~ 2272 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2018; SP1: 2272-2282
E-ISSN: 2278-4136
P-ISSN: 2349-8234
JPP 2018; SP1: 2272-2282
Kusumakar Gautam
Assistant Professor, Department
of Agricultural Economics,
Ranchi College of Agriculture,
Birsa Agricultural University,
Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
Saket Kushwaha
Former Vice Chancellor,
Lakshmi Narayan Mithila
University, Darbhanga, Bihar
and Professor-in-Charge, Rajeev
Gandhi South Campus,
Barkaccha, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi, India
Correspondence
Kusumakar Gautam
Assistant Professor, Department
of Agricultural Economics,
Ranchi College of Agriculture,
Birsa Agricultural University,
Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
Genetically modified food trade: A case study of India
Kusumakar Gautam and Saket Kushwaha
Abstract Genetically modified (GM) food crops have the potential to raise agricultural productivity in developing
countries, but they are also associated with the risk of market access losses in sensitive importing
countries. GM crops (rice, wheat, maize, soybeans, and cotton) are resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses,
such as drought-resistant and insect pest resistance. Labelling is one of the key Issues by which will
separate supply chain of GM and Non-GM that coexist in food trade. In Europe & some countries
labelling is mandatory up to a threshold GM content level or in some countries it is voluntary like Canada
and USA. There are multiplicity of organizations and ministries dealing in GM issues. FSSAI is food
safety regulatory and monitoring body. Its main role is formulation of food safety standards based on
modern science and to regulate the food sector. Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is
another important organisation for recommending commercial GM product for production, sale, import
or use by Rule 11 of Rules 89. Besides environment safety tests, the GEAC requires extensive food
safety tests for new GM products like food stuffs, ingredients in food stuffs and additives including
processing aids containing or consisting of GMOs. This paper studies the present situation of GM crops,
its use, trade, traceability and trade regulation, GM food assessment regulation in India.
Keywords: Genetically Modified Food, International Trade, Developing countries
Introduction GM foods (Genetically modified foods) are foods products produced from genetically
modified crops developed through genetic engineering techniques. GMOs have introduced
with specific DNA for insect pest resistance, augmenting growth rate, pathogen resistance,
assimilation of extra nutrients. The genetic engineering techniques are much more precise [1]
than normal selective or mutation breeding where an organism is exposed to radiation or
chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change [2].
Genetically modified food is not marketed in India and as such there sis no approval to sale it
regulatory authority. However, genetically modified cotton is grown in Indian in large area and
few million tons of cotton seeds are produced every year. These seeds are used for oil
extraction and making animal feed. Cotton oil is used making vegetable oil. There is no any
separate supply chain of GM and Non-GM cotton seeds and oil extraction companies are
purchasing with non-transgenic seed. The very problems of traceability are nowhere declared
and mentionany where. This led to the loss of oil Extraction Company who is paying same
amount the seed of transgenic cotton while it has to less thus reducing the benefit. This led to a
series of unfair trade and consumer is kept in dark. This also indicating many such products
imported from many countries are not known for the traceability of GM.
Multitude of genetically modified foods commenced with tomato in which delayed ripening
character was introduced in 1994 [3] there are several products available in markets some of
them are directly consumable but most of them are processed to different form or smaller food
ingredients.
Table 1: List of Genetic Modified crops Species
Alfalfa Melon Rose Flax, Linseed
Argentine Canola Papaya Soybean Potato
Carnation Petunia Squash Tomato
Chicory Plum Sugar Beet Maize
Cotton Polish canola Sweet pepper Rice
Creeping Bentgrass Poplar Tobacco Wheat
Source: ISAAA Metalink: P4.ENV.ISAAA.BI0.GM.CR0PS, p. 349
~ 2273 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
Direct consumption
Plant Products- Fruits and vegetables
Many fruit and vegetables have been genetically modified to
cater the market needs like in ‘SunUp’ [4] papaya, ‘Fortuna’
potato [5, 6], zucchini [7], apple [8] etcare grown in all over
world.
