Cases of concerns aboutGM crops, often debated in the Public

1. Impact of Bt proteinsthe case of the Honey Bees

general reader recommended:

Ammann, K. (2009) 2.5. Impact of Bt crops on Honey Bees, Birkhauser Springer pp 23 Delft and Istanbul (Report)http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt-Review-toreview/Bt-Report-2-5-Bees-20090308.pdf

Ammann, K. (2009) 2.5. Impact of Bt crops on Honey Bees, Birkhauser Springer pp 31 Delft and Istanbul (Report)http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt-Review-toreview/Bt-Report-2-5-Bees-20090308.pdf

Malone, L.A. (2002) Literature Review on Genetically Modified Plants and Bee Products, MAF. HortResearch Client Report No. 2002/440 Contract No. 17486 pp 48 MAF Technical Paper No: 2002/05 Palmerston, Auckland NZ (Report)http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/research-and-development/biotechnology/literature-review-gm-plants-and-bee-products/literature-review-gm-plants-bee-products.pdf

Malone, L.A., Burgess, E.P.J., Gatehouse, H.S., Voisey, C.R., Tregidga, E.L., & Philip, B.A. (2001)Effects of ingestion of a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin and a trypsin inhibitor on honey bee flight activity and longevity. Apidologie, 32, 1, pp 57-68 <Go to ISI>://000166737700005 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bees/Malone-Bt-Trypsin-2001.pdf

Duan, J.J., Marvier, M., Huesing, J., Dively, G., & Huang, Z.Y. (2008)A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Crops on Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS ONE, 3, 1, pp e1415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001415 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Duan-Meta-Analysis-Effects-Bees-2008.pdf

Latsch, G. (2007)Electronic Source: Are GM Crops Killing Bees? , Der Spiegel Online Internationalpublished by: Der Spiegel Online March 22, 2007 Spiegel Online for free: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,151S8,473166,00.html

For a full account of the scare story go to ASK-FORCE of PRRI, www.pubresreg.org contribution of Klaus Ammannhttp://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63

http://obrag.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bees-skull.jpg

Higes, M., Martin-Hernandez, R., Botias, C., Bailon, E.G., Gonzalez-Porto, A.V., Barrios, L., del Nozal, M.J., Bernal, J.L., Jimenez, J.J., Palencia, P.G., & Meana, A. (2008)How natural infection by Nosema ceranae causes honeybee colony collapse. Environmental Microbiology, 10, 10, pp 2659-2669 <Go to ISI>://WOS:000259147900017 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bees/Higes-Natural-Infection-Nosema-2008.pdf

For first time, we show that natural N. ceranae infection can cause the sudden collapse of bee colonies, establishing a direct correlation between N. ceranae infection and the death of honeybee colonies under field conditions. Signs of colony weakness were not evident until the queen could no longer replace the loss of the infected bees. The long asymptomatic incubation period can explain the absence of evident symptoms prior to colony collapse. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that healthy colonies near to an infected one can also become infected, and that N. ceranae infection can be controlled with a specific antibiotic, fumagillin. Moreover, the administration of 120 mg of fumagillin has proven to eliminate the infection, but it cannot avoid reinfection after 6 months. We provide Koch's postulates between N. ceranae infection and a syndrome with a long incubation period involving continuous death of adult bees, non-stop brood rearing by the bees and colony loss in winter or early spring despite the presence of sufficient remaining pollen and honey.

2. Possible upcoming resistance of insects against Bt endotoxins

General reader recommended about Bt endo- and exo-toxins:Ammann, K. (2008) 1.0 Bt report: Introduction, Birkhauser Springer pp 86 Delft (Report)http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt-review-toreview/Bt-Report-1-Introduction-20081007-review.pdf

Bt sprays cause resistant insects, but not (yet) Bt crops There are several cases documented already in the early nineties and later, where insects developed resistance against Bt formulations sprayed in the fields and in greenhouses: (Li et al., 2005; Tanaka & Kimura, 1991). Already in 1994 and 1995 there was growing and well documented concern about evolving pest resistance against Bt toxins used in sprays (Bauer, 1995; McGaughey, 1994).(for citations see reader)

