Cited by 197Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchRisk Perception and ManagementTransgenic Plants and Applications

Genetically modified plants and human health

Open access
Key, Suzie, Ma, Julian K-C, Drake, Pascal MW·2008·Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Abstract

Summary Genetically modified (or GM) plants have attracted a large amount of media attention in recent years and continue to do so. Despite this, the general public remains largely unaware of what a GM plant actually is or what advantages and disadvantages the technology has to offer, particularly with regard to the range of applications for which they can be used. From the first generation of GM crops, two main areas of concern have emerged, namely risk to the environment and risk to human health. As GM plants are gradually being introduced into the European Union there is likely to be increasing public concern regarding potential health issues. Although it is now commonplace for the press to adopt ‘health campaigns’, the information they publish is often unreliable and unrepresentative of the available scientific evidence. We consider it important that the medical profession should be aware of the state of the art, and, as they are often the first port of call for a concerned patient, be in a position to provide an informed opinion. This review will examine how GM plants may impact on human health both directly – through applications targeted at nutrition and enhancement of recombinant medicine production – but also indirectly, through potential effects on the environment. Finally, it will examine the most important opposition currently facing the worldwide adoption of this technology: public opinion.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several groups reviewing the evidence for health hazards of genetic modification have found no evidence for harms, but methods for such evaluation remain heterogeneous.

    “Several groups reviewing the evidence for health hazards of genetic modification have found no evidence for harms;130-134 however, methods for such evaluation remain heterogeneous.135-139”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 24 Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, et al. Improving the nutritional content of Golden Rice through increased provitamin A content. Nat Biotechnol 2005; 23 :482-7
  2. 34 Guidance document of the genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA J 2004; 99 :1-94
  3. 39 Doerfler W, Schubbert R, Fremde. DNA im Sciugersystem. Deutsches Arzteblatt 1997; 94 :51-2
  4. 62 Metz M, Fulterer J. Biodiversity (communications arising): suspect evidence of GM contamination. Nature 2002; 416 :600-1
  5. 64 Reichman JR, Watrud LS, Lee EH, et al. Establishment of GMherbicide-resistance creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis Stolonifera L.) in nonagronomic habitats. Mol Ecol 2006; 15 :4243-55
  6. 77 Von Emden HF, Gray A, eds. GMOs - Ecological Dimensions. Wellsbourne, UK: Association of Applied Biologists. In press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Key, S., Ma, J. K.-C., & Drake, P. M.
Affiliations
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • Molecular Immunology Unit, Centre for Infection, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, St George's University of LondonCranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, UK
Venue
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Published
2008-06-01
Volume
101
Issue
6
Pages
290-298
ISSN
  • 0141-0768 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1095
OpenAlex
W2101878382
Cited by
197
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
0.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Transgenic Plants and Applications
Keywords
transgenic plants, genetically modified crops, human health, environmental risk, public perception, media coverage, nutrition, public opinion, medical profession
MeSH terms
Diet, Food Contamination, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Public Health, Public Opinion, Food, Genetically Modified

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review