Biotech Foods Research Articles

Biotech Foods in Europe: Implementing Risk Analysis

In order to manage the risks arising from transgenic organisms in Europe, public engagement in policy-making is important. Involving lay people in decision-making is an innovative and developing approach in European policy making and risk analysis. Food risks are a special category of risk, inherent in European culture and society. So the approach in managing the risks from harm should be dealt with sensitively. The challenge lies with the fine balance that needs to be achieved in the European Free Market, and the dynamic nature of biotechnology. It is proposed that European policy making should be more receptive to the needs and desires of the general voting public(s). This can only be achieved by a greater public understanding of technological risks. The present culture of mis- or lack-of-information needs to change.

An empirical analysis of producer perceptions of traceability in organic agriculture

This study assesses producer perceptions of traceability issues in organic agriculture, using survey data from the 2001 National Agricultural, Food and Public Policy Preference Survey. The survey provides food policy and socio-economic data that facilitate the examination of traceability issues in organic agriculture. The logistic regression models that are used to examine the relationship between traceability and organic agriculture are robust across models. The models indicate a decreased likelihood for federal government intervention on the part of organic producers for policies that improve traceability from consumer back to producer to improve food safety and tracking. However, the results suggest that organic producers with sales under $US 50,000 are more likely to indicate some willingness for government intervention. The analysis also shows that producers want food products made with biotechnology to be labeled if there is a scientifically determined difference in the product. While education may be an avenue to facilitate greater acceptance of traceability issues, the results indicate a negative relationship between the acceptance of traceability and farmers with a bachelor‘s degree. This finding is surprising given the on-going debate surrounding biotech foods and traceability. Clearly the reluctance on the part of producers with bachelor‘s degrees to embrace tracing could hinder such efforts if those producers assume leadership positions in their communities. Perhaps such results are a reflection of the confidence that those producers have in the quality of organic produce.

Plenary Lecture 7 : One World For All: International Harmonization of Food Regulations

ABSTRACT: Although the Codex Alimentarius Commission has functioned as part of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization since 1962, its activities have been of little more than occasional interest until recent years. However, with the advent of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other trading blocs, the deliberations of Codex have become significantly more important to the international trade interests of government and industry groups alike. Increased interest in the elaboration of Codex standards, guidelines, and recommendations may be attributed to increased international awareness of 2 very practical functions of the Commission and its numerous committees. First, some countries have become aware that the guidance and information needed to fill in their own regulatory gaps are often made available in the Codex. Second, multinational corporations and trade associations have become aware of the role that Codex has been given in the WTO agreements as the means by which disputes over trade in food products may be resolved. Increased awareness of the practical functions of Codex activities in shaping national legislation and establishing international trade standards appears to have strengthened Codex's role as the focal point of efforts to achieve internationally harmonized food standards. However, many international regulatory gaps show signs of being filled by legislation that imposes burdens on industry without demonstrable benefits to public welfare. In their most troublesome manifestations, some of these measures, especially recent regulations concerning biotech food labeling, could be viewed as technical barriers to trade.

Consumer knowledge and acceptance of agricultural biotechnology vary

Results from consumer surveys reveal some basic conclusions about consumer attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. First, consumers do not agree about whether biotech foods are good or bad. Second, a small group of people strongly opposes them. Third, the majority of consumers are uninformed about the technology and how food is produced. Relatively small but vocal anti-biotechnology activist groups are successful at influencing public opinion because of consumers' lack of knowledge, creating a role for universities and government agencies to provide clear, objective and accessible information.

Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Biotech Labeling Formats

Conjoint analysis is used to measure the preferences of United States consumers for labeling of biotech foods. The study found that consumers in the sample support mandatory labeling of biotech foods. This suggests that U.S. consumers would support revisions to the present voluntary labeling policy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Results also showed that the preferred labeling format is a text disclosure that describes the benefits of biotechnology in combination with a biotech logo.

Willingness to Pay for Non‐biotech Foods in the U.S. and U.K.

This study uses closed‐ended and payment card formats to elicit willingness to pay for breakfast cereals made from non‐biotech ingredients. U.S. consumers were willing to pay a 10%∼12% premium to avoid biotech breakfast cereals, whereas U.K. consumers were willing to pay a 19%∼35% premium. Risk perceptions about agrobiotechnology proved to be an important factor shaping willingness to pay a premium for non‐biotech breakfast cereals. If consumers perceived risks to human health or environments from the use of biotechnology in crop/food production, or affiliated biotech foods unfavorably with morality or multinational corporations, they were more likely to pay a premium. Conversely, if consumers associated agrobiotechnology with various benefits (i.e., reduction in chemical use in crop production, mitigation of world food shortages, and improved nutritional content), they were less likely to pay a premium.

Food fights.

On 13 May this year, the US government filed a lawsuit against the European Union (EU) via the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming that the failure of the EU to lift its moratorium on the import and approval of genetically modified (GM) crops and foodstuffs was in breach of WTO rules. Having waited five years since 1998, when the bans on GM products started spreading through EU member states like wildfire, the patience of the world's largest producer of GM crops had finally snapped. US trade representative Robert B. Zoellick summed it up in a statement made before the suit was filed: “The EU's moratorium violates WTO rules. People around the world have been eating biotech food for years. Biotech food helps nourish the world's hungry population, offers tremendous opportunities for better health and nutrition, and protects the environment by reducing soil erosion and pesticide use.” > …GM crops and plant biotechnology risk being degraded a step further from a notorious scourge to a mere weapon in a trade war Despite the truth in much of that statement, the USA's strong‐arm tactics, motivated by economic considerations, may well backfire with European consumers. Naturally, there are also many scientific arguments as to why Europe should give green biotech a chance, but Europe would have done much better to address those itself, rather than wait for another country to sue it. Now GM crops and plant biotechnology risk being degraded a step further from a notorious scourge to a mere weapon in a trade war. But the blame for the escalation in the trade war between the USA and the EU should certainly not be placed on the USA alone. Clearly, the EU has to take a big share itself, considering the feckless way in which it has handled these valuable resources. The …

CLASHES OVER AGBIOTECH

OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, THE RIFT BETWEEN THE U.S. and Europe over genetically engineered foods has widened. During this time, a blocking minority of European member states placed a de facto moratorium on newbiotech crop approvals. The moratorium angers U.S. farmers and their allies on Capitol Hill because it restricts exports of agricultural commodities to Europe. The impact of this moratorium is not trivial. Because the European Union refuses to accept corn shipments with genetically engineered content, the annual value of U.S. corn exports to Europe declined from $191 million in 1997 to less than $2 million in 2001. U.S. food processors are angry that the EU is developing legislation that will require all biotech foods and products derived from them to be labeled and to be traceable from the farm to the consumer. According to EU legislation, the exact strains of all genetically engineered crops must be listed ...

General Information & Statistics

CSIRO Life Sciences Center Opens. Australia to Buy Smallpox Vaccine. China and ASEAN to Collaborate on Functional Food. China Faces Impending Cardiovascular Epidemic. No Dengue Tests for Blood Supply. Panel to Promote Biotechnology in India. Japan to Boost Annual Biotech Expenditure. Japanese Workers Suffer from Depression. NZ to Join Trend for Designer Babies. NZ and Novartis in Provisional Glivec Deal. Software to Help in Ethical Dilemmas. Philippines Authority Assures Safety of Biotech Food. Survey Shows Asians More Receptive towards GM Foods. Taiwan Plans to Promote Biotech.

Lords of the harvest: biotech, big money, and the future of food

A riveting tale of the battle over genetically engineered foods, and an inside look at a biotech food empire. . Once confined to the research laboratory, the genetic engineering of plants is now a big business that is changing the face of modern agriculture. Giant corporations are creating designer crops with strange powers-from cholesterol-reducing soybeans to plants that act as miniature drug factories, churning out everything from vaccines to insulin. They promise great benefits: better health for consumers, more productive agriculture-even an end to world hunger. But the vision has a dark side, one of profit-driven tampering with life and the possible destruction of entire ecosystems. In Lords of the Harvest, Daniel Charles takes us deep inside research labs, farm sheds, and corporate boardrooms to reveal the hidden story behind this agricultural revolution. He tells how a handful of scientists at Monsanto drove biotechnology from the lab into the field, and how the company's opponents are fighting back with every tool available to them, including the cynical manipulation of public fears. A dramatic account of boundless ambition, political intrigue, and the quest for knowledge, Lords of the Harvest is ultimately a story of idealism and of conflicting dreams about the shape of a better world.

Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?

We conducted an experiment to study the discrepancy between European public opinion and consumer purchase behavior with regard to genetically modified organisms in the food supply. We found that consumers are typically unaware of the labeling indicating GMO content.

Biotech Food and the Precautionary Principle Under EU and WTO Law

This article discusses the implications of the precautionary principle for the EU biotech food regulatory regime. It first briefly reviews the precautionary principle under European law and the related issues of scientific proof and the burden and standard of proof. In the next section, the precautionary principle is examined in the context of the new EU food safety policy. The fourth part reviews Commission proposals for a precautionary product liability regime. The fifth part discusses the Commission's interpretation of the principle and the proposed criteria for precautionary regulation. The sixth part addresses the implications thereof for biotech food regulation, focussing on prior authorization and testing, traceability, labeling, and substantial equivalence requirements, and cost and benefits of biotech food. In the next section, possible challenges to biotech food regulations under WTO law are discussed. The author concludes that certain rules of current and proposed EU biotech regulation are in conflict with the EU's own criteria for precautionary regulation. Accordingly, the precautionary principle would be a potential weapon to fight some current regulatory requirements and additional future regulation. Those requirements may also be inconsistent with WTO law's criteria for trade-restrictive precautionary regulation. But even where WTO law allows members to implement their own policies, the EU should not apply the precautionary principle in a self-serving, selective and one-sided way. A sound and even-handed application of the precautionary principle should focus not only on the risks of biotech food, but also on its benefits. In addition, it should compare the benefits and disadvantages of precautionary regulation to the benefits and costs of no regulation and of alternative, less intrusive measures. Indeed, precautionary regulation itself should be used with precaution.

Ad Campaign Touts Biotech Foods

Ad Campaign Touts Biotech Foods

FDA not yet moved by biotech food critics.

FDA not yet moved by biotech food critics.

A rational approach to labeling biotech-derived foods.

The FDA9s risk-based approach to food labeling is consistent with the broad scientific consensus that the risks associated with recombinant organisms, and foods derived from them, are fundamentally the same as for other products. Dozens of new plant varieties modified with traditional genetic techniques (such as hybridization and mutagenesis) enter the marketplace every year without premarket regulatory review or special labeling; therefore, no consultation with the FDA, premarket review, or labeling is required unless the characteristics of the biotech food explicitly raise certain specified safety issues.

Labeling of “Biotech Foods” Is No Free Lunch

Labeling of “Biotech Foods” Is No Free Lunch

Biotech food policy still staggering along

Biotech food policy still staggering along

Tomatoes illustrate safety issues for biotech foods

At a symposium sponsored by the Agricultural & Food Chemistry Division during the recent ACS national meeting in Washington, D.C., scientists and government officials focused on the general issue of the safety of genetically modified foods and flavors. But for a variety of reasons, the subject of tomatoes kept coming up. Tomatoes and their relatives are among the easiest plants to manipulate genetically, and as such, they have been the center of much basic research on plant genetics. Tomatoes also are a reasonably important cash crop, and genetically engineered versions of the fruit are making their way to the market. Indeed, earlier this year, Calgene's FlavrSavr tomato, engineered for longer shelf life, became the first whole food produced by biotechnology to reach U.S. consumers (C&EN, May 23, page 7). At the symposium, James H. Maryanski, strategic manager for biotechnology at the Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, Food & Drug Administration, presented an overview ...

The Biotech Concept and Food Processing Wastes

The idea of recycling wastes, particularly food wastes, is not new. It has been a consideration of manufacturing and processing systems from early times, as exemplified by the vinegar industry in recovering a value from sour wine (Greenshields, 1978). However, the concepts and motives that drive the ideas for the utilization of waste are remarkably various and often confused, with the result that few schemes succeed, or else they are short-lived and frequently end up as a ‘waste’ of investment. Such examples abound in food processing, despite considerable scientific knowledge and expertise which should have provided viable solutions. Largely the problem has been the inability to make a total assessment of a manufacturing process at the outset, not only from a scientific and technological point of view but also considering the economic, political and market forces involved, and particularly the requirements of Society. There is now an opportunity to change with the emergence of biotechnology and its concepts. Biotechnology is not a single discipline, but an enabling technology which encompasses many disciplines; it embraces all aspects of life and is particularly applicable to the manufacturing industries. Its concepts teach a total assessment embracing the laws governing natural processes and obeying their linked and cyclic patterns. This article considers the concepts of food processing and resource recovery with respect to its wastes before the advent of biotechnology (the Old Concepts) and the new approach now available (the New Concepts).

No special rules needed for biotech food products

RETURN TO ISSUEPREVNewsNEXTNo special rules needed for biotech food productsLOIS EMBERCite this: Chem. Eng. News 1992, 70, 22, 5Publication Date (Print):June 1, 1992Publication History Published online10 November 2010Published inissue 1 June 1992https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v070n022.p005Copyright © 1992 American Chemical SocietyArticle Views7Altmetric-Citations2LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit PDF (238 KB) SUBJECTS:Biotechnology,Food Get e-Alerts