Genetically modified crops : Areas of concerns

Genetic Engineering, also called Genetic Modification (GM) or Genetic Transformation is a revolutionary new technology. It allows scientists to change the characteristics of living organisms by transferring genes from one organism , across species barriers, to another , to create a genetically modified organism (GMO). Genetic modification technology can transfer genes between organisms that can not breed in nature. Thus genes from humans have been put into mice, from fish into tomatoes and from bacteria into cotton producing transgenic organisms.

GM technology has been most successfully applied to the field of agriculture giving rise to what are called GM crops or transgenic crops. The other area of application is in the production of vaccines and medicines. The field of vaccine production has been interesting because it is now possible to introduce vaccine producing genes into plants like bananas and potatoes as also in the milk of animals like sheep and goats. This has significant implications for developing countries where immunisation against common diseases like polio, cholera, hepatitis has proven to be difficult and expensive. One of the major problems has been maintaining a reliable cold chain from where the vaccine is produced to the villages where it is required. Having a vaccine expressed in a food like banana or potato which can be grown everywhere, would make the availability of vaccines in interior, inaccessible areas easier. If this technology materialises, it could make a major difference to rural health care.

Whereas the application of GM technology to the field of vaccines and medicines has gained public acceptance, its application to agriculture and food production has raised a swarm of controversies. Resistance to GM foods is strongest in Europe , followed by Japan and the US where large scale demonstrations and protests target the practitioners of GM technology, both in the laboratory and in the field.

The opposition is aimed at two aspects of GM technology . One is the science itself, primarily its safety, the other is the policy governing the use of GM technology . There are misgivings about the Intellectual Property Rights regime associated with it and the ironclad control of the multinational corporate sector.

Whereas it is true that GM technology may have the potential to increase food production and improve the nutritional quality of food , it is not being used by its dominant practitioners, the private corporations to produce either more or better food . It is only the public research institutions that are using their limited financial resources to do GM research on crops of interest to poor farmers in developing countries. Vitamin enriched 'golden rice ' has become a reality at least in the laboratory. This research financed by the Rockefeller Foundation has added vitamin A to rice which is otherwise a nutritionally poor cereal. Research institutes in India are working to include protein genes from Amaranth (Chaulai) into potatoes in order to increase the nutritional quality of this primarily carbohydrate food. Public sector institutions in other developing countries are now beginning to apply GM technology to rice cassava, yam, and sorghum to produce improved varieties that will increase the production of staples needed by the poor. However, despite this promise, there are real and credible concerns about GM crops. These concerns exist at various levels.

DIRECTION OF GM RESEARCH

The fact is that the Life Science corporations like Monsanto, Novartis, Aventis and Du Pont control research on GM crops because of the enormous resources they command. The focus of their research is on commercial agriculture and the goal is to maximise corporate profits. Corporate research is not targeted towards the needs of small farmers. GM crops are not targeted towards helping to alleviate hunger and poverty . GM crops are also a problem area, if one looks at it from the point of view of sustainable agriculture. The increase in the number of GM varieties will strike a further blow to genetic diversity in the field and exacerbate genetic erosion. Loss of genetic diversity in food and cash crops is well documented following the introduction of high yielding varieties at the time of the green revolution. GM crops will strengthen this trend.

If we look into the direction of corporate funded GM research, we find that the focus of the research is on commerce, not on food. The bulk of the research in the private sector is aimed at Round Up Ready or herbicide tolerant varieties of soybean; Bt corn, that is corn with a bacterial gene for disease resistance; Bt cotton, a cotton variety carrying the same bacterial gene for resistance against the bollworm pest and the flavr savr tomato, which has an increased shelf-life . If there is research on corn, then the research is targeted at yellow maize, which is used for animal feed and for making sugar-syrup. This research is not targeted at the white maize, which is a staple food in Africa and which is very susceptible to disease.

Apart from fears about its safety, the public rejection of GM crops is strongly influenced by the perception that GM crops are neither targeted at farmers nor at hunger but only at maximizing corporate profits. This technology is today fully controlled by six multinational corporations through instruments of protection like Intellectual Property rights and trade secrets. In such a situation, it is only logical that society will judge this technology to see whether it can address social goals, whether it can address the needs of developing countries where widespread hunger persists and whether it can help to increase productivity for small farmers. Society, before accepting this technology will determine whether these crops will have any role to play in increasing food security and nutritional security for the vulnerable populations of the world.

The opponents of GM technology legitimately ask the question, why does GM research in the hands of the companies not target food crops? Why are there no research investments in legumes and pulses, in sorghum, millets and yam? In many developing countries a legume called Lathyrus sativus (known as khesari dal in India) is eaten since it grows on marginal lands and provides much needed protein. Lathyrus sativus contains a toxin gene and prolonged consumption leads to a wasting of the limbs, a condition called Lathyrism, . Why is GM research not targeting crops like Lathyrus. There is no significant work being done by the corporate sector on drought resistance and salinity tolerance .

Making GM research more responsible
If the direction of privately funded research is not satisfactory, in what way should it be improved?
1 Research funds and new technologies must address hunger and the crop needs of small farmers.
2 Private and public sector partnerships should be forged. These structures must target food crops for developing countries because we have seen that the private sector on its own has not paid any attention to crops relevant to the poor.
3 Private corporations should be called to share GM technology with responsible scientists for use in developing countries. It is an atrocious situation that six corporations are sitting on and controlling a technology with the potential for alleviating hunger and yet they do not apply this technology towards these goals.
4 New collaborations should be struck between diverse players like public research institutions, international institutions , NGOs and Industry to spread the benefits of new research.

In addition to forging new collaborations, it is crucial that the level of public spending in agricultural research be maintained and increased. Regrettably, in the last years we have seen a sustained withdrawal of funds from public sector research. This is a highly detrimental development and targeted against the ongoing struggle in developing countries to achieve food security. Public research funds should not be withdrawn from food and from agricultural research, particularly as we are witnessing that research on pro-farmer, pro-poor, pro-developing country crops is not been undertaken by the private sector. Research funds must be diverted predominantly to conventional research and plant breeding since these contribute the bulk of new varieties and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Public spending on GM research should be proportionate to its expected output.

SAFETY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF FOOD PRODUCTION

With respect to GM Foods, there are widespread concerns that are being raised, primarily in two areas, the first concerning human health, the other concerning the environment. A third area of concern in this context, of special relevance to developing countries, is its impact on sustainable food production and self reliance of farmers. Our experience of the Green revolution shows that with the introduction of new technology, like high yielding varieties, small farmers tend to get marginalised. GM crops will also tend to marginalise small farmers.

In addition, GM technology will establish the dominance of corporations, more so if the kind of IPR regimes and seed patent demands are acceeded to. This will result in seed production and ultimately food production being controlled by corporations, posing a great threat to self reliance in developing countries and their ability to feed themselves.

Finally, the introduction of GM crops will strike at sustainable food production by increasing genetic erosion in the field, unless we take very determined steps to counter this effect.

HUMAN HEALTH CONCERNS

i. Antibiotic markers.There is great concern about the potential damage to human health that could be caused by the resistance induced by antibiotic markers that are used in breeding GM crops. Although there is little evidence so far that ingestion of antibiotic markers is harmful, it must be said that consumption of GM foods is a very new phenomenon and it is theoretically possible that the effects, if there are any, have not shown up yet. What is more, nobody is testing for negative effects, nor are there any testing procedures available for testing the long term effects of eating GM foods containing antibiotic marker genes.

In the public interest, it would be wise to act according to the Precautionary Principle in this case and ban the use of antibiotic markers. These markers are not essential to the production of GM crops and several alternatives exist which can be introduced. The phasing out of antibiotic markers is already under way . In Europe clearance to GM crops is not given if they contain antibiotic markers and that is a good development.

ii. Allergenicity/ toxicity. Other concerns for human health relate to the fears that these novel foods could be allergenic and/ or toxic. Such fears have been raised primarily by the brazil nut episode .
Allergic reactions known to brazil nuts was transferred into soybean when a brazil nut gene was used to produce a GM soybean variety . The blood serum of people with known allergies to brazil nut showed a positive response to the GM soybean. Similar kinds of allergy transfer could happen if peanut genes were transferred into another food crop. Given the severe allergic reactions known against peanuts, near fatal allergies could be caused if the novel GM food containing peanut genes was consumed unknowingly.


ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

i. Horizontal gene transfer. With respect to the environmental, concerns have been expressed about genetic pollution by genes being transferred along with pollen. The extent of pollen transfer is different under different climatic conditions. Pollen will travel great distances under dry, arid conditions and not such great distances in wet humid conditions.

What we do know is that horizontal gene transfer actually happens. According to Tappeser et al "Horizontal gene transfer is now recognised to be the main avenue of exchange of genetic material in the microbial world and of the exchange and spread of antibiotic resistance genes ". Michael Syvanen provides evidence that mechanisms for the transfer of antibiotic genes (markers) to bacteria in nature do exist.

