Application of Modern Biotechnology to Food and Agriculture: Food Systems Perspective

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 319-332

  McCullum, Christine ^a   Benbrook, Charles ^b   Knowles, Lori ^c   Roberts, Susan ^d   Schryver, Tamara ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b Benbrook Consulting Services   (United States)

^c HASTINGS CENTER   (United States)

^d DRAKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Food and agriculture; Food systems perspective; Modern biotechnology

Indexed keywords

HERBICIDE;

AGRICULTURE; BIOSAFETY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONSUMER; CROP; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; FOOD; FOOD SAFETY; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INSECT RESISTANCE; LAW; MANAGEMENT; NATURAL SCIENCE; NUTRITION; ORGANIZATION; PERCEPTION; POLITICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REGULATORY MECHANISM; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENCE; SOCIAL ASPECT; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TEACHER; UNITED NATIONS; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

INSECTA;

EID: 0346995349     PISSN: 14994046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60347-3     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Statement on Biotechnology. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization; March 2000.
2. Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Organisms. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. Geneva, Switzerland; WHO Headquarters; September 24-28, 2001.
3. Codex Alimentarius Commission. CAC Twenty-Fifth Session, June 30th - July 5th, 2003. ALINORM 03/022. Report of the Thirteenth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling. Halifax, Canada, May 6th-10th, 2002. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization; 2002.
4. Agricultural Biotechnology: The GMO Debate. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University; August 2000.
5. James C. Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) Briefs No. 27: Preview. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications; 2002.
6. Dahlberg K. What are food systems? Local and regional food systems: a key to healthy cities. Paper presented at: International Healthy Cities Conference; December 1993; San Francisco, Calif. Available at: http://unix.cc.wmich.edu/~dahlberg.F11.pdf.Accessed October 3, 2002.
7. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 USC §136, (1996).
8. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC §301 (2000).
9. Plant Protection Act, 7 USC §2321 (2000).
10. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, US Dept of Agriculture. Genetically engineered organisms and products; simplification of requirements and procedures for genetically engineered organisms. Federal Register 62 (1997).
11. Office of Science and Technology Policy. Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology: announcement of policy and notice for public comment. Federal Register 51 (1986).
12. Bucchini L, Goldman LR. Starlink corn: a risk analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2002;110:5-13.
13. McGarity TO, Hansen PI. Breeding Distrust:Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Regulation of Plant Derived Genetically Modified Foods. Washington, DC: The Food Policy Institute, Consumer Federation of America; 2001.
14. US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Scientific Analysis and Support. Report on Consumer Focus Groups on Biotechnology; October 2000. Available at: http://www.http://www. cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/biorpt.html. Accessed February 23, 2003.
15. US Food and Drug Administration. Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties. Federal Register 57 (1992).
16. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA GRAS notification proposal. Federal Register 62 (1997).
17. Alliance for Bio-Integrity et al v. Shalala, 116F Supp 2d 166 (DC 2000).
18. US Food and Drug Administration. Premarket notice concerning bioengineered foods. Federal Register 66 (2001).
19. Clapp S. Mandatory notification fails to make FDA's A-list. Food Chemical News. 2003;45(5):8-9.
20. Gurian-Sherman D. Holes in the Biotech Safety Net. FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest; January 2003.
21. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standard Programme. Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. Yokohama, Japan: Codex Alimentarius Commission; March 11-14, 2003.
22. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Codex Alimentarius Commission adopts more than 50 new food standards. New guidelines on genetically modified and irradiated food [press release]. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization; July 9, 2003.
23. Labonte R. International governance and World Trade Organization (WTO) reform. Critical Public Health. 2002;12(1):65-86.
24. US Environmental Protection Agency. Regulations under the federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act for plant-incorporated protectants [formerly plant pesticides]. Federal Register 66 (2001).
25. National Research Council. Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.
26. National Research Council. Concerns related to scientific uncertainty, policy context, institutional capacity, and social implications. In: Animal Biotechnology: Identifying Science Based Concerns. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002:108-121.
27. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Jan. 29th, 2000, 39 ILM 1027 (2000).
28. United Nations Environment Program Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Montreal 29, January, 2000. Available at: http://http://biodiv.org. Accessed June 13, 2003.
29. Clapp S. Cartagena Biosafety Protocol to take effect Sept. 11. Food Chemical News. 2003;45(19):5-6.
30. Raffensperger C, Tickner J, eds. Protecting Public Health & the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1999.
31. Boehmer-Christiansen S. The precautionary principle in Germany-enabling government. In: O'Riordan T, Cameron J, eds. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London, England: Earthscan Publications; 1994:31-61.
32. Rio Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9th, 1992, art 3.3., 31 ILM, 849, 854 (1992).
33. Bamako Convention on the Ban of Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa, January 29th, 1991, art 4(3)(f), 30 ILM 773, 781 (1991).
34. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5th, 1992, art 8(g), 31 ILM 818 (1992).
35. United Nations Environment Program. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, May 22, 2001, arts 1, 8(9), Annex C part V(B), 40 ILM 532, 534, 541, 559 (2001).
36. Kriebel D, Tickner J. Reenergizing public health through precaution. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1351-1355.
37. Applegate JS. The Prometheus principle: using the precautionary principle to harmonize the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2001;9:207-264.
38. British Medical Association, Board of Science and Education. BMA statement on genetically modified foods: December 2002. Available at: http://www.bma.org.uk. Accessed June 14, 2003.
39. British Medical Association, Board of Science and Education. The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food, and Health. London: BMJ Bookshop; 1999.
40. Kapuscinski AR. Controversies in designing useful ecological assessments of genetically engineered organisms. In: Letourneau DK, Burrows BE, eds. Genetically Engineered Organisms:Assessing Environmental and Human Health Effects. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 2001:385-415.
41. Dayton PK. Reversal of the burden of proof in fisheries management. Science. 1998;279:821.
42. Holling CS. What barriers? What bridges? In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS, eds. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press; 1995:3.
43. Schwartz S, Carpenter K. The right answer for the wrong question: consequences of type III error for public health research. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1175-1180.
44. Kriebel D, Tickner J, Epstein P, et al. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2001;109: 871-876.
45. Scientists' Working Group on Biosafety. Manual for assessing ecological and human health effects of genetically engineered organisms. The Edmonds Institute, Edmonds, Washington; 1998. Available at: http://www.edmonds- institute.org/manual.html. Accessed May 10, 2003.
46. Bodansky D. The precautionary principle in US environmental law. In: O'Riordan T, Cameron J, eds. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London, England: Earthscan; 1994:203-228.
47. Ackerman F, Massey R. Prospering with Precaution: Employment, Economics, and the Precautionary Principle. Medford, Mass: Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University; 2002.
48. Auberson-Huang L. The dialogue between precaution and risk. Nature Biotechnology. 2002;20:1076-1077.
49. Stirling A, Mayer S. Rethinking Risk: A Pilot Multi-Criteria Mapping of a Genetically Modified Crop in Agricultural Systems in the UK. Brighton, England: University of Sussex; 1999.
50. Economic and Social Research Council. Global Environmental Change Programme. The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science and Public Trust, Special Briefing, No. 5. Brighton, England: University of Sussex; 1999.
51. Kluver L. Consensus conferences at the Danish Board of Technology. In: Joss S, Duradt J, eds. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum; 1995:44.
52. Sclove RB, Scammell ML. Practicing the principle. In: Raffensperger C, Tickner J, eds. Protecting Public Health & the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Washington, DC: Island Press; 1999:252-265.
53. University of New Hampshire, Office of Sustainability Programs. New Hampshire Just Food Citizen Panel & Consensus Conference; August 2001. Available at: http://www.sustainableunh.unh.edu/fas/justfoods/ index.html. Accessed September 28, 2002.
54. National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996.
55. Kapuscinski AR, Goodman RM, Hann SD, et al. Making 'safety first' a reality for biotechnology products. Nature Biotechnology. 2003;21: 599-601.
56. FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. FDA issues draft guidance on labeling bioengineered foods; January 18th, 2001. Available at: http:www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/guidance.html. Accessed December 2, 2002.
57. Beers A. House Democrat pushing for biotech reforms. Food Chemical News. 2002;44:4.
58. Zepeda L, Douthitt LR, You SY. Consumer acceptance of agricultural biotechnology: the role of labeling and risk perceptions on food demand. In: Everson R, Santaniello V, Zilberman D, eds. Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy. New York: CABI. In press.
59. Brown JL, Ping Y. Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:208-214.
60. Brammer M. Monsanto & Genetic Engineering: Risk for Investors. New York, New York: Strategic Value Advisors; April 2003. Available at: http://www.innovestgroup.com. Accessed April 10, 2003.
61. Robertson E. Finding a compromise in the debate over genetically modified food: an introduction to a model state consumer right-to-know act. BU J Sci Tech L. 2003;9:156-184.
62. Knowles L. Bridging the (Agri)Cultural Divide: Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe and North America. Final Project Report to the Rockefeller Foundation. Garrison, NY:The Hastings Center; 2003.
63. Bovenkerk B, Brom FWA, van den Bergh Babs J. Brave new birds: the use of animal ethics. Hastings Center Report. 2002;32(1):16-22.
64. Jasanoff S. Product, process, or programme: three cultures and regulation of biotechnology. In: Baur M, ed. Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology, and Biotechnology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1995:311-331.
65. Gaskell G, Baur MW, Durant J, Allum NC. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science. 1999;285:384-387.
66. Thompson PB. Risk, consent, and public debate: some preliminary considerations for the ethics of food safety. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2001;36:833-843.
67. Thompson PB. Grades and standards in the context of international trade: some ethical considerations. Cahiers d'economie et sociologie rurales. 2000;55-56:54-70.
68. Gaull GE. Regulatory and policy issues in animal biotechnology viewed in a cultural framework: an American perspective. Transgenic Animals and Food Production. Proceedings from an International Workshop in, Stockholm, Sweden, May, 1997. Available at: http://www.kslab. ksla.se/transgen.ht.
69. Foster K, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH. Science and the precautionary principle. Science. 2000;28:979-981.
70. Knowles K. Biodiversity and bioprospering: conflicting worldviews. In: Buttel FH, Goodman RM. Of Frankenfoods and Golden Rice: Risk, Rewards, and Realities of Genetically Modified Foods. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters.Vol 89. Madison, Wise: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters; 2001:93-102.
71. Amju S, Daemmrich A, Ashiya M. The tragedy of the commoners; biotechnology and its publics: In: Ruse M, Castle D, eds. Genetically Modified Food: Debating Biotechnology.New York: Prometheus Books; 2002:234-241.
72. International Indian Treaty Council. An Analysis of United States International Policy on Indigenous Peoples, the Human Right to Food and Food Security. Palmer, Ark: IITC; November 2002. Available at: http:// www.treatycouncil.org/home.htm.Accessed December 5, 2002.
73. Paget-Clarke N. Interview with Dr. Eve Crowley. Respecting the autonomy and decisions of the poor. The Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Initiative. Inmotion Magazine. September 2002. Available at: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/ecl.html. Accessed October 31, 2002.
74. Organization of African Unity, Scientific, Technical, and Research Commission. The OAU Model Law: The Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers, and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources. An Explanatory Booklet. Lagos, Nigeria: Organization of African Unity; November 2000. Available at: http://www.grain.org/ publications/oau-booklet-en.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2003.
75. Genetic Resources Action International. IPR Agents Try to Derail OAU Process: UPOV and WIPO Attack Africa's Model Law on Community Rights to Biodiversity. Barcelona, Spain: Genetic Resources Action International; June 2001.
76. Position of the American Dietetic Association: addressing world hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003; 103:1046-1057.
77. Benbrook C. Economic and environmental impacts of first generation genetically modified crops: lessons from the United States. Paper presented at: Transgenics in Argentina Agriculture: Toward Defining a National Policy; December 5, 2002; Buenos Aires, Argentina.
78. Benbrook C. Do GM crops mean less pesticide use? Pesticide Outlook. 2001; October:204-207.
79. Gianessi LP, Carpenter JE. Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Biotechnology; April 2000.
80. Economic Research Service. Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Dept of Agriculture; 1999.
81. Qaim M, Traxler G. Round Up Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level, environmental, and welfare effects. Paper presented at: 6th IACBR Conference on Agricultural Biotechnologies: New Avenues for Production, Consumption, and Technology Transfer; July 2002; Ravello, Italy.
82. Benbrook C, Baumuller H. Argentina trip report. Available at: http://www.biotech-info.net/Trip_Report.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2003.
83. King C, Purcell L, Vories E. Plant growth and nitrogenase activity of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans in response to foliar application. Agronomy Journal. 2001;93:179-186.
84. Fawcett R, Towery D. Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology: How New Technologies Can Improve the Environment By Reducing the Need to Plow. West LaFayette, Ind: Conservation Technology Information Center; 2002.
85. Benbrook C. GMOs, pesticide use, and alternatives: lessons from the U.S. experience. Paper presented at: GMOs and Agriculture; Paris, France; June 20, 2003. Available at: http://www.biotech.info-net/ lessons_learned.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2003.
86. Fernandez-Cornejo J, McBride WD. Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. Washington, DC, Economic Research Service, US Dept of Agriculture. Agricultural Economics Report Number 810; May 2002.
87. Hartzler B. Are Roundup Ready Weeds in Your Future? Ames, Iowa: Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University Extension; 1999.
88. Herbicide Resistance Action Committee. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Lawrence, Kan: Weed Science Society of America; 2001.
89. Lewis WJ, van Lentern JC, Phatak SC, et al. A total system approach to sustainable pest management. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94: 12243-12248.
90. Hubbell BJ, Welsh R. Transgenic crops: engineering a more sustainable agriculture? Agriculture and Human Values. 1998;15:43-56.
91. Bioeconomic Research Associates. Agricultural Biotechnology at the Crossroads. Part 1: The Changing Structure of Agriculture. Cambridge, Mass: Bioeconomic Research Associates; February 2003.
92. Conway GR. The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the Twenty-First Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1998.
93. Tripp R. Biodiversity and modern crop varieties: sharpening the debate. Agriculture and Human Values. 1996;13:48-62.
94. Kirschenmann F. Can organic agriculture feed the world? ...And is that the right question? In: Madden JP, Chaplowe SG, eds. For All Generations: Making World Agriculture More Sustainable. Glendale, Calif: OM Publishing; 1997:154-172.
95. Altieri M. The ecological impacts of transgenic crops on agroecosystem health. Ecosystem Health. 2000;6(1):13-23.
96. Food and Agriculture Organization. Bananas not on verge of extinction, says FAO. Food agency calls for greater diversity in commercial bananas [press release]. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization; January 30, 2003.
97. Wambugu F, Kiome R. The Benefits of Biotechnology for Small-Scale Banana Producers in Kenya. ISAAA Briefs No. 22. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications; 2001.
98. Food and Agriculture Organization. Agricultural Biotechnology: Will It Help? Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2003.
99. Zuh Y, Chen H, Fan J, et al. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature. 2000;406:718-722.
100. Thro AM, Zankowski P. Classical plant breeding is the route to food security. Nature. 2003;422:559.
101. Uphoff N, ed. Agroecological Innovations: Increasing Food Production with Participatory Development. Sterling, Va: Earthscan Publications; 2002.
102. Pretty JN, Morrison JIL, Hine RE. Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment. 2002;1973:1-18.
103. Smith M. Biotechnology: state of the science and review processes. In: Perspectives on agricultural biotechnology. Proceedings from "Biotechnology: Progress or Problem?" A Conference for Developing Community Leaders; January 17-19, 2001; Binghamton, New York.
104. Babcock CB, Francis CA. Solving global nutrition challenges requires more than new biotechnologies. J Am Diet Assoc. 2000;100:1309-1311.
105. Women's Strategies for Earth Summit 2002. Women's Action Agenda for a Healthy Planet. London, UK: UNED Forum. 2002. Available at: http://www. earthsummit2002.org/wcaucus/2002/waa2002.htm. Accessed January 3, 2002.
106. Messer E. Food systems and dietary perspective: are genetically modified organisms the best way to ensure nutritionally adequate food? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2001;9(1):65-90.
107. Bread for the World Institute. Agriculture in the Global Economy: Hunger 2003. Washington, DC: Bread for the World Institute; 2003.
108. World Development Movement. Structural Damage: The Causes and Consequences of Malawi's Food Crisis. London: World Development Movement; October 2002.
109. Laglet P, Cantley M. European responses to biotechnology: research, regulation, and dialogue. Issues in Science and Technology 2001;17(4): 37-42.
110. Burkhardt J. The genetically modified organism and genetically modified foods debates: why ethics matters. In: Buttel FH, Goodman RM, eds. Of Frankenfoods and Golden Rice: Risk, Rewards, and Realities of Genetically Modified Foods. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. Vol 89. Madison, Wise: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters; 2001:63-82.
111. Beachy RN. Facing fear in biotechnology. Science 1999;285:255.