Fig 1: Area under Genetically Modified Crops
Indirect consumption
Processed Foods with protein or DNA remaining from
GMOs
Corn products corn is processed into grits, meal, and flour.
Grits are used in corn flakes, breakfast cereals, and snack
foods. Brewers’ grits are used in the beer manufacturing.
Corn meal is used in several products including cornbread,
muffins, fritters, cereals, bakery mixes, pancake mixes, and
snacks. The finest grade corn meal is used to coat English
muffins and pizzas. Cornmeal is also sold direct consumable
good. Corn flour is included in mixes for pancakes, muffins,
doughnuts, breadings, and batters, baby foods, meat products,
cereals, and some fermented products. Masa flour is used in
the production of taco shells, corn chips, and tortillas [9].
Soy products – Most of Soybean meal is used for livestock
feed and only small part is processed further into high protein
soy products that are used in a variety of foods, such as salad
dressings, soups, meat analogues, beverage powders, cheeses,
non-dairy creamer, frozen desserts, whipped topping, infant
formulas, breads, breakfast cereals, pastas, meat, poultry
products and pet foods [10, 11, 12, 13]. Highly processed derivatives containing little to no DNA or
protein lecithin. Soybean and corn oil contains lecithin, which
is widely used as an emulsifier in processed food [14, 15]. The
origin of Lecithin is nearly impossible to detect with standard
testing practices as it is free from protein and DNA from the
original GM [16].
Vegetable oilare of triglycerides extracted from plants or
seeds. They are further refined, double refined, deodorised
and hydrogenated to solid vegetable oil (ghee). During
refining process [17] nearly all nontriglyceride ingredients are
removed [18].
Sugars - Corn starch and starch Sugars, including syrups
Starch or amylum is a carbohydrate consisting of a large
number of glucose units joined by glycosidic bonds. These
products of that pure starch like Maltodextrin, glucose syrups,
Dextrose, High fructose syrup contain no GM DNA or
proteinli. Fructose corn syrup is the principal sweetener used
in sweetened beverages because of its microbiological
stability, and consistent sweetness/flavor [19, 20]. Sugar
alcohols, such as maltitol, erythritol, sorbitol, mannitol and
hydrogenated starch hydrolysate, are sweeteners made by
reducing sugars. In U.S. 90 per cent is extracted from
domestically grown sugar beet and sugarcane. Almost 50 per
cent sugar is derived from sugar beet, and the other 50 per
cent is from sugarcane. 95 per cent of sugar beet acres in US
was glyphosate-resistant in 2011 [21]. The products of sugar
beets are refined sugar and molasses; sugar produced is highly
refined and contains no DNA or protein. By product Pulp
from the refining process is used as animal feed [22].
Animal Products
Cheese – A mixture of enzymes used to coagulate cheese
called ‘Rennet’ which was only available in the fourth
stomach of calves, therefore it was scarce and expensive. Now
with genetic engineering, it became possible to extract similar
produce chymosin from certain bacteria, fungi or yeasts [23, 24].
The amino acid sequence may be present in these cheese in
trace quantities dueto retention of chymosin in whey of
cheese, but in ripe cheese, the detection is very difficult. In
1999, Almost 60 per cent of US hard cheese was produced
with Fermentation Produced Chymosin (FPC) and it has up to
80 per cent by 2008. In the US and Britain approximately 80
per cent to 90 per cent of commercially produced cheeses
were by using FPC [25].
Livestock and poultry- Most of the feed meals which are by
product of processed crops including GM crops are used as
animal feed. 98 per cent of soybean, 49 per cent of the total
maize harvested in 2011 was used for livestock feed [26, 27].
Traceability in meat, milk, or eggs of animals depending on
the type of feed they are fed. Presence of GMOs in animal
feed is analysed by origin of the feed itself [28].
Traceability Issues
Why traceability is needed
The traceability of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
describes as a system that ensures the identity of a GMO from
producer to its final buyer. It is essential prerequisite for
freedom of choice for consumers. The traceability of GMOs is
founded on two needs. First, why consumers in many
~ 2274 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
countries will genetically modified foods, or use GM crops
for feed. Consequently, we have to maintain separate GM and
non-GM supply chains, and it is possible only if all buyers
along the production chain know what they are buying.
Secondly, even after approval for commercialization it must
pass a safety assessment, and accordingly it should be
withdrawn from the market if product is not meeting safety
standards.
Unique identifiers for GMOs
In 2002 to overcome the traceability issues OECD countries
developed a unique identifier is a code consisting of nine
letters and/or numbers. The first two or three characters
indicate the company submitting the application, while the
following six or five characters specify the respective
transformation event. The last digit serves as a verifier. All
the crop varieties derived from one transformation event will
share the same unique identifier. Initially, some member
countries (for example, the USA, but also Canada and
Australia) were opposed to the concept.
The unique identifier has been integrated in the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety [29] and in the European
Union legislation on the labelling and traceability of
genetically modified organisms [30].
Global perspective - In food and feed is routinely done using
molecular techniques like DNA microarrays or quantitative
PCR. These tests can be based on screening genetic elements
(like p35S, tNos, pat, or bar) or event specific markers for the
official GMOs (like Mon810, Bt11, or GT73). The array-
based method combines multiplex PCR and array technology
to screen samples for different potential GMOs, [31] combining
different approaches (screening elements, plant-specific
markers, and event-specific markers). The qPCR is used to
detect specific GMO events by usage of specific primers for
screening elements or event specific markers. Controls are
necessary to avoid false positive or false negative results. For
example, a test for CaMV is used to avoid a false positive in
the event of a virus contaminated sample. In a January 2010
paper, [32] the extraction and detection of DNA along a
complete industrial soybean oil processing chain was
described to monitor the presence of Roundup Ready (RR)
soybean: "The amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-
point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was successfully
achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes,
until the fully refined soybean oil. The amplification of RR
soybean by PCR assays using event-specific primers was also
achieved for all the extraction and refining steps, except for
the intermediate steps of refining (neutralization, washing and
bleaching) possibly due to sample instability. The real-time
PCR assays using specific probes confirmed all the results
and proved that it is possible to detect and quantify
genetically modified organisms in the fully refined soybean
oil. To our knowledge, this has never been reported before
and represents an important accomplishment regarding the
traceability of genetically modified organisms in refined oils."
Regulation Main article: Regulation of the release of genetic
modified organisms The regulation of genetic engineering
concerns the approaches taken by governments to assess and
manage the risks associated with the use of genetic
engineering technology and the development and release of
genetically modified organisms (GMO). There are differences
in the regulation of GMOs between countries, with some of
the most marked differences occurring between the USA and
Europe. Regulation varies in a given country depending on
the intended use of the products of the genetic engineering.
For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not
reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety, [33] while
GM crops intended for use in human or animal food are
reviewed by such authorities. Additionally, various govern the
importation of GM commodities, as well as food made using
GM commodities.
Is there any Trade Regulation for GM Food?
The Cartagena Protocol is international environmental
agreement on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological
Diversity which is concerned with the trans-boundary
movement (i.e., trade) of genetically modified food [34]. It
mainly deals with “trans-boundary movement, transit,
handling and use of all living modified organisms that may
have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity, considering risks to human health” [35].
It does not cover non-food or non-feed products derived from
LMOs (e.g. paper from GM trees) and LMOs used as
pharmaceuticals for humans. Till year 2013, 166 countries
were party to this protocol [36] only few notable exceptions
include major grain exporters like United States [37].
Fig 2: Countries that have ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
~ 2275 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
Trade Regulation
At world level
Labelling is one of the key Issues by which will separate
supply chain of GM and Non-GM that coexist in food trade.
In Europe & some countries labelling is mandatory up to a
threshold GM content level or in some countries it is
voluntary like Canada and USA.
At India level (perspective of GM food in Indian context)
Role of Different Organizations
There are multiplicity of organizations and ministries dealing
in GM issues. FSSAI is food safety regulatory and monitoring
body. Its main role is formulation of food safety standards
based on modern science and to regulate the food sector. [38]
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is another
important organization for recommending commercial GM
product for production, sale, import or use by Rule 11 of
Rules 89. Besides environment safety tests, the GEAC
requires extensive food safety tests for new GM products like
food stuffs, ingredients in food stuffs and additives including
processing aids containing or consisting of GMOs. However,
MoEF on 23 August, 2007 exempted all these categories from
Rule 11 if the end product was not an LMO [39]. Mainly the
GEAC is addressing LMO in GM (Assessment and
commercial release), FSSAI is addressing processed GM food
(safety and commercial release), RCGM (DBT) for research
in contained laboratories. There is no single window from
where the GM issue can be regulated or information can be
available.
Table 2: Governmental authorities regulating GMOs in India (excluding pharmaceutical applications) [40]
Responsible Authority Activity
RCGM (DBT) Ministry of Science & Technology Contained research (laboratory and greenhouse)
GEAC
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Environmental risk assessment of GM organisms
Approval for commercial release of GM foods (viable i.e. LMOs)
Approval for environmental (commercial) release of GM organisms
GEAC and RCGM Event selection trials/BRL 1 trials
FSSAI
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Food safety assessment of GM foods (viable and processed)
Approval for commercial release of GM foods (processed)
In June 2012, by the notification of Ministry of Consumer
Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, labelling of genetically
modified food was made compulsory and which came into
force in January 2013. For more than 3.5 years there is no
check on GM processed food and other items coming
imported from outside or produced in India in absence of any
regulations for GM processed food by FSSAI. The regulations
which came into force after January 2013 were wretchedly
prepared as they lack the basic criteria i.e. tolerance level
above which food will be regarded as GM. Moreover,
regulations does not include the food items which do not
contain the detectable amount of GM content like highly
processed food, edible oils, flavouring agents, juices, feeds
meat and animal products fed with GM feed [40].
India as a market
Due to many changes in Indian economy like dual wage
earners, increasing incomes, urbanization and busier
lifestyles, the tastes and preferences of Indian consumers are
changing. People get less time for traditional way of cooking
food therefore, to accommodate the changing lifestyle they
are shifting to Ready-meals and takeaway food. This is a
common not only in urban metropolises in the country but in
rural areas also as they feel alleviated socially buy consuming
these Ready-meals and takeaway food. Approximately 30 per
cent of India’s population lives in urban areas, mainly single
men, double income families and foreign travellers are more
exposed to such foods [41].
McKinsey & Company (2007) [42] forecasted that if the Indian
economy grows at the rate of 7.3 percent between 2005 and
2025, then by 2025, 583 million Indians will be in the middle
class, India was ranked as the twelfth largest consumer market
in the world and by 2025 it is expected to be the fifth largest
consumer market after the United States (US), Japan, China
and the United Kingdom (UK).
In India, the majority of the consumption expenditure is on
food compared to other countries [43]. Major imports (all
commodities) of the Indian includes cereals, edible oils and
petroleum products [44]. According to Technopak, the
consultancy, the gourmet food market in India will increase in
size from $1.3bn in 2012 to $2.7bn by 2015, a compound
annual growth rate of 20 per cent [45].
~ 2276 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
Source:- http://www.fssai.gov.in/Portals/0/Pdf/fssa_interim_regulation_on_Operatonalising_GM_Food_regulation_in_India.pdf
Fig 3: The food safety administrative, assessment and approval procedures for GM foods in India
Major Imports of processed food by India from different
countries
U.S. exports of agricultural products to India totalled $723
million in 2011. In 2011 U.S. (not signed Cartagena
Protocol), had approximately 88 per cent of all field corn
(mostly used for cattle feed and ethanol production), 94 per
cent of all soybeans, 95 per cent of all sugar beets, and 90 per
cent of all cotton grown in the United States was genetically
engineered with one to as many as seven different genes. U.S.
farmers also grew GE canola as well as small amounts of
genetically engineered papayas, summer squash, and insect-
resistant sweet corn. All these engineered crops totaled
approximately 170 million acres in 2011 [46]. Imports may
total a 800,000 tons to 900,000 tons in each of the next three
months. Mehta said, “The country meets more than half its
demand through purchases of palm oil from Indonesia
andMalaysia and soybean oil from the U.S., Brazil and
Argentina” [47].
Fig 4: Total Agricultural Import in India from 2001-2011
~ 2277 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
World Supply and Demand (thousand metric tonnes)
Most vegetable oil used in the US is produced from several
crops, including the GM crops canola, [48] corn, xiii [49] cotton, [50] and soybeans [51]. There is no, or a very small amount of
protein or DNA from the original GM crop in vegetable oil [52,
53]. Inbound shipments will climb to an unprecedented 10.5
million metric tons to 10.7 million tons in the year ending
Oct. 31 from 10.2 million tons a year earlier, according to
B.V. Mehta, executive director of the Solvent Extractors'
Association of India. Imports increased 11 percent to 8.03
million tonnes in the nine months through July 2013.
Trading countries like Malaysia and Indonesia
Some of the countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are trading
centers and they play very important role in food trade supply
chain. In the figure 5 given belowit is clear that country like
Malaysia is exporting same commodities which they are
importing. In few commodities Malaysia keep small amount
for their domestic consumption and rest of the produce is
exported.
~ 2278 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
Fig 5: Malaysia's External trade (RM million)
Table 5: Malaysia's External trade percentage import and export of same commodities
Import Export Import Export
1. Foods* 69 per cent 67 per cent 68 per cent 74 per cent
2. Beverages and Tobacco* -15 per cent -16 per cent -1 per cent 2 per cent
3. Crude Materials, Inedible 13 per cent 2 per cent 0 per cent 21 per cent
4. Mineral Fuels, Lubricants, and Other -55 per cent -48 per cent -45 per cent -40 per cent
5. Oils & Animal and Vegetable fats* -89 per cent -87 per cent -84 per cent -85 per cent
6. Materials Chemistry? 18 per cent 18 per cent 17 per cent 18 per cent
7. Manufactured Goods 7 per cent 16 per cent 15 per cent 18 per cent
8. Machinery and Transport Equipment -14 per cent -7 per cent -5 per cent 0 per cent
9. Misc Manufactured Articles -51 per cent -48 per cent -44 per cent -46 per cent
10. Misc Transactions and Commodities 120 per cent 159 per cent 185 per cent 119 per cent
Table 6: Soybean Oil Imports by India (US$ million)
Country 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Argentina 521.81 861.14 881.69
Brazil 142.38 113.25 147.90
Thailand - - 20.20
Saudi Arabia 7.18 15.18 17.39
Indonesia - 4.26 15.87
China - 1.62 9.10
USA 189.11 72.59 8.05
Paraguay 4.54 4.45 7.77
Ukraine - - 6.46
Viet Nam - - 3.95
World 868.46 1075.12 1135.40
Source: Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics. Ministry of Commerce and industry, Govt. of India
~ 2279 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
Export of Bulk consumption Processed Food
Exporting Countries
Trading countries
GM Food Trade in India
Fig 6: Distribution channel for imported food items
Fig 7: Oil seed Production in India
Fig 8: Availability of Oil seed in India
~ 2280 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
From figure no 7 above it is clear that India mainly produces
mostly cotton, soybean, rapeseed /mustard and groundnut.
Due to higher demand of vegetable oils and as a consequence
import of soybean oil (table 6 above) the share of
rapeseed/mustard and groundnut have been decreased in
market or we can say that availability of Soybean oil have
been increased manifolds. This imported vegetable oil is
available not only in the oil form but also many other form
and mixed with indigenously produced non GM vegetable
soybean oil by various channels as given in figure 8 below.
Domestically
produced
soybean seeds
Solvent
Extraction
Soya products
from whole
soybeans
Meal Cake Solvent oilImported Crude
Oil
Domestic
Consumption Exports
Refined oil Imported
Refined Oil
Hydrogenated
Vanaspati
Storage tank
and Packing
Loose Blended PackedBakery
Shortening
Packaging and
cold room
treatment
Fig 9: Channels of Vegetable oils from GM crops in India
Who is benefitted and who suffered
Agriculture is main stay for people in India and government’s
main aim is to increase the income, livelihood of farmers,
therefore if biosafety is main issue and preventing the
commercialization of products that may harm people or the
environment (i.e., type I errors). Kalaitzandonakes et al.
(2007) concluded that regulatory trials over a long period will
take time, energy and cost including indirect costs in terms of
foregone benefits. Beyond these direct regulatory costs, there
are (preventing the use of safe products is referred to as type
II errors).
Consumer resistance to agricultural GMOs also comes from a
deeper source. Consumers find it easy to reject GMO foods
and crops because, so far, they have provided almost no direct
consumer benefit. Genetically modified soybeans or corn do
not taste better, look better, prepare better, or nourish better
than conventional soybeans or corn. They are not noticeably
cheaper because most of the economic gains from using the
technology are captured by the farmer (who saves money by
using less insecticide or fewer herbicides) or by the patent
owning biotechnology company. In the absence of any clear
new consumer benefit, citizens in rich countries (few of
whom are farmers) typically have little to lose when they
reject agricultural GMOs. India will be world power in Food
& Agriculture by 2020 [54].
~ 2281 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
References 1. David K. UK GM Science Review panel, GM Science
Review First Report, 2003, 9.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ genetically-modified-foods,
Retrieved 2012-12-29
3. "Consumer Q&A". Fda.gov. 2009-03-06.Retrieved 2012-
12-29.
4. Li Quan, Cluskey M, Wahl J, Thomas. "Effects of
information on consumers’ willingness to pay for GM-
corn-fed beef". Journal of Agricultural and Food
Industrial Organization. 2004; 2(2):1-16.
5. James C. "ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of
Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011". ISAAA
Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
Retrieved 2011-2012-06-02.
6. Center for Food Safety “About Genetically Engineered
Foods”
7. Gonsalves D. Transgenic papaya in Hawaii and beyond.
AgBioForum 2004; 7(1&2):36-40
8. Ronald, Pamela, McWilliams. James Genetically
Engineered Distortions the New York Times, May 14,
2010, Retrieved July 26, 2010.
9. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/new-leaf-
potato.aspx
10. The History and Future of GM Potatoes".Potatopro.com.
2010-03-10.Retrieved 2012-12-29.
11. Research in Germany, November 17, 2011. Business
BASF applies for approval for another biotech potato.
12. Johnson, Stanley R et al. Quantification of the Impacts on
US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted
in 2006 National Center for Food and Agricultural
Policy, Washington DC, February 2008. Retrieved
August 12, 2010.
13. Staff. South Dakota State University, College of
Agriculture and Biological Sciences, Agricultural
Experiment Station. June 2004. Corn-Based Food
Production in South Dakota: A Preliminary Feasibility
Study.
14. Singh P et al. [1] Functional and Edible Uses of Soy
Protein Products Comprehensive Reviews in Food
Science and Food Safety 2008; (7)1:14–28
15. Presentation by Dr. Karl Weingartner and Bridget Owen
of the National Soybean Research Laboratory, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. March. Soy Protein
Applications in Nutrition & Food Technology, 2009
16. Staff, World Initiative for Soy in Human Health
(WISHH) Soy Protein Concentrate Reference Guide.
17. "Soyatech.com". Soyatech.com. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
18. Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, 2006. Food Fats
and Oils accessdate=2011-11-
19. Michelle Simon for Food Safety News. ConAgra Sued
Over GMO ’100 per cent Natural’ Cooking Oils, August
24, 2011.
20. "Ingredients of margarine". Imace.org. Retrieved 2012,
12-29.
21. Miller, Henry. "A golden opportunity, squandered".
Trends in biotechnology 2009; 27(3):129–130.
22. "How Cooking Oil is Made". Madehow.com. 1991-04-
27.Retrieved 2012-12-29.
23. Crevel RW et al. Allergenicity of refined vegetable oils.
Food Chem Toxicol. Article analyzed oil for protein
content - this is a non-GM oil but shows the principle
2000; 38(4):385-93.
24. "International Starch: Production of corn starch".
Starch.dk. Retrieved 2011-06-12.
25. "ISAAA Pocket K No. 2: Plant Products of
Biotechnology". Isaaa.org. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
26. Law, Barry A. Technology of Cheesemaking. UK:
WILEY-BLACKWELL. ISBN 978-1-4051-8298-0.
2010, 100-101.
27. "Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science,
Regulation, and Issues". U.S. Department of State.
Retrieved, 2006-08-14.
28. http://www.chr-hansen.com/products/product-
areas/enzymes/our-product-offering.html
29. http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/
30. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003
:268:0024:0028:EN:PDF
31. Greg Cima, November for JAVMA News. November 18,
2010. Appellate court gives mixed ruling on Ohio rBST
labelling rules
32. leagle.com. "INTERNATIONAL DAIRY FOODS ASS'N
v. BOGGS – Argued: June 10, 2010". Leagle.com.
33. Staff, National Centre for Biotechnology Education, Case
Study: Chymosin, 2006.
34. A Living Modified Organism (LMO) is defined in the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as any living organism
that possesses a novel combination of genetic material
obtained through the use of modern biotechnology. The
Protocol also defines the terms 'living organism' and
'modern biotechnology'
35. Article 4
(http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/articles.shtml?a=cpb-04)
36. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety List of Parties:
http://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml#tab=1
37. “Genetically modified crops”,part 4,
www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2490e/i2490e04d.pdf
38. Framework Document_FSSAI_2012-13(07-05-2012),
www.fssai.gov.in/GazettedNotifications.aspx
39. 37th report of committee on agriculture, August, (2012)
on topic “Cultivation of Genetically Modified Food crops
–Prospects and Effects”,
http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Agriculture/GM_Rep
ort.pdf
40. Bansal Sangeeta “Labelling of Genetically Modified
Foods in India” Economic and Political weekly, August
24, 2013; XLVIII(34):15-17
41. Agri-Food Past, Present & Future Report, http://www.ats-
sea.agr.gc.ca/asi/4574-eng.htm(7/09/2013)
42. “The ‘Bird of gold’: The Rise of India’s Consumer
Market”, May, 2007.
http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/india/mckinseyonind
ia/pdf/India_Consumer_Market.pdf
43. “The Consumption Pattern of the Rising Middle Class in
India” January 06, 2013,
http://www.boaoreview.com/report-
2012//2012/1125/38.html, retrieved on September 22,
2013
44. “Exports & Imports :: Import Procedure”
http://agritech.tnau.ac.in/export_import/importsystem_pr
ocedure_introduction.html
45. “Premium food brands boom in India”
www.warc.com/LatestNews/News/Premium_food_brand
s_boom_inIndia_.news?l D=30740, retrieved on
September 3, 2013
46. Gregory Jaffe, Director of the CSPI Biotechnology
Project. “Straight Talk on Genetically Engineered
Foods”, http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/biotech-faq.pdf
~ 2282 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
47. www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08/India-seen-defying-
rupee-plunge-to-import-record-cooking-oils.html
48. Corn Refiners Association.Corn Oil 5th Edition, 2006
49. Greg Jaffe, Director of Biotechnology at the Center for
Science in the Public Interest. In the Atlantic. February 7,
2013. What You Need to Know About Genetically
Engineered Food.
50. Gertruida M Marx, Dissertation submitted in fulfillment
of requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in
the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free
State, South Africa. December 2010. Monitoring of
Genetically Modified Food Products in South Africa.
51. Staff, Food Navigator.com, July 1, 2005. Danisco
emulsifier to substitute non-GM soy lecithin as demand
outstrips supply
52. Isolated Soy Proteins
53. John Davison, Yves Bertheau. 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(77).
54. John E. Peters and Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam (Hon’ble Ex.
President), India a Vision for the new Millennium,
Chapter 4 Food, Agriculture & Processing, 2020.