Evidence that gene transfer in higher plants happens in the field by transfer of pollen, comes from the well documented transfer of genes from oilseed rape to its relative, the wild radish. Gene transfer through pollination is known between wheat and rye and between different varieties of oilseed rape. There is disturbing new evidence from GM canola (rapeseed ) crops in Canada. Herbicide resistance genes to Monsanto's Roundup, Cynamid's Pursuit and Aventis's Liberty appear to have been picked up by weeds from the GM canola carrying them. These results provide enough reason to ban this approach to herbicide resistance.

Even when herbicide genes are not involved and we discuss only cross species transfer, we have no idea of the impact and outcome of this kind of gene transfer on crops in the field. Therefore there is a need for a far greater number of studies, specially for crops of relevance to the developing countries. So far whatever pollen transfer and gene transfer studies have been done , have been in the crops grown in the industrial nations. So data are available only for these crops. We in developing countries must compile baseline data for the crops that are important for us, and for our climatic conditions.

ii Disease resistance through root toxins

This approach is fraught with danger and should not be allowed. Monsanto is developing a transgenic corn variety to control root worm , where the Bt toxin will be released into the soil. This is bound to have a negative impact on soil micro-flora and soil food webs. It will also constitute a threat to soil organisms supporting productive and healthy farming systems. It can be anticipated that the root toxin approach will affect the overall health of the plant and ultimately affect productivity of the crop.


NEGATIVE IMPACT OF STRUCTURAL CHANGE

Another important environmental concern relates generally to the application of new technologies. Past experience shows us that whenever structural change has been brought in to rural areas, the impact on the environment has been destructive. We should be very careful that biotechnology or GM technology does not make this situation worse. This technology should be very precisely and carefully targeted so that its use is aimed to reduce poverty and to minimise the damage to the environment.

In order to counter increasing genetic erosion and maintain genetic diversity in the field, our efforts will have to be directed to developing multi-strategy agricultural technologies that are based on genetic diversity and environmental sound practices .Then we will have an approach that will be far superior to the kind of single point, single crop approach that we are using today.


IS GM TECHNOLOGY REALLY NECESSARY FOR INDIA ?


Post harvest losses
When assessing the relevance of a new technology. It is crucial to ask whether this technology really brings significant gains or whether the problems can not be solved more efficiently or more cheaply by alternative or conventional approaches.
If we look at India, where post harvest losses run from anything from 15 % to as high as 30 %. The question needs to be asked, should India really invest in GM technology to increase food production or should it be investing scarce resources into improving post harvest technologies to minimise losses. Should we not be investing in better storage, better transportation, value addition and processing and increasing the shelf life of perishable foods ? This way the food that has actually been produced in the field is not wasted but reaches the consumer and brings benefit to the farmer.

Research focus
If GM research is to achieve any results, then research priorities must be clearly set. The target must be food crops of relevance to small farmers and the poor and those crops where conventional breeding has not been successful. The most obvious of these crops is pulses. We have had no major breakthroughs in legume research through conventional breeding and pulses remain a problem area. Pulses are specially important for a largely vegetarian country like India where it is the only source of protein, at least for those who can afford it.

GM research targeted at pulses would make sense but GM research targeted at brinjals , as is the case in a premier research institution in Delhi, makes a mockery of science and the social responsibility of science. Public money must be conscientiously and carefully spent to achieve the maximum public good.

Yield increase through conventional means
In most parts of India, the yield potential of the varieties in the field has not been reached yet, either due to lack of resources and infrastructure or lack of proper information. A recent TIFAC ( Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council ) study headed by Sinha, shows that farmers in Bihar have increased their yield of rice and wheat by 2.5 to 3 times through a systems approach to changing farming practices. These impressive yield jumps were the result of educating farmers in simple practices like line sowing rather than broadcasting seed, early nursery raising, reducing seed rate in the nursery and thinner transplantation, as well as reducing the amount of fertiliser used. There is clearly a need to invest in inexpensive, common sense training of this kind which increases food production by up to 300% , rather than looking for a GM bandwagon to jump on to.

And finally, in focusing the direction of GM research, it would be important and meaningful to consult with researchers and with small farmers, specially women. This will help to identify the needs of farming communities and the kinds of improvements they are looking for. What are the problems they face in cropping patterns ? What sort of crops would help to produce more food and better food as seen from their perspective? This could be an important contribution in giving greater relevance to the direction of GM research.

GM disease resistance
Is the Bt route of disease resistance as in Monsanto's Bt cotton and corn, the only way to introduce disease resistance or are there more effective approaches ? Should we not invest in developing bio -control agents, bio pesticides and sophisticated Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques ? Promising results are coming in from work on bio-intensive IPM systems using biopesticides and closely related synthetic analogues. Spinosad, developed by Dow Agrosciences is a bioinsecticide developed from the fermentation of a fungus species. Another agent called azoxystrobin is a fungicide and is a synthetic analogue of a natural fungal metabolite.

The Bt approach is showing that insects are developing resistance. So now it is recommended to grow Bt crops with large refuges where vulnerability of the pest can be maintained. Is this really a viable approach for us in India where every inch of arable land is needed to produce food ? Can we afford to divert land to maintain this artificially constructed, disintegrating method of introducing disease resistance ?

Results from a recent study done in China provide exciting new evidence that genetic diversity is the most sustainable approach to disease resistance. Zhu and his colleagues planted a simple mixture of rice varieties in thousands of farms in Yunnan province, and were able to arrest the development of rice blast, the most significant disease of rice which is spread by a fungus. The level of rice blast was so hugely reduced that farmers stopped using fungicides. This is a far more sensible approach to disease resistance and in any case more appropriate for India and developing countries than the complicated and not so successful GM efforts.


WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF GM FOODS

1.Human toxicity and allergenicity tests for novel proteins that are expected to be expressed should become an integral part of testing GM crops. The example of brazil nut allergens being transferred to other crops where the brazil nut gene was transferred , thus evoking allergies, points to the need for caution particularly since some food allergies
as in peanuts, can be life threatening.

2. .Information concerning potential allergens and toxins. should be compiled and made available to researchers , regulators and to the public. So that when genes are used which produce proteins to which people are allergic or which can have a toxic effect, the people are aware of it.

3.To the extent possible , unless there are overwhelming benefits of some kind, genes proteins that are known to cause allergies, should be avoided..

4. .Clear and precise labeling of GM foods .should be made mandatory, both at the level of the crop and farm produce as also when these are used in other processed products.

5. .Banning the use of antibiotic markers.. Antibiotic markers only help to indicate whether the gene of interest has been transferred into the new crop or not. They are not essential to the transgenic crop and can very easily be avoided. there is no reason to continue the use of antibiotic markers. On the basis of the precautionary principle, and to assuage public fears, antibiotic markers should be replaced by alternatives that exist. This practice has started . In Europe , regulatory agencies have decided not to give clearance to GM crops carrying antibiotic marker genes.

6. .Stringent pre-release assessment. is necessary in order to improve the safety of GM crops and minimise the possibility of environmental damage. Before release of a crop, data should be collected and evaluated for certain essential features
-Characteristics of the GM plant .before .genetic modification.
-Innovative traits the GM plant has acquired.
-Characteristics of the new GM plant.
-Relevant ecological data about the intended sites of release. Climate data needs to be collected about temperature, rainfall patterns and wind flow, to know the environmental conditions in which the variety is to be released.
-Most importantly, the presence of wild relatives must be assessed in the region where the GM variety is to be released.

7. .Safety tests for GM variety.. It is important to routinely evaluate the out come of genetic modification on human health and the environment. More fundamental research is needed on how genetic modification takes place, so that we are better able to predict and control how genes express themselves. For example, the current GM crops designed for increased pest resistance are not sufficiently selective and specific for the major pests. So the risk of damage to the beneficial insect and bacterial flora and fauna in the environment can not be assessed. Once the transgenic line is created, it must be very critically assessed agronomically, physiologically and in all the other ways that new varieties are tested after conventional breeding.

8. .Develop biointensive IPM approaches and phase out Bt. . Progress is being made in developing biointensive Integrated Pest Management Systems using 'reduced risk pesticides'. These are new generation biopesticides and related synthetic analogues which are safer . Some research groups are trying to understand mechanisms that would trigger or reinforce the plant's natural ability to overcome pathogen infection and fight off pest attacks. This is called 'Systemic Acquired Resistance ' (SAR).

9. .Revise regulatory filters in light of new studies.. Recent analysis of GM technology has shown that presumed principles of risk assessment and regulatory guidelines that are in place are extremely vague and/ or defective. Benbrook (2000) has pointed out that most studies on risk assessment were done only after the guidelines were in place. Less than 10 % of the references covering seven major risk areas appeared before 1990. The rest only after that. The US "Substantial Equivalence " theory ( that GM produced food and conventionally produced food were substantially the same , and so need not be treated as 'novel' ) was put in place in the mid eighties, long before most of the important risk concerns had actually been studied. Pleitropic gene effects are little known and phenomena like gene silencing are known to occur but are not understood.

