scholarly journals Pollen from genetically modified plants in honey – problems with quantification and proper labelling

2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewelina Żmijewska ◽  
Dariusz Teper ◽  
Anna Linkiewicz ◽  
Sławomir Sowa
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Detection Methods ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Food Ingredient ◽  
Gm Food ◽  
Gm Plants ◽  
Pollen Content ◽  
Food And Feed ◽  
Total Pollen ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Maize can be a valuable source of pollen when plants attractive for bees are not available. Honeybees can forage from conventional maize as well as from genetically modified (GM ) maize. The Court of Justice of the European Union (EU ) ruled that pollen in honey must be treated as a food ingredient and therefore falls within the scope of Regulation 1829/2003/EC on GM food and feed and requires authorization. GM pollen unauthorized in the EU cannot be present in honey at any level, and honey must be labelled if it contains more than 0.9% of pollen from authorized GM plants in relation to total pollen content. However, currently available analytical methods allow only for estimation of GM pollen quantity in honey. Therefore, Directive 2001/110/EC related to honey needs to be amended so that pollen can be regarded as a natural constituent of honey. Because the EU is a big honey importer, validated and harmonized detection methods are necessary for the control of GM pollen in honey.

Deforming mirrors converting GMOs into smog

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 620-627
Author(s):  
Roberto Defez
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Human Consumption ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Gm Food ◽  
Gm Plants ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The debate around the use and study of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is so complex that frequently people miss that the outcome of some political/social/economic decisions are taken in such a way that the legal/agricultural/medical coherence is lost. The purpose of this text is to underline the contradictions in the European approach to GMOs, when for the past 20 years the European Union (EU) has been using and importing GMOs but rejecting its study or cultivation. Design/methodology/approach The approach follows the distance among public declarations against GMOs from most of the political representatives, followed by decision on our health, nutrition and economic development going exactly in the opposite direction. The arrival of the new genome-edited plants cannot solve all requirements, as in many cases an entire new function should be added and, at present, this will be again a GMO irrespective to the technique used to add a new gene. The delay in taking these decisions are now posing a hazard on the cultural and economic development of the EU. Findings The laws (directives) on GMOs in the EU are far too restrictive and suffer from an over-regulation that prevent any attempt to come to a science-based approach on genetically modified (GM) plants. The basis for the definition and the restrictions is on the technology and not on the final product. However, on the other hand, the GMOs are the only product where the safety analysis is on the final product (which is not the case for organics productions). The paradox is that all restrictions are concentrated on GM plants to be cultivated in Europe, as if the main hazard would be on the environmental impact of local cultivation. Meanwhile, the EU has no concern if the same environmental damage happens abroad and EU is the final user of the technology as 68 different GMOs are imported and used even for human consumption in Europe. Originality/value Fighting against the EU over-regulation would appear to be a position supporting multinational seed companies (none of them based in the EU), described as polluters. The proposed approach is the opposite, asking for a more restrictive regulation to show to the consumers that: most local EU high quality food products are derived from GM-fed animals; GM cotton is potentially far more risky than any GM food; and reducing GM plants cultivated in Europe increases the pesticide sold by chemical companies (mostly based in the EU).

Legal and political hybridity of the European Union – genetically modified organisms’ case

2020 ◽  
pp. 125-144
Author(s):  
Monika Szkarłat
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Gm Plants ◽  
Decision Making System ◽  
Modern Biotechnology ◽  
The Eu

The European Union can be described as a particular hybrid integration structure that combines features of a state and intergovernmental organisation. Its institutional framework, legal system and division of competences are examples of a supranational organisation or a transnational decision-making system. The decision-making process is an outcome of network interactions between multiple actors, whose relations are non-hierarchically ordered. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) as an example of modern biotechnology application is a highly polarising subject in the EU, as well as globally. Thus, the policy towards GMO is an exemplification of legal and political hybridity of the EU. The analysis of the EU’s legal and political hybridity will be narrowed down to the GM plants case and methodologically organised around the concept of decision-making analysis that is composed of five categories: decision-making situation, actors, decision-making process, decision, implementation of the decision

The Costs of GM and Non-GM Co-existence in Processed Food Systems – Demonstrated for the Cases of the German Supply Chains of Chocolate and Frozen Pizza

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Gabriel ◽  
Klaus Menrad
Keyword(s):  
Food Systems ◽  
Calculation Model ◽  
Processed Food ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Production Lines ◽  
Gm Food ◽  
Gm Plants ◽  
Market Situation ◽  
German Food ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn contrast to the increasing use of GM plants in agriculture worldwide, the acceptance of GM food is still low in the European Union. If GM food products were introduced in the EU, the German food industry would be confronted with increased efforts to separate GM and non-GM processing lines and it would have to perform compulsory quality management. This paper analyses the costs of co-existence for producers of frozen pizza and chocolate in Germany. In order to provide an idea of the general magnitude of these costs, an adaptive calculation model was developed, supported by qualitative information from expert interviews for both sectors. The case studies reveal that the possibilities of the companies are quite different in terms of size, infrastructure, and available resources to operate parallel production. Companies which already have sufficient existing facilities to run separated production lines might have the opportunity for specialisation and could manage a possible emerging GM market situation.

The Reform of the EU Legislation on GMOs: A Journey to an Unknown Destination?

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 559-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Poli
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Official Journal ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Gm Food ◽  
Food And Feed ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
The Eu

The recently enacted Directive 2015/412 is a long waited piece of legislation. This legislation introduces a new provision in Directive 2001/18, Art. 26 b, which gives Member States the regulatory freedom to decide whether genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”) should be cultivated or not in their territory. One month after the publication of this act in the Official Journal of the EU, the Commission issued a Communication in which it illustrates further legislative changes to the legislation on genetically modified food and feed (“GM food and feed”). On the same day, the Commission has tabled a proposal for a Regulation, amending Regulation 1829/2003 (the “proposed reform of GM food and feed”) that envisages the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of GM food and feed on their territory. The proposed act is described as a complement to Directive 2015/412 and is inspired by the same principles.

scholarly journals Analysis of gm crops allowed for using in the european union

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Tkachenko ◽  
◽  
V. Tsedyk ◽  
V. Kornienko ◽  
V. Ischenko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
Gm Crops ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Soybean ◽  
Gm Plants ◽  
Tiny Amount ◽  
Food And Feed

The development of biotechnology in the field of GMOs requires states to take specific decisions to regulate the spread of genetically modified crops. In the European Union all GM crops that circulation are subject to mandatory registration, which regulates the placing on the market and circulation of genetically modified raw materials, food and feed. The article presents systematized data about the registration of genetically modified soybean, maize and rapeseed in the European Union. It was established that most of the GM crops have introduced genes that give them tolerance to herbicides of different groups. The register of the European Union currently includes 12 events of soybean (GTS 40-3-2, A2704-12, Mon 89788, MON87705, DP 356043, A5547-127, FG 72, SYHTOH 2, DAS-44406-6, DAS-68416- 4, Mon 87708, BPS-CV127-9), 5 events of maize (MZHG0JG, DAS-40278-9, GA 21, NK 603, T 25), 3 events of rapeseed (GT 73, T45, TOPAS 19/2) with tolerance to herbicides. It has been shown that a significant number of registered GM plants have a combination of several events, including tolerance to herbicides and resistance to certain insects or improving quality features of crops. Among them are one event of soybean (DP305423-1), 9 events of maize (TC 1507, DP 4114-3, MON 87411-9, MON 87427, MON 88017, DAS59122-7, Bt 176, Bt 11, DAS 1507) and one event of rapeseed (MS8xRF3). Many GM crops (one event of soybean and 6 events of maize) have introduced genes that determine the plant's tolerance to insects. Only a tiny amount of GM crops are being with altered consumer or technological qualities. In the register of genetically modified crops, all events of GM crops are currently authorized for usage for food, supplements, feed and other product. А single event of maize (Mon 810), that was allowed for cultivation at the time of this analysis was at the stage of renewal of the permit.

scholarly journals Policy Interventions Promoting Sustainable Food- and Feed-Systems: A Delphi Study of Legume Production and Consumption

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 7597
Author(s):  
Bálint Balázs ◽  
Eszter Kelemen ◽  
Tiziana Centofanti ◽  
Marta W. Vasconcelos ◽  
Pietro P. M. Iannetta
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Study ◽  
N Fertilizer ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Smooth Transition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Sustainable Food ◽  
Policy Interventions ◽  
Production And Consumption ◽  
Food And Feed ◽  
The Eu

The food- and feed-value systems in the European Union are not protein self-sufficient. Despite the potential of legume-supported production systems to reduce the externalities caused by current cultivation practices (excessive use of N fertilizer) and improve the sustainability of the arable cropping systems and the quality of human diets, sufficient production of high-protein legume grains in Europe has not been achieved due to multiple barriers. Identifying the barriers to the production and consumption of legumes is the first step in realizing new pathways towards more sustainable food systems of which legumes are integral part. In this study, we engage stakeholders and decision-makers in a structured communication process, the Delphi method, to identify policy interventions leveraging barriers that hinder the production and consumption of legumes in the EU. This study is one of a kind and uses a systematic method to reach a common understanding of the policy incoherencies across sectors. Through this method we identify policy interventions that may promote the production of legumes and the creation of legume-based products in the EU. Policies that encourage reduced use of inorganic N fertilizer represent an important step toward a shift in the increased cultivation of legumes. Relatedly, investment in R&D, extension services, and knowledge transfer is necessary to support a smooth transition from the heavy use of synthetic N fertilizer in conventional agriculture. These policy interventions are discussed within current EU and national plant-protein strategies.

scholarly journals Food Safety Governance and Guardianship: The Role of the Private Sector in Addressing the EU Ethylene Oxide Incident

Foods ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 204
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kowalska ◽  
Louise Manning
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Ethylene Oxide ◽  
Collaborative Governance ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Animal Origin ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Sesame Seeds ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Food And Feed ◽  
The Eu

Sesame seeds within the European Union (EU) are classified as foods not of animal origin. Two food safety issues associated with sesame seeds have emerged in recent years, i.e., Salmonella contamination and the presence of ethylene oxide. Fumigation with ethylene oxide to reduce Salmonella in seeds and spices is not approved in the EU, so its presence in sesame seeds from India was a sentinel incident sparking multiple trans-European product recalls between 2020–2021. Following an interpretivist approach, this study utilises academic and grey sources including data from the EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) database to inform a critical appraisal of current EU foods not of animal origin legislation and associated governance structures and surveillance programs. This is of particular importance as consumers are encouraged towards plant-based diets. This study shows the importance of collaborative governance utilizing data from company testing and audits as well as official regulatory controls to define the depth and breadth of a given incident in Europe. The development of reflexive governance supported by the newest technology (e.g., blockchain) might be of value in public–private models of food safety governance. This study contributes to the literature on the adoption of risk-based food safety regulation and the associated hybrid public–private models of food safety governance where both regulators and private organizations play a vital role in assuring public health.

Honey produced from genetically modified canola (Brassica napus) nectar will not need to be labelled as a GM food under current Australian guidelines

2006 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 1101 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Hornitzky ◽  
A. Ghalayini
Keyword(s):  
Brassica Napus ◽  
Genetic Modification ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Dry Weight ◽  
Gm Food ◽  
Gm Foods ◽  
Pollen Content

Food or ingredients labelled as genetically modified (GM) contain either new genetic material or protein as a result of genetic modification. In Australia, a 1% threshold, below which labelling is not required, exists for the unintended presence of GM material in non-GM foods. The canola pollen content by dry weight in a range of canola honey samples from diverse geographical areas in Australia was determined to be 0.2 ± 0.12%, well below the 1% threshold. Two GM canola honey samples sourced from Canada contained 0.19 and 0.24% of canola pollen. This work indicates honey derived from GM canola crops will not need to be labelled as a GM food.

Genetically modified plants as fish feed ingredients

2011 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 563-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nini Hedberg Sissener ◽  
Monica Sanden ◽  
Åshild Krogdahl ◽  
Anne-Marie Bakke ◽  
Lene Elisabeth Johannessen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Fish Feed ◽  
Unintended Effects ◽  
The Novel ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Feed Ingredients ◽  
Current State ◽  
Gm Plants ◽  
Fish Feeds ◽  
Novel Protein

Genetically modified (GM) plants were first grown commercially more than 20 years ago, but their use is still controversial in some parts of the world. Many GM plant varieties are produced in large quantities globally and are approved for use in fish feeds both in Norway and the European Union. European consumers, however, are skeptical to fish produced by means of GM feed ingredients. Concerns have been raised regarding the safety of GM plants, including potential toxicity and (or) allergenicity of the novel protein, potential unintended effects, and risk of horizontal gene transfer to other species. This review will present the current state of knowledge regarding GM plants as fish feed ingredients, focusing on fish performance and health as well as the fate of the GM DNA fragments in the fish, identifying limitations of the current work and areas where further research is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document