The status and prospects for genetically modified crops in Europe

Food Policy

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 565-584

  Franks, Jeremy R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Genetically modified crops; Intellectual property rights; Profitability

Indexed keywords

EUROPE; GENETIC IMPROVEMENT; GENETIC MANIPULATION; PLANT VARIETY;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CROP PRODUCTION; GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM; PROPERTY RIGHTS;

EUROPE;

EID: 0032729161     PISSN: 03069192     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0306-9192(99)00059-7     Document Type: Short Survey

References (59)

1. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, 1997. Newsletter, June, Issue No. 7. Internet site; http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/doe.
2. Agra Europe, 1998a. EU scientists back new GM maize/rape varieties. 22 May, p. EP/8.
3. Agra Europe, 1998b. French farmers reluctant to grow GM maize. 5 June, p. M/11.
4. Agra Europe, 1998c. October, p. EP/7.
5. The Agronomist, 1998. Paving the way for genetically modified cultivars. 1/98, pp. 19-21.
6. Agrow, 1996. No. 268, 15 November.
7. Barber, V.C., 1997. Impact of biotechnology in agriculture. National Farmers Union briefing document, London.
8. Cummins J.E. Letter to the editor. Nature Biotechnology. 16:1998;401.
9. Daniell H., Datta R., Varma S., Gray S., Lee S.-B. Containment of herbicide resistance through genetic engineering of the chloroplast genome. Nature Biotechnology. 16:1998;345-348.
10. Diamond E. Genetically Engineered Oilseed Rape. 1997;Friends of the Earth, London.
11. DoE, undated. Genetically Modified Organism (GM Crops): Format for Application for Consent. Department of the Environment Publication.
12. DoE, 1997. Genetically Modified Organisms Public Register.
13. Ellstrand N.C. Gene flow by pollen: implications for plant conservation genetics. OIKOS. 63:1992;77-86.
14. Ellstrand N.C., Hoffman C.A. Hybridisation as an avenue of escape for engineered genes: strategies for risk reduction. BioScience. 40(6):1990;438-442.
15. Emmott Gene food - the legislative mess. Food Magazine. 42:1998;4-5.
16. Farmers Weekly, 1997. GM rape types see weed spray costs tumble. 5 December, p. 48.
17. Farmers Weekly, 1998a. Fodder beet looks like being first GM crop for UK market. 27 February, p. 70.
18. Farmers Weekly, 1998b. MORI pole shows growing numbers against GM crops. 19 June, p. 12.
19. Farming News, 1998. 5 June, p. 36.
20. Fraley, R., 1996. Biotechnology - new options for sustainable agriculture. Agrow Supplement, Autumn, 7-11.
21. Franck-Oberaspach S.L., Keller B. Consequences of classical and biotechnological resistance breeding for food toxicology and allergenicity. Plant Breeding. 116:1997;1-17.
22. Franks J.R. The status of genetically modified crops in the UK. Journal of Farm Management. 10(1):1998;3-13.
23. Franks, J.R., 1998b. Genetically modified crops: some implications for farm managers. Paper presented at the Agricultural Economics Conference, University of Reading, March 1998.
24. Franks J.R. Genetically modified organism: some economic issues. Journal of Farm Management. 10(3):1998;107-117.
25. Franks J.R. The conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: a UK perspective. Land Use Policy. 16:1999;81-91.
26. Fuglie, K., Klotz, C., Gill, M., 1997. Intellectual property rights encourage private investment in plant breeding. Choices.
27. Fulton M. The economics of intellectual property rights: discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 79(5):1998;1592-1594.
28. Gene Exchange, 1997. Autumn 1997, Union of Concerned Scientists. Internet site: http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs.publications.html.
29. Gene Exchange, 1998. Autumn, 1998, Union of Concerned Scientists. Internet site: http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs.publications.html.
30. Gershon, D., Hodges, J., 1997. The assembly line evolves: how biotechnology companies have grown up. Nature Biotechnology Supplement, June, 5-10.
31. Hill J. The precautionary principle and release of genetically modified organisms (GM crops) to the environment. O'Riordan T., Cameron J. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. 1994;Earthscan, London.
32. Huttner S.L., Miller H.I., Lemaux P.G. US agricultural biotechnology: status and prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 50:1995;25-39.
33. Johnson S.P. The Earth Summit: the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED). Johnson S.P. The International Environmental Law and Policy Series. 1993;Graham and Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff.
34. Kling J. Could transgenic supercrops one day breed superweeds. Science. 274:1996;180-181.
35. Langford J. Intellectual property rights: technology transfer and resource implications. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 79(5):1997;1576-1583.
36. Law C.N. Genetic manipulation in plant breeding - prospects and limitations. Euphytica. 85:1995;1-12.
37. Lesser W. Assessing the implications of intellectual property rights on plant and animal agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 79(5):1997;1584-1591.
38. Loader R., Henson S. A view of GM crops from the UK. AgBioForum. 1(1):1998;. (retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu).
39. MAFF, 1997. Weed control on the farm: management of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops. Discussion document, MAFF, London.
40. Mantegazzini C.M. The Environmental Risks from Biotechnology. 1986;Frances Pinter, London.
41. McGaughey W.H., Gelernter W. Bt resistance management: a plan for reconciling the needs of the many stakeholders in Bt-based products. Nature Biotechnology. 16:1998;144-146.
42. Miflin B. Arable crops - scientific developments and market prospects. Marshall B.J., Miller F.A. Biotechnologies in Agriculture and Food - Coming to the Market. 1996;24-31 Reading University, Reading. (chapter 2; CAS paper 34).
43. Nature, 1997a. Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. 26 June, vol. 387, pp. 845-847.
44. Nature, 1997b. Euro-vote lifts block on biotech patents. 24 July, vol. 388, pp. 314-315.
45. NFU, 1995. Report of the Biotechnology Working Party, presented to the NFU Council, June 1995, London.
46. NFU, 1997. Biotechnology News, May.
47. Field Release of Transgenic Plants, 1986-1992. An Analysis. 1993;Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
48. Philips, M.R., 1996. A Method for Identifying Prime Biodiversity Areas in a Natural Area in West Sussex. English Nature Research Report, No. 180. English Nature, Peterborough.
49. Powles S.B., Preston C., Bryan I.B., Jutsum A.R. Herbicide resistance: impact and management. Advances in Agronomy. 58:1997;57-93.
50. Raybould A.F., Gray A.J. Genetically modified crops and hybridisation with wild relatives: a UK perspective. Journal of Applied Ecology. 30:1993;199-219.
51. Romer P.M. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy. 88(5):1990;71-102.
52. Science, 1997. Transgenic corm ban sparks a furore. 21 February, p. 1063.
53. Stewart C.N., Prakash C.S. Letter to the editor. Nature Biotechnology. 16:1998;401.
54. Swinbank A. Capping the CAP? Implications of the Uruguay Round Agreement by the European Union. Food Policy. 21(4/5):1996;393-407.
55. Tanksley, S.D., McCouch, S.R., 1997. Seed banks and molecular maps: unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science, 22 August, vol. 277, pp. 1063-1066.
56. Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme. 1996;Cambridge University Press.
57. Wilson G. Cotton rising from the ashes. Western Journal of Agriculture. 37:1996;71-74.
58. Zechndorf B. Ag biotech. Why do Europeans have difficulty accepting it? AgBioForum. 1(1):1998;4-10. (retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu).
59. Zilberman, D., Yarkin, C., Heiman, A., 1997. Agricultural biotechnology: economic and international implications. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Agricultural Economic Society, California, USA.