This document discusses the technoscientific controversy surrounding genetically modified (GM) foods. It begins by exploring the blurred lines between what is considered natural versus artificial when it comes to GM foods. While gene splicing is an artificial process, the resulting GM crops appear natural and can reproduce naturally. The document then examines whether GM foods can be considered a success or failure. While most research finds GM foods safe for human consumption and the environment, some studies have found potential risks to human and environmental health. There is no clear consensus on whether GM foods are an overall success or failure due to differing worldviews and definitions of those terms.

1. Science, Technology and Public Controversy Assignment (2016; edited 2017)
Mark R O’Donovan
Q4: Write a short history of a technoscientific controversy (GM foods) that has
disrupted one or more of the binaries expert / lay person, rational /emotional,
self /other, mind / body and life / death, (added: natural / artificial, success / failure).
GMOs are defined by the World Health Organisation (2016) as “organisms
(i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a
way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.” Genetically modified
(GM) foods come from GM plants that we consume (no GM meat available yet), and can also be
referred to as genetically engineered (GE), biotech, or more broadly transgenic (genetic material
transferred from one organism to another either naturally or by GE). These GM foods and the
associated technoscientific controversy challenges conventional understandings and greys the very
divisions between binary concepts such as: natural or artificial; and success or failure.
Natural or Artificial
Natural - Existing in nature and not made or caused by people: coming from nature.
Artificial - Not happening or existing naturally: created or caused by people.
Definitions from the online dictionary Merriam-Webster (2016).
What is natural and what is artificial is often considered a seemingly obvious question, and most
people would have no difficulty in telling you a tree is natural whereas a concrete block is artificial.
But what if an animal had made the concrete? Like the way termites construct intricate air ventilated
earth-mounds up to 2,013 times their own body size (our tallest building is only 479 times average
male height) (Attenborough 2008, BBC Earth 2015); a puffer fish makes incredible circular sand art
on the sea floor (Bates 2013); or a caterpillar wraps itself in silken threads, liquefies itself inside its
pupa, and resolidifies into a butterfly while still maintaining memories of its time as a caterpillar
(Thoughty2 2016). Are the incredible feats of nature really any different or any less than the
creations of mankind; can we really draw a metaphorical line dividing the two? Are we not part of
the biological kingdom ourselves and our actions an extension of the ingenuity of nature? And how
do GM foods influence the very nature of this debate?
GM crops appear to be the divide. They are not merely an exanimate combination of compounds or
a growth related modification of the self like those seen in the natural kingdom, but are created
living beings. We have gone a step further than creating medicines, bombs, architectural marvels, or
art, and have influenced life itself; causing the existence of living entities that would otherwise never
have existed. This genetic alteration uses a method called gene splicing where full genes or pieces of
genes are moved from the DNA of one organism and placed into the DNA of another; where the
species involved can be the same or different, and was first carried out in viruses by Paul Berg in
1971 (Chemical Heritage Foundation 2015). Soon after, this technique was successfully applied to a
living bacterium, the first true GMO (Cohen et al. 1973); then extended to larger animals such as
mice (Jaenisch and Mintz 1974), and eventually crops nearly a decade later with a GM tobacco plant
(Fraley et al. 1983). Gene splicing cannot occur in nature and by simple induction this fact makes it
appear extremely artificial.
However while the method and process of gene splicing does not occur outside of advanced genetic
sciences the results are far more ambiguous. We are left with a GM animal or plant where apart
Please Note
- This essay is purely academic and I
will not accept legal responsibility
for any information, interpretations
or options contained herein.
- Feel free to utilise, critique, print or
reference any of this content 

2. 2
from subtle differences it looks and acts like any other naturally occurring phenotype. These artificial
beings are often capable of natural reproduction and can live freely in the environment just like their
natural predecessors. In the case of plants this has led to cross-pollination and hybridisation, and
this contamination of nature (as it is often called) has been recorded in the GM Contamination
Register since 1997; which found by the end of 2013 that 396 incidents had been recorded across
63 countries (Price and Cotter 2014), and missed cases are very likely. The resulting natural-artificial
transgene hybrids can pass on our artificially created genetic tweaks through their offspring; where
nature itself begins to produce what is arguably no longer natural.
