title: The three main monotheistic religions and gm food technology: an overview of perspectives.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Public acceptance of genetically modified crops is partly rooted in religious views. However, the views of different religions and their potential influence on consumers' decisions have not been systematically examined and summarized in a brief overview. We review the positions of the Judaism, Islam and Christianity - the three major monotheistic religions to which more than 55% of humanity adheres to - on the controversies aroused by GM technology.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The article establishes that there is no overarching consensus within the three religions. Overall, however, it appears that mainstream theology in all three religions increasingly tends towards acceptance of GM technology per se, on performing GM research, and on consumption of GM foods. These more liberal approaches, however, are predicated on there being rigorous scientific, ethical and regulatory scrutiny of research and development of such products, and that these products are properly labeled.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We conclude that there are several other interests competing with the influence exerted on consumers by religion. These include the media, environmental activists, scientists and the food industry, all of which function as sources of information and shapers of perception for consumers.
authors.affiliation: Department of English, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. ebomobowale@yahoo.com
authors.forename: Emmanuel B
authors.initials: EB
authors.lastname: Omobowale
authors.forename: Peter A
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Singer
authors.forename: Abdallah S
authors.initials: AS
authors.lastname: Daar
references.citation: J Agric Environ Ethics. 2006;19(3):225-38
references.pmid: 17061380
references.citation: Br J Sociol. 2006 Jun;57(2):263-88
references.pmid: 16759195
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2006 Aug;71(5):598-607
references.pmid: 16639559
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2007 May;25(5):525-31
references.pmid: 17483833
references.citation: Am J Bioeth. 2003 Summer;3(3):15-7
references.pmid: 14594470
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2007 May;25(5):507-8
references.pmid: 17483829
references.citation: Nature. 1999 Dec 2;402(6761 Suppl):C55-8
references.pmid: 10591226
references.citation: Appetite. 1999 Dec;33(3):343-60
references.pmid: 10625527
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 1999 Mar;17(3):282-6
references.pmid: 10096297
references.citation: Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2007;107:1-11
references.pmid: 17522817
references.citation: Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2007;47(4):335-61
references.pmid: 17457721
references.citation: Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2007;107:57-68
references.pmid: 17522820
references.citation: Biomed Pharmacother. 2005 Dec;59(10):531-40
references.pmid: 16298508
references.citation: Toxicol Lett. 2002 Feb 28;127(1-3):337-40
references.pmid: 12052675
references.citation: CMAJ. 2001 Jan 9;164(1):60-3
references.pmid: 11202669
references.citation: Biotechnol Adv. 2000 May;18(3):179-206
references.pmid: 14538107