Team:British Columbia/humanpractices/GMOLabeling

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 76: Line 76:
<br>
<br>
-
Voluntary: Canada and US
+
==Regulations in Place==
-
Mandatory: EU, Australia, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, and Russia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan
+
 +
<b>Voluntary: </b>Canada and US
 +
<b>Mandatory: </b>EU, Australia, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, and Russia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan
 +
 +
<br>
 +
==Arguments for and against labeling ==
<b>Pro-labeling Arguments</b>
<b>Pro-labeling Arguments</b>
<li>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).
<li>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).
Line 85: Line 89:
<li>least 21 countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling (Gruere and Rao, 2007; Phillips and McNeill, 2000).
<li>least 21 countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling (Gruere and Rao, 2007; Phillips and McNeill, 2000).
<li>For religious or ethical reasons, many Americans want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA.
<li>For religious or ethical reasons, many Americans want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA.
-
<b>Anti-labeling Arguments</br>
+
<b>Anti-labeling Arguments</b>
<li>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.
<li>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.
<li>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).
<li>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).

Revision as of 00:35, 29 October 2013

iGEM Home

Contents

GMO Labeling

GMO Regulation Timeline

1972

  • Biochemist Herbert Boyer and geneticist Stanley Cohen combine the first successful recombinant DNA organism, an E. coli bacterial cell that expressed the gene for frog ribosomal DNA
    1974
  • Biologist Rudolf Jaenisch creates the first genetically modified animal, a transgenic mouse, by introducing foreign DNA into its embryo.
    1976
  • Monsanto patents Roundup herbicide.
    1982
  • The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the first genetically engineered drug Humulin, a form of human insulin produced by recombinant E. coli bacteria. Prior to the development of synthesized human insulin, patients were dependent on animal insulin, which was more costly, less accessible, and sometimes caused infection. Humulin is identical in chemical structure to human insulin.
    1983
  • The first transgenic plant, a tobacco plant resistant to antibiotics, is created at Washington University in Missouri.
    1986
  • The first field tests of genetically engineered (tobacco) plants are conducted in Belgium.
    1987
  • The first field tests of genetically engineered (tobacco and tomato) crops are conducted in the United States.
    1992
  • The U.S. Department of Agriculture approves the Flavr Savr tomato, intended to be resistant to softening and consequent rotting, as the first genetically engineered food to be granted a license for human consumption. Production ceased in 1997 due to poor crop turnaround and mounting costs.
  • The FDA declares that genetically engineered foods are “not inherently dangerous” and do not require special safety testing or specific regulation, because they are alike and more aligned with the category of “whole foods”, which the FDA does not oversee, rather than “food products.”
    1994
  • The European Union’s first genetically engineered crop, tobacco, is approved for use in France.
    1997
  • FlavrSavr tomatoes are taken off the market due to increased competition from longer-lasting, conventional varieties.
  • Requirements for labeling of novel foods and ingredients, those that have not been used for human consumption to a significant degree in the EU are outlined. The labels are required to include characteristics, materials which may affect the health of some individuals and materials that give rise to ethical concerns.
  • After the delivery of unlabelled Genetically Engineered soybeans from the US to European ports, Greenpeace-led activists protest in front of multinational food companies across Europe. As media attention intensifies, Austria and Italy refuse GMO imports and France suspends all GMO imports until regulatory legislation can be reviewed.
  • The FDA Modernization Act is signed into law and streamlines the FDA’s procedures relating to the regulation of food, drugs, devices and biological products. Critics fear the legislation will encourage more crop deregulation.
    1998
  • Monsanto introduces Roundup Ready corn and canola which are promised to increase crop yields over conventional varieties. Twenty years later, studies show this not to be the case.
    1999
  • Mounting environmental and health concerns surrounding GM crops in Europe leads big food manufacturers to commit to removing all Genetically Modified ingredients in EU products. Major food chains in England including Sainsbury, Tesco, Marks and Spencer, Burger King and McDonalds also announce their intention to avoid all GM ingredients.
    2000
  • The EU adopts regulation that even additives and flavoring must be specifically labeled if DNA or protein of GMO origin is present in the final product.
  • Several countries pass laws requiring GM food labels: Australia, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, and Russia pass laws requiring labels for GM foods.
  • The FDA announces that the labeling of GM foods would remain voluntary, but also publishes guidelines for companies that wished to label their products as free of GM products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture also promises to develop standardized tests for GM foods.
    2001
  • Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan follow suit and also pass laws requiring special labels for GM foods.
    2003
  • GloFish, a GM fluorescent fish first developed in 1999, is introduce to the U.S. market after being available in Taiwan earlier in 2003. Since their introduction, there have been no reports of any ecological concerns associated with their sale, though they are illegal in California due to a regulation that bans all genetically modified fish. They are also banned in Canada and within the EU.
  • Greenpeace praises the Eu for adopting the world’s strictest and most comprehensive rules on GMOs. The new system requires that all GE ingredients – from consumer products to animal feed – be traced and labeled.
    2004
  • Mendocino County in California is the first jurisdiction to ban the cultivation, production and distribution of GMOs in the US. Today, 14 states including California have proposals to require the labeling to GM foods.
    1998 - 2004
  • The EU imposes an unofficial ban on GMO-based products, refusing to engage in experimental or commercial growth of new gene crops and to import GM food products. The World Trade Organization is currently due to rule if this unofficial ban restricted trade.
    2010
  • The FDA receives an application for the first genetically modified animal for human consumption. The AquAdvantage Salmon, created by AquaBounty Technologies, has a gene from the ocean pout and a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon, which allows it to “reach market size twice as fast as a traditional salmon”. The FDA determines more research is necessary to assess the safety of genetically engineered animals intended for human consumption.

    Regulations in Place

    Voluntary: Canada and US Mandatory: EU, Australia, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, and Russia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan


    Arguments for and against labeling

    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 (Raab and Grobe, 2003).
  • Mandatory labeling will allow consumers to identify and steer clear of food products that cause them problems.
  • 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).
  • For religious or ethical reasons, many Americans want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA. Anti-labeling Arguments
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.)
    Retrieved from "http://2013.igem.org/Team:British_Columbia/humanpractices/GMOLabeling"