Poison or Progress? GM Crops and the Science Behind Them

How does the scientific body of research on genetically engineered crops compare to the views that are offered in the media and presented to the public by special interest groups, news outlets and private organizations?

This Article argues that the public does not have a clear understanding of the research on GM crops, and that most public opinion relating to this matter is sourced through political agendas, fear and rumor more than from scientific data. Currently, the scientific consensus is that GM crops do not have adverse health effects and have a mostly positive influence on the environment. However, this does not dismiss the public's general suspicion of GM crops as completely ignorant because the scientific body is incomplete, cannot predict long term effects and is also shrouded in many layers of political agenda and large amounts of money. It is irrelevant to distill the issue down to pure science, because corporate interest and political motivations are at its core. This is an issue of scientific literacy, and of how science is inevitably affected by financial and political influences.

The ultimate conclusion is that, while the current scientific consensus is a positive one, there is no black and white answer to the question as to whether or not GM crops are good for our society and environment, and that better education is necessary in order to enlighten the public on the many nuances that are involved in understanding this very complex issue.

There is a general public conception, and also portrayed in many media outlets, that genetic engineering of crops is a dangerous, unpredictable “unnatural” sort of science. It is believed that GM crops can cause a host of health problems, ranging from cancer to autism, and that they also pose risk to the environment. One of the greatest fears is also based on the fact that we are unsure of what long term consequences might be. Scientifically speaking, there is broad scientific consensus that food from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, and that GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits (James, 2013). However, many organizations, such as Greenpeace and other environmental organizations, are adamantly against genetic engineering.

Here are a few quotes which sum up the two sides of the debate:

The scientific view:

“The available scientific evidence indicates that the potential adverse health effects arising from biotechnology-derived foods are not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal, or microbial enhancement, and are already familiar to toxicologists. It is therefore important to recognize that the food product itself, rather than the process through which it is made, should be the focus of attention in assessing safety.”

-An excerpt from the Oxford journal of toxicological sciences

"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.

-American association for the advancement of science

The public's view:

“Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby contaminating non-"GE" environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way.”

-Greenpeace website

This article focuses only on the genetic modification of crops for human and animal consumption. When it refers to 'genetic engineering', or 'GM crops' from this point on, it is referring to this kind. There are many forms of genetic engineering, including the genetic engineering of animals, which has further ethical and scientific implications. The types of modifications that are made include, but are not exclusive to, engineering for insect or disease resistance, drought resistance, larger yields, improved nutrition etc. These improvements are done with the idea of producing large amounts of crops to support a population of over 7 billion people on Earth. While organic farming is a romantic notion, it is not practical to support the current population solely on such means. Organic farming can be a good thing, and the purpose of this article is not to argue against it. However, it is also expensive, has lower yields and is obviously susceptible to naturally occurring forces ranging from bad weather to bugs. Traditional non-organic farming requires a large pesticide load and also has a heavy effect on the environment. The idea is that genetic engineering should require less use of pesticides, has heightened yields and is less detrimental to the environment. (USDA website) How does it work?

Genetically altering plant material is done with a particle gun that forces certain genomes into the DNA of plants. Plant scientists say that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than crops which are bred through conventional methods, or even in the wild. Most GM crops are large staple crops such as corn, soy beans and rapps. This short list is due to the fact that genetic engineering is very expensive, thus only used for widely used crops with large profit margins.

Gene flow is a naturally occurring event, and farmers have been artificially manipulating genes for a very long time. The first genetically modified crop (as we understand the definition today) was tobacco in 1982. By the 90s, genetic engineering began to spread around the globe and into larger agricultural processes. The global market for these crops is huge and has steadily increased for the last 18 years.

“In 2013, the global market value of biotech crops was US$15.6 billion representing 22.1% of the US$1.5 billion global crop protection market in 2013, and 35% of the ~US$45 billion global commercial seed market. Of the US$15.6 billion biotech crop market, US$11.4 billion (72%) was in the industrial countries and US$4.2 billion (28%) was in the developing countries. The market value of the global biotech crop market is based on the sale price of biotech seeds plus any technology fees that apply. The accumulated global value of biotech crops since 1996 is estimated at US$117,851 billion. (James, C. 2013)”

It is important to discuss the political agendas of the agencies which are both pro and anti GM. In this section the agendas of anti-GM organizations will be discussed. Most of these organizations are environmental in nature. Main proponents include Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists and others. Understanding that these organizations also have political motivations, namely to garner more support financially and in membership numbers, is crucial because it sheds light on their motivations. It is easy to believe that an environmental organization always has the best interest of consumers and the environment in mind. However, these institutions also need all of the support that they can get. They do not always use science to gain that support (Randerson, 2009).

Are organizations such as Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists really for the good of the environment, or are they also led by political agendas? More importantly, are their “scientific” stances actually based on science? It is important to ask this question, because these organizations are extremely effective at campaigning and have a large impact on public opinion. A study by the European commission, based on 27,000 subjects, stated that 74% of people trust environmental organizations as a source of reliable scientific information (European food and safety authority, 2010). This article argues that these environmental organizations are politically motivated, and that they largely disregard science in exchange for peddling fear, which is a highly effective way to motivate and win the public over.

On one hand, this does not discredit all of the progress that such environmental organizations have been responsible for. These institutions are not inherently wrong or bad. However, it is important to understand their political motivations and, when they make a claim, to actually look into the science behind that claim instead of assuming that they rely on solid scientific research when they take a position.

Environmental organizations sometimes take a stance against anything that sounds 'unnatural' or involves chemicals or science which 'seems dangerous', as opposed to investigating the science behind the issues that they fight for in order to determine which ones are actually worth fighting for. To put this concept into perspective, a good example is the stance on adding chlorine to water. Environmental agencies have worked for years to go so far as banning chlorination in water all together. However, adding chlorination to water systems is an important cornerstone in modern civilization, and all scientific data points to the fact that it avoids a host of serious health problems (Moore, 2010). Without chlorinating water supplies, it would be impossible to run healthy cities or to support the infrastructures that we have in place today with out serious health risks. The movement to remove chlorine from water systems is ridiculous and extremely dangerous; not in the interest of public health or the environment. This stance represents the way in which such powerful lobbying organizations have a way of turning the cheek to science, when using fear to gain public support is more effective. Patrik Moore is a well known founding member of Greenpeace. He left the agency in 1986 due to its consistent non-scientific stance.

“At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.”

-Patrik Moore, 2010

Of course, Greenpeace claims that Moore is a cooperate fraud who is working for big money clients. However, quotes like the one above simply illustrate a trend that such organizations have taken. When we read their stance on issues like chlorine or genetic engineering, and then we look at the available scientific data, there is no denying the fact that these organizations base their stances on lacking scientific evidence.

“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. “

-The WHO

The broad scientific consensus that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food has not eliminated public concerns about such risks. Despite all of the fear and rumors, NO reports of ill effects from currently marketed GM food have EVER been documented in the human population.

However, does this mean that science can conclude that these foods are undoubtedly safe? On every side of the matter, politics cloud the issue. Interestingly, before 2010 scientists were not allowed to research the effects of GM seeds or plants, because of restrictive end user agreements. The existence of such a ban is both anti-science and anti-progress. How is it possible to ban independent research in a field that is so directly connected to public health and well being? Scientists petitioned to the EPA trying to get this ban lifted, and were eventually successful.

What kinds of actual benefits arise from GM crops? In many instances, GM crops have increased production while saving money. According to the USDA, farmers often see higher yields and there is considerably less usage of pesticides. In Developing countries, GM crops can provide nutrition that would otherwise be hard to come by. A notable draw back is that the kind of resistance that genetic engineering imparts to food crops can also spread into wild plant populations. Overall, resistant crops have aided in a lower usage of pesticides, however, resistant weeds are a reality (Wechsler, 2012).

“Insecticide use has decreased with the adoption of insect-resistant crops, and herbicide-tolerant crops have enabled the substitution of glyphosate for more toxic and persistent herbicides. However, overreliance on glyphosate and a reduction in the diversity of weed management practices have contributed to the evolution of glyphosate resistance in some weed species.” ( Fernandez-Cornejo 2014)

Some farmers have began to switch away from GM crops because of glyphosate resistance. They also claim that over the course of 5-6 years, the resistance that the plants have reduces, and they end up spending more money on pesticides and having lower profit margins. (Royte, 2013)

One thing to keep in mind is that plants exchange genes in nature, and there is constant change and evolution in this respect. Do GM plants pose a greater risk to the environment in this capacity than naturally occurring plants would? Scientists are skeptical that there is actually much difference. From their perspective, genetic engineering allows very specific gene transfer, and this is actually more predictable than it would be in traditional breeding techniques. The flow of genes between crops and natural eco systems is a problem, but it is not specifically linked to genetically engineered crops. Scientifically speaking, genetic engineering of crops has a more stable and guaranteed outcome than traditional breeding does. The quote below is from an article entitled, “Dealing With Transgene Flow of Crop Protection Traits From Crops to Their Relatives”, which was published in the Journal of Pest management science in 2014.

“Genes regularly move within species, to/from crops, as well as to their con- specific progenitors, feral and weedy forms (‘vertical’ gene flow). Genes occasionally move to/from crops and their distantly related, hardly sexually interbreeding relatives, within a genus or among closely related genera (diagonal gene flow). Regulators have singled out transgene flow as an issue, yet non-transgenic herbicide resistance traits pose equal problems, which cannot be mitigated. The risks are quite different from genes flowing to natural (wild) ecosystems versus ruderal and agroecosystems. “ (Gressel, 2014)

While there is no conclusive evidence about the ill health effects of GM crops, the European commission of food and safety has released that 'novel hazards' may be associated with GM crops. What could this mean? Some common concerns include the fear that allergenic genes could somehow manifest in foods where they 'don't belong'. Imagine a wheat strain with an inserted almond gene that prohibits insect infestation. That could be dangerous for people allergic to almonds, but the truth is that known allergens are not used in genetic engineering. Despite the fact that (according to the WHO) this is one of the public's main concerns, this is a non-issue in reality. Also, since viruses and bacteria genes are often used in genetic engineering, there is some fear that these genes could DNA transfer within the human body upon consumption. This is specifically relevant for resistant bacteria and virus strains. However, there is a concerted effort to not use these types of resistant strains that could be detrimental to human health. There is no a law against it, so more regulation on this matter could take place in the future. However, at this point in time it is a fear that has not manifested.

Some studies have shown adverse health effects of GM crops, but they are not accepted by the wider scientific community and have consistently been found to be unsound. For example, earlier this year a French study found an increased rate of cancer in rats that were fed GM corn. However, the study used a strain of rats that was prone to cancer, and also used faulty statistics (for example, did not run a standard deviation to show significance between the control and test group). Ultimately, the results were not consistent or practically significant, and the study was retracted (Oransky, 2014). There has been no reliable, peer reviewed study or scientific consensus to date that has found any ill effects of GM foods. This does not mean that every GM food is automatically safe. GM foods are subject to rigorous testing far beyond that of any conventional food. According to the WHO, these foods are tested as follows,

“The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion...Similar evaluations are generally not performed for conventional foods. Hence there currently exists a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.”

Research has found that GM foods are safe. But Where do the contradictions lie and what is the criticism of this scientific consensus? Considering that independent testing has only been permitted since 2010, we can only wonder how much there is that we simply do not know. There is also a possibility of novel threats and unexpected outcomes which we cannot predict at this point, because we have only been living in the 'age of genetically modified food' for the last 20 years or so. Also, many studies on the effects of such foods are conducted for a period of less than three months, although there is the possibility to perform long term studies (Ensser). On one hand, no ill effects of GM foods have been found in the human population. However, there has never been an epidemiological study to actually trace this. (Ensser) There is a possibility that certain food allergies, cancers or other health problems actually are linked to GM foods, but there is currently no direct way to trace or detect this.

Science is a body of information that is always growing and changing. There is a current understanding that GM foods are not dangerous, but the story is certainly not complete. We can respect the science that currently exists, while still keeping a critical eye and asking the questions that have not been thoroughly answered at this point. This isn't the same thing as assuming that there is some sort of conspiracy against us and that GM crops are inherently bad. It just means that there is no black and white answer and that the body of evidence is incomplete. The reality of the situation is that these foods need to be assessed on an individual basis, and they need to be subjected to continuous and rigorous testing. There is no blanket statement that all of these foods are safe, or that all of these foods are dangerous, and to make one would be nothing short of ignorance. Ultimately, assessing the safety of these foods needs to focus on thoroughly assessing the individual products, as opposed to assessing the method of genetic engineering at large.

Even if most genetically modified crops are determined to be safe at this point in time, there is no denying the massive profits involved and the intellectual property issues that come with it. How do genetically engineered crops change the economic landscape, and how does this relate to public opinion? The truth is that over the last 25 years, we have seen a drastic decrease in the number of seed suppliers. Currently, the agricultural business is predominantly owned by a small number of very powerful corporations. Below is a quote from a study entitled, 'Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996–2008', which explored the way in which the seed provider landscape has changed.

“The commercial seed industry has undergone tremendous consolidation in the last 40 years as transnational corporations entered this agricultural sector, and acquired or merged with competing firms. This trend is associated with impacts that constrain the opportunities for renewable agriculture, such as reductions in seed lines and a declining prevalence of seed saving. To better characterize the current structure of the industry, ownership changes from 1996 to 2008 are represented visually with information graphics. Since the commercialization of transgenic crops in the mid-1990s, the sale of seeds has become dominated globally by Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta. In addition, the largest firms are increasingly networked through agreements to cross-license transgenic seed traits.” (Howard, 2009)

Also, there is an issue of intellectual property rights. One story which made headlines in 2007 was about a 75 year old farmer named Vernon Bowman, who was sued by Monsanto for violating patent. Mr. Bowman had, according to his agreement with Monsanto, illegally pirated his round up ready soybean crop by buying it one year, saving the seeds and replanting those seeds the next year (Wells, 2013). Monsanto won the case for good in 2013.

What are the grounds for such intellectual property laws to exist in the first place? Proponents of the seed company would say that if the company is unable to hold patents and reap long term benefits of the work that they put into making such GM developments, then the company does not have the incentive to continue improving the GM landscape in the future. This brings up an interesting question. How will seed companies flourish considering that their product is very easy to copy, yet very time consuming and expensive to make?

Possibly more alarming is the fact that in 2013 the US house of representatives quietly passed the Farmer Assurance Provision as a last-minute addition to the 2013 Agricultural Appropriations Bill. This provision states that no matter what concern for public health arises in relation to GM crops, that the federal court is no longer allowed to immediately halt the planting and sale of and any GM seed crop. When something like this happens, we can see how deeply politics are ingrained into this issue. The bill means that no matter what science turns up, there is no quick way to take a GM product out of production. There is considerable financial incentive involved.

“The provision’s success is viewed by many as a victory by companies like Syngenta Corp, Cargill, Monsanto and affiliated PACs that have donated $7.5 million to members of Congress since 2009, and $372,000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. (Monsanto protection act, 2013)”

According to a report from the European commission entitled “International Workshop on Socio Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops,

“Countries in the developing world now represent almost half of the global GM area, notably Brazil (17%), Argentina (16%), India (6%) and China (2.5%).”

Considering the costs involved in engineering these crops, it is natural that corporations want to make profit off of them. But how does this effect developing nations? On one hand, GM crops are designed with the rational that they can alleviate hunger and malnutrition in poor nations. However, considering the patent issues that were mentioned earlier, does this put farmers in third world nations at a disadvantage? In order to protect patents, many GM crops are designed with a suicide gene so that they only grow one season. This means that farmers have to invest season after season in seeds and are unable to naturally propagate their crops, which is what most farmers do. Critics wonder if this spells economic disaster and disadvantage for these nations.

It becomes increasingly clear that science, safety and economic health are not the major players in this debate. Politics and money are deeply embedded in an industry that is now run by a handful of corporations. These corporations fund politicians and inevitable results of favoritism follow. GM crops are designed to help the 'world food crisis', but patent laws make it difficult for poor farmers to truly get ahead in a system that produces suicide seeds and discourages the natural harvesting and propagation of existing crops. This all shifts the debate away from science and makes a more complex landscape.

Is the public correct in being wary of GM crops? On one hand, there is a great misunderstanding of the health and environmental research on the subject. Most scientific studies are written by scientists for scientists while most media is written by journalists for public consumption. People get their information from the news and media outlets that they are familiar with, and most people are not scientifically literate to the point that they will actively pursue scientific literature, or have the ability to understand the limitations and advantages of a properly peer reviewed study. Studies performed by the University of Maine and the EU research project on consumer choice both pointed to the fact that most public suspicion of GM crops is actually due to a lack of accessible knowledge. Many people are weary, but struggle to form a clear opinion on the issue, because they are uninformed.

An ABC news study that was conducted by telephone with 1,024 adults found that 52% of people thought the foods were unsafe to eat, while an additional 13% was unsure. 65% of women and 49% of men said that they would avoid buying foods that were labled as GMO, and 92% believed that such foods should be labeled (Langer, 2014). A Huffington post survey of 1,000 adults found that 73% of respondents had only heard 'nothing at all or only a little' about GM crops. Only 21% of respondents thought that the foods were safe to eat, most of whom were at least college educated. 82% of respondents agree that the foods should be labeled (Omnibuspoll, 2013).

These studies exemplify that, while many members of the public are wary about the safety and environmental hazards of GM crops, they are also largely uneducated. Most people polled admit that they have not had access to very much information, and this is confirmed by the fact that most people polled have opinions about the scientific safety of these foods which are contrary to the scientific consensus.

Ultimately, this is a very complex debate, and it is understandable that the public is largely confused about what to think. There are a lot of politics involved in the matter and it is difficult to find balanced information. Environmental organizations are adamantly against GM crops, stating that they are unsafe for humans and the environment. However, there is lacking data to back these statements up, and these organizations use fear tactics to gain members, as opposed to unbiased scientific evidence. They have great PR while the average sound peer reviewed study has nothing of the sort. On the other side of the coin, the seed industry is dominated by a small handful of extremely powerful corporations that line the pockets of policy makers and politicians. Patents are not in the best interest of farmers, and suicide seeds are contrary to allowing developing nations to have a successful agricultural industry.

While the scientific consensus is that GM crops are not hazardous to human health, it must be acknowledged that independent study has only been permitted for the last five years. We cannot generalize all of these crops into one category, and need to treat each crop as an individual product which should be submitted to rigorous testing. Keep in mind that GM crops are submitted to far more stringent testing than traditional crops, which could actually have a more unpredictable gene flow make up.

The ultimate conclusion is that it would be ignorant to take either a completely pro or anti-GM stance. There are many benefits and there are also many draw backs and places where our skepticism is healthy and necessary. The implications go far beyond basic science, and it is not possible to understand the debate without considering intellectual property laws, economic, social and political impact.

By and large, the public is not educated about many nuances of this debate and the only possibility for greater understanding is to increase the public's scientific literacy on the matter while acknowledging its complexity. This boils down to education. It is unfortunate that it is very difficult to research this topic without being faced with extreme opinions that cloud the facts. Most agencies, whether they are private or governmental, are blatantly pro or anti GM crops. What the public needs at this point is real education and access to information, as opposed to having political and economic greed as the fuel for their main sources of information.

Sources

James, C. 2013. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013. ISAAA Brief No. 46. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

Swanson, E. (2013, March 4). GMO Poll Finds Huge Majority Say Foods Should Be Labeled. Retrieved December 7, 2014, from HYPERLINK "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/gmo-poll_n_2807595.html"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/gmo-poll_n_2807595.html

WHO. Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

Randerson, J. (2009, May 13). Green Movement Hijacked by Politics. Retrieved November 17, 2014, from HYPERLINK "http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/13/green-movement-hijacked-politics"http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/13/green-movement-hijacked-politics

Oransky, I. (2014, June 24). Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished - Retraction Watch. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/

Moore, P. (2008, April 22). Why I left Greenpeace. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB120882720657033391

Wagoner, R. (2014, October 28). Not all science created equal: The genetically engineered crops story. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/28/not-all-science-is-created-equal-the-genetically-engineered-crops-story/

Coghlan, A. (2014, June 24). Study attacking genetically modified food republished. Retrieved November 17, 2014, from HYPERLINK "http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25777-study-attacking-genetically-modified-food-republished.html?page=2" \l ".VILCTvTF8Q4"http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25777-study-attacking-genetically-modified-food-republished.html?page=2#.VILCTvTF8Q4

Watts, S. (2014, July 28). Genetic moderation is needed to debate our food future. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329794.400-genetic-moderation-is-needed-to-debate-our-food-future.html#.VILEFvTF8Q4

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

Fernandez-, J. (2014, February 1). Retrieved December 7, 2014, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1282246/err162.pdf

Wechsler, S. (2012, December 1). Bt Corn Adoption by U.S. Farmers Increases Yields and Profits. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from HYPERLINK "http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013-february/bt-corn-adoption-by-us-farmers-increases-yields-and-profits.aspx" \l ".VILUHfTF8Q4"http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013-february/bt-corn-adoption-by-us-farmers-increases-yields-and-profits.aspx#.VILUHfTF8Q4

Balen, F. (2013, January 1). A Synopsis of US Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified (Biotech) Crops1. Retrieved November 13, 2014, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe934

Dealing with transgene flow of crop protection traits from crops to their relatives. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 2014, from HYPERLINK "http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.3850/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.3850/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

WHO. Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

European network of scientists. (n.d.). No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

Royte, E. (2013, December 6). The Post-GMO Economy - Modern Farmer. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/post-gmo-economy/

HYPERLINK "http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/707/01/etc_won_report_final_color.pdf"http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/707/01/etc_won_report_final_color.pdf

Howard, P. (2009, October 28). Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996–2008. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from HYPERLINK "http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/1/4/1266"http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/1/4/1266

Wells, J. (2013, February 15). Who Owns Seeds? Monsanto Says Not You. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from http://www.cnbc.com/id/100464458#.

Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress. (2013, March 26). Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-congress-silently-slips-830/

Alvarez, A. (2001, April 15). Genetically modified crops: Hope for developing countries? Retrieved December 7, 2014, from HYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083872/"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083872/

HYPERLINK "http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567"Murnaghan, I. (2014, December 5). Economic Impact of GM Foods. Retrieved December 7, 2014, from http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/economic-impact-gm-foods.html

HYPERLINK "http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567"http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567

European food and safety authority. (2010, June 1). Food and safety risks. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/factsheet/docs/sreporten.pdf

Haro von Mogel, K. (2013, October 25). Making sense of lists of studies. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/making-sense-of-lists-of-studies/