Impacts of growing and utilising genetically modified crops and forages – a New Zealand perspective

References

• Alphey H, Bonsall MB. 2018. Genetics-based methods for agricultural insect pest management. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 20:131–140. doi:10.1111/afe.12241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson K. 2019. Independent review of the South Australian GM food crop moratorium. Report to the SA Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, p. 76.
   Google Scholar
• Ankeny RA, Harms R. 2021. Focus groups on consumers’ responses to the use of New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) in food production. The University of Adelaide. p. 50. [accessed 2021 Nov 26]. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/proposals/Pages/p1055-definitions-for-gene-technology-and-new-breeding-techniques.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Ardebili AT, Rickertsen K. 2020. Personality traits, knowledge, and consumer acceptance of genetically modified plant and animal products. Food Quality and Preference. 80:Article 103825. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103825.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arvanitoyannis IS, Krystallis A. 2005. Consumers’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions towards genetically modified foods, based on the ‘perceived safety vs. benefits’ perspective. International Journal of Food Science & Technology. 40:343–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aumaitre A, Aulrich K, Chesson A, Flachowsky G, Piva G. 2002. New feeds from genetically modified plants: substantial equivalence, nutritional equivalence, digestibility, and safety for animals and the food chain. Livestock Production Science. 74:223–238. doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00016-7.
   Google Scholar
• Batrinou AM, Dimitriou E, Liatsos D, Pletsa V. 2005. Genetically modified foods: the effect of information. Nutrition & Food Science. 35:148–155. doi:10.1108/00346650510594895.
   Google Scholar
• Batrinou AM, Spiliotis V, Sakellaris G. 2008. Acceptability of genetically modified maize by young people. British Food Journal. 110:250–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bawa AS, Anilakumar KR. 2013. Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 50:1035–1046. doi:10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beghin JC, Gustafson CR. 2021. Consumer valuation of and attitudes towards novel foods produced with new plant engineering techniques: a review. Sustainability. 13:11348. doi:10.3390/su132011348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berning J, Campbell BL. 2021. Market simulations of consumer preferences for the introduction of GM tomatoes. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 24:71–88. doi:10.22434/IFAMR2019.0218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biden S, Smyth SJ, Hudson D. 2018. The economic and environmental cost of delayed GM crop adoption: the case of Australia's GM canola moratorium. GM Crops & Food. 9:13–20. doi:10.1080/21645698.2018.1429876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blagoevska K, Ilievska G, Jankuloski D, Dimzoska BS, Crceva R, Angeleska A. 2021. The controversies of genetically modified food. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environtal Sci. 854: 012009. IOP Publishing. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/854/1/012009/meta.
   Google Scholar
• Blair R, Regenstein JM. 2020. GM food and human health. In: Anderson V, editor. Genetically modified and irradiated food. Academic Press; p. 69–98. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-817240-7.00005-X.
   Google Scholar
• Blancke S, Van Breusegem F, De Jaeger G, Braeckman J, Van Montagu M. 2015. Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in Plant Science. 20:414–418. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2015.03.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boccia F, Punzo G. 2021. A choice experiment on consumer perceptions of three generations of genetically modified foods. Appetite. 161:105158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrello M, Cembalo L, Vecchio R. 2021. Role of information in consumers’ preferences for eco-sustainable genetic improvements in plant breeding. PLoS ONE. 16:e0255130. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozzini E, Sicurelli D. 2021. Precautionary authoritarianism and the contested governance of Chinese food safety. Contemporary Politics. 27:336–355. doi:10.1080/13569775.2021.1891681.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calsamglia S, Hernandez B, Hartnell GF, Phipps RR. 2007. Effects of corn silage derived from a genetically modified variety containing two transgenes on feed intake, milk production, and composition, and the absence of detectable transgenic deoxyribonucleic acid in milk in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 90:4718–4723. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caradus JR. 2008. An opportunity lost and sorting fact from fiction. Proceedings NZ Grassland Association. 70:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Caradus JR, Tumilson CA, Lin JY. 2021. Intellectual property protection – stimulating or constraining innovation and technology transfer? Procs Joint X1 Intl Rangeland Congr and XXIV Int Grassl Congr (IRC/IGC), Mombasa, Kenya, 25 to 29 October 2021. p. 4. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/24/7-2/10/.
   Google Scholar
• Carman JA, Vlieger HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Clinch-Jones CA, Haynes JI, Edwards JW. 2013. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems. 8:38–54.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll D. 2016. Genome editing: progress and challenges for medical applications. Genome Medicine. 8:120. doi:10.1186/s13073-016-0378-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castillo AR, Gallardo MR, Maciel M, Giordano JM, Conti GA, Gaggiotti MC, Quaino O, Gianni C, Hartnell GF. 2004. Effects of feeding rations with genetically modified whole cottonseed to lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 87:1778–1785. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73333-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charo A. 2015. “The Governance of Human Gene Editing” (speech to the International Summit on Human Gene Editing: a global discussion, Washington DC, 1–3 December 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Chávez-Dulanto PN, Thiry AAA, Glorio-Paulet P, Vögler O, Carvalho FP. 2021. Increasing the impact of science and technology to provide more people with healthier and safer food. Food and Energy Security. 10:e259. doi:10.1002/fes3.259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colson G, Rousu MC. 2013. What do consumer surveys and experiments reveal and conceal about consumer preferences for genetically modified foods? GM Crops & Food. 4:158–165. doi:10.4161/gmcr.26322.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Consumer Reports. 2015. Consumers Want Mandatory Labeling for GMO Foods. [accessed 2021 Nov 11]. https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/consumers-want-mandatory-labeling-for-gmo-foods/.
   Google Scholar
• Coyle FJ, Fairweather JR. 2005. Challenging a place myth: New Zealand's clean green image meets the biotechnology revolution. Area. 37:148–158. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00617.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cui K, Shoemaker SP. 2018. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: a nationwide Chinese consumer study. npj Science of Food. 2:Article 10. doi:10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen M, Hobbs ML. 2003. Government response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: economic analysis results and HSNO Act implications. p. 18 [accessed 2021 Dec 5]. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2007-09/pol03-77.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• DAFF. 2007. Biotechnology – market acceptance of GM Canola. [accessed 2022 April 17]. https://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/sitecollectiondocuments/ag-food/biotech/gm-market-acceptance-final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Danchin A. 2021. In vivo, in vitro and in silico: an open space for the development of microbe-based applications of synthetic biology. Microbial Biotechnology. 15:1751–7915. doi:10.1111/1751-7915.13937.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davey L, Goodwin T, Bennett J. 2012. Market advantage of Tasmania’s GMO-free status. Devonport: Macquarie Franklin. p. 67.
   Google Scholar
• Davison J. 2010. GM plants: science, politics and EC regulations. Plant Science. 178:94–98. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Santis B, Stockhofe N, Wal J-M, Weesendorp E, Lallès J-P, van Dijk J, Kok E, De Giacomo M, Einspanier R, Onori R, et al. 2018. Case studies on genetically modified organisms (GMOs): potential risk scenarios and associated health indicators. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 117:36–65. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deb R, Sajjanar B, Devo K, Reddt KM, Prasad R, Kumar S, Sharma A. 2013. Feeding animals with GM crops: boon or bane? Indian Journal of Biotechnology. 12:311–322. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/21854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deckers M, Deforce D, Fraiture M-A, Roosens NHC. 2020. Genetically modified micro-organisms for industrial food enzyme production: an overview. Foods (Basel, Switzerland). 9:Article 326. doi:10.3390/foods9030326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delhove J, Osenk I, Prichard I, Donnelley M. 2020. Public acceptability of gene therapy and gene editing for human use: a systematic review. Human Gene Therapy. 31:20–46. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/hum.2019.197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2021. China Market Insights 2021. [accessed 2022 April 17]. https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/china-market-insights-2021.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Dinica V. 2021. Transitioning to what? The role of genetic-engineering in New Zealand’s (circular) bioeconomy debates. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 23:194–212. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2021.1893161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver T, Saunders C, Duff S, Saunders J. 2019. The Matrix of Drivers: 2019 Update. Report for Our Land and Water National Science Challenge Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU), Lincoln University. p. 139. [accessed 2021 Nov 29]. https://ourlandandwater.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Matrix_OurLandandWaterScienceChallenge-TheMatrixofDrivers3-2019.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards S. 2017. Research into genetically modified organisms in New Zealand: an examination of a sociotechnical controversy. Case Studies in the Environment. 1:1–8. Electronic ISSN 2473-9510.
   Google Scholar
• Eichelbaum T, Allan J, Fleming J, Randerson R. 2001. Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Wellington, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Ellens KW, Levac D, Pearson C, Savoie A, Strand N, Louter L, Tibelius C. 2019. Canadian regulatory aspects of gene editing technologies. Transgenic Research. 28:165–168. doi:10.1007/s11248-019-00153-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EPA. 2016. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA): GMO regulations clarified. [accessed 2021 Dec 5]. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/gmo-regulations-clarified.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson D, Kershen D, Nepomuceno A, Pogson BJ, Prieto H, Purnhagen K, Smyth S, Wesseler J, Whelan A. 2019. A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward. New Phytologist. 222:1673–1684. doi:10.1111/nph.15627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evanega S, Conrow J, Adams J, Lynas M. 2022. The state of the ‘GMO’ debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech? GM Crops & Food. 13:38–49. doi:10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everett-Hincks J, Henaghan M. 2019. Gene editing in aotearoa – legal considerations for policy makers. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review. 50:515–549. doi:10.26686/vuwlr.v50i3.5990.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrari L. 2021. Farmers’ attitude toward CRISPR/Cas9: the case of blast resistant rice. Agribusiness. 1–20. doi:10.1002/agr.21717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flachowsky G, Reuter T. 2017. Future challenges feeding transgenic plants. Animal Frontiers. 7:15–23. doi:10.2527/af.2017.0114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. 2022. Science and history of GMOs and other food modification processes. [accessed 2022 April 27]. https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/science-and-history-gmos-and-other-food-modification-processes.
   Google Scholar
• Fortin DR, Renton MS. 2003. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods in New Zealand. British Food Journal. 105:42–58. doi:10.1108/00070700310467483.
   Google Scholar
• Fox JA, Shogren JF, Hayes DJ, Kliebenstein JB. 1998. CVM-x: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 80:455–465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritsche S, Poovaiah C, MacRae E, Thorlby G. 2018. A New Zealand perspective on the application and regulation of gene editing. Frontiers in Plant Science. 9:1323. doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FSANZ. 2021. Food Standard Australia New Zealand – current GM applications and approvals. [accessed 2021 Dec 5; 2022 April 24]. https://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/consumer/gmfood/applications/Pages/default.aspx#Table1.
   Google Scholar
• Furgał-Dierżuk I, Strzetelski J, Twardowska M, Kwiatek K, Mazur M. 2015. The effect of genetically modified feeds on productivity, milk composition, serum metabolite profiles and transfer of tDNA into milk of cows. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. 24:19–30. doi:10.22358/jafs/65649/2015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gbashi S, Adebo O, Adebiyi JA, Targuma S, Tebele S, Areo OM, Olopade B, Odukoya JO, Njobeh P. 2021. Food safety, food security and genetically modified organisms in Africa: a current perspective. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. 37:30–63. doi:10.1080/02648725.2021.1940735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genetic Literacy Project A. Brazil: crops / food. [accessed 2021 Nov 14] https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/brazil-crops-food/.
   Google Scholar
• Genetic Literacy Project B. Argentina: crops / food. [accessed 2021 Nov 14] https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/argentina-crops-food/.
   Google Scholar
• Genome British Columbia. 2020. Regulation of genetically modified and genetically engineered products in Canada. [accessed 2021 Nov 7]. https://www.genomebc.ca/infobulletins/regulation-of-genetically-modified-and-genetically-engineered-products-in-canada.
   Google Scholar
• Giraldo PA, Shinozuka H, Spangenberg GC, Cogan NO, Smith KF. 2019. Safety assessment of genetically modified feed: is there any difference from food? Frontiers in Plant Science. 10:Article 1592. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon DR, Jaffe G, Doane M, Glaser A, Gremillion TM, Ho MD. 2021. Responsible governance of gene editing in agriculture and the environment. Nature Biotechnology. 39:1055–1057. doi:10.1038/s41587-021-01023-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant WJ, Bray H, Harms R, Ankeny RA, Leach J. 2021. Consumer responses to the use of NBTs in the production of food: a systematic literature review. Australian National University. p. 79. [accessed 2021 Nov 26]. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/proposals/Pages/p1055-definitions-for-gene-technology-and-new-breeding-techniques.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Henseler M, Piot-Lepetit I, Ferrari E, Mellado AG, Banse M, Grethe H, Parisi C, Hélaine S. 2013. On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports. Food Policy. 41:166–176. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.05.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho SS, Goh TJ, Chuah AS, Leung YW, Bekalu MA, Viswanath K. 2020. Past debates, fresh impact on nano-enabled food: a multigroup comparison of presumed media influence model based on spillover effects of attitude toward genetically modified food. Journal of Communication. 70:598–621. doi:10.1093/joc/jqaa019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard R. 2022. We need to talk about GMO. [accessed 2022 April 29]. https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/opinion/we-need-to-talk-about-gmo.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson M, Mead ATP, Chagné D, Roskruge N, Morrison S, Wilcox PL, Allan AC. 2019. Indigenous perspectives and gene editing in Aotearoa New Zealand. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 11:1–9. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2019.00070.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huffman WE, Rousu M, Shogren JF, Tegene A. 2007. The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 63:193–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ichim MC. 2021. The more favorable attitude of the citizens toward GMOs supports a new regulatory framework in the European Union. GM Crops & Food. 12:18–24. doi:10.1080/21645698.2020.1795525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISAAA. 2018. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA): global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops in 2018: biotech crops continue to address the challenges of increased population and climate change. Brief 54. [accessed 2022 April 23]. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/54/default.asp.
   Google Scholar
• ISAAA. 2022. European Commission Authorizes 3 GM Crops; Renews Authorization for GM Cotton. [accessed 2022 April 23]. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=19411.
   Google Scholar
• Ishii T, Araki M. 2017. A future scenario of the global regulatory landscape regarding genome-edited crops. GM Crops & Food. 8:44–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang D, Zhang G. 2021. Marketing clues on the label raise the purchase intention of genetically modified food. Sustainability. 13:9970. doi:10.3390/su13179970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaefer F. 2016. Origins and meaning of ‘Clean, Green’ New Zealand. [accessed 2022 April 27]. https://placebrandobserver.com/country-reputation-origins-clean-green-new-zealand/.
   Google Scholar
• Kajale DB, Becker TC. 2013. Determinants of consumer support for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food in India: a student survey. British Food Journal. 115:1597–1611. doi:10.1108/BFJ-12-2011-0302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kannan S, Najjar D. 2020. Therapeutic gene editing is here, can regulations keep up? MIT Science Policy Review. 1:64–75.
   Google Scholar
• Karasu K, Öztürk E. 2020. The effects of genetically modified feeds on consumers’ preferences in buying broiler meat. Austin Journal of Nutrition & Metabolism. 7:Article 1087.
   Google Scholar
• Knight J, Paradkar A. 2008. Acceptance of genetically modified food in India: perspectives of gatekeepers. British Food Journal. 110:1019–1033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight JC. 2016. GM crops and damage to country image: much ado about nothing? Acta Hortic. 1124. In: Panis et al. editors. Proc. III International Genetically Modified Organisms in Horticulture Symposium - Past, Present and Future. p. 23–31. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1124.4.
   Google Scholar
• Knight JG. 2011. New Zealand’s ‘clean green’ image: will GM plants damage it? ISBN 978-1-877156-45-8. p. 68.
   Google Scholar
• Knight JG, Clark A, Mather DW. 2013. Potential damage of GM crops to the country image of the producing country. GM Crops & Food. 4:151–157. doi:10.4161/gmcr.26321.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knight JG, Gao H. 2009. Chinese gatekeeper perceptions of genetically modified food. British Food Journal. 111:56–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight JG, Holdsworth DK, Mather DW. 2007a. Country-of-origin and choice of food imports: an in-depth study of European distribution channel gatekeepers. Journal of International Business Studies. 38:107–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight JG, Holdsworth DK, Mather DW. 2008. GM food and neophobia: connecting with the gatekeepers of consumer choice. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 88:739–744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight JG, Mather DW, Holdsworth DK. 2005. Impact of genetic modification on country image of imported food products in European markets: perceptions of channel members. Food Policy. 30:385–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight JG, Mather DW, Holdsworth DK, Ermen DF. 2007b. Acceptance of GM food—an experiment in six countries. Nature Biotechnology. 25:507–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubisz P, Dalton G, Majewski E, Pogodzińska K. 2021. Facts and myths about GM food—the case of Poland. Agriculture. 11:791. doi:10.3390/agriculture11080791.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassoued R, Phillips PWB, Macall DM, Hesseln H, Smyth SJ. 2021. Expert opinions on the regulation of plant genome editing. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 19:1104–1109. doi:10.1111/pbi.13597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledford H. 2020. Quest to use CRISPR against disease gains ground. Nature. 577:156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee L, Giesbrecht A. 2021. A welfare analysis on GM crop market structures and existing regulations. Journal of Student Research. 10:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Liefeld JP. 1993. Experiments on country-of-origin effects: review and meta-analysis of effect size. In: Papadopoulos C, Heslop L, editors. Product-country images: impact and role in international marketing. New York: International Business Press; p. 117–146.
   Google Scholar
• Lusk JL, Daniel MS, Mark DR, Lusk CL. 2001. Alternative calibration and auction institutions for predicting consumer willingness to pay for nongenetically modified corn chips. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 26:40–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk JL, Jamal M, Kurlander L, Roucan M, Taulman L. 2005. A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource. 30:28–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk JL, Roosen J, Bieberstein A. 2014. Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: causes and roots of controversies. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 6:381–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynas M. 2020. Yes, some COVID vaccines use genetic engineering. Get over it. Alliance for Science. [accessed 2021 Dec 5]. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/12/yes-some-covid-vaccines-use-genetic-engineering-get-over-it/.
   Google Scholar
• Macall DM, Williams C, Gleim S, Smyth SJ. 2021. Canadian consumer opinions regarding food purchase decisions. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research. 3:100098. doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2020.100098.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald IC, Deans TL. 2016. Tools and applications in synthetic biology. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 105(Part A):20–34. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2016.08.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macdonald N. 2022. Is this the technology to win Kiwis over to genetic engineering? [accessed 2022 April 25]. https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/128185542/is-this-the-technology-to-win-kiwis-over-to-genetic-engineering?cid=app-android.
   Google Scholar
• Mahaffey H, Taheripour F, Tyner WE. 2016. Evaluating the economic and environmental impacts of a global GMO ban. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2016 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, July 31-August 2 2016. p. 34. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235591.
   Google Scholar
• Mallapaty S. 2019. Australian gene-editing rules adopt ‘middle ground’. Nature. [accessed 2021 Nov 14]. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01282-8.
   Google Scholar
• Marchant GE, Stevens YA. 2015. A new window of opportunity to reject process-based biotechnology regulation. GM Crops & Food. 6:233–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marette S, Disdier A-C, Beghin JC. 2021. A comparison of EU and US consumers’ willingness to pay for gene-edited food: evidence from apples. Appetite. 159:105064. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2020.105064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masambuka-Kanchewa F, Rumble J, Buck E. 2021. Exploring differences in communication behaviors between organic and conventional farmers. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. 10:205–219. doi:10.5304/jafscd.2021.103.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mather D, Vikan R, Knight J. 2016. Marketplace response to GM animal products. Nature Biotechnology. 34:236–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matovu J. 2021. Does the inclusion of second generation genetically modified plants in feeds have any effect on animal performance? Turkish Journal of Agriculture – Food Science and Technology. 9:1799–1807. doi:10.24925/turjaf.v9i10.1799-1807.4104.
   Google Scholar
• Matovu J, Alçiçek A. 2021. Investigations and concerns about the fate of transgenic DNA and protein in livestock. 5th International Students Science Congress Proceedings, p. 1–10. doi:10.52460/issc.2021.011.
   Google Scholar
• McGuinness Institute. 2013. An overview of genetic modification in New Zealand 1973–2013: the first forty years. Project 2058; Report 16, September 2013, p. 140. [accessed 2021 Nov 10] http://www.mcguinnessinstitute.org/project-2058-reports/.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). 2022. Key facts on New Zealand-China trade. [accessed 2022 April 17] https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements-in-force/nz-china-free-trade-agreement/key-facts-on-new-zealand-china-trade/.
   Google Scholar
• Morris SH, Adley CC. 2000. Genetically modified food issues: attitudes of Irish university scientists. British Food Journal. 102:669–691. doi:10.1108/00070700010362040.
   Google Scholar
• Mosier SL, Rimal A, Ruxton MM. 2020. A song of policy incongruence: the missing choir of consumer preferences in GMO-labeling policy outcomes. The Review of Policy Research. 37:511–534. doi:10.1111/ropr.12391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muzhinji N, Ntuli V. 2021. Genetically modified organisms and food security in Southern Africa: conundrum and discourse. GM Crops & Food. 12:25–35. doi:10.1080/21645698.2020.1794489.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nadal A, De Giacomo M, Einspanier R, Kleter G, Kok E, McFarland S, Onori R, Paris A, Toldrà M, van Dijk J, et al. 2018. Exposure of livestock to GM feeds: detectability and measurement. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 117:13–35. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naranjo SE. 2017. Displacement of native natural enemies by introduced biological control agents in agroecosystems: a series non-target effect or not? In: Mason PG, Gillespie DR, Vincent C, editors. Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on biological control of arthropods, Langkawi, Malaysia. CABI International; p. 46–49.
   Google Scholar
• Naranjo SE, Hellmich RL, Romeis J, Shelton AM, Velez AM. 2020. The role and use of genetically engineered insect-resistant crops in IPM systems. In: Kogan M, Heinrichs E, editors. Integrated management of insect pests: current and future developments. Cambridge (UK): Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing; p. 1–58. doi:10.19103/AS.2019.0047.10.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Food Safety. 2021. Labelling requirements for genetically modified food. [accessed 2022 April 17]. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-business/labelling-composition-food-drinks/specific-product-labelling/labelling-requirements-for-genetically-modified-food/#:~:text=If%20the%20food%20you%20sell,of%20the%20Food%20Standards%20Code.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Legislation. 1996. Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. [accessed 2021 Dec 5]. https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM381228.html.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Productivity Commission . 2021. New Zealand firms: reaching for the frontier. Final report. Available at www.productivity.govt.nz/inquiries/frontier-firms/.
   Google Scholar
• News European Parliament. 2020. Parliament to allow COVID-19 vaccines to be developed more quickly. [accessed 2021 Dec 5]. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20200706IPR82731/parliament-to-allow-covid-19-vaccines-to-be-developed-more-quickly.
   Google Scholar
• Oselinsky K, Johnson A, Lundeberg P, Johnson Holm A, Mueller M, Graham DJ. 2021. GMO food labels do not affect college student food selection, despite negative attitudes towards GMOs. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 18:1761. doi:10.3390/ijerph18041761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otsuka Y. 2021. Consumer movements confronted by naturalness in gene editing in Japan. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal. 15:24–45. doi:10.1080/18752160.2021.1877442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmieri N, Simeone M, Russo C, Perito MA. 2020. Profiling young consumers’ perceptions of GMO products: a case study on Italian undergraduate students. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science. 21:100224. doi:10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappalardo G, D’Amico M, Lusk JL. 2021. Comparing the views of the Italian general public and scientists on GMOs. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 56:3641–3650. doi:10.1111/ijfs.14993.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parisi C, Rodríguez-Cerezo E. 2021. Current and future market applications of new genomic techniques. EUR 30589 EN. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, p. 52, JRC123830. doi:10.2760/02472.
   Google Scholar
• Pixley KV, Falck-Zepeda JB, Giller KE, Glenna LL, Gould F, Mallory-Smith CA, Stelly DM, Stewart Jr CN. 2019. Genome editing, gene drives, and synthetic biology: will they contribute to disease-resistant crops, and who will benefit? Annual Review of Phytopathology. 57:165–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popek S, Halagarda M. 2017. Genetically modified foods: consumer awareness, opinions and attitudes in selected EU countries. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 41:325–332. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pretorius IS, Boeke JD. 2018. Yeast 2.0—connecting the dots in the construction of the world's first functional synthetic eukaryotic genome. FEMS Yeast Research. 18(4):Article foy032. doi:10.1093/femsyr/foy032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prowse TAA, Cassey P, Ross JV, Pfitzner C, Wittmann TA, Thomas P. 2017. Dodging silver bullets: good CRISPR gene-drive design is critical for eradicating exotic vertebrates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 284:20170799. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2017.0799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruitt JR, Melton KM, Palma MA. 2021. Does physical activity influence consumer acceptance of gene edited food? Sustainability. 13:7759. doi:10.3390/su13147759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purnhagen KP, Clemens S, Eriksson D, Fresco LO, Tosun J, Qaim M, Visser RGF, Weber APM, Justus Wesseler HH, Zilberman D. 2021. Europe’s farm to fork strategy and Its commitment to biotechnology and organic farming: conflicting or complementary goals? Trends in Plant Science. 26:600–606. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2021.03.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribarits A, Narendja F, Stepanek W, Hochegger R. 2021. Detection methods Fit-for-purpose in enforcement control of genetically modified plants produced with novel genomic techniques (NGTs). Agronomy. 11:61. doi:10.3390/agronomy11010061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rickertsen K, Gustavsen GW, Nayga RM. 2017. Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified vegetable oil and salmon in the United States and Norway. AgBioForum. 20:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Rihn A, Khachatryan H, Wei X. 2021. Perceived subjective versus objective knowledge: consumer valuation of genetically modified certification on food producing plants. PLoS ONE. 16(8):e0255406. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts RJ. 2018. The nobel laureates’ campaign supporting GMOs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. 3:61–65. doi:10.1016/j.jik.2017.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roldan MB, Cousins G, Muetzel S, Zeller WE, Fraser K, Salminen J-P, Blanca A, Kaur R, Richardson K, Maher D, et al. 2022. Condensed tannins in white clover (Trifolium repens) foliar tissues expressing the transcription factor TaMYB14-1 bind to forage protein and reduce ammonia and methane emissions in vitro. Frontiers in Plant Science. 12:777354. doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.777354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rolleston W. 2010. An industry viewpoint – why it’s time to relax the regulations. AgScience. 36:7–9.
   Google Scholar
• Romeis J, Naranjo SE, Meissle M, Anthony M, Shelton AM. 2019. Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control. Biological Control. 130:136–154. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose KM, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. 2020. Of society, nature, and health: how perceptions of specific risks and benefits of genetically engineered foods shape public rejection. Environmental Communication . 14:Article 7. doi:10.1080/17524032.2019.1710227.
   Google Scholar
• Roth MS, Romeo JB. 1992. Matching product category and country image perceptions: a framework for managing country-of-origin effects. Journal of International Business Studies. 23(3):477–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RSNZ. 2010. Genetically modified forages – emerging issues. p. 6. [accessed 2021 Oct 25]. https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/assets/documents/publications-policy-2009-emerging-issues-gm-forages.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• RSNZ. 2016. Gene editing: evidence update. p. 9. [accessed 2021 Dec 5]. https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/assets/documents/Gene-editing-evidence-update2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Saha CN, Bhattacharya S. 2011. Intellectual property rights: an overview and implications in pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research. 2:88–93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saleh R, Bearth A, Siegrist M. 2021. How chemophobia affects public acceptance of pesticide use and biotechnology in agriculture. Food Quality and Preference. 91:104197. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanmugam S, Sivakumar S, Gobalakrishnan T, Sarawanan T, Abeweera PR, Sandrasaigaran P. 2021. Perception and acceptance of genetically modified foods in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Science Advanced Technology. 1:144–150. https://mjsat.com.my/index.php/mjsat/article/view/29.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders C, Dalziel P, Tait P, Driver T, Guenther M, Rutherford P, Saunders J. 2021. A global perspective on New Zealand's agriculture and horticultural brand. Invited address to the Sustainable and Profitable farming – what is our brand conference. New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science (NZIAHS) forum, ‘Sustainable and profitable farming – what is our brand?” Lincoln University, Canterbury.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders C, Kaye-Blake W, Cagatay S. 2003. Economic impacts on New Zealand of GM crops: result from partial equilibrium modelling. Research Report No. 261, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University, New Zealand. http://dspace.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/743.
   Google Scholar
• Scheitrum D, Schaefer KA, Nes K. 2020. Realized and potential global production effects from genetic engineering. Food Policy. 93:101882. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101882.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer FM. 1999. New perspectives on economic growth and technological innovation. Washington (DC): Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott MJ, Gould F, Lorenzen M, Grubbs N, Edwards O, O’Brochta D. 2018. Agricultural production: assessment of the potential use of Cas9-mediated gene drive systems for agricultural pest control. Journal of Responsible Innovation. 5:S98–S120. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1410343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selfa T, Lindberg S, Bain C. 2021. Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the United States: tensions, contestations, and realignments. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene. 9:1. doi:10.1525/elementa.2020.00153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sendhil R, Yadav S, Prashat PR, Ragupathy R. 2021. Consumer perception and preference towards genetically modified (GM) foods: bibliometric evidence and policy imperatives. agriRxiv. Wallingford. 2021 Jul 5. p. 42. doi:10.31220/agriRxiv.2021.00061.
   Google Scholar
• Shahbandeh M. 2022. Import volume of soybeans worldwide in 2021/22, by country. [accessed 2022 April 27]. https://www.statista.com/statistics/612422/soybeans-import-volume-worldwide-by-country/.
   Google Scholar
• Shew AM, Nalley LL, Snell HA, Nayga RM, Dixon BL. 2018. CRISPR versus GMOs: public acceptance and valuation. Global Food Security. 19:71–80. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.005.
   Google Scholar
• Sieradzki Z, Mazur M, Król B, Kwiatek K. 2021. Prevalence of genetically modified soybean in animal feedingstuffs in Poland. Journal of Veterinary Research. 65:93–99. doi:10.2478/jvetres-2021-0012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith V, Wesseler JHH, Zilberman D. 2021. New plant breeding technologies: an assessment of the political economy of the regulatory environment and implications for sustainability. Sustainability. 13:3687. doi:10.3390/su13073687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smyth SJ. 2017a. Canadian regulatory perspectives on genome engineered crops. GM Crops & Food. 8:35–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smyth SJ. 2017b. Genetically modified crops, regulatory delays, and international trade. Food and Energy Security. 6:78–86. doi:10.1002/fes3.100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sońta M, Rekiel A, Więcek J, Batorska M, Puppel K. 2021. Alternative protein sources vs. GM soybean meal as feedstuff for pigs—meat quality and health-promoting indicators. Animals. 11:Article 177. doi:10.3390/ani11010177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spendrup S, Eriksson D, Fernqvist F. 2021. Swedish consumerś attitudes and values to genetic modification and conventional plant breeding – the case of fruit and vegetables. GM Crops & Food. 12:342–360. doi:10.1080/21645698.2021.1921544.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stein A, Rodríguez-Cerezo E. 2010. International trade and the global pipeline of new GM crops. Nature Biotechnology. 28:23–25. doi:10.1038/nbt0110-23b.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland C, Gleim S, Smyth SJ. 2021. Correlating genetically modified crops, glyphosate use, and increased carbon sequestration. Sustainability. 13:11679. doi:10.3390/su132111679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallapragada M, Hardy BW, Lybrand E, Hallman WK. 2021. Impact of abstract versus concrete conceptualization of genetic modification (GM) technology on public perceptions. Risk Analysis. 41:976–991. doi:10.1111/risa.13591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tas M, Balci M, Yüksel A, Sahin Yesilçubuk N. 2015. Consumer awareness, perception and attitudes towards genetically modified foods in Turkey. British Food Journal. 117:1426–1439. doi:10.1108/BFJ-01-2014-0047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiruthy N. 2017. Open source—is it an alternative to intellectual property? The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 20:68–86.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson P. 2021. Food system transformation and the role of gene technology: an ethical analysis. Ethics & International Affairs. 35:35–49. doi:10.1017/S0892679421000034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourism NZ. 2009. Pure as celebrating 10 years of 100% Pure New Zealand. [accessed 27 April 2022]. https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/1544/pure-as-celebrating-10-years-of-100-pure-new-zealand.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Touyz LZG. 2013. Genetically modified foods, cancer, and diet: myths and reality. Current Oncology. 20:59–61. doi:10.3747/co.20.1283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trading Economics . 2022. Australia exports to China. [accessed 2022 April 17]. https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/exports/china#:~:text=Australia%20Exports%20to%20China%20was,COMTRADE%20database%20on%20international%20trade.
   Google Scholar
• Tsakok I, Mengoub FE. 2021. Genetically modified organisms: promising or problematic for food security? A review of major developments in selected industrialized countries part I. Policy Brief, Plocy Centre for the New South. p. 12. https://www.policycenter.ma/sites/default/files/PB_21-02_Tsakok-Mengoub.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Turkec A, Lucas SJ, Karlik E. 2016. Monitoring the prevalence of genetically modified (GM) soybean in Turkish food and feed products. Food Control. 59:766–772. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.06.052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnbull C, Lillemo M, Hvoslef-Eide TAK. 2021. Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom – a review. Frontiers in Plant Science. 12:630396. doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.630396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyagi S, Kesiraju K, Saakre M, Rathinam M, Raman V, Pattanayak D, Sreevathsa R. 2020. Genome editing for resistance to insect pests: an emerging tool for crop improvement. ACS Omega. 5:20674–20683. doi:10.1021/acsomega.0c01435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Department of Agriculture. 2018. Sectary perdue issues USDA statement on plant breeding innovation. USDA Press Releases. [accessed 2021 Nov 14]. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation.
   Google Scholar
• Vega Rodríguez A, Rodríguez-Oramas C, Sanjuán Velázquez E, Hardisson de la Torre A, Rubio Armendáriz C, Carrascosa Iruzubieta C. 2022. Myths and realities about genetically modified food: a risk-benefit analysis. Applied Sciences. 12: Article 2861. doi:10.3390/app12062861.
   Google Scholar
• Winichayakul S, Beechey-Gradwell Z, Muetzel S, Molano G, Crowther T, Lewis S, Xue H, Burke J, Bryan G, Roberts NJ. 2020. In vitro gas production and rumen fermentation profile of fresh and ensiled genetically modified high–metabolizable energy ryegrass. Journal of Dairy Science. 103:2405–2418. doi:10.3168/jds.2019-16781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2019. New Zealand Trade. World Integrated Trade Solution. [accessed 2022 April 17]. https://wits.worldbank.org/CountrySnapshot/en/NZL.
   Google Scholar
• Wuepper D, Wree P, Ardali G. 2019. Does information change German consumers’ attitudes about genetically modified food? European Review of Agricultural Economics. 46:53–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunderlich S, Gatto KA. 2015. Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. American society for nutrition. Advances in Nutrition. 6:842–851. doi:10.3945/an.115.008870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xinhua. 2021. China continues to receive largest share of New Zealand exports: statistics. [accessed 2022 April 17] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/asiapacific/2021-07/26/c_1310086422.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Yang R, Ramsaran R, Wibowo S. 2018. An investigation into the perceptions of Chinese consumers towards the country-of-origin of dairy products. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 42:205–216. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang YT, Chen B. 2016. Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96:1851–1855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaidi SS, Mukhtar MS, Mansoor S. 2018. Genome editing: targeting susceptibility genes for plant disease resistance. Trends in Biotechnology. 36:898–906. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.04.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Fan Y, Chen C, Cao J, Pu H. 2021. Consumer perception, mandatory labeling, and traceability of GM soybean oil: evidence from Chinese urban consumers. GM Crops & Food. 12:36–46. doi:10.1080/21645698.2020.180785.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zheng Q, Wang HH. 2021. Do consumers view the genetically modified food labeling systems differently? “contains GMO” versus “Non-GMO” labels. The Chinese Economy. doi:10.1080/10971475.2021.1890356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zilberman D, Holland TG, Trilnick I. 2018. Agricultural GMOs—what we know and where scientists disagree. Sustainability. 10:1514. doi:10.3390/su10051514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar