- "Projects changing respectively plant growth and plant flowers" (PDF).
- "Project changing number of stomata in plants conducted by Ikuko Hara-Nishimura" (PDF).
- (4 May 2013) One Per Cent: Grow your own living lights The New Scientist, Issue 2915, Retrieved 7 May 2013
- MacKenzie, Deborah (2 August 2008). "How the humble potato could feed the world" (cover story) New Scientist. No 2667 pp.30–33
- Talbot, David (19 July 2014). "Beijing Researchers Use Gene Editing to Create Disease-Resistant Wheat | MIT Technology Review". Technologyreview.com. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
- Wang, Yanpeng (2014). "Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew". Nature Biotechnology. 32 (9): 947–51. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2969. PMID 25038773.
- Waltz, Emily. "Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation". nature.com. Nature. Retrieved 18 April 2016.
- The next generation of GMO food is here, and it's technically not a GMO
- Sun, X; Mumm, R. H (2015). "Optimized breeding strategies for multiple trait integration: III. Parameters for success in version testing". Molecular Breeding. 35 (10): 201. doi: 10.1007/s11032-015-0397-z. PMC 4605974. PMID 26491398.
- Economic Impact of Transgenic Crops in Developing Countries. Agbioworld.org. Retrieved 8 February 2011.
- Areal, F. J.; Riesgo, L.; Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. (2012). "Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: A meta-analysis". The Journal of Agricultural Science. 151: 7–33. doi: 10.1017/S0021859612000111.
- Finger, Robert; El Benni, Nadja; Kaphengst, Timo; Evans, Clive; Herbert, Sophie; Lehmann, Bernard; Morse, Stephen; Stupak, Nataliya (2011). "A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops" (PDF). Sustainability. 3 (12): 743–62. doi: 10.3390/su3050743.
- Hutchison WD, Burkness EC, Mitchell PD, Moon RD, Leslie TW, Fleischer SJ, Abrahamson M, Hamilton KL, Steffey KL, Gray ME, Hellmich RL, Kaster LV, Hunt TE, Wright RJ, Pecinovsky K, Rabaey TL, Flood BR, Raun ES (October 2010). "Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers". Science. 330 (6001): 222–25. Bibcode: 2010Sci...330..222H. doi: 10.1126/science.1190242. PMID 20929774.
- Karnowski, Steve High-Tech Corn Fights Pests at Home and Nearby[ permanent dead link] Sci-Tech today, 8 October 2010. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
- Falck-Zepeda, José Benjamin; Traxler, Greg; Nelson, Robert G. (2000). "Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of a Biotechnology Innovation". American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 82 (2): 360–69. doi: 10.1111/0002-9092.00031. JSTOR 1244657.
- James, C. 2014 Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 ISAAA Brief No. 49.
- Brookes, Graham and Barfoot, Peter (May 2012) GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2010 PG Economics Ltd. UK, Retrieved 3 January 2012
- Smale, M., P. Zambrano, and M. Cartel (2006). "Bales and balance: A review of the methods used to assess the economic impact of Bt cotton on farmers in developing economies" (PDF). AgBioForum. 9 (3): 195–212.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list ( link)
- Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using crop genetic improvement technologies for sustainable agriculture, EASAC policy report 21, 27.06.13.
- Rajib Deb, et al. " Genetically Modified (Gm) Crops Lifeline For Livestock – A Review." Agricultural Reviews 31.4 (2010): 279–285.
- Robert Langreth and Matthew Herper for Forbes. 31 December 2009 The Planet Versus Monsanto
- Cavallaro, Matt (26 June 2009). "The Seeds Of A Monsanto Short Play". Forbes.
- Regalado, Antonio (30 July 2015). "Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybean Patent Expiration Ushers in Generic GMOs | MIT Technology Review". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 22 October 2015.
- "Monsanto Will Let Bio-Crop Patents Expire". Business Week. 21 January 2010.
- Monsanto. Roundup Ready Soybean Patent Expiration
- "Monsanto ~ Licensing". Monsanto.com. 3 November 2008.
- Monsanto GMO Ignites Big Seed War. NPR.
- "Syngenta US | Corn and Soybean Seed – Garst, Golden Harvest, NK, Agrisure". Syngenta.com.
- "Agronomy Library – Pioneer Hi-Bred Agronomy Library". Pioneer.com.
- "Genetically modified crops - Field research". Economist. 8 November 2014. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
- "SeedQuest - Central information website for the global seed industry".
- "Bt Brinjal in India - Pocket K - ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org.
- Weasel, Lisa H. 2009. Food Fray. Amacom Publishing
- Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. 7 November 2014. U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French Fry Fans
- Federal Register. 3 May 2013. J.R. Simplot Co.; Availability of Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Potato Genetically Engineered for Low Acrylamide Potential and Reduced Black Spot Bruise
- Pollack, A. "Gene-Altered Apples Get U.S. Approval" New York Times. 13 February 2015.
- Tennille, Tracy (13 February 2015). "First Genetically Modified Apple Approved for Sale in U.S." Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
- "Apple-to-apple transformation" Archived 25 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Okanagan Specialty Fruits. Retrieved 3 August 2012.
- "Artic apples FAQ". Arctic Apples. 2014. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
- "FDA concludes Arctic Apples and Innate Potatoes are safe for consumption". United States Food and Drug Administration. 20 March 2015.
- Plants modified to boost photosynthesis produce greater yields, study shows
- Improving photosynthesis and crop productivity by accelerating recovery from photoprotection
- How GM crops can help us to feed a fast-growing world
- Advanced genetic tools could help boost crop yields and feed billions more people.
- ‘Supercharged’ GMO rice could increase yields 50 percent with improved photosynthesis
- Karki, S; Rizal, G; Quick, W. P (2013). "Improvement of photosynthesis in rice (Oryza sativa L.) by inserting the C4 pathway". Rice. 6 (1): 28. doi: 10.1186/1939-8433-6-28. PMC 4883725. PMID 24280149.
- Evans, J. R (2013). "Improving Photosynthesis". Plant Physiology. 162 (4): 1780–1793. doi: 10.1104/pp.113.219006. PMC 3729760. PMID 23812345.
- Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. 15 November 2013 In a Bean, a Boon to Biotech
- Crop plants – "green factories" for fish oils, Rothamsted Research 14 November 2013.
- Ruiz-Lopez, Noemi; et al. (2013). "Successful high-level accumulation of fish oil omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in a transgenic oilseed crop". The Plant Journal. 77 (2): 198–208. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12378. PMC 4253037. PMID 24308505.
- About Golden Rice Archived 2 November 2012 at the Wayback Machine International Rice Research Institute. Retrieved 20 August 2012
- Nayar, A. (2011). "Grants aim to fight malnutrition". Nature. doi: 10.1038/news.2011.233.
- Philpott, Tom (3 February 2016). "WTF Happened to Golden Rice?". Mother Jones. Retrieved 24 March 2016.
- Sayre, R.; Beeching, J. R.; Cahoon, E. B.; Egesi, C.; Fauquet, C.; Fellman, J.; Fregene, M.; Gruissem, W.; Mallowa, S.; Manary, M.; Maziya-Dixon, B.; Mbanaso, A.; Schachtman, D. P.; Siritunga, D.; Taylor, N.; Vanderschuren, H.; Zhang, P. (2011). "The BioCassava Plus Program: Biofortification of Cassava for Sub-Saharan Africa". Annual Review of Plant Biology. 62: 251–72. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103751. PMID 21526968.
- Paarlburg, Robert Drought Tolerant GMO Maize in Africa, Anticipating Regulatory Hurdles Archived 22 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine International Life Sciences Institute, January 2011. Retrieved 25 April 2011
- Australia continues to test drought-resistant GM wheat Archived 16 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine GMO Compass, 16 July 2008. Retrieved 25 April 2011
- Staff (14 May 2011) USA: USDA allows large-scale GM eucalyptus trial Archived 26 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine GMO Cmpass. Retrieved 29 September 2011
- Michael Eisenstein Plant breeding: Discovery in a dry spell Nature 501, S7–S9 (26 September 2013) Published online 25 September 2013
- Scientists aim to develop drought-resistant crops using genetic engineering
- Genetically Modified Crops with Drought Tolerance: Achievements, Challenges, and Perspectives
- Salt resistant crop plants
- Pocket K No. 31: Biotechnology with Salinity for Coping in Problem Soils
- Genetic change could make crops thrive on salty soils
- Carpenter, J.; Gianessi, L. (1999). "Herbicide tolerant soybeans: Why growers are adopting Roundup Ready varieties". AgBioForum. 2 (2): 65–72.
- G. R. Heck; et al. (1 January 2005). "Development and Characterization of a CP4 EPSPS-Based, Glyphosate-Tolerant Corn Event". Crop Sci. 45 (1): 329–39. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2005.0329. Archived from the original (Free full text) on 22 August 2009.
- T. Funke; et al. (2006). "Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops" (Free full text). PNAS. 103 (35): 13010–15. Bibcode: 2006PNAS..10313010F. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0603638103. PMC 1559744. PMID 16916934.
- L. P. Gianessi, C. S. Silvers, S. Sankula and J. E. Carpenter. Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest management in US Agriculture, An Analysis of 40 Case Studies Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, 2002), 5–6
- Kasey J. (8 September 2011) Attack of the Superweed[ permanent dead link]. Bloomberg Businessweek.
- Mark Ganchiff for Midwest Wine Press. 24 August 2013 New Herbicide Resistant Crops Being Considered By USDA
- ISAAA GM Approval Database Gene list: aad1. Page accessed 27 February 2015
- EPA Press Release. 15 October 2014 EPA Announces Final Decision to Register Enlist Duo, Herbicide Containing 2, 4-D and Glyphosate/Risk assessment ensures protection of human health, including infants, children EPA Documents: Registration of Enlist Duo
- Mark A. Peterson et al. for ISB News Report, May 2011 Utility of Aryloxyalkanoate Dioxygenase Transgenes for Development of New Herbicide Resistant Crop Technologies
- Colin Schultz for The Smithsonian.com. 25 September 2014 The USDA Approved a New GM Crop to Deal With Problems Created by the Old GM Crops
- Johnson, William G.; Hallett, Steven G.; Legleiter, Travis R.; Whitford, Fred; Weller, Stephen C.; Bordelon, Bruce P.; Lerner, B. Rosie (November 2012). "2,4-D- and Dicamba-tolerant Crops – Some Facts to Consider" (PDF). Purdue University Extension. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
- Bomgardner, Melody M. "Widespread crop damage from dicamba herbicide fuels controversy - August 21, 2017 Issue - Vol. 95 Issue 33 - Chemical & Engineering News". cen.acs.org.
- "Iowa Soybeans: Dicamba – How Many Hours Were Available to Spray in 2017?". AgFax. 19 September 2017. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
- "Pest & Crop Newsletter". extension.entm.purdue.edu. Purdue Cooperative Extension Service. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
- Vaeck, M.; Reynaerts, A.; Höfte, H.; Jansens, S.; De Beuckeleer, M.; Dean, C.; Zabeau, M.; Montagu, M. V.; Leemans, J. (1987). "Transgenic plants protected from insect attack". Nature. 328 (6125): 33–37. Bibcode: 1987Natur.328...33V. doi: 10.1038/328033a0.
- Naranjo, Steven (22 April 2008). "The Present and Future Role of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Cotton in IPM" (PDF). USDA.gov. United States department of agriculture. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
- National Academy of Sciences (2001). Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture. Washington: National Academy Press.
- Erica Kipp for the Botany Global Issues Map. February 2000. Genetically Altered Papayas Save the Harvest Archive date 13 December 2004.
- "The Rainbow Papaya Story". Hawaii Papaya Industry Association. 2006. Archived from the original on 7 January 2015. Retrieved 27 December 2014.
- Ronald, Pamela and McWilliams, James for the New York Times, 14 May 2010. Genetically Engineered Distortions
- Wenslaff, Timothy F.; Osgood, Robert V. (October 2000). "Production Of UH Sunup Transgenic Papaya Seed In Hawaii" (PDF). Hawaii Agriculture Research Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 31 March 2012.
- "Genetically Engineered Foods - Plant Virus Resistance" (PDF). Cornell Cooperative Extension. Cornell University. 2002. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
- "How Many Foods Are Genetically Engineered?". University of California. 16 February 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
- Wang, Guo-ying (2009). "Genetic Engineering for Maize Improvement in China". Electronic Journal of Biotechnology. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology. Retrieved 1 December 2015.
- Gali Weinreb and Koby Yeshayahou for Globes 2 May 2012. FDA approves Protalix Gaucher treatment Archived 29 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- Jha, Alok (14 August 2012) Julian Ma: I'm growing antibodies in tobacco plants to help prevent HIV The Guardian. Retrieved 12 March 2012
- Carrington, Damien (19 January 2012) GM microbe breakthrough paves way for large-scale seaweed farming for biofuels The Guardian. Retrieved 12 March 2012
- "Singapore Biodiesel Company Develops GM Jatropha- Crop Biotech Update". www.isaaa.org.
- Carolyn Lochhead for the San Francisco Chronicle. 30 April 2012 Genetically modified crops' results raise concern
- (2013) Wout Boerjan Lab VIB (Flemish Institute for Biotechnology) Gent, Retrieved 27 April 2013
- Suppression of CINNAMOYL-CoA REDUCTASE increases the level of monolignol ferulates incorporated into maize lignins
- Redesigned crops could produce far more fuel
- Plant genetic engineering for biofuel production: towards affordable cellulosic ethanol.
- 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. PMID 18476872.
- "The History and Future of GM Potatoes". PotatoPro Newsletter. 10 March 2010.
- Strange, Amy (20 September 2011) Scientists engineer plants to eat toxic pollution The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 September 2011
- Chard, Abigail (2011) Growing a grass that loves bombs The British Science Association. Retrieved 20 September 2011 Archived 24 July 2012 at the Wayback Machine
- Langston, Jennifer (22 November 2016). "New grasses neutralize toxic pollution from bombs, explosives, and munitions". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 30 November 2016.
- Meagher, RB (2000). "Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants". Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 3 (2): 153–62. doi: 10.1016/S1369-5266(99)00054-0. PMID 10712958.
- Martins VAP (2008). "Genomic Insights into Oil Biodegradation in Marine Systems". Microbial Biodegradation: Genomics and Molecular Biology. Caister Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-904455-17-2.[ permanent dead link]
- Daniel Charles (1 March 2003). "Corn That Clones Itself". Technology Review.
- Gene editing opens doors to seedless fruit with no need for bees
- "GM Crops List | GM Approval Database- ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 30 January 2016.
- "All the GMOs Approved In the U.S." TIME.com. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
- www.gmo-compass.org. "Lucerne - GMO Database". www.gmo-compass.org. Archived from the original on 2 July 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
- "UPDATE 3-U.S. farmers get approval to plant GMO alfalfa". Reuters. 27 January 2011. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
- "Infographics: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
- Scott Kilman. "Modified Beet Gets New Life". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 15 February 2016.
- Pollack, Andrew (27 November 2007). "Round 2 for Biotech Beets". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 15 February 2016.
- "Facts and trends - India" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
- "Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
- "Facts and trends-Mexico" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
- "Facts and trends- China" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
- "Facts and trends - Columbia" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
- Carter, Colin; Moschini, GianCarlo; Sheldon, Ian, eds. (2011). Genetically Modified Food and Global Welfare (Frontiers of Economics and Globalization). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p. 89. ISBN 978-0857247575.
- Press, Associated (3 March 2010). "GM potato to be grown in Europe". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 15 February 2016.
- Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge; Wechsler, Seth; Livingston, Mike; Mitchell, Lorraine (February 2014). "Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States (summary)" (PDF). Economic Research Service USDA. United States Department of Agriculture. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 November 2014. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
- Tabashnik; et al. (2003). "Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: Lessons from the Laboratory and Field" (PDF). J. Econ. Entomol. 96 (4): 1031–38. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-96.4.1031. PMID 14503572. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 March 2013.
- Roush RT (1997). "Bt-transgenic crops: just another pretty insecticide or a chance for a new start in the resistance management?". Pestic. Sci. 51 (3): 328–34. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9063(199711)51:3<328::AID-PS650>3.0.CO;2-B.
- Dong, H. Z.; Li, W. J. (2007). "Variability of Endotoxin Expression in Bt Transgenic Cotton". Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science. 193: 21–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2006.00240.x.
- Tabashnik BE, Carrière Y, Dennehy TJ; Carrière; Dennehy; Morin; Sisterson; Roush; Shelton; Zhao (August 2003). "Insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops: lessons from the laboratory and field". J. Econ. Entomol. 96 (4): 1031–38. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-96.4.1031. PMID 14503572.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list ( link)
- APPDMZ\ccvivr. "Monsanto - Pink Bollworm Resistance to GM Cotton in India".
- "The Real Deal: Explaining Monsanto's Refuge-in-the-Bag Concept". www.monsanto.com. Archived from the original on 10 September 2010. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
- Siegfried, B.D.; et al. (2012). "Understanding successful resistance management". GM Crops & Food. 3 (3): 184–93. doi: 10.4161/gmcr.20715.
- Devos, Y.; et al. (2013). "Resistance evolution to the first generation of genetically modified Diabrotica-active Bt-maize events by western corn rootworm: management and monitoring considerations". Transgenic Research. 22 (2): 269–99. doi: 10.1007/s11248-012-9657-4. PMID 23011587.
- 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.
- Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge; Hallahan,, Charlie; Nehring,, Richard; Wechsler, Seth; Grube, Arthur (2014). "Conservation Tillage, Herbicide Use, and Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States: The Case of Soybeans". AgBioForum. 15 (3). Retrieved 3 October 2016.
- Wesseler, J. and N. Kalaitzandonakes (2011): Present and Future EU GMO policy. In Arie Oskam, Gerrit Meesters and Huib Silvis (eds.), EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas. Second Edition, pp. 23-323 – 23-332. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers
- Beckmann, V., C. Soregaroli, J. Wesseler (2011): Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-modified (non GM) crops: Are the two main property rights regimes equivalent with respect to the coexistence value? In "Genetically modified food and global welfare" edited by Colin Carter, GianCarlo Moschini and Ian Sheldon, pp 201-224. Volume 10 in Frontiers of Economics and Globalization Series. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing
- ISAAA 2012 Annual Report Executive Summary
- Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge (1 July 2009). Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. Data Sets. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. OCLC 53942168. Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 24 September 2009.
- (14 July 2014) Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. USDA, Economic Research Service, Retrieved 6 August 2014
- James, Clive (2007). "Executive Summary". G lobal Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007. ISAAA Briefs. 37. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). ISBN 978-1-892456-42-7. OCLC 262649526. Archived from the original on 6 June 2008. Retrieved 24 September 2009.
- 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 2 June 2012.
- "Roundup Ready soybean trait patent nears expiration in 2014". Hpj.com. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
- Acreage NASS National Agricultural Statistics Board annual report, 30 June 2010. Retrieved 23 July 2010.
- USA :Cultivation of GM Plants in 2009, Maize, soybean, cotton: 88 percent genetically modified Archived 19 July 2012 at the Wayback Machine GMO Compass. Retrieved 25 July 2010.
- Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge (5 July 2012) Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. – Recent Trends USDA Economic Research Service. Retrieved 29 September 2012
- Linda Bren (November–December 2003). "Genetic Engineering: The Future of Foods?". U.S. Food and Drug Administration.CS1 maint: Date format ( link)
- Lemaux, Peggy (19 February 2008). "Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part I)". Annual Review of Plant Biology. 59: 771–812. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840. PMID 18284373. Retrieved 9 May 2009.
- Spain, Bt maize prevails Archived 25 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine GMO Compass, 31 March 2010. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
- GM plants in the EU in 2009 Field area for Bt maize decreases Archived 13 July 2012 at the Wayback Machine GMO Compass, 29 March 2010. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
- "EU GMO ban was illegal, WTO rules". Euractiv.com. 12 May 2006. Retrieved 5 January 2010.
- "GMO Update: US-EU Biotech Dispute; EU Regulations; Thailand". International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. Retrieved 5 January 2010.
- "Genetically Modified Organisms". Food Safety. European Commission.
- "GM Crops Now Banned in 38 Countries Worldwide - Sustainable Pulse Research - Sustainable Pulse". 22 October 2015.
- "GM Crop Bans Confirmed in 19 EU Countries - Sustainable Pulse". 4 October 2015.
- Paull, John (2015) The threat of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to organic agriculture: A case study update, Agriculture & Food, 3: 56-63.
- Qiu, Jane (2013-08-16). "Genetically modified crops pass benefits to weeds". Nature. doi: 10.1038/nature.2013.13517. ISSN 1476-4687.
- American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods
- United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text. National Academies Press. See pp11ff on need for better standards and tools to evaluate GM food.
- Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM; Ma; Drake (June 2008). "Genetically modified plants and human health". J R Soc Med. 101 (6): 290–98. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. PMC 2408621. PMID 18515776.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list ( link)
- Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. "An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon" Published: 21 May 2012. Accessed 3 September 2012
- National bioengineered food disclosure standard - full text
- 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.
- Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 1–32. doi: 10.1177/0162243915598381. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 February 2016. Retrieved 9 February 2016.
- Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (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. PMID 26767435.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Genetically modified plants.|
- EU Register of authorised GM crops
- Biotechnology Consultations on Food from GE Plant Varieties
- Current & Previously Registered Section 3 PIP Registrations
Library resources about |