PROJECT

IN
BIOLOGY
(Genetically Modified Organisms)
Submitted by:
CHERRY ANN ZAMORA
JAYSON ART INGGO
BSA 1-C

Submitted to:
MRS. JUVY NAUNGAYAN

I.

Introduction

Throughout history, humankind has attempted to make various things easier for
themselves by controlling the world around them. It started with the domestication of animals
around 50,000 B.C. After altering animals, as humans evolved into an agricultural based society,
they started breeding different strains of plants hoping to get the best possible plants for food.
These practices have continued throughout history, but as scientific understanding of breeding
and technology grows, the methods of going about altering plants and animals have changed.
Now, rather than breeding two similar types of plants or animals together, engineers and
scientists can directly alter the genetic sequence of the DNA of a species. This possibility of
altering plants and specifically crops for the food supply raises many ethical and possible safety
issues which need to be explored.
This paper will explore many of the social and ethical dilemmas associated with GMO's
in our food supply. Specific focus will be given to the technical aspects of genetic modification,
possible positive and negative effects of genetically modified foods, laws on genetically
modified foods in the United States. The goal by covering all of these diverse topics is to help
the reader be well informed of all aspects regarding genetically modified foods so that they can
come to their own ethical stance. We propose that the government create a law requiring the
labeling of all GMO products. This is currently done in all European nations and should also be
obligatory here in the United States. This will leave the ultimate decision regarding GMO's to be
made by way of an informed consumer choice to spend their dollar.

I.

Body

Technical aspect of GMO

There are several rising concerns about the upcoming push of genetically modified foods,
due mainly to the emergence of new products from GM companies. For centuries, we have been
doing our own sort of genetic modification, by manipulating certain breeds and species. One
example would be the selective breeding of plants; by selecting certain seeds with more
resistance to disease and pests than others, farmers are able to produce more crops. However,
with the introduction of genetic engineering, modifications to plants and animals no longer have
to be done through the selective breeding process. Genetic engineering has allowed the process
to speed up considerably faster, allowing farmers to produce crops that are immediately resistant
to strains of bacteria or insecticides. It also has the advantage of cross species manipulation,
providing for an unlimited number of possibilities. So what is the process behind all of this?
There are several techniques available with todays technology to modify plants and animals
through genetic engineering.
The use of genetic modification has become relatively common in todays
technologically expanding world. By taking specific long strands of DNA (genes) and inserting
them into other species of cells, it is possible for the new cells carry on useful traits. These new
cells that emerge with foreign genes are called transgenic organisms, and are also known as
genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Generally, plants can be genetically modified easily
because they can be grown from a single cell or piece of tissue. The process of genetic
engineering requires the successful completion of five important steps, each varying in length of

time to complete: DNA extraction, gene cloning, gene design, transformation, and backcross
breeding [1].
The first step that takes place is DNA extraction. During this step, the selected gene is
extracted from an organism. The gene is then cloned thousands of times, so that it can be
successfully inserted into cells. Next, the gene is designed to be effective when placed inside a
different organism. This step is done by modifying three regions, the promoter, coding region
and termination sequence [1]. The promoter region essentially turns the gene on and off like
a light bulb switch and also specifies the number of times a protein will be produced. The coding
region is where the important DNA information is stored, and gives off the desired traits. The
termination sequence signals the end of the gene so the entire chromosome is not read, which is
important because unnecessary genes should not be read.
Transformation is where a new gene is delivered into the nucleus of a plant cell and
inserts into a chromosome [1]. The term transformation means to genetically change a living
organism. It is typically done on tissue culture, so that the cells can be grown into whole plants
with a copy of the transgene. Once the genes transfer over, they are then regenerated through a
special growth medium containing antibiotics. There are several methods for delivering DNA
into the nucleus of plant cells, such as injection, gene guns, and agrobacterium (Boucher, 1).
One type of soil bacterium, called agrobacterium, has the natural ability to transfer DNA
into plants, and has thus been called Natures own genetic engineer. Since agrobacterium
usually causes disease, those genes are removed without compromising the gene-transferring
ability.

Scientists insert special genes into this strain of bacteria, and then place the

agrobacterium into a solution with calluses, which are clusters of undifferentiated plant cells.

Once in the solution, the agrobacterium work their way into the target calluses, eventually giving
rise to a new breed of plant cells [3].
The method of genetic modification by ways of using biolistics, also known as gene
guns or the shotgun method, can be applied to any plant cell. This method works by shooting
DNA into the plant cells, using microscopic gold or tungsten particles coated with DNA. Tissue
culture cells are put in a vacuum chamber and the metal particles are propelled with highpressure gas, such as helium, and is released in a sudden burst. DNA that penetrates the nucleus
of the plant cell are eventually regenerated with special laboratory procedures. The gene gun
method is used where agrobacterium is not suitable for use, such as in wheat, rice, and corn [4].
There is another method of which involves injecting DNA with a very sharp needle into
cells. This has been used primarily on animals, but unfortunately has a high rate of failure.
Similar to the gene gun method, the genes from one organism are transferred to a foreign cell
through specially designed needles. In animals, the injected cell is usually a fertilized egg which
can be put back into the female uterus and develop normally.
The process of delivering DNA into the cell via electroporation uses quick pulses of
electricity.

It is done by first creating and mixing a solution containing cells and DNA

molecules. By electrocuting the cells, tiny pores in the walls open up, allowing the DNA
molecules to fit through them [1]. However, this process usually requires repeating hundreds of
times before success, since there is no control as to how the gene gets inserted into the
chromosome.
Once the gene is successfully inserted, plant cells are immediately go through a special
process called regeneration. Plant cells or tissue into which genes have been introduced can be
regenerated in the laboratory by the use of appropriate plant hormones, and careful culture, into

whole plants [1]. However, there is no universal method in the regeneration of plants because
each plant responds differently. Therefore, culture and regeneration methods must be adapted
depending on both plant cell type. Shortly thereafter, they are crossbred with non-modified
plants, making a new line of plants which are again bred with the hybrids, until the offspring
have 99+% of the transgene [1]. After that, scientists check to see if the inserted genes work, and
monitor the future offspring of the plants.
One important thing in this field of technology is the use of marker genes. New genes
that are introduced into plant cells have beneficial characteristics, such as the ability to produce
their own insecticide or increased nutritional value. The problem with genetic engineering is that
the success rate isnt very high; only a fraction of genetically modified cells take up the new
genes. Marker genes allow scientists to tell if the new genes is present in a cell or not, giving
them identifiable characteristics in the early stages of cell development; this saves scientists time
and resources [4]. For example, some marker genes give cells the ability to withstand antibiotics
and herbicides. When they are treated with antibiotics or herbicides, these cells will survive,
while the untreated ones die. Other marker genes can turn cells into a distinct color when treated
with chemicals, or glow under a certain kind of light [5]. Marker genes are essential in genetic

engineering because it provides a powerful tool to the scientist: determining whether or not a cell
has been successfully modified.

Among crops that are genetically modified in the United States, soybeans, corn,
and cotton are the most commonly produced [6]. The goal of most biotechnology
products are to tolerate herbicides, resist pets, improve color and flavor, increase
nutritional value, and provide longer storage times. For example, the process behind
creating a new breed of corn that can withstand insects can be done in a few steps. By
inserting a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thruingiensis (Bt) into plants, it instructs
them to produce a protein that is toxic to some insects, such as caterpillars, but harmless
to most other creatures. First, the gene from the Bt bacterium that directs cells to produce
a toxic protein to certain insects is isolated, then inserted with the marker
gene into plant cells by method of very sharp needles. Once that is
done, scientists create a condition where only the cells that have taken
up the genes will survive, such as by exposing the cells to an antibiotic.
Once determined, the new cells are allowed to grow into plants, where
they eventually produce seeds for companies to collect and redistribute.

With such a promising future for genetic engineering, the applications are
limitless. On the horizon are bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious
diseases such as Hepatitis B; fish that mature more quickly; fruit and nut trees that yield
years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties [7]. As
researchers gain more information on this subject, GM product development will
continue to progress in unprecedented ways, possibly alleviating important issues such as
world hunger and crop failure.

Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods

With an ever increasing global population, massive 3rd world hunger, and the
health risks of pesticides, it would seem as if genetically modified organism (GMO's)
would be seen as a hero coming to the world's rescue. Instead however, many people see
GMO's as the greatest threat ever to human civilization [8]. But genetic engineering or
biotechnology is creating new novel strategies to help scientist solve the problem of how
to feed the world. It has been estimated that a child dies every two seconds world wide
from starvation; this does not even take into account the number of people who are mal
and undernourished. We have the technology to transfer potentially any gene from any
organism on the planet to another organism. There is a great promise in the use of this
technology to benefit not only the farmers, but also societies worldwide.
The growth in agriculture production has increased since genetic modification
first became available. As an example: corn, wheat and protein production has increased
333%, 136% and nearly 300% respectively, according to The National Research Council.
Corn is the most important and widely grown grain in the United States. As Noel
Vietmeyer of the National Academy of Science pointed out, corn does much more than
just feed America, You rely on corn products each time you read a magazine, walk
across carpet, mail a letter, eat steak, drink beer or a soft drink, eat candy, chew gum, or
take an aspirin." Among the many strengths corn has, it also has a major fatal weakness,
it cannot reproduce without human aid. Its tight husk prevents the corn kernels from
escaping and reaching the soil to germinate. It is also vulnerable to many pests and
diseases, and corn requires a lot of nutrients.

Some opportunities to use GMO's for good is: creating plants better resistant to
weeds, pest and other diseases such as corn, foods with better texture, flavor and
nutritional value, produce with a longer shelf life for easier shipping, bigger yields to
create more efficient use of land, less uses of herbicides and other pesticides, and finally
GMO's can create an essential sustainable way to feed the world.
In the United States we have already begun to grow our first generation of
transgenic herbicide and pest resistant crops. This has allowed farmers to not only use
fewer pesticides, but the ones they are choosing to use are more environmentally friendly.
It is also hypothesized that future generations of transgenic crops will lead to the creation
of foods that can improve human health [9]. We should not be afraid of biotechnology.
Humans, plants and animals are more than just our genes, changing one or two genes do
not make food products unacceptable for consumption.

Positive Environmental Impacts of GMO's

Soil salinity has become a major problem in all agriculture especially in the San
Joaquin Valley [10]. Salts have built up due to a decrease in the water table, poor
drainage, and topical irrigation [11]. The increase in salinity has made crops less able to
grow and in some cases unable to grow at all [10]. The pictures in figure one and figure
two show areas of salt concentration in the San Joaquin Valley as a result of irrigation
practices.

Areas of salt
concentration

(Figure 1. A cornfield in the San Joaquin Valley 15 miles north of Kettleman City along
Highway 41 showing salt damage.)

Water holding area

Areas of salt
concentration

(Figure 2. Soil just outside agricultural water holding land in the San Joaquin Valley
20 miles north of Kettleman City along Highway 41. The soil is now white because
of significant amounts of salt.)

Decreasing soil productivity in a nation requiring the diminishing agricultural

land to be more productive will not allow enough food to be grown for the globally
expanding population. Thus we need to research the possibility of using the genes of salt
tolerant plants species in our agricultural crops.
Mangroves are one such plant species, which may be able to provide several
options to decrease the amount of salinity within the soil. Mangroves have the unique
ability to bring in salt water through their roots, remove it from the water, and release the
salts through their leaves where wind carries it away. It may be possible to remove some
of the salts in the soil by growing mangroves in areas of high salt content or by isolating
the genes that allow them to grow in areas of high salt concentration and placing them in
our traditional field crops.
Plants are being classically bred for salt tolerance but nothing has been successful
[12]. An alternative to plant breeding is to genetically modify plants to be salt tolerant.
Salt tolerant plants may contain genes vital to genetically modify crop plants to be salt
tolerant [12].

Mangroves contain genes allowing it to tolerate and live in saline

conditions. A gene from the grey mangrove, Avicennia marina, has been genetically
implanted into a tobacco plant [13]. The plants surviving the gene transfer show an
increase in the ability of the tobacco plant to tolerate salt stress as well as showing
tolerance to other ionic stresses [13].

It may be possible to use the gene found in the

grey mangrove as well as find other mangrove genes allowing it to tolerate salt and
transfer them to food crops. Food crops with the ability to tolerate salty soil would
potentially be able to remain productive in the San Joaquin Valley

Creating a Sustainability through GMO's

Food in the U.S. is relatively inexpensive, abundant, safe and readily available
because of the success of modern plant breeding and genetic engineering. The growth in
agriculture production has increased since genetic modification became available.
Though, the American food supply may be on the verge of collapse as depletion of crop
gene pool continues.

Among the less fortunate people of the world catastrophic

agriculture collapse have already taken place.

Some of the most exciting advances in genetically altered plants are for non-food
sources. Edible vaccinations are one such area. It has the potential to provide more
convenient, less costly immunization strategies. Dr. Charles Arntzen said, "The dramatic
impact of modern vaccines is not reaching the developing world where it is most
needed." There is a lack of equipment needed for making, storing and delivering vaccines
in these under developed nations, and also a cultural barrier that impedes the acceptance
of injection-based immunization. What if people were able eat foods that where part of
their normal diet, but that could also immunize against diseases?
This question has lead to scientists pursuing the creation of food products, which
would protect people from cholera and diarrhea. These two are the leading causes of
infant deaths in developing parts of the world.

Already transgenic potato plants have

been produced that were demonstrated to be effective in immunizing mice against the
bacteria that cause diarrhea. The potatoes were then used in the first-ever human clinical
trails utilizing a genetically engineered food to deliver a pharmaceutical. The trials were
successful [9]. The genetic engineering of plants has the potential to provide edible plant

vaccines that could be used to immunize individuals against a wide variety of infectious
diseases ranging from cholera to potentially AIDS. Such developments have profound
implications for improving human health worldwide and save millions of lives.
It has been shown that plants have a great economic value to pharmaceuticals,
cosmetics, and other industries. As the world population continues to grow an increased
demand has been placed on our Earth's resources. Farmers sustain billions of dollars in
crop loss each year that has the potential to be controlled by gene modification. Genetic
engineering is a major innovation for agriculture providing growers with other
alternatives to conventional pesticides.
There are a number of social and economical risks of GMO's but these risks are not
a consequence of the technology but of its use. Progress with genetic engineering is no
different from any of our other technological progress. Most people in industrialized
countries are willing and able to accept a technology like the automobile. Just as many
negative things could be said about our cars as could be said about GMO's such as they
contribute to green house gases, kill about a half million people a year in the United
States alone, and adds nothing important to our lifestyle except for convenience of fast
travel. So why is genetic engineering perceived as being too risky?
Humans cannot escape the facts that we are part of the Earth's ecosystem and in
every ecosystem there are producers and consumers. Currently we have no reason to
think that genetic engineered plants are not safe to eat. People now consume about
100,000 different genes daily, and the DNA is efficiently broken down in the human
intestinal system. Though consumers want to eat what they see as natural products and
many think of genetic engineering as unnatural because it involves laboratory procedures

and field-testing. Many experts believe the only way to overcome consumer resistance to
genetically engineered foods is to clearly label products especially fruits and vegetables,
derived from transgenetic plants. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the agency
of the US Government that overseas food safety made its policy in May 1992 that food
obtained from transgenetic plants need not be labeled as such. The FDA decided that
what is important to the consumers is the material content of the food nutritional,
allergenic, pesticide and not the process used to generate the plant. What counts is the
end product, not the methods used to produce plant variety.
It has been argued that the world already has enough food sources to feed the world
and that the only problem has been transporting the food to the people. This is currently
the case in our dilemma of how to feed the world. However, we must continue to be on
the forefront with our research on new sustainable ways to feed the ever-expanding
current populations. Our current methods of commercial mass production agriculture are
not sustainable in the long run. We have poisoned our soils and waters to the point that
previously fertile lands are no longer productive. It is our duty to further expand our
research on GMO's, as this may be the only way to feed our children in the future.

Negative Aspects of GMOs

The use of genetically modified plants and animals has already become
commonplace in todays society without many people being aware of it. The lack of
consumer consent in the choice to eat genetically modified foods creates an ethical
dilemma. In an online article Super Organics from Wired by Richard Manning, he
discusses genetically modified organisms and new, more natural ways of altering plants.

Manning reveals that as much as 70 percent of food prepackaged in a normal grocery

store contain genetically modified foods, particularly corn and soybean[s] [14]. When
in a store there is no way of identifying which foods are genetically modified. The only
possible exception is those foods clearly labeled as organic are not modified, unless the
crops have unknowingly been contaminated. To further complicate the issue, some of the
modified foods found in stores were never intended for human consumption.

One

particular strain of genetically modified corn called StarLink corn was designed
specifically for pig feed but has found its way into the national corn supply. In a Mercury
News article titled Banished biotech corn not gone yet by Paul Jacobs, he discusses
StarLink corn. Jacobs states that a program by the federal government to test corn has
found traces of StarLink corn in more than 1 percent of the corn tested from various
suppliers and growers of corn in the last year [16]. The proliferation of genetically
modified foods in the food supply has grown and shows no sign of stopping.
A majority of consumers do not want genetically modified foods. This fact was
clearly revealed by the public response to the Flavr Savr tomato. Flavr Savr was a brand
of genetically modified tomato created by Calgene, which had the gene removed that
caused the tomato to decay (in order to spread its seeds). Without this gene, the tomatoes
were able to ripen on the vine and still remain firm during transport to the markets where
they were sold. Traditionally tomatoes are picked before ripening while still green and
allowed to ripen during transportation. Despite being genetically engineered, Flavr Savr
tomatoes turned out to be less resistant to pests and easily caught diseases, which made
the crops even more costly to grow. When Flavr Savr tomatoes were released, there was
a large public backlash against genetically modified foods. The term Frankenfood was

generated to describe any engineered foods. Public groups like the Pure Food Campaign
stalled the US Food and Drug Administrations aproval of the sale of Flavr Savr tomatoes
for over three years, and by the time the tomatoes were released many people refused to
purchase the modified food. The refusal to buy Flavr Savr tomatoes was both due to their
increased price, as well as being genetically modified. This led to the bankrupcy of
Calgene, which was eventualy bought up by a larger agricultrual company, Monsanto. In
many countries in the world, there are laws either banning the sale of genetically
modified foods or requiring the labeling of foods that have been genetically altered. The
large agricultural companies in the United States have used their financial backing of
members of congress to prevent any laws restricting modified food from passing in
America. This pressure applied on the government is another tactic used by large GMO
companies which raises ethical concern about Tran genetic foods. The companies stance
against labeling is due to the fear that such laws would hurt their sales when people avoid
modified foods.
Another example of the desire by the populace to not have genetically modified
foods was demonstrated in 2004 when Monsanto announced it would not market
genetically modified wheat. In a BBC News article titled Monsanto drops plans for GM
wheat it is stated that due to customer resistance Monsanto would drop their efforts to
grow a version of Roundup Ready wheat. While they market other Roundup Ready
products it was found that wheat was too readily identifiable with common foods such as
bread which most consumers found disturbing [17]. This reveals that Monsanto knows
that consumers do not want their genetically modified products yet they willing to
continue to push the products when the consumers are not well informed. This lack of

respect for persons and the ability to make fully informed choices on the food they eat
shows bad faith in the genetically modified food industries. One of the most important
ideals when making ethical choices is letting those who might be effected make a well
informed choice with full informed consent.
This attack against the consumers informed consent upon knowning what they
are eating has further come under attack. An attempt to undermine the ability of the
organic label was brought forth in 2003. According to an article True to its roots in the
Sacramento Bee there was an attempt by GMO companies that even animals fed up to
15% of genetically engineered food should still be able to be labeled as organic [15].
This attack further demonstrates the desire to keep consumers in the dark about what they
actually are consuming.
One of the most common claims about genetically modified foods is that they are
better than their regular counterparts. This claim is often backed with a false statement
that modified crops require less pesticides and herbicides than traditional crops would
require. The worlds largest supplier of genetically modified seed for crops is Monsanto,
which happens to be one of the larger producers of pesticides and herbicides. Monsanto
owns scores of patents on different genetically modified seeds for various types of plants.
One of their popular products is Roundup Ready Soy. This is a modified version of the
soy plant designed to resist the Monsanto made herbicide roundup. Now, rather than
specifically spraying specific plants in a field of soy, the entire field can be crop dusted
with roundup. An average of three times as much Roundup is being used in these
Roundup Ready Soy fields. While this requires less manual labor in money in farm
workers it leads to an increase in funds towards Monsanto. This creates another group of

people who are affected by the choice to use GMO foods, the farm workers who are
losing their jobs in favor of extra chemicals. In an online article by Eva Cheng titled
"Genetically modified food: Bush promotes a `biological time bomb,'" she discusses the
way large corporations have pushed modified foods and how many scientists agree they
are dangerous. Seventy-five percent of GM crops are genetically manipulated to be
herbicide tolerant (but usually only to brands produced by the same multinational
corporations) and to be cultivated with heavy doses of the designated herbicide so that
everything else is killed but the GM crop [18]. The use of pesticides and herbicides in
fields has been well documented as unhealthy due to the many ways it effects the
environment as well as human consumption when the food product is eventually eaten
and still contains traces of the chemicals.
Another common claim is that genetically modified plants are less expensive to
grow and increase the productivity of farmers.

This is a claim put forth by the

agricultural companies performing the modifications since it encourages farmers to buy

their products despite the fact that, many times costs raise rather than decrease. Richard
Mannings article Super Organics, which discusses the Flavr Savr proves to be a prime
examples of this. Over two hundred million dollars was invested in creating these
tomatoes and almost none of the investment was able to be reclaimed as the product was
a bust [14]. Even successful products like Roundup Ready Soy increase the cost of
farmers production by requiring more herbicides. Each year, new modified seed must be
purchased from the agricultural companies again to ensure that the crops will be the same
genetically modified strain. This ensures repeat business for the companies from farmers
who want to grow modified plants. The Independent Science Panel performed a study

about genetically engineered foods and published a report titled The Case for A GMFree Sustainable World. They state that, GM crops have cost the United States an
estimated $12 billion in farm subsidies, lost sales and product recalls due to transgenic
contamination. Massive failures in Bt cotton of up to 100% were reported in India [19].
An article on Organic Consumers titled Bt Cotton Fails Again in India goes into more
details about the crop failures in India. While the Bt cotton was resistant to bollworms it
was more susceptible to other forms of failure. While non-modified plants were thriving
all the Bt crops failed. This lead to an alarming rate of farmer suicide to collect on
insurance due to ruined livelihoods in the loss of farms and crops [20]. The only
financial benefit from modified plants is to the companies producing them and the
products that accompany the modified seeds, not to the consumers or farmers.
A major ethical consideration about the genetically modified foods is about the
amount and quality of testing preformed on the foods. Genetic engineering is a relatively
new field of science, and the long term results of modification are not clear. To be
ethically responsible for their product warning labels should be provided about the lack
of long term testing. Monsanto and other companies have started testing on the possible
impacts of these foods but when unfavorable results start appearing these tests are pushed
aside losing funding and other tests which dont show negative results are given more
funding. This extreme bias in testing raises the concern of in whose interest these tests
are being preformed, those of the public or those of the companies. Testing has been
preformed but there has been no unbiased long term testing preformed on the foods
leaving a void of information needed to accurately determine the safety of GMOs as
food.

II.

Conclusion

There are many ethical issues related to the growing and consumption of
genetically engineered crops. They hold potential to greatly increase the nutritional value
of food as well as the productivity of crops, while at the same time provide many safety
as well environmental concerns. These decisions need to be looked at by all of humanity
since everyone is directly affected by the choices. While each person can read these
details and come to different conclusions on the value of genetically engineered foods as
well as the ethical choices being made by the companies in charge of producing these
foods. The ultimate choice on genetically engineered foods should be placed onto a well
informed consumer not held in the dark by those in power of the government and large
corporations which may not have the general publics interests as their primary goal.

III.

References

[1] Overview of the process of Plant Genetic Engineering. (2001).

<www.agbiosafety.unl.edu>
[2] Boucher, Freeman, Pritchard, Nalle, Rayner, Seng. Drafting a Policy Statement:
GMO Technology. (2003) <www.macalester.edu>
[3] Bates, Blair, Jerme, Keller, Lavik, McMaken. Executive Summary from the
Genetically Modified Organism Exploratory Committee. <www.macalester.edu>
[4] Making Genetically Engineered Plants. (2002). <www.pubs.cas.psu.edu>
[6] Genetically modified crops in the United States. (2001) <www.pewagbiotech.org>
[5] How to genetically modify a plant. (1998) <www.jic.bbsrc.ac.uk>
[7] Genetically modified food. (2005) <www.wikipedia.org>
[8] Peels, Chris Martin J., 2004. Plants, Genes, and Crop Biotechnology
[9] Thomashow, Michael F. 1999. Before the U.S. House Science Subcommittee on
Basic Research http://www.house.gov/science/thomashow_100599.htm
[10] Kelman, W., Qualset, C. 1993. Responses of Recombinant Inbred Lines of Wheat to
Saline Irrigation: milling and baking qualities. Crop science. 33:6 Pg. 1223-1228.
[11] Holtzclaw, K., Sposito, G., Thellier, C. 1990. Chemical Effects of Saline
Irrigation Water on a San Joaquin Valley Soil. I. Column studies. Journal of
environmental quality. 19:1 Pp. 50-55.
[12] Borsani, O., Botella, M., Valpuesta, V. 2003. Developing Salt Tolerant Plants in a
New Century: a molecular biology approach. Plant Cell, Tissue, and Organ
Culture 73:101-115.
[13] Bo, L., Hantao, Z., Qingtong, L.,Wen, W., Yuanyuan,G., Pan, C., Xu, C., 2004.
Transformation of the Salt- tolerant Gene of Avicennia marina into Tobacco
Plants and Cultivation of Salt-tolerant Lines. Chinese Science Bulletin.49:5 Pp
456-461.
[14] Manning, Richard. "Wired 12.05: Super Organics." May 2004. Wired.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.05/food.html>.
[15] Lee, Mike. "True to its roots. April 18, 2003. Sacramento Bee.