The difference between GM- and non-GM-crops on the level of ...

Genomic Misconception of Transgenesis
<strong>The</strong> <strong>difference</strong> <strong>between</strong> <strong>GM</strong>- <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong>-<strong>crops</strong> on the level of
molecular processes has been overestimated
Klaus Ammann, AF-9 20110909 opensource version
klaus.ammann@ips.unibe.ch
New update from September 9, 2011
Peer reviewed contribution available on the following websites:
Public Research Initiative www.pubresreg.org
European Federation of Biotechnology http://www.efb-central.org/
Contents
1. Issue ............................................................................................................................................. 2
2. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Differences <strong>between</strong> <strong>GM</strong>- <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong>-<strong>crops</strong> overestimated: the Genomic Misconception .... 3
3.1. Discovery of the dynamics of DNA processes <strong>and</strong> the beginning of the transatlantic
regulatory divide ...................................................................................................................... 3
3.2. <strong>The</strong> holistic concept of an ‘Intrinsic Integrity of the Genome’: a doubtful <strong>and</strong> misleading
concept .................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3. Molecular processes similar in natural mutation <strong>and</strong> transgenesis: the molecular evidence 9
3.4. Recent publications about transcriptome comparisons of <strong>GM</strong>- <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> ............ 11
3.5. Natural Genomic Variability: DNA as a Highly Dynamic System ........................................... 18
3.6. Dramatic rearrangement of R gene loci: This class of genes diversifies more rapidly than
other genes in the <strong>crops</strong> studies ............................................................................................ 19
3.7. Jumping Genes: <strong>The</strong>ir dynamics falsify the erroneous picture of regulators that DNA is a
stable string of genes ............................................................................................................. 21
3.8. Helitrons contribute to the lack of gene colinearity observed in modern maize inbreds ..... 23
3.9. Polyploids, Alloploids in Flowering Plants ............................................................................. 23
3.10. Natural genomic <strong>and</strong> phaenotypic variability of plants underestimated .............................. 25
3.11. Horizontal Geneflow <strong>between</strong> Pro-Caryotes <strong>and</strong> Eu-Caryotes .............................................. 26
3.12. Natural <strong>GM</strong> plants: no surprise .............................................................................................. 27

2
4. Legislative History of the Cartagena Protocol <strong>and</strong> its Genomic Misinterpretaion of
Transgenesis ................................................................................................................................................ 29
5. Recent confirmation of similarities <strong>between</strong> natural mutation <strong>and</strong> transgenesis .................... 31
6. Conventional breeding causes more unexpected negative effects ........................................... 35
7. Two major reasons for the dissent over molecular <strong>difference</strong>s (the Genomic Misconception)
causes transatlantic divide, possible solutions ........................................................................................... 36
7.1. Dissent on contrast of a process oriented versus a product oriented view ....................... 36
7.2. Dissent on contrast ‘Substantial Equivalence’ versus ‘Precautionary Principle’ .............. 38
8. Obstacles for a solution of the transatlantic divide ................................................................... 39
8.1. Asynchrony of scientific assessment of the risk of transgenesis in <strong>crops</strong> .......................... 39
8.2. <strong>The</strong> notorious absence of scientific debates ...................................................................... 39
9. <strong>The</strong> negative effects of the Genomic Misconception: <strong>The</strong> present day precarious regulatory
situation in Europe for <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> ................................................................................................................ 41
10. Urgent: Call for de-regulation of commonly commercialized transgenic <strong>crops</strong> Solutions of this
dissent offered within the Cartagena Protocol ........................................................................................... 45
11. Obstacles to progress in solving the dissents: ........................................................................... 46
12. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 49
13. Cited literature ........................................................................................................................... 52
1. Issue
<strong>The</strong> Genomic Misconception of Transgenesis is a major source of erroneous decisions in the regulation
of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>. <strong>The</strong> <strong>difference</strong> <strong>between</strong> <strong>GM</strong>- <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong>-<strong>crops</strong> on the level of molecular processes has
been overestimated. And even more so, as soon as genetic engineering has been applied to crop
breeding, the misunderst<strong>and</strong>ings grew due of politically motivated fear-mongering. In the wake of
molecular breeding, the uncontested but erroneous underst<strong>and</strong>ing among many scientists <strong>and</strong> in
particular among people working in the risk assessment community was that <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> pose by principle
some novel risks, unprecedented compared to conventionally bred <strong>crops</strong>. This view has then

3
unfortunately been taken up in the United Nations Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 1 without scientific
scrutiny. This basic error, called here the Genomic Misconception, needs to be revisited in certain basic
aspects.
2. Summary
After an early phase of risk assessment, including the results of the Asilomar Conference on biosafety, a
premature divide has been created in basic concepts of risk assessment developed <strong>between</strong> Canada, the
USA <strong>and</strong> Europe including a majority of UN signatory countries. <strong>The</strong> dissent was developing along the
lines: Genetic engineering is fundamentally different from other genomic alterations like natural
mutation, <strong>and</strong> that therefore it is a necessity to follow strict rules of the precautionary principle by
contesting at the same time the reassuring view of substantial equivalence established <strong>between</strong>
transgenic <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-transgenic organisms. Researchers like Werner Arber, based on detailed molecular
insights <strong>and</strong> on his own innovative experience in genetic engineering claim that related to molecular
processes there is no <strong>difference</strong> <strong>between</strong> genetically engineered <strong>and</strong> natural mutation. Regulators in the
United States <strong>and</strong> Canada followed this principle by regulating not the transgenic <strong>crops</strong> based on
processes, rather they focused on the product of plant breeding, thus contradicting clearly the European
<strong>and</strong> unfortunately also the view of UN agencies. But this transatlantic divide is artificial <strong>and</strong> built on
political views rather than scientific knowledge. <strong>The</strong> dividing views could be solved with some more
innovative regulatory proceedings. <strong>The</strong> Cartagena Protocol risk assessment concept needs to be
amended in the view of basic scientific molecular biology insights. <strong>The</strong> product oriented regulation is
confirmed in the last years with numerous peer reviewed publications on the genomic analysis of
transcriptomics, demonstrating that as a rule the transgenic plants show less genomic disturbances than
traits produced with conventional breeding methods.
3. Differences <strong>between</strong> <strong>GM</strong>- <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong>-<strong>crops</strong> overestimated: the
Genomic Misconception
3.1. Discovery of the dynamics of DNA processes <strong>and</strong> the beginning of the transatlantic
regulatory divide
In the wake of molecular genetics Oswald T. Avery <strong>and</strong> colleagues (Avery et al., 1944) wrote about their
historic discovery of DNA as the molecule uniquely associated with the storage <strong>and</strong> transfer of genetic
information <strong>between</strong> different strains of bacteria. <strong>The</strong> biosafety debates started soon after the
discovery of the DNA double helix structure by Watson & Crick (Watson & Crick, 1953a, b, c), <strong>and</strong>
Wilkins (Wilkins et al., 1953), see the history of the groundbreaking discovery (Glickstein, 1995; Olby,
2003). <strong>The</strong> justified euphoria also led to predictions about the new possibilities to manipulate living
organisms. This was followed by the Asilomar Conference with the task to discuss potential risks of the
new technology (Berg et al., 1974; Berg et al., 1975; Berg & Singer, 1995; Fredrickson, 2001; Rogers,
1 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/

4
1975). Later, (Cohen et al., 1973; Cohen et al., 1972) discovered successful ways of ‘gene splicing’ by the
construction of new biologically functional plasmids in vitro through joining cohesive-ended plasmid
DNA molecules of entirely different origin. <strong>The</strong> same authors also predicted that these general
procedures could be used for the insertion of specific DNA sequences from prokaryotic or eukaryotic
chromosomes or extra-chromosomal DNA into independently replicating bacterial plasmids. This was
then translated into practical use, first by transforming soybeans (Gasser & Fraley, 1989; Shah et al.,
1986), <strong>and</strong> as soon as more transforming technologies became available, the number of transformed
<strong>crops</strong> grew quickly <strong>and</strong> constantly (Potrykus, 1991). Early opposition in the DNA risk debate became also
visible in the Nineties, but did finally not achieve much until the turn of the millenium (Arrow et al.,
1996a, b; Kasting et al., 1996). One of the major turning points in the risk debate on transgenic <strong>crops</strong>
was the unfortunate activity of Pusztai with methodically flawed rat experiments published prematurely,
causing a lot of debate (Ewen & Pusztai, 1999a, b, c; Kuiper et al., 1999; Lachmann, 1999; Rowett
Institute, 1999), see an extensive report in ASK-FORCE: (Ammann, 20110111)
A comprehensive account on field testing <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> has been published as early as 1989 by the National
Research Council (NRC (National-Research-Council), 1989), interestingly enough not calling for
exaggerated measures, because it was not indulging into the ‘Genomic Misconception’, instead the
authors insist in a product – oriented regulation, p.10:
“<strong>The</strong> deliberations of the committees were guided by the conclusion (NAS, 1987) that the product of genetic modification <strong>and</strong>
selection should be the primary focus for making decisions about the environmental introduction of a plant or microorganism
<strong>and</strong> not the process by which the products were obtained.”
For more details on the summarized history of US regulation of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> see (McHughen & Smyth,
2008).See more historical accounts on transgenesis (Chassy, 2007; Friedberg, 2007; Klug, 2004;
Nirenberg, 2004; Watson & Tooze, 1981; Wright, 1994). Especially the latter two books (still available)
are producing an enormous amount of original material, being an excellent testimony of the often
ardent, hot early debates, both scientific <strong>and</strong> political. It is a pity that the well documented debates,
which settled many open questions, were not taken into account in the subsequent biosafety legislation
phase in Europe <strong>and</strong> the United Nations. A more recent account is focusing on European Regulation,
written by Mark Cantley, an expert working for many years for the European Commission (Cantley,
2008) <strong>and</strong> regulators like Shane Morris <strong>and</strong> Charlie Spillane: (Morris & Spillane, 2010) produce all a
rather critical picture on the early European regulatory developments.
After many years of debating the possible perils of bacterial molecular genetic manipulation, more
precision came into the experiments by the discovery of the function of the restriction enzymes by
Werner Arber (Arber & Linn, 1969). <strong>The</strong> fascination about the novelty of transgenesis was initially
overwhelming <strong>and</strong> thus a certain anxiety was underst<strong>and</strong>able. <strong>The</strong> worries even grew with the progress
of scientific insight such as the new possibilities of precise genomic manipulation (“cut <strong>and</strong> stitch”) of
higher organisms (Cohen et al., 1973). <strong>The</strong> following many unforeseen scientific breakthroughs were
unprecedented in the history of molecular biology – possibly even in biology altogether. Unfortunately,
the enthusiasm also lashed back in an over-reacting in risk assessment efforts, when the first <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>
went into production. Voices of reason, coming from researchers with a deep in sight in molecular
processes of life, promoted a less alerted view, as can be seen in the early work of Werner Arber: (Arber,

5
1979a, b, 1983, 1985, 1990b, 1991, 1993, 1994a, b, c), finally topped off recently by (Arber, 2010a) in a
view which was given within a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Science (Potrykus &
Ammann, 2010). <strong>The</strong> debate on how <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> should be regulated, started very early with an emerging
divide <strong>between</strong> regulation in the US <strong>and</strong> Great Britain, including later the whole of Europe (Bennett et
al., 1986; NRC (National-Research-Council), 1989; Persley et al., 1993; Wright, 1986, 1993; Wright,
1994).
But obviously, science was not really asked for in some of the major regulatory decisions of the
European Union, as precisely described by (Cantley, 2008), some important words from his opus
magnum (more details in chapter 6.2 on obstacles)
“<strong>The</strong> protests to Parliament by Nobel prize-winners did not represent a politically significant constituency [!]. <strong>The</strong> OECD report
on rDNA safety, indicating no scientific basis for legislation specific to recombinant DNA, was quoted for its prestige <strong>and</strong>
authority, in support of precisely such legislation. <strong>The</strong> advice of the safety specialists of the European Federation of
Biotechnology was aggressively rejected by the Director-General of DG XI.”
Without referring to details about the ‘Genomic Misconception’, Mark Cantley describes convincingly,
how welcome for political reasons it was for European MEPs to stress the process – oriented regulation,
instead of following the more reasonable <strong>and</strong> science based US - <strong>and</strong> Canadian approach. And anyway,
why should MEPs care about such difficult scientific details? However, it is also interesting to note that
one of the most influential <strong>and</strong> knowledgeable experts in the regulatory process of the EU as Mark
Cantley did not himself stress the genomic process similarities more precisely. This would have enabled
him to defend more stoutly the US-Canadian model of product-oriented regulation. But it also is visible
from his detailed account that there were not many experts within the EU who could have organized
professional <strong>and</strong> efficient scientific lobbying.
One of the first regulators of the United States, Henry Miller, warned very early <strong>and</strong> consistently since
the 1980ties not to fall into trap of the misconception of transgenesis as a fundamentally different
approach to plant breeding. He published dozens of papers, spread in the finest scientific journals. Here
a selection mainly restricted to the journals of the Nature group: (Miller, 1994a, 1996a, b, 1998; Miller
et al., 1994; Miller, 1994b; Miller, 1994c; Miller, 1995, 1996c, d, e, f, g, 1999, 2000, 2001a, b; Miller,
2002, 2007, 2008; Miller et al., 1998; Miller & Conko, 2000, 2001a, b; Miller & Conko, 2004a; Miller &
Conko, 2004b; Miller et al., 1993), Miller later also published numerous newspaper articles, <strong>and</strong> he also
summed up his view in two books on the Policy Controversy in Biotechnology: An Insider View (Miller,
1997) <strong>and</strong> also later in the book: the Frankenfood Myth, published together with Gregory Conko: (Miller
& Conko, 2004b), here just a typical excerpt from the first book 1997 (on the topic treated here):
“Recombinant DNA techniques constitute a powerful <strong>and</strong> safe new means for the modification of organisms;
Genetically modified organisms will contribute subtsantially to improved health care, agricultural efficiency <strong>and</strong> the
amelioration of many pressing environmental problems that have resulted from the extensive reliance on chemicals in both
agriculture <strong>and</strong> industry;
<strong>The</strong>re is no evidence of the existence of unique hazards either in the use of rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes
<strong>between</strong> unrelated organisms;
<strong>The</strong> risks associated with the introduction of rDNA engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the

introduction of unmodified organisms <strong>and</strong> organisms modified by other methods <strong>and</strong>
6
<strong>The</strong> assessment of risks associated with introducing recombinant DNA organisms into the environment should be based on the
nature of the organism <strong>and</strong> of the environment into which the organism is to be introduced, <strong>and</strong> independent of the method of
engineering per se.” (Miller, 1997)
<strong>The</strong> above sentence “there is no evidence of the existence of unique hazards” should not be
misunderstood by taking it out of the context: it means that there is no evidence that by using the
methods of transgenesis per se there is a specific risk created – but of course you can create by the
choice of a given transgene, a transgene which causes for instance problems through vertical gene flow
such as herbicide tolerance crossing out, which can be mitigated with adequate molecular t<strong>and</strong>em
techniques as the research group of Gressel from Tel Aviv is proposing: (Al-Ahmad et al., 2006; Al-
Ahmad & Gressel, 2006; Gressel, 1999; Gressel, 2010). In other words it is also clear that transgenic
<strong>crops</strong> to not pose more or less risks than conventional <strong>crops</strong>, which has again been confirmed recently
by the latest expert conference invited by the ministery of agriculture of the German government on risk
assessment of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> in Berlin in April 2011 2
(Herman et al., 2009a) confirm the above statement of (Miller, 1997) from the food perspective:
“Insertional mutagenesis <strong>and</strong> the potential formation of fusion proteins are real possibilities during the insertion of transgenes,
but are even more likely during traditional breeding when many genes must recombine. Such changes are readily observable in
‘‘off types’’ during traditional breeding <strong>and</strong> even within commercial <strong>non</strong>-transgenic crop fields. Even so, molecular studies with
transgenic <strong>crops</strong> are required to characterize the flanking DNA regions of transgenic inserts to investigate if endogenous genes
have been disrupted, <strong>and</strong> also to determine if open reading frames for alternative proteins are present <strong>and</strong> represent a safety
concern. Such studies are not conducted for traditionally bred <strong>crops</strong> <strong>and</strong> have not compromised their safety.” (Herman et al.,
2009a)
Again, the Genomic Misconception was explicitly criticized by Alan McHughen, summarizing all the
critical points of flawed science creeping slowly but steadily in the international regulatory systems:
(McHughen, 2007):
“Flaw 1: process versus product. Many regulatory regimes assume wrongly that the process of transgenesis (recombinant DNA
technology) inherently poses risk, so categorically all products developed using recombinant DNA must be scrutinized. At the
same time ‘conventional’ processes of breeding—including such genetically disruptive methods as irradiation mutagenesis—are
assumed to be risk free <strong>and</strong> therefore warrant little or no regulatory scrutiny. Rarely, if ever, is this assumption challenged,
despite numerous <strong>and</strong> diverse scientific studies concluding that biotech processes are not inherently riskier than conventional
breeding methods.”
<strong>The</strong> method of transgenesis per se is highly unlikely to cause additional problems, but again the choice
of a given transgene acting e.g. as an allergene will be detrimental, as some cases have shown: (Batista
et al., 2005; Nordlee et al., 1996; Prescott et al., 2005) , <strong>and</strong> again modern breeding <strong>and</strong> the great
potential of genomic analysis <strong>and</strong> the resulting transparency offer safe solutions – much easier to
achieve than with conventional breeding methods.
2 Berlin, Expert Status Conference link: http://www.biosicherheit.de/aktuell/1311.statusseminar-sicherheitsforschung-gentechnisch-
veraenderte-pflanzen.html

A comprehensive summary of the early regulatory phase in Europe has been compiled in a thesis by
(Moroso, 2008). In a summary, some devastating views on the lack of scientific background of EU
regulatory decision making are given:
7
“In analyzing the way ‘<strong>GM</strong>O’ were institutionalized <strong>between</strong> the late 1980s <strong>and</strong> early 1990s, this thesis shows that the concepts
of risk <strong>and</strong> uncertainty – which have dominated the <strong>GM</strong> debate – need to be conceived as collective constructs that are used
strategically in order to pursue various objectives related to the context in which people using them operate. It is also argued
that the legitimate use of these concepts is bound to the credibility <strong>and</strong> the authority of science. <strong>The</strong>se considerations have
stimulated some reflections on the nature <strong>and</strong> role of regulation in the <strong>GM</strong> debate. In particular, it is argued that the move from
a voluntary system of controls to a statutory one represents a move from an epistemic community approach to policy-making to
a logic of bureaucratic politics, in which the literal interpretation of rules became a solution to political disagreement. As rule
following became a political requirement, <strong>GM</strong>Os became a bureaucratic issue <strong>and</strong> scientists turned into bureaucrats. Within
these changes, the role of scientific expertise in the definition of <strong>GM</strong>Os decreased.” (Moroso, 2008)
<strong>The</strong> irony is, that even with the much more tedious approach of process oriented regulation of <strong>GM</strong>
plants <strong>and</strong> <strong>GM</strong> food, costing enormous amounts of research money, the final outcome of risk
assessment is very positive: no negative effects are revealed, always compared to conventional <strong>crops</strong>:
(European Commission, 2010; Janik & Muresan, 2010; Taverne, 2011).
<strong>The</strong> conclusions from these most recent reviews, addressing all biosafety aspects of <strong>GM</strong> food, come to
the same positive opinion as (Batista & Oliveira, 2009):
“In this review we have presented several scientific studies that have been performed with the aim of addressing <strong>and</strong> clarifying
the issues of safety of GE foods. From these, it is clear that there is no unequivocal evidence supporting adverse effects of any of
the currently commercialized <strong>GM</strong> food products.” (Batista & Oliveira, 2009)
(Ricroch et al., 2011) came again to the same conclusion, taking into account a wide range of genomic
comparisons:
“All three “omic”approaches, on either crop plants or on Arabidopsis thaliana, a research model organism, converge in their
conclusions when the effects of a genetic modification itself is compared to inter-variety variation or environmental effects.
Transgenesis has less impact on the expression of genomes or on protein <strong>and</strong> metabolite levels than conventional breeding or
plant (<strong>non</strong>-directed) mutagenesis when comparison is available. In addition, environmental conditions usually have a larger
impact.” (Ricroch et al., 2011)
3.2. <strong>The</strong> holistic concept of an ‘Intrinsic Integrity of the Genome’: a doubtful <strong>and</strong>
misleading concept
<strong>The</strong> concept of violated intrinsic naturalness of the genomes is still erroneously maintained by
proponents of organic farmers (van Bueren et al., 2008; Van Bueren & Struik, 2004, 2005; Van Bueren et
al., 2003). Interestingly enough this concept has never undergone an effort of scientific definition. One
reason might be that any scientific definition of the term “intrinsic naturalness of the genomes” would
dem<strong>and</strong> a fair comparison, which obviously yields a quite different picture as described in more detail in
this chapter below. Consequently the Wageningen research group on organic farming stresses that
regulation should be based on processes, not products, a principle, which we will falsify in this
contribution (Van Bueren et al., 2007). In this publication, the authors try to explain again why they
focus on “holistic concepts” in molecular plant breeding, causing lots of confusion: Here only one: how
can the authors defend a concept where proper science is denounced as a reductionist view <strong>and</strong>
product oriented regulation as utilitarian views? This rather ideological view blurs the fact that
conventional methods <strong>and</strong> transgenesis can be compared <strong>and</strong> if you do this, you will see that
conventional breeding is hurting this undefined principle of intrinsic integrity of the genome even more

than transgenesis. Here a long paragraph in the publication from 2007, demonstrating that with
constructing an artificial contrast built on a holistic view of nature, thus avoiding with lots of words to
talk about the recent findings of transcriptomic comparisons based on facts.
8
“This alliance <strong>between</strong> science <strong>and</strong> utilitarianism can be taken for granted that the scientific (reductionistic) view on nature is
the only true one, <strong>and</strong> not a world view in itself. Once the ‘truth’ is questioned, debates on food <strong>and</strong> biotechnology can be
broadened beyond the utilitarian framework that now dominates the discussions, both in practice <strong>and</strong> in ethical theory
development. To question that truth, one needs only to move one’s attention away from experimental reductionistic science,
<strong>and</strong> focus on approaches that are closer to the world of our immediate experience. In our direct contact with plants <strong>and</strong> animals,
the organisms are usually experienced as living wholes. From this (more holistic) perspective it is possible to experience gene
technology as a violation of the integrity of the organism (Verhoog, 2003, 2007a, b). Integrity has to do with wholeness, with
harmonious balance <strong>between</strong> all parts of the organism, the genes included. For a ‘holistic thinker’ genes are not just
exchangeable elements of building materials. Such holistic viewpoints are not just gut feelings of laymen, but substantial
elements in the philosophy of organic farming (Lund, 2002; Lund, 2006). <strong>The</strong> choice of an agriculture without <strong>GM</strong>Os is, as will be
shown, an informed <strong>and</strong> ‘reasonable’ choice within the framework of organic farming.
From a <strong>non</strong>-holistic, reductionistic point of view, experimental natural sciences (including sciences relating to biotechnology) are
based on a certain philososophy of nature, which leads to a product-orientation <strong>and</strong> to corresponding utilitarian ethics. In
organic agriculture, the more holistic philosophy of nature leads to a process orientation with a corresponding ethical approach
in which there is room for intrinsic arguments.” (Van Bueren et al., 2007).
Also the publications of Henk Verhoog just confirm this rather ideological view (Verhoog, 1992, 2003,
2007a, b; Verhoog et al., 2003; Verhoog et al., 2007), which should be questioned: Why on earth should
scientists working with molecular structures be denied of a holistic view? Progress <strong>and</strong> new insight in
genomic dynamics have their roots in modern holistic views, <strong>and</strong> epigenetics widens the picture even
more. And why on earth should molecular scientist not have great appreciation for nature, ecology <strong>and</strong>
the whole picture? <strong>The</strong> author interprets this rather one-sided view on intrinsic naturalness with the
cheap attacks to reductionist views as a good excuse not to deal with the evidence on the molecular
level, that the conventional breeding methods (<strong>and</strong> not only artificial mutagenesis) causes more
transcriptomic disturbances than transgenesis, see the chapters below with all details. It is, considering
all the strong influence of NGOs like Greenpeace <strong>and</strong> Friends of the Earth in the legislation process of
the international biosafety protocol (Cartagena Protocol) no wonder that European legislation is strictly
following the process orientation focus.
In the same way, lacking completely any baseline comparison with mutagenesis <strong>and</strong> conventional
breeding, (Schmidt et al., 2009) come to the same negative conclusions on <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> already
commercialized: A short citation of this publication (completely lacking any substantial hint to factual
negative effects of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>) may suffice, comments are superfluous:
“<strong>The</strong> combination of the probability that an unwanted event will occur <strong>and</strong> the potential damage such an occurrence would
cause is considered as risk. Agricultural use of <strong>GM</strong>O exhibits characteristics of systemic risks, which are defined as risks that
impact several systems at different levels of their organization: For instance, the release of <strong>GM</strong>O may modify the molecular level
of species, ecosystems, <strong>and</strong> single farms as well as agricultural <strong>and</strong> food processing <strong>and</strong> marketing systems.” (Schmidt et al.,
2009)

3.3. Molecular processes similar in natural mutation <strong>and</strong> transgenesis:
the molecular evidence
This concept of singling out transgenity in comparison to all other breeding methods is falsified by the
publications of Arber (Nobel Laureate 1978):
Genetic engineering has been brought into evolutionary perspective of natural mutation by authorities
such as Werner Arber: his view, published in numerous papers, remains scientifically uncontested that
molecular processes in transgenesis <strong>and</strong> natural mutation are basically similar (Arber, 1990a, 1994c,
2000, 2002, 2003, 2004; Arber, 2010b).
Arber compared designed genetic alterations (including genetic engineering) with the spontaneous
genetic variation known to form the substrate for biological evolution (Arber, 2002):
9
“Site-directed mutagenesis usually affects only a few nucleotides. Still another genetic variation sometimes produced by genetic
engineering is the reshuffling of genomic sequences, e.g. if a given open reading frame is brought under a different signal for
expression control or if a gene is knocked out. All such changes have little chance to change in fundamental ways, the properties
of the organism. In addition, it should be remembered that the methods of molecular genetics themselves enable the
researchers anytime to verify whether the effective genomic alterations correspond to their intentions, <strong>and</strong> to explore the
phenotypic changes due to the alterations. This forms part of the experimental procedures of any research seriously carried out.
Interestingly, naturally occurring molecular evolution, i.e. the spontaneous generation of genetic variants has been seen to
follow exactly the same three strategies as those used in genetic engineering. <strong>The</strong>se three strategies are:
(a) small local changes in the nucleotide sequences,
(b) internal reshuffling of genomic DNA segments, <strong>and</strong>
(c) acquisition of usually rather small segments of DNA from another type of organism by horizontal gene transfer.”
(Arber, 2002)
(See the upper part of fig. 1 below)
“However, there is a principal <strong>difference</strong> <strong>between</strong> the procedures of genetic engineering <strong>and</strong> those serving in nature for
biological evolution. While the genetic engineer pre-reflects his alteration <strong>and</strong> verifies its results, nature places its genetic
variations more r<strong>and</strong>omly <strong>and</strong> largely independent of an identified goal. Under natural conditions, it is the pressure of natural
selection which eventually determines, together with the available diversity of genetic variants, the direction taken by evolution.
It is interesting to note that natural selection also plays its decisive role in genetic engineering, since indeed not all pre-reflected
sequence alterations withst<strong>and</strong> the power of natural selection. Many investigators have experienced the effect of this natural
force which does not allow functional disharmony in a mutated organism.” (Arber, 2002)
An instructive figure is given by Arber in (Arber, 2008) with the explanation:
“Neodarwinism resides on three pillars (see upper part of Fig. 1):
1. Genetic variation, that reflects a reduced genetic stability, is the driving force of biological evolution. Without the occasional
generation of genetic variants there would not be any biological evolution, <strong>and</strong> all organisms of a given species would be clones.
2. Natural selection that results from the way by which organisms cope with the encountered environment. Natural selection is
exerted in the context of populations. In the free nature these are usually mixed populations of many different species, each
containing besides their parental forms also their accumulated genetic variants. Note that for any given organism, the
constraints of the environment depend both on the physico-chemical nature of the environment <strong>and</strong> on the biological activities
exerted by all the other forms of life present in the ecosystem. Under experimental laboratory conditions natural selection can
be more straightly explored by propagating a single type of organism in an environment with controlled parameters.
3. Natural selection, together with the genetic set-up of the organisms (parental forms <strong>and</strong> their genetic variants)
that are present in an ecosystem, can be seen as the determinants of the direction(s) that biological evolution
takes. <strong>The</strong> third pillar of Neodarwinism is isolation. Both geographical <strong>and</strong> reproductive isolation can modulate the
evolutionary process.” (Arber, 2008)

10
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the concept of Neodarwinian evolution with its three pillars: mutation/genetic variation, natural selection
<strong>and</strong> isolation. In the lower left part molecular mechanisms involved in the generation of genetic variants are assigned to three qualitatively
distinct natural strategies that can alter the genomic information. From (Arber, 2008)
Arbers numerous writings (Arber, 2000, 2003, 2004; Arber, 2010b) confirm this important comparison
on the genomic level of evolutionary <strong>and</strong> modern plant breeding processes.
But there is of course, despite all the similarities, one major <strong>difference</strong>: whereas natural mutation acts
completely in a natural time scale, that is, the mutants will need hundreds to hundreds of thous<strong>and</strong>s of
years to overcome selective processes in nature until they really succeed <strong>and</strong> take over against their
natural competitors, this is totally different with the transgenic crop products: they run through a R&D
phase, <strong>and</strong> a regulatory process of an average of 15 to 20 years until being completely deregulated. But
somewhere along this process they will be propagated to the millions in the field, covering in a
evolutionary extremely short time span millions of hectares.

11
<strong>The</strong> same claim of high similarity on the molecular process level <strong>between</strong> natural mutation <strong>and</strong>
transgenesis is made in the comparison of selection <strong>and</strong> transgenesis in fish breeding by Hackett
(Hackett, 2002). According to her, the bottom line is that mutation <strong>and</strong> addition/loss of new genes is not
uncommon in animals; it occurs naturally during evolution <strong>and</strong> various combinations of alleles are
selected in different environments, leading to sub-speciation <strong>and</strong> genetic diversity. Transgenics
represent an almost negligible addition to this natural variation; however they just are carefully
screened, selected, <strong>and</strong> cared for. Hackett questions the <strong>difference</strong>s <strong>between</strong> transgenesis <strong>and</strong> normal
genotypic variations in natural populations. Fish breeders have learned to integrate transgenesis into
genomic changes through domestication (Devlin et al., 2001; Devlin et al., 2009).
<strong>The</strong> rate of genetic mutation <strong>and</strong> increases in gene expression due to mutations in gene number <strong>and</strong>/or
gene regulation from human genetics, where mutations of nearly every sort have been catalogued
(Crow, 1997) cannot be underestimated. In particular, gene duplication events occur at rates of up to
one per 10,000 individuals. Moreover, the levels of gene expression can vary more than 30-fold as a
result of single base mutations in regulator regions (Myers et al., 1986).
See more cited <strong>and</strong> commented references on the early views of genomic similarities <strong>between</strong> natural
mutation <strong>and</strong> transgenesis see chapter 4: History of the Cartagena Protocol.
3.4. Recent publications about transcriptome comparisons of <strong>GM</strong>- <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>
(Coll et al., 2008) used microarrays to compare the transcriptome profiles of widely used commercial
MON810 versus near-isogenic varieties <strong>and</strong> reported differential expression of a small set of sequences
in leaves of in vitro cultured plants of AristisBt/Aristis <strong>and</strong> PR33P67/PR33P66.
Fig. 2 Changes in gene expression in MON810 vs. near-isogenic maize lines Aristis Bt vs. Aristis <strong>and</strong> PR33P67 vs. PR33P66. Each point
represents one gene in the maize Affymetrix microarray. <strong>The</strong> log odds for differential expression of all genes, estimated from the RMA
analysis of the data were plotted against the estimated log2 fold changes. Thus, a twofold increase or decrease in the level of a given
transcript corresponds to 1 or -1, respectively. Bold, sequences further analyzed by real-time RT-PCR. From (Coll et al., 2008)
<strong>The</strong> Graph in fig. 2 demonstrates clearly that genomic variability can be more substantial among the
<strong>non</strong>-transgenic traits (right) in the analyzed traits than in a comparison <strong>between</strong> <strong>GM</strong>- <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> maize
traits (left).

12
In a recent paper, (Coll et al., 2009) come once again to the conclusion, that transcriptome profiles of
MON810 <strong>and</strong> comparable <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> maize varieties cultured in the field are more similar than are those
of conventional lines. <strong>The</strong>ir bibliography supports this view with numerous peer reviewed publications.
This is again emphasized by the same author collective (Coll et al., 2010) in the most recent publication:
Fig. 3 Principal component analysis (PCA) of the sequence expression data. Classification of samples using PC1 versus PC2 (a) <strong>and</strong> PC1 versus
PC3 (b). Rhombus correspond to Helen Bt samples; squares, to Helen samples; triangles to Beles Sur <strong>and</strong> crosses, to Sancia samples. Open
figures represent control (C) <strong>and</strong> filled figures, low-N conditions (low-N). Autoscaled logarithmic expression levels are plotted. From (Coll et
al., 2010) .
<strong>The</strong> results are remarkable: An incontestable statistical analysis with Principal Component methods
demonstrates the following facts: In two common MON810/<strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> variety pairs <strong>and</strong> two farming
practices (conventional <strong>and</strong> low-nitrogen fertilization) the <strong>difference</strong>s were as follows:
“MON810 <strong>and</strong> comparable <strong>non</strong>- <strong>GM</strong> varieties grown in the field have very low numbers of sequences with differential
expression, <strong>and</strong> their identity differs among varieties. Furthermore, we show that the <strong>difference</strong>s <strong>between</strong> a given MON810
variety <strong>and</strong> the <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> counterpart do not appear to depend to any major extent on the assayed cultural conditions, even

though these <strong>difference</strong>s may slightly vary <strong>between</strong> the conditions. In [their] study, natural variation explained most of the
variability in gene expression among the samples. Up to 37.4% was dependent upon the variety (obtained by conventional
breeding) <strong>and</strong> 31.9% a result of the fertilization treatment. In contrast, the MON810 <strong>GM</strong> character had a very minor effect
(9.7%) on gene expression in the analyzed varieties <strong>and</strong> conditions, even though similar cryIA(b) expression levels were
detected in the two MON810 varieties <strong>and</strong> nitrogen treatments.” (Coll et al., 2010)
13
This justifies the major conclusion from this paper (again): Transcriptional <strong>difference</strong>s of conventionallybred
varieties <strong>and</strong> under different environmental conditions should be taken into account in safety
assessment studies of <strong>GM</strong> plants.
More recent publications demonstrate, that transgenesis e.g. has less impact on the transcriptome of
the wheat grain than traditional breeding (Batista et al., 2008; Baudo et al., 2006; Shewry et al., 2007).
Two figures may to visualize the lower impact on transcriptome expression of transgenic <strong>crops</strong>
compared to conventional ones:
Volcano plots from (Batista et al., 2008): In all observed cases of the comparison <strong>between</strong> transgenic
<strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-transgenic <strong>crops</strong> the observed alteration was more extensive in the mutagenized than in the
transgenic plants:
“Controversy regarding genetically modified (<strong>GM</strong>) plants <strong>and</strong> their potential impact on human health contrasts with the tacit
acceptance of other plants that were also modified, but not considered as <strong>GM</strong> products (e.g., varieties raised through
conventional breeding such as mutagenesis). What is beyond the phenotype of these improved plants? Should mutagenized
plants be treated differently from transgenics? We have evaluated the extent of transcriptome modification occurring during
rice improvement through transgenesis versus mutation breeding. We used oligonucleotide microarrays to analyze gene
expression in four different pools of four types of rice plants <strong>and</strong> respective controls: (i) a gamma-irradiated stable mutant, (ii)
the M1 generation of a 100-Gy gamma-irradiated plant, (iii) a stable transgenic plant obtained for production of an anticancer
antibody, <strong>and</strong> (iv) the T1 generation of a transgenic plant produced aiming for abiotic stress improvement, <strong>and</strong> all of the
unmodified original genotypes as controls. We found that the improvement of a plant variety through the acquisition of a new
desired trait, using either mutagenesis or transgenesis, may cause stress <strong>and</strong> thus lead to an altered expression of
untargeted genes. In all of the cases studied, the observed alteration was more extensive in mutagenized than in transgenic
plants. We propose that the safety assessment of improved plant varieties should be carried out on a case-by-case basis <strong>and</strong>
not simply restricted to foods obtained through genetic engineering.” (Batista et al., 2008)

14
Fig. 4 Volcano plots for differentially expressed genes. Differentially expressed genes appear above the thick horizontal lines. Genes induced
_2-fold are on the right of the right vertical lines, <strong>and</strong> the ones repressed _2-fold are on the left of the left vertical line. <strong>The</strong> numbers
corresponding to the differentially expressed genes induced _2-fold for each experiment (red-shadowed area) are red, <strong>and</strong> those
corresponding to the genes repressed _2-fold (blue-shadowed area) are blue. <strong>The</strong> green-shadowed area corresponds to differentially
expressed genes that were up- or down-regulated _2-fold (green-colored numbers). Blue-colored genes are those with P <strong>between</strong> 0 <strong>and</strong> 0.5,
<strong>and</strong> red-colored genes are those with P <strong>between</strong> 0.5 <strong>and</strong> 1. From (Batista et al., 2008)
Plots from (Baudo et al., 2006) are also clearly demonstrating, that transcriptome comparisons <strong>between</strong>
transgenic <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-transgenic comparable traits show substantial equivalence.
“Detailed global gene expression profiles have been obtained for a series of transgenic <strong>and</strong> conventionally bred wheat lines
expressing additional genes encoding HMW (high molecular weight) subunits of glutenin, a group of endosperm-specific seed
storage proteins known to determine dough strength <strong>and</strong> therefore bread-making quality. Differences in endosperm <strong>and</strong> leaf
transcriptome profiles <strong>between</strong> untransformed <strong>and</strong> derived transgenic lines were consistently extremely small, when analysing
plants containing either transgenes only, or also marker genes. Differences observed in gene expression in the endosperm
<strong>between</strong> conventionally bred material were much larger in comparison to <strong>difference</strong>s <strong>between</strong> transgenic <strong>and</strong> untransformed
lines exhibiting the same complements of gluten subunits. <strong>The</strong>se results suggest that the presence of the transgenes did not
significantly alter gene expression <strong>and</strong> that, at this level of investigation, transgenic plants could be considered substantially
equivalent to untransformed parental lines.” (Baudo et al., 2006)

15
Fig. 5 Scatter plot representation of transcriptome comparisons of: (a) transgenic B102-1-1 line vs. control L88-31 line in endosperm at 14
dpa (left), 28 dpa (middle) or leaf at 8 dpg (right); (b) conventionally bred L88-18 vs. L88-31 line in endosperm at 14 dpa (left), 28 dpa
(middle), or leaf at 8 dpg (right); (c) transgenic B102-1-1 line vs. conventionally bred L88-18 line in endosperm at 14 dpa (left), 28 dpa
(middle), or leaf at 8 dpg (right). Dots represent the normalized relative expression level of each arrayed gene for the transcriptome
comparisons described. Dots in black represent statistically significant, differentially expressed genes (DEG) at an arbitrary cut off > 1.5. <strong>The</strong>
inner line on each graph represents no change in expression. <strong>The</strong> offset dashed lines are set at a relative expression cut-off of twofold. In the
adjacent coloured bar (rectangle on the far right of the figure), the vertical axis represents relative gene expression levels: reds indicate
overexpression, yellows average expression, <strong>and</strong> greens under-expression. Values are expressed as n-fold changes. <strong>The</strong> horizontal axis of
this bar represents the degree to which data can be trusted: dark or unsaturated colour represents low trust <strong>and</strong> bright or saturated colour
represents high trust. From (Baudo et al., 2006).
In another recent paper on transcriptomic comparison, (Kogel et al., 2010) come to the following similar
conclusions (see also the figures):
“In summary, our results substantially extend observations that cultivar-specific <strong>difference</strong>s in transcriptome <strong>and</strong> metabolome
greatly exceed effects caused by transgene expression. Furthermore, we provide evidence that, (i) the impact of a low number of
alleles on the global transcript <strong>and</strong> metabolite profile is stronger than transgene expression <strong>and</strong> that, more specifically, (ii)
breeding for better adaptation <strong>and</strong> higher yields has coordinately selected for improved resistance to background levels of root
<strong>and</strong> leaf diseases, <strong>and</strong> this selection appears to have an extensive effect on substantial equivalence in the field during latent
pathogen challenge, <strong>and</strong>:
<strong>The</strong> coregulation of most of these genes in GluB <strong>and</strong> GP, as well as simple sequence repeat-marker analysis, suggests that the
distinctive alleles in GluB are inherited from GP. Thus, the effect of the two investigated transgenes on the global transcript

16
profile is substantially lower than the effect of a minor number of alleles that differ as a consequence of crop breeding.” (Kogel
et al., 2010)
Fig. 6 Characterization of ChGP transformants tissue-specific accumulation of endochitinase ThEn42 in ChGP transformants <strong>and</strong> its effect on
root infections by R. solani AG8. (A) Amounts of endochitinase in tissues of ChGP transformants. Seedlingsof thetransgenicbarley
linesUbi::ChGP-9 (blackbars),Ubi::ChGP-19(light gray bars), <strong>and</strong> 35S::ChGP-36 (dark gray bars). Endochitinase content in root tips, upperparts
of theroots, coleoptiles,hypocotyls,<strong>and</strong>first leaves (Left to Right) were determinedwithafluorometric assay (Fig.
S2A<strong>and</strong>SIMaterials<strong>and</strong>Methods). Data are the mean of five replicate samples ± SEM (B) Reduced disease symptoms on ChGP transformants
after root inoculation with R. solani AG8 (SI Materials <strong>and</strong> Methods). Significant <strong>difference</strong>s to GP with P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
above the bars <strong>and</strong> were calculated with a Welch’s modified t test (29). From (Kogel et al., 2010).
In a further recent paper, dealing with biosynthetic comparison <strong>between</strong> tubers <strong>and</strong> leafes of potato
traits (Ferreira et al., 2010), the authors come again to similar conclusions, as expressed in an interview
of <strong>GM</strong>O safety of the senior author 3 in http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/741.docu.html : “<strong>The</strong>
impact of transgenes is basically limited to their immediate function” .
And furtheron read the statements of Uwe Sonnewald in the interview of <strong>GM</strong>O Safety:
“<strong>GM</strong>O Safety: <strong>The</strong> following statement was deduced from your findings: Conventional breeding causes more changes in plants
than the introduction of a single transgene. Can you make such a generalisation? After all, you only looked at barley. Have
comparable studies been carried out on other genetically modified <strong>crops</strong>?
Uwe Sonnewald: As far as I know, this was the first time that both methods had been used in a simultaneous investigation.
Researchers have studied either gene expression or plant substances in wheat, potatoes <strong>and</strong> maize <strong>and</strong> have come to very
similar conclusions. <strong>The</strong> impact of transgenes is basically limited to their immediate function. For example, if I insert a gene for
fructan biosynthesis in potatoes, it is hardly surprising that these potatoes then produce fructan <strong>and</strong> so differ in this way from
their parent lines. But only negligible additional <strong>difference</strong>s were found. I know of no instance where a more significant change
in gene expression has been caused by a single transgene. However, great variability exists <strong>between</strong> individual varieties of all
3 See http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/741.docu.html

17
the <strong>crops</strong> mentioned <strong>and</strong> the obvious explanation for this is that often the breeding objective is to create resistance to external
stress factors, <strong>and</strong> this involves a large number of genes.”
Again the same conclusions are drawn by another comprehensive paper of a large international
collective of authors (Barros et al., 2010):
“<strong>The</strong> aim of this study was to evaluate the use of four <strong>non</strong>targeted analytical methodologies in the detection of unintended
effects that could be derived during genetic manipulation of <strong>crops</strong>. Three profiling technologies were used to compare the
transcriptome, proteome <strong>and</strong> metabolome of two transgenic maize lines with the respective control line. By comparing the
profiles of the two transgenic lines grown in the same location over three growing seasons, we could determine the extent of
environmental variation, while the comparison with the control maize line allowed the investigation of effects caused by a
<strong>difference</strong> in genotype. <strong>The</strong> effect of growing conditions as an additional environmental effect was also evaluated by
comparing the Bt-maize line with the control line from plants grown in three different locations in one growing season. <strong>The</strong>
environment was shown to play an important effect in the protein, gene expression <strong>and</strong> metabolite levels of the maize
samples tested where 5 proteins, 65 genes <strong>and</strong> 15 metabolites were found to be differentially expressed. A distinct
separation <strong>between</strong> the three growing seasons was also found for all the samples grown in one location. Together, these
environmental factors caused more variation in the different transcript ⁄ protein ⁄ metabolite profiles than the different
genotypes.” (Barros et al., 2010).
Figure 2b demonstrates no evident <strong>difference</strong>s <strong>between</strong> <strong>GM</strong> – <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> maize:
Fig. 7 PCA score plots of maize grown at Petit over three consecutive years. Separation <strong>between</strong> the <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>GM</strong> varieties for (a)
microarray data, (b) proteomics data, (c) 1H-NMR spectra, (d) gas chromatographic ⁄ mass spectrometric (GC ⁄ MS) metabolite profiles. From
(Barros et al., 2010).
Interestingly enough, the parallel short report on the website of USDA www.isb.vt.edu was first
published (without notifying the authors) under a clearly misleading headline “Molecular Profiling
Techniques Detect Unintended Effects in Genetically Engineered Maize”, it was subsequently
corrected on intervention by the authors to the original headline given in the manuscript:
“Molecular Profiling Techniques as Tools to Detect Potential Unintended Effects in Genetically
Engineered Maize” (Barros, 2010).

18
Based on the extensive review of (Wilson et al., 2006), transgenesis results into deletions <strong>and</strong>
insertions in the genome of considerable size, just as radiation mutation breeding can cause: (Meza
et al., 2002) show in genetically transformed plants:
“Transgene silencing has been correlated with multiple <strong>and</strong> complex insertions of foreign DNA, e.g. T-DNA <strong>and</strong> vector backbone
sequences. No striking <strong>difference</strong>s were seen <strong>between</strong> the TS <strong>and</strong> C lines. <strong>The</strong> majority of the deletions are 100 bp were found, the largest of 1537 bp.
Normally, the deletion represented a continuous stretch of genomic DNA (Fig. 2A <strong>and</strong> Table 2). A somewhat more complex
pattern was observed in only one line (ex2±4 line 8), where a deletion of 35 bp at the integration site was followed by 60 bp of
genomic DNA preceding a second deletion of 825 bp.” (Meza et al., 2002).
It is one of the most frequent misunderst<strong>and</strong>ings, that transgenesis causes more genomic disturbance than conventional
breeding. It is a very frequently encountered fundamental mistake of many risk assessment papers related to <strong>GM</strong>Os: they lack
the baseline comparison – which in the case of environmental risk assessment should also comprise the important elements of
agricultural practice. Here, in chapter 3.2. <strong>and</strong> 3.3. we dem<strong>and</strong> a scientifically founded baseline comparison <strong>between</strong> the various
breeding methods.
3.5. Natural Genomic Variability: DNA as a Highly Dynamic System
As a preface to this chapter, one should realize the fantastic variability of cultivars, here demonstrated
with an illustration from (Parrott, 2010) about the already ancient colorful maize l<strong>and</strong>races:
Fig. 8 Maize from the Guatemalan highl<strong>and</strong>s, showing that cross pollination takes place naturally <strong>between</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>races.
Photos courtesy of Eduardo Roesch, from (Parrott, 2010).
It is also ironic <strong>and</strong> a clear confirmation of green myths not related to reality, that one of the genetically
most altered plants, the sunflower, can be found as a symbol of naturalness for a major political party in
Germany (Grünes Bündnis).

19
Fig. 9 Sunflowers, Helianthus annuus cultivar, one of the most artificial horticultural plants as a symbol for the political party of the greens
from Germany: Bündnis 90, DIE GRÜNEN. http://gruene-senden.de/schlagzeilen/archiv.html
It is also worthwhile to visit the site of David Tribe with <strong>GM</strong>O pundit, he offers an extensive site on
genomic comparison <strong>between</strong> <strong>GM</strong>Os <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong>Os, with an impressive collection of “natural
transgenic plants” 4 . See in particular the series of links under Natural <strong>GM</strong>Os, parts 1 to 12 <strong>and</strong> 13 to 26.
Some of the arguments used by David Tribe are taken up here <strong>and</strong> enriched with more facts <strong>and</strong>
references:
3.6. Dramatic rearrangement of R gene loci: This class of genes diversifies more rapidly
than other genes in the <strong>crops</strong> studies
Once more, the erroneous view of the genome as a stable system is falsified with data of genomic
analysis:
One of the major sources of genetic variability (clearly an evolutionary necessity) is described by (Leister,
2005) on the origin, evolution <strong>and</strong> genetic effects of nuclear insertions of organelle DNA, illustrated in
the following figure 10.
4 David Tribe’s blogspot on Natural <strong>GM</strong>Os: http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2005/12/collected-links-to-scientific.html

20
Fig. 10 Schematic overview of known types of intercompartment DNA transfer. (a) Organelle-to-nucleus; (b) chloroplast-to-mitochondrion;
(c) nucleus-to-mitochondrion. From (Leister, 2005)
In Box 1, (Leister, 2005) describes in detail the various possibilities of gene flow <strong>and</strong> reasons for genomic
change:
“Box 1. DNA flow <strong>between</strong> different genetic compartments
Six types of DNA transfer are conceivable <strong>between</strong> the three DNA-containing organelles: nucleus, plastid <strong>and</strong> mitochondrion. In
ptDNAs, no sequence of nuclear or mitochondrial origin has yet been detected, indicating that nucleus-to-plastid or
mitochondrion-to-plastid transfer occurs extremely rarely or not at all. During the early phase of organelle evolution, organelleto-nucleus
DNA transfer (designated in Figure I as ‘a’) resulted in a massive relocation of functional genes to the nucleus: in
yeast, as many as 75% of all nuclear genes could derive from protomitochondria [62], whereas w4500 genes in the nucleus of
Arabidopsis are of plastid descent [63]. Cases of present-day organelle-to-nucleus DNA transfer, revealed by the presence of
NUMTs <strong>and</strong> NUPTs, are known in most species studied so far. Among the few eukaryotic organisms in which norgDNA has not
been detected are the malaria mosquito (Anopheles gambiae) <strong>and</strong> the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Mitochondrial chromosomes
contain segments homologous to chloroplast sequences, as well as sequences of nuclear origin, providing indirect evidence for
plastid-to-mitochondrion <strong>and</strong> nucleus-to-mitochondrion transfer of DNA (Figure I: ‘b’ <strong>and</strong> ‘c’). Thus, a few percent of the mtDNA
of flowering plants derives from ptDNA, whereas retrotransposons seem to be the major source of nucleus-derived mtDNA.
Interestingly, although plastid-to-mitochondrion <strong>and</strong> nucleus-tomitochondrion DNA transfer have been detected in almost all
plant mitochondrial chromosomes sequenced so far [64,65], there is no evidence for the incorporation of nDNA into the
mitochondrial genome of maize [66].”

21
Conclusions of an earlier paper of (Leister et al., 1998):
“Our data suggest a dramatic rearrangement of R gene loci <strong>between</strong> related species <strong>and</strong> implies a different mechanism for
nucleotide binding site plus leucine-rich repeat gene evolution compared with the rest of the monocot genome”
And further on in the same paper:
“Here we describe the isolation <strong>and</strong> characterization of NBS-LRR homologues via PCR from two monocot species, rice <strong>and</strong> barley,
based on structurally conserved motifs in dicot NBS-LRR R genes. We have analyzed their sequence diversity <strong>and</strong> their linkage to
genetically characterized R genes. <strong>The</strong> results from a comparative mapping in rice, barley, <strong>and</strong> foxtail millet indicates a rapid
evolution of R genes in each species <strong>and</strong> suggests possible mechanisms to generate diversity in resistance loci.” And:
“At present, rapid sequence divergence <strong>and</strong> ectopic recombination are equally possible mechanisms to explain the lack of
intraspecific syntenic relationships detected with our set of R-like gene probes. Regardless of whether the former or latter (or
both) mechanism drives the evolution of monocot NBSLRR genes, the data shown here provides strong evidence that this class
of genes diversifies more rapidly than the rest of the tested monocot genomes.” (Leister et al., 1998)
3.7. Jumping Genes: <strong>The</strong>ir dynamics falsify the erroneous picture of regulators that DNA
is a stable string of genes
<strong>The</strong> seemingly absolute novelty of genetic engineering on the molecular level has been contested
already in the early days of molecular biology in the 1930s <strong>and</strong> 1950s with the discovery of cellular
systems for genome restructuring discovered with the classic papers of McClintock (McClintock, 1930,
1953).
“1. A case of semisterility in Zea mays was found to be associated with a reciprocal translocation (segmental interchange)
<strong>between</strong> the second <strong>and</strong> third smallest chromosomes.
2. Through observations of chromosome synapsis in early meiotic prophases of plants heterozygous for the interchange it has
been possible to locate approximately the point of interchange in both chromosomes. <strong>The</strong> interchange was found to be unequal.
3. An analysis of the chromosome complements in the microspores of plants heterozygous for the interchange indicated that of
the four chromoromes constituting a ring, those with homologous spindle fiber attachment segions can pass to the same pole in
anaphase I <strong>and</strong> do so in a considerable number of the sporocytes.”
And in the paper of 1953, usually cited as the classic publication, leading decades later, including her
relentless fight for the “jumping genes concept”: Here the full summary of her paper:
“Previous studies of the origin <strong>and</strong> mode of expression of genic instability at a number of known loci in maize led to the
following conclusions. Extragenic units, carried in the chromosomes, are responsible for altering genic expression. When one
such unit is incorporated at the locus of a gene, it may affect genic action. <strong>The</strong> altered action is detected as a mutation.
Subsequent changes at the locus, initiated by the extragenic unit, again can result in change in genic action ; consequently, a
new mutation may be recognized. <strong>The</strong> extragenic units undergo transposition from one location to another in the chromosome
complement. It is this mechanism that is responsible for the origin of instability at the locus of a known gene; insertion of an
extragenic unit adjacent to it initiates the instability. <strong>The</strong> extragenic units represent systems in the nucleus that are responsible
for controlling the action of genes. <strong>The</strong>y have specificity in that the mode of control of genic action in any one case is a reflection
of the particu!ar system in operation at the locus of the gene. One extragenic system controlling genic expression is composed
of two interacting units. It is the so-called Dissociation-Activator (Ds-Ac) system. Both Ds <strong>and</strong> Ac undergo transposition. <strong>The</strong> Ds
component, when inserted at the locus of a gene, is responsible for modification of genic expression. Subsequent changes at the
locus, initiated by Ds, result in further modification of genic expression. <strong>The</strong> Ac component in this two-unit system controls when
the changes at Ds will occur. From the conclusions stated above, it was anticipated that the Ds-Ac system could operate at any
locus of known genic action. This is because the Ds unit may be transposed to various locations in the chromosome complement.
To obtain this type of instability at any one locus of kn,own genic action, it is only necessary to provide adrquate means for its

22
detection. <strong>The</strong> methods used to obtain <strong>and</strong> detect this type of instability at the AI locus in chromosome 3 <strong>and</strong> at the A2 locus in
chromosome 5 are described. A detailed analysis of one such case is presented in this report.”
Later commentaries of Fedoroff were summarizing the scientific achievements of McClintock,
acknowledging her scientific merits: (Fedoroff, 1992, 1994; Fedoroff et al., 1995; Fedoroff, 1984;
Fedoroff, 1991). Especially in the review published in the Scientific American, transposons are well
summarized as a generally occurring phenome<strong>non</strong>, having changed considerably the concept of
genomics, this is well illustrated in the fact of the multicolored maize kernels:
Fig. 11 Development time <strong>and</strong> frequency of transposition differ in mutations caused by the insertion of different defective Spm elements. If
transposition takes place late in the development, the clones of revertent cells are small <strong>and</strong> therefore so are the pigmented spots (a) . If
transposition takes place at about the same time but at a lower frequency, there are fewer such clones <strong>and</strong> fewer spots (b). If the
transposition that resores gene function takes place earlier, the revertant clones <strong>and</strong> the spots of the pigmented tissue are larger (c). From
(Fedoroff, 1984).
See a photo from a l<strong>and</strong>race preserved as a cultivar from Thusis, Switzerl<strong>and</strong>, visualizing the dynamics of
transposition:
Fig. 12 L<strong>and</strong>race preserved as a cultivar from Thusis, Switzerl<strong>and</strong>, visualizing the colorful dynamics of transposition: Photo Klaus Ammann

More comments on McClintocks scientific breakthrough in (Lewin, 1983; Shapiro, 1997), the latter
probably the first to coin the term ‘natural genetic engineering’.
3.8. Helitrons contribute to the lack of gene colinearity observed in modern maize
inbreds
It was David Tribe in his blogspot on natural transgenics part 7 linking helitrons to natural <strong>GM</strong>O’s 5
23
“Until recently, it was assumed that the order of gene sequences within modern maize would be virtually invariant. Recent
discoveries have shown that gene co-linearity is not always the case. Several laboratories (1-3) have found DNA regions rich in
gene sequences that are present in some maize inbred lines but absent at homologous sites in other lines. This variation, termed
"intraspecific violation of genetic co-linearity" or "plus/minus genetic polymorphism," was shown by (Lal & Hannah, 2005) in a
recent issue of PNAS to be caused by a newly described transposable element family termed Helitrons.”
In a recent review, (Lal et al., 2009) summarize the importance of a recently discovered superfamily of
transposable elements. <strong>The</strong> authors critically analyze the proposed mechanisms of Helitron
transposition, their impact on genome evolution <strong>and</strong> the process by which these enigmatic elements
capture <strong>and</strong> multiply host genes. Intriguingly, maize Helitrons share striking structural similarity
to bacterial integrons. <strong>The</strong>se elements capture gene sequences via site-specific recombination <strong>and</strong>
generate circular intermediates (Hall & Collis, 1995). Both Helitrons <strong>and</strong> integrons are mobile, lack
terminal repeats <strong>and</strong> cause no duplication of host genome sequence upon insertion.
3.9. Polyploids, Alloploids in Flowering Plants
In his blog series part 9, David Tribe sums up polyploidisation dynamics of higher plants 6 :
“During only the past decade [i.e post 1985] molecular approaches have provided a wealth of data that have dramatically
reshaped views of polyploid evolution, providing a much more dynamic picture than traditionally espoused. In particular,
molecular data:
(i) demonstrate that both autopolyploids <strong>and</strong> allopolyploids exhibit a high frequency of recurrent formation (multiple origin),
(ii) reveal that multiple polyploidization events within species have significant genetic <strong>and</strong> evolutionary implications, <strong>and</strong>
(iii) contradict the traditional view of autoploidy as being rare <strong>and</strong> maladaptive (Soltis & Soltis, 1993).
Perhaps one of the most important contributions of molecular data to the study of polyploid evolution is the documentation that
a single polyploid species may have separate, independent origins from the same diploid progenitor species.
Multiple origins of polyploids have now been documented in bryophytes (Wyatt et al., 1988) <strong>and</strong> in >40 species of ferns (e.g.,
(Werth et al., 1985) <strong>and</strong> (Ranker et al., 1989) <strong>and</strong> angiosperms (e.g., refs. (Brochmann et al., 1992; Doyle et al., 1990; Soltis et
al., 1995; Song & Osborn, 1992). In fact, molecular data indicate that multiple origins of polyploids are the rule <strong>and</strong> not the
exception (Soltis & Soltis, 1993). In several species studied in detail with molecular markers, recurrent polyploidization was
shown to occur with great frequency during short time spans <strong>and</strong> in small geographic areas ((Brochmann et al., 1992; Soltis et
al., 1995). For example, Tragopogon mirus <strong>and</strong> Tragopogon miscellus may have formed as many as 9 <strong>and</strong> 21 times, respectively,
in a small region of eastern Washington <strong>and</strong> adjacent Idaho during just the past 50 years (Soltis et al., 1995).
<strong>The</strong> frequent recurrence of polyploidization also has major evolutionary implications, suggesting that polyploids are much more
genetically dynamic than formerly envisioned.”
5 David Tribes blogspot No. 7: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/natural-gmos-part-7-nanobot-genetic.html
6 David Tribes blogspot No. 9: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/natural-gmos-part-9-different.html

24
Polyploidy is one of the most distinctive <strong>and</strong> widespread modes of speciation in higher plants. Thirty to
70% of angiosperms, including many important crop plants, are estimated to have polyploidy in their
lineages (Song et al., 1995), again a strong argument for the high dynamics of the genome of higher
plants.
Again, confirming the genomic consensus, that transgene insertions cannot be seen apart from all other
breeding methods in its impact to the genome, (Riddle et al., 2006) demonstrate the often dramatic
influence of ploidy levels on genomics in maize:
“Polyploidization is an important process in the evolutionary history of most eukaryotic species. It oftentimes causes large-scale
genomic reorganizations <strong>and</strong> is accompanied by a wide variety of phenotypic alterations in morphology, niche preference <strong>and</strong>
fitness characteristics. Despite their importance, the morphological effects of alterations in ploidy are not well understood. We
investigated these changes in four diverse maize inbred lines, using monoploid, diploid, triploid <strong>and</strong> tetraploid derivatives,
measuring 13 characters in a r<strong>and</strong>omized field study. Employing several analysis of variance approaches, we find that all
characters investigated strongly respond to alterations in ploidy. This response appears to have two sources: one source is
shared by all inbred lines <strong>and</strong> constitutes a common response to ploidy change. <strong>The</strong> other source is genotype specific <strong>and</strong> results
in a response to ploidy.” (Riddle et al., 2006)
Fig. 13 Line-specific response to ploidy change. Response of the three height characters, ‘‘height at 4 weeks after planting’’ (top panel),
‘‘height at 6 weeks after planting’’ (middle panel) <strong>and</strong> ‘‘adult height’’ (bottom panel), to alterations in ploidy change is dependent on the
genetic background of the individuals. Mean height in centimeters for each group is given on the Y-axis, while the four groupings of bars
represent the monoploid, diploid <strong>and</strong> tetraploid lines of each inbred line. Monoploid, diploid <strong>and</strong> tetraploid lines are shown in blue, red <strong>and</strong>
yellow, respectively. Error bars represent st<strong>and</strong>ard errors. (Riddle et al., 2006).

25
In a recent paper Wu et al. (Wu et al., 2010) clarify that on the genomic transcription level that the cell
size is important, which itself is dependent on ploidy levels:
“Cell size increases significantly with increasing ploidy. Differences in cell size <strong>and</strong> ploidy are associated with alterations in gene
expression, although no direct connection has been made <strong>between</strong> cell size <strong>and</strong> transcription. Here we show that ploidyassociated
changes in gene expression reflect transcriptional adjustment to a larger cell size, implicating cellular geometry as a
key parameter in gene regulation. Using RNA-seq, we identified genes whose expression was altered in a tetraploid as compared
with the isogenic haploid. A significant fraction of these genes encode cell surface proteins, suggesting an effect of the enlarged
cell size on the differential regulation of these genes. To test this hypothesis, we examined expression of these genes in haploid
mutants that also produce enlarged size. Surprisingly, many genes differentially regulated in the tetraploid are identically
regulated in the enlarged haploids, <strong>and</strong> the magnitude of change in gene expression correlates with the degree of size
enlargement. <strong>The</strong>se results indicate a causal relationship <strong>between</strong> cell size <strong>and</strong> transcription, with a size-sensing mechanism
that alters transcription in response to size. <strong>The</strong> genes responding to cell size are enriched for those regulated by two mitogenactivated
protein kinase pathways, <strong>and</strong> components in those pathways were found to mediate size-dependent gene regulation.
Transcriptional adjustment to enlarged cell size could underlie other cellular changes associated with polyploidy. <strong>The</strong> causal
relationship <strong>between</strong> cell size <strong>and</strong> transcription suggests that cell size homeostasis serves a regulatory role in transcriptome
maintenance. (Wu et al., 2010).
3.10. Natural genomic <strong>and</strong> phaenotypic variability of plants underestimated
<strong>The</strong> whole debate on the <strong>difference</strong>s <strong>between</strong> transgenic <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-transgenic suffers from ignorance
about the natural variability of organisms <strong>and</strong> thus is affecting a scientifically correct safety assessment
of <strong>GM</strong> food <strong>and</strong> environmental impacts of <strong>GM</strong> plants, as (Batista & Oliveira, 2010) were able to
demonstrate with literature references <strong>and</strong> also with original data:
In order to address this issue, (Batista & Oliveira, 2010) have performed 2D-gel electrophoresis of five
different ears of five different MON810 maize plants <strong>and</strong> of other five of the <strong>non</strong>-transgenic nearisogenic
line. <strong>The</strong>y also performed 2D-gel electrophoresis of the pool of the five protein extractions of
MON810 <strong>and</strong> control lines. As a result, they found that the exclusive use of data from 2Delectrophoresed
pooled samples, to compare these two lines would be insufficient for an adequate
safety evaluation. We conclude that, when using ‘‘omics” technologies, it is extremely important to
eliminate all potential <strong>difference</strong>s due to factors not related to the ones under study, <strong>and</strong> to underst<strong>and</strong>
the role of natural plant-to-plant variability in the encountered <strong>difference</strong>s.
Fig. 14 Scatter plot of the first two principal components from the principal component analysis (PCA). Pink circle: 2D-gel electrophoresis of
individual control ears; Blue circles: 2D-gel electrophoresis of individual IR maize ears; Purple circles: 2D-gel electrophoresis of control pool;
Yellow circles: 2D-gel electrophoresis of IR maize pool. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

26
Principal component analysis of the 24 analysed gels clearly confirmed that some of the <strong>difference</strong>s
encountered <strong>between</strong> pools could be the result of a high plant-to-plant natural variability, which
emphasizes the importance of assessing natural variability. Although ‘‘omics” technologies are becoming
st<strong>and</strong>ard tools that offer tremendous opportunities to more accurately assess the potential for any
unintended effect, there are still significant challenges. One of these challenges regards the adequate
management of the large quantity of complex raw data generated by these technologies in a manner
such that it can be adequately analysed, scrutinized, <strong>and</strong> compared for the benefit of the scientific
community (Fratamico, 2008). When using ‘‘omics” technologies, it is extremely important to ensure
that all potential <strong>difference</strong>s due to factors not related to the ones under study are eliminated, or at
least strongly minimized.
Another major paper of this sort has just been preprinted in Plant Physiology (Ricroch et al., 2011), (sent
through Marcel Kuntz’ website 7 ).
However, pleading for the use of omics for a proper baseline comparison should be clearly restricted to
the problems of a critical comparability of safety assessment results, it should not lead to the widening
of a search for thous<strong>and</strong>s of (due to transgenicity) potentially altered substances, as (Chassy et al., 2007;
Lay et al., 2006) have rightly pointed out, since you can l<strong>and</strong> in the devils kitchen this way. This is also
the opinion of (Ricroch et al., 2011) (sent through Marcel Kuntz’ website 8 ).
“From a scientific point of view, these observations indicate that the current regulatory burden on GE <strong>crops</strong> should be lowered.
M<strong>and</strong>atory use of “omics” techniques in reglementary GE food safety assessment cannot be recommended. More basic research
is required before <strong>non</strong>-targeted large-scale methodologies can be internationally certified <strong>and</strong> accepted.” (Ricroch et al., 2011)
3.11. Horizontal Geneflow <strong>between</strong> Pro-Caryotes <strong>and</strong> Eu-Caryotes
<strong>The</strong>re is a rich literature documenting – on an evolutionary long term scale – that horizontal transfer of
genes (HGT) <strong>between</strong> pro-caryotes <strong>and</strong> eu-caryotes are not uncommon: However, according to (Keeling
& Palmer, 2008) many records of HGT (Consortium, 2001) are not confirmed by phylogenetic analysis
proving incongruent sequences (Stanhope et al., 2001). This means that potentially, molecular processes
can transfer foreign genes, so – actually, all living organisms are in that sense “transgenic organisms”,
but only considering evolutionary time scales of millions of years time span for the transfer event. To be
clear, there is no evidence of horizontal gene transfer coming from the relatively new practice in
modern breeding methods of genetic engineering (Smalla & Sobecky, 2002; Smalla & Vogel, 2007). Even
the much publicized case of HGT with a transgene in the human guts, correctly published by
(Netherwood et al., 1999; Netherwood et al., 2004) is based on clearly wrong interpretation <strong>and</strong> false
claims of opponents, see (Ammann, 2002).
A hot debate on safety issues related to the widespread use of Bacillus thuringiensis <strong>and</strong> its possible
horizontal gene transfer connection to pathogens like Bacillus anthracis has been sparked by
(Heinemann & Traavik, 2004b; Nielsen & Townsend, 2004), contradicted by (Davison, 2004), followed by
7 Website of Prof. Marcel Kuntz from Grenoble in French: http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/
8 Website of Prof. Marcel Kuntz from Grenoble in French: http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/

27
a reply (Heinemann & Traavik, 2004a), finally followed by a corrigendum (Heinemann & Traavik, 2005)
stating that the possible horizontal gene transfer connection <strong>between</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis <strong>and</strong> the
pathogene Bacillus anthracis is based on an erroneous citation of a reference, see (de Maagd et al.,
2001). However, as usual, a probably minute insecurity remains, horizontal gene transfer might still
occur on a very low rate on the long term, see the genomic discussions in (Brown et al., 2003) about the
Bacillus anthracis/cereus relationships, demonstrating that Bacillus thuringiensis is not involved in any
closer relationship, despite the statements of (Helgason et al., 2000), leaving a real threat of horizontal
gene transfer open:
“We have demonstrated that B. anthracis is genetically very closely related to some B. cereus <strong>and</strong> B. thuringiensis strains
usually regarded as rather harmless <strong>and</strong> even beneficial. Horizontal transfer of plasmids may dramatically alter their
phenotypes. It is, however, possible that for receiving <strong>and</strong> retaining the virulence plasmids of B. anthracis, additional genetic
features of the chromosome are needed. Such factors remain to be elucidated.” (Helgason et al., 2000)
A more recent study (Sorokin et al., 2006), based on new genomic analysis of soil borne populations,
reveals that at least Bacillus cereus <strong>and</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis are not compatible.
“A collection of B. thuringiensis <strong>and</strong> B. cereus strains was recently isolated from the soil of a forest near Versailles (close to
Paris, France) (33). <strong>The</strong> strains of this collection were classified as B. cereus or B. thuringiensis based on their ability to
produce parasporal toxin. Multiple-locus enzyme electrophoresis (MLEE) showed that the populations of B. cereus <strong>and</strong> B.
thuringiensis living in the same soil were genetically distinct <strong>and</strong> diverged to a greater extent than strains of the same species
isolated from geographically different locations. This suggests that ecological separation, which is probably the main force
behind separation <strong>and</strong> cohesion for bacterial genetic clustering, is stronger than the potential of these bacteria to exchange
genetic material. In this case, genetic exchange is mediated by plasmids encoding the crystal proteins, enabling the bacterium to
occupy the ecological niche of an insect pathogen.”(Sorokin et al., 2006)
For mitochondrial DNA horizontal gene transfer things are different: According to (Archibald & Richards,
2010), mitochondrial DNA can be exchanges rather frequently:
“Parasitic plants <strong>and</strong> their hosts have proven remarkably adept at exchanging fragments of mitochondrial DNA. Two recent
studies (Mower et al., 2010; Richardson & Palmer, 2007) provide important mechanistic insights into the pattern, process <strong>and</strong>
consequences of horizontal gene transfer, demonstrating that genes can be transferred in large chunks <strong>and</strong> that gene
conversion <strong>between</strong> foreign <strong>and</strong> native genes leads to intragenic mosaicism. A model involving duplicative horizontal gene
transfer <strong>and</strong> differential gene conversion is proposed as a hitherto unrecognized source of genetic diversity.”
<strong>The</strong> conclusion from this chapter 3.11 is again that gene exchange in the course of evolution has been
proven, <strong>and</strong> thus “evolutionary transgenes” are part of nature. Transgenesis belongs to nature <strong>and</strong> it is
scientifically not justified to make a fundamental distinction <strong>between</strong> natural organisms (strictly without
transgenes) <strong>and</strong> artificial organisms containing trangenes with methods of targeted genetic engineering.
However, one should keep in mind, that ‘evolutionary transgenes’ are an extremely long term
phenome<strong>non</strong>.
3.12. Natural <strong>GM</strong> plants: no surprise
It is therefore of no surprise that a natural “transgene” species has been discovered in a widespread
grass genus (Ghatnekar, 1999; Ghatnekar & Bengtsson, 2000; Ghatnekar et al., 2006):

28
Phylogenetic analysis of the PgiC1 <strong>and</strong> PgiC2 sequences indicates that PgiC2 (complex, carrying two gene
copies) has introgressed into Festuca ovina from the rather distant genus. Such an introgression may, for
example, follow from a <strong>non</strong>-st<strong>and</strong>ard fertilization with more than one pollen grain, or a direct horizontal
gene transfer mediated by a plant virus. Festuca as a genus is well known to have a high percentage of
aneuploidy following frequent asexual <strong>and</strong> apomictic reproduction <strong>and</strong> is usually seen by taxonomists as
being rather distant to the genus Poa – but there is an interesting exception: Poa violacea Bell. (also
known as Festuca pilosa Haller f.), this plant is considered by the specialists as a possible hybrid <strong>between</strong>
the two genera with an intermediate seed morphology.
“In a later paper the analysis was carried further on (Vallenback et al., 2008), here the abstract:
A segregating second locus, PgiC2, for the enzyme phosphoglucose isomerase (PGIC) is found in the grass sheep’s fescue,
Festuca ovina. We have earlier reported that a phylogenetic analysis indicates that PgiC2 has been horizontally transferred from
the reproductively separated grass genus Poa. Here we extend our analysis to include intron <strong>and</strong> exon information on 27 PgiC
sequences from 18 species representing five genera, <strong>and</strong> confirm our earlier finding. <strong>The</strong> origin of PgiC2 can be traced to a group
of closely interrelated, polyploid <strong>and</strong> partially asexual Poa species. <strong>The</strong> sequence most similar to PgiC2 is found in Poa palustris
with a divergence, based on sy<strong>non</strong>ymous substitutions, of only 0.67%. This value suggests that the transfer took place less than
600,000 years ago (late Pleistocene), at a time when most extant Poa <strong>and</strong> Festuca species already existed.” (Vallenback et al.,
2008).
(Vallenback et al., 2010a) confirmed also that the natural transgene is not just a local ephemeral
phenome<strong>non</strong>, but geographical variation in Southern Sc<strong>and</strong>inavia <strong>and</strong> Northern Germany demonstrate a
natural <strong>and</strong> widespread genomic peculiarity: A PCR based survey of Festuca ovina plants revealed some
surprises:
“From populations around the southern part of the Baltic Sea demonstrates both geographic <strong>and</strong> molecular variation in the
enzyme gene PgiC2, horizontally transferred from a Poa-species. Our results show that PgiC2—a natural functional nuclear
transgene—is not a local ephemeral phenome<strong>non</strong> but is present in a very large number of individuals. We find also that its
frequency is geographically variable <strong>and</strong> that it appears in more than one molecular form. <strong>The</strong> chloroplast variation in the
region does not indicate any distinct subdivision due to different colonization routes after the last glaciation. Our data illustrate
the geographic <strong>and</strong> molecular variation that may occur in natural populations with a polymorphic, unfixed transgene affected
by diverse kinds of mutational <strong>and</strong> evolutionary processes.” (Vallenback et al., 2010a)
In the latest paper of the research group (Vallenback et al., 2010b) the molecular analysis leads closer to
an explanation of the genomic phenome<strong>non</strong> as a horizontal gene transfer with a still unknown vector.:
“<strong>The</strong> close similarity of the up- <strong>and</strong> downstream regions with the corresponding regions in P. palustris excludes all suggestions
that PgiC2 is not a HGT but the result of a duplication within the F. ovina lineage. <strong>The</strong> small size of the genetic material
transferred, the complex nature of the PgiC2 locus, <strong>and</strong> the associated fragment with transposition associated properties
suggest that the horizontal transfer occurred via a vector <strong>and</strong> not via illegitimate pollination.” (Vallenback et al., 2010b).

4. Legislative History of the Cartagena Protocol <strong>and</strong> its Genomic
Misinterpretaion of Transgenesis
29
<strong>The</strong> author communicated with many of the first hour participants in the negociations of the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety. <strong>The</strong> most notable details come from Prof. Alex<strong>and</strong>er Golikov, member of the
Russian Academy of Sciences <strong>and</strong> executive secretary of the Black See Biotechnology Association (BSBA).
At the time of the first session (22. – 26. June 1996 in Aarhus, DK) of the biosafety working group
creating the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Prof. Alex<strong>and</strong>er Golikov was the rapporteur of the group
which was lead by the chairperson Prof. Veit Koester – who’s comments in (Koester, 2001)
demonstrate, that as an influencial chairman he was not aware of the strong influence on regulatory
decisions related to the ‘Genomic Misconception’, although he has been pointed to this conflict by the
rapporteur Prof. Golikov (oral communication). Koester, according to his own account 2001 also had “no
idea about why the so called Miami group resisted to the final wording of the Cartagena Protocol:
“It is possible only to guess the reasons why the negotiations failed in 1999, but succeeded one year later. A group of countries,
the so-called ‘Miami Group’, consisting of Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, the US <strong>and</strong> Uruguay, blocked the finalization of
the negotiations in 1999. At the WTO meeting in Seattle at the end of 1999, Canada <strong>and</strong> the US tried to further a decision on the
creation of a working group on biotechnology. This attempt, which was regarded by a number of other countries as an attempt
to ‘kill’ the suspended negotiation on the Biosafety Protocol, failed because of resistance from EU countries. Over 1999, growing
scepticism towards products derived from gene technology <strong>and</strong> biotechnology had also been seen in countries such as Australia,
Canada <strong>and</strong> the US.”
Contradicting this above statement of ignorance about the resistance of the Miami group is a
publication of (Hagen & Weiner, 2001), where detailed trade political reasons are enumerated:
“Throughout the negotiations, the Miami Group opposed provisions that would allow governments to subject commodities to
advanced informed agreement procedures or documentation requirements (both of which are discussed more fully below) as
these obligations would require segregation of LMOs from traditional agriculture products.” (Hagen & Weiner, 2001).
About the negociations, Hagen & Weiner published some details:
“<strong>The</strong> BSWG (Biosafety Working Group) met a total of six times, beginning in July 1996, <strong>and</strong> concluded its work in February 1999
at its sixth meeting (BSWG-6). Over one hundred governments, including the United States, participated in the negotiation of the
Draft Protocol. In accordance with Decision IV/3 of the COP, the BSWG completed a controversial draft text (the Draft Protocol)
in Cartagena <strong>and</strong> referred it to an extraordinary meeting of the COP (Ex-COP) for possible adoption.20 <strong>The</strong> Ex-COP opened
February 22, 1999 in Cartagena, Colombia. However, disagreements concerning central features of the Draft Protocol,
particularly concerning its scope <strong>and</strong> impact upon trade in <strong>GM</strong>Os, proved insurmountable. Unable to arrive at a text acceptable
to all 134 CBD Parties in attendance, the COP decided to suspend the extraordinary meeting <strong>and</strong> reconvene no later than COP-5,
scheduled to occur in May 2000.” (Hagen & Weiner, 2001).
<strong>The</strong> “Genomic Misconception” was as an important issue discussed in transatlantic debates long before
the Cartagena Protocol negociations started, <strong>and</strong> it was clearly one of the major transatlantic disputes,
as (Miller et al., 1994) document with the dispute on European biosafety research activities:
Crawley decries “arm chair assessment which formerly passed for ecological analysis” by <strong>non</strong>-ecologist
“pundits” who believed that “a small transgenic change to genotype would have no impact on
phenotype”. However, the arm-chair assessors <strong>and</strong> pundits are, in this case, an impressive lot, <strong>and</strong> they

30
include the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NRC (National-Research-Council), 1989), the British
House of Lords Select Committee on Science <strong>and</strong> Technology as well as a number of other international
panels <strong>and</strong> professional groups. <strong>The</strong> broad scientific consensus that “no conceptual distinction exists
<strong>between</strong> genetic modification of plants <strong>and</strong> microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular
methods that modify DNA <strong>and</strong> transfer genes,” combined with the ability to extrapolate from general
scientific principles (especially those derived from our knowledge of the biological world <strong>and</strong> from our
underst<strong>and</strong>ing of evolutionary biology) is compelling. <strong>The</strong>se concepts serve to remind us that scientific
experiments build upon one another but that real progress is not achieved with trivial confirmations.
Crawley agrees with this opinion, citing among others the statement of the Ecological Society of America
(Tiedje et al., 1989):
“Genetically engineered organisms should be evaluated <strong>and</strong> regulated according to their biological properties (phenotypes),
rather than according to the genetic techniques used to produce them.”
And some paragraphs later:
“Transgenic organisms can be designed to minimize the chance of environmental perturbations. <strong>The</strong> choice of the trait <strong>and</strong>
parent organism used, the form of the genetic alteration, <strong>and</strong> the control of its expression all affect the likelihood that the
genetically engineered organism will have undesirable effects. In addition, the conditions of the organism’s introduction can be
planned to minimize potential problems. Thus, we believe that with careful design of transgenic organisms <strong>and</strong> proper planning
<strong>and</strong> regulatory oversight of environmental releases, the introduction of many transgenic organisms can be carried out with
minimal ecological risk.”
But this should according to the authors Tiedje et al. 1989 not be understood as a call for complete deregulation, as they also
emphasize:
“Although we support the timely development of environmentally sound products through the use of advanced biotechnology,
we believe that these developments should occur within the context of a scientifically based regulatory policy that encourages
innovation without compromising sound environmental management.”
In his own words published in the SCOPE/COGEN volume: (Crawley, 1990)
“<strong>The</strong>re seems to be a view that the ecology of genetically engineered organisms is somehow different more inscrutable
perhaps, but certainly more dangerous <strong>and</strong> that the intentional release of genetically engineered organisms poses more of a
threat to the balance of nature than other kinds of organisms bred by man. This view is mistaken. While there are risks
associated with the introduction of any novel organisms into a habitat, the ecology of genetically engineered organisms is
exactly the same as the ecology of any other living thing. <strong>The</strong> rules are precisely the same, no matter how the genotype is put
together. Populations must have an intrinsic rate of increase greater than zero in order to persist (see below). <strong>The</strong>y must be
supplied with essential resources at a sufficient rate to allow this multiplication rate to be expressed. Transgenic individuals are
exposed to predators, parasites, diseases, <strong>and</strong> competitors, <strong>and</strong> suffer the same kinds of losses during dispersal as any other
organisms. <strong>The</strong>y may require mutualists for resource gathering, reproduction, defence, or dispersal. <strong>The</strong>y must deal with the
vagaries of changing weather <strong>and</strong> heterogeneous substrate in the same way as any other organisms.”
But then Crawley continues in his reply in (Miller et al., 1994) in a disappointing way you would not
expect from an independent scientist:
“<strong>The</strong> trouble is, that it doesn’t really mean anything. In the real world, <strong>GM</strong>Os are treated differently from other organisms. <strong>The</strong>
reason they are treated differently is because governments <strong>and</strong> bureaucrats have decreed that it should be so. And why did they
do this? Because of fear <strong>and</strong> uncertainty.”
<strong>The</strong> authors comment is very simple: the “real world” should still follow sturdy science, but
unfortunately there is a “false world” following clearly the wrong path on governmental levels <strong>and</strong> with
the help of populist politicians <strong>and</strong> scientists, not at all justified by peer reviewed science.

Another proof of early disputes on the ‘Genomic Misconception’ is given in detail in (Huttner et al.,
1995):
31
“<strong>The</strong> U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) <strong>and</strong> the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a very different course than
FDA, proposing entirely new regulatory schemes specifically targeting the use of the new genetic techniques in research. <strong>The</strong>se
regulatory schemes conflict with worldwide scientific consensus that rDNA techniques <strong>and</strong> rDNA-modified organisms are not
inherently dangerous or unpredictable [(Kelman et al., 1987; Mooney & Bernardi, 1990) , (NRC (National-Research-Council),
1989) (Fiksel, 1987), (Sears, 1995), (UNIDO/WHO/UNEP Working Group, 1992), (USDA, 1987) ]. <strong>The</strong>re is no valid conceptual
distinction regarding safety <strong>between</strong> modern <strong>and</strong> older genetic methods. <strong>The</strong> scientific community has found from millions of
laboratory experiments <strong>and</strong> thous<strong>and</strong>s of field trials that the precision of rDNA techniques actually enhances determinations of
safety <strong>and</strong> risk. This confidence is not, however, reflected in EPA <strong>and</strong> USDA regulations on field research.”
A rich source of the history <strong>and</strong> dynamics of the transatlantic biosafety dispute can be downloaded at
the COGEN site: A selection of the Statement (Arber W., 1990) <strong>and</strong> 5 publications dealing specifically
with the ‘Genomic Misconception’ are cited here (Arber, 1990a; Campbell, 1990a, b; Crawley, 1990;
Kingsbury, 1990; Skalka, 1990). Interestingly enough they all are more or less agreeing with the opinion
of the Miami Group on the molecular similarity <strong>between</strong> transgenesis <strong>and</strong> natural mutation. (Mooney &
Bernardi, 1990) edited all the downloadable chapters in a book still available.
<strong>The</strong>re are several historical accounts on the Cartagena Protocol dispute, but symptomatically, but they
are almost completely devoid of the molecular science behind the debate: (Giesecke, 2000; Munson,
1993), nevertheless they give detailed insight in the chronology <strong>and</strong> the political fights at the surface of
the delegates disputes.
5. Recent confirmation of similarities <strong>between</strong> natural mutation <strong>and</strong>
transgenesis
Ever since the early papers of Miller, Arber <strong>and</strong> many others it is evident, that the <strong>difference</strong>s <strong>between</strong>
natural mutation <strong>and</strong> transgenesis are very small:
This forms part of the experimental procedures of any research seriously carried out. Interestingly, naturally occurring molecular
evolution, i.e. the spontaneous generation of genetic variants has been seen to follow exactly the same three strategies as those
used in genetic engineering: small local changes in the nucleotide sequences, internal reshuffling of genomic DNA segments,
<strong>and</strong> acquisition of usually rather small segments of DNA from another type of organism by horizontal gene transfer.” (Arber,
2002), see also the more detailed <strong>and</strong> early account in the COGEN papers:
It is astonishing, that this clear <strong>and</strong> many times confirmed molecular view, uncontested in the scientific
literature, has not been taken as the model of regulating novel traits instead of focusing on the process
of transgenic organisms. Even more surprising is, that the numerous papers, described in detail in the
chapters 3.4 to 3.12 which followed Arber’s publications did not have more impact, although they all
confirm that a fundamental distinction <strong>between</strong> transgenic <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-transgenic <strong>crops</strong> on the level of
molecular processes compared on all organismal levels cannot be maintained - on the contrary: Even if
you want to construct reasons for a separate regulation based on different breeding methods, you have
to realize that transgenic breeds, based on recemt precise genomic analysis <strong>and</strong> assumed genetic

32
irregularities, you must come to the conclusion, that <strong>non</strong>-transgenic <strong>crops</strong> often show more
transcriptomic disturbance than transgenic traits due to jumping genes, conventional breeding
methods <strong>and</strong> polyploidy, natural long term horizontal gene flow etc.: (Barros, 2010; Barros et al., 2010;
Batista & Oliveira, 2010; Batista & Oliveira, 2009; Batista et al., 2008; Baudo et al., 2006; Baudo et al.,
2009; Ferreira et al., 2010; Ghatnekar et al., 2006; Kogel et al., 2010; Lal et al., 2009; Lal & Hannah, 2005;
Leister, 2005; Leister et al., 1998; McClintock, 1930, 1953; Meza et al., 2002; Ricroch et al., 2011; Riddle
et al., 2006; Shewry et al., 2007; Shewry & Jones, 2005; Vallenback et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2010), for
more details about genomic influences of conventional breeding see chapter 5.1.
Another clear result from all those genomic studies with modern methods is the fact that often
conventional <strong>crops</strong> show more <strong>difference</strong>s among themselves than against their transgenic
counterparts. See figures 15 <strong>and</strong> 16 from (Kogel et al., 2010) <strong>and</strong> the captions:
Fig. 15 Differentially abundant metabolites in barley leaves. Overview of differentially abundant metabolites from the targeted profiling
approach with leaf material from 4-month-old, field-grown barley plants representing the treatments (A) cultivar or (B) Amykor. <strong>The</strong>
schematic metabolic diagrams in (A) <strong>and</strong> (B) represent amap of all analyzed metabolites. <strong>The</strong> heat map strips next to the metabolite names
were taken fromthe hierarchical cluster analysis (Fig. S4A) conducted with the program Cluster v2.11 (30), with red signals denoting
anincreased metabolite content relative to average <strong>and</strong> green signals indicating decreased metabolite contents relative to average. <strong>The</strong>
consistent sample order in these strips is indicated at the bottom of the figure using the genotype <strong>and</strong> treatment abbreviations used
throughout the text <strong>and</strong> as explained below. <strong>The</strong> entire dataset, including the results of the significance tests, are given inTable S1. Please
note that the colorpattern has no implications on statistically significant <strong>difference</strong>s in pairwise comparisons, which were calculated with a
Welch-Satterthwaite test embedded in the VANTED software v1.7 (31) <strong>and</strong> are displayed in Table S1. GP, Golden Promise; B, Baronesse;
ChGP, Chitinase GP; GluB, Glucanase B; M, Amykor treatment. From (Kogel et al., 2010)

34
Fig. 16 Principal component analysis (PCA) of multiparallel datasets obtained from field-grown barley leaves. (A) PCA based on 72
metabolites that were analyzed in a targeted fashion (complete dataset displayed in Table S1): For PCA, mean values of four replicate
samples per genotype <strong>and</strong> treatment were taken <strong>and</strong> the resulting data points labeled as described below. (Left) PCA plot of principal
component 1 (PC1) versus principal component 2 (PC2). Circles are drawn around spots derived from the genotype of identical cultivar or
treatment <strong>and</strong> are labeled by letters as indicated below. (Right) loadings plot for PC1 <strong>and</strong> PC2. <strong>The</strong> 72 metabolites are individually labeled.
(B) PCA of metabolite fingerprinting data. <strong>The</strong> analysis was cdomputed for the 307 most significant mass signals obtained by metabolite
fingerprinting <strong>and</strong> is based on mean values from four replicate samples (see Materials <strong>and</strong> Methods). Compounds are labeled according to
the quantified transition. Data arrangement <strong>and</strong> labeling are as described in A. (C) PCA of transcriptome data. PCA was performed based on
data from two replicate hybridizations per genotype <strong>and</strong> treatment. RNA was extracted from aliquots of pooled sample material also used for
metabolome analysis. From the 1,660 genes differentially expressed <strong>between</strong> cultivars B <strong>and</strong> GP (Table S3), five of the most significant ones
were confirmed by qRT-PCR analysis of independent sample aliquots (Fig. S2B). GP, Golden Promise; B, Baronesse; ChGP, Chitinase GP;
GluB, Glucanase B; M, Amykor treatment. From (Kogel et al., 2010)
In a recent paper the research group of Louis La Paz et al. (Luis La Paz et al., 2010) confirm the stability
of the transgene of one of the widely commercialized Bt maize traits MON810 <strong>and</strong> explicitely state: <strong>The</strong>y
studied, in detail, the genomic variability of the MON 810 transgene cassette <strong>and</strong> flanking regions in
several commercially available transgenic maize lines. <strong>The</strong> study addressed the analysis of large
rearrangements using Southern analysis, point mutations <strong>and</strong> small indels using the mismatch
endonuclease assay, <strong>and</strong> cytosine methylation using bisulfite sequencing. DNA methylation of the
transgene <strong>and</strong> cryIA(b) mRNA levels were also determined throughout the plant development. This
suggests that, once integrated into the genome, transgenes are not mutation ‘‘hot spots’’ <strong>and</strong> have
similar rates of mutation to endogenous genes.
In conclusion, their data demonstrate that the tendency towards genetic instability of the sequence
introduced in the MON 810 YieldGard maize is no higher than for endogenous maize genes. <strong>The</strong>re is
very little <strong>difference</strong> in cytosine methylation status of the transgene among leaves of different varieties
<strong>and</strong> among different developmental stages. However, the level of cry1A(b) mRNA accumulation is
reduced throughout leaf development. This can be interpreted that <strong>GM</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> maize behave
genomically the same way, again no reason to regulate <strong>GM</strong> plants in a special, process-oriented way.
<strong>The</strong> same has been confirmed with the other widely commercialized crop, the herbicide tolerant
soybean: Similar mutation rates have been estimated for the transgene of the Roundup Ready soybean
(Ogasawara et al., 2005; Padgette et al., 1995). This suggests that, once integrated into the genome,
transgenes are not mutation ‘‘hot spots’’ <strong>and</strong> have similar rates of mutation to endogenous genes.
(Opponents like Mae van Ho promoted the erroneous idea that transgenes, in particular their promoters
could act as hot spots causing instability (Ho, 2000), a concept which has been dismissed by Hull (Hull et
al., 2000) <strong>and</strong> also indirectly by Kohli (Kohli et al., 1999) <strong>and</strong> by the overwhelming majority of scientists
working in this field. (Mae van Ho’s views can be counted as part of the ‘Genomic Misconcept’)
Risks caused by conventional breeding can be rather high, as the case of the conventional breeding of
the potato Lenape has proven: the trait had to be withdrawn because of its much too high contents of
solanidine glycoalkaloid (Ramsay et al., 2005).
(Miller & Conko, 2004a) provide important arguments supporting the view that the genomic structure of
transgenic plants do not contain any inherent new risks compared to conventional breeds:
<strong>The</strong> authors raise in a justified way based on genomic facts serious doubts about the commonly used
concept of transgenesis. In the light of pre-recombinant DNA produced in great variety by conventional
breeding with thous<strong>and</strong>s of foreign genes.

35
“In these examples of prerecombinant-DNA genetic improvement, breeders <strong>and</strong> food producers possess little knowledge of the
exact genetic changes that produced the useful trait, information about what other changes have occurred concomitantly in the
plant or data on the transfer of newly incorporated genes into animals, humans or microorganisms. Consider, for example, the
relatively new man-made wheat 'species' Triticum agropyrotriticum, which resulted from the wide-cross combination of the
genomes of bread wheat <strong>and</strong> a wild grass sometimes called quackgrass or couchgrass (Banks et al., 1993; Sinigovets, 1987) T.
agropyrotriticum, which possesses all the chromosomes of wheat as well as the entire genome of the quackgrass, was
independently produced for both animal feed <strong>and</strong> human food in the former Soviet Union, Canada, the United States, France,
Germany <strong>and</strong> China.”
6. Conventional breeding causes more unexpected negative effects
One should also take into account, that many of the conventional breeding methods such as
colchicination (Awoleye et al., 1994; Barnabás et al., 1999) <strong>and</strong> radiation mutation breeding (Reynolds et
al., 2000; Shirley et al., 1992) are obviously more damaging to the genome (Schouten & Jacobsen, 2007),
<strong>and</strong> it is in addition not possible to clearly define what impact the un-targeted process could have
caused. (Molnar et al., 2009) reported in detail about radiation treatment of the chromosome
morphology of wheat hybrids: Dicentric chromosomes, fragments, <strong>and</strong> terminal translocations were
most frequently induced by gamma-radiation, but centric fusions <strong>and</strong> internal exchanges were also
more abundant in the treated plants than in the control amphiploids. <strong>The</strong> irradiated amphiploids formed
fewer seeds than untreated plants, but on the other h<strong>and</strong> normal levels of fertility were recovered in
their offspring. On the positive side the authors are confident that intergenomic translocations will
facilitate the successful introgression of drought resistance <strong>and</strong> other alien traits in bred wheat. But it
has to be admitted that repair mechanisms on the DNA level are powerful (Baarends et al., 2001; Dong
et al., 2002; Morikawa & Shirakawa, 2001).
It is only logical that opposition within organic farming towards genetic engineering is now exp<strong>and</strong>ing
also to some of those conventional breeding methods, some go even so far as to reject marker assisted
breeding – typically for the organic agriculture scene, this trend is based on the myth of “intrinsic
integrity of the genome”, for which term it is not possible in the literature to find a proper scientific
definition based on comparisons (Ammann, 2008). <strong>The</strong> addition of rejected breeding methods would
ultimately lead to an absurd situation, where most of the modern time traits would have to be rejected
<strong>and</strong> breeding would be forced to start from scratch.
Basically, many of the first generation <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> should be today subject to a professional debate on
deregulation, <strong>and</strong> there is good <strong>and</strong> sturdy reason to state that many of these <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> should not have
been treated in such a special way in the first place, they can be compared in their risk potential to many
<strong>crops</strong> created with traditional methods.
This should not be misunderstood as a plea for general deregulation of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>, rather for a strict <strong>and</strong>
science based risk based regulation focusing also on products, not on processes alone.
Somatic hybridization also deserves a short mention here, the method enabled the artificial
hybridization of <strong>crops</strong> which have no genomic natural compatibility, see the review of (Waara &
Glimelius, 1995). Progeny analysis of some hybrid combinations also reveals inter-genomic

36
translocations which may lead to the introgression of the alien genes. Furthermore, fusion techniques
enable the re-synthesis of allopolyploid <strong>crops</strong> to increase their genetic variability <strong>and</strong> to restore ploidy
level <strong>and</strong> heterozygosity after breeding at reduced ploidy level in polyploid <strong>crops</strong>. As a matter of fact,
somatic hybridization has made it possible in evolutionary times to introduce alien genes from one
genus to the other, usually having no interfertility. This biological phenome<strong>non</strong> has also been used for
some novel breeding methods creating new <strong>crops</strong> <strong>and</strong> achieving better resistance (Scholze et al., 2010).
<strong>The</strong> case of the Lenape Potato has been summarized by (Friedman & Dao, 1992):
“Historically, the potato cultivar Lenape <strong>and</strong> its progeny are instructive examples of some of the problems glycoalkaloid
biosynthesis can introduce into potato breeding programs. This cultivar was shown to have a high solid content <strong>and</strong> a low level
of reducing sugars, which resulted in excellent chipping <strong>and</strong> storage properties (Akeley et al., 1968). However, because of its
high glycoalkaloid content (Table 111), Lenape had to be withdrawn from the market (Zitnak & Johnston, 1970). This cultivar
remains such a superior chipper that it is apparently still widely used in potato breeding programs. In fact, Lenape is a
progenitor of the NDA 1725 cultivar.”
<strong>The</strong> case of Celery containing too much psoralene causing dermatitis in humans <strong>and</strong> detrimental organ
effects in rat experiments: (Diawara et al., 2001)
“<strong>The</strong> psoralens occur naturally in produce <strong>and</strong> are widely used in skin therapy. Studies show that 5-methoxypsoralen <strong>and</strong> 8methoxypsoralen
reduced birth rates in rats. We determined the effect of psoralens on reproductive function in male rats. Male
Wistar rats were dosed daily with 5-methoxypsoralen or 8-methoxypsoralen (75 or 150 mg/kg, p.o.), or vehicle control. Treated
males had significantly smaller pituitary gl<strong>and</strong>s, fewer sperm per ejaculate, <strong>and</strong> fewer sperm in the vasa defferentia <strong>and</strong>
epididymides than controls. Dosing significantly elevated levels of testosterone <strong>and</strong> increased relative testis weight, but did not
directly affect testicular weight. Females bred to dosed males required more time to become pregnant, <strong>and</strong> these males
required more breeding attempts. <strong>The</strong> findings demonstrate the importance of determining the potential risk for infertility
<strong>and</strong>/or birth defects in humans who are exposed to therapeutic, dietary, or occupational psoralens.”
From Tom deGregory’s interview in “Butterfly <strong>and</strong> Weels” 9 : It is interesting to note that in searching for
the possible “unintended consequences” of rDNA. a committee of the Codex Alimentarius found the
most serious unintended outcomes were in <strong>crops</strong> from “traditional breeding.” a traditionally bred squash
caused food poisoning (Kirschman & Suber, 1989), a pest-resistant celery variety produced rashes in
agricultural workers (which was subsequently found to contain sevenfold more carcinogenic psoralens
than control celery) (Haslberger 2003).
7. Two major reasons for the dissent over molecular <strong>difference</strong>s (the
Genomic Misconception) causes transatlantic divide, possible
solutions
7.1. Dissent on contrast of a process oriented versus a product oriented view
This actually includes a critical questioning about some basic rules of the United Nations Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD): transgenic <strong>crops</strong> of the first generation should not have been generally
9 Tom deGregory Interview: http://www.butterflies<strong>and</strong>wheels.org/2003/the-plant-protection-racket/

37
subjected to regulation purely based on the process of transgenesis alone; rather it would have been
wiser to have a close look at the products in each case, as John Maddox already proposed in 1992 in an
editorial in Nature (A<strong>non</strong>ymous, 1992). This is also the view of Canadian regulators (Andree, 2002;
Berwald et al., 2006; Macdonald & Yarrow, 2002), where the novelty of the crop is the primary trigger
for regulation. This transatlantic (<strong>and</strong> transoceanic) contrast has been commented by many (Aerni et al.,
2009; Bennett et al., 1986; Kalaitz<strong>and</strong>onakes et al., 2005; Ramjoue, 2007a, b; Snyder et al., 2008; Thro,
2004), <strong>and</strong> although for many years a solution <strong>and</strong> mediation seemed to be too difficult, contrasts can
be overcome:
In a recent paper, an indiscriminate continuation of food biosafety research is questioned on the basis of all the above
arguments by Herman et al. (Herman et al., 2009b) with good reason:
“Compositional studies comparing transgenic <strong>crops</strong> with <strong>non</strong>-transgenic <strong>crops</strong> are almost universally required by governmental
regulatory bodies to support the safety assessment of new transgenic <strong>crops</strong>. Here we discuss the assumptions that led to this
requirement <strong>and</strong> lay out the theoretical <strong>and</strong> empirical evidence suggesting that such studies are no more necessary for
evaluating the safety of transgenic <strong>crops</strong> than they are for traditionally bred <strong>crops</strong>.”
<strong>The</strong> thesis of (Barrett, 1999) produces a clear picture of the product-oriented Canadian risk assessment,
as the following figure demonstrates:
Fig. 17 Safety based model for regulation of “plants with novel traits”, adapted from AAFC (1994): AAFC, Agriculture <strong>and</strong> Agri-Food
Canada. (1994a). "Assessment criteria for determining environmental safety of plants with novel traits." Dir94-08, Plant Industry
Directorate, Ottawa.

38
<strong>The</strong> original text of the thesis of Barrett (Barrett, 1999) also produces a very comprehensive debate on
the Precautionary Principle, citing numerous original sources (which, according to the Rio Declaration
1992 should still be called ‘Precautionary approach’) 10 .
Interestingly enough, in the follow up with later publications, Katherine Barrett became more critical
about the Canadian risk assessment model, as documented in (Abergel & Barrett, 2002; Barrett &
Raffensberger, 2000), where, based the (not very convincing) citation of risk assessment research with
scanty data, she interprets the Canadian scientific basis of risk assessment rather negative, also she
indulges into an activist concept of the precautionary principle which should not be abused for an
exaggerated view on potential risks of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>, rather than following the original view of the creators,
namely that the Precautionary Principle should be applied to actions that carry with them the potential
for serious or irreversible environmental change (a more refined model is suggested by (Shipworth &
Kenley, 1999).
7.2. Dissent on contrast ‘Substantial Equivalence’ versus ‘Precautionary Principle’
A constructive look at these problems is developed by (Ramessar et al., 2009): <strong>The</strong> global harmonization
of data collection, testing procedures <strong>and</strong> information exchange would help to remove artificial trade
barriers, expedite the adoption of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>, foster technology transfer <strong>and</strong> protect developing
countries from exploitation, instilling confidence <strong>and</strong> bringing the benefits of <strong>GM</strong> products to the
consumer. <strong>The</strong> authors present a convincing body of evidence, a comprehensive enumeration of case
studies <strong>and</strong> indeed, if the regulatory bodies would show some flexibility <strong>and</strong> innovation, <strong>and</strong> most
importantly, would allow for a whole lot more of science debates within the international conferences,
there would be some hope to come to regulatory harmonious terms.
<strong>The</strong>ir box 2 gives a slightly different picture on the transatlantic divide, but basically describing the same
legislative dissent to be resolved.
Box 2 from (Ramessar et al., 2009)
“Substantial equivalence vs. the precautionary approach—a tale of transatlantic regulatory discord
<strong>The</strong> USA <strong>and</strong> EU use fundamentally distinct approaches to determine the risk of <strong>GM</strong> products. Basically, the US comparative
approach seeks to determine whether a <strong>GM</strong> product has the same risk as its <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> contemporary, whereas the EU
precautionary approach assumes that a <strong>GM</strong> product is inherently hazardous <strong>and</strong> requires tests to be carried out to demonstrate
safety.
<strong>The</strong> comparative approach is based on comparisons <strong>between</strong> <strong>GM</strong> products <strong>and</strong> their closest conventional counterparts, usually
common foods already regarded as safe (WHO, 2000, 2005). If a <strong>GM</strong> food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition
<strong>and</strong> nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it is also considered to be equally safe ((FDA, 1992); (Kuiper et al., 2001;
Maryanski, 1995; OECD - STI & Krebs, 2000; OECD, 1993). If there are characteristics that are not substantially equivalent, risk
assessment focuses on those <strong>difference</strong>s.
This approach acknowledges there is no such thing as absolute safety or zero risk, but proposes that a safety evaluated as
equivalent to common foods is an acceptable risk. <strong>The</strong> OECD Task Force on the Safety of Novel Foods <strong>and</strong> Feed is developing
guidance documents to show what tests <strong>and</strong> tolerance limits are required to demonstrate substantial equivalence.
<strong>The</strong> precautionary approach is incorporated into the decision procedures of the Cartagena Protocol by which a country may
refuse the import of a particular <strong>GM</strong> product even when there is no evidence that it is harmful. This approach was introduced
into European environmental policies in the late 1970s, <strong>and</strong> has emerged as one of the principal tenets of international
10 United Nations Conference on Environment <strong>and</strong> Development (UNCED, Rio de Janeiro 1992, better known as the "Earth Summit") <strong>and</strong>
subsequent signing of the Rio Declaration <strong>and</strong> Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): Specifically, the Rio Declaration explicitly endorsed the
Precautionary Principle stating: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to
their ability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

39
environmental law (Barrett, 1999; Shipworth & Kenley, 1999). While few would argue that caution is entirely unnecessary,
debate continues over the level of precaution that is required, particularly in terms of the required level of scientific evidence for
the absence of risk, <strong>and</strong> the relationship <strong>between</strong> risk assessment <strong>and</strong> cost-benefit analysis. Those pushing for more
comprehensive safety procedures <strong>and</strong> a separation of trade <strong>and</strong> environmental interests tend to favor a strong precautionary
approach in some cases taking the form of a complete ban on <strong>GM</strong> products.” from (Ramessar et al., 2009), [see also (Ramessar
et al., 2010; Ramessar et al., 2008; Ramessar et al., 2007)]
<strong>The</strong>re are many other hints, that this transatlantic divide is not really a cultural divide, rather it can be
interpreted as an asynchronous dynamics (Vogel, 2003): the US regulation began rather critical,
emphasizing the Precautionary Principle in the early times of the Asilomar conference, later in the
Ninety’s it was Europe taking over in the precautionary, more critical course. This would also fit well
with the general views of the Gartner Hype Cycle (Linden & Fenn, 2003), which can easily be interpreted
with asynchronous dynamics.
It is also worthwhile to rethink the term ‘transatlantic divide’: Several countries like Brazil, Argentina,
some Gulf states <strong>and</strong> China could be persuaded (although partially signatory states of the CP) to follow
up the US-Canadian regulatory model in practice – but this needs more elaboration <strong>and</strong> cannot be dealt
with here in the framework of the topic on the Genomic Misconception.
8. Obstacles for a solution of the transatlantic divide
8.1. Asynchrony of scientific assessment of the risk of transgenesis in <strong>crops</strong>
<strong>The</strong>re is ample documentation, that the regulatory system of the United States was active many years
before similar steps have been taken in Europe: <strong>The</strong> hearings were carried through with great efforts
<strong>and</strong> calling for oral <strong>and</strong> written testimonies of the leading US scientists, see the list p. 461 in the
extensive congressional report (Smith, 2000) on the major scientific issues. From the introductory letter
of Senator Smith:
“While millions of lives all over the world have been protected <strong>and</strong> enriched by biotechnology, its application to agriculture has
been coming under attack by well-financed activist groups. <strong>The</strong> controversy they have generated revolves around three basic
questions: (1) are agricultural biotechnology <strong>and</strong> classical breeding methods conceptually the same; (2) are these products safe
to eat; <strong>and</strong> (3) are they safe for the environment?
<strong>The</strong> testimony <strong>and</strong> other material made available to the Subcommittee lead me to conclude that the answer to all three
questions is a resounding, “Yes.” In fact, modern biotechnology is so precise, <strong>and</strong> so much more is known about the changes
being made, that plants produced using this technology may be even safer than traditionally-bred plants.” (Smith, 2000) .
In fact, by the year 2000 the US regulators <strong>and</strong> legislators have done their homework since years <strong>and</strong>
again in the late nineties - <strong>and</strong> basically, the case of the scientific controversy on <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> was again
closed, also in the light of a new activity of protest corporates raising pseudo-issues for the sake of
making popular statements (<strong>and</strong> money…).
8.2. <strong>The</strong> notorious absence of scientific debates
It is correct to say that the paragraphs are not the major obstacle, paradoxically, the CPB (Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety, 2000) includes ample mechanisms of correction, but against a hardnosed majority

40
of regulatory administrators having made up their minds since years already, <strong>and</strong> also reassured by their
own activities influencing national legislation (which is often much more strict than the international
protocols), it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to take up the helm <strong>and</strong> change directions. Apart
from the ideologically <strong>and</strong> politically motivated ignoring modern genomic research, there are other
obstacles to be identified:
<strong>The</strong>se old <strong>and</strong> new perspectives in genomic insight, for the moment only visible in basic research on
modern genomics, create hope that innovative solutions can be found even within the Cartagena
Protocol.
It is true, that most of the dissent on regulation of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> is not based on paragraphs, it is more
based on political motivation, wrong <strong>and</strong> onesided interpretation <strong>and</strong> pure ideology, mixed with a whole
set of self interests of activist groups.
Unfortunately, these obstacles are very hard to overcome, since they are building on a long term <strong>and</strong>
derailed tendency within the negociations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety:
Rethinking those hardboiled dissenting thoughts is difficult for many reasons: <strong>The</strong> international UN
community of regulators of the signatory states is now, over so many years of hardened views on
transgenesis, creating completely derailed biosafety ideologies, ignoring the results modern genomic
research <strong>and</strong> many years of safe use of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> <strong>and</strong> thous<strong>and</strong>s of positive risk assessment studies
worldwide. <strong>The</strong> leading forces meet in a complex structure from the plenary sessions where the
opinions are already pre-negotiated, down to the small decision making groups on various levels <strong>and</strong> up
again to the cl<strong>and</strong>estine but powerful gatherings of the “Friends of the Chair”. Unfortunately, you find
this strict adherence to the Genomic Misconception also in the EU sessions with its majority of delegates
sent to biosafety conferences who have often no idea of the science behind the regulation of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>.
It is correct to say that the paragraphs are not the major obstacle, paradoxically, the CP even includes
mechanisms of correction, but against a hardnosed majority of regulatory administrators having made
up their minds since years already, <strong>and</strong> also reassured by their own activities in national legislation, it
will be very difficult, if not impossible, to start new initiatives <strong>and</strong> change directions. Apart from the
ideologically <strong>and</strong> politically motivated ignoring modern genomic research, there are other obstacles to
be identified:
It is sad to say – but there is a growing number of campaigners <strong>and</strong> researchers having a vested interest
in keeping the pot cooking by focusing on risks which cannot be justified anymore when you install a
proper baseline comparison with the practices of conventional agriculture.
It is obvious, that the intensive participation of activist NGOs like Greenpeace <strong>and</strong> Friends of the Earth
has had a negative influence <strong>and</strong> has built on the Genomic Misconception among many other factors. It
is ironic, that this unfortunate Genomic Misconception was just taken as scientific fact for granted, it
was never explicitly debated. Here we concentrate on the science <strong>and</strong> its researcher community:
Unfortunately, there is a certain br<strong>and</strong> of risk assessment researchers who value their own interest in
research grant policy higher than looking for solutions including a scientifically justified rethinking of

41
regulatory hurdles. This is all the more astounding as research produces nearly every week new ways of
genome manipulation (Halpin, 2005; Mahfouz et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2010; Shukla et al., 2009), which
also need to be evaluated urgently, so there should be no fear to go out of work for the risk assessment
community.
A recent paper of G. Conko <strong>and</strong> H.I. Miller demonstrates, that the transatlantic divide could cause a
backlash to the regulatory system in the New World, concerns are summarized in (Conko & Miller,
2011), the introduction may suffice here:
“Despite of more than twenty years of scientific, humanitarian, <strong>and</strong> financial successes <strong>and</strong> an admirable record of
health <strong>and</strong> environmental safety, genetic engineering applied to agriculture continues to be beleaguered by activists. Genespliced,
or so-called genetically modified, crop plants are now grown on nearly 150 million acres in the United States alone,
helping farmers to increase yields, reduce pesticide spraying, <strong>and</strong> save topsoil — <strong>and</strong> without injury to a single person or
damage to an ecosystem. But this remarkable record hasn’t kept radical environmentalists from condemning <strong>and</strong> obstructing
the technology. When they can’t sway public opinion with outright misrepresentations or induce regulators to reject products,
activists have resorted to v<strong>and</strong>alism of field trials <strong>and</strong>, finally, to harassment with nuisance lawsuits.
Environmental activists succeeded in alarming the American public about gene-spliced <strong>crops</strong> <strong>and</strong> foods for a time during the
1990s <strong>and</strong> the early part of last decade, but they cried wolf so often in the face of an unbroken string of successes that the public
began to tune them out. More recently, the activists have had to dig deeper into their bag of tricks <strong>and</strong> revive a proven strategy
for obstructing progress: litigation that challenges the procedural steps government agencies take when approving individual
gene-spliced <strong>crops</strong>. Since 2007, a coalition of green activist groups <strong>and</strong> organic farmers has used the courts to overturn two final
approvals for gene-spliced crop varieties <strong>and</strong> the issuance of permits to test several others. At least one additional case is now
pending.” (Conko & Miller, 2011).
(see also the examples in 4.4.)
9. <strong>The</strong> negative effects of the Genomic Misconception: <strong>The</strong> present day
precarious regulatory situation in Europe for <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>
With the above erroneous basis of regulatory views in Europe following the adoption of the Genomic
Misconception, i.e. focusing on the process of transgenesis instead of the products of breeding, the door
is wide open for all kinds of scaremonger views on <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>. In many cases, the list of negative
assumptions is circumscribed in a pseudo-scientific way as “potential risks” – <strong>and</strong> it is growing <strong>and</strong> long.
Often it is enough to decide for very restrictive legislation over the simplistic chain of thoughts: novel
unprecedented manipulation of the genome with unknown risks, application of the precautionary
principle (which is actually defined in the official legislation of the Rio Convention as the Precautionary
Approach…) <strong>and</strong> as a consequence legislate very restrictively without much hesitation.
Some selected reviews can illustrate this properly, all are indulging into potentialities of negative effects,
they usually do not produce hard facts of negative processes in food <strong>and</strong> environment caused by <strong>GM</strong>
<strong>crops</strong>, but they are full of potential risks <strong>and</strong> consequently they are often cited by the anti biotech lobby
in a simplified way as if this would be real risks.
Example 1:
(Andow & Zwahlen, 2006) enumerate extensively all kinds of possible negative effects: Two examples of
citations:

42
(a) the rather biased review of the Monarch butterfly case leaves the impression, that with this example, negative effects on
<strong>non</strong>-target insects are possible, although the case is closed without further needed evidence <strong>and</strong> some important papers are
not cited, such as (Gatehouse et al., 2002; Wolt et al., 2003; Wraight et al., 2000), because they give convincing arguments, that
the monarch butterfly is not harmed in Bt maize fields <strong>and</strong> consequently more research is actually a waste of money.
(b) Another questionable treatment of literature in this review is the case of a co-authored paper of (Haygood et al., 2003),
which is considered by others to be a grossly exaggerated model calculation (by a factor of one million!), see the critique in
(Gressel, 2005) – but here in this review it is treated as a seriously to be considered publication.
Example 2:
(Seralini et al., 2009), clearly <strong>and</strong> several times rebutted by Doull <strong>and</strong> EFSA (Doull et al., 2007; EFSA,
2007a, b, c), for its questionable data interpretation <strong>and</strong> applications of statistical methods which are
doubted by a clear majority of researchers.
Conclusions from (Doull et al., 2007):
“<strong>The</strong> Panel concludes that the original analysis conducted by Monsanto (Hammond et al., 2006) used statistical methods
conventionally recognized by regulatory authorities (EFSA, 2007c). <strong>The</strong> methods used in the reanalysis conducted by (Seralini et
al., 2007) for clinical chemistry, haematological <strong>and</strong> urinalysis variables, were broadly comparable in concept with the original
analysis conducted by Monsanto (Hammond et al., 2006) except that (Seralini et al., 2007) made comparisons <strong>between</strong> groups
using t-tests without multiple comparison procedures <strong>and</strong> without an initial one-way ANOVA. <strong>The</strong> <strong>difference</strong>s in the two
approaches probably led to the higher rate of statistically significant comparisons in the Seralini et al. (2007) analysis compared
to the Monsanto analysis.” (Doull et al., 2007)
Example 3:
<strong>The</strong> case of the rat experiments of Pusztai, see (Ewen & Pusztai, 1999a, b, c) <strong>and</strong> the rebuttals: (Kuiper
et al., 1999) <strong>and</strong> (House of Commons, 19990308; Rowett Institute, 1998; Royal Society, 1999), see also
the extensive ASK-FORCE blog on the matter 11 with lots of details <strong>and</strong> original documents. <strong>The</strong> rat
experiments again are deeply flawed for many reasons: Feeding procedure, statistics, conclusions etc.
From the rebuttal of (Kuiper et al., 1999):
“In summary, methods to assess the safety of <strong>GM</strong> foods that are already on the market are adequate, but the future generation
of such foods will need a wider range of tests cove ring both toxicological <strong>and</strong> nutritional endpoints. <strong>The</strong> studies must be
designed carefully because of the complexity of foods (OECD, 1998). This complexity means that the adoption, as recently
proposed, (Millstone et al., 1999) of an approach used for pesticides <strong>and</strong> food additives - the establishment of an “acceptable
daily intake” - is inappropriate . Results of studies into <strong>GM</strong> foods should be interpreted with caution <strong>and</strong> presented to the
scientific community in sufficient detail.” (Kuiper et al., 1999).
Symptomatic for the European debate on <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> is also the fact, that Nature as the journal with the
highest impact factor publishes boulevard-like summaries of the “Battle Field”, written by a science
journalist with a refreshing view, but unfortunately also showing blatant ignorance (Waltz, 2009), see
the letters to the editor <strong>and</strong> also the comment in Ask-Force AF-3 on aquatic organisms by (Rosi-Marshall
et al., 2008; Rosi-Marshall et al., 2007), including a critique of the major paper of Rosi-Marshall Emily
Waltz dealt with: K. Ammann, Ask-Force AF-3 12 .
11
Ammann, K. ASK-FORCE blog on the case of A. Pusztai: http://www.ask-force.org/web/AF-2-Pusztai/AF-2-Pusztai-Food-Safety-
20110111.opensource.pdf
12
Ammann, K. ASK-FORCE blog on aquatic organisms <strong>and</strong> Bt-toxins http://www.ask-force.org/web/AF-3-Aquatic-Bt/AF-3-Aquatic-Bt-toxins-
20100928-opensource.pdf

43
It is extremely unfortunate, that due to this deeply misconstrued genomic risk assessment concept the
door is wide open for a too rigorous precautionary principle, papers with potential negative contents get
much more attention in the press <strong>and</strong> grey literature if this kind is blossoming.
Another typical example of regulatory ruling in the European Court in Luxemburg is the latest absurdity
about honey containing Bt-pollen (again fully <strong>and</strong> uncritically based on the ‘Genomic Misconception’:
<strong>The</strong> court defined the honey containing minute amounts of Bt pollen as a product containing
“ingredients” of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>, (Court-Justice-EU, 20110906)
“Honey <strong>and</strong> food supplements containing pollen derived from a <strong>GM</strong>O are foodstuffs produced from <strong>GM</strong>Os which cannot be
marketed without prior authorization”
although it stated:
“that pollen is itself no longer a <strong>GM</strong>O when it has lost its ability to reproduce <strong>and</strong> is totally incapable of transferring genetic
material”
When you read the full ruling, you will not find hard data of any kind of Bt protein analysis within the
honey in question. Normally one should consider that most of the pollen grains found in honey have
gone through the stomach of the bees <strong>and</strong> all proteins have been digested. <strong>The</strong> question of a possible
horizontal gene transfer has been researched by Hans Hinrich Kaatz from Jena <strong>and</strong> Halle, but although
Kaatz got additional funds to finish his project in order to present final proof of horizontal gene transfer,
we still miss his final report about the case. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, more general results have been
published by Kaatz (Kaatz, 2004), not related to horizontal gene flow, but more on the biosafety of Bt
toxins related to bees, here the summary:
“Overall it was not possible to prove the existence of any chronic toxic effects of Bt176 <strong>and</strong> Mon810 Bt maize varieties on
healthy honeybee colonies. In view of the extreme conditions under which the trial was carried out (six-week duration, high Bt
toxin content), the wide-ranging investigations carried out show that toxic effects on healthy bees under natural conditions can
be excluded with a high degree of certainty.
This result is further supported by the fact that honeybees only collect small quantities of maize pollen, even in areas cultivated
with large maize plots, when other plants are available as sources of pollen (less than three percent).”
<strong>The</strong>re is a rich literature on Bt toxin impact on honey bees, here a draft excerpt of a Bt maize manuscript
of the author 13 (this draft will need an update for the last two years): <strong>The</strong> review demonstrating no
detrimental effects of Bt toxins on honey bees.
Serious reviews based on field <strong>and</strong> lab data or even better with meta-data collected in a transparent
way <strong>and</strong> with positive outcome have been published lately, a few examples should be enough: (Duan et
al., 2008; Konig et al., 2004; Marvier et al., 2007; Naranjo, 2009; Wolfenbarger et al., 2008).
It is also symptomatic in this climate of exaggerated anxiousness, that the recent publication of the next
10 years report of the European Commission (2001-2010) documenting not a single case of a negative
incident did not really hit broadly the media (European Commission, 2010) – even many scientists are
ignorant of its existence.
On the other side, we see the rise of publication numbers with the strict request of heightening the level
of <strong>GM</strong>O regulation, here only a symptomatic example of H. Meyer (Meyer, 2011), which is advocating an
enhanced system – pushing for even higher regulatory costs, <strong>and</strong>, the whole manuscript does not refer
13 Ammann, K. chapter on Bt toxin impact on honey bees: ftp://ask-force.org/www/ask-force.org/web/Bt-Review-2010/Bt-Report-2-5-Bees-
20090421.pdf

to the homologes of natural mutation <strong>and</strong> transgenesis, no word of addressing the ‘Genomic
Misconception’ despite of numerous published peer reviewed papers.
44
<strong>The</strong>re is no sign of major change in the present day regulatory rules of the European Community, they
are still strictly process based in their focus <strong>and</strong> concentrate on concerns about potential negative
effects, <strong>and</strong> it will probably need big efforts to change this. A rather critical comment of this possible
decision has been given by (Varela, 2010), although not missing some proposals for solution. As the 13
blogs in ASK-FORCE demonstrate clearly, the whole regulatory legislative world today is saturated with
misconceptions of various kinds, see the summary links: ASK-FORCE summaries 14 . Three summaries of
the widespread myths on <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> are published by (Bonny, 2003; McHughen & Wager, 2010; Parrott,
2010).
<strong>The</strong> only hope is, that the new EU Health Commissioner John Dalli, the main responsible for <strong>GM</strong>O
regulation, is determined to change this 10 years stall situation, strictly on the basis of sound science.
However, he unfortunately also suggests a major turnaround: In his words, ‘experience with <strong>GM</strong>Os so
far shows that member states need more flexibility to organize the co-existence of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>and</strong> other types
of <strong>crops</strong> such as conventional <strong>and</strong> organic <strong>crops</strong>’.
Stressing that an EU-wide authorization system ‘based on solid science’ would remain fully in place, the
Commissioner John Dalli <strong>non</strong>etheless conceded that socio-economic, cultural <strong>and</strong> ethical considerations
might drive decisions relating to the co-existence of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>and</strong> conventional <strong>crops</strong> (EU-Regulation-<strong>GM</strong>Ofree
Regions, 20100713). This would actually mean another blow at the importance of science in
regulation, despite blue-eyed declarations of the contrary. <strong>The</strong> only hope is, that the case is not yet
politically decided, <strong>and</strong> it is well known that political decision making processes in matters of transgenic
<strong>crops</strong> are extremely tedious <strong>and</strong> unpredictable <strong>and</strong> certainly long-lasting <strong>and</strong> often ending into as
permanent stall situation – as usual. However, after a critical review of the situation regarding such
regulatory rules proposed by commissioner John Dalli, JC Varela (Varela, 2010) comes to the conclusion,
that regulatory solutions might be possible in the near future.
It is really sad to see the soaring regulatory costs following this Genomic Misconception, certainly also
combined with a special penchant of rich European communities to a fear culture without factual
reasons, this will be the topic of another ASK-FORCE contribution, here only two pertinent contributions
describing a bleak picture of the steadily growing regulatory costs: (Bernauer et al., 2011) <strong>and</strong> (Drobnik,
2008; Sehnal & Drobnik, 2009).
But there is hope also, a recent protest <strong>and</strong> petition in Finl<strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>s categorically a change in the
regulation of biotechnology: An exceptionally large <strong>and</strong> authoritative group of scientists h<strong>and</strong>ed a
petition to Parliament in January 2011. <strong>The</strong> petition requests that the Members of Parliament base their
decisions in the lawmaking process regarding genetic modification on scientific facts instead of on
hearsay <strong>and</strong> rumours. According to the assembled professors, the current legal undertakings aim to
censor scientific freedom. 15
14 ASK-FORCE summaries http://www.ask-force.org/web/ASK-FORCE-Summary/ASK-FORCE-Summary.pdf
15 Finnish Petition on Regulation of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>: ftp://askforc@ask-force.org/www/ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Finnish-Delegation-Regulation-
Ease-20110125.PDF

45
10. Urgent: Call for de-regulation of commonly commercialized
transgenic <strong>crops</strong> Solutions of this dissent offered within the
Cartagena Protocol
In a first phase some of the widespread transgenic <strong>crops</strong> like transgenic maize with the Cry1Ab
endotoxin should be exempt from regulation, which is indeed possible according to art. 7.4 of the
Cartagena Protocol. In COP-MOP5 16 2010 in Japan it should be possible, to amend the protocol with the
introduction of a dynamics which allows to start the regulatory process with an initial phase focusing on
the process of transgenesis, first following procedures proposed for <strong>non</strong>-target insects by (Raybould,
2010; Romeis et al., 2008), but in due time shifting later the focus on the product, making it possible to
abbreviate the regulatory process wherever possible <strong>and</strong> feasible.
In a letter 17 to the executives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Public Research <strong>and</strong> Regulation Initiative (PRRI)
is asking for a scientific discussion in order to exempt a list of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> from the expensive regulatory process for approval, here
only the final statement:
“Bearing in mind that the method of transformation itself is neutral, i.e. that there are no risks related to process of
transformation, PRRI believes that there are several types of LMOs <strong>and</strong> traits for which - on the basis of the characteristics of the
host plant, the functioning of the inserted genes <strong>and</strong> experience with the resulting <strong>GM</strong>O - it can be concluded that they are as
safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on the environment, taking also into account human
health. “ Citation from footnote 7.
And further down:
“<strong>The</strong> above mentioned experience with the <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> that have been commercialized thusfar <strong>and</strong> grown on a large scale, over a
long period <strong>and</strong> by (Barrett & Raffensberger, 2000; Barrett, 1999)many farmers, suggests that these <strong>GM</strong> crop plants are unlikely
to have adverse effects on the environment, human or animal health. Given that substantive experience shows that these <strong>GM</strong>
crop plants (mainly soybeans, maize, cotton, <strong>and</strong> oilseed rape, with introduced pest resistance or herbicide tolerance, or a
combination of both traits), are unlikely to have adverse effects, they could be eligible for exemption in accordance with article
7.4 of the CPB.” Citation from footnote 7.
This is also seen in a summary of the executive secretary of PRRI, Piet van der Meer: (Van der Meer,
2009), it is a further call for respecting science within the biotechnology legislation, but deploring that
regulators ignore the law is a double edged sword: A law is forcing regulators to obey to the Genomic
Misconception <strong>and</strong> thus to the strict adherence to process oriented regulation – <strong>and</strong> it is exactly this
which should be questioned seriously.
A conceptual framework is proposed by IFPRI/ISNAR in 2002, the International Service for National
Agricultural Research (McLean et al., 2002), a careful evaluation of process-based versus product-based
triggers in regulatory action can also lead to a merger of both seemingly so contrasting concepts into a
legalized decision making process on which trigger should be chosen in a case by case strategy:
“Process-based triggers are the rule in almost all countries that have developed national biosafety regulatory systems; there are
exceptions, however, where the novelty of the trait determines the extent of regulatory oversight <strong>and</strong> not the process by which
the trait was introduced. While such a product-based approach to defining the object of regulation is truest to the scientific
16 Fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP-MOP 5),
11 – 15. 10. 2010 Nagoya, Japan http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/meetings/
17 PRRI letter : http://www.pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=490

principle that biotechnology is not inherently more risky than other technologies that have a long <strong>and</strong> accepted history of
application in agriculture <strong>and</strong> food production, it is less prescriptive than process-based regulatory systems.”
46
Many of the debates on those two concepts suffer from a lack of clear-cut definitions, it will be
important to have a close look at the Canadian regulatory system <strong>and</strong> the definition of PNTs (Plants with
Novel Traits). In Canada, the trigger for risk-assessment is the novelty of the plant rather than the
methods used to produce it. <strong>The</strong> difficulties start there, where a clear definition of PNTs is needed to
come to a decision: It means that plants produced using recombinant DNA techniques, chemical
mutagenesis, cell fusion, cis-genics or any other in-vitro technique leading to a novel trait, need to
undergo risk assessment in the Canadian system. No wonder the Canadian definition of novel traits is
rather wordy, but remains broad minded:
“A plant variety/genotype possessing characteristics that demonstrate neither familiarity nor substantial
equivalence to those present in a distinct, stable population of a cultivated seed in Canada <strong>and</strong> that have
been intentionally selected, created or introduced into a population of that species through a specific
genetic change.”
It helps considerably, that recently a call of Finnish scientists has been launched: 18 <strong>The</strong> petition
requests that the Members of Parliament base their decisions in the lawmaking process regarding
genetic modification on scientific facts instead of on hearsay <strong>and</strong> rumors. According to the assembled
professors, the current legal undertakings aim to censor scientific freedom. <strong>The</strong> petition had been
signed by 557 people, of whom 312 had a doctorate level degree <strong>and</strong> of whom 210 served at least in the
role of adjunct professor in the academic hierarchy.
11. Obstacles to progress in solving the dissents:
Overwhelming political interests, <strong>and</strong> lack of scientific expertise in the United Nation Organisations
such as the Cartagene Protocol within the Convention of Biodiversity are the main factors
<strong>The</strong>re is a sad <strong>and</strong> long lasting tradition when it comes to the negotiation of important United Nations
Protocols such as the Cartagena Protocol, that politics overrule science in an unacceptable way. See the
extensive citation of (Cantley, 2008), this has been witnessed by the author in 4 of the major CP
conferences from Montreal over Curitiba <strong>and</strong> Bonn to Nagoya personally.
“In the United States, the effective dialogue <strong>between</strong> scientific <strong>and</strong> political communities headed off the threat of technologyspecific
legislation; <strong>and</strong> even those who (unsuccessfully) advocated <strong>and</strong> prepared such legislation in the 1970s <strong>and</strong> 1980s,
typically incorporated in their Bills a “sunset clause”, which would automatically terminate the legislation after a set period, if
there was no further Congressional action taken to renew or amend it. Such a “provisional” or “learning” approach was a
rational <strong>and</strong> scientific response to uncertainties about a new phenome<strong>non</strong>, such as a new technology. But for new chemical
substances, or pharmaceutical products, there is the practical certainty of a continuing stream of new entities requiring testing
<strong>and</strong> oversight; <strong>and</strong> the corresponding administrative structures are therefore conceived on permanent lines, give or take some
future adaptation. <strong>The</strong> imposition of this “permanent” character on novel technologies both stigmatized them, <strong>and</strong> built a
bureaucratic structure at Community <strong>and</strong> national levels with an inbuilt tendency to justify <strong>and</strong> defend its continued existence.
18 Finnish petition on regulation 2011: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Finnish-Delegation-Regulation-Ease-20110125.PDF

47
Within the European Parliament, the active members, coping with a flood of documentation, <strong>and</strong> a complex <strong>and</strong> exhausting lifestyle
(<strong>between</strong> home, committee work in Brussels, <strong>and</strong> plenary sessions in Strasbourg), could in general devote little time to
underst<strong>and</strong>ing complex dossiers such as biotechnology.
While there could be real concerns about ethical aspects of the use <strong>and</strong> abuse of new technologies (e.g., in relation to human
genetics or animal welfare), <strong>and</strong> popular suspicions of “mad scientists” <strong>and</strong> mistrust of industry, in general the esoteric
character of genetic engineering meant that practically all MEPs would leave such a dossier to the rapporteur - or, if the
rapporteur was not of their political group, would designate a member of their group to follow the dossier. <strong>The</strong> basis for
formulating the parliamentary opinion on legislation relating to biotechnology was therefore typically a very narrow one; in an
area which shared (with nuclear energy) the most concentrated attention of the “Greens” fraction in the Parliament. Moreover,
even MEPs not of this fraction, were in many countries acutely conscious in the late 1980s that the major political parties were
losing ground to the Green movements; <strong>and</strong> to recapture these votes, were anxious to demonstrate their own “Green”
credentials. A severely restrictive approach to the highly publicized new gene technology appeared to be a painless <strong>and</strong> popular
way of doing so.
Against this coincidence of popular fears, political self-interest <strong>and</strong> bureaucratic opportunism, the voices of scientific protest
were few, feeble <strong>and</strong> disregarded. DG XII lost the arguments inside the Commission, <strong>and</strong> had at the critical moments no
interested allies. <strong>The</strong> protests to Parliament by Nobel prize-winners did not represent a politically significant constituency. <strong>The</strong>
OECD report on rDNA safety, indicating no scientific basis for legislation specific to recombinant DNA, was quoted for its prestige
<strong>and</strong> authority, in support of precisely such legislation. <strong>The</strong> advice of the safety specialists of the European Federation of
Biotechnology was aggressively rejected by the Director-General of DG XI. <strong>The</strong> House of Lords Committee’s report noted that in
drafting the legislation, the Commission had been “impervious to scientific advice”; in fact the efforts of DG XII to offer such
advice, as they were (by the Council Decisions on BAP <strong>and</strong> BRIDGE programmes) required to do, were vigorously repulsed <strong>and</strong>
successfully counter-attacked.” (Cantley, 2008).
<strong>The</strong> same author (Mark Cantley) was m<strong>and</strong>ated to produce a comprehensive report on the regulatory
tools developed by governments for the OECD (Cantley, 2007), <strong>and</strong> no wonder, that Cantley sums up the
impact of the Cartagena Protocol in a critical way:
<strong>The</strong> Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is based on negotiations following on Article 19.3 of the
Convention on Biological Diversity:
“<strong>The</strong> Parties shall consider the need for <strong>and</strong> modalities of a protocol setting out appropriate procedures, including, in particular,
advance informed agreement, in the field of the safe transfer, h<strong>and</strong>ling <strong>and</strong> use of any living modified organism resulting from
biotechnology that may have adverse effect on the conservation <strong>and</strong> sustainable use of biological diversity.”
<strong>The</strong> Protocol is thus intended to protect biological diversity <strong>and</strong> human health from the potential risks arising from <strong>GM</strong>Os by
providing a clear legal framework for their transboundary movement. <strong>The</strong> Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) procedure
established by the Protocol will ensure that countries can make informed decisions on whether to import <strong>GM</strong>Os intended for
introduction into the environment. Shipments of <strong>GM</strong>O commodities will have to fulfil specific documentation requirements.
<strong>The</strong> Protocol has enjoyed a high profile, <strong>and</strong> Environment Ministries see it as a significant instrument, in some degree a
riposte to the world trade agreements; although scientifically, it is not clear that <strong>GM</strong>Os as so far developed <strong>and</strong> used in fact
constitute a threat to biological diversity.
As at October 2006, 134 countries had ratified the Protocol, including the European Union; but with notable absentees, such as
the United States, Canada, Argentina, <strong>and</strong> Australia – all significant agricultural exporters. New Zeal<strong>and</strong> ratified, somewhat
hesitantly, in order to exert influence to prevent the requirements imposed becoming more adverse.” (Cantley, 2007).
Unfortunately, the dynamics of life DNA processes (<strong>and</strong> so many other facts in molecular sciences as
described in chapter 4) were not taken properly into account when the Cartagena protocol on biosafety
was conceived – no surprise when you realize how few knowledgeable molecular scientists have actively

participated in the legislative process. <strong>The</strong>re was only a minimal overlap of 12 experts <strong>between</strong> the
Cartagena Protocol Roster of Experts <strong>and</strong> the Number of members of the International Society of
Biosafety Research in 2004. 19
48
It also has to be stated, that proof is available that the roster of scientific experts remained practically
inactive, <strong>and</strong> it is only through the initiative of PRRI (Public Research <strong>and</strong> Regulation Initiative which has
led to a renewal <strong>and</strong> activation of this panel in very recent years. See the letter of PRRI to officials of the
CBD 20 , some citations:
“ <strong>The</strong> Public Research <strong>and</strong> Regulation Initiative (PRRI) believes that the mechanism of the Roster of Experts hasn’t worked to
date, because there is clearly no common view as to what constitutes an expert <strong>and</strong> because there is insufficient information on
the BCH about the area of expertise of the experts involved. We therefore welcome the decision by the MOP to develop draft
criteria, minimum requirements <strong>and</strong> to explore a quality control mechanism for experts to be included in the Roster of Experts of
the BCH.”
And:
“<strong>The</strong> types of expertise that may be needed to assist a country in meeting its obligations under the Protocol are very diverse <strong>and</strong>
include scientific expertise, legal expertise, <strong>and</strong> administrative expertise. Even within these areas there are many different
specialised fields, such as molecular biology, plant physiology, <strong>and</strong> population ecology. What is of crucial importance to the
functioning of the Roster is that the area of expertise is explained in sufficient detail.”
Sadly, the PRRI press release 2010 at the occasion of MOP5 at the Nagoya conference of the Cartagena
Protocol demonstrates that practically zero progress has been made in this important issue from 2006
to 2011. 21 No wonder, that the Genetic Misconception has never been debated seriously in these
circles. It also gives proof once more, that the organization of the United Nations Biodiversity
Convention is not really caring enough about correct science to be implemented in this so crucial
biosafety protocol. Citation from this 2010 PRRI letter:
“Tens of thous<strong>and</strong>s biotechnology researchers in thous<strong>and</strong>s of public research institutes in developing <strong>and</strong> developed countries
strive towards alleviating poverty, sustainable agricultural production, assuring food safety <strong>and</strong> quality <strong>and</strong> conservation of the
environment. However, these same public sector scientists express concern that these efforts will be futile if regulations such as
the Cartagena Protocol are not implemented in a balanced <strong>and</strong> science-based manner. <strong>The</strong>y call on the negotiating Parties at
MOP5 to constantly assess how the implementation of the Protocol will affect crucially important public research, to ensure that
the Protocol will indeed contribute to sharing the benefits of this technology.”
See the Article 19 of the Convention of the Biological Diversity, which is the root of the Cartagena
Protocol:
Article 19 of the CBD: H<strong>and</strong>ling of Biotechnology’ <strong>and</strong> Distribution of its Benefits
1. Each Contracting Party shall take legislative, administrative or policy measures, as appropriate, to provide for the
effective participation in biotechnological research activities by those Contracting Parties, especially developing countries,
which provide the genetic resources for such research, <strong>and</strong> where feasible in such Contracting Parties.
2. Each Contracting Party shall take all practicable measures to promote <strong>and</strong> advance priority access on a fair <strong>and</strong>
equitable basis by Contracting Parties, especially developing countries, to the results <strong>and</strong> benefits arising from biotechnologies
based upon genetic resources provided by those Contracting Parties. Such access shall be on mutually agreed terms.
19
Roster of Experts Cartagena Protocol to ISBR: http://www.ask-force.org/web/PublicSector-Danforth-20050304/CP-Experts-Overlap-to-ISBR-
2004.pptx AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/PublicSector-Danforth-20050304/CP-Experts-Overlap-to-ISBR-2004.pdf
20
Letter of PRRI to CBD on expert panel activity: ftp://askforc@ask-force.org/www/ask-force.org/web/PRRI-Experts/PRRI-submisison-CP-
Roster-Experts-20061121.pdf
21
PRRI press release Nagoya 2010: http://www.pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=586

49
3. <strong>The</strong> Parties shall consider the need for <strong>and</strong> modalities of a protocol setting out appropriate procedures, including, in
particular, advance informed agreement, in the field of the safe transfer, h<strong>and</strong>ling <strong>and</strong> use of any living modified organism
resulting from biotechnology that may have adverse effect on the conservation <strong>and</strong> sustainable use of biological diversity.
4. Each Contracting Party shall, directly or by requiring any natural or legal person under its jurisdiction providing the
organisms referred to in paragraph 3 above, provide any available information about the use <strong>and</strong> safety regulations required by
that Contracting Party in h<strong>and</strong>ling such organisms, as well as any available information on the potential adverse impact of the
specific organisms concerned to the Contracting Party into which those organisms are to be introduced.
<strong>The</strong>re is also a blatant inertia visible <strong>and</strong> working related to the growing speed of scientific innovation: a
plethora of new genomic manipulations are manifested with hundreds of publications, but the biosafety
community still remains in the realms of Bt <strong>crops</strong> <strong>and</strong> herbicide tolerant <strong>crops</strong>. Correcting the legislation
by following insights in the falsehood of the Genetic Misconception would also free the regulatory
community from adhering to all the new kinds of gene splicing, <strong>and</strong> could instead concentrate
pragmatically <strong>and</strong> scientifically fully justified on product oriented regulation.
In a recent publication, (Fedoroff et al., 2011), the authors deplore the US Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPAs) departure from the US regulatory system towards an European approach, reacting to
new EPA regulatory policies:
“Based on initial reviews of that draft proposal <strong>and</strong> recent EPA actions associated with biotechnology-derived <strong>crops</strong>, it is clear
that the EPA is departing from a science-based regulatory process, instead walking down a path toward a policy based on the
controversial European “precautionary principle” that goes beyond codifying data requirements for substances regulated as PIPs
(Plant Incorporated Pesticides) for the past 15 years. While this principle is politically popular in some constituencies, it is not
supported by experience gained over the past several decades with transgenic <strong>crops</strong>.”
And:
“Over the last two decades, advances in sequencing <strong>and</strong> genomic analysis have revealed that biotechnology is more precise <strong>and</strong>
less disruptive to the genome than traditional plant breeding. In fact, recent genomic, proteomic, <strong>and</strong> metabolomic comparisons
of varieties bred (using conventional <strong>and</strong> transgenic methods) demonstrate that transgenic plants with incorporated novel traits
more closely resemble the parental variety than do new varieties of the same crop plant produced by more traditional breeding
or mutagenesis techniques. <strong>The</strong>se findings support the crop-level observations that transgene insertion is not inherently
disruptive <strong>and</strong> that transgenic <strong>crops</strong> present no new or greater hazards than <strong>crops</strong> produced by breeding techniques now
considered conventional. Indeed, they are not only less disruptive, but far more precise because they introduce or modify the
sequence or expression of well-characterized genes in predictable ways, objectives which cannot be achieved by any previous
method.”
12. Conclusions
<strong>The</strong>re can be no doubt that product-based regulatory approaches are closest to the scientific principle
<strong>and</strong> that biotechnology is not inherently more risky than other technologies, principles, which have a
long <strong>and</strong> accepted history of application in agriculture <strong>and</strong> food production, it is also less prescriptive
than process-based systems, see McLean et al. (McLean et al., 2002).

50
Another valid paper showing constructive conclusions out of the regulatory conflict has been published
by (Cantley, 2004). This text cries for action <strong>and</strong> a roadmap for solutions, <strong>and</strong> the author has searched
for proposals with a good mixture of pragmatism <strong>and</strong> uncompromised application of present day
scientific insight:
“<strong>The</strong> case for benign neglect of biotechnology has been largely lost in Europe at present, but the current Commission strategy
may slowly correct this. Europe has supported research, while burdening the technology with disproportionate legislation;
preaching the gospel of competitiveness, but forgetting that precautionary regulation should be dynamic <strong>and</strong> adaptive to
scientific evidence <strong>and</strong> experience. As resources (scientific, administrative <strong>and</strong> political) are always limited, devoting more to
small or <strong>non</strong>-existent risks subtracts them from more serious needs, thus actually increasing risks.” (Cantley, 2004)
A summary of the thoughts of Henry Miller <strong>and</strong> Greg Conko (Miller & Conko, 2004b) p.223ff on six
strategies for reforming regulatory abuses fits best into what needs to be done:
� Scientists must actively protest unscientific policies <strong>and</strong> Regulation
� Scientific institutions must stimulate public discourse
� <strong>The</strong> media must discount bogus science
� <strong>The</strong> biotech industry must advocate scientific regulatory policies
� All stakeholders should promote science-based public policy
� Rethink the government’s monopoly over regulation (Miller & Conko, 2004b)
In a recent publication, (Miller, 2010) came to similar conclusions, supported also by a graph on the risks
from field trials, put into a realistic framework:
Fig. 18 Distribution of Risk in Field Trials from (Miller, 2010). See also (Miller, 1997) p. 34, fig. 1.
As long as the principles of regulations are respected, the rules of internationally agreed risk assessment
should be h<strong>and</strong>led flexibly, according to the growing amount of positive experience (Miller, 2010)
� <strong>The</strong> degree of regulatory scrutiny should be commensurate with the perceived level of risk.
� Similar things should be regulated in a similar way.
� If the scope of regulation – i.e. the regulatory net or the trigger that captures field trials or the
finished product for review – is unscientific, then the entire approach is unscientific.

51
This paper of (Miller, 2010) has been published in a volume of a study week held at the Vatican in May
2009 on invitation of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which is now also published on the website of
the Vatican as an open source conference volume: (Potrykus & Ammann, 2010).
In the same volume, Werner Arber came also for the risk assessment of long term risks to the same
conclusion (Arber, 2010b):
“Available scientific knowledge <strong>and</strong> potent investigation methodology represent an efficient <strong>and</strong> effective basis for a priori
responsibly carried out technology assessments before <strong>GM</strong>organisms, either as produced by genetic engineering or as selected
by classical breeding, become released into the environment. Any decision taken on such releases should be based on the
specific biological functions involved, not on the ways by which the selected organisms were produced” (Arber, 2010b).
It is time to move on <strong>and</strong> call for a serious amendment of national <strong>and</strong> international legislation in
biosafety assessment of <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>, as stated with uncompromising dem<strong>and</strong>s by (Potrykus, 2010):
“<strong>The</strong> politicization of the regulatory process is an extremely significant impediment to use of biotechnology by public institutions
for public goods. Costs, time <strong>and</strong> complexity of product introduction are severely <strong>and</strong> negatively affected (without such political
impediment the technology is very appropriate for adoption by developing country scientists <strong>and</strong> farmers: it does not require
intensive capitalization). <strong>The</strong> regulatory process in place is bureaucratic <strong>and</strong> unwarranted by the science: despite rigorous
investigation over more than a decade of the commercial use of genetically engineered (GE) plants, no substantiated
environmental or health risks have been noted. Opposition to biotechnology in agriculture is usually ideological. <strong>The</strong> huge
potential of plant biotechnology to produce more <strong>and</strong> more nutritive food for the poor will be lost, if GE-regulation is not
changed from being driven by ‘extreme precaution’ principles to being driven by ‘science-based’ principles. Changing societal
attitudes, including the regulatory processes involved, is extremely important if we are to save biotechnology, in its broadest
applications, for the poor, so that public institutions in developing as well as industrialized countries, can harness its power for
good.” (Potrykus, 2010)
And a final word by Henry Miller on the squ<strong>and</strong>ered opportunity of the Golden Rice (Miller, 2009) <strong>and</strong> a
last chance to fulfill its great promise:
“In spite of its vast potential to benefit humanity—<strong>and</strong> negligible likelihood of harm to human health or the environment—
Golden Rice remains hung up in regulatory red tape with no end in sight. In a July commentary in Nature, Potrykus pointed out
that Golden Rice has been “stalled at the development stages for more than ten years by the working conditions <strong>and</strong>
requirements dem<strong>and</strong>ed by regulations.”
By contrast, plants constructed with less precise techniques such as hybridization or mutagenesis generally are subject to no
government scrutiny or requirements (or opposition from activists) at all. And that applies even to the numerous new plant
varieties that during the past half century have resulted from “wide crosses,” hybridizations that move genes from one species
or genus to another—across what used to be thought of as natural breeding boundaries. Pulling no punches, Potrykus holds
gratuitous regulation “responsible for the death <strong>and</strong> blindness of thous<strong>and</strong>s of children <strong>and</strong> young mothers.” At the very least,
the politicians, activists, <strong>and</strong> regulators who have insisted on, implemented, <strong>and</strong> maintained those regulations are guilty of what
the legal system calls “reckless disregard for life.” In an editorial in the journal Science, Nina Fedoroff, an eminent plant
geneticist <strong>and</strong> professor at Pennsylvania State University who recently completed a three-year stint as senior scientific adviser to
U.S. Secretary of State, wrote: “A new Green Revolution dem<strong>and</strong>s a global commitment to creating a modern agricultural
infrastructure everywhere, adequate investment in training <strong>and</strong> modern laboratory facilities, <strong>and</strong> progress toward simplified
regulatory approaches that are responsive to accumulating evidence of safety. Do we have the will <strong>and</strong> the wisdom to make it
happen?”
“<strong>The</strong> Golden Rice story makes it clear that the answer is, not yet.” (Miller, 2009)

13. Cited literature
Abergel, E. & Barrett, K. (2002)
Putting the cart before the horse: A review of biotechnology policy in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies-Revue D Etudes
Canadiennes, 37, 3, pp 135-161
://WOS:000236751100008 AND ftp://askforc@ask-force.org/www/ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Abergel-Barrett-
Putting-Cart-before-Horse-2001.pdf
52
Aerni, P., Rae, A., & Lehmann, B. (2009)
Nostalgia versus Pragmatism? How attitudes <strong>and</strong> interests shape the term sustainable agriculture in Switzerl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong>.
Food Policy, 34, 2, pp 227-235
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCB-4V1MFKR-1/2/b72610f6397bc5572a076cbe0ae3e599 AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Sustainability/Aerni-Nostalgia-versus-Pragmatism-2009.pdf
Akeley, R., Mills, W., Cunningham, C., & Watts, J. (1968)
Lenape: A new potato variety high in solids <strong>and</strong> chipping quality. American Journal of Potato Research, 45, 4, pp 142-145
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02863068
Al-Ahmad, H., Dwyer, J., Moloney, M., & Gressel, J. (2006)
Mitigation of establishment of Brassica napus transgenes in volunteers using a t<strong>and</strong>em construct containing a selectively unfit gene.
Plant Biotechnology Journal, 4, 1, pp 7-21
://000234030000003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Geneflow/AlAchmad-T<strong>and</strong>em-napus-2006.pdf
Al-Ahmad, H. & Gressel, J. (2006)
Mitigation using a t<strong>and</strong>em construct containing a selectively unfit gene precludes establishment of Brassica napus transgenes in
hybrids <strong>and</strong> backcrosses with weedy Brassica rapa. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 4, 1, pp 23-33
://000234030000004 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Geneflow/AlAchmad-T<strong>and</strong>em-Establishment-2006.pdf
Ammann, K. (2002)
University of Newcastel report summaries: no significant horizontal transgene transfer detected in human guts. In Berne Debates
blog, University of Newcastle report summaries. Klaus Ammann, Bern
http://www.ask-force.org/web/HorizontalGT/Ammann-Newcastle-Human-Guts-2002.PDF
Ammann, K. (2008)
Feature: Integrated farming: Why organic farmers should use transgenic <strong>crops</strong>. New Biotechnology, 25, 2, pp 101 - 107
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/NewBiotech/Ammann-Integrated-Farming-Organic-2008.publ.pdf AND DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2008.08.012
Ammann, K. (20110111)
Review: Arpad Pusztai’s Feeding experiments of <strong>GM</strong> potatoes with lectins to rats: Anatomy of a controversy 1998 - 2009. In ASK-
FORCE contribution AF-2, Vol. AF-9, pp. 57. Ammann K., Neuchatel
http://www.ask-force.org/web/AF-2-Pusztai/AF-2-Pusztai-Food-Safety-20110111.web.pdf
Andow, D.A. & Zwahlen, C. (2006)
Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecology Letters, 9, 2, pp 196-214
://000234799700013 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Andow-Assessing-Risks-2006.pdf
Andree, P. (2002)
<strong>The</strong> biopolitics of genetically modified organisms in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies-Revue D Etudes Canadiennes, 37, 3, pp
162-191
://WOS:000236751100009 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Andree-Biopolitics--<strong>GM</strong>O-Canada.pdf
A<strong>non</strong>ymous (1992)
Products pose no special risks just because of the processes used to make them. Nature, 356, 6364, pp 1-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/356001b0 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/A<strong>non</strong>ymous-US-Regulation-Nature-
1992.pdf
Arber, W. (1979a)
EXCHANGE OF GENETIC MATERIAL IN MICROORGANISMS. Chimia, 33, 4, pp 120-123

://WOS:A1979GT27500004
Arber, W. (1979b)
PROMOTION AND LIMITATION OF GENETIC EXCHANGE. Experientia, 35, 3, pp 287-293
://WOS:A1979GN54000001
53
Arber, W. (1983)
BACTERIAL INSERTED SEQUENCE ELEMENTS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON GENETIC STABILITY AND EVOLUTION. Progress in Nucleic
Acid Research <strong>and</strong> Molecular Biology, 29, pp 27-33
://WOS:A1983RL30000004
Arber, W. (1985)
RECOMBINANT DNA TECHNOLOGY - ITS PROSPECTS FOR FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH AND FOR BIOTECHNOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS.
Chimia, 39, 11, pp 344-348
://WOS:A1985AWM4000002
Arber, W. (1990a)
3 Impact of Human Civilization on Biological Evolution. In SCOPE 44 - Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the
Environment (ed H.A.B. Mooney, G.,). COGEN
http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope44/chapter12.html AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Arber-
Impact-Human-Civilization-1990.pdf
Arber, W. (1990b)
MECHANISMS IN MICROBIAL EVOLUTION. Journal of Structural Biology, 104, 1-3, pp 107-111
://WOS:A1990EU22300015
Arber, W. (1991)
ELEMENTS IN MICROBIAL EVOLUTION. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 33, 1, pp 4-12
://WOS:A1991FT88000003
Arber, W. (1993)
EVOLUTION OF PROKARYOTIC GENOMES. Gene, 135, 1-2, pp 49-56
://WOS:A1993MQ34800010
Arber, W. (1994a)
EVOLUTIONARY INTERPLAY BETWEEN SPONTANEOUS MUTATION AND SELECTION - ALEATORIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF MOLECULAR
REACTION-MECHANISMS. Fractals in Biology <strong>and</strong> Medicine, pp 160-164
://WOS:A1994BA26N00012
Arber, W. (1994b)
GENE POOLS AND BIODIVERSITY. Ecb6: Proceedings of the 6th European Congress on Biotechnology, Pts I <strong>and</strong> Ii, 9, pp 43-50
://WOS:A1994BA37U00004
Arber, W. (1994c)
MOLECULAR EVOLUTION: COMPARISON OF NATURAL AND ENGINEERED GENETIC VARIATIONS. Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Scripta Varia, 103, pp 90-101
http://as8978.http.sasm3.net/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/s.v.103_chagas/part3.pdf AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Arber-Molecular-Evolution-Comparison-PAS-1994.pdf
Arber, W. (2000)
Genetic variation: molecular mechanisms <strong>and</strong> impact on microbial evolution. Fems Microbiology Reviews, 24, 1, pp 1-7
://000084915900001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Mutations/Arber-Gen-Variation-FEMS-2000.pdf
Arber, W. (2002)
Roots, strategies <strong>and</strong> prospects of functional genomics. Current Science, 83, 7, pp 826-828
://000178662800019 <strong>and</strong> http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Mutations/Arber-Comparison-2002.pdf
Arber, W. (2003)
Elements for a theory of molecular evolution. Gene, 317, 1-2, pp 3-11
://000186667000002 <strong>and</strong> http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Mutations/Arber-Gene-317-2003.pdf
Arber, W. (2004)
Biological evolution: Lessons to be learned from microbial population biology <strong>and</strong> genetics. Research in Microbiology, 155, 5, pp
297-300
://000222736200001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Mutations/Arber-Evolution-Lessons-2004.pdf

54
Arber, W. (2008)
Molecular mechanisms driving Darwinian evolution. Mathematical <strong>and</strong> Computer Modelling, 47, 7-8, pp 666-674
://WOS:000254179900002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Arber-Molecular-Mechanisms-Darwinian-
2008.pdf
Arber, W. (2010a)
Genetic engineering compared to natural genetic variations. New Biotechnology, 27, 5, pp 517-521
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B8JG4-504JYNT-2/2/a7e6edd02959e1b3167158dd264f24a2 AND
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Vatican-PAS-Studyweek-Elsevier-publ-20101130/Arber-Werner-PAS-Genetic-Engineering-Compared-20101130publ.pdf
Arber, W. (2010b)
Genetic engineering compared to natural genetic variations. New Biotechnology, In Press, Corrected Proof, pp
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B8JG4-504JYNT-2/2/a7e6edd02959e1b3167158dd264f24a2 AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Vatican-PAS-NBT-publ/Arber-Genetic-Engineering-PAS-2010.pdf
Arber, W. & Linn, S. (1969)
DNA MODIFICATION AND RESTRICTION. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 38, pp 467-&
://WOS:A1969D759300017 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Arber-DNA-Modification-Restriction-
1969.pdf
Arber W., B.G., Brom S., Campbell A., Caplan A., Cherif-Zahar B. Christiansen, F.B., Crawley, M.J., Davila, G., Drake, J.A., Dwyer, D.F., Faust,
R.M., Fenner, F., Flores, M., Goursot, R., Jayaraman, K., Kingsbury, D.T., Levin, D.T., Martinez, E., Melis, R., Mooney, H.A., Palacios, R., Pinero,
D., Rayko, E., Romero, E., Skalka, A. M., Timmis, K.N., Van Montagu, M. (1990)
Joint SCOPE/COGENE Statement. In SCOPE 44 - Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment (ed H.A.B.
Mooney, G.,)
http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope44/contents.html AND
http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope44/statement.html AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/SCOPE-
44-SCOPE-COGENE-Statement-1990.pdf
Archibald, J. & Richards, T. (2010)
Gene transfer: anything goes in plant mitochondria. Bmc Biology, 8, 1, pp 147
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/147 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/HorizontalGT/Archibald-Gene-Transfer-
Mitochondria-2010.pdf
Arrow, K.J., Cropper, M.L., Eads, G.C., Hahn, R.W., Lave, L.B., Noll, R.G., Portney, P.R., Russell, M., Schmalensee, R., Smith, V.K., & Stavins,
R.N. (1996a)
Benefit-cost analysis <strong>and</strong> the environment - Response. Science, 272, 5268, pp 1572-1573
://WOS:A1996UR09300009 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Arrow-Response-to-Kasting-1996.pdf
Arrow, K.J., Cropper, M.L., Eads, G.C., Hahn, R.W., Lave, L.B., Noll, R.G., Portney, P.R., Russell, M., Schmalensee, R., Smith, V.K., & Stavins,
R.N. (1996b)
Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, <strong>and</strong> safety regulation? Science, 272, 5259, pp 221-222
://WOS:A1996UE72900028 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Arrow-Role-Benefit-Cost-Analysis-1996.pdf
Avery, O.T., MacLeod, C.M., & McCarty, M. (1944)
STUDIES ON THE CHEMICAL NATURE OF THE SUBSTANCE INDUCING TRANSFORMATION OF PNEUMOCOCCAL TYPES. <strong>The</strong> Journal of
Experimental Medicine, 79, 2, pp 137-158
http://jem.rupress.org/content/79/2/137.abstract AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Avery-O-Studies-Chemical-
Nature-1944.pdf
Awoleye, F., V<strong>and</strong>uren, M., Dolezel, J., & Novak, F.J. (1994)
NUCLEAR-DNA CONTENT AND IN-VITRO INDUCED SOMATIC POLYPLOIDIZATION CASSAVA (MANIHOT-ESCULENTA CRANTZ)
BREEDING. Euphytica, 76, 3, pp 195-202
://WOS:A1994PK33000005 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Radiation-Mutants/Awoleye-Nuclear-DNA-content-
1994.pdf
Baarends, W.M., van der Laan, R., & Grootegoed, J.A. (2001)
DNA repair mechanisms <strong>and</strong> gametogenesis. Reproduction, 121, 1, pp 31-39
://WOS:000168328900004 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Baarends-DNA-Repair-Mechanisms-
2001.pdf
Banks, P.M., Xu, S.J., Wang, R.R.C., & Larkin, P.J. (1993)
VARYING CHROMOSOME COMPOSITION OF 56-CHROMOSOME WHEAT X THINOPYRUM-INTERMEDIUM PARTIAL AMPHIPLOIDS.
Genome, 36, 2, pp 207-215

55
://A1993LA74500001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Banks-Varying-Chromosome-Composition-
1993.pdf
Barnabás, B., Obert, B., & Kovács, G. (1999)
Colchicine, an efficient genome-doubling agent for maize (Zea mays L.) microspores cultured in anthero. Plant Cell Reports, 18, 10,
pp 858-862
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002990050674 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Mutations/Barnabas-Colchicine-Genome-
Doubling-1999.pdf
Barrett, K. & Raffensberger, C. (2000)
From principle to action: applying the precautionary principle to agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Biotechnology,
4, 1, pp 4-17
http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,8;journal,25,30;linkingpublicationr
esults,1:110837,1
Barrett, K.J. (1999)
CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY, Risk Assessment <strong>and</strong> the Precautionary Principle. Doctor of Philosophy, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada <strong>The</strong>sis, pp 292
ftp://askforc@ask-force.org/www/ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Barrett-Canadian-Risk-Assessment-<strong>The</strong>sis-1999.pdf
Barros, E. (2010)
Molecular Profiling Techniques as Tools to Detect Potential Unintended Effects in Genetically Engineered Maize (revised title),
Molecular Profiling Techniques Detect Unintended Effects in Genetically Engineered Maize (old title). ISB News Report, May 2010,
pp 4-7
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Barros-ISB-News-Report-Genomics-Maisze-old-201005.pdf AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Barros-ISB-News-Report-Genomics-Maize-new-4-7.pdf
Barros, E., Lezar, S., Anttonen, M.J., Dijk, J.P.v., Röhlig, R.M., Kok, E.J., & Engel, K.-H. (2010)
Comparison of two <strong>GM</strong> maize varieties with a near-isogenic <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> variety using transcriptomics, proteomics <strong>and</strong> metabolomics.
Plant Biotechnology Journal, 8, 4, pp 436-451
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2009.00487.x AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Barros-Comparison-<strong>GM</strong><strong>crops</strong>-2010.pdf
Batista, R., Nunes, B., Carmo, M., Cardoso, C., Jose, H.S., de Almeida, A.B., Manique, A., Bento, L., Ricardo, C.P., & Oliveira, M.M. (2005)
Lack of detectable allergenicity of transgenic maize <strong>and</strong> soya samples. Journal of Allergy <strong>and</strong> Clinical Immunology, 116, 2, pp 403-
410
://WOS:000235686400025 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Allergy/Batista-Lack-Allergy-Soy-Maize-2005.pdf
Batista, R. & Oliveira, M. (2010)
Plant natural variability may affect safety assessment data. Regulatory Toxicology <strong>and</strong> Pharmacology, 58, 3, pp S8-S12
://WOS:000285213900003 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Batista-Plant-Natural-Variability-2010.pdf
Batista, R. & Oliveira, M.M. (2009)
Facts <strong>and</strong> fiction of genetically engineered food. Trends in Biotechnology, 27, 5, pp 277-286
://WOS:000266018100003 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/Batista-Facts-Fiction-<strong>GM</strong>-Food-2010.pdf
Batista, R., Saibo, N., Lourenco, T., & Oliveira, M.M. (2008)
Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 9, pp 3640-3645
://WOS:000253846500082 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Batista-Microarray-Analysis-2008.pdf AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Transgenesis-Comparison-Slides.pdf AND
Http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Transgenesis-Comparison-Slides.ppt
Baudo, M.M., Lyons, R., Powers, S., Pastori, G.M., Edwards, K.J., Holdsworth, M.J., & Shewry, P.R. (2006)
Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 4, 4, pp
369-380
://000238256500001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Baudo-Impact-2006.pdf AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Transgenesis-Comparison-Slides.pdf AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Transgenesis-Comparison-Slides.ppt
Baudo, M.M., Powers, S.J., Mitchell, R.A.C., & Shewry, P.R. (2009)
Establishing Substantial Equivalence: Transcriptomics. In Methods in Molecular Biology, Transgenic Wheat, Barley <strong>and</strong> Oats, (eds
H.D. Jones & P.R. Shewry), Vol. 478, pp. 247-272. Humana Press, a part of Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
://BIOSIS:PREV200900189501 AND :10.1007/978-1-59745-379-0_15 AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Baudo-Establishing-Substantial-Equivalendce-2009.pdf

Bennett, D., Glasner, P., & Travis, D. (1986)
<strong>The</strong> Politics of Uncertainty Routledge & Kegan Paul plc., IS: 0-7102-0503-1, pp 218
56
Berg, P., Baltimor.D, Boyer, H.W., Cohen, S.N., Davis, R.W., Hogness, D.S., Nathans, D., Roblin, R., Watson, J.D., Weissman, S., & Zinder, N.D.
(1974)
POTENTIAL BIOHAZARDS OF RECOMBINANT DNA-MOLECULES. Science, 185, 4148, pp 303-303
://WOS:A1974T535600001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Berg-Potential-Biohazards-1974.pdf
Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Brenner, S., Roblin, R.O., & Singer, M.F. (1975)
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ASILOMAR CONFERENCE ON RECOMBINANT DNA-MOLECULES. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 72, 6, pp 1981-1984
://WOS:A1975AG70300001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/History/Berg-Summary-Statement-Asilomar-1975.pdf
Berg, P. & Singer, M. (1995)
THE RECOMBINANT-DNA CONTROVERSY - 20 YEARS LATER. Bio-Technology, 13, 10, pp 1132-1134
://WOS:A1995RY31800031 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/History/Berg-Recombinant-DNA-Twenty-years-later-
1995.pdf
Bernauer, T., Tribaldos, T., Luginbühl, C., & Winzeler, M. (2011)
Government regulation <strong>and</strong> public opposition create high additional costs for field trials with <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong> in Switzerl<strong>and</strong>. Transgenic
Research, pp 1-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-011-9486-x AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Bernauer-Government-Regulation-
Additional-Costs.2011.pdf
Berwald, D., Carter, C.A., & Gruere, G.P. (2006)
Rejecting new technology: <strong>The</strong> case of genetically modified wheat. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88, 2, pp 432-447
://WOS:000236716200012 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Berwald-Rejecting-New-Technology-
2006.pdf
Bonny, S. (2003)
Why are most Europeans opposed to <strong>GM</strong>Os? Factors explaining rejection in France <strong>and</strong> Europe. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology,
6, 1, pp 50-71
://WOS:000183582900008 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Discourse/Bonny-Why-Europeans-Opposed-2003.pdf
Brochmann, C., Soltis, P.S., & Soltis, D.E. (1992)
RECURRENT FORMATION AND POLYPHYLY OF NORDIC POLYPLOIDS IN DRABA (BRASSICACEAE). American Journal of Botany, 79, 6,
pp 673-688
://WOS:A1992HZ92600009
Brown, J.R., Gentry, D., Becker, J.A., Ingraham, K., Holmes, D.J., & Stanhope, M.J. (2003)
Horizontal transfer of drug-resistant aminoacyl-transfer-RNA synthetases of anthrax <strong>and</strong> Gram-positive pathogens. Embo Reports, 4,
7, pp 692-698
://WOS:000184067900010 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/HorizontalGT/Brown-Horizontal--Transfer-Anthrax-
2003.pdf
Campbell, A. (1990a)
2 Recombinant DNA, Past Lessons <strong>and</strong> Current Concerns. In SCOPE 44 - Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the
Environment (ed H.A.B. Mooney, G.,). COGEN
http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope44/chapter02.html AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Regulation/Campbell-Recombinant-DNA-Past-1990.pdf
Campbell, A. (1990b)
4 Epistatic <strong>and</strong> Pleiotrophic Effects on Genetic Manipulation. In SCOPE 44 - Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the
Environment (ed H.A.B. Mooney, G.,). COGEN
http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope44/chapter04.html AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Regulation/Campbell-Epistatic-Pleiotropic-Effects-1990.pdf
Cantley, M. (2004)
How should public policy respond to the challenges of modern biotechnology? Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 15, 3, pp 258-263
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VRV-4CB69PT-1/2/48a784f1fbdd848150a50b33ab138a0d AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Cantley-How-Should-Public-Policy-2004.pdf
Cantley, M. (2007)
An Overview of Regulatory Tools <strong>and</strong> Frameworks for Modern Biotechnology: A Focus on Agro-Food OECD, pp 123

57
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/15/40926623.pdf AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/Cantley-Overview-Regulatory-
Tools-Agro-Food-2007.pdf
Cantley, M.F. (2008)
<strong>The</strong> Regulation of Modern Biotechnology: A Historical <strong>and</strong> European Perspective: A Case Study in How Societies Cope with New
Knowledge in the Last Quarter of the Twentieth Century. Chapter 18. In Biotechnology Set, Second Edition (eds H.J. Rehm & G. Reed),
pp. 505-681. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, London
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9783527620999.ch18o AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Cantley-18-Regulation-Modern-
Biotechnology-2008.pdf
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000)
Cartagena Protocol On Biosafety To <strong>The</strong> Convention On Biological Diversity, Text <strong>and</strong> Annexes Copyright © 2000, Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, IS: ISBN: 92-807-1924-6, pp 30
http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf AND ftp://askforc@ask-force.org/www/askforce.org/web/Regulation/Cartagena-Protocol-2000.pdf
Chassy, B., Egnin, M., Gao, Y., Glenn, K., Kleter, G.A., Nestel, P., Newell-McGloughlin, M., Phipps, R.H., & Shillito, R. (2007)
Nutritional <strong>and</strong> safety assessments of foods <strong>and</strong> feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology: Case studies. Journal of Food
Science, 72, pp R131-R137
://WOS:000251394600002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Chassy-Ex-Summ-Nutritional-Safety-Case-
Studies-2007.pdf
Chassy, B.M. (2007)
<strong>The</strong> history <strong>and</strong> future of <strong>GM</strong>Os in food <strong>and</strong> agriculture. Cereal Foods World, 52, 4, pp 169-172
://000248207400002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/History/Chassy-History-Future-2007.pdf
Cohen, S.N., Chang, A.C.Y., Boyer, H.W., & Helling, R.B. (1973)
CONSTRUCTION OF BIOLOGICALLY FUNCTIONAL BACTERIAL PLASMIDS IN-VITRO. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 70, 11, pp 3240-3244
://WOS:A1973R376400045 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Cohen-Construction-Plasmids-in-Vitro-
1973.pdf
Cohen, S.N., Chang, A.C.Y., & Hsu, L. (1972)
NONCHROMOSOMAL ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE IN BACTERIA - GENETIC TRANSFORMATION OF ESCHERICHIA-COLI BY R-FACTOR DNA.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 69, 8, pp 2110-&
://WOS:A1972N243300027 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Cohen-Nonchromosomal-Antibiotic-
Resistance-1972.pdf
Coll, A., Nadal, A., Collado, R., Capellades, G., Kubista, M., Messeguer, J., & Pla, M. (2010)
Natural variation explains most transcriptomic changes among maize plants of MON810 <strong>and</strong> comparable <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> varieties subjected
to two N-fertilization farming practices. Plant Molecular Biology, 73, 3, pp 349-362
://BIOSIS:PREV201000284454 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Coll-Natural-Variation-Explains-2010.pdf
Coll, A., Nadal, A., Collado, R., Capellades, G., Messeguer, J., Melé, E., Palaudelmàs, M., & Pla, M. (2009)
Gene expression profiles of MON810 <strong>and</strong> comparable <strong>non</strong>-<strong>GM</strong> maize varieties cultured in the field are more similar than are those
of conventional lines. Transgenic Research, 18, 5, pp 801-808
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-009-9266-z AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Coll-Gene-Expressioin-Profiles-
Comparable-2009.pdf
Coll, A., Nadal, A., Palaudelmàs, M., Messeguer, J., Melé, E., Puigdomènech, P., & Pla, M. (2008)
Lack of repeatable differential expression patterns <strong>between</strong> MON810 <strong>and</strong> comparable commercial varieties of maize. Plant
Molecular Biology, 68, 1, pp 105-117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11103-008-9355-z AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Coll-Lack-Repeatable-
Differenciation-Maize-2008.pdf
Conko, G. & Miller, H.I. (2011)
<strong>The</strong> Rush to Condemn Genetically Modified Crops, Impractical regulations <strong>and</strong> nuisance lawsuits. Policy Review, 165, Features, pp 8
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/64231[2/6/2011 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Conko-
Miller-Rush-Condemn-<strong>GM</strong>Os-2011.PDF
Consortium, I.H.G.S. (2001)
Initial sequencing <strong>and</strong> analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409, 6822, pp 860-921
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35057062 AND http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/suppinfo/409860a0_S1.html AND
http://www.ask-force.org/web/HorizontalGT/International-Sequencing-Human-Genome-Nature-2001.pdf
Court-Justice-EU (20110906)

58
Honey <strong>and</strong> food supplements containing pollen derived from a <strong>GM</strong>O are foodstuffs produced from <strong>GM</strong>Os which cannot be
marketed without prior authorisation In PRESS RELEASE No 79/11, Judgement in Case C-442-09 (eds C.o.J.o.t.E. Union), Vol. C-442-
09. CURIA, Luxembourg
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-09/cp110079en.pdf AND FULL TEXT
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-442/09
Crawley, M.J. (1990)
12 <strong>The</strong> Ecology of Genetically Engineered Organisms: Assessing the Environmental Risks. In SCOPE 44 - Introduction of Genetically
Modified Organisms into the Environment (ed H.A.B. Mooney, G.,). COGEN
http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope44/chapter12.html AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Regulation/Crawley-Ecology-Genetically-Engineered-Organisms-Environment-1990.pdf
Crow, J.F. (1997)
<strong>The</strong> high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 94, 16, pp 8380-8386
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.abstract AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Crow-High-Spontaneous-
Mutation-1997.pdf
Davison, J. (2004)
Monitoring horizontal gene transfer. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 11, pp 1349-1349
://000224960600014 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/HorizontalGT/Davison-Monitoring-Horizontal-2004.pdf
de Maagd, R.A., Bravo, A., & Crickmore, N. (2001)
How Bacillus thuringiensis has evolved specific toxins to colonize the insect world. Trends in Genetics, 17, 4, pp 193-199
://000168718300020 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/de-Maagd-Bac-thuring-colonize-2001.pdf
Devlin, R.H., Biagi, C.A., Yesaki, T.Y., Smailus, D.E., & Byatt, J.C. (2001)
Growth of domesticated transgenic fish - A growth-hormone transgene boosts the size of wild but not domesticated trout. Nature,
409, 6822, pp 781-782
://WOS:000166938800026 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Devlin-Growth-Domesticated-transgenic-fish-
2001.pdf
Devlin, R.H., Sakhrani, D., Tymchuk, W.E., Rise, M.L., & Goh, B. (2009)
Domestication <strong>and</strong> growth hormone transgenesis cause similar changes in gene expression in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 9, pp 3047-3052
://WOS:000263844100016 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Devlin-Domestication-Growth-2009.pdf
Diawara, M.M., Chavez, K.J., Simpleman, D., Williams, D.E., Franklin, M.R., & Hoyer, P.B. (2001)
<strong>The</strong> psoralens adversely affect reproductive function in male wistar rats. Reproductive Toxicology, 15, 2, pp 137-144
://000168219700006 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Allergy/Diawara-Psoralens-Rats-2001.pdf
Dong, C.M., Whitford, R., & Langridge, P. (2002)
A DNA mismatch repair gene links to the Ph2 locus in wheat. Genome, 45, 1, pp 116-124
://WOS:000173553000016 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Dong-DNA-Mismatch-Repair-Gene-
2002.pdf
Doull, J., Gaylor, D., Greim, H.A., Lovell, D.P., Lynch, B., & Munro, I.C. (2007)
Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically
modified corn variety (MON 863). Food <strong>and</strong> Chemical Toxicology, 45, 11, pp 2073-2085
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T6P-4PJ6GNB-1/2/d3cc3bafa737e5ebf30a4fc4c83fdfa7 AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Doull-Seralini-Report-2007.pdf
Doyle, J.J., Doyle, J.L., Brown, A.H., & Grace, J.P. (1990)
Multiple origins of polyploids in the Glycine tabacina complex inferred from chloroplast DNA polymorphism. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87, 2, pp 714-717
http://www.pnas.org/content/87/2/714.abstract AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Doyle-Multiple-Origins-
1990.pdf
Drobnik, J. (2008)
Time to relax <strong>GM</strong>O regulation in europe. Plant Cell Tissue <strong>and</strong> Organ Culture, 94, 3, pp 235-238
://WOS:000258541100002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Drobnik-Time-Relax-2007.pdf
Duan, J.J., Marvier, M., Huesing, J., Dively, G., & Huang, Z.Y. (2008)
A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Crops on Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS ONE, 3, 1, pp e1415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001415 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Duan-Meta-Analysis-Effects-Bees-
2008.pdf

59
EFSA (2007a)
Press release: EFSA reaffirms its risk assessment of genetically modified maize MON 863 maize, European Food Safety Authority pp
5 (Report)
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/EFSA-Reaffirmation-mon863-20070628.pdf
EFSA (2007b)
Safety <strong>and</strong> nutritional assessment of <strong>GM</strong> plants <strong>and</strong> derived food <strong>and</strong> feed: <strong>The</strong> role of animal feeding trials. Safety <strong>and</strong> nutritional
assessment of <strong>GM</strong> plants <strong>and</strong> derived food <strong>and</strong> feed: <strong>The</strong> role of animal feeding trials, 46, Supplement 1, pp S2-S70
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T6P-4RTW3XD-1/1/3bf8f16f11a571d65ea649c1260bb3da
EFSA (2007c)
Statement of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the analysis of data from a 90-day rat feeding study with
MON 863 maize, European Food Safety Authority pp 5 (Report)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Statement/<strong>GM</strong>O_statement_MON863,0.pdf
EU-Regulation-<strong>GM</strong>O-free Regions (20100713)
<strong>GM</strong>Os: Member States to be given full responsibility on cultivation in their territories, IP/10/921, pp. 2. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,, Brussels
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/921 AND
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm
European Commission (2010)
A decade of EU-funded <strong>GM</strong>O research (2001 - 2010), IS: ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9, pp
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
Ewen, S.W.B. & Pusztai, A. (1999a)
Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. <strong>The</strong> Lancet, 354,
9187, pp 1353-1354
://000083149900015 AND doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Ewen-
Pusztai-Lancet-1999.pdf
Ewen, S.W.B. & Pusztai, A. (1999b)
<strong>GM</strong> food debate - Reply. <strong>The</strong> Lancet, 354, 9191, pp 1726-1727
://000083652800046 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Ewen-Pusztai-Lancet-1999-authors-reply-1726.pdf
Ewen, S.W.B. & Pusztai, A. (1999c)
Health risks of genetically modified foods. <strong>The</strong> Lancet, 354, 9179, pp 684-684
://000082214500064 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Ewen-Pusztai-Lancet--Reply-1999-p684.pdf
FDA (1992)
Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties, Notice. FDA Federal Register, 57, 104, pp 22984-23005
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm AND
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/FDA-Statement-Policy-Foods-Derived-New-Plant-Varieties-1992.pdf
Fedoroff, N. (1992)
MCCLINTOCK,BARBARA, THE GENETICIST, THE GENIUS, THE WOMAN - OBITUARY. Cell, 71, 2, pp 181-182
://WOS:A1992JU39500001
Fedoroff, N. (1994)
MCCLINTOCK,BARBARA (JUNE 16, 1902 SEPTEMBER 2, 1992). Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 138, 3, pp 431-445
://WOS:A1994PH68500011 AND NEBIS 20090920
Fedoroff, N., Haselkorn, R., & Chassy, B.M. (2011)
EPA's Proposed Biotech Policy Turns a Deaf Ear to Science. <strong>The</strong> FASEB Journal, 25, 9, pp 2855-2857
http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/9/2855.short AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Fedoroff-Deaf-Ear-2011.pdf
Fedoroff, N., Schlappi, M., & Raina, R. (1995)
EPIGENETIC REGULATION OF THE MAIZE SPM TRANSPOSON. Bioessays, 17, 4, pp 291-297
://WOS:A1995QV74600004 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Epigenesis/Fedoroff-Epigenetic-regulation-1995.pdf
Fedoroff, N.V. (1984)
Transposable genetic elements in maize [Corn, Zea mays]. Scientific American, 250, pp 64-74
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Fedoroff-transposable-Elements-Maize-1984.pdf
Fedoroff, N.V. (1991)

60
<strong>The</strong> Restless Gene - How the Colors of Indian Corn Have Led to an Underst<strong>and</strong>ing of W<strong>and</strong>ering DNA. Sciences-New York, 31, 1, pp
22-28
://WOS:A1991EM86800018
Ferreira, S.J., Senning, M., Sonnewald, S., Kessling, P.M., Goldstein, R., & Sonnewald, U. (2010)
Comparative transcriptome analysis coupled to X-ray CT reveals sucrose supply <strong>and</strong> growth velocity as major determinants of potato
tuber starch biosynthesis. BMC Genomics, 11, pp
://WOS:000275291800004 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Ferreira-Comparative-Transcriptome-
Analysis-Potato-2010.pdf
Fiksel, J. (1987)
NATO advanced research workshop on safety assurance for environmental introductions of genetically-engineered organisms (1987)
NATO ASI series. Series G : ecological sciences 18, pp 35-54
Fratamico, P.M. (2008)
<strong>The</strong> application of "Omics" technologies for food safety research - Introduction. Foodborne Pathogens <strong>and</strong> Disease, 5, 4, pp 369-370
://WOS:000258684200002 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Fratamico-Application-Omics-Food-Safety-
2008.pdf
Fredrickson, D. (2001)
<strong>The</strong> Recombinant DNA Controversy, a Memoir: Science, Politics, <strong>and</strong> the Public Interest 1974-1981 ASM Press American Society for
Microbiology, Washington DC, IS: ISBN-10: 1555812228 ISBN-13: 978-1555812225, pp 406
http://www.amazon.de/Recombinant-DNA-Controversy-Memoir-1974-1981/dp/1555812228/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books-intlde&qid=1295837902&sr=8-1-catcorr
Friedberg, E.C. (2007)
<strong>The</strong> writing life of James D. Watson. Adler Museum Bulletin, 33, 2, pp 3-16
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/History/Friedberg-Writing-Life-James-Watson-2007.pdf
Friedman, M. & Dao, L. (1992)
Distribution of glycoalkaloids in potato plants <strong>and</strong> commercial potato products. Journal of Agricultural <strong>and</strong> Food Chemistry, 40, 3, pp
419-423
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf00015a011 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Allergy/Friedman-Distribution-Glycoalkaloids-Potato-
1992.pdf
Gasser, C.S. & Fraley, R.T. (1989)
GENETICALLY ENGINEERING PLANTS FOR CROP IMPROVEMENT. Science, 244, 4910, pp 1293-1299
://WOS:A1989AA76500023 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Gasser-Genetically-Engineering-Plants-
1989.pdf
Gatehouse, A.M.R., Ferry, N., & Raemaekers, R.J.M. (2002)
<strong>The</strong> case of the monarch butterfly: a verdict is returned. Trends in Genetics, 18, 5, pp 249-251
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Gatehouse-Case-Monarch-2002.pdf
Ghatnekar, L. (1999)
A polymorphic duplicated locus for cytosolic PGI segregating in sheep's fescue (Festuca ovina L.). Heredity, 83, pp 451-459
://000083567300011 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Ghatnekar-Polymorphic-duplicated-Locus-
1999.pdf
Ghatnekar, L. & Bengtsson, B.O. (2000)
A DNA marker for the duplicated cytosolic PGI genes in sheep's fescue (Festuca ovina L.). Genetical Research, 76, 3, pp 319-322
://000168209300010 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Ghatnekar-DNA-Marker-2000.pdf
Ghatnekar, L., Jaarola, M., & Bengtsson, B.O. (2006)
<strong>The</strong> introgression of a functional nuclear gene from Poa to Festuca ovina. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 273, 1585, pp 395 - 399
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Ghatnekar-Transgen-Festuca.pdf
Giesecke, S. (2000)
<strong>The</strong> contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US <strong>and</strong> Germany. Research Policy, 29, 2,
pp 205-223
://WOS:000085125700008
Glickstein, N.M. (1995)
"<strong>The</strong> Double Helix" Revisited. <strong>The</strong> American Biology Teacher, 57, 3, pp 146-149
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4449951 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Quiet-Debut-Double-Helix-2003.pdf

Gressel, J. (1999)
T<strong>and</strong>em constructs: preventing the rise of superweeds. Trends in Biotechnology, 17, 9, pp 361-366
://WOS:000082263400006 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Geneflow/Gressel-T<strong>and</strong>em-Constructs-1999.pdf
61
Gressel, J. (2005)
Problems in qualifying <strong>and</strong> quantifying assumptions in plant protection models: Resultant simulations can be mistaken by a factor of
million. Crop Protection, 24, 11, pp 1007-1015
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T5T-4GYH7DF-1/2/bfa82f115a6e413e859f2d5d6b055e23 <strong>and</strong>
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Modelling/Gressel-Models-2005.pdf
Gressel, J. (2010)
Gene flow of transgenic seed-expressed traits: Biosafety considerations. Plant Science, 179, 6, pp 630-634
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TBH-4YG1KSR-1/2/a86e96493ff9e49210dc73b1d82d53c1 AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Geneflow/Gressel-Gene-Flow-Transgenic-2010.pdf
Hackett, P. (2002)
Genetic Engineering: What are We Fearing? Transgenic Research, 11, 2, pp 97-99
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015292423744 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Hackett-GE-What-are-we-fearing-
2002.pdf
Hagen, P.E. & Weiner, J.B. (2001)
<strong>The</strong> Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: New Rules for International Trade in Living Modified Organisms. Georgetown international
Environmental Law Review, 12, pp 697ff, 23 ppp
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Hagen-Cartagena-Protocol-Biosafety-1999.pdf
Hall, R.M. & Collis, C.M. (1995)
Mobile gene cassettes <strong>and</strong> integrons: capture <strong>and</strong> spread of genes by site-specific recombination. Molecular Microbiology, 15, 4, pp
593-600
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.1995.tb02368.x AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Hall-Mobile-Gene-Cassettes-
1995.pdf
Halpin, C. (2005)
Gene stacking in transgenic plants - the challenge for 21st century plant biotechnology. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 3, 2, pp 141-
155
://WOS:000227087400001 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Halpin-Gene-Stacking-Transgenic-2005.pdf
Hammond, B.G., Dudek, R., Lemen, J.K., & Nemeth, M.A. (2006)
Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn [MON810]. Food <strong>and</strong> Chemical
Toxicology, 44, 7, pp 1092-1099
://WOS:000238963900019 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Hammond-Results-90-day-MON810-2006.pdf
Haygood, R., Ives, A.R., & Andow, D.A. (2003)
Consequences of recurrent gene flow from <strong>crops</strong> to wild relatives. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological
Sciences, 270, 1527, pp 1879-1886
://000185482500002
Heinemann, J.A. & Traavik, T. (2004a)
Monitoring horizontal gene transfer - Reply. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 11, pp 1349-1350
://WOS:000224960600015 AND http//www.ask-force.org/web/HorizontalGT/Heinemann-Traavik-Reply-Monitoring-
2004.pdf
Heinemann, J.A. & Traavik, T. (2004b)
Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 9, pp 1105-1109
://000223653400028 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/HorizontalGT/Heinemann-Problems-NB-2004.pdf
Heinemann, J.A. & Traavik, T. (2005)
Corrigendum: Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants (vol 22, pg 1105, 2004). Nature
Biotechnology, 23, 4, pp 488
://000228197300037 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/HorizontalGT/Heinemann-Traavik-Corrigendum-nbt0405-
488d-2005.pdf
Helgason, E., Okstad, O.A., Caugant, D.A., Johansen, H.A., Fouet, A., Mock, M., Hegna, I., & Kolsto, A.-B. (2000)
Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus cereus, <strong>and</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis---One Species on the Basis of Genetic Evidence. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
%R 10.1128/AEM.66.6.2627-2630.2000, 66, 6, pp 2627-2630
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/6/2627 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Helgason-Cereus-Group-HT-
2000.pdf

Herman, R.A., Chassy, B.M., & Parrott, W. (2009a)
Compositional assessment of transgenic <strong>crops</strong>: an idea whose time has passed. Trends in Biotechnology, 27, 10, pp 555-557
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCW-4X26XP1-1/2/bcfd547d5f12695fc76c4fc5886ba9fc AND AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Herman-Compositional-Analysis-2009.pdf
62
Herman, R.A., Chassy, B.M., & Parrott, W. (2009b)
Compositional assessment of transgenic <strong>crops</strong>: an idea whose time has passed. Trends in Biotechnology, In Press, Corrected Proof,
pp
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCW-4X26XP1-1/2/bcfd547d5f12695fc76c4fc5886ba9fc AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Herman-Compositional-Analysis-2009.pdf
Ho, M.-W. (2000)
Hazards of transgenic plants containing the cauliflower mosaic viral promoter: Authors' reply to critiques of "<strong>The</strong> Cauliflower Mosaic
Viral Promoter - a Recipe for Disaster?". Microbial Ecology in Health <strong>and</strong> Disease, 12, 1, pp 6-11
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/089106000435536-1 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/S35/Ho-Hazardstransgenic-plants-Cauli-2000.pdf
House of Commons (19990308)
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Science <strong>and</strong> Technology Committee. In House of Commons, Science Committee, London
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsctech/286/9030801.htm AND main webpage: http://www.askforce.org/web/Pusztai/House-of-Commons-Minutes-Pusztai-1999-main-page.pdf
Hull, R., Covey, S.N., & Dale, P.J. (2000)
Genetically modified plants <strong>and</strong> the 35S promoter: assessing the risks <strong>and</strong> enhancing the debate. Microbial Ecology in Health <strong>and</strong>
Disease, 12, 1, pp 1-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089106000435527 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/S35/Hull-Covey-Dale-pS35-MS-2000.pdf
Huttner, S.L., Miller, H.I., & Lemaux, P.G. (1995)
US AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY - STATUS AND PROSPECTS. Technological Forecasting <strong>and</strong> Social Change, 50, 1, pp 25-39
://WOS:A1995RT49000003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Huttner-US-Ag-Biotech-Status-Prospects-
1995.pdf
Janik, J. & Muresan, C.S. (2010)
Demonization of Science, Sanctification of Poverty. Chronica Horticulturae, 50, 4, pp 24-26
http://www.actahort.org/chronica/pdf/ch5004.pdf#page=24 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Janick-Demonization-
Science-Actahort-2010.pdf
Kaatz, H.H. (2004)
Effects of Bt maize pollen on the honeybee, (2001 - 2004) Jena University, Institute of Nutrition <strong>and</strong> Environment pp 2 (Report)
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Kaatz-Effects-Bt-Maize-Pollen-2004.pdf AND
http://www.biosicherheit.de/features/printversion.php?project=yes&id=68&lang=en <strong>and</strong> German
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Kaatz-Bienen-Biosicherheit-2004.pdf
Kalaitz<strong>and</strong>onakes, N., Marks, L., & Vickner, S.S. (2005)
Sentiments <strong>and</strong> acts towards genetically modified foods. International Journal of Biotechnology, 7, 1-3, pp 161-177
http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=6452&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Kalaitz<strong>and</strong>onakes-Sentiments-Acts-2005.pdf
Kasting, J.F., Schultz, P.A., Arrow, K.J., Cropper, M.L., Eads, G.C., Hahn, R.W., Lave, L.B., Noll, R.G., Portney, P.R., Russell, M., Schmalensee, R.,
Smith, V.K., & Stavins, R.N. (1996)
Benefit-Cost Analysis <strong>and</strong> the Environment. Science, 272, 5268, pp 1571-1573
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2890640 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Kasting-Benefit-Cost-Analysis-1996.pdf
Keeling, P.J. & Palmer, J.D. (2008)
Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9, 8, pp 605-618
://WOS:000257758400011 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/HorizontalGT/Keeling-HGT-Eukaryotic-Evolution-
2008.pdf
Kelman, A., Anderson, W., Falkov, S., Fedoroff, N., & Leven, S. (1987)
Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment: Key Issues, National Academic Press pp 24 Prepared
for the Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Research Council Research Council (U.S.). Commission on Life Sciences ,
National Research Council (U.S.). Board on Basic Biology Washington DC (Report)
http://books.google.com/books?id=IUErAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=Introduction+of+Recombinant+DNA+Engineered+Organi
sms+into+the+Environment:&source=bl&ots=FuAOSTtOT2&sig=3V_-

63
h1LrsjCUFv7WnD6iYC69Jjg&hl=en&ei=nwppTv2NDLPa4QT5idXKDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwA
Q#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kingsbury, D.T. (1990)
14 Regulation of Biotechnology: A. Perspective on the US 'Coordinated Framework'. In SCOPE 44 - Introduction of Genetically
Modified Organisms into the Environment (ed H.A.B. Mooney, G.,). COGEN
http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope44/chapter14.html AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Regulation/Kingsbury-Regulation-Biotechnology-Perspective-US-1990.pdf
Kirschman, J.C. & Suber, R.L. (1989)
Recent food poisonings from cucurbitacin in traditionally bred squash. Food <strong>and</strong> Chemical Toxicology, 27, 8, pp 555-556
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0278691589900586 AND NEBIS 20110903
Klug, A. (2004)
<strong>The</strong> Discovery of the DNA Double Helix. Journal of Molecular Biology, 335, 1, pp 3-26
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WK7-4B41W2K-4/2/181d9023626e6f1c425f384c9f3d31a4 AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/History/Klug-Discovery-DNA-Double-Helix-2004.pdf AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/History/Klug-Discovery-DNA-Double-Helix-corrigendum-2004.pdf
Koester, V. (2001)
A New Hot Spot in the Trade-Environment Conflict. Environmental Policy <strong>and</strong> Law, 31, 2, pp 82-94
http://iospress.metapress.com/content/N3TKKCA1EL731VXD AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Koester-Cartagena-
Protocol-Hotspot-2001.pdf
Kogel, K.-H., Voll, L.M., Schaefer, P., Jansen, C., Wu, Y., Langen, G., Imani, J., Hofmann, J.r., Schmiedl, A., Sonnewald, S., von Wettstein, D.,
Cook, R.J., & Sonnewald, U. (2010)
Transcriptome <strong>and</strong> metabolome profiling of field-grown transgenic barley lack induced <strong>difference</strong>s but show cultivar-specific
variances. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 14, pp 6198-6203
://WOS:000276374400016 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Kogel-Transcriptome-Metabolome-2010.pdf
AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Kogel-Transcriptome-Metabolome-Supporting-2010.pdf
Kohli, A., Griffiths, S., Palacios, N., Twyman, R.M., Vain, P., Laurie, D.A., & Christou, P. (1999)
Molecular characterization of transforming plasmid rearrangements in transgenic rice reveals a recombination hotspot in the CaMV
35S promoter <strong>and</strong> confirms the predominance of microhomology mediated recombination. Plant Journal, 17, 6, pp 591-601
://000079755400001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/S35/Kohli-Molecular-Characterization-1999.pdf
Konig, A., Cockburn, A., Crevel, R.W.R., Debruyne, E., Grafstroem, R., Hammerling, U., Kimber, I., Knudsen, I., Kuiper, H.A., Peijnenburg, A.,
Penninks, A.H., Poulsen, M., Schauzu, M., & Wal, J.M. (2004)
Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (<strong>GM</strong>) <strong>crops</strong>. Food <strong>and</strong> Chemical Toxicology, 42, 7, pp 1047-1088
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T6P-4C0TB0F-2/2/c05e63997072ff97fe1511166846e65f <strong>and</strong>
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Konig-et-al.Food-Assessment-2004.pdf <strong>and</strong> F1000-evaluation
http://www.facultyof1000.com/article/15123382/evaluation
Kuiper, H.A., Kleter, G.A., Noteborn, H., & Kok, E.J. (2001)
Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. Plant Journal, 27, 6, pp 503-528
://000171286000004 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Kuiper-Assessment-2001.pdf
Kuiper, H.A., Noteborn, H.P.J.M., & Peijnenburg, A.A.C.M. (1999)
Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods. <strong>The</strong> Lancet, 354, 9187, pp 1315-1316
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T1B-3XYFJJ5-3/2/1a233a19364ba2fa493ec5551eb86c39 AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Kuiper-Adequacy-Lancet-1999.pdf
Lachmann, P. (1999)
Health risks of genetically modified foods, <strong>GM</strong> food debate. <strong>The</strong> Lancet, 354, 9191, pp 69, 1726-1726
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T1B-4FWM0FM-4C/2/8cbbe85b71f307bc25a2112618ba6679 AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Lachmann-Lancet-1999-9172-69.pdf AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Lachmann-Lancet-1999-9191-1726.pdf
Lal, S., Oetjens, M., & Hannah, L.C. (2009)
Helitrons: Enigmatic abductors <strong>and</strong> mobilizers of host genome sequences. Plant Science, 176, 2, pp 181-186
://WOS:000262566600003 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Lal-Helitrons-Enigmatic-Abductors-2009.pdf
Lal, S.K. & Hannah, L.C. (2005)
Helitrons contribute to the lack of gene colinearity observed in modern maize inbreds. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 29, pp 9993-9994

64
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/29/9993.short AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Lal-Helitrons-contribute-
2005.pdf
Lay, J.J.O., Liyanage, R., Borgmann, S., & Wilkins, C.L. (2006)
Problems with the "omics". TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 25, 11, pp 1046-1056
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5H-4MC0T6X-2/2/491af10809f387a29f63e66f0cb929a4 AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Lay-Problem-Omics-2006.pdf
Leister, D. (2005)
Origin, evolution <strong>and</strong> genetic effects of nuclear insertions of organelle DNA. Trends in Genetics, 21, 12, pp 655-663
://WOS:000233672700005 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Leister-Origin-Evolution-Genetic-Effects-
2005.pdf
Leister, D., Kurth, J., Laurie, D.A., Yano, M., Sasaki, T., Devos, K., Graner, A., & Schulze-Lefert, P. (1998)
Rapid reorganization of resistance gene homologues in cereal genomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 95, 1, pp 370-375
://WOS:000071429500070 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Leister-Rapid-Reorganization-
Reisitance.1998.pdf
Lewin, R. (1983)
A Naturalist of the Genome. Science, 222, 4622, pp 402-405
://WOS:A1983RM23800018 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Lewin-Naturalist-Genome-McClintock-
1983.pdf
Linden, A. & Fenn, J. (2003)
Underst<strong>and</strong>ing Gartner's Hype Cycles, Gartner Research pp 12 Strategic Analysis Report (Report)
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~jgerlach/emergingtechnologyOL/FirstReadings/HypeCycleIntro.pdf AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Discourse/Linden-HypeCycle-2003.pdf see also
http://www.gartner.com/it/products/research/methodologies/research_hype.jsp <strong>and</strong> another example
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/gartner_hype_cycle_2009.php AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Discourse/MacManus-Gartner-hype-cycle-2009.pdf
Luis La Paz, J., Pla, M., Papazova, N., Puigdomenech, P., & Vicient, C.M. (2010)
Stability of the MON 810 transgene in maize. Plant Molecular Biology, 74, 6, pp 563-571
://BIOSIS:PREV201100056400 AND http://:www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/LaPaz-Stability-MON810-transgene-
2010.pdf
Lund, V. (2002)
Ethics <strong>and</strong> Animal Welfare in Organic Animal Husb<strong>and</strong>ry. An interdisciplinary approach, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Skara, Skara, Sweden <strong>The</strong>sis, pp 195
http://www.agriculturebiologique.ca/Docs/AnimalWelfare/Ethics_Animal_Welfare.pdf AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Organic/Lund-<strong>The</strong>sis-Ethics-Animal-Welfare-2002.pdf
Lund, V. (2006)
Natural living - a precondition for animal welfare in organic farming. Livestock Science, 100, 2-3, pp 71-83
://WOS:000237274700001 AND http:www.ask-force.org/web/Organic/Lund-Natura-Living-Precondition-Organic-
2006.pdf
Macdonald, P. & Yarrow, S. (2002)
Regulation of Bt <strong>crops</strong> in Canada, Iguassu Falls, Brazil Academic Press Inc Elsevier Science 8th International Colloquium on
Invertebrate Pathology <strong>and</strong> Microbial Control/35th Annual Meeting of the SIP/6th International Conference on Bacillus Thuringiensis
Ed. pp 93-99
://000183491000002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/MacDonald-Regulation-Bt-<strong>crops</strong>-Canada-
2003.pdf
Mahfouz, M.M., Li, L., Shamimuzzaman, M., Wibowo, A., Fang, X., & Zhu, J.-K. (2011)
De novo-engineered transcription activator-like effector (TALE) hybrid nuclease with novel DNA binding specificity creates doublestr<strong>and</strong>
breaks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 6, pp 2623-2628
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/6/2623.abstract AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Mahfouz-De-Novo-engineeredtranscroption-2011.pdf
AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/CNBC-Kaust-Genomic-Scissors-2011.PDF AND
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/AAAS-News-Fedoroff-Genomics-Kaust-20110303.PDF
Marvier, M., McCreedy, C., Regetz, J., & Kareiva, P. (2007)
A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton <strong>and</strong> Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates. Science %R 10.1126/science.1139208, 316, 5830, pp
1475-1477

65
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5830/1475 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Marvier-Meta-
Analysis-2007.pdf AND supporting data: http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Marvier-Meta-Analysis-Supporting-2007.pdf AND
Interview in <strong>GM</strong>O-Safety http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Marvier-Interview-<strong>GM</strong>O-safety-2008.PDF AND comments Bruce
Chassy http://foodtecheperspective.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/can-meta-analysis-help-biosafety-research/
Maryanski, J.H. (1995)
U.S. Food <strong>and</strong> Drug Administration Policy for Foods Developed by Biotechnology. In Genetically Modified Foods, Vol. 605, pp. 12-22.
American Chemical Society ACS Symposium Series
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bk-1995-0605.ch002
McClintock, B. (1930)
A cytological demonstration of the location of an interchange <strong>between</strong> two <strong>non</strong>-homologous chromosomes of Zea mays.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 16, pp 791-796
://WOS:000201970600143 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/McClintock-Cytological-Interchange-
Location-1930.pdf
McClintock, B. (1953)
Induction of Instability at Selected Loci in Maize. Genetics, 38, 6, pp 579-599
://WOS:A1953XW86100004 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/McClintock-Instability-Maize-1953.pdf
McHughen, A. (2007)
Fatal flaws in agbiotech regulatory policies. Nature Biotechnology, 25, 7, pp 725-727
://WOS:000247994000016 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/McHughen-Fatal-Flaws-Agbiotech-
Regulatory-2008.pdf
McHughen, A. & Smyth, S. (2008)
US regulatory system for genetically modified [genetically modified organism (<strong>GM</strong>O), rDNA or transgenic] crop cultivars. Plant
Biotechnology Journal, 6, 1, pp 2-12
://WOS:000251505400002 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/McHughen-US-Regulatory-System-2008.pdf
McHughen, A. & Wager, R. (2010)
Popular misconceptions: agricultural biotechnology. New Biotechnology, 27, 6, pp 724-728
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B8JG4-4YR8RPW-2/2/54e414edc4b14dfa4c231eed2a2fc4e7 AND ftp://askforc@askforce.org/www/ask-force.org/web/Regulation/McHughen-Wager-Popular-Misconceptions-2010.pdf
McLean, M.A., Frederick, R.J., Traynor, P.L., Cohen, J.I., & Komen, J. (2002)
A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Biosafety: Linking Policy, Capacity, <strong>and</strong> Regulation, ISNAR, International Service for
National Agricultural Research pp 1-12 ISNAR Briefing Papers Washington DC. (Report)
ftp://ftp.cgiar.org/isnar/publicat/bp-47.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/McLean-Conceptual-Framework-
ISNAR-47-2002.pdf
Meyer, H. (2011)
Systemic risks of genetically modified <strong>crops</strong>: the need for new approaches to risk assessment. Environmental Sciences Europe, 23, 1,
pp 7
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/7 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Meyer-Systemic-Risks-<strong>GM</strong>-Crops-
2011.pdf
Meza, T.J., Stangel<strong>and</strong>, B., Mercy, I.S., Skarn, M., Nymoen, D.A., Berg, A., Butenko, M.A., Hakelien, A.M., Haslekas, C., Meza-Zepeda, L.A., &
Aalen, R.B. (2002)
Analyses of single-copy Arabidopsis T-DNA-transformed lines show that the presence of vector backbone sequences, short inverted
repeats <strong>and</strong> DNA methylation is not sufficient or necessary for the induction of transgene silencing. Nucleic Acids Research, 30, 20,
pp 4556-4566
://WOS:000178826700034 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Meza-Analyses-Arabidopsis-2002.pdf
Miller, H. (1994a)
CLINTONS MALIGN NEGLECT BATTERS BIOTECHNOLOGY. Bio-Technology, 12, 6, pp 571-573
://WOS:A1994NP63700015 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Clintons-Malign-Neglect-1994.pdf
Miller, H. (1996a)
Bio-giants lobby for over-regulation. Chemistry & Industry, 24, pp 1000-1000
://A1996VZ60300012 AND NEBIS 20101230
Miller, H. (1996b)
Biotechnology <strong>and</strong> the Brown Shirts, European Wall Street Journal 18. 4. 1996 pp ( European Wall Street Journal Article)
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Fundamentalists/Miller-Fascism-1996.pdf AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Biotechnology-Brown-Shirts-1996.pdf

Miller, H. (1998)
Regulation - New FDA appointment offers food for thought. Nature Biotechnology, 16, 10, pp 886-886
://000076323300003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-FDA-Food-for-Thought-1998.pdf
66
Miller, H., Beachy, R., & Huttner, S.L. (1994)
RISK ASSESSMENT REDUX. Bio-Technology, 12, 3, pp 216-217
://WOS:A1994MZ55000002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Risk-Assessment-Redux-1994.pdf
Miller, H.I. (1994b)
RISK-ASSESSMENT EXPERIMENTS AND THE NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY. Trends in Biotechnology, 12, 8, pp 292-295
://WOS:A1994PB32600003 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Miller-Risk-Assessment-Experiments-
1994.pdf
Miller, H.I. (1994c)
Us Must Rationalize Biotech Regulation. Bio-Technology, 12, 5, pp 441-442
://A1994NJ86300010 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-US-Must-Rationalize-1994.pdf
Miller, H.I. (1995)
BIODIVERSITY TREATY MISGUIDED. Nature, 373, 6512, pp 278-278
://WOS:A1995QD40400020 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Biotechnology-Treaty-Misguided-
1995.pdf
Miller, H.I. (1996c)
Biosafety regulations. Nature, 379, 6560, pp 13-13
://WOS:A1996TN21600019 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Biosafety-Regulations-1996.pdf
Miller, H.I. (1996d)
Biotechnology <strong>and</strong> brown shirts. Nature, 381, 6581, pp 362-362
://WOS:A1996UN47900018 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Miller-Biotechnology-Brown-Shirts-1996.pdf
Miller, H.I. (1996e)
Biotechnology giants lobby for overregulation. Comment. Biotechnology Law Report, 15, 6, pp 949-951
://WOS:A1996WE78900014 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Biotech-Giants-Lobby-
Overregulation-1996.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Biogiants-Lobbying-1996.pdf
Miller, H.I. (1996f)
Comment: EPA has no PEER at flawed biotechnology regulation. Comment. Biotechnology Law Report, 15, 6, pp 922-924
://WOS:A1996WE78900011 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Comment-EPA-No-Peer-1996.pdf
Miller, H.I. (1996g)
Plants condemned as pesticides. Nature, 383, 6603, pp 756-756
://WOS:A1996VQ14400018 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Plants-Condemned-Pesticides-
1996.pdf
Miller, H.I. (1997)
Policy Controversy in Biotechnology: An Insiders View Academic Press, R.G. L<strong>and</strong>es Company, IS: ISBN-10: 0124967256 ISBN-13:
978-0124967250 pp 221
http://www.amazon.de/Policy-Controversy-Biotechnology-Intelligence-
Unit/dp/0124967256/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1293891836&sr=8-3
Miller, H.I. (1999)
Proposed <strong>GM</strong>O rules lack scientific sense. Nature, 399, 6737, pp 631-632
://WOS:000080932800020 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Proposed-<strong>GM</strong>O-Rules-1999.pdf
Miller, H.I. (2000)
Environment regulations hinder biotech industry. Nature, 406, 6796, pp 560-560
://WOS:000088653800016 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Environment-Regulations-2000.pdf
Miller, H.I. (2001a)
Politics defeats science at environment agency. Nature, 412, 6848, pp 677-677
://WOS:000170450200014 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Politics-Defeats-Science-2001.pdf
Miller, H.I. (2001b)
We must not be bound by anti-<strong>GM</strong> extremists. Nature, 410, 6827, pp 408-408

67
://WOS:000167583800014 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Not-Bound-Anti-<strong>GM</strong>-Extremists-
2001.pdf
Miller, H.I. (2002)
Agricultural Biotechnology, Law, <strong>and</strong> Food Biotechnology Regulation John Wiley & Sons, Inc., IS: 9780471250593, pp
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471250597.mur097 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Agricultural-
Biotechnology-Wiley-2002.PDF AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Agricultural-Biotechnology-Wiley-Fig-1-
2002.PDF
Miller, H.I. (2007)
Biotech's defining moments. Trends in Biotechnology, 25, 2, pp 56-59
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCW-4MK0HGK-1/2/409c558b4630f54cdc689f843e290a6d AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Regulation-2007.pdf
Miller, H.I. (2008)
Auf Wiedersehen, agbiotech. Nat Biotech, 26, 9, pp 974-975
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt0908-974 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-AufWiederSehen-2008.pdf
Miller, H.I. (2009)
A golden opportunity, squ<strong>and</strong>ered. Trends in Biotechnology, 27, 3, pp 129-130
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCW-4VGTGRX-1/2/89948850e8a0e9a03b66f54ad6257a6b AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Golden-Rice/Miller-Golden-Opportunity-2009.pdf , AND http://www.genengnews.com/genarticles/a-golden-opportunity-choked-by-red-tape/3542/?page=2
AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Golden-Rice/Miller-Golden-
Opportunity-Choked-by-Red-Tape-20110201.pdf
Miller, H.I. (2010)
<strong>The</strong> regulation of agricultural biotechnology: science shows a better way. New Biotechnology, 27, 5, pp 628-634
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B8JG4-50G06H6-2/2/baec44822399aaf56f2b8fe58d560c28 AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Vatican-PAS-Studyweek-Elsevier-publ-20101130/Miller-Henry-PAS-Regulation-Agricultural-20101130-publ.pdf
Miller, H.I., Arntzen, C.J., Beachy, R.N., Cook, R.J., Huttner, S.L., Kennedy, D., Qualset, C.O., Raven, P.H., & Vidaver, A.K. (1998)
Some issues for the biosafety protocol. Nature, 392, 6673, pp 221-221
://WOS:000072612300015 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Some-Issues-Biosafety-1998.pdf
Miller, H.I. & Conko, G. (2000)
<strong>The</strong> protocol's illusionary principle. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 4, pp 360-360
://WOS:000086444300004 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/RegulationMiller-Protocols-Illusionary-Principle-
2000.pdf
Miller, H.I. & Conko, G. (2001a)
<strong>The</strong> perils of precaution - Why regulators' "precautionay principle" is doing more harm than good. Policy Review, 107, pp 25-39
://WOS:000169273400003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Perils-Precaution-2001.pdf
Miller, H.I. & Conko, G. (2001b)
Precaution without principle. Nature Biotechnology, 19, 4, pp 302-303
://WOS:000167940700010 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Precaution-without-Principle-
2001.pdf
Miller, H.I. & Conko, G. (2004a)
Chasing 'transgenic' shadows. Nat Biotech, 22, 6, pp 654-655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt0604-654 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Miller-Chasing-transgenic-shadows-2004.pdf
Miller, H.I. & Conko, G.P. (2004b)
<strong>The</strong> Frankenfood Myth, how protest <strong>and</strong> politics threaten the biotech revolution Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004, IS:
0275978796, 9780275978792, pp 269
http://books.google.ch/books?id=T1-
1RER8tVgC&dq=Henry+Miller+<strong>and</strong>+Gregory+Conko,+the+Frankenfood+Myth&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s AND derived chapter in
NAS http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Miller-Conco-Agriculture-Overregulation-2005.PDF
Miller, H.I., Huttner, S.L., & Beachy, R. (1993)
RISK ASSESSMENT EXPERIMENTS FOR GENETICALLY-MODIFIED PLANTS. Bio-Technology, 11, 11, pp 1323-1324
://WOS:A1993MF87200033 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Miller-Risk-Assessment-Experiments-
1993.pdf
Miller, J.K., Herman, E.M., Jahn, M., & Bradford, K.J. (2010)
Strategic research, education <strong>and</strong> policy goals for seed science <strong>and</strong> crop improvement. Plant Science, 179, 6, pp 645-652

68
://WOS:000285077500012 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Miller-Strategic-Research-2010.pdf
Millstone, E., Brunner, E., & Mayer, S. (1999)
Beyond 'substantial equivalence'. Nature, 401, 6753, pp 525-526
://WOS:000083054900020 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Millstone-Beyond-Substantial-Equivalence-
1999.pdf
Molnar, I., Benavente, E., & Molnar-Lang, M. (2009)
Detection of intergenomic chromosome rearrangements in irradiated Triticum aestivum - Aegilops biuncialis amphiploids by
multicolour genomic in situ hybridization. Genome, 52, 2, pp 156-165
://WOS:000265606300006 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Mutations/Molnar-Detection-Interngenomicrearrangements-2009.pdf
Mooney, H.A. & Bernardi, G., eds. (1990)
Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment,, pp 224, John Wiley & Sons; 1 edition (December 7, 1990)
Hoboken, IS: ISBN-10: 0471926779 ISBN-13: 978-0471926771
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Genetically-Modified-Organisms-into-
Environment/dp/0471926779/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315502752&sr=1-1
Morikawa, K. & Shirakawa, M. (2001)
Three-dimensional structural views of damaged-DNA recognition: T4 endonuclease V, E. coli Vsr protein, <strong>and</strong> human nucleotide
excision repair factor XPA (vol 460, pg 257, 2000). Mutation Research-DNA Repair, 485, 3, pp 267-268
://WOS:000167838200009 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Morikawa-Structural-Views-Damaged-DNA-
2000.pdf
Moroso, M. (2008)
<strong>The</strong> Institutionalisation of <strong>GM</strong>Os:Institutional Dynamics in the <strong>GM</strong> regulatory debate in the UK, 1986-1993, Exeter <strong>The</strong>sis, pp 295
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Moroso-Institutionalization-<strong>GM</strong>Os-UK-1986-1993.pdf
Morris, S. & Spillane, C. (2010)
EU <strong>GM</strong> Crop Regulation: A Road to Resolution or a Regulatory Roundabout? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4, pp 359-369
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Morris-Spillane-EU-<strong>GM</strong>-Crop-Regulation-final-2010..pdf
Mower, J., Stefanovic, S., Hao, W., Gummow, J., Jain, K., Ahmed, D., & Palmer, J. (2010)
Horizontal acquisition of multiple mitochondrial genes from a parasitic plant followed by gene conversion with host mitochondrial
genes. Bmc Biology, 8, 1, pp 150
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/150 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/HorizontalGT/Mower-Horizontalacquisition-Mitochondrial-2010.pdf
Munson, A. (1993)
Genetically Manipulated Organisms: International Policy-Making <strong>and</strong> Implications. International Affairs (Royal Institute of
International Affairs 1944-), 69, 3, pp 497-517
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2622312 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Munson-Genetically-Manipulated-
Organisms-1993.pdf see also New Scientist Forum http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14219314.900-forum-better-biosafethan-sorry--abby-munson-says-that-we-need-a-strong-protocol-on-the-release-of-engineered-organisms.html
Myers, R.M., Tilly, K., & Maniatis, T. (1986)
FINE-STRUCTURE GENETIC-ANALYSIS OF A BETA-GLOBIN PROMOTER. Science, 232, 4750, pp 613-618
://WOS:A1986C034500022 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Myers-Fine-Structure-Genetic-1986.pdf
Naranjo, S.E. (2009)
Impacts of Bt <strong>crops</strong> on <strong>non</strong>-target invertebrates <strong>and</strong> insecticide use patterns. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary
Science, Nutrition <strong>and</strong> Natural Resources,, 4, 11, pp 23 pp
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews AND http://cabiblog.typepad.com/files/pav4011-1.pdf AND open source
http://cabiblog.typepad.com/h<strong>and</strong>_picked/2009/04/environmental-impacts-of-bt-<strong>crops</strong>-on-target-or-<strong>non</strong>-target.html AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Naranjo-Impacts-Bt-Crops-NTO-2009.pdf
Netherwood, T., Bowden, R., Harrison, P., O'Donnell, A.G., Parker, D.S., & Gilbert, H.J. (1999)
Gene transfer in the gastrointestinal tract. Applied <strong>and</strong> Environmental Microbiology, 65, 11, pp 5139-5141
://WOS:000083478900059 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Netherwood-Gene-Transfer-Gastro-1999.pdf
Netherwood, T., Martin-Orue, S.M., O'Donnell, A.G., Gockling, S., Graham, J., Mathers, J.C., & Gilbert, H.J. (2004)
Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 2, pp 204-209
://WOS:000188730500020 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Netherwood-Assessing-Human-2004.pdf
Nielsen, K.M. & Townsend, J.P. (2004)

69
Monitoring <strong>and</strong> modeling horizontal gene transfer. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 9, pp 1110-1114
://000223653400029 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/HorizontalGT/Nielsen-Monitoring-HGT-NB-2004.pdf
Nirenberg, M. (2004)
Historical review: Deciphering the genetic code - a personal account. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 29, 1, pp 46-54
://WOS:000188757800010 AND http:www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Nirenberg-Historical-Review-2004.pdf
Nordlee, J.A., Taylor, S.L., Townsend, J.A., Thomas, L.A., & Bush, R.K. (1996)
Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans. N Engl J Med, 334, 11, pp 688-692
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/334/11/688 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Allergy/Nordlee-Identification-
Allergen-Brazilnut-1996.pdf
NRC (National-Research-Council) (1989)
Field Testing Genetically Modified Organism. Framework for Decisions, Committee on Scientific Evaluation of the Introduction of
Genetically Modified Microorganisms <strong>and</strong> Plants into the Environment, National Research Council edn. <strong>The</strong> National Academy Press,
IS: ISBN-10: 0-309-04076-0, ISBN-13: 978-0-309-04076-1 pp 184
free online reading http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1431.html AND http://books.nap.edu/openbook/0309040760/html/3.html AND
http://books.nap.edu/openbook/0309040760/html/13.html AND http://books.nap.edu/openbook/0309040760/html/14.html
OECD - STI & Krebs, J. (2000)
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS Widening the Debate on Health <strong>and</strong> Safety, <strong>The</strong> OECD Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific <strong>and</strong>
Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods (2000) OECD Consultation with Non-Governmental Organisations on Biotechnology
<strong>and</strong> Other Aspects of Food Safety (1999), OECD pp Paris (Report)
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/OECD-G20-Report-Food-Safety-Edinburgh-2000.pdf
OECD (1993)
Safety Considerations for Biotechnology: Scale up of Crop Plants OECD, Paris, pp 43
http://www.biosafety.be/CU/BSL_Ressources/PDF/M00034525.pdf AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/OECD-Safety-
Considerations-Biotechnology-Scaleup-Crops-1993.pdf
OECD (1998)
408 Repeated Dose 90-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents (Updated Guideline, adopted 21st September 1998) pp (Report)
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/OECD/OECD-Repeated-90day-on-Rodents-408-1998.pdf AND complete list under
http://caliban.sourceoecd.org/vl=3523981/cl=15/nw=1/rpsv/cw/vhosts/oecdjournals/1607310x/v1n4/contp1-1.htm
Ogasawara, T., Chikagawa, Y., Arakawa, F., Nozaki, A., Itoh, Y., Sasaki, K., Umetsu, H., Watanabe, T., Akiyama, H., Maitani, T., Toyoda, M.,
Kamada, H., Goda, Y., & Ozeki, Y. (2005)
Frequency of Mutations of the Transgene, which might Result in the Loss of the Glyphosate-Tolerant Phenotype, was Lowered in
Roundup Ready&reg; Soybeans. Journal of Health Science, 51, 2, pp 197-201
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Ogasawara-Frequency-Mutations-Transgene-2005.pdf
Olby, R. (2003)
Quiet debut for the double helix. Nature, 421, 6921, pp 402-405
://WOS:000180533000048 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Olby-Quiet-Debut-Double-Helix-2003.pdf
Padgette, S.R., Kolacz, K.H., Delannay, X., Re, D.B., Lavallee, B.J., Tinius, C.N., Rhodes, W.K., Otero, Y.I., Barry, G.F., Eichholtz, D.A., Peschke,
V.M., Nida, D.L., Taylor, N.B., & Kishore, G.M. (1995)
DEVELOPMENT, IDENTIFICATION, AND CHARACTERIZATION OF A GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT SOYBEAN LINE. Crop Science, 35, 5, pp
1451-1461
://WOS:A1995RR62100032 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/HerbizideTol/Padgette-Development-RR-Soy-
1995.pdf
Parrott, W. (2010)
Genetically modified myths <strong>and</strong> realities. New Biotechnology, 27, 5, pp 545-551
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B8JG4-506RN94-2/2/41a40cb121ad20dd44db6f76d34f1bd5 AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Vatican-PAS-Studyweek-Elsevier-publ-20101130/Parrott-Wayne-PAS-Genetically-Modified-Myths-20101130-publ.pdf
Persley, G., Giddings, L.V., & Juma, C. (1993)
Biosafety <strong>The</strong> Safe Application of Biotechnology in Agriculture <strong>and</strong> the Environment 5 International Service for National Agricultural
Research., <strong>The</strong> Hague, IS: ISSN 1021-4429, ISBN 92-9118-005-X, pp 46
ftp://ftp.cgiar.org/isnar/Publicat/PDF/RR-05.pdf AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Persley-Safe-Application-Biosafety-
1993.pdf
Potrykus, I. (1991)
Gene Transfer to Plants: Assessment of Published Approaches <strong>and</strong> Results. Annual Review of Plant Physiology <strong>and</strong> Plant Molecular
Biology, 42, 1, pp 205-225

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pp.42.060191.001225 AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Genomics/Potrykus-Gene-Tranfer-Plants-1991.pdf
Potrykus, I. (2010)
Constraints to biotechnology introduction for poverty alleviation. New Biotechnology, 27, 5, pp 447-448
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B8JG4-50J4MRM-3/2/bedd78fb4e30dd32c48c99d0c31f504a AND
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Vatican-PAS-Studyweek-Elsevier-publ-20101130/Potrykus-Ingo-PAS-Constraints-20101130-publ.pdf
Potrykus, I. & Ammann, K., eds. (2010)
Transgenic Plants For Food Security In <strong>The</strong> Context Of Development
Vol. 27/5, pp 445-718, Proceedings Of A Study Week Of <strong>The</strong> Pontifical Academy Of Sciences
Elsevier, Amsterdam, IS: ISSN 1871-6784
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/issue/43660-2010-999729994-2699796 AND
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2010/newbiotechnologynov2010.pdf
70
Prescott, V.E., Campbell, P.M., Moore, A., Mattes, J., Rothenberg, M.E., Foster, P.S., Higgins, T.J.V., & Hogan, S.P. (2005)
Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure <strong>and</strong> immunogenicity. Journal of
Agricultural <strong>and</strong> Food Chemistry, 53, 23, pp 9023-9030
://WOS:000233306700023 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Allergy/Prescott-transgenic-Expression-Bean-Australia-
2005.pdf
Ramessar, K., Capell, T., Twyman, R.M., & Christou, P. (2010)
Going to ridiculous lengths[mdash]European coexistence regulations for <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>. Nat Biotech, 28, 2, pp 133-136
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt0210-133 AND http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n2/suppinfo/nbt0210-133_S1.html AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Ramessar-Going-Rdiculous-Coexistence-2010.pdf
Ramessar, K., Capell, T., Twyman, R.M., Quemada, H., & Christou, P. (2008)
Trace <strong>and</strong> traceability - a call for regulatory harmony. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 9, pp 975-978
://WOS:000259074700011 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Ramessar-Trace-Tracability-2008.pdf
Ramessar, K., Capell, T., Twyman, R.M., Quemada, H., & Christou, P. (2009)
Calling the tunes on transgenic <strong>crops</strong>: the case for regulatory harmony. Molecular Breeding, 23, 1, pp 99-112
://WOS:000262268700009 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Ramessar-Calling-the-Tunes-Transgenic-
2009.pdf
Ramessar, K., Peremarti, A., Gomez-Galera, S., Naqvi, S., Moralejo, M., Munoz, P., Capell, T., & Christou, P. (2007)
Biosafety <strong>and</strong> risk assessment framework for selectable marker genes in transgenic crop plants: a case of the science not supporting
the politics. Transgenic Research, 16, 3, pp 261-280
://WOS:000245889600001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Ramessar-Biosafety-Risk-Marker-Geners-
2007.pdf
Ramjoue, C. (2007a)
<strong>The</strong> transatlantic rift in genetically modified food policy. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 20, 5, pp 419-436
://WOS:000248855000003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Ramjoue-Transatlantic-Rift-2007.pdf
Ramjoue, C. (2007b)
<strong>The</strong> transatlantic rift in genetically modified food policy. Doctoral <strong>The</strong>sis, University of Zurich, Zurich <strong>The</strong>sis, pp 263
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Ramjoue-<strong>The</strong>sis-Transatlantic-Rift-2007.pdf
Ramsay, G., Griffiths, D., & Deighton, N. (2005)
Patterns of solanidine glycoalkaloid variation in four gene pools of the cultivated potato. Genetic Resources <strong>and</strong> Crop Evolution, 51,
8, pp 805-813
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10722-005-0004-y AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Potato/Ramsay-Patterns-Solanidine-
Glycoalkaloid-2004.pdf
Ranker, T.A., Haufler, C.H., Soltis, P.S., & Soltis, D.E. (1989)
GENETIC-EVIDENCE FOR ALLOPOLYPLOIDY IN THE NEOTROPICAL FERN HEMIONITIS-PINNATIFIDA (ADIANTACEAE) AND THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF AN ANCESTRAL GENOME. Systematic Botany, 14, 4, pp 439-447
://WOS:A1989AW04900001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Ranker-Genetic-Evidence-Allopolyploidy-
1989.pdf
Raybould, A.F. (2010)
Reducing uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for transgenic <strong>crops</strong>: More ecological research or shrewder environmental risk
assessment? <strong>GM</strong> <strong>crops</strong>, 1, 1, pp 1-7
http://www.l<strong>and</strong>esbioscience.com/journals/gm<strong>crops</strong>/article/9776 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Raybould-
Reducing-uncertainty-2010.pdf

Reynolds, M.P., van Ginkel, M., & Ribaut, J.M. (2000)
Avenues for genetic modification of radiation use efficiency in wheat. Journal of Experimental Botany, 51, pp 459-473
://WOS:000085386600017 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/DroughtResistance/Reynolds-Avenues-Genetic-
Modification-2000.pdf
Richardson, A.O. & Palmer, J.D. (2007)
Horizontal gene transfer in plants. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58, 1, pp 1-9
://WOS:000243063800002 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/HorizontalGT/Richardson-Horizonta-Gene-Transfer-
2007.pdf
71
Ricroch, A.E., Berge, J.B., & Kuntz, M. (2011)
Evaluation of genetically engineered <strong>crops</strong> using transcriptomic, proteomic <strong>and</strong> metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiology,
preview February 24, 2011, pp 26
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/pp.111.173609v1 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/Ricroch-Evaluation-
GE-<strong>crops</strong>-omics-2011.pdf AND AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/Ricroch-Evaluation-GE-<strong>crops</strong>-omics-Suppl-T-II-2011.pdf
AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/Ricroch-Evaluation-GE-<strong>crops</strong>-omics-Suppl-TI-2011.pdf AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Food/Ricroch-Evaluation-GE-<strong>crops</strong>-omics-Suppl.-References-S2-2011.pdf
AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Food/Ricroch-Evaluation-GE-<strong>crops</strong>-omics-Suppl.-References-S4-2011.pdf
Riddle, N., Kato, A., & Birchler, J. (2006)
Genetic variation for the response to ploidy change in &lt;i&gt;Zea mays&lt;/i&gt; L. TAG <strong>The</strong>oretical <strong>and</strong> Applied Genetics, 114, 1,
pp 101-111
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-006-0414-z AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Riddle-Genetic-Variation-Ploidy-
2006.pdf
Rogers, M. (1975)
<strong>The</strong> P<strong>and</strong>ora's box congress. Rolling Stone, 189, 36, pp
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Rogers-P<strong>and</strong>oras-Box-Conf-1975.PDF
Romeis, J., Bartsch, D., Bigler, F., C<strong>and</strong>olfi, M., Gielkens, M.C., Hartley, S.E., Hellmich, R., Huesing, J.E., Jepson, P.C., Layton, R.J., Quemada,
H., Raybould, A., Rose, R., Schiemann, J., Sears, M.K., Shelton, M., Sweet, J., Vaituzis, Z., & Wolt, J.D. (2008)
Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic <strong>crops</strong> to <strong>non</strong>target arthropods. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 2, pp 203-208
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1381 AND http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n2/suppinfo/nbt1381_S1.html AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Romeis-Nontarget-2008.pdf
Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Tank, J.L., Royer, T.V., & Whiles, M.R. (2008)
Reply to Beachy et al. <strong>and</strong> Parrott: Study indicates Bt corn may affect caddisflies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
105, 7, pp E11-E11
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/7/E11.short AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Rosi-Marschall-Bt-Aquatic-reply-2008.pdf
Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Tank, J.L., Royer, T.V., Whiles, M.R., Evans-White, M., Chambers, C., Griffiths, N.A., Pokelsek, J., & Stephen, M.L. (2007)
Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
electronic prepublication, pp --- ---
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0707177104v2 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Rosi-Marschall-Bt-Aquatic-
2007.pdf
Rowett Institute (1998)
Audit of data produced at the Rowett Research Institutes, SOAFED flexible fund project RO 818 from August 21, 1998, Rowett
Institute pp 83 Aberdeen (Report)
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Rowett-Pusztai-Audit-1998.PDF
Rowett Institute (1999)
Supplementary Memor<strong>and</strong>um submitted by the Rowett Institute following the evidence session of 10 March 1999. In House of
Commons, Technology Committee, London
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsctech/286/9030819.htm AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Pusztai/Rowett-Institute-Suppl-Memor<strong>and</strong>um-House-of-Commons-19990308.PDF
Royal Society (1999)
Review of data on possible toxicity of <strong>GM</strong> potatoes, with additional information on p.4, <strong>The</strong> Royal Society pp 5 Ref. 11/99 London
(Report)
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=6170 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Royal-Society-Review-Dataadd-1999.PDF
Schmidt, G., Kleppin, L., Schr, der, W., Breckling, B., Reuter, H., Eschenbach, C., Windhorst, W., ltl, K., Wurbs, A., Barkmann, J., Marggraf, R.,
& Thiel, M. (2009)

72
Systemic Risks of Genetically Modified Organisms in Crop Production: Interdisciplinary Perspective. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for
Science <strong>and</strong> Society, 18, pp 119-126
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oekom/gaia/2009/00000018/00000002/art00009 AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Genomics/Schmidt-Systemic-Risks-<strong>GM</strong>O-<strong>crops</strong>-2009.pdf
Scholze, P., Kraemer, R., Ryschka, U., Klocke, E., & Schumann, G. (2010)
Somatic hybrids of vegetable brassicas as source for new resistances to fungal <strong>and</strong> virus diseases. Euphytica, 176, 1, pp 1-14
://BIOSIS:PREV201000623297 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Brassica/Scholze-Somatic-Hybrids-Brassicas-
2010.pdf
Schouten, H.J. & Jacobsen, E. (2007)
Are mutations in genetically modified plants dangerous? Journal of Biomedicine <strong>and</strong> Biotechnology, pp
://WOS:000252054100001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Schouten-Mutations-Dangerous-2007.pdf
Sears, R. (1995)
Letter on Behalf of the American Society of Horticultural Sciences, American Phytopathology Society, <strong>and</strong> Crop Science Society of
America to the Environmental Protection Agency, pp docket control number [OPP-300370], (Report)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=94-28821&packageId=FR-1994-11-23&acCode=FR
Sehnal, F. & Drobnik, J. (2009)
Genetically Modified Crops, Eu Regulations <strong>and</strong> Research Experience from the Czech Republic © Biology Centre of the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic, v. v. i., 2009, Praha, IS: ISBN 978-80-86668-05-3, pp
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Sehnal-Drobnik-White-Book-2009.pdf
Seralini, G.E., Cellier, D., & de Vendomois, J.S. (2007)
New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Archives of
Environmental Contamination <strong>and</strong> Toxicology, pp 596-602
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5 AND ://WOS:000245817300019 AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Seralini-2007e.pdf AND Rebuttal of EFSA
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/pr_efsa_maize_Mon863.html
Seralini, G.E., de Vendomois, J.S., Cellier, D., Sultan, C., Buiatti, M., Gallagher, L., Antoniou, M., & Dronamraju, K.R. (2009)
How Subchronic <strong>and</strong> Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for <strong>GM</strong>Os, Pesticides or Chemicals. International Journal of Biological
Sciences, 5, 5, pp 438-443
://WOS:000267844000006 AND http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.pdf AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Seralini/Seralini-How-Subchronic-Chronic-Health-2009.pdf
Shah, D.M., Horsch, R.B., Klee, H.J., Kishore, G.M., Winter, J.A., Tumer, N.E., Hironaka, C.M., S<strong>and</strong>ers, P.R., Gasser, C.S., Aykent, S., Siegel,
N.R., Rogers, S.G., & Fraley, R.T. (1986)
ENGINEERING HERBICIDE TOLERANCE IN TRANSGENIC PLANTS. Science, 233, 4762, pp 478-481
://WOS:A1986D234300045
Shapiro, J.A. (1997)
Genome organization, natural genetic engineering <strong>and</strong> adaptive mutation. Trends in Genetics, 13, 3, pp 98-104
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCY-3RH119N-13/2/8e4f005e42c9889d6cc09ab2f3f2fd25 AND
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Shapiro-Natural-Genetic-Engineering-1997.pdf
Shewry, P.R., Baudo, M., Lovegrove, A., & Powers, S. (2007)
Are <strong>GM</strong> <strong>and</strong> conventionally bred cereals really different? Trends in Food Science & Technology, 18, 4, pp 201-209
://WOS:000245784600003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Wheat/Shewry-Are-<strong>GM</strong>-Convent-Cereals-different-
2007.pdf
Shewry, P.R. & Jones, H.D. (2005)
Transgenic wheat: where do we st<strong>and</strong> after the first 12 years? Annals of Applied Biology, 147, 1, pp 1-14
://WOS:000233648200001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Wheat/Shewry-First-12-Years.pdf
Shipworth, D. & Kenley, R. (1999)
Fitness L<strong>and</strong>scapes <strong>and</strong> the Precautionary Principle: <strong>The</strong> Geometry of Environmental Risk. Environmental Management, 24, 1, pp
121-131
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002679900220 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Shipworth-Fitness-L<strong>and</strong>scapes-
Precautionary-1999.pdf
Shirley, B.W., Hanley, S., & Goodman, H.M. (1992)
EFFECTS OF IONIZING-RADIATION ON A PLANT GENOME - ANALYSIS OF 2 ARABIDOPSIS TRANSPARENT-TESTA MUTATIONS. Plant
Cell, 4, 3, pp 333-347

73
://WOS:A1992HL04000011 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Shirley-I<strong>non</strong>izing-Radiation-Arabidopsis-
1992.pdf
Shukla, V.K., Doyon, Y., Miller, J.C., DeKelver, R.C., Moehle, E.A., Worden, S.E., Mitchell, J.C., Arnold, N.L., Gopalan, S., Meng, X., Choi, V.M.,
Rock, J.M., Wu, Y.-Y., Katibah, G.E., Zhifang, G., McCaskill, D., Simpson, M.A., Blakeslee, B., Greenwalt, S.A., Butler, H.J., Hinkley, S.J., Zhang,
L., Rebar, E.J., Gregory, P.D., & Urnov, F.D. (2009)
Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. Nature, advanced online publication, pp
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07992 AND
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/nature07992_S1.html AND http://www.askforce.org/web/Genomics/Shukla-Precise-Genome-Mod-Zink-Finger-2009.pdf
Sinigovets, M.E. (1987)
THE CYTOGENETIC STRUCTURE OF A 56-CHROMOSOME TRITICUM-AESTIVUM - ELYTRIGIA INTERMEDIA HYBRIDS. Genetika, 23, 5, pp
854-862
://WOS:A1987H772100012
Skalka, A.M. (1990)
Risk Assessment for Genetic Experimentation <strong>and</strong> Application. In SCOPE 44 - Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the
Environment (ed H.A.B. Mooney, G.,). COGEN
http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope44/chapter01.html AND ftp://ask-force.org/www/askforce.org/web/Regulation/Skalka-Risk-Assessment-SCOPE-44-1990.pdf
Smalla, K. & Sobecky, P.A. (2002)
<strong>The</strong> prevalence <strong>and</strong> diversity of mobile genetic elements in bacterial communities of different environmental habitats: insights
gained from different methodological approaches. Fems Microbiology Ecology, 42, 2, pp 165-175
://000179450100002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/HorizontalGT/Smalla-Review-HGT-2002.pdf
Smalla, K. & Vogel, T.M. (2007)
Presentation of the thematic issue on horizontal gene transfer. Environmental Biosafety Research, 6, 1-2, pp 1-2
://BIOSIS:PREV200700602019 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/HorizontalGT/Smalla-Horizontal-Geneflow-
2007.pdf
Smith, N. (2000)
Seeds Of Opportunity: An Assessment Of <strong>The</strong> Benefits, Safety, And Oversight Of Plant Genomics And Agricultural Biotechnology.
Biotechnology Law Report, 19, 4, pp 449-536
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/07300310050148396 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Smith-Seeds-
Opportunity2000.pdf see also http://www.house.gov/science.
Snyder, L.U., Gallo, M., Fulford, S.G., Irani, T., Rudd, R., DiFino, S.M., & Durham, T.C. (2008)
European Union's Moratorium Impact on Food Biotechnology: A Discussion-Based Scenario. Journal of Natural Resources <strong>and</strong> Life
Sciences Education, 37, pp 27-31
://BIOSIS:PREV200900043152 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Snyder-Unruh-European-Moratorium-
2008.pdf
Soltis, D.E. & Soltis, P.S. (1993)
MOLECULAR-DATA AND THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF POLYPLOIDY. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 12, 3, pp 243-273
://WOS:A1993LJ92200004 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Soltis-Molecular-Data-Dynamic-1993.pdf
Soltis, P.S., Plunkett, G.M., Novak, S.J., & Soltis, D.E. (1995)
GENETIC-VARIATION IN TRAGOPOGON SPECIES - ADDITIONAL ORIGINS OF THE ALLOTETRAPLOIDS T-MIRUS AND T-MISCELLUS
(COMPOSITAE). American Journal of Botany, 82, 10, pp 1329-1341
://WOS:A1995TA45600015 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Soltis-Genetic-Variation-Tragopogon-
1995.pdf
Song, K., Lu, P., Tang, K., & Osborn, T.C. (1995)
Rapid genome change in synthetic polyploids of Brassica <strong>and</strong> its implications for polyploid evolution. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 92, 17, pp 7719-7723
http://www.pnas.org/content/92/17/7719.abstract AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Song-Rapid-Genome-Change-
Brassica-1995.pdf
Song, K. & Osborn, T.C. (1992)
POLYPHYLETIC ORIGINS OF BRASSICA-NAPUS - NEW EVIDENCE BASED ON ORGANELLE AND NUCLEAR RFLP ANALYSES. Genome, 35,
6, pp 992-1001
://WOS:A1992KD50000014 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Song-Polyphlyletic-Origins-Brassica-
1962.pdf

Sorokin, A., C<strong>and</strong>elon, B., Guilloux, K., Galleron, N., Wackerow-Kouzova, N., Ehrlich, S.D., Bourguet, D., & Sanchis, V. (2006)
Multiple-Locus Sequence Typing Analysis of Bacillus cereus <strong>and</strong> Bacillus thuringiensis Reveals Separate Clustering <strong>and</strong> a Distinct
Population Structure of Psychrotrophic Strains. Applied <strong>and</strong> Environmental Microbiology, 72, 2, pp 1569-1578
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/2/1569 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/HorizontalGT/Sorokin-Multiple-
LocusSequence-Typing-2006.pdf
74
Stanhope, M.J., Lupas, A., Italia, M.J., Koretke, K.K., Volker, C., & Brown, J.R. (2001)
Phylogenetic analyses do not support horizontal gene transfers from bacteria to vertebrates. Nature, 411, 6840, pp 940-944
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35082058 AND http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6840/suppinfo/411940a0_S1.html AND
http://www.ask-force.org/web/HorizontalGT/Stanhope-Phylogenetic-Analysis-2001.pdf
Taverne, D. (2011)
Don't go all European about modified food. New Scientist, online 24. January 2011, pp
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Taverne-Dont-go-all-European-20110124.PDF
Thro, A.M. (2004)
Europe on transgenic <strong>crops</strong>: How public plant breeding <strong>and</strong> eco-transgenics can help in the transatlantic debate. Commentary. In
AgBioForum, Vol. 7, pp. 142-148
http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n3/v7n3a06-thro.htm AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Thro-Europe-Transgenic-
Crops-2004.pdf
Tiedje, J.M., Colwell, R.K., Grossman, Y.L., Hodson, R.E., Lenski, R.E., Mack, R.N., & Regal, P.J. (1989)
<strong>The</strong> Planned Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms: Ecological Considerations <strong>and</strong> Recommendations. Ecology, 70, 2, pp
298-315
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1937535 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Tiedje-Planned-Introduction-<strong>GM</strong>-organisms-
1989.pdf
UNIDO/WHO/UNEP Working Group (1992)
Release of Organisms into the Environment: Voluntary Code of Conduct,. Biotech Forum Europe, 9, 4, pp 218-222
USDA (1987)
CFR Parts 330 <strong>and</strong> 340, Plant Pests; Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms or Products; Final Rule,. Federal Register, 52,
115, pp 22892-22815
Vallenback, P., Bengtsson, B.O., & Ghatnekar, L. (2010a)
Geographic <strong>and</strong> molecular variation in a natural plant transgene. Genetica, 138, 3, pp 355-362
://WOS:000274087700008 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Vallenback-Molecular-Variation-2010.pdf
Vallenback, P., Ghatnekar, L., & Bengtsson, B.O. (2010b)
Structure of the Natural Transgene PgiC2 in the Common Grass Festuca ovina. PLoS One, 5, 10, pp e13529
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013529 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Vallenback-Structure-
Natural-Transgene-2010.pdf
Vallenback, P., Jaarola, M., Ghatnekar, L., & Bengtsson, B.O. (2008)
Origin <strong>and</strong> timing of the horizontal transfer of a PgiC gene from Poa to Festuca ovina. Molecular Phylogenetics <strong>and</strong> Evolution, 46, 3,
pp 890-896
://WOS:000255230100007 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Vallenback-Origin-Timing-Horizontal-
2008.pdf
van Bueren, E.T.L., Ostergard, H., Goldringer, I., & Scholten, O. (2008)
Plant breeding for organic <strong>and</strong> sustainable, low-input agriculture: dealing with genotype-environment interactions. Euphytica, 163,
3, pp 321-322
://000258654800001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Lammerts-Plant-Breeding-Interactions-2008.pdf
Van Bueren, E.T.L. & Struik, P.C. (2004)
<strong>The</strong> consequences of the concept of naturalness for organic plant breeding <strong>and</strong> propagation. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life
Sciences, 52, 1, pp 85-95
://000226051800007 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Van-Bueren-Consequences-2004.pdf
Van Bueren, E.T.L. & Struik, P.C. (2005)
Integrity <strong>and</strong> rights of plants: Ethical notions in organic plant breeding <strong>and</strong> propagation. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental
Ethics, 18, 5, pp 479-493
://000231949300003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Van-Bueren-Ethical-2005.pdf
Van Bueren, E.T.L., Struik, P.C., Tiemens-Hulscher, M., & Jacobsen, E. (2003)
Concepts of intrinsic value <strong>and</strong> integrity of plants in organic plant breeding <strong>and</strong> propagation. Crop Science, 43, 6, pp 1922-1929

://000186477700003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Van-Bueren-Intrinsic-2003.pdf
75
Van Bueren, E.T.L., Verhoog, H., Tiemens-Huscher, M., Struik, P.C., & Haring, M.A. (2007)
Organic agriculture requires process rather than product evaluation of novel breeding techniques. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life
Sciences, 54, 4, pp 401-412
://000246556800007 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/van-Bueren-Organic-prosess-2007.pdf
Van der Meer, P. (2009)
Underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> engaging in EU regulation of biotechnology calling upon decision makers to abide by the law <strong>and</strong> not to ignore
science. New Biotechnology, 25, pp S321-S321
://000281760100778 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/v<strong>and</strong>erMeer-Underst<strong>and</strong>ing-Engaging-EU-
Regulation-2009.pdf
Varela, J. (2010)
<strong>The</strong> New Strategy on Coexistence in the 2010 European Commission Recommendation. Euroean Journal of Risk Regulation, 4, pp
353-358
http://www.lexxion.de/en/verlagsprogramm-shop/details/1966/77/ejrr/ejrr-4/2010/the-new-strategy-on-coexistence-in-the-2010european-commission-recommendation.html
AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Coexistence/Varela-New-Strategy-Coexistence-
2010.pdf
Verhoog, H. (1992)
<strong>The</strong> Concept of Intrinsic Value <strong>and</strong> Transgenic Animals. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 5, 2, pp 147-160
://A1992JX84500002 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Organic/Verhoog-Concept-Intrinsic-Value-<strong>and</strong>-transgenic-
1992.pdf
Verhoog, H. (2003)
Naturalness <strong>and</strong> the genetic modification of animals. Trends in Biotechnology, 21, 7, pp 294-297
://000184126300003 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Verhoog-Naturalness%20<strong>and</strong>%20Modificantion-
2003.pdf
Verhoog, H. (2007a)
Organic agriculture versus genetic engineering. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54, 4, pp 387-400
://000246556800006 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Verhoog-Organic-versus-<strong>GM</strong>-2007.pdf
Verhoog, H. (2007b)
<strong>The</strong> tension <strong>between</strong> common sense <strong>and</strong> scientific perception of animals: recent developments in research on animal integrity. Njas-
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54, 4, pp 361-373
://000246556800004 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Verhoog-animal-Integrity-2007.pdf
Verhoog, H., Matze, M., Van Bueren, E.L., & Baars, T. (2003)
<strong>The</strong> role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 16, 1, pp 29-
49
://000180441900002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Verhoog-Naturalness-2003.pdf
Verhoog, H., Van Bueren, E.T.L., Matze, M., & Baars, T. (2007)
<strong>The</strong> value of 'naturalness' in organic agriculture. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54, 4, pp 333-345
://000246556800002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Verhoog-Value-Naturalness-2007.pdf
Vogel, D. (2003)
<strong>The</strong> Hare <strong>and</strong> the Tortoise Revisited: <strong>The</strong> New Politics of Consumer <strong>and</strong> Environmental Regulation in Europe. British Journal of
Political Science, 33, 04, pp 557-580
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123403000255 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Vogel-Hair-Tortoise-Revisited-
2003.pdf
Waara, S. & Glimelius, K. (1995)
THE POTENTIAL OF SOMATIC HYBRIDIZATION IN CROP BREEDING. Euphytica, 85, 1-3, pp 217-233
://WOS:A1995TF37600028 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Waara-Potential-Somatic-Hybridization-
1995.pdf
Waltz, E. (2009)
Battle Field, News Feature, Papers suggesting that biotech <strong>crops</strong> might harm the environment attract a hail of abuse from other
scientists. Emily Waltz asks if the critics fight fair. Nature, 461, pp 27-32
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090902/pdf/461027a.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Discourse/Waltz-Batte-
Fields-2009.pdf
Watson, J.C. & Tooze, J. (1981)

76
<strong>The</strong> DNA Story, A Documentary History of Gene Cloning W.H. Freeman <strong>and</strong> Company, San Francisco, IS: ISBN-10: 0716715902 ISBN-
13: 978-0716715900 pp 605
http://www.amazon.com/DNA-Story-Documentary-History-Cloning/dp/0716715902/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1296205252&sr=8-4
Watson, J.D. & Crick, F.H.C. (1953a)
GENETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE STRUCTURE OF DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID. Nature, 171, 4361, pp 964-967
://WOS:A1953UA43900005 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Watson-Crick-Genetical-Implications-DNA-
1953.pdf
Watson, J.D. & Crick, F.H.C. (1953b)
MOLECULAR STRUCTURE OF NUCLEIC ACIDS - A STRUCTURE FOR DEOXYRIBOSE NUCLEIC ACID. Nature, 171, 4356, pp 737-738
://WOS:A1953UA43400007 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Watson-Crick-Molecular-Structure-Nucleic-
Acids-1953.pdf
Watson, J.D. & Crick, F.H.C. (1953c)
THE STRUCTURE OF DNA. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 18, pp 123-131
://WOS:A1953UC66300019 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Watson-Crick-<strong>The</strong>-Structure-of-DNA-Cold-
Spring-1953.pdf
Werth, C.R., Guttman, S.I., & Eshbaugh, W.H. (1985)
RECURRING ORIGINS OF ALLOPOLYPLOID SPECIES IN ASPLENIUM. Science, 228, 4700, pp 731-733
://WOS:A1985AGH4200034 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Werth-Recurring-Origins-Asplenium-
1965.pdf
WHO (2000)
Release of Genetically Modified Organisms in the Environment: is it a Health Hazard? Report of a Joint WHO/EURO – ANPA Seminar,
Report of a Joint WHO/EURO – ANPA Seminar pp 40 Rome, Italy (Report)
http://www.ask-force.org/web/WHO/WHO-Guidlines-Environment-<strong>GM</strong>O-Health-Hazard-2000.pdf
WHO (2005)
Modern food biotechnology, human health <strong>and</strong> development: an evidence-based study WHO, Geneva, IS: ISBN 92 4 159305 9 pp 85
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241593059_eng.pdf AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/WHO-Modern-foodbiotechnology-Development-2005.pdf
Wilkins, M.H.F., Stokes, A.R., & Wilson, H.R. (1953)
MOLECULAR STRUCTURE OF DEOXYPENTOSE NUCLEIC ACIDS. Nature, 171, 4356, pp 738-740
://WOS:A1953UA43400008 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Wilkins-Helical-Structure-Desoxypentose-
1953.pdf
Wilson, A., Latham, J., & Steinbrecher, R. (2006)
Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis <strong>and</strong> biosafety implications. . Biotechnology <strong>and</strong> Genetic Engineering
Reviews 23, 11, pp 1-26
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Radiation-Mutants/Wilson-Transformation-Induced-Mutations-2006.pdf
Wolfenbarger, L.L., Naranjo, S.E., Lundgren, J.G., Bitzer, R.J., & Watrud, L.S. (2008)
Bt Crop Effects on Functional Guilds of Non-Target Arthropods: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE, 3, 5, pp e2118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002118 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/LaReesa-Bt-crop-Meta-Analysis-
2008.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/LaReesa-Meta-Analysis-Powerpoints-2008.ppt
Wolt, J.D., Peterson, R.K.D., Bystrak, P., & Meade, T. (2003)
A screening level approach for <strong>non</strong>target insect risk assessment: Transgenic Bt corn pollen <strong>and</strong> the monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera :
Danaidae). Environmental Entomology, 32, 2, pp 237-246
://000182354100001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Wolt-Screening-Level-2003.pdf
Wraight, C.L., Zangerl, A.R., Carroll, M.J., & Berenbaum, M.R. (2000)
Absence of toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis pollen to black swallowtails under field conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 97, 14, pp 7700-7703
://000088048400010 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Wraight-Absence-Toxicity-2000.pdf
Wright, S. (1986)
Molecular Biology or Molecular Politics? <strong>The</strong> Production of Scientific Consensus on the Hazards of Recombinant DNA Technology.
Social Studies of Science, 16, 4, pp 593-620
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/16/4/593.abstract AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Wright-Molecular-Biology-
Politics-1986.pdf
Wright, S. (1993)

77
<strong>The</strong> Social Warp of Science: Writing the History of Genetic Engineering Policy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 18, 1, pp 79-
101
http://sth.sagepub.com/content/18/1/79.abstract AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Wright-Social-Warp-Science-GE-
Policy-1993.pdf
Wright, S. (1994)
Molecular Politics: Developing American <strong>and</strong> British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972-1982: Developing American <strong>and</strong>
British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972-82 Univ of Chicago Pr (November 1994) Chicago, USA, IS: ISBN-10:
0226910660 ISBN-13: 978-0226910666 pp 616
http://www.amazon.de/Molecular-Politics-Developing-Regulatory-Engineering/dp/0226910660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books-intlde&qid=1295784442&sr=8-1-catcorr
Wu, C.-Y., Rolfe, P.A., Gifford, D.K., & Fink, G.R. (2010)
Control of Transcription by Cell Size. PLoS Biol, 8, 11, pp e1000523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000523 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Wu-Control-Transcription-
Cell-Size-2010.pdf
Wyatt, R., Odrzykoski, I.J., Stoneburner, A., Bass, H.W., & Galau, G.A. (1988)
ALLOPOLYPLOIDY IN BRYOPHYTES - MULTIPLE ORIGINS OF PLAGIOMNIUM-MEDIUM. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 85, 15, pp 5601-5604
://WOS:A1988P574600056 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Genomics/Wyatt-Allopolyploidy-Bryophytes-1988.pdf
Zitnak, A. & Johnston, G. (1970)
Glycoalkaloid content of B5141-6 potatoes. American Journal of Potato Research, 47, 7, pp 256-260
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02864825