Bullock,
D.S. and M. Desquilbet. The economics of non-GMO segregation
and identity preservation. Food Policy, 27:1. 81-100.
This article
examines the costs of non-GMO segregation and identity
preservation for seed producers, farmers and grain handlers
in the United States. Tolerance levels are a key element
of costs of segregation, and zero-tolerance levels may
be impossible to obtain without major organizational and
economic costs.
Feldmann, Matthew, Michael Morris, and David Hoisington.
“Why So Much Controversy Over Genetically Modified
Organisms.” International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center, February 7, 2000.
The
most controversial issue surrounding GMOs is their long-term
impacts on the Environment. One risk is that the targeted
insects will eventually develop resistance to the toxins
produced by the crop. Another risk linked to the potential
emergence of resistance in insects is that Bt might lose
its effectiveness as a topical pesticide. In order to
maintain its usefulness over the long term Bt will have
to be used as part of an integrated pest management (IPM)
strategy. In contrast to those who worry that Bt crops
may not be effective enough, others worry that they will
be too effective, in the sense that will kill insects
other than the targeted pests. While much attention has
been focused on the possible environmental risks posed
by insect resistance, concerns have also been raised about
the use of herbicide resistance. The primary danger here
is that herbicide-resistance genes could jump from transgenic
crops to other wild or domesticated species, producing
“super weeds” that would resist conventional
control methods.
Genetically-modified
Q &A (1999). BBC News. Retrieved April 5, 2004,
from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/
02/99/food_under_the_microscope/280868.stm#TOP
BBC News from England gives good concise answers
to some of the most frequent questions asked regarding
GM Crops. This is a very good source for newcomer who
wants to read about this field.
GM
Crops flunk the test. (2004) Greenpeace Online. Retrieved
April 5, 2004, from http://web.greenpeace.org/news/details?
campaign_id=3942&item_id=324213
This article describes how pro-GMO corporations
are interested in eliminating all threat of opposition
and maximizing their profits at the expense of the environment.
It goes into detail to describe the effect these GMOs
have had on the environment as well.
GM
food: Head to Head (1999). BBC News. Retrieved April
5, 2004, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/
02/99/food_under_the_microscope/278490.stm
BBC News brings two opposing sides of the GM argument.
Dr Ian Taylor is the Scientific Political Adviser for
Greenpeace, and Clive Rainbird is Biotechnology Communications
Manager for manufacturers AgrEvo. A very insightful
views of both sides of the argument.
“GMOs
More Harmful to Environment Than Humans.” Asia
Africa Intelligence Wire, March 24, 2003.
An investigation into the potential effects on humans
of eating genetically modified foods has shown that
they pose more risk to the environment than to humans
or animals. The risks are more related to the impact
of unintended release into the environment. The risks
include unintended gene flow to other crop varieties,
plants, animals and macro-organisms.
Harhoff,
D., P. Regibeau, and K. Rockett. Some Simple Economics
of GM food. Economic Policy, 16:33, 263-300.
The authors of this article examine the plethora
of economic risks that are imminent with the implementation
of GM crops; an often over-looked aspect of the technology.
They also talk about the implications of allowing patents
for biological processes; causing the delay of socially
beneficial applications.
Monsanto
Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation.
Ethical Investing. Retrieved April 23, 2004, from http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/
monsanto/terminator.shtml
Previous campaigns-GMOs. (2004). World Development Movement.
Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaign/GMOs.htm
This article explains how they believe the GMO revolution
is part of a process that pushes farmers off their own
land and in some cases to unemployment. This article
also explains how these same corporations believe they
justify GMOs by devising solutions such as ending world
hunger. This site does not believe that this is their
main goal, however. This site explains in detail how
these large corporate companies that specialize in GMOs
only care about their profits and not the farmers or
the poor nations in need.
|
