Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

Living Edition
| Editors: David M. Kaplan

Transgenic Crops

  • Dustin Mulvaney
Living reference work entry

Later version available View entry history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_100-2

Synonyms

Introduction

Since transgenic crops first took root, they have been embroiled in numerous controversies from questions about their safety to the future of the food system. Today, transgenic crops make up a considerable portion of the planted areas of crops such as soy, corn, cotton, and canola, but find very little adoption in other sectors. Farmer adoption of transgenic soy happened so quickly that by some measures it is often described as the most rapidly adopted agricultural technology in human history. While some agricultural sectors have benefited from transgenic crop adoption, they remain much maligned in wider discussions about agricultural sustainability. Before describing these apprehensions toward transgenic crops, this section describes what transgenic crops are and how they are made.

The term transgenic is used as an adjective to describe an organism where genes have been moved from one...

Keywords

Genetically Modify Ecological Risk Assessment Transgenic Crop Transgenic Seed Genetically Modify Food 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alstad, D., & Andow, D. (1995). Managing the evolution of insect resistance to transgenic plants. Science, 268, 1894–1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altieri, M. (2000). The ecological impacts of transgenic crops on agroecosystem health. Ecosystem Health, 6, 13–23.Google Scholar
  3. Andow, D. (2003). UK farm-scale evaluations of transgenic herbicide-tolerant crops. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 1453–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busch, L., Lacy, W., Burkhart, J., & Lacy, L. (1991). Plants, power, and profit: Social, economic, and ethical consequences of the new biotechnologies. Chicago: Blackwells.Google Scholar
  5. Fowler, C., & Mooney, P. (1990). Shattering: Food, politics, and the loss of genetic diversity. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kloppenburg, J. (2004). First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  7. Krimsky, S., & Plough, A. (1988). Environmental hazards: Communicating risks as a social process. Dover: Auburn House Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Lacy, W. (2000). Commercialization of university research brings benefits, raises issues and concerns. California Agriculture, 54, 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Letourneau, D., & Burrows, B. (Eds.). (2002). Genetically engineered organisms: Assessing the environmental and human health effects. New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mulvaney, D., Krupnik, T., & Koffler, K. (2011). Transgenic rice evaluated for risks to marketability. California Agriculture, 65, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. National Research Council. (2002). Environmental effects of transgenic plants: The scope and adequacy of regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  12. Quist, D., & Chapela, I. (2001). Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature, 414, 541–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Snow, A., et al. (2004). Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: Current status and recommendations. Ecological Applications, 13, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental StudiesSan José State UniversitySan JoseUSA