Greenie
UTS Visual Communications Honours 2020
Tutors: Aaron Seymour, Zoe Sadokierski, Jacquie Lorber-Kasunic, Jacqueline Gothe
Acknowledgements: Katherine Scardifield, Diana Vu, Julie Nguyen, Jake Mu, Aaron Davis, Aiden Barry
👩🏽🌾🌱👨🔬🧬👨⚖️💰
Project︎
Research︎
Enter Greenie Site >
Perspectives on the Genetically Modified (GM) Foods Debate
Introduction
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a highly debated topic to which I aim to unpack the complexities of. More specifically, I will be looking into the genetically modified (GM) foods debate by comparing mainstream and scientific perspectives. I intend to draw out the main arguments and investigate the most influential actants in the debate including Greenpeace and Monsanto. I will explore tensions between the developed and the developing world as well as post-humanist perspectives. I am interested to know what defines GM foods and how the term, “natural”, plays a part in this. “Natural” can be a problematic concept as it is a colonial construct where its meaning can change depending on the context. As we are in the midst of a climate crisis, the concern for food security and “sustainable” agricultural practices emerges. It’s important to rethink and critique how GMO’s fit into this space as it may contribute to alternative ways of thinking and living which could lead to a more desirable future. However, I question, what are the moral and ethical consequences? Where do my values align in this debate?
Bringing Design Theory and Scientific Communication Together
Cameron Tonkinwise (2020), known for his work in speculative and transition design, stated that science is one of the most poorly communicated fields. He gave the example of climate change and how it has led to misconceptions and distrust. Perhaps, this is because the humanities have severely underestimated the agency visual epistemology has on interpreting data and the biases embedded within them, as recognised by Johanna Drucker (2014), a theorist known for her critical studies in graphic design. Fabiola Cristina Rodríguez Estrada and Lloyd Spencer Davis (2014), researchers in design theory and science communication, agree that in the traditional approach of science communicators, visual material is considered as an optional add-on element rather than as an integrated part of the whole. Polarising science is treated as a translation or a simplified description of scientific knowledge, but they argue it should be considered rather as a recontextualization of the scientific discourse into another domain. It’s advocated that “science communicators can become more effective visual communicators if they incorporate elements of theory and practice from the discipline of design” (Estrada & Davis, 2014, para. 1). As a visual communicator, I want to take on this challenge by investigating different ways of presenting scientific-based information so that non-scientific communities can engage with and understand it.
Rationale
It is clear there is an urgent need for mutual understandings between these communities. We need to address and respond to this in order to open up deeper levels of conversations around issues such as climate change and GM foods. How can visual communication facilitate these conversations? How can we create mutual understandings between these communities? This research does not intend to answer these questions, but to provide a foundation of the GM foods debate so that I, and potentially other designers, can begin to see where our skills and knowledge of design theory may be able to contribute.
Designer’s Role
This research is also valuable for designers and consumers in regards to decision making within the agricultural and food industry. Consumer choice and demand is the ultimate drive of food production and produce, thus, I am concerned with how their perception and knowledge of GM foods influences this. However, it also comes down to how GM foods are marketed, framed and the designer’s role in influencing public opinion. Bringing awareness of the intricate layers of the GMOs debate will enable both consumers and designers to make more informed decisions based on their own values and beliefs.
Discussion
What are GMOs?
Defining genetically modified (GM), also known as genetic engineering (GE) and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is one of the challenges this debate faces. According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2014, para. 2), GMOs can be defined as, “Organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.” However, this definition is problematic because there is no single and distinct definition of the word “natural” that is agreed on. It is also unregulated and not legally defined by Australia Food Standards. The Cambridge Dictionary (2020) defines “natural” as “found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people”, “not artificial”, “a natural ability or characteristic is one that you were born with” and “(of a person or their behaviour) seeming normal and relaxed”. These definitions not only contradict themselves in terms of human involvement, but they allow for open and conflicting interpretations. If we define “natural” as having no human involvement, do we then consider our whole agricultural system of farming and selective breeding to be genetic engineering according to the WHO definition?
Mark Lynas, a former Greenpeace anti-GMO activist who has since “converted” to a pro-GMO activist, also questions this definition in his book Seeds of Science: Why We Got It So Wrong on GMOs (2018, p.9):
What is ‘Genetically Modified Organisms’ anyway? Your pet dog is genetically modified from the original wolf—otherwise, you wouldn’t let it anywhere near your kids. All our crops and domesticated animals have been genetically modified from their ancestors to be useful to humans. So, are they also GMOs? That’s what bugs the scientists: it makes no logical sense to single out anything that has been altered in the lab for special concern or even vilification. Changing genes via laboratory molecular techniques, the main subject of this book, is not much different from conventional selective breeding.
Lynas’ argument is logical; however, scientists need to consider that cultural morals and ethics is much of as a concern as logic. It is also a matter of trusting science. To what extent do people feel comfortable with a technology, that they do not know the capabilities and underlying intentions of? What do GMOs mean for individuals? In this case, perhaps the “lab” is a paratext that influences how people might define GMOs. The fact that GM foods have been nicknamed “Frankenfood” brings with it the associations of monsters and horror originating from Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein (Mazanek, 2016, para. 2). It generates fear that GMOs are a freak of science and outright wrong. This makes me question: If GE on a molecular level was possible on farmland where the crops are grown, rather than in a lab, would this change the perception of the “naturalness” and perceived danger of GMOs? Despite the indistinct definitions of GMOs, there are paratexts to be considered as well as individual opinions, biases and moral standards which affect their attitudes and behaviour; thus, they are important to acknowledge and cannot be ignored.
Greenpeace Perspectives
Mainstream attitudes have been largely influenced by non-government organisations (NGOs) and their arguably successful anti-GMO campaigns, despite claims made by scientists. Greenpeace is one of the most prominent NGOs fighting against GMOs. They claim that with the surge of GE crops, there has been an increased use of pesticides and chemicals in agriculture. Pesticides are chemical compounds that are used to kill pests, including insects, rodents, fungi and unwanted plants like weeds (WHO, 2020). They state that studies show certain pesticides are associated with increased risk of cancer and with Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It’s also believed that the extensive use of a limited number of pesticides facilitated by GM crops accelerates the evolution of resistant pests (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013). Greenpeace (2020) argues that giant agricultural firms insist that GMO crops are not harmful to humans, but there is not enough evidence to make that absolute claim as they have only gone mainstream in the past 20 years. Corporate pressure has denied the right of millions of consumers to know the prevalence of GMOs in the food chain, as mandatory GMO labelling exists only in a few countries. In terms of corporate ownership,
Giant agricultural firms should not have the right to own the genetic makeup of a particular strain of corn or soy or, in essence, patent nature. We shouldn’t accept a world where chemical giants go after small farmers because a patented seed accidentally blew into their field and transformed their crops. GMOs threaten the independence of farmers to provide food to us all be ensuring their sovereignty over what to grow. (Greenpeace US, 2020, para. 4)
Mixed Messages
It’s interesting to note that Greenpeace has conflated “GMOs & Toxic Pesticides” on their site because in the eyes of science they are very different mechanisms. Lynas (2020, p. 98), discusses how the confusion between GMOs and pesticides arose. In 1996, Monsanto, one of the “big 6” agricultural chemical and seed companies, launched the first widely used GM seed—the Roundup Ready soybean. These seeds are resistant to Roundup—a pesticide which enables farmers to control weeds without killing their yield. Lynas believes if Monsanto had instead initially launched BT corn (GM crop containing a bacterium from soil that selectively kills insects), genetic engineering in the public mind, could have been associated with the reduction of pesticides rather than enabling further pesticide use. As a result, GMOs might have faced less widespread opposition. Some environmental groups might even have supported GMOs with the intention of reducing pesticides in agriculture. For designers, this is a good example of why the messaging in communication is important and how it can determine a technology’s position in the world.
The confusion continues when Greenpeace claims, “As a matter of fact, genetically engineered crops directly promote an industrial and chemical-intensive model of farming harmful to people, the environment, and wildlife” (Greenpeace, 2020, para. 2), It’s contradictory that Robert Park (2014), a leading researcher in sustainable agriculture at Sydney University, claims resistance breeding is the most environmentally friendly and economical approach to disease control. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (2016, p. 1) found no substantial evidence of risks to human health between current commercialised GE crops and conventionally bred crops, nor any conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops.
Scientific & Agricultural Perspectives
In Karsten de Vreugd’s documentary film, Well Fed (2017), science journalist Hidde Boersma, provides a compelling argument for GM crops in relation to food security and climate change. However, Boersma stresses the importance we need an understanding of genetic engineering first, so we aren’t scared of it. He explains with a hypothetical crop there are genes for length, taste and vitamins but not for disease resistance. Then you have a related crop with similar genes, but this one also has a resistance gene. Traditionally, we would crossbreed, putting plants together. All sorts of genes go from one to another. Now the plant is resistant, but now it tastes different or it has less vitamins. So, in order to get rid of those genes, everything will have to be crossed back until you have the traditional crop with that one specific new gene. With the new technique, if there is a resistant crop and we want to use the piece of its DNA, we cut and paste the specific gene into the other crop (de Vreugd, 2017, 4:08). Boersma successfully demonstrates how genetic engineering saves time and resources by using table coasters as metaphors for genes. By doing so, he has removed the mysteriousness and fear of the unknown of GMOs so they are no longer foreign to his audience. Not only does he recontextualises the process of GE, but the way he does so, makes it accessible to his general audience which is what visual designers can aim to do.
Furthermore, the film captures a protest against Monsanto where protestors explain that it’s about how the technology is used rather than GMOs itself. However, Boersma argues optimistically that the “GM is too powerful to be left in the hands of big corporations. I would like to see all of us with the NGOs, the environmental organisations, and the farmers doing great things with this technique” (2017, 49.09). He persuades his audience by showing GM eggplants farmed in Bangladesh. Through storytelling, it can be seen that the benefits of GM crops include not only self-sufficient farming but also higher yield, larger produce, reduced pesticides, increased revenue to farmers and their ability to save seeds following year. We sympathise with another farmer who does not have access to GM seeds. We see him spraying his crops 5 times a day with pesticides, he’s increasingly getting sick and doesn’t have much time to spend with his family because of the workload. Boersma explains that Golden Rice is also being tested in Bangladesh. It is a GM crop that has added Vitamin A taken from a corn gene. With half a million children going blind from Vitamin A deficiency and half of them dying every year, Golden Rice was seen as an opportunity to help solve this issue. However, Greenpeace has blocked this rice from entering Indonesia. Regardless of how the audience feels at the point, it’s important to consider that with the restricted time of a film, there may be more to the story than shown. Lynas features in the film and urges,
There’s one thing I know for sure: If they succeed in banning this technology not just in Europe but worldwide, it’s going to be much more difficult to feed hungry children in the future and to make farming sustainable. I think there’s a significant chance that we could lose the opportunity to use a really important technology for the future of feeding humanity. (de Vreugd, 2017, 50:10)
Robert Paarlberg, a scholar and consultant specializing in global food and agricultural policy, agrees that as many as 60 percent of all people are poor farmers and they might benefit from this technology. They rely almost entirely on food crops, so today’s de facto ban on GMO foods is specifically damaging to those poor farmers. He believes it becomes more shameful when anti-GMO campaigners from rich countries intentionally hide published conclusions of their own national science academies from developing country citizens, which continue to show no evidence of risks to human health or the environment (2014, para. 34). Lynas explains it’s almost imperialistic when first world NGOs impose their first world values, onto third world countries (de Vreugd, 2017, 42:50). However, could it be argued that the distribution of GMO’s to developing countries is also doing the same thing? The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa made a statement that:
White male European so-called experts are channelling the message of the biotech industry, heavily controlled by US-European seed and chemical giants Monsanto/Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont Pioneer…Their immediate goal is to weaken national biosafety laws, thereby removing any barriers to their access to African markets for their contentious high-risk products. Specifically, they want to remove the ‘strict liability’ clauses and thereby avoid any responsibility; avoid having to pay compensation for any damage that they do; avoid labelling so that African people are prohibited from knowing if their food is genetically modified; and avoid any punishment that African laws can impose. (2018, p.1)
These speculations are important but perhaps they can be used by governing bodies and to avoid large firms from “controlling the food chain” while still being able to distribute GMOs. Nevertheless, Paarlberg is convinced that “When it comes to GMO food crops, anti-GMO campaigners have thus won a remarkable yet dubious victory’’ (2014, p. 223) and it may have to do with trust. In Australia, the opinions about GM crops is divided. 36% are in favour of GM crops, 32% opposed and 32% don’t know (Instinct & Reason, 2019). NGOs have not only influenced GMOs to be mostly rejected in the western world but also in Africa, India, China and the Philippines too. Emily Sikazwe, executive director of a local NGO called Women for Change told her fellow Zambians to say no to GM food aid; “Yes, we are starving, but we are saying no to the food the Americans are forcing on our throats” (Phiri, as cited in Paarlberg, 2014, para. 20). Lynas describes how when he was in Africa, he was told that your kids go homosexual if you eat GMOs—his point being there is a conspiracy theory which fits into the culture of each place (de Vreugd, 2017, 16:45). In contrast to large agricultural firms, NGOs do not intend to make a profit and thus would receive greater social trust. Some NGOs are branded as advocates for social justice, rural poor and the environment which includes alternate farming methods such as organic or agroecological methods, which reject the use of GMOs (Paarlberg, 2014, p. 223).
Western Perspectives
In developing countries, there is an increasing preference for “natural” and organic food. Scott et al. (2018, para. 11) reports this is calculated by the most desirable traits of freshness, naturalness and minimal processing. Perhaps, the rise of health and fitness, social media profiling and concern for body image has contributed to this. Processed foods and “junk foods” have reputations of being unhealthy and “unnatural”, thus, organic and “natural” food are marketed and have become preferential. Worldwide, the sale of organic food has risen from 1999 at $15.2 billion to 2016 at $90 billion (para. 12). In some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of “naturalness”. Even the slightest contact between “natural” food and an “unnatural” entity, either a scientist or a piece of foreign DNA, contaminates the natural entity and makes it unacceptable or even immoral to consume. (Scott et al., 2018, para. 1). It is evident this ideology has greatly swayed the debate towards anti-GMOs in the western world.
Post-humanist Perspectives
However, from a post-humanist lens, the “natural” world can be critiqued as a colonial construct. This world view where humans are superior and the “natural” world is a separate entity that can be used at our expense, has resulted in the climate crisis that we are in today. Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter (2010), provides an alternative world view and claims the human and nonhuman, inanimate and animate objects are all an assemblage that each have their force and agency. It’s argued, “We are much better at admitting that humans infect nature than we are at admitting that nonhumanity infects culture, for the latter entails the blasphemous idea that nonhumans—trash, bacteria, stem cells, food, metal, technologies, weather—are actants more than objects” (Latour, as cited in Bennett, 2012, p. 115). Tega Brain, an artist and environmental engineer, takes this ideology into the public eye by creating the installation City Wilderness Trail (2012). She evokes her audience to rethink their understanding of the urban world as just for humans, by creating signs that educate them on the fauna living in Sydney CBD. Brian argues “the natural world as a dynamic, evolving and complex system of which our cities and societies are an important part” (2012). It’s clear this post-humanist world view can lead to a more desirable future; however, it leaves me to wonder where GMOs fit into this space. Boersma in Well Fed (de Vreugd, 2017) critiques this idea of “natural” by explaining the grapefruit in an organic market was produced by humans bombarding radioactivity onto seeds of a similar plant that led to a genetic mutation. It’s now sweeter and juicer. Crops like lettuce and cabbage can only be found on farms because humans have adapted them over time. He claims, “Already, our food is far from natural” (2017, 8:20), thus, GMO’s are not any different and should be accepted. GM crops can be disease resistant, create higher yield which means less deforestation, energy and resources is required. Thus, will ultimately lower the carbon footprint, help feed a growing population and create more sustainable farming. With one of the buzz words being “sustainability” in the GMO debate, it’s interesting to think about what people mean when they say “sustainability”. What exactly are we sustaining? In Boerma’s context, is he talking about farming with less of an environmental impact or the ability for humans to keep farming? If he is talking about the latter, then perhaps, GMOs still fit into the human-centric world view.
On the other hand, Doerthe Rosenow (2018), a political theorist concerned with political struggle in understanding nature, de-coloniality and materiality, takes an anti-GMO stance. Rosenow argues there’s an imperative need for a different and decolonised environmental activist strategy, that recognises its colonial heritage and finds a different ground for environmental beliefs and politics. She critiques that the anti-GMO movement is based on the modern epistemology of dichotomy between the human and the natural. Through “an anti-GMO activist manifesto” (p. 121), Rosenow concludes that we need to continue fighting by questioning the conventional scientific paradigms on the basis on science itself. We have to get away from the notion of facts and start to analyse all complex, specific, and non-human encounters. GMOs have the right to exist so we need to stop understanding them as monstrous entities that we fully know and reject. A better ground for GMO exclusion is the underlying colonial logic rather than their mysteriousness and unpredictability (as everything is). We need to stop perceiving Nature as One and to stop labelling certain nonhumans or humans “unnatural” or “natural’’ (or “traditional” or “authentic”). We need to stop asking pre-given questions that make sense in our pre-given frames. We need to listen to the oppressed and act accordingly. When it comes to problems of the world (including environmental degradation), it is the experience of the oppressed and their understanding of the world that needs to be prioritised. We can only judge the theories about how to solve world’s problems by the effects it will have on non-European peoples as every revolution in European history has served to reinforce Europe’s tendencies and abilities to export destruction to other people, other cultures and nonhuman existence. Finally, we need to resist the temptation of urgency to short-circuit in order to “solve” environmental problems to avoid further oppression.
It’s interesting to note that Rosenow’s position on urgency contradicts Tim Morton’s “strongly held belief that the world is about to end “unless we act now” is paradoxically one of the most powerful factors that inhibit a full engagement with our ecological coexistence here on Earth” (2013, p.14). Perhaps, what is required is a compromise. We need to act now but think hard about what it means for the world in the centuries to come. Rosenow has delivered a persuasive piece and refers to a multitude of theorists and academics to back her argument. Although her text is appropriate to a scholarly audience, her manifesto provides a rich summary that can be grasped by a general audience. Perhaps, there is an opportunity here for this manifesto to be recontextualised visually.
Methodology
This research has been conducted through a post-humanist lens with the concern for rethinking ecological agency. Going beyond human-centred design has been an effective method of critical thinking and rethinking my role as a designer in society. It has made me reflect on how I can personally contribute to this world other than capitalism. In order to gain an understanding of the complexities and intricate layers of the GMO debate, I felt it was imperative to undertake research for design. Initially, I had minimal knowledge of this area and it appeared the majority of the research was theoretical. This changed when it came to comparing texts, as mapping the research through design enabled closer and more in-depth analysis. As I proposed, the next step would be to identify where visual communication can aid in this space. However, this would require an extensive process of research through design involving experimentation and iteration. Due to the enormity of this debate, I’m acknowledging that there is a multitude of areas that could be further inquired. This includes a more in-depth understanding of where GMOs fit into the agricultural industry. There are other farming techniques that need to be taken into account like Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa’s claim that “Agroecology is the future of farming...It’s productive—doubling yields in just a few years. It’s resilient to climate change, and puts carbon back in the ground. It’s efficient: less inputs, less waste. It’s culturally appropriate: local innovations and solutions” (2018, p.1-3) as well as the discussion around lab meat and the morals around it.
It’s also important to consider the capability of this technology, not just on crops, but on animals and humans as well. GMOs also exist in medicines and vaccines. Zoe Sadokierski (2019) describes that in Margaret Atwood’s 2013 Maddaddam trilogy that there are rabbits injected with jellyfish DNA to glow, wolf-dog hybrids bred for military service to obliterate domestic dogs and hunt humans as well as pigs spliced with human stem cells to grow organs for human transplants…and that they all currently exist. It begs the question, just because we can use this technology, should we? Morally where do we draw the line? As this research is predominately from the perspective of the western world view, there’s an opportunity to investigate eastern values and cultural perspectives on the matter.
Conclusion
Overall, this research has provided me with an extensive overview of the GM foods debate. This is important so that I can understand the topic’s complexities before critiquing and recontextualising it. It has also surfaced opportunities that are of interest to me. I am more aware of the arguments for and against but I also understand there are multifaceted concerns that are not as simple as morally or scientifically right and wrong. Understandably, there are a diverse range of perspectives on GM foods for different people in the world because of cultural, moral and value distinctions. However, there is an urgent need for people to be more informed and alert to the discussions around GM foods because the choices they make will impact how this technology can be distributed and used, or not. According to this research, these choices are greatly impactful and have the potential to change lives. An area of interest is Rosenow’s “Anti-GMOs activist manifesto” (2018). Breaking down the idea of the “natural” has also been beneficial in allowing myself to have not only a new outlook of food but also a new ecological perspective and the treatment of non-human entities. In terms of my personal design practice, I am conscious I am not an expert thus, I will draw on these researchers, theorists and scholars to shape my future design practice. As simplicity is key, I will need to focus in on an area that inspires me if I am to peruse a visual communication piece on GM foods.
References
Bawa, A. S., & Anilakumar, K. R. (2013). Genetically modified foods: Safety, risks and public concerns—a review.
Journal of Food Science and Technology, 50(6) 1035–1046. Brain, T. (2012).
City Wilderness Trail [installation]. Laneways Public Art Program. Sydney. http://www.tegabrain.com/City-Wilderness-Trail
Cambridge University Press. (2020). Natural. Cambridge Dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/natural
de Vreugd, K. (2017). [Hidde Boersma’s genetic engineering explanation with table coasters in film Well Fed] [Screen Capture 5:18]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/188913344
de Vreugd, K. (Director). (2017). Well Fed [Dutch] [Film].
Drucker, J. (2014). Graphesis. Harvard University Press.
Estrada, F. C. R. & Davis, L. S. (2014). Improving Visual Communication of Science Through the Incorporation of Graphic Design Theories and Practices Into Science Communication. Science Communication, 37(1), 140-148. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au/10.1177/1075547014562914
Greenpeace USA. (2020). GMOs & Toxic Pesticides. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/sustainableagriculture/issues/gmos/
Instinct & Reason. (2019, July). Community Attitudes Towards Gene Technology. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/inter net/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/327437B632158967CA257D70008360B1/$File/Community%20attitudes%202019%20Report.pdf
Lynas, M. (2018). Seeds of Science: Why We Got It So Wrong On GMOs. Bloomsbury.
Mannion, A. M., & Morse, S. (2013). GM crops 1996–2012: A review of agronomic, environmental and socio-economic impacts. University of Reading, Geographical Paper No. 195. http://www.reading.ac.uk/geographyandenvironmentalscience/Research/ges-resGeogPapers.aspx
Mazanek, C. (2016). Frankenfoods: Conceptualizing the Anti-GMO Argument in the Anthropocene. New Errands, 3(2), https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ne3260058
Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. University Of Minnesota Press.
National Academy of Sciences. (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. https://www.nap.edu/resource/23395/GE-crops-report-brief.pdf
Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science,
304(5677), 1623–1627.
Paarlberg, R. (2014). A dubious success: The NGO campaign against GMOs. GM Crops & Food, 5(3), 223-228. https://doi.org/10.4161/21645698.2014.952204
Park, R. (2014). Biotic stress tolerance and resistance [Video file]. In The Biomedical & Life Sciences Collection, Henry Stewart Talks. https://hstalks.com/bs/2852/
Rosenow, D. (2018). Un-making Environmental Activism: Beyond Modern/Colonial Binaries in the GMO Controversy. Routledge.
Sadokierski, Z. (2019, March). The Everything Change. Zoe Sadokierski. https://zoesadokierski.com/exhibitions/
the-everything-change
Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., Wirz, C. D., et al. (2018). An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food.
Annual Review of Nutrition, 38, 459-479. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223
Tonkinwise, C. (2020). Transition Design [Subject 87900 lecture].
World Health Organization. (2014, May). Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods. https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Pesticides. https://www.who.int/topics/pesticides/en/