However this supposed “contamination” of nature may have already occurred from other sources
thousands of years ago. Humans have farmed crops for over 12,000 years or perhaps even 23,000
years according to new archaeological findings in Israel (Snir et al. 2015). Like the domestication of
dogs which is thought to have occurred over 27,000 years ago (Skoglund et al. 2015) this has led to a
process of human driven selective breeding, or in other words an artificial evolution of species. This
is illustrated very well in the drastic transition of the native Mexican grain teosinte into modern day
maize species in less than 10,000 years (Genetic Science Learning Center 2013). These bred species
have an artificially induced nature which may not really be all that different from the artificially
modified nature of today’s GMOs. If we accept nature as already artificially altered, improved, or
contaminated by human actions then GMOs are merely a change to a more direct method. They are
also arguably a more stable process than previous scientific endeavours such as the creation of 2250
new plants species through radiation experiments in 1928 (Schouten and Jacobsen 2007).
But surely breeding and genetic splicing are clearly separable when the DNA of completely different
species (unable to breed naturally) is spliced together to make modern GMOs, such as tests inserting
fish genes into strawberries for prolonging freezing time capacity (Khammuang et al. 2005). However
this paradigm also becomes less clear when we realise that eerie genetic combinations can in fact
occur naturally. Grafting (the practice of physically combining two or more plants into one) has been
practiced by humans for millennia’s with the earliest clear documentation in a 2,424 year old Greek
text (Mudge et al. 2009), and can also occur naturally where plants grow in very close proximity.
Strangely recent findings show that this contact can actually result in transfer of genetic material
between species, for both nuclear DNA (Fuentes et al. 2014) and mitochondrial DNA (Gurdon et al.
2016), and can thus possibly lead to new transgenic plants. Stranger still is the occurrence of natural
transgenic foods with genes from very different organisms, such as 291 variants of sweet potato
which contain genetic code originating from a bacterium genome (Kyndt et al. 2015). In fact David
Tribes’(2016a) blog documents 252 different naturally occurring transgenic organisms as of 15th
November 2016. Even our own mitochondria (energy producing units of the cell with their own DNA)
are believed to have occurred from a single event where a bacterial cell fused with a more complex
(eukaryotic) cell according to the widely accepted serial endosymbiosis theory (Lang et al. 1999).
In summary the divisions between natural and artificial are getting increasingly blurred and
breached by both reckless human ingenuity and the mysterious interactions of the natural world.
Without nature’s natural influence we would never be where we are today, but without our artificial
influence nature would also never be what it is today. With the differences between natural and
artificial becoming so deeply obscured and intertwined by the GM foods controversy it make me
wonder are we just looking at opposite sides of the same coin.

3. 3
Success or Failure
Moving away from the nature of genetic
modification, the most important question
becomes: Is it a success? When I talk about
success here I mean in terms of progress and
achieving something that is beneficial to our
lives and wellbeing. I do not merely mean in
terms of whether it works as this feat has
clearly been achieved. In the interest of STS
the question is often no longer what we ‘can
do’ but what we ‘should do’ (Jasanoff 2003).
Firstly for a new food source to be a success
its production and consumption needs to be
safe for us and the world around us, and this
is perhaps the single most contentious
aspect of this controversy.
A recent review (Nicolia et al. 2014) has
been conducted looking at 10 years of GM
crop safety publications between 2002 and
2012 (1783 studies) and concluded that “The
scientific research conducted so far has not
detected any significant hazards directly
connected with the use of GE crops”. They
have also been declared safe for human
consumption by the majority of experienced
research bodies (see Figure 1) including 88%
of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) (Pew
Research Center 2015). It has also been
noted that between 1996 and 2011 over 100
billion animals in the USA have been fed GM
feed and their overall health has continued
to improve since its introduction (Van
Eenennaam and Young 2014). This review
also stated that “No study has revealed any
differences in the nutritional profile of
animal products derived from GE-fed
animals”. Apparently there is a total of nearly
2000 peer reviewed reports documenting the
safety of GMOs (Tribe 2016b). Many
commonly quoted negative findings have
also actually been debunked (Katiraee 2015).
Figure 1: Research organisations claiming GM crop safety (Tribe 2016b)

4. 4
But there are pockets of scientific evidence opposing GM crop safety such as older studies discussed
by the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS [no date]), or new observational and empirical evidence
such as that show in the documentary “Transgenic Wars” by Paul Moreira (Mercola 2016). Over 300
scientists have also recently stated there is currently no consensus on GMO safety (Hilbeck et al.
2015), and only 37% of US citizens believe GM food is safe to eat (Pew Research Center 2015). In
addition some highly experienced geneticists also oppose the consumption of GMOs. For example
Jonathan Latham (2015) who worked for 20 years in the production of GMOs has since claimed that
there are too many potential risks involved, and that “Until the damaged scientific ethos is rectified,
both scientists and the public are correct to doubt that GMOs should ever have been let out of any
lab”.
Latham (2015) gives multiple examples of risks in relation to Bt (insecticide or Cry toxin producing)
GM crops, and herbicide resistant GM crops; as well as neglectful risk taking in general. He states Bt
crops are risky since they generally contain genes from “Bacillus thuringiensis [which] is all but
indistinguishable from the well-known anthrax bacterium (Bacillus anthracis)”, Bt insecticides are
structurally similar to the highly toxic compound ricin, and the mode of action of Bt toxin is not well
understood with similar Cry toxins being toxic to isolated human cells. He states herbicides used
with resistant GM crops (glyphosate and glufosinate) are not safe with glyphosate recently being
declared “probably carcinogenic” by the WHO (but later stated it is not harmful at currently used
levels (Trager 2016)) and glufosinate being a “herbicide” in name only as it is a persistent neurotoxin
in mammals, and retained as a very similar compound inside GM foods for weeks or months.
Worryingly worse risks have been undertaken with viral protein sequences inserted into GM crops
producing untested viral proteins within these plants for almost 20 years before the GMO safety
agency of the European Union (EFSA) noticed this mistake. Finally he claims that current risk
assessments are deeply methodologically flawed and that “they primarily ask (and answer) trivial
questions” being purposely ambiguous, uninterpretable, and using outdated methodologies.
Latham’s critiques lead us into the next area of how GM crops affect the wider environment and
impact on biodiversity through the use of associated pesticides like glyphosate. This effect is usually
measured in safety assessments in terms of a direct effect on species outside of the target species
and in this sense they are safe to biodiversity (Nicolia et al. 2014). However the target species is
often a broad category of organisms, such as all pests that affect the crop, or all competing weeds
etc. With these species systematically removed a rift will surely be created in the ecological food
webs that previously existed, and logically this will reduce (possibly eliminate) all dependant species.
In itself is wiping out all our natural competitors really a success? And what about species dependant
on these “pests” or “weeds” for example the monarch butterfly whose numbers have drastically
declined and is possibly facing extinction following the reduction in milkweed plants in Mexico
(Pleasants and Oberhauser 2013). Looking at larger vertebrate species conservative studies estimate
we have already caused an extinction rate 100 times the natural rate, equating to the extinction of
477 vertebrate species since 1900 (Ceballos et al. 2015). Less conservative studies estimate 22-47%
of all plant species are threatened by current human actions (Pitman and Jørgensen 2002). Through
the pesticide GM crop combo, so embedded in today’s agriculture, this trend will only continue likely
leading to the world’s 6th
mass extinction event.

5. 5
Even for those who are somehow willing to right this off as “necessary” sacrifice they will still face
opposition to profit from nature; as shown by glyphosate resistant weeds having occurred in Georgia
(Gaines et al. 2010), as well as pests becoming increasingly resistant to Bt crops over time (Tabashnik
et al. 2013). This means that “pest” yield losses will always exist (unless we sterilised the entire
planet of all other life) and as a result new genetic tweaks and new pesticides will always be needed
to sustain a fully successful GM agriculture. The potential risks of genetic alterations and the
continuous need to repeat these risks, in light of assumptions like Murphy’s Law, I believe somewhat
pessimistically is paving the way for disaster; not success. In other words no single GM crop is the
solution to all pest control and is only a quick fix for prolonging unsustainable risk creating practices
or overly high yield expectations, while species genocide continues.
Unfortunately the level or relevance of the risks is largely unmeasurable with our current level of
genetic and statistical knowledge, and there is also species contamination (as discussed in the
Natural/Artificial section above) which again has largely unknown ramifications. The extent of cross-
pollination that has already occurred between GM crops and their wild counterparts (Price and
Cotter 2014) means that natural-artificial transgene hybrids are possibly an inevitable part of our
future, despite some containment suggestions such as easily to exterminate variants (highly
susceptible to a chosen chemical) (Li et al. 2013). Due to the very risks, bother and impact associated
with these new crops one would be tempted to declare them a failure on the above line of thought.
However these are all just hypothetical potentials and GMOs are currently shown not to cause ill
health, are often shown to provide a better yield, use less fuel, less water, less chemicals/herbicides
etc. (Klümper and Qaim 2014, Brookes and Barfoot 2015). This assessment makes them
environmentally friendly, economically viable and a huge aid in feeding a hungry expanding world
population. They can also be enhanced to contain vitamins or other compounds to improve human
health through the reduction of nutrient deficiencies, as successfully illustrated in the case of
vitamin A containing Golden Rice (Beyer 2010). Looking at these facts we see that GMOs are healthy,
productive, better for the environment, and a huge success. However other studies like one by
Gurian-Sherman (2009) have linked GM crops with reduced yields. So how are some studies
concluding GM crops a major “success” while others deeming them a disastrous “failure”?
This idea was explored by the scientific philosopher Daniel Hicks (2015) who explains it in terms of
“metaphysical depth”, “axial depth”, and “epistemological depth”. Metaphysical depth is where
people have a drastically different understanding of what something is; for example plants being
composed of atoms or plants being composed of nature spirits. This is generally not a concern in the
GM food controversy (metaphysically shallow); with people having the same understanding of what
a crop or a GM food is. Then there is axial depth where people’s values are fundamentally different
as in the case of the extermination of “pest” species which can be seen as either a success or failure
depending on someone’s views which alters the very aims, approaches, and outcomes of research.
For example a Bt crop that destroys all pests while the toxins do not directly harm non-pests would
be declared safe to biodiversity by the scientific studies of most economic advisors, while probably
being declared as harmful to biodiversity by the scientific studies of most environmentalists who do
not have an aim to eliminate pests and would probably look at the total number of species harmed.

6. 6
Finally there is the focus of Hick’s (2015) paper; epistemological depth, which refers to differences in
understanding of what actually constitutes evidence e.g. randomised controlled trials (compared
under same conditions) or farmer surveys (compared as used in practice), whether grown using
conventional large monoculture (extreme focus on the growth of 1 crop specie only) methods or
small-scale organic methods etc. He argues since the understanding of what constitutes evidence
varies throughout the controversy it cannot possibly be solved through additional evidence,
improved evidence or even harmonised statistical methods, but only through the agreement of
currently incompatible views on what is important as evidence. We often see science (with sufficient
data) as a means of reaching a single rational truth however we fail to see that the very
conceptualisations, beliefs and values behind the research affect what the science shows.
In relation to developed monoculture there are serious risks whether GMOs are used or not, with it
being the ultimate example of “putting all your eggs in one basket”. With 75% of plant genetic
diversify having been lost since the 1900's and currently 75% of the world's food coming from just 12
plants and 5 animal species there is not much variety any more (FAO [no date]). In this scenario one
genetic error or serious losses in one crop will affect millions on a global scale, and under these risky
economically profitable conditions GM crops are highly effective and a step towards a more
productive monoculture.
However alternative agricultural methods do exist (Laegault 2016) as well as wildlife friendly
compromises (Green et al. 2005). In these systems less focus is on chemicals and more on crop
diversity and utilising the amazing diversity of crops species available. In this situation GM crops such
as Bt and herbicide resistant variants become far less important, those such as golden rice are also
only needed where people do not consume enough vitamin A which could easily be addressed
through the consumption (self-grown or traded for) of crops naturally rich in vitamin A such as green
leafy vegetables, carrots, or potatoes.
GM foods are thus under some conditions just unnecessary or a slight improvement, not the success
story they are in capitalistic risk tolerant monoculture. They are also owned by powerful
corporations such as Monsanto with seeds having to be bought annually (Monsanto 2016) with no
other option once herbicides have entered the soil making GM herbicide resistant crops the only
viable option. From this people become totally dependent on Monsanto, and this process will
eventually put the world food supply in the hands of a small number of powerful corporate bodies.
Currently however GM foods are not publically popular with compulsory labelling in 64 countries
and a full ban in 39 countries (Centre for food safety 2016); in fact GM crops are only grown in 28
countries worldwide (ISIS 2015); Ireland being one of these (GMO-free Europe 2014). As usual
however the burden of GM crop dependence falls on the world’s poor and is conceptualised as
“helping”. It is worth noting that even in the absence of GM crops with the right education,
resources, and will, every human should still be capable of producing more than enough food to
sustain themselves (Davila 2010).
GMOs are not only a success in creating ownership of food supplies but also ownership of people.
They play an integral role in maintaining modern development which books such as “The
Development Dictionary” argue is “a myth which comforts societies” fuelled by a highly unrealistic
“Westernised” perceptions of reality (Sachs 1992). They stress that “The old ways [of life] have been
smashed, [and] the new ways are not viable” with 5-6 planets being necessary to have enough mines

7. 7
or waste dumps if everyone “successfully” followed the current industrialised example (Sachs 1992,
pp.2-3). To allow current industrialisation to exist for the wealthy, agriculture has been converted
into a slavery like monoculture sustaining the economic disparities necessary for this advantage to
exist (Sachs 1992). Currently divisions between the rich minority and poor majority are rapidly
increasing in a system that promotes inequality under the pretence of aid and help (e.g. GM
products) by making things far better for the wealthy, and slightly better for the poor, while
rendering them permanently dependant and indebted to the rich minority (Sachs 1992).
As the views discussed so far are currently incommensurable; potential risks vs actual outcomes,
weeds/pests vs wild-flowers/creatures, mass monoculture vs organic alternatives, Westernised
capitalism vs traditional/progressive alternatives, etc. it is currently not clear if we are creating a
potential biohazard of slave-inducing “frankenfoods” or exciting healthy life-saving food-aid? In the
end the binary notion of success or failure is blurred, depending almost exclusively on people’s
individual beliefs, values, culture, and risk tolerance. As safety, effectiveness, and evidence are
removed from the realm of hard science and forced into human values and choices we are left with
decisions. These decisions are not going to get any easier however with the FDA approving the first
GM meat (AquAdvantage Salmon) for sale from 2017, after a 20 year safety assessment (Connor
2015, FDA 2016). This will surely spur further safety, environmental, epistemological and axial
divisions; exasperated by existing concerns that fish may possess similar pain senses and emotions
to advanced mammalian life (Braithwaite and Boulcott 2007).
In conclusion we can attempt to genetically splice our way into the future or we can simply use what
is already around us more effectively. The choice is a big one and brings up all the new shifts in
understandings that accompany new inventions in technoscience. In the end we must decide upon
our place amongst the rest of nature and the wider universe; our preferred economic and political
arrangements; and the agricultural methods we wish to utilise in our future. If these can be agreed
upon the axial and empirical depth of the GM food controversy will be removed and we will
hopefully move collectively forward into a bright healthy vibrant new world; where GM foods have
equipped us with valuable new insights into the world around us as well as ourselves.

8. 8
References
Attenborough, D. (2008) 'Termite World - Life in the Undergrowth - BBC Attenborough', [video
online], available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGaT0B__2DM [accessed 24
Nov 2016].
Bates, M. (2013) What’s This Mysterious Circle on the Seafloor? [online], available:
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/15/whats-this-mysterious-circle-on-the-
seafloor/ [accessed 24 Nov 2016].
BBC Earth (2015) 'Man Vs Beast - Which species is the best builder: humans or termites', [video
online], available: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151006-which-species-is-the-best-
builder-humans-or-termites [accessed 24 Nov 2016].
Beyer, P. (2010) 'Golden Rice and ‘Golden’crops for human nutrition', New Biotechnology, 27(5),
478-481.
Braithwaite, V. and Boulcott, P. (2007) 'Pain perception, aversion and fear in fish', Diseases of
aquatic organisms, 75(2), 131-138.
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. (2015) 'Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use
1996–2013: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions', GM crops & food, 6(2), 103-
133.
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M. and Palmer, T. M. (2015)
'Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction',
Science advances, 1(5), e1400253.
Centre for food safety (2016) International Labeling Laws [online], available:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/international-labeling-
laws# [accessed 20 Nov 2016].
Chemical Heritage Foundation (2015) Paul Berg [online], available:
https://www.chemheritage.org/historical-profile/paul-berg [accessed 19 Nov 2016].
Cohen, S. N., Chang, A. C., Boyer, H. W. and Helling, R. B. (1973) 'Construction of biologically
functional bacterial plasmids in vitro', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
70(11), 3240-3244.
Connor, S. (2015) Genetically modified salmon becomes first to be approved for human consumption
- but it won't have to be labelled as GM [online], available:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetically-modified-salmon-becomes-first-
to-be-approved-for-human-consumption-but-it-wont-have-to-a6741031.html [accessed 30
Nov 2016].
Davila, A. (2010) Can We Feed Our World Without Monsanto? [online], available:
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/can-we-feed-our-world-without-monsanto [accessed 30 Nov
2016].
FAO ([no date]) Women-users, preservers and managers of agrao-biodiversity [online], available:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0171e/x0171e03.htm [accessed 30 Nov 2016].

9. 9
FDA (2016) AquAdvantage Salmon [online], available:
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/G
eneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm280853.htm [accessed 30 Nov 2016].
Fraley, R. T., Rogers, S. G., Horsch, R. B., Sanders, P. R., Flick, J. S., Adams, S. P., Bittner, M. L., Brand,
L. A., Fink, C. L. and Fry, J. S. (1983) 'Expression of bacterial genes in plant cells', Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 80(15), 4803-4807.
Fuentes, I., Stegemann, S., Golczyk, H., Karcher, D. and Bock, R. (2014) 'Horizontal genome transfer
as an asexual path to the formation of new species', Nature, 511(7508), 232-235.
Gaines, T. A., Zhang, W., Wang, D., Bukun, B., Chisholm, S. T., Shaner, D. L., Nissen, S. J., Patzoldt, W.
L., Tranel, P. J. and Culpepper, A. S. (2010) 'Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance
in Amaranthus palmeri', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(3), 1029-
1034.
Genetic Science Learning Center (2013) Evolution of Corn [online], available:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/ [accessed 19 Nov 2016].
GMO-free Europe (2014) Ireland [online], available: http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-
regions/ireland.html [accessed 20 Nov 2016].
Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. and Balmford, A. (2005) 'Farming and the fate of wild
nature', science, 307(5709), 550-555.
Gurdon, C., Svab, Z., Feng, Y., Kumar, D. and Maliga, P. (2016) 'Cell-to-cell movement of
mitochondria in plants', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(12), 3395-
3400.
Gurian-Sherman, D. (2009) Failure to yield: Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered
crops, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Hicks, D. J. (2015) 'Epistemological depth in a GM crops controversy', Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical
Sciences, 50, 1-12.
Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N., Steinbrecher, R., Székács, A., Wickson, F., Antoniou, M.,
Bereano, P. L., Clark, E. A. and Hansen, M. (2015) 'No scientific consensus on GMO safety',
Environmental Sciences Europe, 27(1), 1.
ISIS (2015) Continuing Demise of GMOs [online], available: http://www.i-
sis.org.uk/Continuing_Demise_of_GMOs.php [accessed 20 Nov 2016].
ISIS ([no date]) GM Crops Failed [online], available: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php
[accessed 19 Nov 2016].
Jaenisch, R. and Mintz, B. (1974) 'Simian virus 40 DNA sequences in DNA of healthy adult mice
derived from preimplantation blastocysts injected with viral DNA', Proceedings of the
national academy of sciences, 71(4), 1250-1254.
Jasanoff, S. (2003) 'Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science', Minerva,
41(3), 223-244.

10. 10
Katiraee, L. (2015) 10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters [online], available:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/11/13/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-
not-if-science-matters/ [accessed 19 Nov 2016].
Khammuang, S., Dheeranupattana, S., Hanmuangjai, P. and Wongroung, S. (2005) 'Agrobacterium-
mediated transformation of modified antifreeze protein gene in strawberry', Songklanakarin
J Sci Technol, 27(4), 693-703.
Klümper, W. and Qaim, M. (2014) 'A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops',
PLoS One, 9(11), e111629.
Kyndt, T., Quispe, D., Zhai, H., Jarret, R., Ghislain, M., Liu, Q., Gheysen, G. and Kreuze, J. F. (2015)
'The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed
genes: An example of a naturally transgenic food crop', Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 112(18), 5844-5849.
Laegault, M. (2016) PERMACULTURE DESIGN COURSE DETAILS [online], available:
http://imapermaculture.org/permaculture_design_course-details/ [accessed 20 Nov 2016].
Lang, B. F., Gray, M. W. and Burger, G. (1999) 'Mitochondrial genome evolution and the origin of
eukaryotes', Annual review of genetics, 33(1), 351-397.
Latham, J. R. (2015) Growing Doubt: a Scientist’s Experience of GMOs [online], available:
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/growing-doubt-a-scientists-experience-
of-gmos/ [accessed 20 Nov 2016].
Li, J., Yu, H., Zhang, F., Lin, C., Gao, J., Fang, J., Ding, X., Shen, Z. and Xu, X. (2013) 'A built-in strategy
to mitigate transgene spreading from genetically modified corn', PloS one, 8(12), e81645.
Mercola, J. (2016) Transgenic Wars — How GMOs Impact Livestock and Human Health Around the
Globe [online], available:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/09/24/transgenic-wars-gmo.aspx
[accessed 19 Nov 2016].
Merriam-Webster (2016) Merriam-Webster: Dictionary and Thesaurus [online], available:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/ [accessed 24 Nov 2016].
Monsanto (2016) Patients [online], available:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/patents.aspx [accessed 30 Nov 2016].
Mudge, K., Janick, J., Scofield, S. and Goldschmidt, E. E. (2009) 'A history of grafting', Horticultural
Reviews, Volume 35, 437-493.
Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F. and Rosellini, D. (2014) 'An overview of the last 10 years of
genetically engineered crop safety research', Critical reviews in biotechnology, 34(1), 77-88.
Pew Research Center (2015) Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society [online], available:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-
society/ [accessed 25 Nov 2016].
Pitman, N. C. and Jørgensen, P. M. (2002) 'Estimating the size of the world's threatened flora',
Science, 298(5595), 989-989.

11. 11
Pleasants, J. M. and Oberhauser, K. S. (2013) 'Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of
herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population', Insect Conservation and
Diversity, 6(2), 135-144.
Price, B. and Cotter, J. (2014) 'The GM Contamination Register: a review of recorded contamination
incidents associated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), 1997–2013', International
Journal of Food Contamination, 1(1), 1.
Sachs, W. (1992) The Development Dictionary, London: Zen.
Schouten, H. J. and Jacobsen, E. (2007) 'Are mutations in genetically modified plants dangerous?',
BioMed Research International, 2007.
Skoglund, P., Ersmark, E., Palkopoulou, E. and Dalén, L. (2015) 'Ancient wolf genome reveals an early
divergence of domestic dog ancestors and admixture into high-latitude breeds', Current
Biology, 25(11), 1515-1519.
Snir, A., Nadel, D., Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Melamed, Y., Sternberg, M., Bar-Yosef, O. and Weiss, E.
(2015) 'The origin of cultivation and proto-weeds, long before Neolithic farming', PloS one,
10(7), e0131422.
Tabashnik, B. E., Brévault, T. and Carrière, Y. (2013) 'Insect resistance to Bt crops: lessons from the
first billion acres', Nature biotechnology, 31(6), 510-521.
Thoughty2 (2016) 'What REALLY Happens When a Caterpillar Turns Into a Butterfly...', [video online],
available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euuCrnqEoeU [accessed 24 Nov 2016].
Trager, R. (2016) NEWS WHO clarifies glyphosate risks [online], available:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/who-clarifies-glyphosate-risks/1010208.article
[accessed 29 Nov 2016].
Tribe, D. (2016a) GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe Helping readers navigate the confusing myths of
modern biology - natural GMOs [online], available:
https://gmopundit.blogspot.ie/search?q=%22natural+gmos%22 [accessed 25 Nov 2016].
Tribe, D. (2016b) GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe Helping readers navigate the confusing myths of
modern biology - 600+ published safety assessments [online], available:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.ie/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html [accessed 25 Nov
2016].
Van Eenennaam, A. and Young, A. (2014) 'Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered
feedstuffs on livestock populations', Journal of Animal Science, 92(10), 4255-4278.
WHO (2016) Food Safety - Frequently asked questions about genetically modified foods [online],
available: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-
modified-food/en/ [accessed 24 Nov 2016].