유전자변형콩

Genetically modified soybean
다음에 대한 시리즈 일부
유전공학
Genetic engineering logo.png
유전자변형생물
역사와 규정
과정
적용들
논란

유전자 변형 콩은 유전자 공학 기술을 이용해 DNA를 주입한 콩(글리신 맥스)이다.[1]: 5 1996년 몬산토에 의해 최초의 유전자 변형 콩이 미국 시장에 소개되었다. 2014년에는 전 세계적으로 9070만ha의 GM 콩이 심어져 전체 콩 재배면적의 82%에 달했다.[2]

유전자변형 콩의 예

콩의 유전적 구성은 콩의 다양한 용도를 제공하므로 콩의 수요가 높다. 첫째로, 제조사들은 이러한 수요를 충족시키기 위해 최소한의 비용으로 더 많은 콩을 기를 수 있고, 성장 과정에서 어떤 문제가 발생하더라도 고치기 위해 유전학을 사용하기를 원했지만, 결국 그들은 더 건강한 성분을 포함하도록 콩을 개조하거나 심지어 더 많은 양의 콩을 생산하기 위해 콩의 한 측면에 초점을 맞출 수 있다는 것을 발견했다. 이 단계들은 1세대와 2세대 유전자 변형 식품으로 알려지게 되었다. 피터 셀렉은 "1세대 GM 식품의 장점은 생산 과정과 회사를 지향했고, 2세대 GM 식품은 오히려 "영양 성분 개선 또는 치료 효과까지"를 포함한 다양한 이점과 부가가치를 소비자에게 제공한다"고 설명했다.[3]: 533

라운드업 레디 콩

라운드업 레디 콩(GTS 40-3-2(OECD UI: MON-04032-6)은 몬산토에서 생산되는 유전공학적으로 제작된 글리포세이트 내성 콩의 시리즈다.

글리포세이트는 필수 아미노산 페닐알라닌, 티로신, 트립토판의 합성을 방해하여 식물을 죽인다. 이러한 아미노산은 동물이 만들 수 없기 때문에 "필수"라고 불리는데, 오직 식물과 미생물만이 아미노산을 만들 수 있고 동물들은 식물을 먹음으로써 아미노산을 얻을 수 있다.[4]

식물과 미생물은 식물과 하부 유기체만이 가지고 있는 효소로 이러한 아미노산을 만들는데, 이 효소는 5-enolpyruiskimate-3-phosphate synthase(EPS)라고 불린다.[5] EPSPS는 동물에게는 존재하지 않으며, 대신 그들의 식단에서 방향족 아미노산을 얻는다.[6]

Roundup Ready Soybeans express a version of EPSPS from the CP4 strain of the bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens, expression of which is regulated by an enhanced 35S promoter (E35S) from cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV), a chloroplast transit peptide (CTP4) coding sequence from Petunia hybrida, and a nopaline synthase (nos 3') transcriptional termina아그로박테리움 투메파시엔스의 티온 원소.[7] EPSPS와 위에서 언급된 다른 유전적 원소가 있는 플라스미드는 몬산토와 아스그로 과학자들에 의해 유전자 총으로 콩 배아질에 삽입되었다.[8][9] 라운드업 레디콩 1세대 특허는 2015년 3월 만료됐다.[10]

역사

1994년 미국에서 처음으로 상업적으로 승인된 GTS 40-3-2는 1995년 캐나다, 1996년 일본과 아르헨티나, 1997년 우루과이, 1998년 멕시코와 브라질, 2001년 남아프리카공화국에 소개되었다. GMO 대두도 1999년 유엔의 승인을 받았다.

