ABSTRACT

With the latest boom in the field of biotechnology, some new reformations have b
een noticed - specifically the introduction of the new Genetically Modified Food
(GMF) that can have their positive as well as negative side effects on human he
alth. However, we know this too well that these GM Foods appear to have infiltra
ted every meal one might come across. Not only this but it has become ridiculous
ly impossible to find a grocery, food chain or any super store selling organic e
dibles which can have their adverse effects on human health when consumed in the
long-run. It has been observed that the adverse effects of this perversion of f
ood will be apparent in a few years and the devastation has already begun to sho
w. Human beings never depicted as many as inexplicable diseases as they do now.
It is important to shed light on this slow poisoning that man is doing to himsel
f and most particularly to his crops. A possible effect of genetically modified
food on human health is countless to explain. But the most important thing is th
at it could result in possible transfer of antibiotic resistant genes to bacteri
a in gastrointestinal tract with an increase in anti-nutrients that gradually af
fects the overall health of a human being.

Table of contents
1. What are genes..........................................................
.............................03
2. What is genetic modification............................................
...................03
3. What is genetically modified food.......................................
...............04
4. Effects of genetically modified food on health care.....................
....05
4.1 Allergenicity...........................................................
......................08
4.2 Gene transfer...........................................................
.....................10
4.3 Out-Crossing............................................................
....................12
4.4 Other effects...........................................................
......................13
5. Passible scenarios......................................................
............................18
6. Conclusion..............................................................
...............................xx
7. Recommendation..........................................................
........................xx
8. Reference...............................................................
.................................xx
1. What are genes?
Genes are series of chemicals, called “nucleic acids,” in DNA (see Figure I). The nu
cleic acids are like letters in an alphabet three of which makes a little “code” in
a row and the code stands for a particular amino acid. Amino acids are the buil
ding blocks of proteins and proteins are the building blocks of living organisms
. Proteins form the structures of livings, and form the enzymes they use to perf
orm the chemical reactions needed to stay alive. The order of the “nucleic acids” in
DNA lies beneath the order of amino acids in proteins whereas the order of amin
o acids affects what the protein will do. Our bodies contain more than a million
different kinds of proteins, each with diverse jobs.
Figure I: A gene as a part of DNA (Source: U.S. National Library of Medicine)
2. What is genetic modification?
According to Australia’s national science agency The Commonwealth Scientific and I
ndustrial Research Organization (CSIRO), genetic modification (GM), also called
genetic manipulation (GM) and genetic engineering (GE), refers “to the use of mode
rn biotechnology techniques to change the genes of an organism, such as a plant
or animal.” The agency also makes a definition of genetically modified organism (G
MO) as “a plant, animal or any other organism that has been changed using genetic
engineering.” This report focuses solely on GM organisms that are used as food. GM
organisms that are used as ingredients of various products other than food, suc
h as cosmetics, are excluded from the scope of this study.
3. What is genetically modified food?
A genetically modified food (GMF) is a product of recombinant DNA biotechnologic
al procedures that allow the genetic structure of an organism to be modified eit
her by integrating genes from other organisms or by rearrangement of genes alrea
dy present, resulting in the expression of attributes not found in the original
organism (Schneider & Schneider, 2009). Foods using GMF as ingredients are also
considered as genetically modified.
According to the “Engineered Foods Allowed on the Market” chart prepared by the Unio
n of Concerned Scientists (UCS); alfalfa, canola, corn, chicory, cotton, flax, p
apaya, potato, rice, soybean, squash, sugar beet and tomato can be produced as G
MF (see Figure II).
Figure II: Examples of GM crops
However, GMF is not limited to this list, since not only direct consuming but al
so indirect consuming of these crops as ingredients in the processed foods is ve
ry common.
4. Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Health Care
Though various aspects are being discussed regarding the GMF impact on health ca
re, it is stated by the World Health Organization (WHO) that the tendencies to p
rovoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and out-crossing are the
three major topics among them.
A virus known as Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35s (CaMV35S) is being used in these m
anipulated crops. There has been a good deal of arguing concerning whether the h
ighly infectious cam s can be horizontally transferred and cause disease, carcin
ogenesis, mutagens, reactivation of dormant viruses and even coevals of new viru
ses (Hodgson, Ho 2000) has stated that CaMV found in normal foods is not threate
ning to the human health as mammals cannot absorbed it which makes it least infe
ctious. In contrast to others, some believe that although human beings have been
ingesting CaMV and its 35 S promoter at high degrees therefore it has never bee
n shown to cause diseases in human beings or to recombine with human viruses whi
ch makes it life-threatening for human health (Paparini & Romano, 2004). Althoug
h as reported by Tepfer (2004) the transient expression in mammalian cells of tr
ansgenes transcribed from the CaMV35S promoter has raised the possibility that g
enes controlled by the 35S promoter have the ability to manifest more likely in
animals. However, Paparini and Romano-Spica (2006) has failed in their recent st
udies in proving the possibility for detecting the DNA transfer in mice and CaMV
35S transcriptional activity with real time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), eve
n though they do highlight the need for further studies and research.
There have always been concerns related to the possible effects of such antibiot
ic resistance genes that are used as markers in transgenic crops could be horizo
ntally transferred to pathogenic gut bacteria, thus lowering the effectiveness o
f antimicrobial therapy. Even though Halford and Shewry (2000) consider this po
ssibility low as compare to the other marker genes, such as the jelly sh green uore
scent protein (GFP) gene have been utilized. According to (Richards et al., 2003
), to evaluate the risk of toxicity and allergenicity of GFP in male rats for 26
d, it has been concluded through studies that GFP shows a low percentage of all
ergenicity risk. It should be noticed that only one transgenic plant (canola) co
ntaining GFP has been tested for assessing toxicity. Every transgenic organism c
ontaining a new marker gene should be examined for toxicity with long term studi
es for clearing the perceptions related to genetically modified foods for their
lifetime consumption.
There are many concerns associated with genetically modified foods but to analyz
e the main possibility associated with these genetically modified foods is that
these genes are more likely to be introduced into the plant which can be absorbe
d further by the gut and can become incorporated into the genetic composition of
the consumers. Jennings et al. (2003 & 2003b), in recent studies has failed to
detect traces of the glyphosate resistant in a variety of tissue samples taken f
rom pigs who were being fed glyphosate-tolerant soybeans and transgenic and endo
genous plant DNA in the chicken breast muscle as in their regular diet. Such res
ults contradict the ndings of Schubert et al. (1994), who stated the presence of
orally administered naked M13 phage DNA in the mice blood in his studies.
Besides, small DNA traces of genetically modified plants have been found particu
larly in white blood cells as well as in milk of cows, in chicken and mice tissu
es that had been fed genetically modified corn and soybean as an essential part
of their diet, respectively (Phipps & Beever: 2001). Moreover, traces of recombi
nant cry1Ab genes were also found in the gastrointestinal tract of Bacillus thur
ingiensis (Bt)11 of pigs who were fed those genetically modified corns but no tr
aces were detected in their blood (Chowdhury, 2003). Therefore, it was concluded
on the basis of these findings that the small quantities of these ingested DNA
are hard to broken down under the usual physiological digestive processes. It i
s clearly evident from the facts that these traces of transgenic genes may not b
e identified in blood but the chances are always there that they can be found in
tissues of animals by PCR, provided that more sensitive and strong methods are
required for their detection (Puztai: 2001). However, the question that needs to
be answered that whether it can be degraded in patients causing them with extre
me gastrointestinal diseases or that it could be more life-threatening.
According to Xian et al. (1995) there is a possibility of an increase in IGF-1 i
f they consume the milk from cows who are injected with rbGH as this specific IG
F-1 escapes the digestion process because IGF-1 has a tendency to resist the aci
dic conditions. However, IGF-1 has a tendency to escape from the digestion by a
specific milk protein known as CASEIN protected from digestion by the major milk
protein casein (Hansen, 1997) and particularly milk s buffering effects (Xian,
1995). Further more according to Chan (1998), studies show that some of the abso
rbed IGF-I can risk the human health by effectively stimulating the production o
f cancer cells which is a direct threat to human health which in turn increases
the levels of IGF-I in humans which can ultimately increase the higher rates and
chances of various cancer types such as colon, breast, and prostate cancer, sin
ce IGF-1 can effectively excite the slowly growing but actively tumor cells that
appear in an aging individual which could further results in a clinical cancer.
Source: http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/geneticallymodifiedfood.htm
Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Foods on Human Health by WHO:
According to the risk assessment conducted by WHO of the possible effects of suc
h genetically modified foods on human health has led to a series of effects such
as a human health can be directly effected by the toxicants present in such foo
ds, a threat of different allergies as result by the consumption of genetically
modified foods as well as a risk of any unintended effects which could result fr
om the gene insertion can have their direct effect on the nutritional compositio
n present in a human body.
WHO studies has emphasized mainly on addressing the three main issues related to
the outcomes of genetically modified food on the overall health of humans as th
ey possess the tendency to provoke allergic reactions known commonly as allergen
icity, gene transfer and out crossing.
4.1 Allergencity:
Food allergies are form of adverse reaction on human body immune system to speci
fic food like protein that drives from harmless food component. These allergies
have multiple types of immunological responses (FAO, 2005). One of most common
type of allergy is immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies and this mediated reaction
is also called immediate hypersensitive reaction due to it symptoms of occurrenc
e within minutes of its ingestion. Beside the fact that these food allergies rep
resent a very small fraction of disease, still it effects around 10-25% populati
on of the developed countries and among those victims, Infants and young childre
n are most common lot which contribute as high as 5-8% (Mekori, 1996, European C
ommission, 1998).
Although its mechanisms is not clear but still it is believed that these food al
lergies also cause the delayed hypersensitive reactions and this reaction involv
e sensitized lymphocytes in human tissues instead of antibodies but overall food
induced cell mediation is still uncertain (Paparini & Romano, 2004). This dela
yed food induced cell mediated is observed in infants who are given GM milk, soy
bean and other proteins. Among all cell mediated hypersensitive reaction, celiac
disease also known as gluten-sensitive enteropathy is supposed to widely effect
to all group of population of all age group.
The Codex Committee on Food established a list of food allergies are associated
by a considerable variety of food that includes peanuts, eggs, milk, fish, wheat
, tree nuts and soybeans. An extensive research shows that around 160 types of f
oods associates with allergenic reaction but any food that contains protein coul
d carry an allergic reaction (Hodgon, 2000). Beside the Codex list, Oral allergy
Syndrome (OAS) is also common with mild symptom its patients are allergic to fr
uits, vegetable, gluten contained cereals, wheat, oats, barley, spelt and rye.
All type of food allergies are present in proteins but there is possibilities th
at other food also contain allergies, many of these have been identified while o
ther remains unknown. It is clearly evident that the transmission of genes from
such allergenic foods has been condemned a various times however the need is st
ill there to carefully observe the presence of such transferred genes in product
s containing proteins and chances of causing allergenicity should be measured. H
owever, most of the conventionally developed foods are not tested for allergenic
ity. Efforts have been made by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United N
ations (FAO) and WHO for the evaluation and testing of such genetically modified
food and their effects on human body.
Source: www.fao.org/wairdocs/ae584e/ae584e06.htm
4.2 Gene Transfer:
It has been estimated that humans consume minimum amount of 0.1 to 1gm of DNA no
rmally in their diets (Daniell & Streatfied, 2001). That clearly shows that the
transgenic trait in genetically adopted plants is not new for our digestive syst
em and their presence is in very minute amount. If we talk about transgenic corn
, it’s about 0.0001% the transgenes representation of the entire DNA (Paparini & R
omano, 2004). From the extensive research we have concluded that nutritional DNA
does not possess direct toxicity itself. On the other hand, exogenous nucleotid
es are known as the most imperative one in the gut function and the immune syste
m. Similarly, there is no convincing substantiation for the integration of plant
-derived DNA, whether it is a transgenic or not, into the different consuming or
ganisms. We have noticed the evolution of protection processes, like through dig
estion largely hydrolytic collapse of the DNA, removal of included unknown DNA f
rom the part of host genome, and calming of unknown gene appearance by embattled
DNA methylation that avoid the merger or expression of unknown DNA (Daniell & S
treatfied, 2001). Even though much remnants to be educated about the chance of n
utritional DNA in mammalian systems, the maximum possibilities of unfavorable ef
fects taking place from the occurrence of transgenic DNA in foods by two ways ei
ther by toxicity directly or gene transfer is negligible (FAO, 2005). The possib
le toxicity of the transgene artifact must be measured on the basis of individua
l cases; Particular focus must be paid if the transgene fabricates a identified
toxin or a protein with allergenic characteristics. It is easy to measure the ri
sk of those gene oriented products or those concerned with the food fabrication
and this can be estimated by the standard toxicological methods. The analysis of
toxicology for the Bt endotoxins characterizes this method and has been explain
ed in detail by USEPA (USEPA, 1998; 2001). The security of Bt toxins is guarante
ed by their effortless digestibility as well as by their be short of inherent ac
tion in mammalian systems (Paparini & Romano, 2004). If we concentrate on this c
ase, the superior understanding of the method of action of Bt toxins, and the di
scriminatory nature of their biochemical properties, raising the level of convic
tion of the protection evaluations. On the other hand, every new transgenic item
must be measured independently on experienced levels and its strength in causin
g any toxic properties, as is distinctive of present risk appraisal paradigms fo
r chemical agents. In this assessment, trypsin inhibitor stages were 11-26% priv
ileged in the transgenic soybeans. On the other side the level of the trypsin in
hibitor was comparable in all sections in the seeds and toasted in defatted, soy
bean meal, used in foods.
Apart from this disparity in trypsin inhibitor levels, all other nutritional fea
tures were correspondent among the transgenic section and the conservative soybe
an cultivars. Nourishing studies established that there were no proof variations
in nutritional assessment among the predictable and transgenic soybeans in chic
ken rats, dairy cattle and catfish (Paparini & Romano, 2004).

4.3 Out-crossing:
The transfer of genes from genetically modified plants into normally grown crops
is termed as out crossing. It does not necessarily mean that outcrossing can be
come an environmental threat but on the other hand, scientists believe that the
mixing of traditional crops with those grown using genetically modified crops ca
n have an indirect and adverse effect on overall food safety and food security.
This could turn into a real threat as some traces were found in a specific maize
type used for the production of maize products which was approved specifically
for human consumption in United States of America what could have endangered the
lives of many people. Whereas, several other countries have adopted different s
trategies to reduce the percentage of mixing up of conventional grown crops with
those of genetically modified crops to avoid the risk of contamination. However
, the concerns related to outcrossing have raised many questions which are yet t
o be answered by the researchers on the safety of conventional crops and the env
ironment. For example, the incorporation of new genes and its implications on th
e overall safety of traditional crops is a question that raises all the concerns
for food safety. These concerns have addressed some environmental safety factor
s related to the induction of new genes. For example, what can happen if the new
gene is transferred to other plants as well as how the traits associated with t
he new gene could have ecological consequences and last but not the least, what
important safety measures are required to be taken against the gene flow between
the GMOs and natural organisms when transgenes could affect their health, decre
ase genetic diversity or increase overall toxicity?
Out-crossing can take place through two simple ways either by exchanging the gen
es between or among crops or by transferring of genes from crop genes to wild pl
ants. Out-crossing with a transgenic plant can has its consequences on environme
ntal or economic fronts which do not merely depend on respective crop. Genes tha
t carry some kind of fitness advantage are needed to be examined critically as c
ompare to the genes that appear to be neutral in this regards.
http://artsci.ucla.edu/biotech177/
4.4 Other Effects:
Unlike many diseases, chronic diseases are not caused by infections. Cancer, Dia
betes Mellitus, Sickle Cell Anemia and HIV/AIDS are just some of the lifelong di
seases that fall under the slot of Chronic Diseases. In recent times a pattern o
f sudden increase in chronic diseases has become apparent which brings concern t
o most health officials. The increase in mortality rate required a proper health
assessment of Genetically Modified Foods. The focus on genetically modified foo
ds has not been a recent concern however, is being given more attention to now b
ecause most chronic diseases have a genetic component, which is related to the g
enetic makeup of an individual. Of course other factors such as lifestyle and im
mediate environmental exposure are equally if not more responsible in adding to
the ingredient of chronic diseases.
Some experts argue that it is dubious that the genetic component could be manipu
lated by use of Genetically Modified Foods; since DNA from foods does not integr
ate into human cells. This expert view has however been pondered and argued upon
, since certain kinds of plants possess chemicals either for their protection or
for their advantage, a general example of this could be Glycoalkaloids produced
in potatoes.
At times, chemicals, which are natural to the plants, can be dangerous for human
consumption and this in turn can be responsible for fatalities, abnormalities,
chronic diseases etc. Due to this reason that a great deal of preparation and ca
re must be taken before consuming certain vegetables, for example; green potatoe
s and red kidney beans.
It is important to note that even if these plants are not directly consumed by h
uman beings, they are consumed by animals and eventual reach humans all thanks t
o the food chain. In order to control the process of a seemingly impossible deed
it is important that the history of any host plant must be evaluated, especiall
y if it has been genetically modified in any way. It is important to keep track
of the toxins known to be associated with the plant or its close relatives and i
f due to the genetic modification any potential threat was increased.
Plant breeding does not have to be in an experimented environment in order to un
dergo changes in it even traditional plant breeding can result in changes in the
toxins produced.
It has been proved that many diseases in human beings are directly dependent on
the dietary variables that you may ingest such as the intake of fats or antioxid
ants. The ingestion of unnecessary dietary products can cause nutritional imbala
nce in human beings. By genetically modifying any edible organism, may that be p
lant or animal, the chances increase of the final food product of being differen
t to the food that would have existed had the genetic modification not taken pla
ce.
It is significant to note that the genetic modification taking place on the said
organism; may either be intentional for instance; altering the starch compositi
on in potatoes, altering levels of fatty acids in oils from oilseed crops etcete
ra or the said modification may be unintentional. It is the event of unintention
al modification that is of concern, which is why a safety evaluation of all Gene
tically Modified foods includes looking for any possible nutritional effects on
the novelty of the food. Any kind of effects those are consider as insignificant
; must be taken as the whole picture; like how these changes of the overall diet
will affect different groups of people such as infants whose diets are obtained
from a inadequate number of food items.
It is believed by some groups that genetic modification was responsible for seve
ral deaths in the USA. A food supplement knows as contaminated tryptophan was im
plicated in the human disease known as Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS). This
particular strain of tryptophan was produced by fermentation involving a GM bac
terium. In the late 1980s about 37 deaths were linked to the contamination. Aft
er the severe analysis, the US Food and Drugs Administration could not find any
proof to put forward that the pollutant was produced as a direct outcome of the
genetic modification process. In 1990 it was published in the New England Journa
l of Medicine; that an involvement among the EMS cases and a diminished stage of
carbon in purification stride in the manufacture of the supplement; In addition
to the genetic change in the bacterium strain had identified. In a general repo
rt published in 1999 the US department of health and human services mentioned th
at 3-5% of the EMS cases had not been definitively associated to the supplement
engrossed; and at least eight cases were associated with tryptophan acquired fro
m ordinary plant sources. That report also showed that cases of EMS were happeni
ng prior to the 1989-90 epidemics. Recent reports have originated that the conta
mination associated with the growth of EMS in a figure of both imitation and nat
ural editions of the tryptophan on sale as supplements for insomnia. It is there
fore unsuitable to finish off that the cases of EMS were only associated to tryp
tophan produced by GM bacteria.

Negative Side Effects Of Genetically Modified Food:

According to WHO report on Food Safety and Foodborne Illness it is clearly state
d that the long term exposure of certain toxins that occur naturally such as myc
otoxins, marine biotoxins and other various toxins present in poisonous mushroom
s can cause severe intoxications which can be a real threat to human health. As
reported by Chan (1998) the use of milk of cows injected with RBGH that contains
IGF-1 can stimulate cancer cells resulting in different types of cancers and se
vere tumors within the body.
Source: http://www.emarketergreen.com/images/chart_gifs/115001-116000/115170.gif
Positive Effects Of Genetically Modified Food:
Rice is a main staple crop that fulfills the dietary requirements mainly of the
people belonging to the third world countries. It is clearly evident that malnut
rition is a common problem in these poverty-stricken countries however; it is al
so known that rice does not contain the basic nutrients that can help reduce the
percentage of malnutrition in such countries. This problem could be effectively
addressed if rice could be genetically engineered with essential minerals and v
itamins that would greatly help to overcome nutrient deficiencies. Vitamin A def
iciency is quite prevalent in poor countries that results in blindness. To overc
ome this, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology for Plant scientists have ma
naged to create a strain of rice, known as golden rice , with excessive amounts
of Vitamin A (Beta-Carotene). Next they plan on developing a strain with increa
sed iron content (Chaggar S et al.: 2005). Secondly, researchers are working on
to produce edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes to overcome the problem of m
anaging and producing costly medicines and vaccines which will become a mileston
e in the history of pharmaceutical world (Daniell & Streatfied, 2001).
5. Possible Scenarios:
Source: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309092094/xhtml/images/p2000a7b3g176001.jpg

The risks of genetically modified crops for human health and biodiversity feared
by public have been highlighted by the media a several times. Many scientists a
round the world emphasize on the need for more in-depth research to recognize po
ssible long-term problems.According to world’s key regulatory bodies, food safety
organizations and scientific agencies like FAO & WHO, it has been stated that th
ese genetically modified crops are least unsafe to human health as compare to th
e potential threats produced by conventional corps. As stated by Robert McKinney
, director of the division of safety at US National Institutes of Health, that t
he risks associated with the consumption of GM foods have no truth which are mer
ely based on negative comments by the scientists favoring traditional crops. As
analyzed greatly by critics of gene technology that biotechnology has a potentia
l of generating some remote but real risks in the long run which would be more e
ffected by the genetically modification of plants and organisms. Whereas most sc
ientists believe that such risks are principally based on mere suppositions, and
that current safety measure are satisfactory. However, some stress have been pu
t for more research on health risks associated with GM foods as well as for the
establishing a sound monitoring system that would help in initial recognition of
any long-term problems and possible implications on human health. For example,
the question to label GM foods is an issue associated with consumer choice rathe
r then public health but according to several scientists there has been a good a
mount of argument taken place for labeling GM foods which could help epidemiolog
ical studies to identify any diseases or allergies that might be linked with the
consumption of GM foods. As well as on the other hand the need for vigilant mon
itoring of GM Foods worldwide has also been highlighted by Suzanne Wuerthele, a
risk analyst at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Besides arguments and cr
iticism on the production and consumption of GM foods, we cannot ignore the fact
that the awareness is growing among general public about the consumption and sa
fety of GM foods and its implications on human health as well as on the other ha
nd major agrofoods companies like Monsanto and Novartis have also emphasized on
keeping the consumer concerns on top of the priority list regarding research and
development of safety measures for the production and consumption of such GM fo
ods and its effects on human health in long run. On the other hand, WHO has alre
ady started its efforts revolving around risk assessment and benefits for GM foo
ds. For further future developments in the field of biotechnology and GM foods,
WHO has been effectively taking steps to promote these organic foods on the grou
nds that they can greatly benefit the overall public health keeping in view the
possible advancement in the science of biotechnology which would result in great
er and efficient food production, reduced allergenicity and highly nutritious fo
od contents. It has also been mentioned by Gerry Moy, the head of food safety at
the WHO that it is imperative for the society to initiate a broad discussion re
lated to potential risks and benefits of GMOs. These efforts would help in estab
lishing a sound understanding of GM foods, its production, consumption and risks
(if any) in the long-run.
List of References:
1. Hodgson, J. (2000), “Scientists avert new GMO crisis”, Nat. Biotechnol. 18:1
3 Ho, M. W., Ryan, A., & Cummins, J. (2000), “Hazards of transgenic plants contai
ning the cauli ower mosaic virus promoter”, Microb. Ecol. Health. Dis.12(3), pp.189–19
8.
2. Paparini, A., & Romano-Spica, V, (2004), “Public health issues related wit
h the consumption of food obtained from genetically modi ed organisms”, Biotechnol A
nnu. Rev. 10, pp.85–122
3. Tepfer, M., Gaubert, S., Leroux-Coyau, M., Prince, S., & Houdebine, L.
M. (2004), “Transient expression in mammalian cells of transgenes transcribed from
the Cauli ower mosaic virus 35S promoter Environ”, Biosafety Res. 3, pp.91–7
4. Paparini, A., & Romano-Spica, V. (2006), “Gene transfer and cauli ower mosai
cvirus promoter 35S activity in mammalian cells. J. Environ”, Sci. Health B 41, pp
.437–49.
5. Halford, N. G., & Shewry, P. R., (2000), “Genetically modi ed crops: methodo
logy, bene ts, regulation and public concerns”, Brit. Med. Bull. 56, pp.71.
6. Richards, H. A., Chung-Ting Han, R. G., Hopkins, M. L., Failla, W. W., W
ard, C. N., & Stewart Jr. (2003), “Safety assessment of recombinant green uorescent
protein orally administered to weaned rats nutrient interactions and toxicity”, J
. Nutr 133:1909–1
7. Jennings, J. C., Kolwyck, D. C., Kays, S. B., Whetsell, A. J., Surber, J
. B., Cromwell, G. L., Lirette, R. P., & Glenn, K. C., (2003), “Determining whethe
r transgenic and endogenous plant DNA transgenic protein are detectable in muscl
e from swine fed Roundup Ready soybean meal”. J. Anim. Sci. 81, pp.1447–1455.
8. Jennings, J. C., Albee, L. D., Kolwyck, D. C., Surber, J. B., Taylor, M.
L., Hartnell, G. F., Lirette, R. P., & Glenn Monsanto, K. C, (2003b), “Attempts t
o detect transgenic and endogenous plant DNA and transgenic protein in muscle fr
om broilers fed YieldGard Corn Borer Corn”, Poult. Sci. 82, pp.371–380.
9. Schubbert, R., Renz, D., Schmitz, B., & Doer er, W. (1997), Foreign (M13)
DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leukocytes, spleen, liver via the intest
inal wall mucosa can be covalently linked to mouse DNA”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US
A 94, pp.961–966
10. Phipps, R. H., & Beever, D. E., (2001), “Detection of transgenic DNA in bo
vine milk: Preliminary results for cows receiving a TMR containing Yieldguard TM
MON810”. Proc Int Anim Agr Food Sci Conf Indianapolis (July 2001,), pp.476
11. Chowdhury, E. H., Kuribara, H., Hino, A., Sultana, P., Mikami, O., Shimada,
N., Guruge, K. S., Saito, M., & Nakajima, Y., (2003), “Detection of corn intrinsic
and recombinant DNA fragments Cry1Ab protein in the gastrointestinal contents o
f pigs fed genetically modi ed corn Bt11”, J. Anim. Sci.81, pp.2546–2551.
12. Pusztai, A., Bardocz, S., & Ewen, S. W. B., (2003), “Genetically Modi ed Foo
ds: Potential Human Health Effects. In:Food Safety”, Contaminants and Toxins (ed)
D’Mello JPF CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, UK, pp. 347–372.
13. Hansen, M., Halloran, J. M., Groth, III, E. G., & Lefferts, L. Y., (1997
), “Potential public health impacts of the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin
in dairy production. Prepared for a Scienti c review by the Joint Expert Committee
on Food Additive. Chan, J. M., Stampfer, M. J., Giovannucci, E., Gann, P. H., M
a, J., Wilkinson, P., Hennekens, C. H., & Pollak, M., (1998), “Plasma insulin-like
growth factor-Iand prostate cancer risk: a prospective study”, Science 279, pp.56
3–564.
14. Daniell H, Streatfied Sj, & Wycoff K, “Medical Molecular Farming: Producti
on of Antibodies, Biopharmacetuicals And Edible Vaccines In Plants”, Trend Plant S
ci 2001; 6(5) 219-26.
15. Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S et al (2005), “Improving the nutritional v
alue of Golden Rice through increased Pro-vitamin A content”. Nat Biotechnol 2005,
23, pp.482-7
16. www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/ viewed on 18
-April-2011
17. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs237/en/ Title- Food safety a
nd Foodborne Illness viewed on 18th-April-2011
18. http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/geneticallymodifiedfood.htm, viewed on 19 A
pril 2011
19. http:// www.fao.org/wairdocs/ae584e/ae584e06.htm, viewed on 19 April 201
1
20 http://artsci.ucla.edu/biotech177/http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/201, viewe
d on 19 April 2011
21. http://www.emarketergreen.com/images/chart_gifs/115001-116000/115170.gif
, viewed on 19 April 2011
22. http://www.emarketergreen.com/images/chart_gifs/115001-116000/115170.gif
, viewed on 19 April 2011
23. “Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants”-
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1879.pdf, viewed on 21 April 2011
24. “Safety of Genetically Modified Food”- ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/meetings/20
05/gm_workshop_info.pdf, viewed on 21 April 2011
25. “Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops on Health & The Environm
ent”- http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/reports_studies/docs/lt_effects
_report_en.pdf, viewed on 22 April 2011
26. “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology”- ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/
Booklets/Biotech/Biotech_2009e.pdf, viewed on 22 April 2011