Archived from the original on 27 May Technology Review. Retrieved 27 April Archived from the original on 27 November Chemical and Engineering News.
Retrieved 23 January Campbell Biology Ninth Edition. San Francisco: Pearson Benjamin Cummings. Agricultural Research magazine. Retrieved 23 November Nutrition Reviews. Plant Tissue Culture and Biotechnology. GMO Compass. Archived from the original on 3 June Annals of Applied Biology. Sustaining Life.
Oxford University Press, Inc.
Retrieved 21 April A review" PDF. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. US Food and Drug Administration. The case of the wild rabbit". Molecular Ecology. Conservation Biology. National Geographic News. Org website. Trends in Biotechnology. Plant Biotechnology Journal. Office of Science and Technology Policy June Federal Register.
Archived from the original PDF on 16 May Library of Congress. Retrieved 24 February American Bar Association. Council on Foreign Relations. Plant Science. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 4 October What are GMOs? Pandora's Picnic Basket. Archived from the original PDF on 28 September Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.
Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods
Retrieved 25 March Official Journal of the European Union. Archived from the original PDF on 20 January The labeling should include objective information to the effect that a food or feed consists of, contains or is produced from GMOs. Clear labeling, irrespective of the detectability of DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification in the final product, meets the demands expressed in numerous surveys by a large majority of consumers, facilitates informed choice and precludes potential misleading of consumers as regards methods of manufacture or production.
Official Journal L Traceability should also facilitate the implementation of risk management measures in accordance with the precautionary principle. American Medical Association. Archived from the original PDF on 7 September Burlington Free Press.
Retrieved 28 May European Review of Agricultural Economics. Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge". Systems and Synthetic Biology. Retrieved 5 May Huffington Post. Los Angeles Times. Science, Risk, and Policy. The Journal of Agricultural Science. Retrieved 7 May Bibcode : PLoSO.. Nature News. Accumulating Glitches Learn Science at Scitable". World Health Organization. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 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.
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. 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 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 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. 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 Both the U.
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 ; European Commission Joint Research Centre 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 Environment International.
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.
Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods by Jane K. Setlow - dersoudero.tk
Krimsky S 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. 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 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. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 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, Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.
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 G 25 October Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food.
Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods; Volume 25
European Commission, European Union. January Retrieved 19 March 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.
These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. Archived from the original on 7 September Public and Scholarly Opinion". 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. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Retrieved 19 May 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.
Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways.
Related Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved