GM Foods i

Boon or Bane: GM FoodsBoon or Bane: GM FoodsBoon or Bane: GM FoodsBoon or Bane: GM Foods VisualizingVisualizingVisualizingVisualizing GM F GM F GM F GM Foods oods oods oods throughthroughthroughthrough SSSSustainable ustainable ustainable ustainable DDDDevelopmentevelopmentevelopmentevelopment

McMaster UniversityMcMaster UniversityMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University

School of Engineering PracticesSchool of Engineering PracticesSchool of Engineering PracticesSchool of Engineering Practices

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Engineering and Public PolicyMaster of Engineering and Public PolicyMaster of Engineering and Public PolicyMaster of Engineering and Public Policy

Submitted by

Eaton Kwan

For

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

Submission Date

December 2nd, 2009

GM Foods 1

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

The proliferation of genetically modified organisms and engineered foods—collectively

called genetically modified (GM) for our purpose—is unlike the invention of the wheel, and more

akin to the yearly evolution of car design since GM crops have been cultivated for thousands of years

by farmers through selective breeding and crossing (Duvick, 1996). By crossing different crop

varieties, farmers could eliminate undesirable character traits and combine favourable ones. Selective

crop breeding—essentially an early form of genetic manipulation—was done by individual farmers

operating almost exclusively from each other and most grains today owe their origin to this method

(Duvick, 1996; Borowiak, 2004). This picture is in stark contrast to the image of modern GM

operations where scientists and geneticists shuffle about in a laboratory, manipulating genetic

material and performing experiments on new batches of seeds. GM food is an attractive solution,

since an organism can be designed to become resistant to various detrimental elements or to provide

means of production for exotic medicine. However, whereas breeding and crossing have a relatively

small impact outside of the particular farm, the impacts of modern GM farming are felt mostly

outside of those same boundaries. This working paper will discuss—with a North American

perspective—the implications of genetically modified foods, engineered to be resistant to pests, to

give a larger yield, etc., and these implications will be visualized through the lens of sustainable

development.1 Besides the usual sustainability language, I will be using world system analysis when

exploring the North/South economics of sustainable development and a short preamble on

Immanuel Wallerstein’s method of analysis will precede that portion of the paper. The main thrust

1 Considering the scope of the paper, I am not going into the formation and definition of sustainable development. For those seeking extra

information on it, please visit http://www.worldinbalance.net/intagreements/1987-brundtland.php.

GM Foods 2

of the argument is that the utilization of GM foods will not solve the world’s food shortage, as has

been frequently touted by the media (Akre & Wilson, 2001). We will see that by comparing the

promise of breakthroughs made by GM seed firms and the actual commercially available crop

manufactured the two are incommensurable. This paper will then examine the ethos of GM

foods—socially, economically and environmentally—before coming to concluding remarks.

Fact and FictionFact and FictionFact and FictionFact and Fiction

Farmers have dreamt of the prospect of having crops bred to become hardier to the elements.

The story of the hybrid corn is to see such prospects come to fruition because the results were visible

within the first generation of the hybridized corn seeds (Duvick, 1996). By self-pollinating the seeds

and crossing them with other varieties, Corn Belt farmers in the 1920s and 1930s created varieties of

hybridized corn whose roots were sturdier; stalks were less prone to rotting and most importantly,

had a higher yield (Duvick, 1996). The success these farmers experienced was carried forward in the

optimism of GM researchers and their corporate backers because they believe “with genetic

engineering we can create salt and drought-resistant plants [and] this could be an enormous help for

the South” (Koechlin, 2005). A quick review of the literature on salt and drought-resistant plants

shows that research is still being done on maize and tomato plants with minor success in the

laboratory, under controlled environments (Schubert, Zörb & Sümer, 2001; Zhang & Blumwald,

2001). To put this in perspective, Monsanto Company started marketing one of its first insecticide

enhanced GM crops—YieldGard Corn Borer—thirteen years ago (Monsanto Company, 2009).

This means farmers will have to wait many more years for a salt or drought-resistant plant to be

finalized in the lab, field tested and commercialized. Therefore in this paper, we will not consider

GM Foods 3

experimental GM products because their viability and supposed benefits have not been field tested.

We will discuss only ones that are, or were, commercially available.

Social SustainabilitySocial SustainabilitySocial SustainabilitySocial Sustainability

The three topics that will be considered under social sustainability are the moral

considerations of GM products, the health considerations and the argument that GM foods

perpetuate class theory. The main driver behind the GM seed firms remains unclear because while

companies may purport to want to do good for humanity, research points to corporate ideologies

that still seek to increase market shares and profit margins. Companies arrange for elaborate media

spots to show their proactiveness in providing seeds for countries struck by drought or famine, well

aware that this action will cast them as moral champions with a great deal of altruism and selflessness

(Sexton, Hildyard & Lohmann, 1998). However, these companies have not sustained a level of

honesty to earn the general public’s trust. The recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) story is an

excellent example that casts doubt on GM companies’ commitment towards social sustainability.

The story received a lot of media attention in the last ten years thanks to Jane Akre and Steve

Wilson’s experiences, two investigative reporters dismissed over the airing of unpublished research

results of rbST, which was marketed by the Monsanto Company (Achbar, 2003). The substance,

whose commercial name is Posilac, is a synthesized animal growth hormone that boosts the milk

production capacity in dairy cows and earned FDA approval as early as 1993 (“FDA Report”, 1999).

Yet the length to which Monsanto, along with several other pro-rbST entities, went to defend

themselves from the allegations of Akre and Wilson was not a proportional response for a product

that received FDA approval and draws suspicion that the company did not handover all data

GM Foods 4

pertaining to Posilac for FDA approval. For instance, on the topic bovine mastitis2, the

Parliamentary Research Branch (1998) believed there is a possibility for bovine human transmission

of drug resistant bacterium. The same article also expressed some reservation about the portability of

a rbST hormone, which could be absorbed by human digestive tracks (PRB, 1998, para. 7)

Compared to the moral consideration of GM foods, the health aspect is much more defined.

Like many international laws and environmental protection regimes, the precautionary principle is

invoked when there is a doubt to the suitability of GM foods for human consumption (Dimitrov,

2006, 173). However, with a “revolving door” policy to most U.S. government branches, lobbyists

are frequently filling FDA jobs after their stints in the private industries (“Revolving Door”, 2009).

One particular individual pertinent to our discussion is Michael Taylor, whose career switched from

Monsanto to FDA numerous times and has now been appointed a senior advisor to the FDA

commissioner (Philpott, 2009). This draws question over the ability of government officials to

remain impartial during product approval. Notwithstanding this type of self-governance of the GM

crop industry, most researchers believe that the testing period on new GM crops is not sufficient to

provide meaningful data on effects of prolonged human consumption; in an increasing number of

cases, GM foods do not need to be tested if deemed substantially equivalent to their non-GM

counterparts (Barker, 2003; Kuiper, Kleter, Noteborn & Kok, 2001).

At the same time, food manufacturers have been reluctant to include GM labelling on their

ingredient labels, partly due to voluntary governmental regulations but mostly due to fear of

backlash from the general public who are mindful of the uncertainty with GM foods (Falkner &

2 Mastitis is the inflammation of the teat, which if untreated, could lead to puss-contaminated dairy milk.

GM Foods 5

Gupta, 2009; Ryan et al., 1999, p. 9; Busch & Howse, 2; Kurzer & Cooper, 2007, 1054). The

combination of the last two ideas could spell disaster – many of foods being sold in grocery markets

contain genes from organisms that individuals may be allergic to and because not enough tests have

been performed, no one knows what effect or allergic reaction they may cause. As a matter of fact,

skin-prick testing suggests that this is already occurring with individuals allergic to Brazil nuts

becoming allergic to soybeans containing the nuts’ genetic material (Nordlee, Taylor, Townsend,

Thomas & Bush, 1996). Furthermore, the application of glyphosate—an ingredient in Monsanto’s

Roundup—as pesticidal treatment for pesticide-resistant crop has also raised concern over its toxicity

(Richard, Moslemi, Sipahutar, Benachour & Seralini, 2005). While Monsanto suggests that

Roundup is harmless and inert, researchers have found glyphosate to bioaccumulate in human

placenta cells (Monsanto Company, 2005; Richard, Moslemi, Sipahutar, Benachour

& Serlini, 2005).

The last idea presented within the discussion of social sustainability has to do with a

perceived North/South relationship that exists between the nations of the two hemispheres. The

relationship is often strained because of the unequal terms of trade between North—or core—and

South—periphery—nations, as well as inbuilt dependency in the economic model (Wallerstein,

2006; Borowiak, 2004). Core countries are, for instance, the United States, United Kingdom, or

any countries within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(“Ratification,” n.d.); and periphery countries include some African nations, India, and are generally

grouped under the term Least Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs) (“UN-OHRLLS,” n.d.).

The unequal terms of trade results from a propensity for exploitation, value-added services and

GM Foods 6

monopolies to occur within core countries, that is, raw materials are brought from resource-rich

peripheral countries, manufactured into usable items in core countries and then sold back to the

peripheral countries at a premium (Howe, 1981, 83). To put the principle of value-added into

context, consider Borowiak’s (2004) argument about GM crops,

[c]onsider that 90 percent of commercial seeds within the more than $30 billion annual

commercial seed market worldwide are controlled by the industrialized countries, and that

germplasm of most of [those] seeds can be traced to the germplasm developed by farmers in

fields in developing countries, the absence of any compensation whatsoever to traditional

farmers for their contributions is, quite simply, unfair. (p. 524)

This value-added of commercial seedlings also creates wealth concentrations within peripheral

countries where big agrarian businesses—planting with GM crops—are able to push small farmers

out of business, either indirectly through horizontal cross-pollination between GM crops and non-

GM crops, resulting in contamination of non-GM crops; or directly by purchasing their farms and

thereby creating monopolies (Thomas, Burke, Gale, Lipton & Weale, 2003, 56; Assouline &

Stockelova, 2005, 46; Borowiak, 2004, 512; Herrick, 2008). This prevailing mode of economic

operation has the effect of reducing many landowners into wage earners because these small farmers

still need to earn subsistence and it takes from them the freedom of choice and exposes them to the

full effects of exploitation and unequal terms of trade (Howe, 1981).

Yet another method through which GM seed firms enforce unequal terms of trade is by

creating and sustaining a monopoly on their product. This is done in two ways – by patenting their

GM seeds and then inserting a terminator gene within the seed’s DNA sequence. By patenting GM

GM Foods 7

seeds, the GM seed firms are able to recoup the cost of the research by taking advantage of the

monopoly of pricing afforded to them by the patents. As was discussed argued earlier, the absent of

any fair compensation for the farmer from whom the original seed came from greatly erodes the

credibility of those companies’ commitment to social sustainability and social justice (Gorman,

Hertz & Magpili, 2003; Borowiak, 2008). In some cases, GM seed firms require farmers—in using

their patented seeds—to be legally obligated to not sell or plant with the second generation seeds and

to use a specially prescribed pesticide; those companies are also allowed to independently verify

farmers’ adherence to contractual terms (Gorman et al., 2003). The other method companies use to

perpetuate farmers’ dependency is by implementing a patented technology protection system,

commonly known as a terminator gene, in various crops they cultivate and it renders the second

generation seeds sterile, which means new seeds must be bought with every growing season (Gorman

et al., 2003; Barker, 2003).

The fashion with which companies discloses information about their product brings into

question not only their corporate ethics, but also the safety of incorporating genes from one food

group to another that could potentially cause allergen related illnesses. The patents of and suicide

genes in seeds prohibit farmers from becoming self-sustaining in their agriculture, because they must

purchase new seeds on an annual basis. By these points, it would seem appropriate to say GM foods

are not socially sustainable.

Economic SustainabiliEconomic SustainabiliEconomic SustainabiliEconomic Sustainabilitytytyty

Economic sustainability should not be confused with the traditional business model of

minimizing overhead while maximizing productivity and profit, or economic stagnation. The report

GM Foods 8

Our Common Future described economic sustainability as a function of growth and rather than argue

for a complete change, economic sustainability necessitates unlearning and rethinking of the same

processes (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). This

paper will examine three different economic sustainability goals, namely food distribution,

government subsidies and economic sustainability of GM crop farmers.

It is generally accepted that transporting food requires some form of petrol, and according to

the U.S. Government Accounting Office (2007), half of the American annual food aid budget is

spent on transporting the food aid to countries that need them. While transportation costs are

levied on both GM and non-GM crops, developing countries frequently require GM crops to be

milled before entry is granted to prevent cross-contamination with any native species (Herrick,

2008). It follows that in order for food distribution systems to be economic sustainable, all GM

crops being exported as food aid should be milled for optimum weight to volume ratio. The role of

developed nations’ governments cannot be discounted here because of the subsidies—U.S. doles out

over $10 billion annually—that they provide to farmers in order to keep their farms out of

insolvency (Mittal, 2008; Assouline & Stockelova 2005, 29; Thomas et al., 2003). Those farmers

are similar to their LEDCs’ counterparts in that they are all subjected to economic drivers – growing

whichever is deemed to be the most profitable crop (Ryan et al., 1999). Consequently, the global

food market is frequently flooded with commodity crops, such as cotton, wheat, rice and soybean,

which cause the market price of those crops to fall dramatically and further reduces the financial

capacity of farmers in LEDCs to compete globally (Mittal, 2008; Thomas et al., 2003). In The use

of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries, the authors argue that grains from developed

GM Foods 9

countries frequently flood the domestic markets of LEDCs, compounding the problem faced by

local farmers (Thomas et al., 2003). The aforementioned points are applicable to farmers of both

GM and non-GM crops; however, add to those points the penetration of multinationals GM seed

firms, and their comparatively higher operating cost, into a developing country’s crop market and we

see why Mittal (2008) said GM foods are causing Indian farmers to commit suicide.

There are a few improvements that can be made to the economic sustainability of GM foods.

By milling all grains destined for food aid to eliminate the chance of cross contamination, more

countries will accept offerings from nations such as the United States. At the same time, it is

understood that food aid is more expensive when physically delivered as grain or flour and less so

when monies are given to procure food within the surrounding region (Thomas et al., 2003).

Environmental SustainabilityEnvironmental SustainabilityEnvironmental SustainabilityEnvironmental Sustainability

The environment is what comes to mind when discussing sustainable development.

Unfortunately, as the following section will show, the environmental and ecological effects of GM

crops seem to have been overlooked. Researchers often overestimate the holding capacity of the

Earth for dangerous substances, believing that these compounds will break down with time and

Earth’s natural processes will serve as a catch-all; these scientists are also convinced by their research

that efforts to control one type of undesirable wildlife will have no detrimental effects on other

unintended species (Achbar, 2003). With the 15th conference of parties to United Nations Climate

Change Conference less than two weeks away, deforestation provides a good segue into our last

topic.

GM Foods 10

Biofuel is a technology that uses plant based materials in order to derive petroleum

alternatives to power automobiles. Many believe erroneously that biofuels will help mitigate climate

change but by using internal combustion engines, green house gases are still being generated

(Dauvergne & Neville, 2009). In the same article, Dauvergne and Neville (2009) also says that

biofuel plant’s negative character traits rest heavily in the way it is grown, since significant swaths of

forests are being cleared in LEDCs to facilitate the spread of these plants. Due to a lack of strong

control mechanisms or reforestation policies in many LEDCs, slashing and burning techniques—

which release a great deal of greenhouse gases—are common (Dittmer & Wassell Jr., 2008;

Dimitrov, 2006). Cribb (1998) believed this type of land clearing results in nutrient-deprived land

that will require increased amount of fertilizer, which results in increased amount of fertilizer runoff

into various bodies of water and leads to eutrophication. Furthermore, in rural parts of many

LEDCs the idea of trees as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) units is not widespread and

consequently, the true value of those forests is often underestimated (Dimitrov, 2006).

GM crops’ second environmental damage is their pervasive use of pesticides and this arises

from two interconnected ways - integrating insecticide derivatives into the plant’s genetic material,

e.g., corn containing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt); or building pesticide-resistant crops so they become

hardier towards surrounding pesticide applications, e.g., soybeans resistant to glyphosate herbicide

(Ryan et al., 1999). Farmers started using the biological insecticide Bt in the 1960s because it was

naturally occurring and worked by disrupting the digestive system of numerous insect pests, with few

side effects for any other organisms (Barker, 2003). Seeing the success that farmers had with Bt, the

Monsanto Company incorporated Bt into their corn and cotton breed, resulting in various forms of

GM Foods 11

YieldGard Corn Borer and BollGard Cotton; however with their short term commercial success

came the realization that insects were building resistance to Bt-infused crop because of its over-

abundance (Barker, 2003; Assouline & Stockelova, 2005). Barker (2003) also wrote that some

farmers had to triple their use of additional insecticide in order to control the problem and overall,

GM crops with inbuilt insecticide did not decrease the frequency of external and additional

applications. This volatility over Bt-infused crop is driven home by Mittal (2008) with her story of a

typical farmer in India,

[whose] hopes were dashed when his Bt cotton crops had a severe pest attack and the leaves

of his cotton plants turned red and dried up. After having spent [four times the money for

the GM crop], he was in no position to pay back the loans he had taken. […] [His widow]

used two costly pesticides, Endosulphane and Tracer, against the bollworm pest, but three

acres of land yielded barely 600 pounds of cotton. (p. 56)

On the topic of pesticide, Schonbrunn et al. explains that “[glyphosate works by inhibiting] the

shikimic acid pathway that is important for plant protein synthesis” (as cited in Richard et al., 2005,

p. 716); with crops with an inbuilt pesticide resistance, such as the Monsanto Roundup Ready

product line, the incorporated genetic material prevents the absorption of glyphosate. The concern

with pesticide resistant crops is the threat of allogamous contamination, where the pollen of one GM

plant crosses with a wild plant to create a hybrid super weed that is resistance to pesticides (Knight,

2009; Assouline & Stockelova, 2005). There are also concerns that the aforementioned pesticide

problems will inadvertently damage a natural ecosystem by disrupting reproductive processes or

GM Foods 12

creating acute bioaccumulative toxicity in some wildlife, allowing various invasive species to gain a

foothold in the ecosystem (Lundgren, Gassmann, Bernal, Duan & Ruberson, 2009; Barker, 2003).

Conclusions/RecommendationsConclusions/RecommendationsConclusions/RecommendationsConclusions/Recommendations

The topic of genetically modified foods is fluid and has been so for some time. While the

most draconian of precautionary principles serves only to stammer scientific research, unfettered

genetic manipulation of everything from milk to soybean reduces the human race to a

comprehensive sample group. In this paper, some topics required significant scientific and ethical

debate, such as the possible health repercussions and the North/South dichotomy, while some topics

have actionable objectives that ought to be carried out and one such topic is the economic

sustainability of farmers growing GM crops. The current system of wealth distribution does not

award farmers equally, concentrating most of the wealth in the hands of those living in the core

nations and even then, farmers must abide by stringent contractual obligations set out by

multinational GM seed firms. One of the first recommendations of this paper is to recognize the

importance of farmers as “custodians of biodiversity” (Borowiak, 2004, 523) and that seeds used for

genetic engineering originated from the fields of farmers. Consequently a process of profit-sharing

whereby farmers receive an equitable discount on their seed purchase should be written into policy.

Another policy option is for Canada to move away from GM agriculture, breaking from U.S. GM

crop production, by invoking the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, which is an auxiliary agreement to

the Convention on Biological Diversity and it pertains to the application of the precautionary

principle in reference to research and approval methods of GM crops (Busch & Howse, 2003;

Borowiak, 2004; Barker, 2003; Faulkner & Gupta, 2009; Assouline & Stockelova, 2005). However,

GM Foods 13

regardless of whether a moratorium or outright ban is instituted, the action will alienate the United

States which is a proponent of GM foods and due to the close proximity of the two countries,

ensuring no transgenic contamination of GM crop and non-GM crop will be difficult and cost

intensive (Assouline & Stockelova, 2005). Furthermore, a large amount of public money will be

spent fighting World Trade Organization (WTO) challenges, mounted by countries growing GM

crops, for a stance whose effects are not yet fully realized. As a feasible alternative recommendation,

Canada should mandate bilingual labelling on all foods containing GM ingredients since it has been

shown labelling raises consumer awareness on the issue (Busch & Howse, 2003; Knight, 2009). On

the matter of international food aid, Canada should commit to milling all exported grains and there

are two principles behind this recommendation. One such principle concerns the intellectual

property rights of GM crop because as Herrick (2008) said, “starving people do not eat [food aid]

seeds, they plant them” (p. 55). By milling all food aid grains, GM seed firms need not worry about

farmers planting GM crops without first purchasing them. The second principle revolves around a

perceived move by U.S. to use food aid as a method to cultivate EU acceptance of GM crops

(Herrick, 2008). Canada—along with U.S.—must reaffirm to the world that food aid is not part of

a trade war to coerce EU into softening its stance on GM crops. Additionally on food aid, Canada

should commit to increasing its budgeting allotment for locally sourced foods, as was discussed

earlier, because this will increase the efficiency of the monies spent.

In order to increase the international presence of Canada, we recommend Canada

compliments its international aid programme by supporting LEDCs’ move towards sustainable

organic farming through technological transfers and sharing of best practise guides. Herrick (2008)

GM Foods 14

suggests that some countries in Africa are turning a profit by adopting organic farming to countries

in the EU and Canada should show support for those countries. Finally, to fully realize the effects—

positive as well as negative—of GM crops, Canada should convene a panel on any possible harmful

effects of GM foods as well as the environmental and ecological damages done to the Earth’s

biosphere. This panel will be chaired and filled by a rotating group of experts from GM seed firms,

government approval agencies and interest groups, working from a mandate of precaution and

sustainable development. There are some signs that this is happening within WTO with Canada

filling its role as a mediator between countries with opposing views (Busch & Howse, 2003;

Assouline & Stockelova, 2005). While the recommendations listed will displease U.S. and U.S.-

based GM seed firms, they are less drastic than an outright ban on GM crops that will serve only to

alienate rather than create meaningful policies.

This report discussed the issues surrounding GM crops through the context of sustainable

development. On the matter of social sustainability, GM crops are unable to sufficiently convince

me that they are completely harmless. Regardless of it being a cover-up to hide dangerous side

effects of GM foods or a lack of available science to examine possible outcomes, I find GM seed

firms frequently tout the benefits—which have been questionable as well—and downplay any harm

arising from GM foods. Additionally, GM seed firms have thus far taken a laissez faire approach to

helping to quell the North/South dichotomy and leaving policy manipulation to the government,

while it would be beneficial to all parties to achieve a profit sharing programme from the sale of GM

seeds. Economic sustainability of GM crops contains the largest group of implementable policies

but without strong commitments from governments, it would face difficulties in the coming years as

GM Foods 15

the price of petrol and the need to feed a growing population besieged by climate change continue to

increase. Developed countries can help alleviate the problem by implementing some of the

aforementioned recommendations and LEDCs have to ensure those recommendations are

implemented with measurable improvement in access to food. I believe environmental sustainability

is the most important because if the environment is not able to support the GM or non-GM foods

farmers are growing, the changes made to the other facets of sustainable development would matter

very little. The effects of GM crops on the environment have shown that technology still requires

more refinement in order to prevent damages. The convened panel on safety of GM foods will

include investigations into the effect of GM foods on the environment and presently that is the

extent of the environmental recommendations, which is unfortunate because effects are being seen

but the solutions are still unclear. In concluding my research, I find that GM seed technologies lack

sufficient consideration for sustainable development in any of the three aspects. While economic

sustainability can be stringently monitored by international bodies, the health implications and

environmental degradation generated by GM crops necessitate major reorganizing at the research

and approval processes.

GM Foods 16

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

Ackbar, M. (Director). (2003). The Corporation [Motion Picture]. Canada: Big Picture Media

Corporation.

Akre, J., & Wilson, S. Media serve genetically modified food industry. Retrieved November 8, 2009,

from http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Media-Serve-GMO.htm.

Assouline, G., & Stockelova, T. (2005). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs):A danger to

sustainable agriculture (2nd ed.). Theys, France: World Wildlife Fund.

Barker, D. (2003, August). WTO and genetically modified foods: U.S. challenges Europena Union’s

moratorium on genetically modified foods. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from

http://www.ifg.org /pdf/cancun/issues-GEWTO&EUmoratorium.pdf.

Borowiak, C. (2004). Farmers’ Rights: Intellectual property regimes and the struggle over seeds.

Politics & Society, 32(4), 511-43. doi: 10.1177/0032329204269979.

Busch, M.L., & Howse, R. (2003, September). A (genetically modified) food fight: Canada’s WTO

challenge to Europe’s ban on GM products. Toronto, ON: C.D. Howe Institute.

Cribb, R. (1998). Environmental Policy and Politics in Indonesia. In U. Desai (Ed.), Ecological

policy and politics in developing countries: economic growth, democracy, and environment (pp.

65-84). Albany: New York State University Press.

Dauvergne, P., & Neville, K.J. (2009). The changing North–South and South–South political

economy of biofuels. Third World Quarterly, 30(6), 1087-1102. doi:

10.1080/01436590903037341.

GM Foods 17

Dimitrov, R.S., (2006). Science and international environmental policy: regimes and nonregimes in

global governance. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Dittmer, T., & Wassell Jr., C. (2008). The fallacy of sustainable production of biofuel feedstock.

Challenge, 51(5), 20-39. doi: 10.2753/0577–5132510502.

Duvick, D. N. (1996). Plant Breeding, and Evolutionary Concept. Crop Science, 36, 539-548.

Faulkner, R., & Gupta, A. (2009). The limits of regulatory convergence: globalization and GMO

politics in the south. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,

9(2), 113-33. doi: 10.1007/s10784-009-9094-x.

FDA Report on Public Health Aspect of BST. (1999, April 10). Retrieved from http://www.rbstfacts

.org/rbst-facts/rbst-and-consumer-choice/fda-report-on-public-health-aspects-of-bst.html.

Gorman, M.E., Hertz, M., & Magpili, L.P. (2000, June). Combining ethics and design: Monsanto and

genetically modified organisms. Symposium conducted at the 107th Annual Conference &

Exposition of the American Society for Engineering Education, St. Louis, Missouri.

Herrick, C. (2008). The Southern African Famine and Genetically Modified Food Aid: The

ramifications for the United States and European Union’s trade war. review of Radical

Political Economics, 40(1), 50-66. doi: 10.1177/0486613407311081.

Howe, G.N. (1981). Dependency Theory, Imperialism and the Production of Surplus Value on a

World Scale. Latin American Perspective, 8(3-4), 82-102. doi: 10.1177/0094582

X8100800304.

GM Foods 18

Koechlin, F. (2005, February). Workshop B2 – Science and technology assessment – case study:

Transgenic drought and salt-tolerant plants. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from

http://www.blauen-institut.ch/pg_blu/pf/a_f.html.

Knight, A.J. (2009). Perceptions, Knowledge and ethical concers with GM foods and the GM

process. Public Understanding of Science, 18(2), 177-88. doi: 10.1177/0963662507079375.

Kuiper, H.A., Kleter, G.A., Noteborn, H.P.J.M., & Kok, E.J. (2001). Assessment of the food safety

issues related to genetically modified foods. The Plant Journal, 27(6), 503-28. doi:

10.1046/j.1365-313X.2001.01119.x.

Kurzer, P., & Cooper, A. (2007). What’s for Dinner? Europena farming and food traditions

confront American biotechnology. Comparative Political Studies, 40(9), 1035-58. doi:

10.1177/0010414006288975.

Lak, Daniel. (2007, March 3). CBC News In Depth: International Aid. Canadian Broadcast

Corporation. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.cbc.ca

Lundgren, J.G., Gassmann, A.J., Bernal, J., Duan, J.J., & Ruberson, J. (2009). Ecological

compatibility of GM crops and biological control. Crop Protection, 28, 1017-30. doi:

10.1016/j.cropro.2009.06.001

Mittal, A. (2008). Harvest of Suicides: How global trade rules are driving Indian farmers to despair.

Earth Island Journal, 23(1), 55-7. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from

http://www.earthisland.org/.

GM Foods 19

Monsanto Company. (2005,May). Summary of Human Risk Assessment and Safety Evaluation on

Glyphosate and Roundup Herbicide. Retrieved November 16, 2009 from http://www.mon

santo.com/monsanto/content/products/productivity/roundup/gly_human_risk.pdf.

Monsanto Company. (2009). Monsanto: Company History. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from

http://www.monsanto.com/who_we_are/history.asp.

Nevin,T. (2004, November). Will GM foods overwhelm Africa? African Business, 303, 40-1.

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. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(11),

688-692. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/334/11/

688.pdf.

Parliamentary Research Branch. (1998, October). The impact of rbST on health – Recombinant

Bovine Somatotropin (PRB Publication No. PRB 98-1E). Retrieved from http://dsp-

psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/modules/prb98-1-rbST/rbstindex-e.htm#THE

IMPACT.

Philpott, T. (2009, July 8). Monsanto’s man Taylor returns to FDA in food-czar role. Retrieved from

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor/.

Ratification of the Convention on the OECD. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2009 from

http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html.

Revolving Door | OpenSecrets.org. (n.d.). Retrieved November 11, 2009 from

http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/.

GM Foods 20

Richard, S., Moslemi, S., Sipahutar, H., Benachour, N., & Seralini, G.E. (2005). Differential effects

of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environmental Health

Perspectives, 113(6), 716-20. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.ehponline.

org/docs/2005/7728/abstract.html.

Ryan, A. (Chair), Burke, D., Gale, M., Heap, B., Leith, P., Hill, J., et al. (1999). Genetically

Modified Crops: the ethical and social issues. London, UK: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

Retrieved October 28, 2009 from http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/

go/ourwork/gmcrops/publication_301.html.

Schubert, S., Zörb, Ch., & Sümer, A. (2001). Salt resistance of maize: Recent developments. In W.

J. Horst et al (Eds.), Plant nutrition – Food security and sustainability of agro-ecosystems, (pp.

404-405). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sexton, S., Hildyard, N., & Lohmann, L. (1998, October). Food? Health? Hope? Genetic Engineering

and World Hunger. Retrieved from http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51965.

Thomas, S. (Chair), Burke, D., Gale, M., Lipton, M., & Weale, A. (2003). The use of genetically

modified crops in developing countries (NCB Discussion Paper). London, UK: Nuffield

Council on Bioethics. Retrieved October 28, 2009 from

http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/ gmcrops/publication_313.html.

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common

Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from

http://worldinbalance.net/intagreements/1987-brundtland.php

GM Foods 21

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Foreign Assistance: U.S. Agencies Face Challenges to

Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Food Aid. Washington, DC: U.S. GAO.

UN-OHRLLS :: Least Developed Countries – Country profiles. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2009

from http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/25/.

Wallerstein, I. (2006). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham: Duke University Press

Zhang, H. X., & Blumwald, E. Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage but

not in fruit. Nature Biotechnology, 19, 765-768. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from

http://www.nature.com/nbt/index.html.