Team:British Columbia/humanpractices/GMOLabeling

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
 
(27 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{:Team:British_Columbia/Templates/MainHeader}}
{{:Team:British_Columbia/Templates/MainHeader}}
 +
 +
<html>
 +
<a name="top"></a>
 +
</html>
=GMO Labeling=
=GMO Labeling=
Line 5: Line 9:
-
==Regulations in Place ==
+
==Regulations in Place: By Region==
-
<b>Voluntary:</b> Canada and US
+
<b>Voluntary:</b> Canada and the U.S.
<br>
<br>
-
<b>Mandatory:</b> EU, Australia, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, and Russia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan
+
<b>Mandatory:</b> The European Union, Australia, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan
==Pro and Anti-GMO Labeling Arguments==
==Pro and Anti-GMO Labeling Arguments==
<b>Pro-labeling Arguments</b>
<b>Pro-labeling Arguments</b>
-
*Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised (Raab and Grobe, 2003).
+
*Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised.
-
*Mandatory labeling will allow consumers to identify and steer clear of food products that cause them problems.
+
*Mandatory labeling will allow consumers to identify and steer clear of food products that cause them problems, such as potential allergens.  
-
*Surveys indicate that a majority of Americans support mandatory labeling. (However, such surveys often do not specify the effect on food prices.)
+
*Surveys indicate that a majority of Americans support mandatory labeling. However, such surveys often do not specify the effect on food prices.
-
*least 21 countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling (Gruere and Rao, 2007; Phillips and McNeill, 2000).
+
*At least 21 countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling.
-
*For religious or ethical reasons, many Americans want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA.
+
*For religious or ethical reasons, many individuals want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA.
<br>
<br>
<b>Anti-labeling Arguments</b>
<b>Anti-labeling Arguments</b>
-
*Labels on GE food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in a GE food, current FDA regulations require a label to that effect.
+
*Labels on Genetically Modified foods imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GM and conventional foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in a GM food, current FDA regulations require a label to that effect.
-
*Labeling of GE foods to fulfill the desires of some consumers would impose a cost on all consumers. Experience with mandatory labeling in the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand has not resulted in consumer choice. Rather, retailers have eliminated GE products from their shelves due to perceived consumer aversion to GE products (Carter and Gruere, 2003).
+
*Labeling of GM foods to fulfill the desires of some consumers would impose a cost on all consumers. Experience with mandatory labeling in the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand has not resulted in consumer choice. Rather, retailers have eliminated GM products from their shelves due to perceived consumer aversion to GM products.
-
*Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GE ingredients.
+
*Consumers who want to buy non-GM food are already presented with alternatives: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GM ingredients.
-
*The food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) in this country could not currently accommodate the need for segregation of GE and non-GE products.
+
*The food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) in the United States could not currently accommodate the need for segregation of GM and non-GM products.
-
*Consumers who want to avoid animal products need not worry about GE food. No GE products currently on the market or under review contain animal genes. (However, there is no guarantee that this will not happen in the future.)
+
*Consumers who want to avoid animal products need not worry about GM foods. None of the GM products currently on the market or under review are reported to contain animal genes. (However, there is no guarantee that this will not change in the future.)
==Labeling Recommendations==
==Labeling Recommendations==
Line 37: Line 41:
*Decreasing tension, fear and uncertainty
*Decreasing tension, fear and uncertainty
<br>
<br>
-
 
<b>Include: </b>
<b>Include: </b>
*Bacteria or yeast and the strain used  
*Bacteria or yeast and the strain used  
Line 44: Line 47:
*Reason for modification and what was accomplished through this modification
*Reason for modification and what was accomplished through this modification
*Potential allergens introduced into the products
*Potential allergens introduced into the products
-
*Suggestions: *QR code (find out more)
+
*Strong Recommendation: Include a QR code through which consumers can read more about the specific genetic modification
-
<br>
+
<br><b>Language: </b>
-
<b>Language: </b>
+
*“Genetic Modification” must specifically refer to biotechnology and be defined as such: natural breeding may have occured
*“Genetic Modification” must specifically refer to biotechnology and be defined as such: natural breeding may have occured
*“GMO-Free” is essentially impossible to prove, better worded as: “Not using ingredients produced using biotechnology”
*“GMO-Free” is essentially impossible to prove, better worded as: “Not using ingredients produced using biotechnology”
-
*“This [insert product] was not genetically engineered” might be misleading and implying that others [such products] are genetically engineered
+
*The phrase “This [insert product name] was not genetically engineered” might be misleading and adversely imply that other similar products are genetically engineered.
-
<br>
+
<br><b>Regulations:</b>
-
<b>Regulations:</b>
+
*GM additives must be labeled accordingly following the same regulations
*GM additives must be labeled accordingly following the same regulations
*Biotechnologically modified products that do not contain any GM material in the final stage need not be labeled
*Biotechnologically modified products that do not contain any GM material in the final stage need not be labeled
*Foods produced or taken from species with GM feed need not be labeled as long as GM material is not present in the final product
*Foods produced or taken from species with GM feed need not be labeled as long as GM material is not present in the final product
-
*Foods containing lower than 0.9%
+
*Foods containing less than 0.9% GMO products need not be labeled
 +
 
 +
<br>
 +
 
 +
<html>
 +
 
 +
<br>
 +
 
 +
<div>
 +
<center>
 +
 
 +
    <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:British_Columbia/humanpractices">
 +
        <img width="180" class="icon" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/7/79/UBCReturnArrow.png"
 +
        onmouseover="this.src='https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/1/11/UBCReturnHP.png'"
 +
        onmouseout="this.src='https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/7/79/UBCReturnArrow.png'"/></a>
 +
</center>
 +
<br>
 +
</div>
 +
<br>
 +
 
 +
</html>
 +
 
 +
==Sources==
 +
1) http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html<br>
 +
2) http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/home/<br>
 +
3) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php<br>
 +
4) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919202000040<br>
 +
5) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php<br>
 +
6) http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm<br>
 +
7) http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html
 +
<html>
 +
<div align="right"><a href="#top">Top of Page</a></div>
 +
</html>

Latest revision as of 02:31, 29 October 2013

iGEM Home

Contents

GMO Labeling

Regulations in Place: By Region

Voluntary: Canada and the U.S.
Mandatory: The European Union, Australia, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan

Pro and Anti-GMO Labeling Arguments

Pro-labeling Arguments

  • Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised.
  • Mandatory labeling will allow consumers to identify and steer clear of food products that cause them problems, such as potential allergens.
  • Surveys indicate that a majority of Americans support mandatory labeling. However, such surveys often do not specify the effect on food prices.
  • At least 21 countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling.
  • For religious or ethical reasons, many individuals want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA.


Anti-labeling Arguments

  • Labels on Genetically Modified foods imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GM and conventional foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in a GM food, current FDA regulations require a label to that effect.
  • Labeling of GM foods to fulfill the desires of some consumers would impose a cost on all consumers. Experience with mandatory labeling in the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand has not resulted in consumer choice. Rather, retailers have eliminated GM products from their shelves due to perceived consumer aversion to GM products.
  • Consumers who want to buy non-GM food are already presented with alternatives: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GM ingredients.
  • The food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) in the United States could not currently accommodate the need for segregation of GM and non-GM products.
  • Consumers who want to avoid animal products need not worry about GM foods. None of the GM products currently on the market or under review are reported to contain animal genes. (However, there is no guarantee that this will not change in the future.)

Labeling Recommendations

Purpose:

  • Education
  • Freedom of choice
  • Transparency
  • Safety precaution
  • Decreasing tension, fear and uncertainty


Include:

  • Bacteria or yeast and the strain used
  • The role of the bacteria or yeast in the original (non genetically modified) product
  • The modification made to the bacteria or yeast
  • Reason for modification and what was accomplished through this modification
  • Potential allergens introduced into the products
  • Strong Recommendation: Include a QR code through which consumers can read more about the specific genetic modification


Language:

  • “Genetic Modification” must specifically refer to biotechnology and be defined as such: natural breeding may have occured
  • “GMO-Free” is essentially impossible to prove, better worded as: “Not using ingredients produced using biotechnology”
  • The phrase “This [insert product name] was not genetically engineered” might be misleading and adversely imply that other similar products are genetically engineered.


Regulations:

  • GM additives must be labeled accordingly following the same regulations
  • Biotechnologically modified products that do not contain any GM material in the final stage need not be labeled
  • Foods produced or taken from species with GM feed need not be labeled as long as GM material is not present in the final product
  • Foods containing less than 0.9% GMO products need not be labeled





Sources

1) http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html
2) http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/home/
3) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php
4) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919202000040
5) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php
6) http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm
7) http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

Top of Page

Retrieved from "http://2013.igem.org/Team:British_Columbia/humanpractices/GMOLabeling"