On the other hand, despite massive use of Bt crops, resistance to the Bt endo-toxin remains rare up to now, although it can be detected occasionally in the field with rather costly analysis, it does not pose a problem up to now (Bates et al., 2005; Bourguet et al., 2005; Shelton et al., 1993; Tabashnik et al., 2006; Tabashnik et al., 2008). The most recent paper of Tabashnik et al. 2008 (Tabashnik et al., 2008) is often cited as now having provided the ‘ultimate proof’ with field data that Bt resistance for some Bt cotton pests has been detected, which is fact, but only in exceptional cases and (not yet) causing any agronomic problems. Here the authors own comments:

“Nonetheless, resistance of H. zea to Cry1Ac [endotoxin] has not caused widespread control failures for several reasons. • First, even in the few states with documented resistance, most populations tested were not resistant to Cry1Ac. • Second, insecticides have been used from the outset to augment control of H. zea on Bt cotton because Cry1Ac alone is not sufficient to control high-density populations of the pest (EPA Environmental Protection Agency, 1998; Jackson et al., 2004b). Insecticide sprays decrease any problems associated with reduced control of H. zea by Bt cotton. • Third, against strains with 44- to 100-fold resistance to Cry1Ac, the Cry1Ac in Bt cotton still caused 48–60% larval mortality (Ali et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2004a; Luttrell et al., 2006).

Finally, ‘pyramided’ transgenic cotton producing Bt toxins Cry2Ab and Cry1Ac was registered in December 2002 and planted on more than 1 million ha in the United States in 2006 and 2007 (Monsanto Co., 2002). Control of Cry1Acresistant H. zea by Cry2Ab also limits problems associated with resistance to Cry1Ac19.”(Citations see reader)

Tabashnik, B.E., Gassmann, A.J., Crowder, D.W., & Carriére, Y. (2008)Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 2, pp 199-202 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1382 AND http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n2/suppinfo/nbt1382_S1.html AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Tabashnik-Resistance-Evidence-2008.pdf

Figure 1 Field-evolved resistance of Helicoverpa zea to Bt cotton demonstratedby increases in the median lethal concentration (LC50) of the Bt toxinCry1Ac for field populations. (a) Before the commercialization of Bt cotton(1992–1993, ref. 7), no significant difference in LC50 values existedbetween field-derived strains (mean = 1.36, n = 7) and laboratory strains(mean = 2.53, n = 4) (Mann-Whitney U-test, U = 15.5, P = 0.39). (b) After the commercialization of Bt cotton (2002–2004, ref. 8), LC50 values weresignificantly higher for field-derived strains (mean = 111, n = 57) than forlaboratory strains (mean = 9.29, n = 7) (U = 340, P = 0.0013). Arrowsshow the six field-derived strains with LC50 >100. For these six strains, theresistance ratios, from Table 4 of ref. 8, were: F2203, 53; F3503, 83; F3703,184; F3803, 354; F3603, 515; F3704, 578 (Supplementary Methods).

Tabashnik, B.E., Gassmann, A.J., Crowder, D.W., & Carriére, Y. (2008)Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 2, pp 199-202 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1382 AND http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n2/suppinfo/nbt1382_S1.html AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Tabashnik-Resistance-Evidence-2008.pdf

Tabashnik, B.E., Gassmann, A.J., Crowder, D.W., & Carriére, Y. (2008)Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 2, pp 199-202 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1382 AND http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n2/suppinfo/nbt1382_S1.html AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Tabashnik-Resistance-Evidence-2008.pdf

Tabashnik, B.E., Gassmann, A.J., Crowder, D.W., & Carriére, Y. (2008)Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 2, pp 199-202 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1382 AND http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n2/suppinfo/nbt1382_S1.html AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Tabashnik-Resistance-Evidence-2008.pdf

Mikulka, J. & Chodova, D. (2000) Long-Term Study on the Occurrence of Weeds Resistant to Herbicides in the Czech Republic. Zeitschrift Fur Pflanzenkrankheiten Und Pflanzenschutz-Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, pp 373-376

3. Possible harm of Bt endotoxins to aquatic organisms

Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Tank, J.L., Royer, T.V., Whiles, M.R., Evans-White, M., Chambers, C., Griffiths, N.A., Pokelsek, J., & Stephen, M.L. (2007)Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, electronic prepubli cation, pp --- --- http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0707177104v2 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Rosi-Marschall-Bt-Aquatic-2007.pdf

See the rebuttal in ASK-FORCE by K. Ammann et al.http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64

Rosi-Marshall, E.J., Tank, J.L., Royer, T.V., Whiles, M.R., Evans-White, M., Chambers, C., Griffiths, N.A., Pokelsek, J., & Stephen, M.L. (2007)

Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, pp 16204-16208 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Rosi-Marschall-Bt-Aquatic-2007.pdf

Commissioner Dimas‘ pet argument against Bt maize: „we need more researchbecause of such publications“, also the Prince of Wales used the argument, but itis quite certain that neither of them has read or understood the paper

Rosi

-Mar

shal

l, E.

J., T

ank,

J.L.

, Roy

er, T

.V.,

Whi

les,

M.R

., Ev

ans-

Whi

te, M

., Ch

ambe

rs, C

., G

riffith

s,

N.A

., Po

kels

ek, J

., &

Ste

phen

, M.L

. (20

07)

Toxi

ns in

tran

sgen

ic c

rop

bypr

oduc

ts m

ay a

ffect

hea

dwat

er s

trea

m e

cosy

stem

s.

Proc

eedi

ngs

of th

e N

ation

al A

cade

my

of S

cien

ces

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

of A

mer

ica,

104

, htt

p://

ww

w.b

otan

isch

erga

rten

.ch/

Bt/R

osi-M

arsc

hall-

Bt-A

quati

c-20

07.p

df

Leaf andCob statisticsin rivers

transportdistances

Potential Effects Potential Effects

Realistic highConcentrations

Comments and letter to the editors of PNASA consortium of scientists signing this comment in a letter to the editors has analyzed the paper and came to critical conclusions, which seriously question the conclusions of the paper.

We are deeply concerned by the appearance in PNAS of a recent article, "Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems," (10,1073 (2007)), by Rosi-Marshall et al., apparently funded by NSF. We recognize that it is not unusual for papers to be published with minor flaws or infelicities, even after peer review and revision, but the article by Rosi-Marshall et al. contains egregious methodological flaws and omissions, and presents conclusions not supported by the data.

http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64

We call your attention, in particular, to the following: 1) There is extensive evidence in the literature that corn pollen produced by currently available Bt corn varieties contain extremely low amounts of Bt toxin. This was shown in a series of six papers by top scientists published in PNAS after the Losey Bt corn pollen-Monarch debacle, an intensive and time-consuming effort to try to set the science straight (1). How many busy scientists and how much scarce money will we need to divert to calm this new scare? 2) The authors extrapolated from a laboratory test to a field system based on a single study. Such extrapolation is problematic to begin with; not only did the authors lack the statistical confidence necessary for a valid extrapolation, in another venue (2) they reported they did not find these effects in the field, a salient fact not mentioned in the PNAS paper. This discrepancy should have been disclosed and discussed. In addition, earlier relevant studies concluded that Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) endotoxin concentrations in aquatic systems are extremely low and are metabolized rapidly in water (3,4).

citations see:http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64

3) The title implies transgenic crops are the only source of Bt toxins, but endotoxins in commercial Bt insecticides such as Dipel, Xentari, Foray, and Thuricide are also used by farmers, including organic farmers, to control insects, and in some areas intensively. If the authors are measuring the effect of Bt toxin at all, how do they know the toxin comes from the transgenic Bt crops rather than from these organic Bt insecticides? If they lack data to distinguish the sources, isn't the term `transgenic' in the title simply gratuitous and sensationalistic? 4) The authors seem unaware that there are several variant forms of Bt endotoxin, as they failed to disclose which one(s) they were seeking and measuring. Toxicological studies use known quantities of known toxins, and look for a dose response. If their study included specific assays, they were not reported. If they were not conducted, the report was, at best, premature.

citations see:http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64

5) The authors do not disclose which Bt-corn isolines were tested. Different hybrids can differ significantly in both secondary metabolites and in antinutrient quantity (as well as in kind and amount of Bt toxin expressed). By not using isolines, they could have been seeing the effect of different concentrations in different hybrids of antinutrients or of other factors unrelated to Bt toxin. Similarly, the authors do not disclose quantitative measurements of tissue sampled, e.g., "Leaves were added… as needed." This lack of detail precludes others from replicating their study. 6) The authors conclude that growing Bt-corn may cause downstream adverse effects in waterways, but they fail to consider alternative explanations. Moreover, they analyze their results in a vacuum. In the real world, the choices are not `Bt-corn' versus `no intervention', and to imply that that is the case displays a remarkable ignorance of agriculture. Farmers grow more than one species and cultivar, and often use more than one pesticide strategy. For example, if a farmer were to control insects using conventional pesticides (that is, absent Bt corn plants), how would those pesticidal treatments affect caddisflies? For all we know, Bt corn may be environmentally preferable to traditional pesticides or other strategies to control insects. The authors imply otherwise without providing the comparative evidence.

citations see:http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64

The points above illustrate sloppy experimental design and interpretation that should have been detected by even a cursory peer review. Where were the crucial qualitative and quantitative data on source tissue, distinction of diverse types of Bt toxins, and discussion of alternate explanations for their results? We are at a loss to explain how qualified reviewers and editors could be unaware of flaws of this magnitude.  Publication of this flawed paper has seriously jeopardized the credibility of PNAS as a high quality, scientific forum.   Sincerely,  Alan McHughen, Professor, University of California, Riverside.Brian Federici, Professor, University of California, Riverside.Henry Miller, M.D., The Hoover Institution, Stanford University.Klaus Ammann, Prof. emerit. Delft University of Technology, the NetherlandsC. Kameswara Rao, Professor. Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education,Bangalore, India.Prof. Dr. Ingo Potrykus, Chairman, Humanitarian Golden Rice Board & NetworkDr. Piero Morandini, Dept. of Biology, University of Milan, ItalyC. J. Leaver, CBE, FRS, FRSE, Sibthorpian Professor of Plant Science, University of Oxford, UKS. Shantharam, Director, Biotechnology Education Programs, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, ThailandMark Sears, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.C. S. Prakash, Professor, Plant Molecular Genetics, Tuskegee University, USA

http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64

And, if you still want to go on with papers with some critique about GM crops, but do not really hold up to scientific scrutiny, go to the background information of the ASK-FORCE piece on the Austrianmice study:http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=67

1. General ViewFor years, Austria's scientifically questionable claims regarding GM foods and crops have repeatedly been rejected by European Commission officials, by scientists with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and by the judges of two European courts.

Government regulators and numerous safety scientists have rejected Austria's claims about GMOs as well as the country's attempts to retard EU policy and evade the requirements of European law and decisions. Austrian ministries (as well as their counterparts in the French and Italian governments) have adopted novel tactics that were invented and endorsed by anti-GM activists.

As a result, the global media is regularly fed questionable claims based on reports which have not gone through the process of peer review, or - worse - which have passed a flawed peer-review process 1). Some journals have accepted papers on the premise that because of the publicity given to studies in the media and on websites, the work should be published so that everyone has a chance to scrutinize the findings 2, 3). And, unfortunately, it is also true that lower quality journals will also accept papers that would be found unacceptable by leading journals.

· Short letters to the editor, written by whistle blowers in good faith - or worse in many of the below cases - with a political agenda - on ‘promiscuity of transgenic plants' (Bergelson) 4) or the toxicity of Bt maize for non-target insects like the monarch butterflies (Losey) 5), but later devaluated as premature apprehensions.

· Critical scientists commenting in a balanced way on negative effects and leaving open other causes than transgenesis (effects of transgenic soybeans on mice by Malatesta 6-8)), but whose work is happily misinterpreted by opponents who make no mention of the researchers careful qualifications of their findings.

· Publications by scientists who have a clearly negative view of GM crops that conduct research intended to reveal highly improbable negative effects. The research protocols and experimental conduct are flawed and the differences they make publicity about are usually not of biological significance or are not even statistically significant. (Seralini) 9), (Pusztai) 10).

· Publications on topics related to epigenetics neglecting zero comparisons, although the findings per see are correctly commented, but in a balance not giving the whole picture. (Myhre) 11) (Latham) 12).

· Uncritical reviews by newcomers in the field of food safety (Dona) 13), (Auer) 14) (Botha) 15) who do not understand some of the cited scientific publications seemingly supporting their negative cause.

· Papers based on new methodological approaches, not following the internationally agreed protocols, which have to be interpreted with great caution and which need to be independently verified (Finamore) 16, 17).

· Prematurely published reports propagated on numerous websites of the anti-gene-technology-community and in sensational newspaper articles, without having been scrutinized properly by peer- review (Ermakova) 18-23). When Ermakova finally revealed her data, it was clear that the research and data did not meet contemporary international standards of experimentation. The high observed mortality of rats in control groups was attributed to mistreatment of the animals.See full details in ASK-FORCE on Ermakova.

1. Miller, H., P. Morandini, and K. Ammann, 2008 Is biotechnology a victim of anti-science bias in scientific journals? Trends in Biotechnology, Electronic Prepublication Febr. 17, 2008, Hardcopy available in March: p. 122-125 doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.11.011 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Peer-Review/Miller-Morandini-Ammann-Peer-Review-2008.pdf 2. Horton, R., 1999 Genetically modified foods: "absurd" concern or welcome dialogue? Lancet, 354(9187): p. 1314-1315 <Go to ISI>://000083149900002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Horton-Lancet-1999-p1314.pdf 3. Horton, R., C.B. Feldbaum, and R.A. Fisken, 1999 GM food debate - Reply. Lancet, 354(9191): p. 1729-1729 <Go to ISI>://000083652800053 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Horton-Lancet-1999-9191-1729.pdf 4. Bergelson, J., C.B. Purrington, and G. Wichmann, 1998 Promiscuity in transgenic plants. Nature, 395(6697): p. 25-25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/25626 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Geneflow/Bergelson-Promiscuity-1998.pdf 5. Saxena, D., S. Flores, and G. Stotzky, 1999 Transgenic plants - Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn. Nature, 402(6761): p. 480-480 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Saxena-Stotzky-Nature-1999.pdf

6. Malatesta, M., C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, and M. Biggiogera, 2005 Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry, 49(3): p. 237-241 <Go to ISI>://000235795800001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Malatesta-Reversibility-2005.pdf 7. Vecchio, L., B. Cisterna, M. Malatesta, T.E. Martin, and M. Biggiogera, 2004 Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry, 48(4): p. 449-453 <Go to ISI>://000225992500016 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Vecchio-Ultrastructure-Analysis-2004.pdf

8. Malatesta, M., M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M.B.L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, and G. Gazzanelli, 2003 Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry, 47(4): p. 385-388 <Go to ISI>://000187834800013 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Malatesta-Fine-Structural-2003.pdf 9. Seralini, G.E., D. Cellier, and J.S. de Vendomois, 2007 New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Seralini-2007e.pdf AND Rebuttal of EFSA http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/pr_efsa_maize_Mon863.html 10. Ewen, S.W.B. and A. Pusztai, 1999 Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet, 354(9187): p. 1353-1354 <Go to ISI>://000083149900015 AND doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Ewen-Pusztai-Lancet-1999.pdf

11. Myhre, M.R., K.A. Fenton, J. Eggert, K.M. Nielsen, and T. Traavik, 2006 The 35S CaMV plant virus promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells. European Food Research and Technology, 222(1-2): p. 185-193 <Go to ISI>://000233722100028 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/35S/Myhre-Cauliflower-Active-2006.pdf 12. Latham, J., A. Wilson, and R. Steinbrecher, 2005 Analysis of the unexpected phenotypic consequences associated with plant transformation. Journal of Biotechnology, 118: p. S156-S157 <Go to ISI>://WOS:000231195200540 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/EFB/Abstracts-Latham-Steinbrecher-2005.pdf http://www.botanischergarten.ch/EFB/Abstracts-EBC-2005.pdf

13. Dona, A. and I.S. Arvanitoyannis, 2009 Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49(2): p. 164 - 175 http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/10408390701855993 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Dona-Health-Risks-GM-Foods-2009.pdf 14. Auer, C., 2008 Ecological risk assessment and regulation for genetically-modified ornamental plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 27(4): p. 255-271 <Go to ISI>://WOS:000258048200003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Horticulture/Auer-Ecological-Risk-Horticulture-2008.pdf

15. Botha, G.M. and C.D. Viljoen, 2008 Can GM sorghum impact Africa? Trends in Biotechnology, 26(2): p. 64-69 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TCW-4RJSHWC-1/1/52f5dc77a65c6b924b19dd9b2be52a27 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Africa-Harvest-Sorghum-Lit-1/Botha-Sorghum-Africa-2008.pdf 16. Finamore, A., M. Roselli, S. Britti, G. Monastra, R. Ambra, A. Turrini, and E. Mengheri, 2008 Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 0(0 %R doi:10.1021/jf802059w) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf802059w AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Finamore-Intestinal-Peripheral-Immune-2008.pdf

17. Finamore, A., M.S. Britti, M. Roselli, D. Bellovino, S. Gaetani, and E. Mengheri, 2004 Novel approach for food safety evaluation. Results of a pilot experiment to evaluate organic and conventional foods. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52(24): p. 7425-7431 <Go to ISI>://WOS:000225358900037 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Finamore-Novel-Approaches-Organic-2004.pdf 18. Ermakova, I.V., 2005 People eating genetically modified food may have rat-short lifespan, in Prawda: Moscow. http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/9136-gmf-0 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Ermakova-Pravda-2005.pdf 19. Ermakova, I.V. 2005 Influence of genetically modified soya on the birth-weight and survival of rat pups. in Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants and Risk Assessment. Frankfurt a.M. Literaturhaus: Ökoinstitut Freiburg, Greenpeace, © 2006, Öko-Institut e.V., Box 50 02 40, D-791028 Freiburg http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Epigenesis-GP-Ermakova-p-41-2005.pdf 20. Ermakova, I.V., 2007 GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format. To the Editor:. Nature Biotechnology, 25(12): p. 1351-1354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1207-1351 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Ermakova-Reply-NB-2007.pdf 21. Ermakova, I.V., 2007 GM soybeans - revisiting a controversial format: To the Editor. Nature Biotechnology, 25(12): p. 1351-1354 <Go to ISI>://WOS:000251457800011 AND http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1207-1351 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Ermakova-Reply-NB-2007.pdf 22. Marshall, A., 2007 GM soybeans and health safety—a controversy reexamined, full controversy, including reply Ermakova. Nature Biotechnology, 25(9): p. 981-987 and 1351 - 1360 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Marshall-Ermakova-et-al-Controversy-NB-2007.pdf 23. Marshall, A., I. Ermakova, B. Chassy, V. Giddings, A. McHughen, and V. Moses, 2007 GM soybeans and health safety—a controversy reexamined, followup controversy. Nature Biotechnology, 25(9): p. 1351 - 1360 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Ermakova/Marshall-Ermakova-et-al-Controversy-all-reactions.pdf

24. Thro, A.M., 2004 Europe on transgenic crops: How public plant breeding and eco-transgenics can help in the transatlantic debate. Commentary., in AgBioForum. p. 142-148. http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n3/v7n3a06-thro.htm AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Thro-Europe-Transgenic-Crops-2004.pdf 25. Ramjoue, C., 2007 The transatlantic rift in genetically modified food policy. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 20(5): p. 419-436 <Go to ISI>://WOS:000248855000003 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Ramjoue-Transatlantic-Rift-2007.pdf

The open source citations from the following ASK-FORCE link about theAustrian Mice Study in the following slides:http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68

more reading about controversial cases in two special chapters of the Bt report:

Ammann, K. (2008) 2.3. Controversial cases, Birkhauser Springer pp 21 Delft (Report)http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt-Review-20080930/Bt-Report-2-3-Controversial-cases-20080624-review.pdf

Ammann, K. (2008) 2.6. Reviews, Reports without Baseline, Birkhauser Springer pp 16 Delft (Report)http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt-Review-20080930/Bt-Report-2-6-Non-Comp-Reviews-20080624-review.pdf

1. Velimirov, A., C. Binter, J. Zentek, and U. Herzog, 2008 Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice, Report, in Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008, Bundesministerium für Gesundheit Familie und Jugend Sektion IV, Editor. Herausgeber, Medieninhaber und Hersteller: Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend, Sektion IV Radetzkystraße 2, 1031 Wien. p. 109.

http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food-Zentek/Velimirov-Austrian-Maize-Study-20081111.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food-Zentek/Velimirov-Austrian-Maize-Study-German-Abstract-20081111.pdf

2. Miller, H., P. Morandini, and K. Ammann, 2008 Is biotechnology a victim of anti-science bias in scientific journals? Trends in Biotechnology, Electronic Prepublication Febr. 17, 2008, Hardcopy available in March: p. 122-125

doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.11.011 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Peer-Review/Miller-Morandini-Ammann-Peer-Review-2008.pdf

3. Morrissey, R.E., J.C. Lamb, R.W. Morris, R.E. Chapin, D.K. Gulati, and J.J. Heindel, 1989 Results and Evaluations of 48 Continuous Breeding Reproduction Studies Conducted in Mice. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 13(4): p. 747-777

<Go to ISI>://WOS:A1989CF64900014 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Morrissey-Results-Evaluations-1989.pdf

4. Velimirov, A., K. Plochberger, U. Huspeka, and W. Schott, 1992 The Influence of Biologically and Conventionally Cultivated Food on the Fertility of Rats. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 8(4): p. 325-337

<Go to ISI>://WOS:A1992JD86200004 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food-Zentek/Velimirov-Influence-Biologically-Fertility-1992.pdf

5. Mader, P., D. Hahn, D. Dubois, L. Gunst, T. Alfoldi, H. Bergmann, M. Oehme, R. Amado, H. Schneider, U. Graf, A. Velimirov, A. Fliessbach, and U. Niggli, 2007 Wheat quality in organic and conventional farming: results of a 21 year field experiment. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87(10): p. 1826-1835

<Go to ISI>://000248240800006 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Mader-Wheat-Quality-2007.pdf

6. Velimirov, A., 2005 Reproductive Health of Rats. Orgprints: Vienna. http://orgprints.org/9033/ AND http://orgprints.org/9033/01/Velimirov-2005-Paper-FQH_05.pdf

7. Binter, C., A. Khol-Parisini, W. Gerner, K. Schäfer, C. Leeb, H. Hulan, A. Saalmüller, and J. Zentek. 2007 Omega-3 Fettsaeuren in der Sauenfuetterung: Fettsaeurenstatus der Saugferkel in Zusammenhang mit einem sich entwickelnden Immunsystem. in 6. BOKU-Symposium Sekundärwirkungen von Futterinhaltsstoffen - vom Naehrstoff zum Wirkstoff. Wien: BOKU

www.dlwt.boku.ac.at/tte.html AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Feed/Plitzner-Tierernaehrung-BOKU-Symposium-2007.pdf

8. EPA Guidelines Food Toxicity, 1996 Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment, in Federal Register 61(212):56274-56322, E.P. Agency, Editor: Washington. p. 143. 9. Chapin, R.E. and R.A. Sloane, 1997 Reproductive Assessment by Continuous Breeding: Evolving Study Design and Summaries of Ninety Studies Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(Supplement 1): p. 199-205 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3433407 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Chapin-Reproductive-Assessment-1997.pdf 10. Gulati, D.K., E. Hope, J. Teague, and R.E. Chapin, 1991 Reproductive Toxicity Assessment by Continuous Breeding in Sprague-Dawley Rats - a Comparison of 2 Study Designs. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 17(2): p. 270-279 <Go to ISI>://WOS:A1991FZ99700005 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Gulati-Reproductive-Toxicity-1991.pdf 11. Chassy, B., M. Egnin, Y. Gao, K. Glenn, G.A. Kleter, P. Nestel, M. Newell-McGloughlin, R.H. Phipps, and R. Shillito, 2007 Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology: Case studies. Journal of Food Science, 72: p. R131-R137 <Go to ISI>://WOS:000251394600002 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Chassy-ILSI-Recommendations-2007.pdf 12. Chassy, B., J.J. Hlywka, G.A. Kleter, E.J. Kok, H.A. Kuiper, M. McGloughlin, I.C. Munro, R.H. Phipps, and J.E. Reid, 2004 Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology: an executive summary. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 3(2): p. 38-104 <Go to ISI>://000224587300001 AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Food/Chassy-ILSI-Report-2004.pdf