Journal articles: 'Genetically engineered crops'

1

Davis, Lance A. "Genetically Engineered Crops." Engineering 2, no. 3 (September 2016): 268–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2016.03.007.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Gurian-Sherman;, D. "Risks of Genetically Engineered Crops." Science 301, no. 5641 (September 26, 2003): 1845d—1845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.301.5641.1845d.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Gould, Fred. "Evolutionary Biology and Genetically Engineered Crops." BioScience 38, no. 1 (January 1988): 26–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1310643.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Winklerprins, Antoinette M. g. A. "Genetically Engineered Crops as Necessary Invention." Geographical Review 107, no. 4 (October 1, 2017): 567–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gere.12257.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Meeusen, R. L., and G. Warren. "Insect Control with Genetically Engineered Crops." Annual Review of Entomology 34, no. 1 (January 1989): 373–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.34.010189.002105.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Brunke, K. "Insect control with genetically engineered crops." Trends in Biotechnology 9, no. 1 (January 1991): 197–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-7799(91)90063-n.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Keeler, Kathleen H. "Can Genetically Engineered Crops Become Weeds?" Nature Biotechnology 7, no. 11 (November 1989): 1134–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1189-1134.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Biddle, Justin B. "Genetically engineered crops and responsible innovation." Journal of Responsible Innovation 4, no. 1 (January 2, 2017): 24–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1287522.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Mishra, Maneesh, and Swati Kumari. "Biosafety issues related to genetically engineered crops." MOJ Current Research & Reviews 1, no. 6 (December 20, 2018): 272–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.15406/mojcrr.2018.01.00045.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Benítez Candia, Nidia, Gabriela Ulke Mayans, Pilar Gómez Paniagua, Claudia Rezende Ribeiro, José Velázquez Franco, Daigo Kamada, Laura Mendoza de Arbo, and Danilo Fernández Ríos. "Perception of genetically engineered crops in Paraguay." GM Crops & Food 12, no. 1 (January 2, 2021): 409–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2021.1969835.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Letourneau, Deborah K. "Regulatory Decision-Making for Genetically Engineered Crops." Ecology 82, no. 5 (May 2001): 1500–1501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1500:rdmfge]2.0.co;2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Prado, Jose Rafael, Gerrit Segers, Toni Voelker, Dave Carson, Raymond Dobert, Jonathan Phillips, Kevin Cook, et al. "Genetically Engineered Crops: From Idea to Product." Annual Review of Plant Biology 65, no. 1 (April 29, 2014): 769–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050213-040039.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Brennan, Charles. "Genetically Engineered Crops: Interim Policies, Uncertain Legislation." International Journal of Food Science & Technology 44, no. 7 (July 2009): 1460–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2007.01657.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Onwubiko, HA. "Possible Health Hazards from Genetically Engineered Crops." Bio-Research 9, no. 2 (December 10, 2013): 793. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/br.v9i2.98441.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Gates, Dr Phil. "The Environmental Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops." Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 13, no. 1 (December 1996): 181–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02648725.1996.10647928.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Marvier, M., Y. Carriere, N. Ellstrand, P. Gepts, P. Kareiva, E. Rosi-Marshall, B. E. Tabashnik, and L. L. Wolfenbarger. "ECOLOGY: Harvesting Data from Genetically Engineered Crops." Science 320, no. 5875 (April 25, 2008): 452–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1154521.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Dunn, S. Eliza, John L. Vicini, Kevin C. Glenn, David M. Fleischer, and Matthew J. Greenhawt. "The allergenicity of genetically modified foods from genetically engineered crops." Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 119, no. 3 (September 2017): 214–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2017.07.010.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Song, Guo-qing, Aaron E. Walworth, and Wayne H. Loescher. "Grafting of Genetically Engineered Plants." Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 140, no. 3 (May 2015): 203–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.21273/jashs.140.3.203.

Full text

Abstract:

Grafting is a well-established agricultural practice, and it now has implications for the commercialization of transgenic plants. In transgrafted plants, only one part (scion or rootstock) is transgenic with the other part untransformed. However, transgenes may affect both mobile and immobile endogenous metabolites (e.g., RNAs, proteins, and phytohormones) and mobility has implications for transgrafting. In the phloem, long-distance transport of mobile metabolites can play important roles in plant development and signaling. In a transgrafted plant, an immobile transgene product (ITP) is not likely to be translocated across the graft union. In contrast, mobile transgene products (MTP) may be translocated across the graft. Regardless of the mobility of transgene products (TP), interaction of transgenic and nontransgenic parts in transgrafted plants through either the MTP or ITP has been demonstrated to be effective in facilitating changes in nontransgenic portions of the plant. Consequently, and particularly in fruit crops, transgrafting provides the potential for improving products from their nontransgenic parts with the possibility of minimizing the controversy over transgenic crops. This review focuses mainly on the mobility of TP and effects on the whole transgrafted plant.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

SAAB, ANNE. "Climate-Resilient Crops and International Climate Change Adaptation Law." Leiden Journal of International Law 29, no. 2 (April 29, 2016): 503–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156516000121.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThis article explores the role of international climate change adaptation law in promoting the use of genetically engineered crops as an adaptation strategy. The severity of climate change impacts and the realization that, by now, some adverse effects are inevitable, has intensified the urgency to devise effective adaptation strategies. Genetically engineered climate-resilient crops are presented as one possible means to adapt to the predicted adverse impacts of climate change on agriculture and crop yields. Despite increased attention on the research and development of climate-resilient crops, particularly by private sector seed corporations, there are many controversies surrounding this proposed adaptation strategy. The key contentions relate to apprehensions about genetically engineered crops more generally, the effectiveness of climate-resilient crops, and the involvement of the private sector in international climate change adaptation initiatives.The main argument in this article is that the emerging field of international climate change adaptation law contributes to promoting genetically engineered climate-resilient crops as a possible means of adaptation. Moreover, international adaptation law creates an enabling environment for the active engagement of private sector corporations in devising adaptation strategies. Notwithstanding controversies over genetically engineered crops and the role of the private sector, there has been little consideration so far of the influence of the growing international legal regime on climate change on the types of adaptation strategies that are devised and promoted.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Lee, David, Alice Chen, and Ramesh Nair. "Genetically Engineered Crops for Biofuel Production: Regulatory Perspectives." Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 25, no. 1 (January 2008): 331–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.5661/bger-25-331.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Sharkey, Stephen M., Brent J. Williams, and Kimberly M. Parker. "Herbicide Drift from Genetically Engineered Herbicide-Tolerant Crops." Environmental Science & Technology 55, no. 23 (November 23, 2021): 15559–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01906.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

FUJIMURA, Tatsuhito. "Usage of Genetically Engineered Crops and Its Perspects." Journal of Pesticide Science 22, no. 1 (1997): 48–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1584/jpestics.22.48.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

SHIMAMOTO, Ko. "The Global Food Problem and Genetically Engineered Crops." Kobunshi 49, no. 6 (2000): 363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1295/kobunshi.49.363.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Mitten, Donna H., Rob MacDonald, and Dirk Klonust. "Regulation of foods derived from genetically engineered crops." Current Opinion in Biotechnology 10, no. 3 (June 1999): 298–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0958-1669(99)80053-6.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Masip, Gemma, Maite Sabalza, Eduard Pérez-Massot, Raviraj Banakar, David Cebrian, Richard M. Twyman, Teresa Capell, Ramon Albajes, and Paul Christou. "Paradoxical EU agricultural policies on genetically engineered crops." Trends in Plant Science 18, no. 6 (June 2013): 312–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2013.03.004.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Sévenier, Robert, Ingrid M. van der Meer, Raoul Bino, and Andries J. Koops. "Increased Production of Nutriments by Genetically Engineered Crops." Journal of the American College of Nutrition 21, sup3 (June 2002): 199S—204S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2002.10719266.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

James, Rosalind R., Stephen P. DiFazio, Amy M. Brunner, and Steven H. Strauss. "Environmental effects of genetically engineered woody biomass crops." Biomass and Bioenergy 14, no. 4 (April 1998): 403–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0961-9534(97)10077-0.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Romeis, Jörg, Steven E. Naranjo, Michael Meissle, and Anthony M. Shelton. "Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control." Biological Control 130 (March 2019): 136–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.10.001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Dyer, John M., and Robert T. Mullen. "Development and potential of genetically engineered oilseeds." Seed Science Research 15, no. 4 (December 2005): 255–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/ssr2005216.

Full text

Abstract:

Oilseed crops are major sources of oils for human nutrition, and an increasing proportion is also being utilized for industrial purposes. Recent advances in our understanding of the basic biochemistry of seed oil biosynthesis, coupled with identification of genes for oilseed modification, have set the stage for the genetic engineering of oilseed crops that produce ‘designer’ plant seed oils tailored for specific applications. In this review we provide an overview of seed oil biosynthesis and highlight the enzymatic steps that have already been targeted for genetic manipulation, with the end goal of producing seed oils containing desired amounts of fatty acid components. Furthermore, we describe the identification of genes from various wild plant species that are capable of producing structurally diverse fatty acids, and how these advances open the door to the production of entirely novel oils in conventional oilseed crops. Transgenic oilseeds producing high amounts of these novel fatty acids represent renewable sources of raw materials that may compete with, and eventually replace, some petrochemicals that are derived from non-renewable crude oil.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Pixley, Kevin V., Jose B. Falck-Zepeda, Ken E. Giller, Leland L. Glenna, Fred Gould, Carol A. Mallory-Smith, David M. Stelly, and C. Neal Stewart. "Genome Editing, Gene Drives, and Synthetic Biology: Will They Contribute to Disease-Resistant Crops, and Who Will Benefit?" Annual Review of Phytopathology 57, no. 1 (August 25, 2019): 165–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-045954.

Full text

Abstract:

Genetically engineered crops have been grown for more than 20 years, resulting in widespread albeit variable benefits for farmers and consumers. We review current, likely, and potential genetic engineering (GE) applications for the development of disease-resistant crop cultivars. Gene editing, gene drives, and synthetic biology offer novel opportunities to control viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogens, parasitic weeds, and insect vectors of plant pathogens. We conclude that there will be no shortage of GE applications totackle disease resistance and other farmer and consumer priorities for agricultural crops. Beyond reviewing scientific prospects for genetically engineered crops, we address the social institutional forces that are commonly overlooked by biological scientists. Intellectual property regimes, technology regulatory frameworks, the balance of funding between public- and private-sector research, and advocacy by concerned civil society groups interact to define who uses which GE technologies, on which crops, and for the benefit of whom. Ensuring equitable access to the benefits of genetically engineered crops requires affirmative policies, targeted investments, and excellent science.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Herman, Rod A., Meibao Zhuang, Nicholas P. Storer, Filip Cnudde, and Bryan Delaney. "Risk-Only Assessment of Genetically Engineered Crops Is Risky." Trends in Plant Science 24, no. 1 (January 2019): 58–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2018.10.001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Delaney, Bryan, Richard E. Goodman, and Gregory S. Ladics. "Food and Feed Safety of Genetically Engineered Food Crops." Toxicological Sciences 162, no. 2 (December 4, 2017): 361–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfx249.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Altieri, Miguel A. "Genetically Engineered Crops: Separating the Myths From the Reality." Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 21, no. 2 (April 2001): 130–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027046760102100207.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Rommens, Caius M. "Barriers and paths to market for genetically engineered crops." Plant Biotechnology Journal 8, no. 2 (February 2010): 101–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2009.00464.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Whiteside, Kerry H. "French Regulatory Republicanism and the Risks of Genetically Engineered Crops." French Politics 1, no. 2 (June 27, 2003): 153–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fp.8200032.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Camacho, Alex, Allen Van Deynze, Cecilia Chi-Ham, and Alan B. Bennett. "Genetically engineered crops that fly under the US regulatory radar." Nature Biotechnology 32, no. 11 (November 2014): 1087–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3057.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Ladics, Gregory S. "Assessment of the potential allergenicity of genetically-engineered food crops." Journal of Immunotoxicology 16, no. 1 (November 9, 2018): 43–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1547691x.2018.1533904.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Carpenter, Janet E. "The socio-economic impacts of currently commercialised genetically engineered crops." International Journal of Biotechnology 12, no. 4 (2013): 249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijbt.2013.059248.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Boulter, D. "Insect pest control by copying nature using genetically engineered crops." Phytochemistry 34, no. 6 (December 1993): 1453–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0031-9422(00)90828-8.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Graf, Lynda, Hikmat Hayder, and Utz Mueller. "Endogenous allergens in the regulatory assessment of genetically engineered crops." Food and Chemical Toxicology 73 (November 2014): 17–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2014.08.001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Pray, Carl, Jikun Huang, Ruifa Hu, Haiyan Deng, Jun Yang, and Xenia K. Morin. "Prospects for cultivation of genetically engineered food crops in China." Global Food Security 16 (March 2018): 133–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.01.003.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

McBride, William D., and Hisham S. El-Osta. "Impacts of the Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Financial Performance." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34, no. 1 (April 2002): 175–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800002224.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThe rapid adoption of genetically engineered (GE) crops by U.S. farmers suggests that these technologies have been perceived to improve farm financial performance. This study develops and applies an econometric model to data from corn and soybean producers in order to evaluate the financial impacts of the adoption of GE crops. Results indicate that the adoption of GE crops has had a limited impact on financial performance that varies by crop, type of technology, type of farm, and region of the nation. Factors other than the financial impacts appear to be important reasons for the rapid adoption of GE crops.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Barrett, Katherine, and Elisabeth Abergel. "Breeding familiarity: environmental risk assessment for genetically engineered crops in Canada." Science and Public Policy 27, no. 1 (February 1, 2000): 2–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154300781782138.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Ervin, David E., Leland L. Glenna, and Raymond A. Jussaume. "The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability." Sustainability 3, no. 6 (June 17, 2011): 847–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su3060847.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Yan, Lin, and Philip S. Kerr. "Genetically Engineered Crops: Their Potential Use for Improvement of Human Nutrition." Nutrition Reviews 60, no. 5 (May 1, 2002): 135–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1301/00296640260093797.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Perry, Edward D., Federico Ciliberto, David A. Hennessy, and GianCarlo Moschini. "Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybeans." Science Advances 2, no. 8 (August 2016): e1600850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600850.

Full text

Abstract:

The widespread adoption of genetically engineered (GE) crops has clearly led to changes in pesticide use, but the nature and extent of these impacts remain open questions. We study this issue with a unique, large, and representative sample of plot-level choices made by U.S. maize and soybean farmers from 1998 to 2011. On average, adopters of GE glyphosate-tolerant (GT) soybeans used 28% (0.30 kg/ha) more herbicide than nonadopters, adopters of GT maize used 1.2% (0.03 kg/ha) less herbicide than nonadopters, and adopters of GE insect-resistant (IR) maize used 11.2% (0.013 kg/ha) less insecticide than nonadopters. When pesticides are weighted by the environmental impact quotient, however, we find that (relative to nonadopters) GE adopters used about the same amount of soybean herbicides, 9.8% less of maize herbicides, and 10.4% less of maize insecticides. In addition, the results indicate that the difference in pesticide use between GE and non-GE adopters has changed significantly over time. For both soybean and maize, GT adopters used increasingly more herbicides relative to nonadopters, whereas adopters of IR maize used increasingly less insecticides. The estimated pattern of change in herbicide use over time is consistent with the emergence of glyphosate weed resistance.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

MacDonald, Chris, Stefanie Colombo, and Michael T. Arts. "Genetically Engineered Oil Seed Crops and Novel Terrestrial Nutrients: Ethical Considerations." Science and Engineering Ethics 25, no. 5 (November 21, 2018): 1485–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0074-9.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Herman, Rod A., Zhenglin Hou, Henry Mirsky, Mark E. Nelson, Carey A. Mathesius, and Jason M. Roper. "History of safe exposure and bioinformatic assessment of phosphomannose-isomerase (PMI) for allergenic risk." Transgenic Research 30, no. 2 (March 24, 2021): 201–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-021-00243-0.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractNewly expressed proteins in genetically engineered crops are evaluated for potential cross reactivity to known allergens as part of their safety assessment. This assessment uses a weight-of-evidence approach. Two key components of this allergenicity assessment include any history of safe human exposure to the protein and/or the source organism from which it was originally derived, and bioinformatic analysis identifying amino acid sequence relatedness to known allergens. Phosphomannose-isomerase (PMI) has been expressed in commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops as a selectable marker since 2010 with no known reports of allergy, which supports a history of safe exposure, and GE events expressing the PMI protein have been approved globally based on expert safety analysis. Bioinformatic analyses identified an eight-amino-acid contiguous match between PMI and a frog parvalbumin allergen (CAC83047.1). While short amino acid matches have been shown to be a poor predictor of allergen cross reactivity, most regulatory bodies require such matches be assessed in support of the allergenicity risk assessment. Here, this match is shown to be of negligible risk of conferring cross reactivity with known allergens.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Grumet, Rebecca. "995 GENETIC ENGINEERING FOR CROP VIRUS RESISTANCE." HortScience 29, no. 5 (May 1994): 572a—572. http://dx.doi.org/10.21273/hortsci.29.5.572a.

Full text

Abstract:

One of the first major successes in the genetic engineering of useful traits into plants has been the engineering of virus resistance. The first example of genetically-engineered virus resistance was published in 1986, since then there have been more than 50 reports of genetically engineered plant virus resistance. These examples span a range of virus types, a variety of plant species, and have utilized several different types of genes. A unique feature of the genetically-engineered virus resistance is that the resistance genes came from the virus itself, rather than the host plant. Most examples have utilized coat protein genes, but more recently, replicase-derived genes have proved highly effective. Other strategies include the use of antisense or sense-defective sequences, and satellite or defective interfering RNAs. This talk will provide an overview of the different approaches, possible mechanisms, the crops and viruses to which they have been applied, and progress toward commercial applications.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Howell, Emily L., Christopher D. Wirz, Dominique Brossard, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dietram A. Scheufele, Kenneth M. Winneg, and Michael A. Xenos. "National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on genetically engineered crops influences public discourse." Politics and the Life Sciences 37, no. 2 (2018): 250–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/pls.2018.12.

Full text

Abstract:

In May 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released the report “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects,” summarizing scientific consensus on genetically engineered crops and their implications. NASEM reports aim to give the public and policymakers information on socially relevant science issues. Their impact, however, is not well understood. This analysis combines national pre- and post-report survey data with a large-scale content analysis of Twitter discussion to examine the report’s effect on public perceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We find that the report’s release corresponded with reduced negativity in Twitter discourse and increased ambivalence in public risk and benefit perceptions of GMOs, mirroring the NASEM report’s conclusions. Surprisingly, this change was most likely for individuals least trusting of scientific studies or university scientists. Our findings indicate that NASEM consensus reports can help shape public discourse, even in, or perhaps because of, the complex information landscape of traditional and social media.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'Genetically engineered crops'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles