Генетически модифицированный организм (Russian Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Генетически модифицированный организм" in Russian language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Russian rank
1st place
1st place
2nd place
3rd place
4th place
6th place
low place
7,780th place
low place
low place
318th place
403rd place
5th place
5th place
68th place
107th place
195th place
128th place
6th place
9th place
2,128th place
3,475th place
234th place
157th place
5,642nd place
446th place
774th place
875th place
70th place
289th place
196th place
13th place
183rd place
14th place
low place
9,717th place
438th place
890th place
54th place
93rd place
503rd place
1,288th place
447th place
541st place
2,542nd place
2,948th place
4,244th place
low place
low place
low place
12th place
39th place
low place
1,891st place
low place
4,570th place
7,080th place
553rd place
low place
low place
3,538th place
2,682nd place
24th place
2nd place
low place
7,711th place
low place
1,764th place
low place
low place
2,937th place
221st place
low place
4,787th place
low place
low place
166th place
383rd place
low place
low place
low place
low place
3,628th place
279th place
2,008th place
6,167th place
993rd place
909th place
3,257th place
2,381st place
155th place
807th place
9,065th place
low place
low place
low place
475th place
34th place
1,047th place
1,017th place
2,112th place
907th place
low place
low place
721st place
47th place
270th place
20th place
4,056th place
369th place
176th place
12th place
low place
low place
254th place
250th place
34th place
95th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
7,096th place
low place
61st place
116th place
2,812th place
6,006th place
low place
low place
2,814th place
1,035th place

aaas.org

  • Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. American Association for the Advancement of Science (20 октября 2012). — «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.» Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 7 декабря 2019 года.

    Pinholster, Ginger AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers". American Association for the Advancement of Science (25 октября 2012). Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 3 февраля 2016 года.

ama-assn.org

  • AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary). American Medical Association (январь 2001). — «A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA) Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from original report by AMA: [3])». Дата обращения: 19 марта 2016. Архивировано 2 апреля 2016 года.
    Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods. American Medical Association (2012). — «Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.» Дата обращения: 19 марта 2016. Архивировано 7 сентября 2012 года.

americanbar.org

archive.org

  • The new encyclopaedia Britannica. — 15th. — Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993. — С. 178. — ISBN 0852295715.
  • Haslberger A. G. Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects (англ.) // Nature Biotechnology : journal. — Nature Publishing Group, 2003. — July (vol. 21, no. 7). — P. 739—741. — doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. — PMID 12833088.
  • Б. Глик, Дж. Пастернак. Молекулярная биотехнология = Molecular Biotechnology. — М.: Мир, 2002. — С. 517. — 589 с. — ISBN 5-03-003328-9.
  • Б. Глик, Дж. Пастернак. Контроль применения биотехнологических методов // Молекулярная биотехнология = Molecular Biotechnology. — М.: Мир, 2002. — С. 517—532. — 589 с. — ISBN 5-03-003328-9.

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. British Medical Association (март 2004). — «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 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."». Дата обращения: 21 марта 2016. Архивировано 29 июля 2016 года.

bioportfolio.com

biosafety.ru

cbio.ru

cell.com

cfr.org

cshlp.org

genesdev.cshlp.org

cyberleninka.ru

docs.google.com

doi.org

dx.doi.org

economist.com

elementy.ru

eurekalert.org

europa.eu

ec.europa.eu

eur-lex.europa.eu

curia.europa.eu

europabio.org

familyfarmdefenders.org

fao.org

fda.gov

fightaging.org

forbes.com

geneticliteracyproject.org

government.ru

gzt.ru

inosmi.ru

isaaa.org

kommersant.ru

lancs.ac.uk

csec.lancs.ac.uk

lenta.ru

loc.gov

  • Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion. Library of Congress (9 июня 2015). — «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.» Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 27 марта 2020 года.
  • Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms. Library of Congress (9 июня 2015). Дата обращения: 24 февраля 2016. Архивировано 25 апреля 2022 года.

lostcoastoutpost.com

membrana.ru

monsanto.com

monsanto.ru

motherjones.com

nap.edu

  • Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects (2004) [1] Архивная копия от 25 июля 2016 на Wayback Machine
  • United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text Архивная копия от 21 октября 2014 на Wayback Machine. National Academies Press. pp R9-10: «In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food.»
  • Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects 149. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US) (2016). — «Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.» Дата обращения: 19 мая 2016. Архивировано 25 августа 2019 года.

nature.com

ncsu.edu

agbiotech.ces.ncsu.edu

newscientist.com

nih.gov

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

pereplet.ru

pewinternet.org

  • Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society. Pew Research Center (29 января 2015). — «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.» Дата обращения: 24 февраля 2016. Архивировано 9 января 2019 года.

plantmethods.com

plos.org

journals.plos.org

pri.org

rg.ru

  • Постановление Правительства Российской Федерации от 23 сентября 2013 г. № 839 Архивная копия от 9 декабря 2021 на Wayback Machine «О государственной регистрации генно-инженерно-модифицированных организмов, предназначенных для выпуска в окружающую среду, а также продукции, полученной с применением таких организмов или содержащей такие организмы»

ria.ru

rlsnet.ru

sciencedaily.com

sfgate.com

smithsonianmag.com

strf.ru

supportprecisionagriculture.org

susu.ac.ru

lib.susu.ac.ru

theguardian.com

time.com

tufts.edu

usda.gov

usda.gov

ams.usda.gov

vedomosti.ru

washingtonpost.com

web.archive.org

webcitation.org

who.int

wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

worldcat.org

yoelinbar.net