BambawaleO. M.SinghAmerikaSharmaO. P.BhosleB. B.LavekarR. C.DhandapaniA.KanwarV.TanwarR. K.RathodK. S.PatangeN. R., and PawarV. M. (2004), ‘Performance of Bt cotton (MECH-162) under Integrated Pest Management in farmers' participatory field trial in Nanded district, Central India’, Current Science, Vol 86, No 12, pp 1628–1633.
2.
BennettR.IsmaelY., and MorseS. (2005), ‘Explaining contradictory evidence regarding impacts of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Varietal performance of transgenic cotton in India’, Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol 143, No 1, pp 35–41.
3.
PemslD.WaibelH., and OrphalJ. A. (2004), ‘Methodology to assess the profitability of Bt-cotton: Case study results from the state of Karnataka, India’, Crop Protection, Vol 23, No 12, pp 1249–1257.
4.
PelletierD. L. (2005), ‘Science, law, and politics in FDA's genetically engineered foods policy: Scientific concerns and uncertainties’, Nutrition Reviews, Vol 63, No 6, pp 210–223.
5.
AumaitreA. (2001), ‘Feeds derived through modern biotechnology: Principle, safety and substantial equivalence’, Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes, Vol 54, pp 129–139.
6.
JolyP. B., and MarrisC. (2003), ‘Have the Americans accepted GMOs? A comparative analysis of the construction of GMOs as a public problem in France and the USA’Cahiers d'Économie et Sociologie Rurales, No 68/69, pp 11–45.
7.
LutmanP. J. W., and BerryK. (2003), ‘Herbicide-tolerant crops – good or bad for Europe?’Outlook on Agriculture, Vol 32, No 2, pp 91–95.
8.
MesséanA.AngevinF.ChampolivierJ., and ColbachN. (2005), ‘Impact of GMOs within cropping systems: Towards a more systemic approach’, Aspects of Applied Biology, Vol 74, pp 191–196.
9.
RoosenJ.LuskJ. L., and FoxJ. A. (2004), ‘Transatlantic differences in consumer preferences’, Eurochoices, Vol 3, No 2, pp 26–33.
10.
BuschU.PecoraroS.PosthoffK., and Estendorfer-RinnerS. (2004), ‘First time detection of a genetically modified papaya in Europe – official complaint of a non authorized genetically modified organism within the EU’, Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau, Vol 100, No 10, pp 377–380.
11.
DamrongchaiN. (2004), ‘Agricultural biotechnology in Thailand’Biotechnology and Development: Challenges and Opportunities for Asia, pp 201–218.
12.
WarinN.ChowpongpangS.BhunchothA.RomyanonK.RodareeR.KositratanaW., and AttathomS. (2003), ‘New papaya cultivars for papaya ringspot virus resistance’Proceedings of 41st Kasetsart University Annual Conference, 3–7 February, subject: Plants and Agricultural Extension and Communication, pp 539–546.
13.
FurtanW. H.GrayR. S., and HolzmanJ. J. (2005), ‘Regulatory approval decisions in the presence of market externalities: The case of genetically modified wheat’, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol 30, No 1, pp 12–27.
14.
MaxwellB. J.WilsonW. W., and DahlB. L. (2004), ‘Producer contract strategies in GM crops’Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report, No 539, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University.
15.
WilsonW. W., and DahlB. L. (2005), ‘Costs and risks of testing and segregating genetically modified wheat’, Review of Agricultural Economics (Boston), Vol 27, No 2, pp 212–228.
16.
KrolikowskiK. A.VictorJ. L.WaglerT. N.LolleS. J., and PruittR. E. (2003), ‘Isolation and characterization of the Arabidopsis organ fusion gene HOTHEAD’, Plant Journal, Vol 35, No 4, pp 501–511.
17.
LolleS. J.VictorJ. L.YoungJ. M., and PruittR. E. (2005), ‘Genome-wide non-mendelian inheritance of extra-genomic information in Arabidopsis’, Nature, Vol 434, No 7032, pp 505–509.
18.
GoodmanR. E.HefleS. L.TaylorS. L., and van ReeR. (2005), ‘Assessing genetically modified crops to minimize the risk of increased food allergy: A review’, International Archives of Allergy and Immunology, Vol 137, No 2, pp 153–166.
19.
LehrerS. B., and BannonG. A. (2005), ‘Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: Perception and reality’, Allergy, Vol 60, No 5, pp 559–564.
20.
SpökA.GaugitschH.LafferS.PauliG.SaitoH.SampsonH.SibandaE.ThomasW.van HageW., and ValentaR. (2005), ‘Suggestions for the assessment of the allergenic potential of genetically modified organisms’, International Archives of Allergy and Immunology, Vol 137, No 2, pp 167–180.