GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS AND CHALLENGES
Bishnu Karki
ABSTRACT
Genetically modified organisms have been developed by application of advanced techniques of
genetic engineering. GM crops offer distinctive advantages like insects, weed, disease and
drought resistance, better nutritional value and higher yield. However in a considerable part of the
world, non governmental organizations and/or the general public are hesitating or opposing the
cultivation and application of GM crops. There are several environmental and public issues
concerning the GMO’s.Overall, genetic engineering of the organisms, plants and animals is
accepted conditionally; the gene inserted and its products should be carefully assessed both for
human and environmental safety before release into the nature and to the public market.
In many countries in the world, especially, those is the European Union, GM food is still
considered as undesirable. Mandatory labeling is required when more than 1% of any ingredient
of food which originates from the GMO. Thus, there are several research are on progress for
development of the valid GMO detection method.
KEY WORDS
Genetically modified organism, Environmental risks assessment, herbicide resistance, Biosafety
Regulations.
INTRODUCTION
The rapid development in biotechnology has enabled the modifications of the agricultural
materials in a precise way, thereby improving the productivity, yield and specific desirable
characteristics. Specifically the field of recombinant DNA technology has resulted in the
production of so called Genetically Modified Organism’s (GMO’s) into the food market. GMO’s are
the organisms (Plants, animals, microorganisms etc ) in which genetic material (DNA) has been
changed in way that does not occur by mating or by natural process.
Genes changes continuously by natural mutation and recombination enabling man to select and
breed crops having most desirable traits such as yield or flavor. Genetic modification (GM) is a
recent development which allows the specific genes to be identified, isolated, copied and inserted
into other plants with a high level of specificity (Shirai, 1998).
Cross–breeding of plant takes a several years to acquire a desired traits but the recombinant
DNA (rDNA) technique is expected to bring about great progress in the improvement of the
breeding technology and the development of new plant varieties showing high quality and high
yield, such as those with excellent pest and disease resistance, those with environment stress
tolerance and so forth. ( Hoban, 1999).
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
The concept of a GMO generally refers to an organism whether a plant, an animal or a microorganisms (bacterium, fungus, yeast etc.) that has been produced using the modern
biotechnology, including recombinant technology. An organism produced from genetic
engineering techniques allow the transfer of functional genes to its progeny. Living modified
organisms (LMOs) and transgenic organisms are other terms often used in place of GMO’s
(Tozzini; 2000)
A US definition of GMO”Genetically modified organisms” refers to plants and animals containing
genes transferred from other species to produce certain characteristics, such as resistance to
certain pests and herbicides.
1
A GMO is defined in council directive 2001/18/EEC as an organism in which the genetic material
has been altered in a way that doesn’t occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.
In recent years, cultivation and/or commercialization of several GMOs has been approved
worldwide in different countries, and the tendency to increase the cultivated area as well as well
the number of modified traits is becoming evident (James, 2001). However, the norms that
regulate the use and exploitation of GMOs differ from one country to another, and they are
probably influenced by consumer perception (Kleter et al., 2001). In 2004, the global area of
biotech crops continued to grow for ninth consecutive year at a sustained double digit growth rate
of 20%, compared with 15% in 2003. The estimated global area of approved biotech crops for
2004 was 81.0 million hectares up from 67.7 million hectares in 2003. (James, 2004).
The current trends in the development of the GMOs are towards the crop improvement mainly
focused on the development of herbicide-tolerant crops and on pest and disease resistant crops.
Transnational corporations such as Monsanto Dupont, Novartis, etc. which
are the main
proponents of biotechnology, view transgenic crops as a way to reduce the dependence on input
such as pesticides and fertilizers (Altieri,1998).
Crops Available That Have Been Genetically Modified
ƒ
ƒ Corn
ƒ
ƒ Soyabean
ƒ
ƒ Cotton
ƒ
ƒ Papaya
ƒ
ƒ Cotton
ƒ
ƒ Canola
ƒ
ƒ Cauliflower
ƒ Tobacco
Tomato
Potato
Cabbage
Alfa-alfa
Sugarcane
Rice
Peppers
Diagrammatic Representation Of Genetic Engineering In Plant.
Expose wounded plant cells to transformed
agro strain
Electroporate TDNA vector into
Agrobacterium
and select for tetr
Induce plant regeneration and
select for Kanr cell growth
2
Can We Differentiate Between GM And Non- GM Crops?
GM crops which are considered threatening by some people, are crops in which scientist inserted
desirable genes by DNA technology. The inserted genes can be from other plants or other
organisms. Non-GM crops are all plants in the world that have not been developed by DNA
technology. These includes crops in which their DNA has been modified by crossing and/or
mutation that resulted from radiation, somaclonal variation or chemicals. The science of genetics
and the discipline of plant breeding have emerged only in the past 200 years, but plants have
been selected and bred from prehistoric times (Murray 1993; Bulfield 2000; Polkinghorne 2000).
What are the differences between the GMO and Non-GMO’s ? Usually there is no obvious
morphological differences between GM and Non-GM unless the products are exposed to certain
conditions that can show phenotypic differences between GM and Non-GM.(Snow and Palma
1997). In the case of herbicide resistant crops, for examples, the herbicide resistant crops will
grow normally after herbicide spraying. In contrast, non herbicide resistant crops may show signs
of growth retardation.
The crossing behavior of GM crops and Non- GM crops does not have to be different
(Institute of food Technologists 2000). For example, maize does not cross with crops such as rice
or soybean, whether or not it has been genetically modified. GM crops would be able to crosspollinate with Non-GM crops of the same species. A logic exception is male sterile GM crops that
do not produce fertile microspores. It can not fertilize its own or any other macrospores of related
crops.
ADVANTAGES OF GMO’S
Recombinant DNA technology is the most promising, precise and advanced strategy available
today for sustainable global food production by reducing the crop losses and increasing the yield.
The world population is increasing in the geometric progression and the World Health
Organization estimates that the global population will be doubled by 2050 to more than 9 billion
people. Hence, food production must also increase. The economic benefits from transgenic crops
are large. Some of benefits of transgenic plants are given below
Herbicide Tolerance
The major or targeted crops can be made herbicide resistant. The herbicide tolerance, (mainly to
glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium) introduced in Soya, oil seed rape (canola), cotton, maize
and sugar beet, which allows the application of broad spectrum herbicides to the standing crops,
so killing all the weeds without causing the crop damage and leading the higher yield, improved
quality and lowering the input such as labor and the fuel .The strategy applied to achieve this goal
is (1) increasing the level of the target protein for the herbicide by over expression (2) decreasing
the sensitivity of target protein by introducing a gene coding for that protein resistant to the
herbicide either naturally (or microbial source) or through specific protein engineering (3) inducing
a gene encoding for an enzyme metabolizing and thus detoxifying the herbicide (Engel et al.,
1995). Herbicides such as glyphosate (Roundup) and glufosinate (Basta) are broad spectrum.
Glycophosate normally inhibits an enzyme (enolpyruvyl shikimate phosphate synthase, EPSPS)
of essential aromatic amino acid synthesis. However resistance can be obtained through
transformation with a glycophosate insensitive ESPS from Salmonella bacteria and resistance to
glufosinate is derived by transformation with an enzyme that inactivates it (phosphinothricin acetyl
transferase, PAT) (Skerrit, 2000). The so called “Roundup ready” soya that is genetically modified
to protect against herbicides like Roundup was studied in this thesis studied.
Insect Resistance
There is always a high risk of plant and plant products to be lost at the various stage of
development due to insects. The increase use of insecticides by the farmers all over the world
may result in the environment pollution. Insects destruction and repulsion are thus the target for
3
the modifications of the plants for higher productivity and are an important in field and horticultural
crops as well as in plantation trees.
The insects resistance transgenic crops involve modifications in the gene for the toxic proteins
known as Cry 1 Ac and Cry 2 Aa from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) (Skerrit,
2000). The insecticidal properties are due to the biosynthesis of the different toxic crystal
proteins. These pro toxins are proteolytically cleaved in the midgut of the insects, binds to a
specific membrane receptor and finally lead to the death of insects. For example, transformation
of peas with the kidney bean amylase inhibitor gene to develop a source of resistance to pea
weevils and use of cowpea gene in strawberries to confer weevils resistance (Engels et. al.,
1995).
Disease Resistance
Most of the time, the viral and fungal attack to a crop lead to almost 100% of crop loss. Genetic
modification of the plant has successfully developed plants with resistance to virus. By means of
the recombinant DNA technology it has been possible to express the viral coat proteins in plants
thus protecting them against the viral disease based on the first demonstration that the
expression of the coat protein gene of tobacco mosaic virus in tobacco conferred resistance to
infection by the virus. The creation of the viral resistant plants were based on introducing genes
encoding viral coat proteins, viral replicases, viral movement proteins and defective interfering
RNAs and DNAs that would confer pathogens derived resistance (Herbers K., 1999). For
example, potato has been made resistant to the potato leaf roll virus (PLRV), white clover
resistance to alfalfa mosaic virus.
Higher Yield Of Products
One of the biggest advantage of the genetic modification is that it has potential to produce the
plants and animals that gives the higher yield. The possibility of the genetic modification is varied.
It ranges from quality of food to changes produced by the plants animals etc. For example, GM
somatotropin is a genetically engineered pharmaceutical that increases the cows milk production.
The sheep have been modified in such a way that they produce a human protein. The GM insulin
is the human protein produced by the microorganisms (Skirritt,2000).
Improvement Of Desirable Character
Genetic engineering has given a longer and better shelf lifes to the many of the food products
with the enhanced taste and color along with easy handling of these food materials.
The first-quality enhanced product in the market were the tomatoes containing (Flavr savr) a
lower level of the product of the polygalactouronase gene. The lower activity of this enzyme
means that the long pectin chains in the cell walls of the fruits are cleaved more slowly and the
ripe fruit doesn’t soften quickly, thus extending its shelf life. GM orchid flowers are the examples
which are genetically modified to give the colors which are not available naturally. Enhanced level
of amylolytic enzymes for degrading starch for barley brewing and increased levels of glutenin
flour proteins to alter dough properties in wheat are the properties that can be altered in
processing the cereals (Skerritt, 2000).
Nutritional And Pharmaceuticals
Genetic engineering can be used to modify existing food to give them new characteristics. The
enhancement of the lysine content in maize and enhanced vitamin A content in canola and rice
are the present example of the nutritional enhancement. For example the use of gene that
increases the amount of Vitamin A in rice. Golden rice is the genetically modified rice
species that provides higher levels of vitamin A and iron. The enzyme involved in the
fructan synthesis, the sucrose fructosyltransferase (isolated from Jerusalem artichoke) was
introduced into sugarbeet. The transgenic sugar beet showed a dramatic change in the nature of
4
accumulated sugar, 90% of the sucrose is being converted into fructan. Introduction of a highly
expressed chalcone isomease led to a 70- fold increase of the amount of quercetin glucoside,
which is a strong antioxidant in tomato. Producing fructan a soluble fiber increasing level of
flavonoids, an antioxidant in tomato or increasing level of essential amino acids in the potato are
clear examples of plant genetic modifications with possible positive effects on human nutrition
(Sevenier et al., 2002).
Edible vaccines for viral and diarrhoeal diseases using proteins expressed in transgenic plants is
an application of potentially huge significance for developing countries. The vaccines protein is
expressed in the edible parts of the fruits, vegetables, grain plant and has several potential
advantages. Multiple vaccines could be produced in one plant (e.g. to all hepatitis strains)
(Skerritt, 2000, Backgrounder, 2000).
PERCIEVED PROBLEMS WITH GMO
The GMO or the living organisms (LMO’s) has been the topics of the debate upon their
conjectural risk and biological hazard.
Potential Environmental Risks
Agricultural GMO poses a range of potential environmental risk. These different types of the
potential environmental risks are given below.
Gene Flow
The first potential environmental risk is gene flow, where transgene could transfer from a GMO to
wild relative and/or bacteria in soil or human guts. Bacteria and fungi are capable of capturing
and using genetic material from their surroundings (for example, from decaying plant matter or
micro-organisms). GM material, plants and decaying material, could possibly transfer their genes
to other organisms such as bacteria.The effect of the absorbed gene in these other species is
unknown
The crops like sugar beet, carrot, ryegrass and white clover all have a “ high probability “ of gene
flow, as wild relatives are effectively the same species as the crop. There is minimal probability of
gene flow for potato, maize and tomato as they have no compatible wild relatives (Young et
al.,1999).
Emergence Of New Forms Of Resistance And Secondary Pest And Weed Problems
Resistance had already emerged on a very large scale in modern agriculture even before the
emergence of GMO’s(Georghiou 1986). There are now 500 species of insect, mite or tick
resistant to one or more compounds together with more than 400 herbicide resistant weed
biotype and 150 resistant fungi and bacteria( Vorley, 1998, Heap, 2000 ).
Evolution of resistance can occur in the context of (1) GM crops expressing an insecticidal
product eg Bt maize leading to the insect resistance or (2) GM crops leading to overuse of
herbicides, leading to weed resistance. These are the risks which should be taken into account
and safety measures implement.
Recombination Of Virus And Bacteria To Produce New Pathogens.
The third risk relates to the potential for viruses or bacteria to incorporate transgenes into their
genomes, leading to the expression of novel and possibly undesirable traits. In theory, viral gene
could affect human too, by surviving passage through the human gut and entering gut bacteria
and human body cells. Once inside the cells, DNA could insert itself into the genome to change
the basic structure and functions. This could lead to the emergence of the new diseases. Chicken
flu and other such disease are examples of such problems which have potential of passing from
animal to humans
5
Potential Risk To Human Health
As transgene results the manufacture of new products in crops, usually proteins, a risk to human
arises if these products provoke an additional allergenic or immune response. Conventional NonGM food already contains a large number of toxic and potentially toxic products and thus by
transferring the genetic information, genetic engineering can destabilize the way DNA replicates,
transcribes and recombines. The potential implications of genetic manipulation and human health
are given in table 1.
Table 1 Implication of genetic manipulation and human health (Akhter, 2001)
• Inserted gene may have adverse effects
• May code for proteins that are toxic for human health
• May produce an allergenic reaction
• May cause activation of previously silent gene
• May be transfer to the other organisms
• Consumption of GMO may alter balance of existing microorganism in the gut
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE DEBATE
In public debate GMOs are often referred to as being unnatural or a violation of nature. Some
people have serious moral concerns about departures from what is natural. Others are concerned
about potential risk to environment arising from the combination of hereditary material moving
across natural boundaries and the limits of the scientific foresight of long term consequences.
Substantial equivalence has been introduced to assess novel foods, including GM foods, by
means of comparison with traditional food. Besides a number of the objections concerning its
scientific validity for risk assessment, the main difficulty with SE is that it implies that food can be
qualified on a purely substantial basis. The notion of equivalence can provide a reference scale in
which to examine the various legitimate factors involved: substance (SE), quality (Qualitative
equivalence: QE) and ethics (Ethical equivalence:EE).QE requires that new qualitative methods
of evaluation that are not based on the reductive principles are developed. EE can provide a
basis for the development of an Ethical assurance as a counterpart of quality assurance in the
food sector (Pouteau, 2002). On the whole a reliable approach based on scientific facts without
any bias world help to overcome the problems associated with GM and make available the big
advantage it holds.
MONITORING AND LABELING OF GMO
The use of the biotechnological processes, particularly genetic modification, is extremely
important in devising new ways to increase food production, improve nutrient content and provide
better processing or storage characteristics. It follows that when new foods or food components
are developed using biotechnology, there are both national legal requirements and consumer
expectations for effective systems and procedures to assess the safety of the food or food
component for consumption. The advantages and potential risks arising from the application of
genetic engineering in the production of foods and feeds have been the subjects of many
controversial discussion (Robinson, 2001). Public skepticism has resulted in the implementation
of regulatory frameworks that requires the monitoring and labeling of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). GMO labeling allows consumers to choose products according to their
ethical, religious, cultural and dietary preferences. Many consumers, citing religious and ethical
convictions, prefer not to use the products created by transferring genetic material across species
boundaries (Akhter,2001) .
Community legislation on genetically modified organisms concerning their authorization has been
place since the early 1990’s and throughout the decade this regulatory framework has been
further extended and refined. The main legislation that authorizes the experimental release and
placing on the market of GMOs in the community is currently directive 90/220/EEC ( Frewer et al.,
2004)
6
European parliament and the council of the European Union (EU) have demanded the so called
“Novel Foods Regulation” (EC/258/97) (Regulation (EC) No 258/97), which provides the legal
basis for labeling of the foods and food ingredients containing or consisting of GMO. Because the
Roundup-Ready soyabean and the Bt-176 maize were put on the market before regulation
EC/258/97 came into force, labeling of products derived from these GMOs is demanded by the
separate council regulation 1139/98
(Regulation (EC) No 1139/98).
According to this regulation, mandatory labeling is triggered by the detection of recombinant DNA
or protein expressed due to the genetic engineering. As a result the proteins and DNA have
become the major targets for the detection strategies.
The labeling provisions have been further specified by extending them to foods and food
ingredients containing additives and flavorings derived from GMO (Regulation (EC) 50/20000 and
by introducing a de minimis threshold (Regulation (EC) 49/2000). In April 2001, The European
union council adopted directive 2001/18/EC, which tightened the rules on the deliberate release
of GMOs. The adventitious contamination of the foods with DNA or protein resulting from genetic
modification cannot be excluded. Therefore, labeling is not required if appropriate steps to avoid
such contaminations have been taken and if material derived form GMO is present in the food in
proportion no higher than 1% related to specific food ingredients. In consequence appropriate
techniques for the quantitation of GMO in raw and processed foods had to be developed ( Engel
et. al.,2003).
Different countries have their own threshold level which varies from 1% to 5%. In European Union
1139/98 requires labeling of foods containing GM ingredients, especially soya and maize. 1% de
minimis labeling thresholds from adventitious contamination is specified in the 49/2000. So the
European Union requires the mandatory food labeling of the GM foods and has adopted a 1%
threshold for affirmative GMO labeling.
If any ingredients in a finished products has GMO content above 1%, the products must state
clearly. The purpose of the 1% threshold is to ensure that food ingredients obtained from the
Non-GM source do not need to be labeled if they contain low levels of the GM materials, as a
results of accidental cross- contamination. Threshold level set by the different countries is given
in table 2.
Table 2: Threshold limit for the labeling ( Popping, 2001)
Labeling regulation on GMO derived food.
Country/territory/Union
GMO threshold limit
Switzerland
1%
Norway
2%
European Union
1%
Korea
3%
Japan
5%
Saudi Arabia
2%
Thailand
5%
Global Status Of Commercialized Transgenic Crops /2004– Statistical View
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Application (ISAAA) is the
international network of centers in the Kenya, the phillippines and the United states whose
mission is to help alleviate hunger and poverty by sharing crop biotechnology applications. In
2004, the global area of GM crops continued to grow for the ninth consecutive year according to
the report released in January by the ISAAA.GM crops planted in 2004, increased by the 20%
reaching 81 million hectares globally, an increase of 13.3 million hectares since 2003. This
increase represents a 47-fold increase in hectares since the introduction of the commercialization
of GM crops in 1996.
Table 2.3 Global status of the commercialized GM. Source.
7
Global area of GM crops
Million hectares
1996
1.7
1997
11.0
1998
27.8
1999
39.9
2000
44.2
2001
52.6
2002
57.8
2003
67.7
2004
81
Global area of GM crops in 2004 by crop
Soyabean
Maize
Cotton
Canola
Million hectares
Percentage (%)
86
56%
19.3
14%
32
28%
23
19%
Global area of GM Crops
by country
USA
Million
hectares
Argentina
Canada
Brazil
China
Paraguay
India
South Africa
16.2
5.4
5.0
3.7
1.2
0.5
0.5 million
GM Crops
Canola,
Cotton,
Maize,
Soybean
Cotton, Maize, Soybean
Canola, Maize, Soybean
Soybean
Cotton
Soybean
Cotton
Cotton, Maize, Soybean
47.6
Global
Total (%)
59
20
6
6
5
2
1
1
Source: ISAAA (2004),Ithaca, NY
During the nine-year period 1996 to 2004, herbicide tolerance has consistently been the dominant
trait followed by insect resistance. The herbicide tolerant trait in soybean, maize canola and
cotton occupied 72% or 58.6 million hectares of the global total of 81 million hectares. The most
dominate GM crops globally, herbicide tolerant soybeans, continued to increase in 2004,
occupying 48.4 million hectares or 60% of the global total GM crops area and was grown in nine
countries. The second most dominate crop Bt maize, occupied 11.2 million hectares equivalent to
14% of global GM crop total and was also grown in nine countries. The third grown in eight
countries and over 4.5 million hectares or 6% of the global GM crop total area was Bt cotton.
Fig. 2.Trends in global agricultural growth using genetically modified crops.(James, 2004).
8
GMOs In Bioremediation
Bioremediation is the acceleration of natural biodegradation rate through the modification of
environmental conditions ( Margesin and Schinner, 1999). Several persistent organic pollutants
(POPs) are major subject of concern because of their toxicity to both the animals and wildlifes.
Bioremediation is cost effective method and achieve complete degradation of organic pollutants
without collateral destruction of the site material or its indigenous flora and fauna thus this is the
best method as compare to the physicochemical remediation (Timmis and Pieper, 1999). These
are the major micropollutants. Removal of these pollutants from the wastewater and water is not
easy task because these compounds are present in very small amount (nanograms). But they are
highly toxic even in small amount to humans and animals. So scientists are looking for the best
method to remove these pollutants. Use of microorganism for bioremediation is the best option
but biodegradation of POPs by naturally occurring microorganisms takes place at very slow rate
specially when multiple biodegradation traits are required. So scientist have choosen GMOs as
the best alternatives for the enhanced bioremediation strategies (Ang, et al.,2005).Several
insecticides like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
organophosphates (OP) and pesticides like Atrazine has been widely used in the field since
1950’s. These recalcitrance compound are frequently detected in the surface and ground water
samples, posing a direct risk too humans via potable water consumption. There are some
microorganisms and microbial enzymes which are able to degrade POPs like Pseudomonas sp
and the bacterial phosphotriesterase enzymes. Biomolecular engineering can be successfully
used to improve the capabilities of the enzymes or microorganisms in bioremediation systems
(Ang et al.,2005). Biomolecular engineering involves on altering enzymes that can perform a
reaction similar to the desired one thus it might be difficult to apply biomolecular engineering to
the bioremediation of novel pollutants, which are not known to be biodegradable. And several
questions are still unanswered like GMO released into the environment might have decrease
level of fitness and may not survive due to the extra energy demands imposed by presence of
foreign genetic material in the cell. However there are many constraints related with the release
of GMOs in environment, with the recent advances in biomolecualr engineering, the prospects of
short-circuiting the process of natural evolution to degrade environmental xenobiotic pollutants
has been created. This has opened exciting new vistas for enhancing bioremediation in coming
years.
CONCLUSIONS:
With the development of the biotechnology, more and more genetically modified organisms are
introduced in the commercial market. Since the beginging of the GMO production it has been
facing many challenges like environmental issues. Several studies have been conducted to
assess the environmental effect of the GMO and its future scenario. Reports on the ecological
impacts of the cultivation of certain non-transgenic crop plants with novel or improved traits as
analogy models to transgenic plants showed that the effects of agricultural practice can be at
least equally important as the effect of gene transfer and invasiveness, although the latter
currently play a major role in risk assessment of the transgenic crops (Gaugitsch, 2002).
Essentially the molecular or cell biology of an organism is being altered by means not possible
under natural conditions or processes. Some techniques used to alter molecular structure
include, but are not limited to, cell fusion, gene deletion, gene doubling, the introduction of a
foreign gene, and changing a genes position within the DNA. This gene manipulation creates
what is called genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. In my opinion, we cant say good or bad
without any scientific evidences. And its being an new area of biotechnology its in the challenging
stage of development and will take some more time to give us the solid results. Atleast we can
hope for the best of human beings.
9
REFERENCES:
1. Akhter, J. (2001). Genetically Modified foods: Health and Safety Issues. Annuals of
Saudi Medicine, 21 , 161.
2. Altrieri, M. A. (1998). The Environmental Risks Of Transgenic Crops: An Agroecolo
gical Assessment. Agbiotech News and Information, 10, 405.
3. Ang, E-L., Zhao, H., Obbard, J-P (2005). Recent advances in the bioremediation of
ersistent organic pollutants via biomolecular engineering. Enzyme and Micorbial
Technology, 37, 487.
4 Commission Regulation (EC) No 50/2000 of 10 January 2000 on the labeling of food
stuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavorings that have been
genetically modified or have been produced from genetically modified organisms.
Official journal of European communities – L 006, 0015.
5 Directive 2001/18/EC of 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 – Commission Declaration. Official
Journal of European Communities L 106, 0001.
6 Engel, K.H., Schauzu, M., Klein, G. and Somoyogyi, A. (1995). Regulatory Oversight
and Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Foods in the European Union.In:
Genetically Modified Foods, Safety Aspects. Engel, K.H., Takeoka G.R. Eds.
American Chemical Society, Washington DC.
7. Engel, K.H., Moreano, F., (2003). Methods to Detect the Application of
Genetic Engineering in Composed and Processed Foods, PP 225-223.
In:Genetically Engineered Food, Method and Detection. Knut J. Heller; ed. WileyVCH Verlag GmbH and Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany.
8 Frewer, L., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V. and Berdal,
K.G.(2004).Societal Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods. Food and Chemical
Toxicology, 42, 1181.
9 Hoban, T.J., (1999). Consumer acceptance of Biotechnology in the united states and
Japan. Food Tech. 53, 50.
10 James, C., (2000b). Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops.” ISAAA
Briefs No.21: Preview.ISAAA: Ithaca.
NY.http://www.isaaa.org/publications/briefs_21.htm.
10
11. James, C., (2004). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM crops. ISAAA Brief
s No.32: Preview.ISAAA: Ithaca. http://www.isaaa.org.
12. Margesin, R.; and Schinner, F. (1999) Review: Biological Decontamination of Oil
spills in cold Environments. Journal of Chemical Technology Biotechnology, 74,
381.
13 Pouteau, S., (2002). The Food Debate:Ethical versus substantial equivalence. Journal
of agricultural- and- Environmental –Ethics. 15 , Special Iss. Si:291.
14 Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European parliament and of the Council of 27th
January 1997, Concerning Novel Foods and Food Ingredients. Official Journal of
European Communities- No L 043, 0001.
15. Robinson, C. (2001). Genetic Modification Technology and Food; Consumer Health
and Safety. ILSI Europe Concise Monograph series.
16. Shirai, N., (1998). Safety assessment of Genetically modified Engineered
Food:Detection and Monitoring of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybeans, Biosci.
Biotechnol Biochem, 67 , 1461.
17. Skerritt, J.H., (2000). Genetically Modified Plants: Developing Countries and The
Public Acceptance Debate. A Review article. AgBiotechNet 2. ABN 040.
18. Sevenier R, Van Der Meer, IM., Bino, R. and Koops, AJ., (2002). Increased
production of nutriments by genetically engineered crops. Journal of the
American college of nutrition. 21, 199.
19. Tozzini, A.C., (2000). Semi-quantitative detection of genetically modified grains
based on CaMv 35S promoter amplification; EJB Electronic Journal of
Biotechnology ISSN:0717-3458
www.foodstandards.gov.uk
http://www.checkbiotech.com
http://www.ambion.com
11