A detailed analysis on how field tests are actually conducted show that they are often shoddy and inadequate. This clearly must change. Mostly, experiments are done for just one or at best a few seasons of field trials. An Indian scientist recently defended his field tests saying he had conducted pollen transfer studies for one year. One year means one cycle of that crop which means one single study ! Pollen transfer studies will have to be conducted longitudinally over several seasons for each crop, before we can begin to understand the dynamics of pollen / horizontal gene transfer.

In addition, conclusions about large scale releases are often extrapolated from small scale, controlled field studies . This is dangerous since controlled studies can not predict the complex interactions arising out of large scale release and cultivation.

10. .Protecting Centres of Diversity.
Regions that are centres of origin of particular crop plants or where genetic diversity of those plants is found or where wild relatives of crop plants are known to occur, must be treated with the utmost caution. Related species and wild relatives will be the natural recipients of the foreign genes contained in transgenic crops. Since genes can not be recalled once they are released into the environment and we do not understand the consequences of foreign gene transfer, we must proceed with caution.

Regions that are the centers of origin of GM crop should really not grow these transformed crops until we have very solid data available about the impact of genes transferred from GM crops into wild relatives. In fact, invoking the Precautionary Principle it is best to avoid the introduction of GM crops in the areas where their wild relatives are to be found.

Before we can decide on the introduction of crops into areas where wild relatives are found, we need a lot more studies about pollen transfer, and horizontal gene transfer in crops relevant to us in developing countries. So far pollen and gene transfer studies have primarily been conducted on species relatives of European crops, under European and American conditions, so whatever data there is on pollen and gene transfer, is only for crops of relevance to the west. As we know it is the developing countries where most of the genetic diversity is located and where very great caution will have to be exercised in order to prevent accidents leading to genetic pollution.

.CONCERNS ABOUT POLICY GOVERNING THE USE OF GM TECHNOLOGY.

At the level of the policy governing GM technology and general access to it, there are also grave objections and unless these objections are addressed it is unlikely that this technology will gain acceptance.

.TRANSPARENCY.

The purveyors of GM technologies and products are quite rightly accused of lack of transparency in their operations. One of the reasons for the protest against the Monsanto cotton trials in India was ignorance on the part of some maverick farmers who thought the variety carried the terminator gene. However, there was widespread anger at Monsanto because of the .complete lack of transparency. about what exactly the company was doing . The public had no idea and information was difficult to get. The farmers in the area where the tests were being conducted were kept in the dark about the nature of the trials. This kind of attitude will lead to an increasingly severe backlash against Monsanto and other Life Sciences corporations.

It is necessary to .create open and transparent systems. so that information about GM technology is available to people who want to ask questions. The debate on the risks and benefits should be publicly conducted. Reasonable .data should be accessible to the public. that wants to satisfy itself about the safety or desirability of a particular crop.

.Field trails of GM crops must be conducted by independent experts. . At the moment the trend is in -house testing so that the agencies interested in releasing a particular variety, conduct their own trials . This is not really a very transparent way of going about the business.


..EQUITY

A grave flaw in the practice of GM technology by the corporations, specially Monsanto, is the impression of overweening .corporate greed that has been firmly entrenched in the public mind. Launching the concept of the 'Terminator' technology to induce seed sterility as an instrument of establishing complete control on the farmers' seed has caused the kind of public outcry that such a notion of greed deserves. The use of sterile seed technologies as an instrument of control must be banned.

'Variety' not 'Sequence' protection
The kind of protection that plant breeders and companies are asking for on new plant varieties should be limited to Plant Breeder's Rights and not to patents or even to the trade secrets that are applied to gene constructs.

Benefit sharing
It is well known that it is often varieties belonging to farmers, bred by farmers and maintained by farming communities, that form the basis of high yielding varieties and equally so of GM crops. GM crops are based on varieties bred by somebody else, by some other people, by farming communities and this must be acknowledged . The profits that are derived from a GM crop must be shared with the farming communities whose land races and varieties have been used as basis materials.

Exemption from IPR regimes for poor farmers
If the purveyors of this technology would make special exemptions from Intellectual Property Protections for the really poor farmers in the world it would go a long way in gaining acceptance for GM technology.

