Advertisement

The Science of GMOs

Keywords

Genetically Modify Genetically Modify Crop European Corn Borer Genetically Modify Plant Genetically Modify Maize 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Information Sources

  1. Brooke G (2003) Roundup Ready soybeans in Romania, farm level impact. http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/FarmlevelimpactRRsoybeansRomaniafinalreport.pdfGoogle Scholar
  2. Commission of the European Communities (2002) Economic impacts of genetically modified crops on the agri-food sector, working document rev2. Directorate-General for Agriculture, Jambes, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  3. Devine M, Duke SO, Fedtke C (1993) Physiology of herbicide action. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 251–294Google Scholar
  4. James C (2002) Global review of commercialised transgenic crops: 2002. ISAAA Briefs 27Google Scholar
  5. OECD (1999) Series on harmonization of regulatory oversight in biotechnology, no 10. Consensus document on general information concerning the genes and their enzymes that confer tolerance to glyphosate herbicide. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Orson J (2002) Gene stacking in herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape: lessons. English Nature. http://www.checkbiotech.org/pdf/englishnaturegenestacking.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. Wahlberg S (2000) Transgenic herbicide tolerance and male sterility in plant breeding. http://www.agsci.kvl.dk/breed/SBA/NordicBaltic/abstract3.htmGoogle Scholar
  8. AGCare fact sheet. Bt and the Monarch butterfly. http://www.agcare.org/monarchl.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. Bt Corn is not a threat to Monarch. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/feb02/corn0202.htmGoogle Scholar
  10. European Plant Protection Organisation. The site contains retrievable information about plant viruses. http://www.eppo.orgGoogle Scholar
  11. ICTVDB: The Universal Virus Database contains an overview of currently known viruses. http://www.ictvdb.bio2.eduGoogle Scholar
  12. Matthews REF (1993) Plant virology. Academic, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. OECD consensus documents provides information on biosafety issues, including a series of document related GM plants. http://www.oecd.orgGoogle Scholar
  14. Bakan B, Melcion D, Richard-Molard D, Cahagnier B (2002) Fungal growth and fusarium myco-toxin content in isogenic traditional maize and genetically modified maize grown in France and Spain. J Agric Food Chem 50:728–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Benbrook C (2001) Troubled times amid commercial success for Roundup Ready Soybeans. AgBioTech InfoNet Technical paper no 4Google Scholar
  16. Benbrook C (2001a) Do GM crops mean less pesticide use? Pesticide Outlook, pp 204–207Google Scholar
  17. Bock AK, Lheureux K, Libeau-Dulos M, Nilsagard H, Rodriguez-Cerezo E (2002) Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European agriculture. IPTS Technical Reports Series EUR 20394 ENGoogle Scholar
  18. Brookes G (2002) The farm level impact of using Bt maize in Spain. Brookes West, Canterbury, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Carpenter JE (2001) Comparing Roundup Ready and conventional soybean yields 1999. National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Carpenter J, Gianessi L (2001) Agricultural biotechnology: updated benefits estimates. National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Carpenter J, Felsot A, Goode T, Hammig M, Onstad D, Sankula S (2002) Comparative environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soybean, corn and cotton crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Carriere Y, Eller-Kirk C, Sisterson M, Antilla L, Whitlow M, Dennehy T, Tabashnik B (2003) Long-term regional suppression of pink bollworm by Bacillus thuringiensis cotton. PNAS 100:1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ENDS Environment Daily (19 Feb 2003) More EU countries notify GM products. Issue 1388: www.environmentdaily.comGoogle Scholar
  24. European Council and Parliament (2001) Directive 2001/18 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Off J Europ Commun 106:1Google Scholar
  25. Fawcett R, Towery D (2002) Conservation and plant biotechnology. Conservation Technology Information Centre CTIC, W Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  26. Fernandez-Cornejo J, McBride W (2002) Adoption of bioengineered crops. USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. 810Google Scholar
  27. Fulponi L (2000) Modern biotechnology and agricultural markets: a discussion of selected issues. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. Gianessi LP, Sankula S, Reigner N (2003) Plant biotechnology: potential impact for improving pest management in european agriculture: www.ncfap.orgGoogle Scholar
  29. Gianessi LP, Silvers CS, Sankula S, Carpenter JE (2002) Plant biotechnology: current and potential impact for improving pest management in US agriculture: an analysis of 40 case studies. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Heselmans M (2001) Jury out on environmental impact of GM soy. Nature Biotechnol 19:700 International Council for Science (ICSU) (2003) New genetics, food and agriculture: Scientific discoveries — societal dilemmas. ICSU, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James C (2002) Preview global status of commercialised transgenic crops: 2002. ISAAA Briefs 27Google Scholar
  32. James C (2002a) Global review of commercialised transgenic crops: 2001. ISAAA Briefs 26Google Scholar
  33. Lheureux K, Libeau-Dulos M, Nilsgard H, Rodriguez-Cerezo E, Menrad K, Menrad M, Vorgrimler D (2003) Review of GMOs under research and development and in the pipeline in Europe. IPTS Technical Reports Series EUR 20680 ENGoogle Scholar
  34. Marra MC, Pardey PG, Alston JM (2002) The payoffs to agricultural biotechnology: An assessment of the evidence. International Food Policy Research Institute, EPTD Discussion paper no 87Google Scholar
  35. May MJ (2003) Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide-tolerant sugar beet. Ann Appl Biol 142:41–48Google Scholar
  36. Phipps RH, Parks JR (2002) Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops; global and european perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. J Animal Feed Sci 11:1–18Google Scholar
  37. US Department of Agriculture (2002) Economic Research Service http://www. ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/data/Forecast/cop_forecast.xlsGoogle Scholar
  38. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Biosafety Clearing House provides information that is relevant to the operations of the Biosafety protocol. www.biodiv.org/biosafetyGoogle Scholar
  39. Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European agriculture (2002). European Commission Report EUR 20394Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Personalised recommendations