New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology

REFERENCES

• Abbott, A. Europe's genetically edited plants stuck in legal limbo. Scientists frustrated at delay in deciding if GM regulations apply to precision gene editing. Nature 2015;528:319-20; PMID:26672535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Academies Francaises. Avis des Académies nationales d'Agriculture, de Médecine, de Pharmacie, des Sciences, des Technologies, et Vétérinaire sur la publication récente de G.E. Séralini et al. sur la toxicité d'un OGM. Paris, France: Academies d'Agriculture de France, Académie Nationale de Médicine, Académie Nationale de Pharmacie, Institut de France Académie des Sciences, Académie des Téchnologies, Académie Vétérinaire de France; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• ACRE. Report 3, Vol. Report 3 23. London: ACRE, Advisory Committee On Releases To The Environment; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• ACRE. Vol. Report 2 14. London: ACRE, Advisory Committee On Releases To The Environment, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• ACRE. Vol. Report 1 13. London: ACRE, Advisory Committee On Releases To The Environment; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Ammann K. Opinion of Klaus (Niklaus) Ammann (Call for opinions Docket Number FDA-2015-N-3403). 2015. Available from: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Ammann-Opinion-Docket-Number-FDA-2015-N-3403-20151112.pdf
   Google Scholar
• APHIS & USDA importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms PROPOSED RULES. No. 7008. Federal Register 2017;82:1-32.
   Google Scholar
• Arber W. Transgenic plants for food security in the context of development, Vol. 27. ( ed. I Potrykus, K Ammann). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, vol. 27 of New Biotechnology and Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam; 2010; 517-21.
   Google Scholar
• Arjó G, Portero M, Piñol C, Viñas J, Matias-Guiu X, Capell T, Bartholomaeus A, Parrott W, Christou P. Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats. Transgenic Res 2013; 22(2):255-267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachtle C, Stellbrink B, Winkler P. The Amflora Potato: A question of proper strength. Chemie in Unserer Zeit 2011; 45:250-5; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ciuz.201100543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baptiste C. Press Release European Parliament 1. Brussels, Belgium: envi-press European Parliament; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Bonfadelli H. The Internet and knowledge gaps: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Eur J Commun 2002; 17:65-84; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323102017001607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonfadelli H. The public and its everyday media as object of media research. Schweizerisches Archiv Fur Volkskunde 1999; 95:197-210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunge J. 2016 June 9. Agriculture groups ratchet up pressure on EU over approval of GMO seeds. Wall Street Journal. Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/agriculture-groups-ratchet-up-pressure-on-eu-over-approval-of-gmo-seeds-1465499827
   Google Scholar
• Council-Biotechnology. Scientists in U.S. reject heavily publicized rat study, other studies show no impact of feeding biotech grain. Washington DC, USA: Council-Biotechnology; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Carter C, Smith A. Estimating the market effect of a food scare: The case of genetically modified StarLink corn. Review of Economics and Statistics 2007; 89:522-33; http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/rest.89.3.522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caruana GD. Le Figaro 1. Paris, France: le Figaro; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Chowdhury E, Mikami O, Nakajima Y, Kuribara H, Hino A. Detection of genetically modified maize DNA fragments in the intestinal contents of pigs fed StarLink (TM) CBH351. Vet Hum Toxicol 2003; 45:95-6; PMID:12678298.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Church G. Perspective: Encourage the innovators. Nature 2015; 528:S7-S7; PMID:26630599; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/528S7a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conko G, Kershen D, Miller H, Parrott W. A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms. Nat Biotechnol 2016; 34:493-503; PMID:27153279; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3568
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad A, Schröter-Kermani C, Hoppe HW, Rüther M, Pieper S, Kolossa-Gehring M. Glyphosate in German adults – Time trend (2001 to 2015) of human exposure to a widely used herbicide. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2017; 220:8-16; PMID:27838355; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.09.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison J. GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations. Plant Science; in press.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison J. GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations. Plant Sci 2010; 178:94-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison J, Bertheau Y. Review: EU regulations on the traceability and detection of GMOs: Difficulties in interpretation, implementation and compliance. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2007; 2:077.
   Google Scholar
• Davison J, Bertheau Y. The theory and practice of European traceability regulations for GM food and feed. Cereal Foods World 2008; 53:186–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devos Y, Aguilera J, Diveki Z, Gomes A, Liu Y, Paoletti C, du Jardin P, Herman L, Perry JN, Waigmann E. EFSA's scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence: looking back and ahead. Transgenic Res 2014; 23:1-25; PMID:23963741; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-013-9741-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EFSA Conclusion. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA J 2015; 13:107.
   Google Scholar
• EFSA Guidelines, Renn O. When food is cooking up a storm, proven recipes for risk communications. 2012. Available from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/corporate/pub/riskcommguidelines.htm; http://www.ask-force.org/web/EFSA/EFSA-Riskcommguidelines-Food-en-2013.pdf; http://www.ask-force.org/web/EFSA/EFSA-Riskcommguidelines-Food-de-2013.pdf; http://www.ask-force.org/web/EFSA/EFSA-Riskcommguidelines-Food-fr-2013.pdf; http://www.ask-force.org/web/EFSA/EFSA-Riskcommguidelines-Food-it-2013.pdf
   Google Scholar
• EFSA Independence in Collection of 32 website links on the Independence of EFSA, Vol. 20121028. ( ed. EFSA E). Parma, Italy: EFSA; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• EFSA Scientific Opinion Scientific. Opinion on a request from the European Commission for the assessment of the scientific elements put forward by Hungary to support the prohibition for the placing on the market of GM potato EH92-527-1 for cultivation purposes in Hungary. EFSA J 2012; 10:3021; http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.3021
   Google Scholar
• EFSA statement final review of the Séralini et al. (2012a) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology. EFSA J 2012; 10:1-10.
   Google Scholar
• EFSA update. EFSA updates toxicological profile glyphosate. Press News, 3; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• EFSA, EuropaBio. Increasing timelines for risk assessment of GMOs in EFSA, scientific opinion now takes over five years, up from less than two years in 2006. EFSA Journal 2015. Available from: http://www.europabio.org/sites/default/files/position/timelines_for_risk_assessment_in_efsa_july_2015_0.pdf; http://www.ask-force.org/web/EFSA/EFSA-Increasing-Timelines-RA-.GMO-EuropaBio-20150706.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ellul-Grech J. John Dalli A Corrupt EU Commissioner. Blog documentation of Ellul-Grech Joseph. 2010. Available from: http://ec-eu-john-dalli.blogspot.ch/; http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Ellul-Grech-John-Dalli-A-Corrupt-EU-Commissioner20100902.pdf
   Google Scholar
• EPSO, Beltran JP. Open letter to the President of the European Parliament to encourage society to respect independent science advice and to condemn physical attacks on scientists. And answer of President Schultz from 31 August 2016. EPSO Journal 2016. Available from: http://www.epsoweb.org/respect-science-advice; http://www.epsoweb.org/file/2214; http://www.ask-force.org/web/EFSA/EPSO-Letter-President-EU-Parliament-EFSA-respect-scientists-20160701.pdf; Answer from the EP-President Schultz http://www.ask-force.org/web/EFSA/Schultz-Response-EP-President-to-EPSO-President-EFSA-bomb-letters-20160831.pdf
   Google Scholar
• EU-Directive 2015–412 in European Union Law. European Community, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• EU-Directive DIRECTIVE 2001/18/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities L 106/1:38; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• EU-documents-A. Luxembourg: CURIA Eu court; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• EU-Regulation in Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 32003R1829. ( ed. E. Union) 4 (268-224-228). Brussels, Belgium: eur-Lex; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001 - 2010). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; (2010).
   Google Scholar
• European Commission Transgenic Plants. Breaking the deadlock. RTD Info; 2001; 31:25-34.
   Google Scholar
• EUSJA Board. EUSJA statement on embargoes and manipulation. Bad Gastein, Germany: EUSJA, European Union of Science Journalist Association; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• EUCARPIA BB, Richard V. EUCARPIA declaration 1. Zurich, Switzerland: EUCARPIA Congress; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation, V., Vol. RS 817.022.51 ( ed. Affaiers F). Bern, Switzerland: Government of Switzerland; 2008; 1057-60.
   Google Scholar
• Fedoroff Nina. GMO regulatory reform: The way forward. Docket Number FDA-2015-N-3403. 2015. Available from: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Fedoroff-Statement-GMO-regulatory-reform-Docket-Number-FDA-2015-N-3403-20151106.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fraser E. Social vulnerability and ecological fragility: Building bridges between social and natural sciences using the Irish Potato Famine as a case study. Conserv Ecol 2003; 7(2): Article 9.
   Google Scholar
• Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, Durant J, Allansdottir A, Bonfadelli H, Boy D, de Cheveigné S, Fjaestad B, Gutteling JM, et al. Biotechnology and the European public. Nat Biotechnol 2000; 18:935-8; PMID:10973210; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/79403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelvin SB. Plant proteins involved in agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation. In: VanAlfen NK BG, Leach JE, eds., Annual Review of Phytopathology 2010; 48:45–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GENeS. 2016 April 14. UPDATE: USDA decides first CRISPR-edited crop is not regulated. GENES. Available from: http://geneticexperts.org/usda-considers-whether-crispr-edited-mushroom-is-regulated/ AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Barrangou-UPDATE-USDA-decides-first-CRISPR-Crop-not-regulatend-20160219-updated-20160414.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Genetic Literacy Project Gallery in Genetic Literacy Project 15. Washington, DC: GLP, Washington DC, USA; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Giddings V, Potrykus I, Klaus A, Fedoroff N. Confronting the Gordian knot, Opinion. Nat Biotechnol 2012; 30:208-9; PMID:22398608; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2145
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glover AE, et al. Scientifically unfounded precaution drives European Commission's recommendations on EDC regulation, while defying common sense, well-established science and risk assessment principles, Editorial. Toxicol Lett 223:A1-A4 (20130713). PMID:23916789
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gregoire M. Letter APHIS to Henk Schouten 2. Washington, DC: APHIS; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta A. Creating a global biosafety regime. Int J Biotechnol 2000; 2:205-30; http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2000.000126
   Google Scholar
• Hardy B. NOVO-Argumente, Vol. 117. Frankfurt, Germany: NOVO Argumente; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Hartung F, Schiemann J. Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU. Plant J 2014; 78:742-52; PMID:24330272; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12413
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heidi L. US rethinks crop regulation. Committee begins study to guide oversight of gene-edited organisms. Nature 2016; 532:158-159; PMID:27075074
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House of Commons. Vol. HC 158 Published on 11 June 2016 by authority of the House of Commons ( ed. H.o. Commons). London: House of Commons; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• IARC in IARC Monograph 112, Vol. 112. (ed. IARC) 92. Geneva, Switzerland: IARC-WHO; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Jane B. Feed Navigator 2. Crawley, UK: William Reed Business Media SAS; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Jany K. Critical remarks on the long-term feeding study by Séralini et al. (2012). Does the study provide proof of health threats posed by genetically modified foods? EFFL - European Food and Feed Law Review 2013; 3:176-87.
   Google Scholar
• Jones H. GM foods: Is there a way forward? Proc Nutr Soc 2015; 74:198-201; PMID:26186672; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665115002098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones HD. Are plants engineered with CRISPR technology genetically modified organisms? The Biochemist 2016; 38(2016):14–7. Available from: http://www.biochemist.org/bio/03803/0014/038030014.pdf; http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Jones-Are-plants-engineered-with-CRISPR-technology-GMOs-201606.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jones HD. Regulatory uncertainty over genome editing. Nat Plants 2015; 1:14011; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2014.11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanchiswamy C. DNA-free genome editing methods for targeted crop improvement. Plant Cell Reports 2016; 35:1469-74; PMID:27100964; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00299-016-1982-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanchiswamy C, Malnoy M, Velasco R, Kim J-S, Viola R. Non-GMO genetically edited crop plants. Trends Biotechnol 2015; 33:489-91; PMID:25978870; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly-E. Science Business 1. Brussels, Belgium: Science Business; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Kershen DL. European decisions about the Whack-a-Mole game. GM Crops & Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain 2014; 5:1-4; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.28278
   Google Scholar
• King L, Nogareda F, Weill FX, Mariani-Kurkdjian P, Loukiadis E, Gault G, Jourdan-DaSilva N, Bingen E, Macé M, Thevenot D, et al. Outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O104:H4 associated with organic Fenugreek sprouts, France, June 2011. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:1588-94; PMID:22460976; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klaus A. Genomic misconception: A fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation. New Biotechnol 2014; 31:1-17; PMID:23684919; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2013.04.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuntz M. Destruction of public and governmental experiments of GMO in Europe. GM Crops & Food 2012; 3:1-7; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.21231
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuntz M. Genetic Literacy Project 3. Arlington, VA: Genetic Literacy Project; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Kuntz M. The postmodern assault on science: If all truths are equal, who cares what science has to say? EMBO Rep 2012; 13:885-9; PMID:22986553; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuntz M, Davison J, Ricroch A. What the French ban of Bt MON810 maize means for science-based risk assessment. Nat Biotech 2013; 31:498-500; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2613
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledford H. US regulation misses some GM crops. Nature 2013; 500:389-90; PMID:23969441; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/500389a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louet S. EU Court overrules France's Bt maize ban. Nat Biotech 2000; 18:487-487; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/75335
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusser M, Davies H. Comparative regulatory approaches for groups of new plant breeding techniques. New Biotechnol 2013; 30:437-46; PMID:23474021; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2013.02.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusser M, Parisi C, Plan D, Rodríguez-Cerezo E. New plant breeding techniques. State of-the-art and prospects for commercial development. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports/EUR 24760 EN; 2011; 184.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch D, David V. 2001, April 5. The regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A case-study of contemporary European regulatory politics. Council on Foreign Relations Press. Available from: http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688
   Google Scholar
• Marcel K, Ricroch A, Davison J. BlogActiv 2. Brussels, Belgium: EurActiv; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Masip G, Sabalza M, Pérez-Massot E, Banakar R, Cebrian D, Twyman RM, Capell T, Albajes R, Christou P. Paradoxical EU agricultural policies on genetically engineered crops. Trends in Plant Science 2013; 18:312-24; PMID:23623240; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2013.03.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxmen A. Gene-edited animals face US regulatory crackdown. Nature, 19 January 2017.
   Google Scholar
• McHughen A, Smyth S. Regulation of agricultural biotechnology: The United States and Canada ( eds. C Wozniak, A McHughen). Netherlands: Springer; 2012; 35-56.
   Google Scholar
• Michelle M. Genetic Literacy Project 6. Washington, DC: GLP; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Miller H. Biotechnology Set. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 2008; 39-62.
   Google Scholar
• Morris S, Spillane C. EU GM crop regulation: A road to resolution or a regulatory roundabout? Eur J Risk Regulation 2010; 4:359-69.
   Google Scholar
• NAS et al. NEWS 6. Washington, DC: NAS; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• NAS Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: NAS; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• NAS National Academy of Sciences et al. Introduction of recombinant DNA-engineered organisms into the environment: Key issues. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Rev Biotechnol 2014; 34:77-88; PMID:24041244; http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer R. 2013 April 25EU GMO policy paradox: Farmers can't plant GM corn, but it can be imported. International Business Times. Available from: http://www.ibtimes.com/eu-gmo-policy-paradox-farmers-cant-plant-gm-corn-it-can-be-imported-1217873
   Google Scholar
• Panchin A. Toxicity of roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is not supported by statistical tests. Food Chem Toxicol 2012; 53:475; PMID:23142398
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panchin A. Toxicity of roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is not supported by statistical tests. Food Chem Toxicol 2013; 53:475-475; PMID:23142398; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.10.039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parrott W, Giddings V. FORBES 4. Washington, DC: FORBES; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Perry J, Arpaia S, Bartsch D, Kiss J, Messéan A, Nuti M, Sweet JB, Tebbe CC. Response to “The anglerfish deception.” EMBO Rep 2012; 13:481-2; PMID:22584357; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitzschke A, Hirt H. New insights into an old story: Agrobacterium-induced tumour formation in plants by plant transformation. Embo J 2010; 29:1021-32; PMID:20150897; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2010.8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podevin N, Davies H, Hartung F, Nogué F, Casacuberta J. Site-directed nucleases: A paradigm shift in predictable, knowledge-based plant breeding. Trends Biotechnol 2013; 31:375-83; PMID:23601269; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.03.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podevin N, Devos Y, Davies H, Nielsen K. Transgenic or not? No simple answer! New biotechnology-based plant breeding techniques and the regulatory landscape. EMBO Rep 2012; 13:1057-61; PMID:23154464; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porcar M, Juárez-Pérez V. PCR-based identification of Bacillus thuringiensis pesticidal crystal genes. FEMS Microbiol Reviews 2003; 26:419-32; PMID:12586389; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2003.tb00624.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prakash CS. Financial Chronicle; 4. Hyderabad, India:Financial Chronicle (FC); 2015.
   Google Scholar
• PRRI. LMOs or traits of which risks assessments suggest that they are unlikely to cause adverse effects - Letter to Dr. Ahmed Djoglaf, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2009. Available from: http://www.ask-force.org/web/PRRI-MOP5/PRRI-LMOs-unlikely-Adverse-Effects-Notification-2009-103-20090914.pdf
   Google Scholar
• PRRI in PRRI Letter 6. Brussels, Belgium: Public Regulation and Research Initiative PRRI; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• PRRI. CBD. Nagoya, Japan; 2006-10. Available at: I:\\Katexte-DESKTOP-SQ3ECMJ-DESKTOP-SQ3ECMJ\\Davison\\www.pubresreg.org
   Google Scholar
• PRRI. PRRI letter to EU commission: The impact of proposed changes in the EU rules for GMOs on public research and answer of SANCO. Brussels, Belgium: PRRI; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• PRRI. PRRI COP-MOP5 Statement on the Strategic Plan, Exemptions. Nagoya, Japan: PRRI; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• PRRI. Brussels, Belgium: PRRI Public Research and Regulation Initiative 16 May 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Ricroch A, Ammann K, Kuntz M. Editing EU legislation to fit plant genome editing. The use of genome editing technologies in plant breeding requires a novel regulatory approach for new plant varieties that involves farmers. EMBO Reports 2016; 17(10): 1365-1369; PMID:27629042; http://dx.doi.org/10.15252/embr.201643099
   Google Scholar
• Riviere-Wekstein G. 2010 January 19. OGM: Le Haut conseil des biotechnologies (HCB) répond à Corinne Lepage et à Novethic. Available from: http://agriculture-environnement.fr/actualites,12/ogm-le-haut-conseil-des-biotechnologies-hcb-repond-a-corinne-lepage-et-a-novethic
   Google Scholar
• Robert A, Western Producer. The Western Producer 6. Saskatoon, Calgary, Canada: Western Producer; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Royal Society. GM-plants, questions and answers. Contract No.: DES3710. London, UK: Royal Society; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Ryffel G. Making the most of GM potatoes. Nat Biotech 2010; 28:318-318; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt0410-318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• San-Juan-Hernandez I. JUDGMENT COMMENTARY: JUDGMENT OF 13 DECEMBER 2013, T-240/10 - HUNGARY V COMMISSION (“AMFLORA POTATO”). Actualidad Juridica Ambiental 2014; 34-44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandra S. Genetic Literacy Project 5. Washington, DC: GLP, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Sansone K. 2011 March 5. John Dalli casts doubt on Libya footage. Times of Malta;Sect. + 3p comments.
   Google Scholar
• SAP-Report 2000–06 20. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt K, Döhring J, Kohl C, Pla M, Kok EJ, Glandorf DC, Custers R, van der Voet H, Sharbati J, Einspanier R, et al. Proposed criteria for the evaluation of the scientific quality of mandatory rat and mouse feeding trials with whole food/feed derived from genetically modified plants. Archives of Toxicology 2016; 90:2287-91; PMID:27325310; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00204-016-1762-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schouten H, Krens F, Jacobsen K, Jacobsen E. Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants - International regulations for genetically modified organisms should be altered to exempt cisgenesis. EMBO Rep. 2006; 7:750-3; PMID:16880817; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Séralini G-E, et al. RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol 2012, 2014; 50:4221-31; PMID:22999595; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siruguri V, Sesikeran B, Bhat R. Starlink genetically modified corn and allergenicity in an individual. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004; 113:1003-4; PMID:15148966; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2004.01.571
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smart R, Blum M, Wesseler J. EU member states' voting for authorizing genetically engineered crops: A regulatory gridlock. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 2015; 64:244-62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smyth S. The state of genetically modified crop regulation in Canada. GM Crops & Food 2014; 5:195-203; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/21645698.2014.947843
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smyth S, Phillips P. Risk, regulation and biotechnology: The case of GM crops. GM Crops & Food 2014; 5:170-177; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/21645698.2014.945880
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé J-B, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012; 50(3–4): 1134-1148; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprink T, Eriksson D, Schiemann J, Hartung F. Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process- vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts. Plant Cell Reports 2016; 35:1493-506; PMID:27142995; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00299-016-1990-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein AJ, Rodríguez-Cerezo E. Low-level presence of new GM crops: An issue on the rise for countries where they lack approval. AgBioForum 2010; 13(2):173-82. Available from: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Stein-Low-Level-Presence-2010.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Steinbrecher R. EcoNexus 10. 2015. Available at: www.econexus.info/sites/econexus/files/NBT%20Briefing
   Google Scholar
• Sutton S, Assaad A, Steinmetz C, Rothenberg M. Starlink genetically modified corn and allergenicity in an individual - Reply. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004; 113:1004-5; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2004.01.572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliabue G. The meaningless pseudo‐category of “GMOs:” The trouble with the “new techniques” for genetically modifying crops demonstrates the illogical process‐based definition of GMOs in EU regulation. EMBO Rep 2016; 17(1):10-13; http://dx.doi.org.10.15252/embr.201541385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliabue G. The necessary “GMO” denialism and scientific consensus. Jcom-J Sci Commun 2016; 15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliabue G. The nonsensical GMO pseudo-category and a precautionary rabbit hole. Nat Biotechnol 2015; 33:907-8; PMID:26348954; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3333
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliabue G. The precautionary principle: its misunderstandings and misuses in relation to “GMOs.” N Biotechnol 2016; 33:437-9; PMID:26923807; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2016.02.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• USDA-Canada. Name of potato variety Lenape withdrawn. Am J Potato Res 1970; 47:103-103.
   Google Scholar
• USDA, Firko M. APHIS in Letter to Yinong Yang, Pennsylvania University 3. Riverdale, MD: USDA: 2016.
   Google Scholar
• van-der-Meer Jos WM. Scientific scrutiny in Europe is essential. London: Sense about Science; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eenennaam A, Young A. Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations. J Animal Sci online; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• VIB-Report. A scientific analysis of the rat study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini et al. Gent, Belgium: The Flemish Interuniversity for Biotechnology [Vlaams Interuniversitair Instituut voor Biotechnologie (VIB)]; 2012; 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Wandelt C. Implementation of general surveillance for Amflora Potato cultivation – Data management. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit 2007; 2:70-1; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00003-007-0240-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterfield B, Gosten E. 2014 November 13. Jean-Claude Juncker ‘sacks’ EU scientific adviser over her pro-GM views. The Telegraph. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11229774/Jean-Claude-Juncker-sacks-EU-scientific-adviser-over-her-pro-GM-views.html
   Google Scholar
• Weaver S, Morris M. Risks associated with genetic modification: An annotated bibliography of peer reviewed natural science publications. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 2005; 18:157-89; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-0639-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welt-on-line. 2011 May 8. EU-Kommissar widerruft Beistand für Diktator Gaddafi. Die Welt online.
   Google Scholar
• WHO-FAO Pesticide residues in food 2016 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, 110; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Windels P, et al. Qualitative and event-specific PCR real-time detection methods for StarLink maize. Eur Food Res Technol 2003; 216:259-63; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00217-002-0652-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolt JD, Kan W, Bing Y. The regulatory status of genome-edited crops. Plant Biotechnol J 2015; PMID:26251102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolt J, et al. Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants. Transgenic Res 2010; 19:425-36; PMID:19757133; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-009-9321-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woo J, Kim J, Kwon SI, Corvalán C, Cho SW, Kim H, Kim SG, Kim ST, Choe S, Kim JS. DNA-free genome editing in plants with preassembled CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Nat Biotech; [epub ahead of print]; 2015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Grain Staff. 2016 July 22. E.U. authorizes three GM soybeans. World-Graincom. Available from: http://www.world-grain.com/articles/news_home/World_Grain_News/2016/07/EU_authorizes_three_GM_soybean.aspx?ID=%7bF37449E3-2382-467D-B64A-CD3AE4F833C6%7d&cck=1; http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/World-Grain-Staff-EU-authorizes-3-Soybeans-20160722.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wynne B, Wickson F. Reply to J.N. Perry et al. EMBO Rep 2012; 13:482-3; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yonemochi C, Ikeda T, Harada C, Kusama T, Hanazumi M. Influence of transgenic corn (CBH 351, named Starlink) on health condition of dairy cows and transfer of Cry9C protein and cry9C gene to milk, blood, liver and muscle. Animal Sci J 2003; 74:81-88; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1344-3941.2003.00090.x
   Google Scholar
• Zeljenkova D, Aláčová R, Ondrejková J, Ambrušová K, Bartušová M, Kebis A, Kovrižnych J, Rollerová E, Szabová E, Wimmerová S, et al. One-year oral toxicity study on a genetically modified maize MON810 variety in Wistar Han RCC rats (EU 7th Framework Programme project GRACE). Arch Toxicol 2016; 90:2531-62; PMID:27439414; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00204-016-1798-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeljenkova D, Ambrušová K, Bartušová M, Kebis A, Kovrižnych J, Krivošíková Z, Kuricová M, Líšková A, Rollerová E, Spustová V, et al. Ninety-day oral toxicity studies on two genetically modified maize MON810 varieties in Wistar Han RCC rats (EU 7th Framework Programme project GRACE). Arch Toxicol 2014; 88:2289-314; PMID:25270621; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00204-014-1374-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar