1009 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15060547)
21. European Parliament vote encourages industry to proclaim green biotech.
Hodgson J
Nat Biotechnol; 2002 Aug; 20(8):756-7. PubMed ID: 12147985
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Regulating innovative crop technologies in Canada: the case of regulating genetically modified crops.
Smyth S; McHughen A
Plant Biotechnol J; 2008 Apr; 6(3):213-25. PubMed ID: 18028290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Questions linger over European GM food regulations.
Ramón D; MacCabe A; Gil JV
Nat Biotechnol; 2004 Feb; 22(2):149. PubMed ID: 14755281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Consumer protection from an EU regulation on the mandatory labelling of genetically modified food.
Clin Lab; 2004; 50(5-6):380-1. PubMed ID: 15209444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Biotechnology, especially genetic modification, and legislation].
de Sitter H; Peters PW
Tijdschr Diergeneeskd; 2002 May; 127(10):322-30. PubMed ID: 12056264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Challenges.
Abdallah NA
GM Crops; 2010; 1(2):53-4. PubMed ID: 21865870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Introduction to the GM crops special issue on biosafety, food and GM regulation.
McHughen A
GM Crops Food; 2012; 3(1):6-8. PubMed ID: 22614635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Beyond food and evil.
Chen J
Duke Law J; 2007 Apr; 56(6):1581-6. PubMed ID: 17679180
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Economic impacts of policies affecting crop biotechnology and trade.
Anderson K
N Biotechnol; 2010 Nov; 27(5):558-64. PubMed ID: 20478422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Barriers and paths to market for genetically engineered crops.
Rommens CM
Plant Biotechnol J; 2010 Feb; 8(2):101-11. PubMed ID: 19968823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology and the role of second generation technologies in the USA and Europe.
Lusk JL; Rozan A
Trends Biotechnol; 2005 Aug; 23(8):386-7. PubMed ID: 15953650
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Genetically modified crops: success, safety assessment, and public concern.
Singh OV; Ghai S; Paul D; Jain RK
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol; 2006 Aug; 71(5):598-607. PubMed ID: 16639559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. US-Indian agbiotech deal under scrutiny.
Jayaraman KS
Nat Biotechnol; 2006 May; 24(5):481. PubMed ID: 16680115
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Unintended effects in genetically modified crops: revealed by metabolomics?
Rischer H; Oksman-Caldentey KM
Trends Biotechnol; 2006 Mar; 24(3):102-4. PubMed ID: 16460820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Homegrown common sense.
Nat Biotechnol; 2001 Oct; 19(10):891. PubMed ID: 11581635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. GM in the media.
Moses V
GM Crops Food; 2012; 3(1):3-5. PubMed ID: 22430850
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: a case of the emperor's new clothes?
Morris SH
Trends Biotechnol; 2007 Jan; 25(1):2-6. PubMed ID: 17113665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Regulation of GM crops in Argentina.
Burachik M
GM Crops Food; 2012; 3(1):48-51. PubMed ID: 22614638
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. An Asian perspective on GMO and biotechnology issues.
Teng PP
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr; 2008; 17 Suppl 1():237-40. PubMed ID: 18296345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The gap between science and perception: the case of plant biotechnology in Europe.
Einsele A
Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol; 2007; 107():1-11. PubMed ID: 17522817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
