Biotech Foods Research Articles

Meat-packer JBS invests in cellular meat

JBS, which calls itself the world’s largest protein company, is taking a majority stake in the Spanish cell-based meat firm BioTech Foods. The $100 million investment will include a plant in Spain and a research center in Brazil, where JBS is based. JBS expects the Spanish plant to reach commercial production by 2024 and plans to eventually add a plant at the R&D center. While this is JBS’s first foray into cultivated meat, which is grown from animal cells, competitors Tyson and Cargill have made similar investments.

Concentrated beta-galactosidase and cell permeabilization from Saccharomyces fragilis IZ 275 for beta-galactosidase activity in the hydrolysis of lactose

The cheese whey shows an organic nutrient charge that can be used to obtain metabolites of interest by biotechnology of microorganisms. Thus, fermentative processes for enzyme production, in particular beta-galactosidase becomes feasible. The enzyme plays an important role in the biotech food industry to obtain milk and dairy products with low lactose content for consumption by intolerant individuals. The objective of this work was to determine the enzyme activity of the concentrated beta-galactosidase (CBG) and the permeabilized cells (PC) both obtained from Saccharomyces fragilis IZ 275. The enzyme beta-galactosidase obtained from the fermentation of Saccharomyces fragilis IZ 275 in cheese whey was used to determine the optimal conditions for the hydrolysis of lactose solution at 1% (w/v). Response Surface Methodology (RSM) by Box-Behnken Design (BBD) was employed to determine beta-galactosidase activity for such factors pH, temperature and enzyme concentration suitable for the lactose hydrolysis. Based on the statistical analysis, the optimum operational conditions for maximizing lactose hydrolysis thus optimizing the enzyme activity for CBG were, temperature 30 °C, pH 6.0 and enzyme concentration 3% (v/v) and for PC was temperature 44 °C, pH 7.0 and enzyme concentration 4% (v/v).

Impacts of the EU GMO regulatory framework for plant genome editing.

New plant breeding technologies, such as genome editing, are enabling new crop varieties to be developed far quicker and with greater precision and scope than achievable using conventional methods. These advances could help farmers address the challenges of climate change, sustainability, and global food security. However, despite their potential, the uptake of these new technologies has been slowed down due to the uncertainty associated with the regulation of genome edited crops. For many European consumers, their view of new breeding technologies is influenced by many factors. Those who have never faced a major food crisis may not sufficiently appreciate the challenges posed by a projected rise of 2 billion in the human population by 2050. In addition, consumers with a regular and plentiful supply of food may not have to consider how their food is produced, or appreciate the challenges EU farmers are already facing to meet future demand. Misleading online articles, questioning the safety and ethics of these “new” biotech foods, can also lead consumers to be reluctant to accept them. Consequently, Europe's mixed view on biotech crops may also be hindering their adoption in countries who have even more to gain from the technology. In this review, we discuss the current data on global and EU GM crop adoption and the potential impact a new wave of crop development may have for agriculture. We reflect on how the EU has viewed GM crops, and we consider the future of both genetic modification (GM) and genome editing (GE) in the EU. We explore lessons learnt from the adoption of GM crops and examine the potential impact the recent decision not to exempt genome edited crops from the EU GMO Directive, will have on EU farmers, scientists, consumers, trading countries, and the rest of the world.

China aims to sow a revolution with GM seed takeover.

Pending acquisition of Syngenta could speed approvals of biotech food crops.

The Precautionary Principle and Non-scientific Factors in the Regulation of Biotech Foods

In the current climate of rising food insecurity, new technologies such as modern agricultural biotechnologies, i.e. the genetic modification of plants and animals, and the cloning of animals, are identified as one of the main solutions to achieve sustainable intensification. The development of modern agricultural biotechnologies and their derived products have been controversial. Biotech foods are allegedly underpinned by scientific uncertainty. To regulate such technologies and to ensure information and safety, the European Union has adopted a precautionary approach relying on premarket authorisation and mandatory labelling. Despite these provisions, biotech foods continue to attract close scrutiny, in particular from the EU public. Against this background, this opinion explains why I came to research biotech foods, how these foods are currently regulated in the EU and why the existing regimes could be improved to allow for the consideration of consumer preferences and more generally non-scientific factors.

Which biotech foods are most acceptable to the public?

New discoveries are prompting questions about which types of genetically engineered foods and applications are likely to be most accepted by the public. Results of a survey of over 1000 US consumers reveals that people prefer eating beef to eating corn or apples if the foods are not genetically engineered, but exactly the opposite is true if the foods are genetically engineered. Eating fresh food is preferred to processed, but much less so if both food types are genetically engineered. Desirability of genetic engineering depends on the reason for the biotechnology application.

Justice Kagan's Presidential Administration and Bioengeneered Foods: Making the Case for Congressional Guidance as a Check to Presidential Policy Setting

Imagine a system of government where the President is accorded a great deal of deference in matters of legislation. A combination of these two elements - “president and legislation” - immediately gives us cause for pause, considering our deliberate tripartite system of checks and balances. Imagine also the advancement of a completely new technology, like cloning. As industry works to perfect the new technology, the question inevitably becomes who is best placed to regulate this industry. As we explore our options, should one of the options be for the Office of the President to set regulations? These are the questions that areas, such as biotechnology, faces or will face. As biotechnology has evolved, the public has become increasingly concerned that processes for approving bio-tech foods are not transparent. The power to approve biotech foods is delegated to administrative agencies, which receive considerable deference from the courts. Added to this judicial deference is the documented involvement of the President's office in setting policy in this area. Justice Kagan labeled Presidential involvement in administrative agencies' decisions as “Presidential Administration.” “Presidential Administration,” according to Justice Kagan, refers to the President directly setting policies by providing directives to administrative agencies. Tracing this practice from President Reagan to President Clinton, Justice Kagan explains that presidents have regularly used the administrative process to set policies as well as take ownership of administrative policies. This Article explores the issues inherent in presidential control of administrative regulatory processes related to genetically modified foods. In that context, especially, congressional silence is unsatisfactory because it unevenly shifts the balance of power to influential interest groups and to the President's office. This awkward balancing has been made all the more evident by Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seeds Farms, the Supreme Court's first decision regarding genetically altered crops. Monsanto and other cases illustrate the legal and ethical complexities of balancing of the public's interest with that of biotech companies and monitoring federal agencies. Thus far, the balancing of interests has erred in favor of biotech companies. The standards applied by the courts for evaluating biotech foods are insufficient and vague. What is more, the procedures in place for overseeing and regulating biotech products are needlessly complex and inefficient. This Article points out deficiencies in the regulation of bioengineered foods and demonstrates that regulating agencies have sponsored a policy that fails to concentrate on the potential harm to human health; rather, the policy focuses on market aggrandizement. The “substantial equivalence” doctrine applied by regulating agencies when evaluating bioengineered products is under particular scrutiny in this Article. Under the substantial equivalence test, bioengineered products have been assumed to be safe by virtue of the initial presidential command, construing bioengineered foods as equivalent to natural foods. This standard, however, is a false equivalence since bioengineered products contain foreign and unknown agents. Continued practice of this type of Presidential control, without consistent input from experts, could lead to greater harm to the population. Considering the high stakes, a more precautionary standard is warranted.Accordingly, this article is divided into the following parts: Part I discusses the application of the Presidential ad-ministration doctrine to biotechnology; it identifies the flaws with that particular approach and explains why a better approach is needed. Part II outlines the sources of laws and the agencies responsible for regulating genetically altered foods. Part III discusses the Supreme Court's first ruling regarding genetically modified crops in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seeds Farms as an example of the conflicts congressional silence creates. Part IV discusses problems with the current judicial standard of review applied to agencies' decisions. Part V explores the detrimental impact of biotechnology on poor farmers, both in the United States and abroad. Part VI proposes better paradigms for dealing with bioengineered foods and calls for specific congressional guidance in that area. Finally, Part VII presents the European approach as a potential model for grassroots lobbying.

Would State-Mandated Labels for Biotech Foods Violate World Trade Agreements

State laws mandating labels for foods produced with genetic engineering may be vulnerable to legal challenges under World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). A ballot initiative currently under consideration in California imposing such labels is likely an SPS Measure, and arguably violates the trade agreement. The initiative raises novel issues under the TBT Agreement, and it is thus not clear whether a successful challenge could be brought under those measures. WTO Member States could take action against mandated biotech food label laws, as could the United States, but it is uncertain whether private parties could.

Consumer Preferences and Bio-Tech Foods in EU and US Law

There is growing consumer unwillingness towards bio-tech foods in both the EU and the US. Consumers have ethical, moral, social, and societal concerns over bio-tech foods; such as GM and cloned foods. They want to know where their food comes from and how it is produced. Such opposition has been demonstrated by the increased reliance on various means to accommodate consumer preferences: direct democracy and institutions listening to the public. In both the EU and the US, citizens' initiatives – the process whereby the public can file a petition to request new legislation – seems to be expanding. In the EU, the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) entered into force in April 2012. The ECI is a new tool created by the Lisbon Treaty, which gives one million citizens the right to ask the Commission to consider drafting new EU laws. It could lead to greater participatory democracy and consumers being heard. For example, at the end of 2010, two NGOs, Greenpeace and Avaaz, filed a petition signed by over 1 million European citizens calling upon the European Commission to put a moratorium on the introduction of GM crops into Europe. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who regulates bio-tech foods and ensures that they are safe and correctly labelled, can be petitioned to possibly change the law. Under Section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the public can provide impetus for rule-making. Citizens have exercised this right in order to require the FDA to assess the GE AquaBounty Salmon as a food additive, rather than a drug, and to request the mandatory labeling of GM and nano-tech foods. This rule-making has some similarities with the ECI, even though in the US a more individual approach is adopted. As such a provision already existed in the US, it might have inspired the EU to establish a similar one. Both processes allow direct democracy and the involvement of the public in the rule-making process, creating a direct dialogue between the government and the public. Second, institutions in the EU and the US have provided momentum to enhance the accommodation of consumer preferences. In the EU, the 2010 GM Crop Cultivation Proposal from the Commission allows Member States to restrict or prohibit GMO cultivation based on health and socio-economic considerations. Such a proposal could provide an opportunity for the public to be heard. In contrast, the US courts have shown willingness to listen to consumer preferences. In the 2010 Boggs case, the Court of Appeals 6th Circuit found that the Ohio ban at the heart of the case – which prohibited dairy processors from making claims about the absence of artificial hormones (growth hormones) in their milk products – breached dairy processors' First Amendment rights to free speech. Thus, consumers have an interest in knowing how their food was produced and manufacturers should be allowed to tell them.

Should we promote the widespread consumption of biotech foods?

Should we promote the widespread consumption of biotech foods?

세계 농산물 수급과 형질전환작물에 대한 우리나라 정책 방향

Higher agricultural commodity prices are a particular concern for food importing countries like Korea that has a very low self-sufficiency ratio. Korean people eat approximately 4.5 million metric tons of rice each year, which is met without a problem by domestic production. The domestic production of corn and soybean which are important raw materials for commercial food processing and livestock feed is only minimal. Demands of corn and soybean in Korea are approximately 7.2 million and 1.3 million metric tons per year, respectively. Since Korean consumers are reluctant to accept biotech (GM) foods, Korean food processors are fighting an up-hill battle in purchasing non-biotech (non- GM) crops which are becoming scarce.

Biotech Food, The Solution to World Hunger?: A Socio-Ethical Consideration on the Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) to Agriculture

Biotech Food, The Solution to World Hunger?: A Socio-Ethical Consideration on the Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) to Agriculture

Technoculture: the key concepts

We live in a world where science and technology shape the global economy and everyday culture, where new biotechnologies are changing what we eat and how we can reproduce, and where email, mobiles and the internet have revolutionised the ways we communicate with each other and engage with the world outside us.Technoculture: The Key Concepts explores the power of scientific ideas, their impact on how we understand the natural world and how successive technological developments have influenced our attitudes to work, art, space, language and the human body. Throughout, the lively discussion of ideas is illustrated with provocative case studies - from biotech foods to life-support systems, from the Walkman and iPod to sex and cloning, from video games to military hardware. Designed to be both provocative and instructive, Technoculture: The Key Concepts outlines the place of science and technology in today's culture.

How does Biotech Food Labelling Affect Consumers' Purchasing Preferences and the Market?

This paper examines whether and how biotech labelling has had an impact on Chinese consumers' vegetable oil purchasing decisions. The authors used sales data from Nanjing and household survey data from Jiangsu province. They found that the market share of biotech oils immediately decreased as a result, though the decrease was small in absolute terms (but statistically significant). In addition, the changes in the biotech oil market share were affected by the structural effect of the rich, while there was no apparent gross consumption effect of the poor, which could have been underestimated due to a series of factors concerning the two datasets applied.

Analytical criteria for performance characteristics of IgE binding methods for evaluating safety of biotech food products

There is detailed guidance on how to perform bioinformatic analyses and enzymatic degradation studies for genetically modified crops under consideration for approval by regulatory agencies; however, there is no consensus in the scientific community on the details of how to perform IgE serum studies. IgE serum studies are an important safety component to acceptance of genetically modified crops when the introduced protein is novel, the introduced protein is similar to known allergens, or the crop is allergenic. In this manuscript, we describe the characteristics of the reagents, validation of assay performance, and data analysis necessary to optimize the information obtained from serum testing of novel proteins and genetically modified (GM) crops and to make results more accurate and comparable between different investigations.

Consumer Activism, EU Institutions and Global Markets: The Struggle over Biotech Foods

This paper takes a critical look at the struggle between the European Commission and European consumer markets over the future of agricultural biotechnology. While the Commission is keen to normalize the commercialization of biotech foods and crops, European consumers refuse to eat/buy products containing genetically modified organisms (GMO) and have effectively closed the market to GMO. Is this a rare example of European citizens prevailing over the elitist technical decision making procedures in Brussels and the pro-GMO coalition of agro-chemical companies, biotech research institutes, big farming, and selected member states? We show that peculiar circumstances enabled consumer-protection and environmental NGOs to mobilize consumers and to deflect the Commission’s goal of introducing biotech foods for a time, a rare achievement in the annals of EU policymaking. However, shifts in global agricultural markets will render this more difficult in the future, in part by awakening dormant tensions within the European anti-biotech movement.

Noah Zerbe. Agricultural Biotechnology Reconsidered: Western Narrative and African Alternatives. Trenton, N.J.: African World Press, 2005. x + 238 pp. Graphs. Bibliography. Index. $29.95. Paper.

Noah Zerbe. Biotechnology Reconsidered: Western Narratives and African Alternatives. Trenton, N.J.: African World Press, 2005. x + 238 pp. Graphs. Bibliography. Index. $29.95. Paper. Ostensibly, this is a book focusing on agricultural biotechnology in Zimbabwe. In many respects, however, it is two books in one. The author is supremely competent to write the one on the colonial and postcolonial injustices that Zimbabwe has suffered, but for the other part-on agricultural biotechnology-he is not. His chapter on Zimbabwe's colonial inheritance is an absolute gem, succinct and to the point. This inheritance down through and including the Lancaster House Agreement is replete with injustices to the indigenous African population, and Noah Zerbe does a magnificent job of identifying and analyzing them. Though opposed to agricultural biotechnology or biotechnology in general, he unexpectedly comes out in favor of an appropriate biotechnology. Zerbe seems not to know that there has been a graduate program in biotechnology at the University of Zimbabwe since 1991. Its graduates have gone on to prestigious molecular biology programs in South or around the world for their Ph.D.s, and many have returned to Zimbabwe where they are engaged in research. He could also have interviewed internationally known molecular biologists in Zimbabwe, including one who did a post-doc with James Watson quite literally at the dawn of biotechnology. To be sure, Zerbe is not alone in simply being unaware of African work on biotechnology. In 2002, when the NGOs raised such a fuss about the dangers of biotech food for famine relief in Africa, they totally ignored a U.N. Economic Commission for report, Harnessing Technology for Sustainable Development in Africa (August 2002), which was almost entirely about the potential for biotechnology in agriculture (green biotechnology) and in pharmaceuticals (red biotechnology). There is an African Journal of Biotechnology in which African scholars from around the continent publish. In July 2000, the Third World Academy of Sciences joined with the national academies of science in Brazil, Mexico, India, China, and the U.S., along with the Royal Society of the U.K., on the safety of transgenic food production. Early in 2006, another report was issued by this group in which other academies of science in and Asia joined in. Today there is NEPAD Science and Technology Forum and a Biotechnology Advisory Group for the African Union. Obviously, some of these organizations were not in existence when Zerbe turned his dissertation into a book, but enough were to make one wonder why their views on biotechnology were ignored then in favor of non-peer-reviewed activists' publications-and why they are still ignored. Since Zerbe is interested in practical uses for agricultural biotechnology, why did he ignore Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor? …

Consumer Attitudes Toward Biotech Foods in China

Based on a largescale survey in 11 cities, this study employs probit and logit models to estimate the effects of various explanatory variables on the likelihood of biotech food acceptance in China. Analyses focus on biotech soybean oil, input and outputtrait biotech rice, and livestock products fed with biotech corn.

Trust in Biotechnology Risk Managers: Insights from the United Kingdom, 1996-2002

During the late 1990s a series of negative events occurred in the United Kingdom (UK) related to biotechnology. These events signaled potential risks associated with biotech foods and crops and were highly reported. According to the trust asymmetry hypothesis, such events ought to cause public trust in risk managers of biotechnology to decline rapidly and rebound more slowly. We find, based on data taken from the Eurobarometer surveys conducted in 1996, 1999 and 2002, that public trust in risk managers did decline from 1996 to 1999. However, the level of trust rebounded sharply between 1999 and 2002. Canonical discriminant analysis of public trust is used to reveal possible explanatory factors in this response. We find that whether people trust or distrust risk managers depends significantly on the amount of objective knowledge they have. We argue that knowledge of science might moderate the trust asymmetry effect.

Media Coverage of Biotech Foods and Influence on Consumer Choice

In the last two decades, few issues in the global agrifood sector have attracted as much media attention as biotechnology. Thousands of brief and in depth articles have been written focusing on diverse issues—from the spectacle of ecological disasters to the promise of feeding a burgeoning world population. Among those, accounts of alleged health risks could influence consumer perceptions and behavior directly. Indeed, reporters across the globe have continued to draw parallels between biotechnology and other known food hazards, such as mad cow disease and chemical contaminants such as dioxin; they have also continued to raise the possibility of “unknown” long-term health effects—essentially framing biotechnology as a food safety risk (Marks and Kalaitzandonakes, Marks et al.). There is evidence that this broad and often negative media coverage of biotechnology has raised public awareness, influenced public perceptions, and altered the public agenda on biotech foods in Europe and elsewhere (Bauer; Durant, Bauer, and Gaskell). This is not surprising as over 90% of consumers receive information about agrifood biotechnology primarily through the popular press and television (Hoban and Kendall). Despite the apparent influence of media coverage on public perceptions, however, the question of whether such coverage has also affected consumer purchasing behavior has not been answered. The answer to this question is broadly relevant. With less than 2% of the U.S. population now engaged in agricultural production, the average food consumer has diminishing personal experience and knowledge of agriculture