탐지

GTS 40-3-2는 핵산과 단백질 분석법을 모두 사용해 검출할 수 있다.[11][12]

제네릭 GMO 콩

몬산토의 글리포세이트 저항성 라운드업 레디 콩 1종 특허 만료에 이어 글리포세이트 저항성 일반 콩에 대한 개발이 시작됐다. 아칸소대 농업학부에서 개발된 첫 품종은 2015년 시판됐다. 새로운 몬산토 품종보다 수확량이 약간 낮아 약 1/2 정도 비용이 들고, 그 후 몇 년 동안 씨앗을 절약할 수 있다. 그것의 창시자에 따르면 그것은 아칸소 주의 환경에 적응되어 있다. Roundup Ready 콩의 원래 품종을 다른 콩 품종과 교차시킴으로써 몇 가지 다른 품종이 번식되고 있다.[10][13]

쌓임 특성

몬산토는 바실러스 튜링겐시스의 크라이1Ac 단백질과 글리포세이트 저항 유전자를 함께 발현하는 글리포세이트 내성 콩을 개발해 2010년 브라질 규제 절차를 완료했다. 이것은 MON87701 x MON89788이라는 두 사건의 교차점이다.[14][15]

콩기름 개선을 위한 유전자 변형

콩은 콩기름의 질을 향상시키기 위해 유전적으로 변형되었다. 콩기름은 지방산 프로필이 있어 산화에 취약해 산화가 잘 안 되고, 이로 인해 식품 산업에서의 유용성이 제한된다.[16]: 1030 유전자변형은 올레산과 스타아산의 양을 늘렸고 리놀렌산의 양을 줄였다.[16]: 1031 델타 9와 델타 12의 불포화물을 음소거하거나 녹아웃시킴으로써.[16]: 1032 [17] 듀폰 파이오너는 올레산 함량이 80% 이상인 고올레 지방산 콩을 만들어 2010년부터 마케팅을 시작했다.[16]: 1038

규정

주요기사 : 유전자 변형 유기체 방류 규정

유전공학 규제는 정부가 유전자 변형 작물의 개발과 방출과 관련된 위험을 평가하고 관리하기 위해 취하는 접근법에 관한 것이다. 국가 간 GM 작물 규제에 차이가 있는데, 미국과 유럽 간에는 가장 두드러진 차이점이 일부 발생한다. 미국에서는 미국콩협회가 일반적으로 새로운 GM 콩 품종 허용에 찬성하고 있다. ASA는 특히 유전자 변형과 다른 모든 기법에 대한 별도의 규제를 지원한다.[18] 콩은 국제 무역을 위해 킬로그램 당 20 밀리그램의 글리포세이트의 최대 잔류량 제한이 허용된다(9.1 mg/[20]lb.[19] 규제는 특정 국가에서 유전공학 제품의 의도된 사용에 따라 다르다. 예를 들어, 식품 사용을 의도하지 않은 작물은 일반적으로 식품 안전을 책임지는 당국에 의해 검토되지 않는다.[21][22] 루마니아는 GM 콩의 재배와 사용을 승인했지만 2007년 EU 가입에 따라 금지령을 내렸다. 이로 인해 2008년 대두 헥타르의 70%가 즉시 철수되고 대체품 구매 시 117.4m의 무역적자가 발생했다. 농부들의 감정은 매우 강등화 찬성이었다.[23]

논란

주요 기사: 유전자 조작 식품 논란

현재 GM 작물에서 파생된 가용 식품은 재래식 식품보다 인간의 건강에 더 큰 위험을 주지는 않지만,[28][29][30][31][32] 각각의 GM 식품은 도입 전에 사례별로 시험할 필요가 있다는[24][25][26][27] 과학적 공감대가 있다.[33][34][35] 그럼에도 불구하고, 일반 대중들은 유전자 조작 식품이 안전하다고 생각하는 과학자들보다 훨씬 덜하다.[36][37][38][39] GM 식품의 법적, 규제적 상태는 국가별로 다르며, 일부 국가는 금지 또는 제한하고, 다른 국가는 규제 정도가 크게 다른 것을 허용한다.[40][41][42][43]

2010년의 한 연구는 미국에서 GM 작물이 많은 환경적 이익을 제공한다는 것을 발견했다.[44][45][46]

비판론자들은 생태학적 우려와 이러한 생물들이 지적재산권법의 적용을 받는다는 사실에 의해 제기되는 경제적 우려 등 몇 가지 이유로 GM 작물에 반대해 왔다. GM 작물도 GM 작물에서 생산된 식품이 안전한지, 세계 식량 수요를 해결하기 위해 GM 작물이 필요한지 등과 관련해 GM 식품에 대한 논란에 휘말리고 있다. 유전자 조작 식품 논란 기사를 통해 GM 작물과 GM 식품에 대한 이슈에 대해 논의하십시오. 이러한 논란으로 인해 소송, 국제 무역 분쟁, 시위가 발생했으며, 대부분의 국가에서 제한적인 입법을 하게 되었다.[47]

참고 항목

참조

  1. ^ Roller, Sibel; Susan Harlander (1998). "Modern Food Biotechnology: Overview of Key Issues". In Roller, Sibel; Susan Harlander (eds.). Genetic Modification in the Food Industry: A Strategy for Food Quality Improvement. London: Blackie. pp. 5–26. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5815-6_1. ISBN 978-1-4613-7665-1.
  2. ^ "Pocket K No. 16: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2014". isaaa.org. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  3. ^ Celec P; et al. (Dec 2005). "Biological and Biomedical Aspects of Genetically Modified Food". Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 59 (10): 531–40. doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2005.07.013. PMID 16298508.
  4. ^ "Aromatic amino acid biosynthesis, The shikimate pathway – synthesis of chorismate". Metabolic Plant Physiology Lecture notes. Purdue University, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. 1 October 2009.
  5. ^ Steinrücken, H.C.; Amrhein, N. (1980). "The herbicide glyphosate is a potent inhibitor of 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase". Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 94 (4): 1207–12. doi:10.1016/0006-291X(80)90547-1. PMID 7396959.
  6. ^ Funke, Todd; Han, Huijong; Healy-Fried, Martha L.; Fischer, Markus; Schönbrunn, Ernst (2006). "Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 103 (35): 13010–5. Bibcode:2006PNAS..10313010F. doi:10.1073/pnas.0603638103. JSTOR 30050705. PMC 1559744. PMID 16916934.
  7. ^ "GM Approval Database". International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Archived from the original on 2011-09-30. Retrieved 2011-08-05.
  8. ^ Homrich MS et al (2012) 콩 유전자 변형: 유전자의 기능적 연구와 농업적으로 개량된 식물 Genete의 생산을 위한 귀중한 도구. 몰. 비올. 제35권 제4권 제1호
  9. ^ Padgette SR, 외 연구진(1995) 당포산염-톨러제 콩 라인의 개발, 식별 및 특성화. 크롭 Sci 35:1451-1461.
  10. ^ a b Fred Miller, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Communications (December 3, 2014). "Arkansas: 'Look Ma, No Tech Fees.' Round Up Ready Soybean Variety Released". AGFAX. Retrieved July 30, 2015. Monsanto's patent on the first generation of Roundup Ready products expires in March 2015....
  11. ^ Dong, Wei; Litao Yang1; Kailin Shen; Banghyun Kim; Gijs A. Kleter; Hans J.P. Marvin; Rong Guo; Wanqi Liang; Dabing Zhang (2008-06-04). "GMDD: a database of GMO detection methods". BMC Bioinformatics. 9 (260): 4–7. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-260. PMC 2430717. PMID 18522755.
  12. ^ "GMO Detection method Database (GMDD)". GMO Detection Laboratory. Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Archived from the original on 2011-08-05. Retrieved 2011-08-05.
  13. ^ Antonio Regalado (July 30, 2015). "Monsanto no longer controls one of the biggest innovations in the history of agriculture". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved July 30, 2015.
  14. ^ 스태프, 몬산토. 2009년 8월 Application for authorization to place on the market MON 87701 × MON 89788 soybean in the European Union, according to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed Archived 2012-09-05 at the Wayback Machine Linked from the GMO Compass page on the MON87701 x MON89788 Archived 2013-11-09 at the Wayback Machine event.
  15. ^ 몬산토의 Bt Roundup Ready 2 수확 콩 브라질 식재 허가 - 작물 바이오테크 업데이트(2010/27) ISAAA.org/KC
  16. ^ a b c d Clemente, Tom E.; Cahoon, Edgar B. (2009). "Soybean Oil: Genetic Approaches for Modification of Functionality and Total Content". Plant Physiology. 151 (3): 1030–40. doi:10.1104/pp.109.146282. PMC 2773065. PMID 19783644.
  17. ^ 앤서니, 196-7
  18. ^ "ASA Responds to Withdrawal of Biotech Rule" (PDF). American Soybean. Vol. 5, no. 3. American Soybean Association. Winter 2017–2018. pp. 1–22. p. 8: USDA's withdrawal...
  19. ^ "CODEX Alimentarius: Pesticide Detail". Archived from the original on 2016-10-19.
  20. ^ "WTO the WTO and the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius".
  21. ^ 웨셀러, J. 및 N. Kalaitzandonakes(2011): 현재와 미래 EU GMO 정책 아리 오스캄, 게리트 메이스터, 휴이브 실비스(eds)에서는 EU의 농업, 식량, 농촌 정책 등이 거론된다. 제2판, 페이지 23-323 – 23-332. 와게닝겐: 와게닝언 학술 출판사
  22. ^ 베크만, V, C. 소르가롤리, J. 웨셀러(2011): 유전자변형작물(GM)과 비변형작물(GM 제외)의 공존: 두 가지 주요 재산권 체제는 공존 가치와 동등한가? 콜린 카터, 지안카를로 모스키니, 이안 쉘든이 편집한 '천재적으로 변형된 음식과 글로벌 복지'에서는 201-224쪽이다. 경제 및 세계화 시리즈의 프런티어 10권 영국 빙글리: 에메랄드 그룹 출판
  23. ^ Hera, Cristian; Popescu, Ana (2011). "Biotechnology and its role for a sustainable agriculture". Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting. 14 (2): 26–43. S2CID 55001415.
  24. ^ Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34 (1): 77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. S2CID 9836802. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

    The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.
  25. ^ "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).
  26. ^ Ronald, Pamela (May 1, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).
  27. ^

    그러나 다음 항목을 참조하십시오.

    Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

    Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. S2CID 40855100. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

    그리고 대비:

    Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 37 (2): 213–217. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN 0738-8551. PMID 26767435. S2CID 11786594. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

    The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

    그리고

    Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96 (4): 1851–1855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

    Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.
  28. ^ "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved August 30, 2019. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

    Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  29. ^ European Commission. Directorate-General for Research (2010). A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  30. ^ "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved August 30, 2019. A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.

    (from original report by AMA: [1])     {{cite web}}: 외부 링크 위치 quote= (도움말)"REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-09-07. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.
  31. ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. June 30, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.
  32. ^ National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering; Division on Earth Life Studies; Board on Agriculture Natural Resources; Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience Future Prospects (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). p. 149. doi:10.17226/23395. ISBN 978-0-309-43738-7. PMID 28230933. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.
  33. ^ "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

    GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.
  34. ^ Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21 (7): 739–741. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. S2CID 2533628. These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.
  35. ^ 영국 의료협회를 포함한 일부 의료단체는 예방원칙에 근거한 추가적인 주의를 주장한다.

    "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved August 30, 2019. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

    When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

    The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.
  36. ^ Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved August 30, 2019. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.
  37. ^ Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO Reports. 2 (7): 545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC 1083956. PMID 11463731.
  38. ^ Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Archived from the original on 2017-05-25. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  39. ^ Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243. S2CID 261060.
  40. ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  41. ^ Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. Archived from the original on June 21, 2018. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  42. ^ Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  43. ^ Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (April 5, 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics". Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on September 29, 2016. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  44. ^ Andrew Pollack (April 13, 2010). "Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops". The New York Times.
  45. ^ Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council (2010-07-26). Read "The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States" at NAP.edu. US National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12804. ISBN 978-0-309-14708-8. Retrieved 2021-04-12.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: 작성자 매개변수 사용(링크)
  46. ^ "Genetically Engineered Crops Benefit Many Farmers, but the Technology Needs Proper Management to Remain Effective". US National Research Council. US National Academy of Sciences. 2010-04-13.
  47. ^ 웨셀러, J. (ed.) (2005): 유전자변형작물의 환경비용과 이점. 도드레흐트, NL: 스프링어 프레스

추가 읽기

외부 링크