Since their assets and resources are practically unending, private corporations should be willing to share GM technology for use in developing countries where the acute need for producing more food and better food remains a critical requirement.

Improving access to the new technology.
Access to new technologies must be improved by forging new partnerships between the private and public sector and a willingness on the part of the corporate sector to share the fruits of basic research. Monsanto's announcement of sharing the 'working plan' of the rice genome is a welcome step in this direction.

Access of developing countries to the new technology is being limited by two emerging trends.
* A decline in the importance of public sector agricultural research centres;
* The escalating importance of IPR in agricultural biotechnology.

Until now, public sector research centres ,both national and international, have played a vital role in the improvement of agriculture in developing countries, particularly since the 1960s, when international agricultural research certres (IARCs) provided them with major technological inputs and breeding material. This was possible because a) these centres had a mandate to support the growth of agricultural development in developing countries and b) these centres were at the forefront of technological advance. In other words, they had both the technology and desire to transfer it to developing countries.

This situation has changed. With the emergence of biotechnology, private sector firms have emerged as technological leaders. On the other hand, international agricultural research centres are comparatively minor players in biotechnology. This has affected their ability to provide technological support to developing countries.

Agricultural biotechnology research is almost exclusively carried out by firms in developed countries. A handful of these firms have a stranglehold on new agricultural technologies. Much of this control is maintained by patents. Consequently, a number of commercially important technologies are already closed to newcomers.

While the patent holders are prepared to license some of their patented technologies, they are keen to maintain monopoly positions in what they consider to be strategically crucial areas. For example, Calgene has licensing arrangements with a number of firms such as Plant Genetics Sciences, Monsanto and AgrEvo under its canola patents. However, all the licenses are outside the area in which Calgene is primarily interested, namely rapeseed oil modification. It intends to keep this technology to itself.


CONCLUSION

GM technology applied to the field of agriculture has inherent potential. Unfortunately the science has been derailed by corporate greed so that suspicion and rejection instead of curiosity and enthusiasm greets this exciting if still immature technology. Instead of its application to the needs of the poor and hungry , GM technology is now viewed as an unsafe and unnecessary tool which will oppress rather than help farmers as it rakes in money for the corporations.

The fact is that this technology has been pushed far too prematurely on to the market place. Much more research is needed to clean up the science and make the technology pro- poor. Data for crops relevant to developing countries who should be but are not, the greatest beneficiaries of these new food production technologies is very inadequate. This must change. GM technology will only be an acceptable technology for developing countries if the science is made safer and if there is a commitment to transparency and equity in the practice of this technology.

References

1. Altieri, M.A. The Environmental Risks of Transgenic Crops: An Agroecological Assessment. www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/risks.html
2. Barrett K. 1999. "Genetically Engineered Crops: Criteria for a Precautionary Approach". http://www.biotech-info.net/pp_criteria.html
3. Benbrook C. 2000. Who Controls and Who Will Benefit from Plant Genomics? http://www.biotech-info.net/AAASgen.html
4. Hansen, M. 2000. Genetic engineering is not an extension of conventional plant breeding: How genetic engineering differs form conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses, and horizontal gene transfer. http://www.biotech-info.net/wide_crosses.html
5. . Millstone, E., Brunner, E. and S. Mayer.1999. Beyond 'substantial equivalence.' Nature. 401(6753):525-526. http://www.biotech-info.net/substantial_equivalence.html
6. Purrington, C.B., and Bergelson, J. 1995. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 10(8):340-342
7. Parker, I.M., and Kareiva, K.1996. Biological Conservation. 78(1-2):193-203
8. Sinha SK, Gupta N and Khanna-Chopra R. 2000. Demonstration of agricultural production potential in Eastern India - Time for a change from advice to knowledge based service. TIFAC study. Min. of Science & Technology. India.
9. Syvanen. M 1999. In search of horizontal gene transfer : Nature Biotechnology 17: 833.
10. Tappeser, B., Jager, M., and C. Eckelkamp. 1998. Survival, persistence, transfer- An update on current knowledge on GMOs and the fate of their recombinant DNA. Institute of Applied Ecology: Oko- Institut Germany online publication, http://www.oeko.de/english/gentech/gmo.html. pp 1-28.
11. Wrubel, R.P. et al. 1992. BioScience. 42(4):280-289
12. Zhu Y, Chen H, Fan J et al. 2000. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature. 406 : 718- 722



(This article has been synthesised. It can be found in the Critical Dictionary at the following entry : GMO: Areas of concern)