Studies with independent funding

  1. Powell M, Wheatley AO, Omoruyi F, Asemota HN, Williams NP, Tennant PF. 2009. Comparative effects of dietary administered transgenic and conventional papaya on selected intestinal parameters in rat models. Transgenic research 19(3):511-8.
  2. Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenço T, Oliveira MM. 2008. Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. PNAS 105(9):3640-5. (full text)
  3. Böhme H, Rudloff E, Schöne F, Schumann W, Hüther L, Flachowsky G. 2007. Nutritional assessment of genetically modified rapeseed synthesizing high amounts of mid-chain fatty acids including production responses of growing-finishing pigs. Archives of animal nutrition 61(4):308-16. 2007.
  4. Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR. 206. Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant biotechnology journal 4(4):369-80. Note: This study is one of several that refute the claim that unintended genetic changes are a particular hazard with GM crops. Instead, it provides evidence for a greater precision of genetic engineering compared to alternative plant breeding procedures.
  5. Brake DG, Thaler R, Evenson DP. 2004. Evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn on mouse testicular development by dual parameter flow cytometry. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 52(7):2097-2102. Note: This research was funded by the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Grant SD00891-S and is South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Publication Number 3354 of the journal series.
  6. Brake DG, Evenson DP. 2004. A generational study of glyphosate tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development. Food and chemical toxicology 42(1):29–36. Note: This research was funded by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota, Agricultural Experiment Station Grant SD00891S. It is South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Publication Number 3334 of the journal series.
  7. Atkinson HJ, Johnston KA, Robbins M. 2004. Prima facie evidence that a phytocystatin for transgenic plant resistance to nematodes is not a toxic risk in the human diet. Journal of Nutrition 134(2):431–434. (full text)
  8. Bakan B, Melcion D, Richard-Molard D, Cahagnier B. 2002. Fungal growth and Fusarium mycotoxin content in isogenic traditional maize and genetically modified maize grown in France and Spain. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 50(4): 728–731.
  9. Aulrich K, Böhme H, Daenicke R, Halle I, Flachowsky G. 2001. Genetically modified feeds in animal nutrition 1st communication: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn in poultry, pig and ruminant nutrition. Archiv für Tierernährung (Archives of Animal Nutrition) 54(3):183-195.
  10. Böhme H, Aulrich K, Daenicke R, Flachowsky G. 2001. Genetically modified feeds in animal nutrition. 2nd communication: glufosinate tolerant sugar beets (roots and silage) and maize grains for ruminants and pigs. Archiv für Tierernährung (Archives of animal nutrition) 54(3):197-207.
  11. Arencibia A, Gentinetta E, Cuzzoni E, Castiglione S, Kohli A, Vain P, Leech M, Christou P, Sala F. 1998. Molecular analysis of the genome of transgenic rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants produced via particle bombardment or intact cell electroporation. Molecular breeding 4(2):99–109.
  12. Bub A, Möseneder J, Wenzel G, Rechkemmer G, Briviba K. 2008. Zeaxanthin is bioavailable from genetically modified zeaxanthin-rich potatoes. European journal of nutrition 47(2):99-103. Note: The study was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF-0312248H). None of the authors had any conflict of interest. This article demonstrates improved human nutrition with GM potatoes. One of the risks postulated to be associated with genetically engineered crops is that they have poorer nutrition. In this case nutrition was improved.
  13. Catchpole GS, Beckmann M, Enot DP, Mondhe M, Zywicki B, Taylor J, Hardy N, Smith A, King RD, Kell DB, Fiehn O, Draper J. 2005. Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops. PNAS 102(40):14458-62. (full text) The metabolite analysis and statistical work was funded by the Food Standards Agency (London) as part of its G02006 project.This article is yet another demonstration of the superior precision of genetic engineering. It demonstrated there is less unexpected change to chemical levels in potatoes when genetic engineering issues compared to general breeding combine other methods. In other words genetic engineering is safer because that there is less chance of unintended chemical changes.
  14. Chambers PA, Duggan PS, Heritage J, Forbes JM. 2000. The fate of antibiotic resistance marker genes in transgenic plant feed material fed to chickens. Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy 49(1):161–164. Novartis, formerly Ciba-Geigy, provided the genetically modified maize seeds used in this study. This work was funded by a grant from the Food Standards Agency. One of the safety issues brought up against genetically modified crops is that they might spread of antibiotic resistance. This article refutes that safety claim.
  15. Chen ZL, Gu H, Li Y, Su Y, Wu P, Jiang Z, Ming X, Tian J, Pan N, Qu LJ. 2003. Safety assessment for genetically modified sweet pepper and tomato. Toxicology 188(2-3):297-307.
  16. Cheng KC, Beaulieu J, Iquira E, Belzile FJ, Fortin MG, Strömvik MV. 2008. Effect of transgenes on global gene expression in soybean is within the natural range of variation of conventional cultivars. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 56(9):3057-67. This is one of several papers that provide empirical data demonstrating greater precision of genetic engineering compared to the level of variation generated by conventional breeding. It provides evidence that there is less chance of unexpected changes with transgenic manipulation than is offered by conventional breeding which has the chance of making a lot of random or unanticipated genetic change.
  17. Chowdhury EH, Kuribara H, Hino A, Sultana P, Mikami O, Shimada N, Guruge KS, Saito M, Nakajima Y. 2003. Detection of corn intrinsic and DNA fragments and Cry1Ab protein in the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed genetically modified corn Bt11. Journal of animal science 81(10):2546–2551. (full text)
  18. Chowdhury EH, Mikami O, Murata H, Sultana P, Shimada N, Yoshioka M, Guruge KS, Yamamoto S, Miyazaki S, Yamanaka N, Nakajima Y. 2004. Fate of maize intrinsic and recombinant genes in calves fed genetically modified maize Bt11. Journal of food protection 67(2):365-370. This is another paper addressing concerns many people have about genes moving from transgenic into other locations. It is one of the common safety concerns about crops containing the new DNA.
  19. Chowdhury EH, Shimada N, Murata H, Mikami O, Sultana P, Miyazaki S, Yoshioka M, Yamanaka N, Hirai N, Nakajima Y.(2003). Detection of Cry1Ab protein in gastrointestinal contents but not visceral organs of genetically modified Bt11-fed calves. Vet Hum Toxicol. 2003 Mar;45(2):72-5. One of the factors believed to affect allergenicity of proteins is the degree to which it is digested rapidly when eaten. This paper addresses aspects of allergen risks from that perspective.
  20. Chrenkova M, Sommer A, Ceresnakova Z, Nitrayova S, Prostredna M (2002) Nutritional evaluation of genetically modified maize corn performed on rats. Archives of Animal Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 56:229-235 Institute of Animal Nutrition, Research Institute of Animal Production, Hlohovská 2, 949 92 Nitra, Slovak Republic. chrenko@vuzv.sk
  21. Cleveland, Thomas E, Patrick F Dowd, Anne E Desjardins, Deepak Bhatnagar, Peter J Cotty (2003). United States Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service research on pre-harvest prevention of mycotoxins and mycotoxigenic fungi in US crops, Pest Management Science Volume 59, Issue 6-7 , Pages 629 – 642 Mouldy grains is one of the major hazards of cereal foods. It is a real safety issue particularly to people in Central America, Africa, and northern China who rely on maize for their staple food. There is ample proof that maize mould toxins or mycotoxins such as fumonisin harm people. In this case the main risk is using non-genetically modified maize instead of BT insect protected maize. Insect damage makes corn more susceptible to mouldyness and increased toxin content.
  22. Daenicke R, Aulrich K, Flachowsky G. (1999). GMO in animal feedstuffs: nutritional properties of Bt-maize… Mais: Fachzeitschrift uber Forschung, Produktionstechnik, Verwertung und Okonomik 135-137 Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre Braunschweig (FAL), Germany.
  23. Defernez M, Gunning YM, Parr AJ, Shepherd LV, Davies HV, Colquhoun IJ. (2004) J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Oct 6;52(20):6075-85. NMR and HPLC-UV profiling of potatoes with genetic modifications to metabolic pathways.
  24. Di Carli M, Villani ME, Renzone G, Nardi L, Pasquo A, Franconi R, Scaloni A, Benvenuto E, Desiderio A. (2008). Leaf Proteome Analysis of Transgenic Plants Expressing Antiviral Antibodies. J Proteome Res. 2008 Dec 19. [Epub ahead of print]  Systematic analysis of protein profiles to indentify any unexpected changes.
  25. Dowd, Patrick F (2000). Indirect Reduction of Ear Molds and Associated Mycotoxins in Bacillus thuringiensis Corn Under Controlled and Open Field Conditions: Utility and Limitations, Journal of Economic Entomology Volume 93, Issue 6 (December 2000) pp. 1669–1679 Bioactive Agents Research Unit, USDA-ARS, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, 1815 N. University Street, Peoria, IL 61604  This provides field evidence for the greater safety of genetically modified insect protected maize compared to conventional varieties. The risks that are avoided are spina bifida birth defects and cancer. Risks of spina bifida and cancer are a genuine safety issue.
  26. Dowd PF (2001) Biotic and abiotic factors limiting efficacy of Bt corn in indirectly reducing mycotoxin levels in commercial fields. J Econ Ent 94(5): 1067–1074. More published information on the greater safety of genetically modified insect protected maize compared to conventional varieties of maize. Particular interest to people in developing countries who rely on maize for their staple diet.
  27. Dubouzet JG, Ishihara A, Matsuda F, Miyagawa H, Iwata H, Wakasa K.(2007) Integrated metabolomic and transcriptomic analyses of high-tryptophan rice expressing a mutant anthranilate synthase alpha subunit. J Exp Bot. 2007;58(12):3309-21. Epub 2007 Sep 4.  This article provides further evidence for the greater precision of transgenic manipulation compared to conventional breeding or mutational breeding using radiation. The paper directly measures the amount of unexpected change detected in different varieties
  28. Duggan, P.S., Chambers, P.A., Heritage, J., Forbes, J.M. (2002). Survival of free DNA encoding antibiotic resistance from transgenic maize and the transformation activity of DNA in ovine saliva, ovine rumen fluid and silage effluent. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 191, 71–77. Again, one of the risks claimed to be associated with genetically modified food is the increasing antibiotic resistance of organisms in the gut. This paper examines that issue of food safety.
  29. Enot DP Manfred Beckmann, David Overy, and John Draper (2006) Predicting interpretability of metabolome models based on behavior, putative identity, and biological relevance of explanatory signals PNAS October 3, 2006 vol. 103(40): 14865–14870 How to work out whether plants have substantially equivalent metabolite content, including an analysis of transgenic potatoes.
  30. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353-1354 Many safety related claims have been made about this paper best the best that can be said is that it is inconclusive. A companion paper in the same Journal by Kuiper and others ( listed here) explained that the problems with this study. But it was the cause of great controversy about the disputed safety of genetically modified food. The different varieties per potato went through in vitro culture, meaning they could have suffered mutations which occur at a relatively high frequency is that technique is not carried out in an optimum fashion.
  31. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A, Mengheri E.(2008) Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Nov 14. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 19007233
  32. Flachowsky G, Halle I, Aulrich K Long term feeding of Bt-corn–a ten-generation study with quails. Arch Anim Nutr. 2005 Dec;59(6):449-51. Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre, Braunschweig, Germany. gerhard.flachowsky@fal.de also see (REVIEW) Flachowsky G, Chesson A, Aulrich K. Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants.
  33. Gregersen PL, Brinch-Pedersen H, Holm PB.(2005) A microarray-based comparative analysis of gene expression profiles during grain development in transgenic and wild type wheat. Transgenic Res. 2005 Dec;14(6):887-905.  Yet another paper demonstrating the greater precision of transgenic genetic engineering compared to conventional techniques such as crossbreeding or radiation treatment. It relates to the risk of unexpected genetic changes occurring in a crop variety. Unexpected alterations to genetically engineered crops are one of the most widely discussed issues to do with GM crop safety.
  34. Gizzarelli F, Corinti S, Barletta B, Iacovacci P, Brunetto B, Butteroni C, Afferni C, Onori R, Miraglia M, Panzini G, Di Felice G, Tinghino R. (2006) Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified soybean protein extract in a murine model of oral allergen-specific sensitization. Clin Exp Allergy. 2006 Feb;36(2):238-48.
  35. Halle, I., K. Aulrich and G. Flachowsky. 2004. Four generations of feeding of GMO-corn to breeder quail. (Fütterung von gentechnisch verändertem Mais an Zuchtwachtein über vier Generationen). Proc. Soc. Nutr. Physiol. 13:124. Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Braunschweig, Germany.
  36. Jenkins Helen, Nigel Hardy, Manfred Beckmann, John Draper, Aileen R. Smith, Janet Taylor, Oliver Fiehn, Royston Goodacre, Raoul J. Bino, Robert Hall, Joachim Kopka, Geoffrey A. Lane, B. Markus Lange, Jang R. Liu, Pedro Mendes, Basil J. Nikolau, Stephen G. Oliver, Norman W. Paton, Sue Rhee, Ute Roessner-Tunali, Kazuki Saito, Jørn Smedsgaard, Lloyd W. Sumner, Trevor Wang, Sean Walsh, Eve Syrkin Wurtele, Douglas B. Kell.(2004) A proposed framework for the description of plant metabolomics experiments and their results. Nature Biotechnology 22, 1601-1606. Under UK Food Safety Authority G02006: Metabolome technology for the profiling of GM and conventionally bred plant materials
  37. Jia, Shirong, Feng Wang Lei Shi Qianhua Yuan Wuge Liu Yilong Liao Shuguang Li Wujun Jin Huipu Peng. 2007. Transgene flow to hybrid rice and its male-sterile lines Transgenic Res 16:491–501.
  38. Kılıc A, Akay M T. 2008. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation Food and Chemical Toxicology 46:1164–1170.
  39. Kleter,Gijs A., Ad A. C. M. Peijnenburg, and Henk J. M. Aarts. 2005. Health considerations regarding horizontal transfer of microbial transgenes present in genetically modified crops. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 4 (2005) 326–352.
  40. Kleter GA, Bhula R, Bodnaruk K, Carazo E, Felsot AS, Harris CA, Katayama A, Kuiper HA, Racke KD, Rubin B, Shevah Y, Stephenson GR, Tanaka K, Unsworth J, Wauchope RD, Wong SS. 2007. Altered pesticide use on transgenic crops and the associated general impact from an environmental perspective. Pest Manag Sci 63(11):1107-15.  Pesticide contamination is one of the major concerns associated with genetically engineered crops. The possible levels of contaminant pesticides is a safety issue. This paper addresses the potential hazards of increased pesticide levels in genetically modified crops.
  41. Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AA. 2002. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE – binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Struct Biol 2:8. This is a study assessing allergen risks in transgenic crops. A word of caution: the criteria used are very outdated and very misleading, and the science of allergen assessment has improved enormously since this was published. The reasoning in this paper is considered to be fallacious.
  42. Kuiper HA, Hub P J M Noteborn, and ACM Peijnenburg. 1999 Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods. Lancet 354:1315-6. This paper explains what Arpad Pusztai did wrong in his potato study cited earlier . It is hardly ever cited by those who don’t like genetically engineered crops.
  43. Le Gall, Gwénaëlle, M. Susan DuPont, Fred A. Mellon, Adrienne L. Davis, Geoff J. Collins, Martine E. Verhoeyen, and Ian J. Colquhoun. 2003. Characterization and Content of Flavonoid Glycosides in Genetically Modified Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Fruits J. Agric. Food Chem 51(9):2438 -2446. Unintended changes in phytotoxins and oestrogens are a safety issue has been raised against genetically engineered crops, and this paper addresses those concerns.
  44. Le Gall G, Colquhoun IJ, Davis AL, Collins GJ, Verhoeyen ME. 2003. Metabolite profiling of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) using 1H NMR spectroscopy as a tool to detect potential unintended effects following a genetic modification. J Agric Food Chem 51(9):2447-56. Erratum in: 2004. J Agric Food Chem 52(10):3210. One of the emerging techniques for safety assessments is called metabolic profiling and that is illustrated in this paper. This technique can address the issue of under anticipated changes that may occur during plant breeding by comprehensive measurement of the full profile of metabolites present in the crop.
  45. Lehesranta,Satu J., Howard V. Davies, Louise V.T. Shepherd, Naoise Nunan, Jim W. McNicol, Seppo Auriola, Kaisa M. Koistinen, Soile Suomalainen, Harri I. Kokko and Sirpa O. Kärenlampi. 2005. Comparison of Tuber Proteomes of Potato Varieties, Landraces, and Geneticallyn Modified Lines. Plant Physiology 138:1690-1699. More evidence of the greater precision of genetic genetic engineering compare it to other techniques used in plant breeding. Precision of genetic engineering is important in ensuring that unexpected changes do not occur. Greater precision is an assurance of greater safety because it means that unexpected hazardous events have less chance of happening.
  46. Li X, Huang K, He X, Zhu B, Liang Z, Li H, Luo Y. 2007. Comparison of nutritional quality between Chinese indica rice with sck and cry1Ac genes and its nontransgenic counterpart.J Food Sci. 2007 Aug;72(6):S420-4.
  47. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Biggiogera M, Quaglino D. 2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing.Histochem Cell Biol. The major defect in the study is failure to analyse the composition of the two different soybean strains used in the study. Soybeans are known to produce potent oestrogen compounds, and variability in the levels of these phytochemicals causes differences in rodent behaviour. Malatesta has carried out a whole series of studies that suffer from the same defect, but they been published in journals in which that kind of expertise is unfortunately absent from the editorial board. Malatesta should have read: Brown NM and Setchell KDR. 2001.
  48. Brown NM and Setchell KDR. 2001. Animal models impacted by phytoestrogens in commercial chow: implications for pathways influenced by hormones. Laboratory Investigation 81:735–747. “All investigators should be vigilant to the phytoestrogen composition of commercial rodent diets because there is a history of potent biological effects in larger animals and humans from high circulating isoflavone concentrations”
  49. Thigpen JE. 2004. Selecting the appropriate rodent diet for endocrine disruptor research and testing studies. ILAR Journal. 45:401-416. Rodent diets differ significantly in estrogen activity primarily due to large variations in phytoestrogen content. These estrogens can profoundly influence rodent physiology. .
  50. Malatesta M, Tiberi C, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Manuali E, Biggiogera M. 2005. Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem 49(3):237-42. A much quoted but flawed safety study. It ignores the chemical variations between different varieties of soybeans that are known to influence rodent physiology. See comments about Malatesta 2008.
  51. Momma K, Hashimoto W, Yoon HJ, Ozawa S, Fukuda Y, Kawai S, Takaiwa F, Utsumi S, Murata K. 2000. Safety assessment of rice genetically modified with soybean glycinin by feeding studies on rats. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 64:1881-6.
  52. Montero M, Coll A, Nadal A, Messeguer J, Pla M. Only half the transcriptomic differences between resistant genetically modified and conventional rice are associated with the transgene. Plant Biotechnology, 29 OCT 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2010.00572.x.
  53. Peterson, Robert K.D. and Leslie M. Shama 2005. A Comparative Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered, Mutagenic, and Conventional Wheat Production Systems Transgenic Research 14 (6) p859-875. This study was funded solely by a USDA Special Research Grant to the Institute for Biobased Products and by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Montana State University.
  54. Phipps RH, Deaville ER, Maddison BC (2003) Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86:4070-4078. Funded by the U.K. Food Standards Agency. Monsanto donated the non-GM and GM soybean meal and ground maize and the provision of information concerning certain specific primers for the PCR analyses. More analysis of the possible risks from DNA movement from transgenic food.
  55. Ramessar, Koreen, Ariadna Peremarti Sonia Go´mez-Galera Shaista Naqvi Marian Moralejo Pilar Mun˜oz Teresa Capell Paul Christou 2007. Biosafety and risk assessment framework for selectable marker genes in transgenic crop plants: a case of the science not supporting the politics, Transgenic Res 16:261–280. This work was funded in part through the EU FP6 Pharma-Planta project.
  56. Rhee, G.S., Cho, D.H., Won, Y.H., Seok, J.H., Kim, S.S., Kwack, S.J., Lee, R.D., Chae, S.Y., Kim, J.W., Lee, B.M., Park, K.L., Choi, K.S., 2005. Multigeneration reproductive and developmental toxicity study of bar gene inserted into genetically modified potato on rats. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 68, 2263–2276.
  57. Knudsen I, Poulsen M. 2007. Comparative safety testing of genetically modified foods in a 90-day rat feeding study design allowing the distinction between primary and secondary effects of the new genetic event. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 49(1):53-62.
  58. Lutz B, Wiedemann S, Einspanier R, Mayer J, Albrecht C. 2005. Degradation of Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize in the bovine gastrointestinal tract. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53:1453-1456. This addresses the digestibility of an insect detection protein which is believed to be an indicator of allergenicity risk. Risks of allergenicity are one of the major concerns raised by people who are worried about the safety of genetically engineered food
  59. Rang A, Linke B and Jansen B. 2005. Detection of RNA variants transcribed from the transgene in Roundup Ready soybean, European Food Research and Technology 220(3-4):438-443. One of the risks discussed for example by Jeffrey Smith in his book Genetic Roulette is the hazards from novel RNA is. Again this is one of the most overhyped safety issues but nevertheless is one that is in many people’s minds. Perhaps they will be reassured to know that all food contains small RNA molecules that has identical structure to the RNA inside the human body, as reported in another post here.
  60. Reuter T, Aulrich K, Berk A, Flachowsky G. 2002. Investigations on genetically modified maize (Bt-maize) in pig nutrition: chemical composition and nutritional evaluation. Arch Tierernahr 56(1):23-31.
  61. Rosati, A, Bogani P (2008) Characterisation of 3′ transgene insertion site and derived mRNAs in MON810 YieldGard® maize Plant Molecular Biology 67:271–281. Dr. G. Monastra provided seeds of MON810 and isogenic control maize. This work was supported by a grant from MIPAF (Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali), Project: ‘OGM in Agricoltura. More analysis of unexpected genetic changes occurring in one transgenic crop relating to concerns about safety.
  62. Sakamoto, Y; Tada, Y; Fukumori, N; Tayama, K; Ando, H; Takahashi, H; Kubo, Y; Nagasawa, A; Yano, N; Yuzawa, K; Ogata, A; Kamimura, H. 2007. A 52-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats Journal of the Food Hygiene Society of Japan, 48 (3): 41-50.
  63. Sakamoto Y, Tada Y, Fukumori N, Tayama K, Ando H, Takahashi H, Kubo Y, Nagasawa A, Yano N, Yuzawa K, Ogata A.A 2008. 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 49(4):272-82.
  64. Shepherd LV, McNicol JW, Razzo R, Taylor MA, Davies HV (2006). Assessing the potential for unintended effects in genetically modified potatoes perturbed in metabolic and developmental processes. Targeted analysis of key nutrients and anti-nutrients. Transgenic Res. 15(4):409-25.
  65. Shimada N, Murata H, Mikami O, Yoshioka M, Guruge KS, Yamanaka N, Nakajima Y, Miyazaki S. 2006. Effects of feeding calves genetically modified corn bt11: a clinico-biochemical study.J Vet Med Sci. 2006 Oct;68(10):1113-5.
  66. Sinagawa-García SR, Rascón-Cruz Q, Valdez-Ortiz A, Medina-Godoy S, Escobar-Gutiérrez A, Paredes-López O. 2004. Safety assessment by in vitro digestibility and allergenicity of genetically modified maize with an amaranth 11S globulin. J Agric Food Chem. 2004 May 5;52(9):2709-14. Allergenicity is one of the issues on the top of people’s minds when they worry about food.
  67. Schrøder M, Poulsen M, Wilcks A, Kroghsbo S, Miller A, Frenzel T, Danier J, Rychlik M, Emami K, Gatehouse A, Shu Q, Engel KH, Altosaar I, Knudsen I. A 90-day safety study of genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab protein (Bacillus thuringiensistoxin) in Wistar rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Mar;45(3):339-49.
  68. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms [EFSA](Question No EFSA-Q-2008-077) Adopted on 29 October 2008, SCIENTIFIC OPINION Request from the European Commission related to the safeguard clause invoked by France on maize MON810 according to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and the emergency measure according to Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003/EC1. The EFSA Journal (2008) 850, 1-45
  69. Sten E, Skov PS, Andersen SB, Torp AM, Olesen A, Bindslev-Jensen U, Poulsen LK, Bindslev-Jensen C. 2004. A comparative study of the allergenic potency of wild-type and glyphosate-tolerant gene-modified soybean cultivars. APMIS. 2004 Jan;112(1):21-8. This study is part of the projects ‘‘BioRisk’’, supported by the Danish Medical Research council, and ‘‘EpiPat’’, supported by the Danish Ministry of Food. We thank Monsanto for donating the soybean varieties.
  70. Takahashi, H. Hotta, Y. Hayashi, M. Kawai-Yamada, M. Komatsu, S. Uchimiya, H. 2005. High throughput metabolome and proteome analysis of transgenic rice plants (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Biotechnol 22, 47–50. Comprehensive chemical analysis of chemicals and proteins is perhaps the best way it to detect whether unexpected changes are occurring in food. This is what this paper is about comprehensive chemical analysis of rice.
  71. Taylor, J., King, R. D., Altmann, T. & Fiehn, O.(2002) Application of metabolomics to plant genotype discrimination using statistics and machine learning. Bioinformatics 18, S241-S248 (2002).UK Food Safety Authority Under G02006: Metabolome technology for the profiling of GM and conventionally bred plant materials
  72. Tony MA, Butschke A, Broll H, Grohmann L, Zagon J, Halle I, Dänicke S, Schauzu M, Hafez HM, Flachowsky G. Safety assessment of Bt 176 maize in broiler nutrition: degradation of maize-DNA and its metabolic fate. Arch Tierernahr. 2003 Aug;57(4):235-52. This paper is yet one more assessment of DNA movement from transgenic food based on measurement of DNA fragmentation in the gut and searching for a the DNA fragments go. It addresses one of the several overhyped concerns that are held about genetically modified foods; nevertheless it is an assessment of safety in the context of those concerns.
  73. Venneria E, Simone Fanasca, Giovanni Monastra, Enrico Finotti, Roberto Ambra, Elena Azzini, Alessandra Durazzo, Maria Stella Foddai, and Giuseppe Maiani (2008) Assessment of the Nutritional Values of Genetically Modified Wheat, Corn, and Tomato Crops J. Agric. Food Chem. This is a systematic study of the compositional changes that may or may not occur in several transgenic crops. It found that there was no significant change when a transgene is introduced into wheat corn and tomato. This is detailed chemical analysis to assure that untoward the unexpected changes have not occurred.
  74. Wakasa K, Hasegawa H, Nemoto H, Matsuda F, Miyazawa H, Tozawa Y, Morino K, Komatsu A, Yamada T, Terakawa T, Miyagawa H.2006. High-level tryptophan accumulation in seeds of transgenic rice and its limited effects on agronomic traits and seed metabolite profile.J Exp Bot. 2006;57(12):3069-78. Again this is another search for unexpected changes by comprehensive analysis. One of many papers providing assurance that the statement that genetic engineering is a precise technique is an objective one based on evidence not theory. Precision means that there is a greater assurance that unexpected genetic or chemical changes did not occur.
  75. Weekes, Rebecca, Theodore Allnutt, Caroline Boffey, Sarah Morgan, Mark Bilton, Roger Daniels and Christine Henry (2008) A study of crop-to-crop gene flow using farm scale sites of fodder maize ( Zea mays L.) in the UK Transgenic Res (2007) 16: 203–211. Funded by Defra (project EPG 1/5/138). Bayer CropScience provided the positive control T25 maize seed.
  76. Windels P, Taverniers I, Depicker A, Van Bockstaele E, De Loose M (2001) Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert Eur Food Res Technol 213:107–112. One of the concerns about genetically modified crops is that the DNA at the site of transgene insertion may be rearranged. This is a paper that addresses transgene structure near the site of DNA insertion. It is worth noting that is natural mutations caused by mobile gene insertion is cause mutations in field crops such as soybean, and that mutations generated by ionising radiation cause dramatic changes in chromosome structure similar to the ones assessed here. These latter processes are not subject to the same vigourous analysis as transgenic crops. Further study itself provides an example of the greater scrutiny given to genetically engineered crops than conventional varieties, meaning that they have a greater standard of safety assurance.
  77. Zhang, Jun, Lin Cai, Jiaqin Cheng, Huizhu Mao, Xiaoping Fan, Zhaohong Meng, Ka Man Chan, Huijun Zhang, Jianfei Qi, Lianghui Ji and Yan Hong (2008) Transgene integration and organization in Cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) genome Transgenic Research 17 (2) 293-306. This project was supported by an internal research grant of Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory, Singapore. Although cotton is a fibre crop it is also a vegetable oil crop. This report provides assurance about unexpected genetic changes associated with transgene insertion into cotton crops.
  78. Zhu Y, Li D, Wang F, Yin J, Jin H (2004) Nutritional assessment and fate of DNA of soybean meal from Roundup Ready or conventional soybeans using rats. More on the fate of DNA from transgenic food. It seems the studies must be in response to community concerns rather than scientific reality. An amazing number of non-commercial safety studies seem to be preoccupied with the fate of DNA. But that it is a safety issue that is widely discussed in the community most famously by Jeffrey Smith in Genetic Roulette.
  79. Zolla L, Rinalducci S, Antonioli P, Righetti PG.(2008) Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications. J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61. Comprehensive chemical analysis can keep track of what happens when a transgenic crop is made particularly unexpected changes. Thus Proteomics is one of the important modern tools for safety assurance with transgenic and other crops. It actually showing that there is a huge amount of unexpected change occurring in almost all varieties of crop. Other people would call that change biodiversity and say it’s a good thing.
  80. Zywicki Britta , Gareth Catchpole, John Draper, and Oliver Fiehn. 2004. Comparison of rapid LC-ESI-MS/MS methods for determination of glycoalkaloids in transgenic field grown potatoes. Analytical Biochemistry . UK Food Safety Authority Under G02006: Metabolome technology for the profiling of GM and conventionally bred plant materials
  81. Ute Vogler, Anja S. Rott, Cesare Gessler & Silvia Dorn. How transgenic and classically bred apple genotypes affect non-target organisms on higher trophic levels. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata Volume 134 Issue 2, Pages 114 – 121
  82. Coll A, Nadal A, Collado R, Capellades G, Kubista M, Messeguer J, Pla M. Natural variation explains most transcriptomic changes among maize plants of MON810 and comparable non-GM varieties subjected to two N-fertilization farming practices. Plant Mol Biol. 2010 Jun;73(3):349-62. Epub 2010 Mar 27.
  83. Wiedemann S, Gürtler P, Albrecht C. 2007. Effect of feeding cows genetically modified maize on the bacterial community in the bovine rumen. Applied and environmental microbiology 73(24):8012-7.
  84. Transgene × Environment Interactions in Genetically Modified Wheat
  85. Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different?
  86. Borejsza-Wysocka et al., Stable expression and phenotypic impact of attacin E transgene in orchard grown apple trees over a 12 year period BMC Biotechnology 2010, 10:41
  87. Coll A, Nadal A, Collado R, Capellades G, Messeguer J, Mele E, Palaudelmas M, Pla M (2009) Gene expression profiles of MON810 and comparable non-GM maize varieties cultured in the field are more similar than are those of conventional lines. Transgenic Res 18:801–808
  88. Andreas Lindfeld, Corsin Lang, Eva Knop, Wolfgang Nentwig, Hard to digest or a piece of cake? Does GM wheat affect survival and reproduction of Enchytraeus albidus (Annelida: Enchytraeidae)?, Applied Soil Ecology, Volume 47, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 51-58, ISSN 0929-1393, DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.10.012.
  89. S. von Burg, F. J. F. van Veen, F. Alvarez-Alfageme, J. Romeis. Aphid-parasitoid community structure on genetically modified wheat. Biology Letters, 2011; DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.1147
  90. Kusano M, Redestig H, Hirai T, Oikawa A, Matsuda F, Fukushima A, Arita M, Watanabe S, Yano M, Hiwasa-Tanase K, Ezura H, Saito K. Covering chemical diversity of genetically-modified tomatoes using
    metabolomics for objective substantial equivalence assessment. PLoS One. 2011 Feb 16;6(2):e16989.
  91. Jose L. Domingo, Jordi Gine Bordonaba, A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants, Environment International, Volume 37, Issue 4, May 2011, Pages 734-742, ISSN 0160-4120, DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. Review covers feeding studies from 2007-2010 (but no 2010 papers included).
  92. Yuan Y, Xu W, Luo Y, Liu H, Lu J, Su C, Huang K. Effects of genetically modified T2A-1 rice on faecal microflora of rats during 90 day supplementation. J Sci Food Agric. 2011 Apr 26. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4421. [Epub ahead of print]
  93. Stuart J. Smyth, Michael Gusta, Kenneth Belcher, Peter W.B. Phillips and David Castle. Environmental impacts from herbicide tolerant canola production in Western Canada. Agricultural Systems, Volume 104, Issue 5, June 2011, Pages 403-410
  94. Duan JJ, Marvier M, Huesing J, Dively G, Huang ZY, 2008 A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Crops on Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS ONE 3(1): e1415. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001415
  95. Sishuo Cao, Wentao Xu, YunBo Luo, Xiaoyun He, Yanfang Yuan, Wenjun Ran, Lixing Lianga and Kunlun Huang. Metabonomics study of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis rice (T2A-1) meal in a 90-day dietary toxicity study in rats. Mol. BioSyst., 2011, DOI: 10.1039/C1MB05076A (May 19, 2011)
  96. Helga Gruber, Vijay Paul, Patrick Guertler, Hubert Spiekers, Ales Tichopad, Heinrich H. D. Meyer, and Martin Mller. Fate of Cry1Ab Protein in Agricultural Systems under Slurry Management of Cows Fed Genetically Modified Maize (Zea mays L.) MON810: A Quantitative Assessment. J. Agric. Food Chem., Article ASAP DOI: 10.1021/jf200854n Publication Date (Web): May 23, 2011
  97. Lin, B., Tan, Z., Xiao, G., Wang, M., Cong, Z., Wang, S., Tang, S., Zhou, C., Sun, Z. and Wang, W. (2009), Evaluation of compositional and nutritional equivalence of genetically modified rice to conventional rice using in situ and in vitro techniques. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 89: 1490–1497. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3613
  98. A. M. Shelton, J.-Z. Zhao, and R. T. Roush Economic, Ecological, Food Safety, and Social Consequences of the deployment of Bt Transgenic Plants. Annual Review of Entomology, Vol. 47: 845-881 (Volume publication date January 2002)
  99. D. M. Olson, J. R. Ruberson, A. R. Zeilinger &D. A. Andow, Colonization preference of Euschistus servus and Nezara viridula in transgenic cotton varieties, peanut, and soybean. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 139: 161–169, 2011
  100. Fangneng Huang, David A. Andow & Lawrent L. Buschman. Success of the high-dose/refuge resistance management strategy after 15 years of Bt crop use in North America. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 140: 1–16, 2011
  101. Álvarez-Alfageme F, von Burg S, Romeis J, 2011 Infestation of Transgenic Powdery Mildew-Resistant Wheat by Naturally Occurring Insect Herbivores under Different Environmental Conditions. PLoS ONE 6(7): e22690. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022690
  102. Tang M, Xie T, Cheng W, Qian L, Yang S, Yang D, Cui W, Li K. A 90-day safety study of genetically modified rice expressing rhIGF-1 protein in C57BL/6J rats. Transgenic Res. 2011 Sep 11.
  103. Gruber H., Paul V., Meyer H.H.D., Müller M. (2011) Determination of insecticidal Cry1Ab protein in soil collected in the final growing seasons of a nine-year field trial of Bt-maize MON810. Transgenic Res. 2011 Apr 16
  104. Duc C, Nentwig W, Lindfeld A, 2011 No Adverse Effect of Genetically Modified Antifungal Wheat on Decomposition Dynamics and the Soil Fauna Community – A Field Study. PLoS ONE 6(10): e25014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025014
  105. Rose R, Dively GP. Effects of insecticide-treated and Lepidopteran-active Bt transgenic sweet corn on the abundance and diversity of arthropods. Environ Entomol. 2007 Oct;36(5):1254-68.
  106. Powell M, Wheatley AO, Omoruyi F, Asemota HN, Williams NP, Tennant PF. Comparative effects of dietary administered transgenic and conventional papaya on selected intestinal parameters in rat models. Transgenic Res. 2010 Jun;19(3):511-8. Epub 2009 Aug 19.
  107. Matilde Eizaguirre, Ramon Albajes, Carmen Lo´ pez, Jordi Eras, Bele´n Lumbierres & Xavier Pons. Six years after the commercial introduction of Bt maize in Spain: field evaluation, impact and future prospects Transgenic Research (2006) 15:1–12 DOI 10.1007/s11248-005-3998-1
  108. M. K. Dhillion and H. C. Sharma. Impact of Bt-engineered cotton on target and non-target arthropods, toxin flow through different trophic levels and seedcotton yield. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3-Spl. Issue ) : (462-466 ) 2009
  109. Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316, 1475 (2007); DOI: 10.1126/science.1139208
  110. Manda G. Cattaneo, Christine Yafuso, Chris Schmidt, Cho-ying Huang, Magfurar Rahman, Carl Olson,
    Christa Ellers-Kirk, Barron J. Orr, Stuart E. Marsh, Larry Antilla, Pierre Dutilleul, and Yves Carriere Y. Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 16;103(20):7571-6. Epub 2006 May 4.
  111. B. Anilkumar, A. Gopala Reddy, B. Kalakumar, M. Usha Rani, Y. Anjaneyulu, T. Raghunandan, Y. Ramana Reddy, K. Jyothi, and K. S. Gopi. Sero-biochemical studies in sheep fed with Bt cotton plants. Toxicol Int. 2010 Jul–Dec; 17(2): 99–101. doi: 10.4103/0971-6580.72680. (local PDF)
  112. Mohanta RK, Singhal KK, Tyagi AK, Rajput YS, Prasad S. Nutritional evaluation of transgenic cottonseed in the ration of lactating dairy cows. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2010 Mar;42(3):431-8. Epub 2009 Aug 24.
  113. Sarkar B, Patra AK, Purakayastha TJ, Megharaj M. Assessment of biological and biochemical indicators in soil under transgenic Bt and non-Bt cotton crop in a sub-tropical environment. Environ Monit Assess. 2009 Sep;156(1-4):595-604. Epub 2008 Aug 22.
  114. Qaim, M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition, and health. (PDF) New Biotechnology Volume 27, Issue 5, 30 November 2010, Pages 552-557
  115. Chelsea, S., et al. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048
  116. Maria C. Walsh, Stefan G. Buzoianu1, Gillian E. Gardiner, Mary C. Rea, R. Paul Ross, Joseph P. Cassidy and Peadar G. Lawlor. Effects of short-term feeding of Bt MON810 maize on growth performance, organ morphology and function in pigs. British Journal of Nutrition (2012), 107, 364–371 doi:10.1017/S0007114511003011
  117. McCallum EJ, Cunningham JP, Lücker J, Zalucki MP, De Voss JJ, Botella JR. Increased plant volatile production affects oviposition, but not larval development, in the moth Helicoverpa armigera. J Exp Biol. 2011 Nov 1;214(Pt 21):3672-7 PMID 21993797
  118. Walsh MC, Buzoianu SG, Gardiner GE, Rea MC, Gelencsér E, et al. (2011) Fate of Transgenic DNA from Orally Administered Bt MON810 Maize and Effects on Immune Response and Growth in Pigs. PLoS ONE 6(11): e27177. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027177
  119. Gao MQ, Hou SP, Pu DQ, Shi M, Ye GY, Chen XX. Multi-generation effects of Bt rice on Anagrus nilaparvatae, a parasitoid of the nontarget pest Nilapavarta lugens. Environ Entomol. 2010 Dec;39(6):2039-44. PMID 22182572
  120. Michaela Prischl, Evelyn Hackl, Milica Pastar, Stefan Pfeiffer, Angela Sessitsch, Genetically modified Bt maize lines containing cry3Bb1, cry1A105 or cry1Ab2 do not affect the structure and functioning of root-associated endophyte communities, Applied Soil Ecology, Volume 54, March 2012, Pages 39-48, ISSN 0929-1393, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.12.005.
  121. Olivier Sanvido, Jörg Romeis, Achim Gathmann, Marco Gielkens, Alan Raybould, Franz Bigler, Evaluating environmental risks of genetically modified crops: ecological harm criteria for regulatory decision-making, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 15, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 82-91, ISSN 1462-9011, 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.006.
  122. Cátia Fonseca, Sébastien Planchon, Jenny Renaut, Maria Margarida Oliveira, Rita Batista, Characterization of maize allergens — MON810 vs. its non-transgenic counterpart, Journal of Proteomics, Available online 13 January 2012, ISSN 1874-3919, 10.1016/j.jprot.2012.01.005.
  123. Ping-Li Dai, Wei Zhou, Jie Zhang, Hong-Juan Cui, Qiang Wang, Wei-Yu Jiang, Ji-Hu Sun, Yan-Yan Wu, Ting Zhou, Field assessment of Bt cry1Ah corn pollen on the survival, development and behavior of Apis mellifera ligustica, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Available online 23 February 2012, ISSN 0147-6513, 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.01.005.
  124. Jaimie Schnell, He´le`ne Labbe´, Nik Kovinich, Yuzuki Manabe, Brian Miki. Comparability of imazapyr-resistant Arabidopsis created
    by transgenesis and mutagenesis.     Transgenic Res. 2012 DOI 10.1007/s11248-012-9597-z
  125. Tian J-C, Chen Y, Li Z-L, Li K, Chen M, et al. (2012) Transgenic Cry1Ab Rice Does Not Impact Ecological Fitness and Predation of a Generalist Spider. PLoS ONE 7(4): e35164. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035164
  126. Cheeke TE, Rosenstiel TN, Cruzan MB. Evidence of Reduced Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Colonization in Multiple Lines of Bt Maize. Am. J. Bot. April 2012 vol. 99 no. 4 700-707. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1100529
Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF