Areal, F. J. et al. (2013). Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Agricultural Science 151(1), 7–33.Google Scholar

Bayer, J. C. et al. (2010). Cost of compliance with biotechnology regulation in the Philippines: implications for developing countries. AgBioForum 13(1), 53–62.Google Scholar

Binimelis, R. and Myhr, A. I. (2016). Inclusion and implementation of socio-economic considerations in GMO regulations: needs and recommendations. Sustainability 8(1), 62.Google Scholar

Falck-Zepeda, J. B. (2014). Non-adopters of GM crops in Latin America. In Edward Elgar Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development, ed. Smyth, S. J et al. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Falck-Zepeda, J. B. and Zambrano, P. (2011). Socio-economic considerations in biosafety and biotechnology decision making: the Cartagena Protocol and national biosafety frameworks. Review of Policy Research 28(2), 171–195.Google Scholar

Falck-Zepeda, J. et al. (2012). Caught between Scylla and Charybdis: impact estimation issues from the early adoption of GM maize in Honduras. AgBioForum 15(2), 138–151.Google Scholar

Falck-Zepeda, J. et al. (2013). The current status of the debate on socio-economic regulatory assessments. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 10(4), 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Falck-Zepeda, J. B. et al. (2015). In Analyses: Africa's Future…Can Biosciences Contribute?, ed. Mitton, P and Bennett, D. Cambridge: Banson Publishers and Biosciences for Farming in Africa (B4FA).Google Scholar

Gouse, M. (2009). Ten years of Bt cotton in South Africa: putting the smallholder experience into context. In Biotechnology and Agricultural Development: Transgenic Cotton, Rural Institutions and Resource-Poor Farmers, ed. Tripp, R. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gouse, M. (2012). GM maize as subsistence crop: the South African smallholder experience. AgBioForum 15(2), 163–174.Google Scholar

Gouse, M. et al. (2005). Bt cotton in KwaZulu Natal: technological triumph but institutional failure. AgBiotechNet 7(134), 1–7.Google Scholar

Horna, D. et al., eds. (2013). Socioeconomic Considerations in Biosafety Decision Making – Methods and Implementation. [Online]. IFPRI Research Monographs. Available from www.ifpri.org/publication/socioeconomic-considerations-biosafety-decisionmakingGoogle Scholar

Kikulwe, E. M. et al. (2011a). A latent class approach to investigating demand for genetically modified banana in Uganda. Agricultural Economics 42(5), 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kikulwe, E. M. et al. (2011b). Attitudes, perceptions, and trust. Insights from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in Uganda. Appetite 57(2), 401–413.Google Scholar

Kikulwe, E. M. et al. (2014a). Incremental benefits of genetically modified bananas in Uganda. In Edward Elgar Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development, ed. Smyth, S. J.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Kikulwe, E. M. et al. (2014b). If labels for GM food were present, would consumers trust them? Insights from a consumer survey in Uganda. Environment and Development Economics 19(6), 786–805.Google Scholar

Klümper, W. and Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE 9(11), e111629.Google Scholar

Ludlow, K. et al. (2014). Assessing the SEC landscape and moving forward. In Socio-economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation, ed. Ludlow, K et al. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mutuc, M. E. et al. (2013). Which farmers benefit the most from Bt corn adoption in the Philippines? Estimating heterogeneity effects. Agricultural Economics 44(2), 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pray, C. E. et al. (2006). Costs and enforcement of biosafety regulations in India and China. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 2(1–2), 137–157.Google Scholar

Smale, M. et al. (2009). Measuring the Economic Impacts of Transgenic Crops in Developing Agriculture during the First Decade: Approaches, Findings, and Future Directions. Food Policy Review 10. [Online]. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Available from http://cdml5738.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/pl5738coll2/id/26575/filename/26576.pdfGoogle Scholar

Smyth, S. J. et al. (2014). Investment, regulation, and uncertainty: managing new plant breeding techniques. GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain 5(1), 44–57.Google Scholar

Yorobe, J. M. and Smale, M. (2012). Impacts of Bt maize on smallholder income in the Philippines. AgBioForum 15(2), 152–162.Google Scholar

AATF (2015). Maruca resistant cowpea – frequently asked questions (FAQs). [Online]. Available from www.aatf-africa.org/userfiles/CowpeaFAQ.pdfGoogle Scholar

ABNE (2014). Workshop on food/feed safety assessment of GM crop (news). [Online]. Available from www.nepadbiosafety.net/workshop-on-foodfeed-safety-assessment-of-gm-cropGoogle Scholar

ABNE (2016). ABNE in Africa – towards building functional biosafety systems in Africa. [Online]. Available from http://nepad-abne.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ABNE-in-Africa-2016.pdfGoogle Scholar

Adenle, A. A. et al. (2013). Status of development, regulation and adoption of GM agriculture in Africa: views and positions of stakeholder groups. Food Policy 43, 159–166.Google Scholar

Alicai, T. et al. (2007). Re-emergence of cassava brown streak disease in Uganda. Plant Disease 91, 24–29.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. A. et al. (2016). Emerging agricultural biotechnologies for sustainable agriculture and food security. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 64(2), 383–393.Google Scholar

Atkinson, J. H. et al. (2015). Africa needs streamlined regulation to support the deployment of GM crops. Trends in Biotechnology 33, 433–435.Google Scholar

Biosafety Clearing House (2015). National Reports on Biosafety. [Online]. Available from https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_natreports.shtmlGoogle Scholar

Chambers, J. A. et al. (2014). GM agricultural technologies for Africa – a state of affairs. Report of a study commissioned by the African Development Bank. [Online]. Available from www.ifpri.org/publication/gm-agricultural-technologies-africa-state-affairsGoogle Scholar

Chassy, B. et al. (2004). Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 3, 38–104.Google Scholar

Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003). Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessments of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants. CAC/GL 45–2003. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.Google Scholar

Codex Alimentarius Commission (2009). Ad Hoc Inter-Governmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology in 1999–2003 and 2004–2009. International Food Standards. [Online]. Available from www.codexalimentarius.org/standards/en/Google Scholar

Craig, W. et al. (2008). An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Euphytica 164, 853–880.Google Scholar

Department of Agriculture, South Africa (2004). Guideline document for work with genetically modified organisms. [Online]. Available from www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/sideMenu/biosafety/doc/GUIDELINE4WORKwithGOM.pdfGoogle Scholar

European Commission (1997). Commission recommendation of 29 July 1997 concerning the scientific aspects and the presentation of information necessary to support applications for the placing on the market of novel foods and novel food ingredients and the preparation of initial assessment reports under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (97/618/EC). Official Journal of the European Union L253, 1–36.Google Scholar

European Commission (2003). Guidance document for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. The Joint Working Group on Novel Foods and GMOs. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar

European Commission (2004). Genetically modified crops in the EU: food safety assessment, regulation, and public concerns – overarching report. [Online]. Available from https://orbilu.uni.lu/bitstream/10993/12409/1/K%C3%B6nig%20A.%20et%20All%20Genetically%20modified%20crops%20in%20the%20EU%20Food%20safety%20assessment,%20regulation,%20and%20public%20assessment.pdfGoogle Scholar

European Food Safety Authority (2006). Risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. Guidance document of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms of the European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal 99, 1–100.Google Scholar

European Food Safety Authority (2008). Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials. Report of the EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials. Food and Chemical Toxicology 46, S2–S70.Google Scholar

Ezezika, O. C. et al. (2012). Factors influencing agbiotech adoption and development in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Biotechnology 30, 38–40.Google Scholar

FAO (1996). Report of a joint FAO/WHO consultation, 30 September–4 October, 1996. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 61. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.Google Scholar

FAO/WHO (2005). National food safety systems in Africa – a situation analysis, CAF 05/2. FAO/WHO Regional Conference on Food Safety for Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe, 3–6 October 2005.Google Scholar

FAO/WHO (2006). Food safety and nutrition food laws and guidelines. [Online]. Available from www.afro.who.int/en/clusters-a-programmes/hpr/food-safety-and-nutrition-fan/fan-publications.htmlGoogle Scholar

Gbadegesin, M. A. et al. (2013). African cassava: biotechnology and molecular breeding to the rescue. British Biotechnology Journal 3, 305–317.Google Scholar

Global Environment Facility (2006). Evaluation of GEF support for biosafety. [Online]. Available from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7034Google Scholar

Howlett, J. et al. (2003). The safety assessment of novel foods and concepts to determine their safety in use. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 54, S1–S32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

James, C. 2015. Global status of commercialised biotech/GM crops: 2015. ISAAA Brief No. 51. Ithaca, NY: The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.Google Scholar

Jansen van Rijssen, F. W. et al. (2013). Food safety: importance of composition for assessing genetically modified cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 61, 8333–8339.Google Scholar

Jonas, D. A. et al. (1996). The safety assessment of novel foods. Guidelines prepared by the ILSI Europe Novel Food Task Force. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34, 931–940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Juma, C. and Serageldin, I. (2007). Freedom to innovate: biotechnology in Africa's development. (Report of the High-Level African Panel on Modern Biotechnology). [Online]. Available from http://belfercenterre.ksg.harvard.edu/files/freedom_innovate_au-nepad_aug2007.pdfGoogle Scholar

Morris, E. J. (2014). Biosafety regulatory systems in Africa. In Biosafety in Africa: Experiences and Best Practices, ed. Keetch, D. P. et al. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, pp. 64–77.Google Scholar

Mwamakamba, L. et al. (2012). Developing and maintaining national food safety control systems: experiences from the WHO African Region. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 12, 6291–6304.Google Scholar

Nang'ayo, F. et al. (2014). Regulatory challenges for GM crops in developing economies: the African experience. Transgenic Research 23, 1049–1055.Google Scholar

Obonyo, D. N. et al. (2011). Identified gaps in biosafety knowledge and expertise in Sub-Saharan Africa. AgBioForum 14, 71–82.Google Scholar

OECD (1993). Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (1998). OECD documents: report of the OECD workshop on the toxicological and nutritional testing of novel foods, SG/ICGB(1998)1. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2009). Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz): key food and feed nutrients, anti-nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Series on the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, No. 18. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

Pennisi, E. (2010). Armed and dangerous. Science 327, 804–805.Google Scholar

Roberts, A. F. et al. (2015). Biosafety research for non-target organism risk assessment of RNAi-based GE plants. Frontiers in Plant Science 6, 958; doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00958.Google Scholar

Taylor, N. J. et al. (2012). The VIRCA Project: virus resistant cassava for Africa. GM Crops and Food 3(2), 1–11.Google Scholar

Timpo, S. E. (2011). Harmonizing biosafety regulations in Africa: surmounting the hurdles. Socio-economics Policy Brief No. 2. [Online]. Available from http://nepad-abne.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Policy-Brief-No-2_Harmonisation-of-Biosafety-Regulations-_Finalized.pdfGoogle Scholar

USDA-FAS (2015). Africa contemplates establishing continental food safety body. GAIN Report No. ET1502. [Online]. Available from https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Africa%20Contemplates%20Establishing%20Continental%20Food%20Safety%20Body_Addis%20Ababa_Ethiopia_2-26-2015.pdfGoogle Scholar

USFDA (1992). Statement of policy – foods derived from new plant varieties. Federal Register 57, 22984 (29 May).Google Scholar

Waithaka, M. et al. (2015). Progress and challenges for implementation of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa policy on biotechnology and biosafety. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 3, 109; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00109.Google Scholar

Wedding, K. and Tuttle, J. N. (2013). Pathway to Productivity: The Role of GMOs for Food Security in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. A Report of the CSIS Global Food Security Project. Lantham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

WHO (1991). Strategies for Assessing the Safety of Foods Produced by Biotechnology. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar

WHO (1995). Application of the principles of substantial equivalence to the safety evaluation of foods and food components from plants derived from modern biotechnology. Report of WHO Workshop WHO/FNU/FOS/95.1. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar

WHO (2000). Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, May 29–June 2, 1996, Rome, Italy. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar

WHO (2015). Frequently asked questions on GM foods. [Online]. Available from www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/Google Scholar

WTO (1998). Understanding the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. [Online]. Available from https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsund_e.htmGoogle Scholar

AHTEGSEC (2014). Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Socioeconomic Considerations. UNEP/CBD/BS/AHTEG-SEC/1/3, Seoul Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar

Binimelis, R. and Myhr, A. I. (2016). Inclusion and implementation of socio-economic considerations in GMO regulations: needs and recommendations. Sustainability 8(1), 62.Google Scholar

Blankesteijn, M. et al. (2014). Contested science – public controversies about science and policy. The Hague, Rathenau Instituut. [Online]. Available from https://www.rathenau.nl/en/file/173/download?token=wsT8MmBWGoogle Scholar

CEE (2013). Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence. [Online]. Available from www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdfGoogle Scholar

Chaturvedi, S. et al. (2007). Environmental risk assessment, socio-economic considerations and decision-making support for LMOs in India. Technical report. New Delhi: ICGEB and RIS.Google Scholar

Chaturvedi, S. et al. (2012). Approval of GM crops: socio-economic considerations in developing countries. Economic & Political Weekly 47(23), 53–61.Google Scholar

Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes. [Online]. Available from https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf.Google Scholar

Convention on Biological Diversity (2003). The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: a record of the negotiations. [Online]. Available from https://bch.cbd.int/database/attachment/?id=10886Google Scholar

Convention on Biological Diversity (2015). Portal on socioeconomic considerations: online discussion 2015 – Discussion Groups. [Online]. Available from http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/portal_art26/discussion_groups/?threadid=6621Google Scholar

Council of the European Union (2011). Complementary considerations on legal issues on GMO cultivation raised in the opinions of the legal service of the Council of the European Union of 5 November 2010 and of the legal service of the European Parliament of 17 November 2010 – WTO Compatibility. Commission staff working paper. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar

Dano, E. (2007). Potential Socio-economic, Cultural and Ethical Impacts of GMOs: Prospects for Socio-economic Impact Assessment. TWN Biotechnology & Biosafety Series 8. Penang: Third World Network.Google Scholar

Eckersley, R. (2004). The Big Chill: the WTO and multilateral environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics 4(2), 24–50.Google Scholar

EPA (1992). Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-92/001.Google Scholar

Falck-Zepeda, J. (2009). Socio-economic considerations, article 26.1 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: what are the issues and what is at stake? AgBioForum 12(1), 90–107.Google Scholar

Falck-Zepeda, J. B. and Zambrano, P. (2011). Socio-economic considerations in biosafety and biotechnology decision making: the Cartagena Protocol and National Biosafety Frameworks. Review of Policy Research 28(2), 171–195.Google Scholar

Falck-Zepeda, J. et al. (2013). The current status of the debate on socio-economic regulatory assessments: positions and policies in Canada, the USA, the EU and developing countries. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 10(4), 203–227.Google Scholar

Kathage, J. et al. (2015). Framework for the Socio-Economic Analysis of the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops. JRC Science and Policy Reports. Luxembourg: European Union.Google Scholar

Kelly, C. R. (2006). Power, linkage and accommodation: The WTO as an international actor and its influence on other actors and regimes. Berkeley Journal of International Law 24(79), 79–50.Google Scholar

Kimera, H. R. and Mboyah, D. (2007). Stakeholder awareness and participation in biotechnology policy-making in Eastern African countries. In Biotechnology: Eastern African Perspectives on Sustainable Development and Trade Policy, ed. Baumüller, H. and Bolo., M. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development; and Nairobi: African Technology Policy Studies Network, pp. 44–57.Google Scholar

Komen, J. (2012). The emerging international regulatory framework for biotechnology. GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain 3(1), 78–84.Google Scholar

Morris, E. J. (2011). A semi-quantitative approach to GMO risk-benefit analysis. Transgenic Research 20(5), 1055–1071.Google Scholar

Perron-Welch, F. (2012). Socioeconomics, biosafety, and sustainable development. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 14(3), 49–69.Google Scholar

Pew-MacArthur (2014). Evidence-based policymaking. A guide for effective government. Pew- MacArthur Results First Initiative. [Online]. Available from www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/11/evidencebasedpolicymakingaguideforeffectivegovernment.pdfGoogle Scholar

Pinski, F. (2012). New regulatory framework for agricultural biotechnology in Argentina. Buenos Aires: Biotechnology Directorate, Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Argentina.Google Scholar

Racovita, M. et al. (2013). Can problem formulation help address socioeconomic considerations in GMO decision-making? Poster. 6th International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and Non-GM Based Agricultural Supply Chains, Lisbon.Google Scholar

Remondet, M. (2011). The French «High Council for Biotechnologies»: an innovative institution for GMOs assessment. Workshop on Capacity-Building for Research and Information Exchange on Socio-economic Impacts of Living Modified Organisms under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. New Delhi, India. [Online]. Available from https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/socioeconomics/presentations/france.pdfGoogle Scholar

Smale, M. et al. (2008). Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries: a note on the methods. International Journal of Biotechnology 10(6), 519–555.Google Scholar

Spök, A. (2010). Assessing socio-economic impacts of GMOs. Issues to consider for policy development. Vienna: Lebensministerium/Bundensministerium für Gesundheit.Google Scholar

Sutcliffe, S. and Court, J. (2005). Evidence-Based Policymaking: What Is It? How Does It Work? What Relevance for Developing Countries? London: ODI.Google Scholar

Tung, O. J. (2014). Transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms and the Cartagena Protocol: key issues and concerns. PER: Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad 17(5), 1740–1787.Google Scholar

UNEP (2010). Summary Report on the Survey on the Application of and Experience in the Use of Socio-economic Considerations in Decision-Making on Living Modified Organisms. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/10. Nagoya: UNEP.Google Scholar

Anderson, K. and Jackson, L. A. (2003). Why are US and EU policies toward GMOs so different? AgBioForum 6(3), 95–100.Google Scholar

Codex Alimentarius (2003a). Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology. CAC/GL 44–2003. Rome: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.Google Scholar

Codex Alimentarius (2003b). Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant DNA plants. CAC/GL 45–2003. Rome: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.Google Scholar

Kok, E. J. and Kuiper, H. A. (2003). Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops. Trends in Biotechnology 21(10), 439–444.Google Scholar

Ledford, H. (2015). Salmon approval heralds rethink of transgenic animals. Nature 527, 417–418.Google Scholar

Nature Biotechnology News (2015). Brazil approves transgenic Eucalyptus. Nature Biotechnology 33, 577.Google Scholar

OECD (1986). Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (1993). Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2000a). Report of the Working Group on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology (to the G8 Heads of State and Government). [C(2000)86/ADD2]. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2000b). Report of the Task Force for the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds (to the G8 Heads of State and Government)[C(2000)86/ADD1]. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2000c). Consensus Document on the Biology of Glycine max (L.) Merr. (Soybean). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2000d). Consensus Document on the Biology of Populus L. (Poplars). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2002). Consensus Document on Compositional Components for New Varieties of Maize (Zea mays): Key Food and Feed Nutrients, Anti-Nutrients and Secondary Plant Metabolites. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2003). Consensus Document on the Biology of Zea mays Subspecies mays (Maize). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2004). Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense): Key Food and Feed Nutrients and Anti-nutrients. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2005a). Consensus Document on the Biology of Papaya (Carica papaya). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2005b). Introduction to the Biosafety Consensus Documents. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2006a). Consensus Document on the Biology of Capsicum annuum Complex (Chili, Hot and Sweet Peppers). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2006b). Points to Consider for Consensus Documents. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2006c). Introduction to OECD's Food and Feed Safety Consensus Documents. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2007). Consensus Document on Safety Information on Transgenic Plants Expressing Bacillus thuringiensis – Derived Insect Control Proteins. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2008a). Consensus Document on the Biology of Cotton (Gossypium spp.) Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2008b). Guide for the Preparation of Consensus Documents. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2009a). Consensus Document on the Biology of Bananas and Plantains (Musa spp.) Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2009b). Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz): Key Food and Feed Nutrients, Anti-nutrients, Toxicants and Allergens. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2010a). Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Papaya (Carica papaya L.): Key Food and Feed Nutrients and Anti-nutrients, Toxicants and Allergens. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2010b). Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Sweet Potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.]: Key Food and Feed Nutrients, Anti-nutrients, Toxicants and Allergens. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2010c). Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Grain Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]: Key Food and Feed Nutrients and Anti-nutrients. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2010d). Molecular Characterisation of Plants Derived from Modern Biotechnology. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2011). Revised Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed (Canola): Key Food and Feed Nutrients, Anti-nutrients and Toxicants. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2012a). Consensus Document on the Biology of the Brassica Crops (Brassica spp.). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2012b). Consensus Document on the Biology of Cucurbita L. (Squashes, Pumpkins, Zucchinis and Gourds). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2012c). Revised Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr]: Key Food and Feed Nutrients, Anti-nutrients, Toxicants and Allergens. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2013). Consensus Document on the Biology of Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2014a). Consensus Document on the Biology of Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2014b). Consensus Document on the Biology of Eucalyptus spp. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2015). Consensus Document on the Biology of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2016a). Report of the OECD Workshop on Environmental Risk Assessment of Products Derived from New Plant Breeding Techniques. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

OECD (2016b). Documents on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology and the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds. [Online]. Available from http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/biotrack/documentsonharmonisationofregulatoryoversightinbiotechnologyandthesafetyofnovelfoodsandfeeds.htmGoogle Scholar

Bertebos Foundation (2008). Golden Rice and other Biofortified Food Crops for Developing Countries. Challenges and Potential. Report from the Bertebos Conference in Falkenberg, Sweden, 7–9 September 2008. Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademiens Tidskrift 7, 1–116.Google Scholar

Beyer, P. (2010). Golden Rice and ‘Golden'crops for human nutrition. New Biotechnology 27(5), 478–481.Google Scholar

Blancquaert, D. et al. (2010). Folates and folic acid: from fundamental research towards sustainable health. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 29(1), 14–35.Google Scholar

Blancquaert, D. et al. (2014). Present and future of folate biofortification of crop plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 65(4), 895–906.Google Scholar

Blancquaert, D. et al. (2015). Improving folate (vitamin B9) stability in biofortified rice through metabolic engineering. Nature Biotechnology 33(10), 1076–1078.Google Scholar

Cherian, A. et al. (2005). Incidence of neural tube defects in the least-developed area of India: a population-based study. Lancet 366(9489), 930–931.Google Scholar

Chong, M. (2003). Acceptance of golden rice in the Philippine ‘rice bowl’. Nature Biotechnology 21(9), 971–972.Google Scholar

Corrigan, J. R. et al. (2009). Comparing open-ended choice experiments and experimental auctions: an application to Golden Rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(3), 837–853.Google Scholar

Curtis, K. R. and Moeltner, K. (2006). Genetically modified food market participation and consumer risk perceptions: a cross-country comparison. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 54(2), 289–310.Google Scholar

Dawe, D. and Unnevehr, L. (2007). Crop case study: GMO Golden Rice in Asia with enhanced vitamin A benefits for consumers. AgBioForum 10(3), 154–160.Google Scholar

De Steur, H. et al. (2010a). Health impact in China of folate-biofortified rice. Nature Biotechnology 28(6), 554–556.Google Scholar

De Steur, H. et al. (2010b). Willingness-to-accept and purchase genetically modified rice with high folate content in Shanxi Province, China. Appetite 54(1), 118–125.Google Scholar

De Steur, H. et al. (2012a). Ex-ante evaluation of biotechnology innovations: the case of folate biofortified rice in China. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology 13(15), 2751–2760.Google Scholar

De Steur, H. et al. (2012b). Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of multi-biofortified rice in China. New Biotechnology 29(3), 432–442.Google Scholar

De Steur, H. et al. (2012c). Determinants of willingness-to-pay for GM rice with health benefits in a high-risk region: evidence from experimental auctions for folate biofortified rice in China. Food Quality and Preference 25(2), 87–94.Google Scholar

De Steur, H. et al. (2013). Role of information on consumers’ willingness-to-pay for GM rice with health benefits. An application to China. Asian Economic Journal 27(4), 391–408.Google Scholar

De Steur, H. et al. (2014). Consumer preferences for micronutrient strategies in China. A comparison between folic acid supplementation and folate biofortification. Public Health Nutrition 17(6), 1410–1420.Google Scholar

De Steur, H. et al. (2015). Status and market potential of transgenic biofortified crops. Nature Biotechnology 33(1), 25–29.Google Scholar

Deodhar, S. Y. et al. (2008). Emerging markets for GM foods: an Indian perspective on consumer understanding and the willingness to pay. International Journal of Biotechnology 10(6), 570–587.Google Scholar

Depositario, D. P. T. et al. (2009). Effects of information on consumers' willingness to pay for Golden Rice. Asian Economic Journal 23(4), 457–476.Google Scholar

Goto, F. et al. (1999). Iron fortification of rice seed by the soybean ferritin gene. Nature Biotechnology 17(3), 282–286.Google Scholar

Gu, X. et al. (2007). High prevalence of NTDs in Shanxi Province: a combined epidemiological approach. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology 79(10), 702–707.Google Scholar

Hallman, W. K. et al. (2002). Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: Americans Know Not What They Eat. [Online]. Available at https://works.bepress.com/johnlang/8/Google Scholar

Iyer, R. and Tomar, S. K. (2009). Folate: a functional food constituent. Journal of Food Science 74(9), R114–R122.Google Scholar

Jaffe, G. (2006). Regulatory slowdown on GM crop decisions. Nature Biotechnology 24, 748–749.Google Scholar

James, C. (2015). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014. ISAAA Brief No. 51. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.Google Scholar

Johnson, A. A. et al. (2011). Constitutive overexpression of the OsNAS gene family reveals single-gene strategies for effective iron- and zinc-biofortification of rice endosperm. PLoS ONE 6(9), e24476.Google Scholar

Kajale, D. B. and Becker, T. C. (2015). Willingness to pay for Golden Rice in India: a contingent valuation method analysis. Journal of Food Products Marketing 21(4), 1–18.Google Scholar

Lassi, Z. S. et al. (2013). Folic acid supplementation during pregnancy for maternal health and pregnancy outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. [Online]. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006896.pub2/pdfGoogle Scholar

Lee, S. et al. (2009). Iron fortification of rice seeds through activation of the nicotianamine synthase gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106(51), 22014–22019.Google Scholar

Lee, S. et al. (2012). Activation of rice nicotianamine synthase 2 (OsNAS2) enhances iron availability for biofortification. Molecules and Cells 33(3), 269–275.Google Scholar

Li, Q. et al. (2003). Consumer attitudes toward genetically modified foods in Beijing, China. AgBioForum 5(4), 145–152.Google Scholar

Lucca, P. et al. (2002). Fighting iron deficiency anemia with iron-rich rice. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 21(suppl. 3), 184S–190S.Google Scholar

Lusk, J. L. (2003). Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for Golden Rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(4), 840–856.Google Scholar

Lusk, J. L. and Rozan, A. (2005). Consumer acceptance of biotechnology and the role of second generation technologies in the USA and Europe. Trends in Biotechnology 23(8), 386–387.Google Scholar

Marseille, E. et al. (2015). Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 93(2), 118–124.Google Scholar

Masuda, H. et al. (2012). Iron biofortification in rice by the introduction of multiple genes involved in iron nutrition. Nature Scientific Reports 2, 543. [Online]. Available from www.nature.com/articles/srep00543Google Scholar

Moghissi, A. A. et al. (2016). Golden Rice: scientific, regulatory and public information processes of a genetically modified organism. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 36(3), 535–541.Google Scholar

Nandi, S. et al. (2002). Expression of human lactoferrin in transgenic rice grains for the application in infant formula. Plant Science 163(4), 713–722.Google Scholar

Paarlberg, R. (2002). The real threat to GM crops in poor countries: consumer and policy resistance to GM foods in rich countries. Food Policy 27, 247–250.Google Scholar

Paine, J. A. et al. (2005). Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 23(4), 482–487.Google Scholar

Potrykus, I. (2013). Unjustified regulation prevents use of GMO technology for public good. Trends in Biotechnology 31(3), 131–133.Google Scholar

Qu, L. Q. et al. (2005). Iron accumulation does not parallel the high expression level of ferritin in transgenic rice seeds. Planta 222(2), 225–233.Google Scholar

Rozan, A. et al. (2007). Consumer acceptance of a genetically modified organism of the second generation: the Golden Rice. Revue d’Économie Politique 117(5), 843–852.Google Scholar

Ruel, M. T. and Alderman, H. (2013). Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: how can they help to accelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? Lancet 382(9891), 536–551.Google Scholar

Stein, A. J. et al. (2005). Analyzing the Health Benefits of Biofortified Staple Crops by Means of the Disability-Adjusted Life Years Approach: A Handbook Focusing on Iron, Zinc and Vitamin A. HarvestPlus Technical Monograph 4. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute, p. 32.Google Scholar

Stein, A. J. et al. (2006). Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of Golden Rice. Nature Biotechnology 24(10), 1200–1201.Google Scholar

Stein, A. J. et al. (2008). Genetic engineering for the poor: Golden Rice and public health in India. World Development 36(1), 144–158.Google Scholar

Storozhenko, S. et al. (2007). Folate fortification of rice by metabolic engineering. Nature Biotechnology 25(11), 1277–1279.Google Scholar

Tang, G. et al. (2009). Golden Rice is an effective source of vitamin A. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89(6), 1776–1783.Google Scholar

The Golden Rice Project (2015). [Online]. Available from www.goldenrice.orgGoogle Scholar

Trijatmiko, K. R. et al. (2016). Biofortified indica rice attains iron and zinc nutrition dietary targets in the field. Nature Scientific Reports, 6, 19792. [Online]. Available from www.nature.com/articles/srep19792Google Scholar

Twardowski, T. and Małyska, A. (2015). Uninformed and disinformed society and the GMO market. Trends in Biotechnology 33(1), 1–3.Google Scholar

Vasconcelos, M. et al. (2003). Enhanced iron and zinc accumulation in transgenic rice with the ferritin gene. Plant Science 164(3), 371–378.Google Scholar

Wesseler, J. and Zilberman, D. (2014). The economic power of the Golden Rice opposition. Environment and Development Economics 19(6), 724–742.Google Scholar

WHO (2015). WHO Global Database on Vitamin A Deficiency. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Wirth, J. et al. (2009). Rice endosperm iron biofortification by targeted and synergistic action of nicotianamine synthase and ferritin. Plant Biotechnology Journal 7(7), 631–644.Google Scholar

Ye, X. et al. (2000). Engineering the provitamin A (β-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287(5451), 303–305.Google Scholar

Zhang, G.-Y. et al. (2013). Increased α-tocotrienol content in seeds of transgenic rice overexpressing Arabidopsis γ-tocopherol methyltransferase. Transgenic Research 22(1), 89–99.Google Scholar

Zimmermann, R. and Qaim, M. (2004). Potential health benefits of Golden Rice: a Philippine case study. Food Policy 29(2), 147–168.Google Scholar