Genetically modified crops (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Genetically modified crops" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
4th place
4th place
2nd place
2nd place
1st place
1st place
11th place
8th place
18th place
17th place
low place
low place
5th place
5th place
7th place
7th place
774th place
716th place
low place
low place
438th place
336th place
12th place
11th place
1,943rd place
1,253rd place
low place
low place
low place
low place
332nd place
246th place
6th place
6th place
low place
low place
68th place
117th place
3,257th place
3,398th place
70th place
63rd place
2,128th place
1,553rd place
61st place
54th place
59th place
45th place
2,431st place
1,607th place
2,548th place
1,587th place
54th place
48th place
92nd place
72nd place
79th place
65th place
low place
low place
120th place
125th place
102nd place
76th place
234th place
397th place
882nd place
600th place
850th place
625th place
low place
low place
318th place
411th place
9,065th place
7,557th place
195th place
302nd place
low place
low place
low place
9,033rd place
low place
8,698th place
low place
low place
7,096th place
4,044th place
2,812th place
1,942nd place
3rd place
3rd place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
2,941st place
2,021st place
657th place
613th place
670th place
480th place
3,870th place
3,434th place
140th place
115th place
low place
low place
2,224th place
1,900th place
519th place
316th place
26th place
20th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
712th place
526th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
254th place
236th place
low place
8,611th place
1,160th place
737th place
low place
low place
2,474th place
1,469th place
447th place
338th place
928th place
651st place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
2,008th place
1,197th place
low place
low place
36th place
33rd place
low place
low place
222nd place
297th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
99th place
77th place
low place
low place
503rd place
364th place
1,248th place
1,104th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
9,528th place
6,597th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,102nd place
3,237th place
166th place
121st place
low place
low place
low place
low place
266th place
182nd place
low place
low place
993rd place
920th place
low place
low place
5,636th place
3,692nd place
49th place
47th place
75th place
83rd place
8,846th place
5,943rd place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,708th place
1,051st place
149th place
178th place
low place
low place
1,360th place
845th place
3,286th place
2,369th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
3,695th place
3,560th place
2,635th place
1,918th place
730th place
468th place
155th place
138th place

aaas.org

  • "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 20 October 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2019. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

    Pinholste G (25 October 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 30 August 2019.

accessexcellence.org

acs.org

cen.acs.org

agbioforum.org

agbioworld.org

agfax.com

ama-assn.org

americanbar.org

apsnet.org

archive.org

arcticapples.com

argenbio.org

  • Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:

    "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved 30 August 2019. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

    When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

    The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

biologists.org

dev.biologists.org

bloomberg.com

books.google.com

britishscienceassociation.org

businessinsider.com

businessweek.com

cabdirect.org

cam.ac.uk

plantsci.cam.ac.uk

cfr.org

congress.gov

cornell.edu

nysaes.cornell.edu

ecommons.cornell.edu

allianceforscience.cornell.edu

usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

  • "Acreage NASS" (PDF). National Agricultural Statistics Board annual report. 30 June 2010. Retrieved 23 July 2010.

doi.org

easac.eu

economist.com

epa.gov

yosemite.epa.gov

www2.epa.gov

ethz.ch

research-collection.ethz.ch

euractiv.com

europa.eu

ec.europa.eu

fao.org

  • "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 30 August 2019. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).

fda.gov

federalregister.gov

foodstandards.gov.au

forbes.com

gaiapresse.ca

  • But see also:

    Domingo JL, Giné Bordonaba J (May 2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. Bibcode:2011EnInt..37..734D. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

    Krimsky S (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. S2CID 40855100. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

    And contrast:

    Panchin AY, Tuzhikov AI (March 2017). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 37 (2): 213–217. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. PMID 26767435. S2CID 11786594. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

    The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

    and

    Yang YT, Chen B (April 2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96 (6): 1851–5. Bibcode:2016JSFA...96.1851Y. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food ... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

    Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.
  • Domingo JL, Giné Bordonaba J (May 2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. Bibcode:2011EnInt..37..734D. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.

geneticliteracyproject.org

globes.co.il

gmo-compass.org

gmo-safety.eu

gpo.gov

permanent.access.gpo.gov

handle.net

hdl.handle.net

harc-hspa.com

harvard.edu

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

hawaiipapaya.com

horizonpress.com

hpj.com

iastate.edu

lib.dr.iastate.edu

ictsd.org

ilsi.org

independent.co.uk

interestingengineering.com

irishtimes.com

irri.org

isaaa.org

iupui.edu

scholarworks.iupui.edu

jstor.org

lancs.ac.uk

csec.lancs.ac.uk

lifesciencesfoundation.org

loc.gov

  • "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. 30 June 2015. Retrieved 30 August 2019. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.
  • "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. 9 June 2015. Retrieved 30 August 2019.

massey.ac.nz

mewburn.com

mhhe.com

midwestwinepress.com

monsanto.com

motherjones.com

nap.edu

nasa.gov

nature.com

blogs.nature.com

nature.com

newatlas.com

news.google.com

newscientist.com

nih.gov

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

npr.org

nytimes.com

orgprints.org

pewinternet.org

  • Funk C, Rainie L (29 January 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on 9 January 2019. Retrieved 30 August 2019. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.

pgeconomics.co.uk

pioneer.com

popsci.com

potatopro.com

pps.net

  • Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D (March 2014). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34 (1): 77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. S2CID 9836802. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

    The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.

princeofwales.gov.uk

purdue.edu

extension.purdue.edu

extension.entm.purdue.edu

reference.com

dictionary.reference.com

researchgate.net

reuters.com

rothamsted.ac.uk

scidev.net

science.org

sciencedaily.com

sciencedirect.com

scijournals.org

crop.scijournals.org

seattletimes.com

seedquest.com

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

sfgate.com

smithsonianmag.com

syngenta.com

technologyreview.com

theconversation.com

theguardian.com

time.com

tufts.edu

ucanr.org

ucbiotech.org

ucsusa.org

ucv.cl

ejbiotechnology.ucv.cl

ugent.be

biblio.ugent.be

unl.edu

digitalcommons.unl.edu

usda.gov

ers.usda.gov

ars.usda.gov

vib.be

vt.edu

isb.vt.edu

web.archive.org

who.int

  • "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved 30 August 2019. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

    GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

wiley.com

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org

wsj.com

yoelinbar.net