| Revision as of 16:10, 30 April 2003 editº¡º (talk | contribs)317 edits worked on first part← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:15, 30 April 2003 edit undoAnthere (talk | contribs)Administrators17,311 edits %ùé$&, I'll report the other changesNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Genetically modified food''' is ] produced from ]. | |||
| The phrase |
The phrase ''genetically modified food'' is a misnomer, as it is not the food itself that has been modified but the ingredients that went into the food. | ||
| Between 1996 and 2002, surfaces cultivated with GMOs have been multiplied by 30. At the end of 2001, total surface was about 52 millions hectares against 1.7 million in 1996. ] crop represented 63% of total surface in 2001, ] 19%, ] 13% and ] 5%.<br> Four countries represent 99% of total surface in 2001 : ] (68%), ] (22%), ] (6%) and ] (3%). | |||
| The issue of whether genetically modified food was safe of not, and of the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GM in ] products were major issues at the beginning of the XXI century. | |||
| Four countries represent 99% of total surface in 2001: United States (68%), Argentina (22% surface in 2001), Canada (6%) and China (3%). | |||
| === Genetically modified food in Europe === | === Genetically modified food in Europe === | ||
| There is a widespread ] in ] about GMOs, in terms of environmental protection (in particular ]), ] and ] of ]s as well as a desire to have the right to make an ]. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| In Europe, a series of unrelated ] during the ] have created ] apprehension about ] in general. This has led to widespread public concern about GMOs, in terms of environmental protection (in particular ]), health and ] of consumers and right to make an ]. The apprehension might also be due to the perceived novelty of GM foods, as well as cultural factors relating to food. Although scientific evidence indicates that GMO products are safe, the mishandling of the ] crisis has left some consumers unwilling to consider ''Science'' to be a guarantee of quality. | |||
| In Europe, a series of ] at the end of the 90ies such as the ] outbreaks, in addition to the way the ] has handled the issue, have created ] apprehension about ].<br> | |||
| Serious scientific mistakes were made (scientists said the "mad cow" could not jump the species barrier, which was later proven wrong), and consequently, science is no longer a ] in Europe.<br> | |||
| Although some claim genetically modified foods may even be safer than | Although some claim genetically modified foods may even be safer than | ||
| ] products, many european consumers are nevertheless demanding that be respected their "right to know" the content and origin of the food they consume. |
] products, many european consumers are nevertheless demanding that be respected their "right to know" the content and origin of the food they consume.<br> | ||
| ⚫ | However, as a result of the high surfaces of GMO crops, the adventitious presence of GM in imported food products (shipments of ] for food, feed and processing for example), is now thought inevitable and largely unavoidable, and usually not mentionned. | ||
| The apprehension of european consumers toward GM food might also be due to its novel nature, as well as cultural factors relating to food. | |||
| ⚫ | For these reasons, the marketing of |
||
| Besides, in a context of ] where current GM food has little added value, the european ] is wondering why any ] should be taken. | |||
| ⚫ | One of the features of the european system is a comprehensive ], a system trying to provide means for products to be followed at each stage of their production and distribution, by both transmission of accurate ] and labelling. This traceability is a means to implement post-market measures such as ] and ]. | ||
| ⚫ | For these reasons, the marketing of GM food is regulated in a manner that help to tend to provide the necessary levels of safety, transparency and reassurance. Beginning of the 2000ies, European officials insisted that new regulations were needed to "restore consumer confidence" in the ]. These new regulations required strict ] and ] of all food and ] containing more than 0.5 percent GM ingredients. Directives, such as directive 2001/18/EC, were designed to require authorisation for the placing on the market of GMO, in accordance with the ]. | ||
| ⚫ | This system is not only limited to GMO products but should englobe any food product ultimately. | ||
| ⚫ | One of the features of the european system is a comprehensive ], a system trying to provide means for products to be followed at each stage of their production and distribution, by both transmission of accurate ] and labelling. This ] is a means to implement post-market measures such as ] and ].<br> | ||
| ⚫ | This system is not only limited to GMO products but should englobe any ] ultimately. | ||
| In GMO products, traceability is usually limited to products where transformed ] and/or transformed ] are detectables, not to products that have been produced from GMOs but no longer appears to contain modified DNA and/or proteins.<br> | In GMO products, traceability is usually limited to products where transformed ] and/or transformed ] are detectables, not to products that have been produced from GMOs but no longer appears to contain modified DNA and/or proteins.<br> | ||
| Officials stress out that whilst traceability facilitates the implementation of safety measures, where appropriate, it cannot and should not be considered as a safety measure. | Officials stress out that whilst traceability facilitates the implementation of safety measures, where appropriate, it cannot and should not be considered as a safety measure. | ||
| In 1999, a 4 years ban was pronounced on new genetically modified crops. At the end of 2002, ] environment ministers agreed new controls on GMOs could eventually lead the 15-member bloc to reopen its markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labelling controls for genetically modified goods which will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a ]) identifing the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the food chain |
In 1999, a 4 years ] was pronounced on new genetically modified crops. At the end of 2002, ] environment ministers agreed new controls on GMOs could eventually lead the 15-member bloc to reopen its markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labelling controls for genetically modified goods which will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a ]) identifing the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the ] should problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with encrypted information about the company or what was done to the product could also be added to provide more data. | ||
| ⚫ | The proposal adopted by the European Parliament's Environment Committee has deep cultural roots, which are difficult to understand for the US agricultural community. | ||
| === European Union and United States trade "war" on GM food === | === European Union and United States trade "war" on GM food === | ||
| ⚫ | The proposal adopted by the ] has deep cultural roots, which are difficult to understand for the US agricultural community. | ||
| The European Union and United States are in strong disagreement over | The European Union and United States are in strong disagreement over | ||
| the EU's ban on most genetically modified foods. The ban over agricultural biotechnology commodities is said by some americans to breach ] rules. However, beginning of 2003, the Bush administration decided to postpone any suing action. However, Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, indicated the european position toward GMO was thought as being "immoral", since leading to starvation in the |
the EU's ban on most genetically modified foods. The ban over agricultural biotechnology commodities is said by some americans to breach ] rules. However, beginning of 2003, the Bush administration decided to postpone any suing action. However, Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, indicated the european position toward GMO was thought as being "immoral", since leading to starvation in the ]. | ||
| The value of agricultural trade existing between the US and the European is estimated at $57 billion at the beginning of XXI century, and some in the U.S. farmers and food manufacturers are concerned that the new proposal by the European Union could be a barrier to much of that trade. The EU proposal, adopted by the European Commission (EC) in summer 2002 and expected to be implemented in 2003, requires that all food/feed containing or derived from genetically modified organisms be labeled and any GM ingredients in food be traced. It would also require documentation tracing biotechnological products through each step of the grain handling and food production processes. | The value of agricultural trade existing between the US and the European is estimated at $57 billion at the beginning of XXI century, and some in the U.S. farmers and food manufacturers are concerned that the new proposal by the European Union could be a barrier to much of that trade. The EU proposal, adopted by the European Commission (EC) in summer 2002 and expected to be implemented in 2003, requires that all food/feed containing or derived from genetically modified organisms be labeled and any GM ingredients in food be traced. It would also require documentation tracing biotechnological products through each step of the grain handling and food production processes. | ||
| The new European proposal would particularly concern US corn gluten and soybean exports, as a lot of these crops are genetically modified in the USA (about 25 percent of US corn and 65 percent of soybeans are genetically modified in 2002). | The new European proposal would particularly concern US corn gluten and soybean exports, as a lot of these crops are genetically modified in the USA (about 25 percent of US corn and 65 percent of soybeans are genetically modified in 2002). | ||
| Line 49: | Line 56: | ||
| The american agricultural industry also complain about the costs implied by the labelling. | The american agricultural industry also complain about the costs implied by the labelling. | ||
| ''See also'' ], ], ], ], ], ] | ''See also'' ], ], ], ], ], ] | ||
| ''External links'' | |||
| * http://www.greenpeace.fr/campagnes/cdp/ogm/O991202.htm | |||
Revision as of 16:15, 30 April 2003
Genetically modified food is food produced from genetically modified organism.
The phrase genetically modified food is a misnomer, as it is not the food itself that has been modified but the ingredients that went into the food.
Between 1996 and 2002, surfaces cultivated with GMOs have been multiplied by 30. At the end of 2001, total surface was about 52 millions hectares against 1.7 million in 1996. Soybean crop represented 63% of total surface in 2001, corn 19%, cotton 13% and rape 5%.
Four countries represent 99% of total surface in 2001 : United States (68%), Argentina (22%), Canada (6%) and China (3%).
The issue of whether genetically modified food was safe of not, and of the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GM in conventional food products were major issues at the beginning of the XXI century.
Genetically modified food in Europe
There is a widespread public concern in Europe about GMOs, in terms of environmental protection (in particular biodiversity), health and safety of consumers as well as a desire to have the right to make an informed choice.
In Europe, a series of food crises at the end of the 90ies such as the mad cow disease outbreaks, in addition to the way the biotechnology industry has handled the issue, have created consumer apprehension about food safety.
Serious scientific mistakes were made (scientists said the "mad cow" could not jump the species barrier, which was later proven wrong), and consequently, science is no longer a quality label in Europe.
Although some claim genetically modified foods may even be safer than
conventional products, many european consumers are nevertheless demanding that be respected their "right to know" the content and origin of the food they consume.
However, as a result of the high surfaces of GMO crops, the adventitious presence of GM in imported food products (shipments of grain for food, feed and processing for example), is now thought inevitable and largely unavoidable, and usually not mentionned.
The apprehension of european consumers toward GM food might also be due to its novel nature, as well as cultural factors relating to food.
Besides, in a context of food surplus where current GM food has little added value, the european consumer is wondering why any risk should be taken.
For these reasons, the marketing of GM food is regulated in a manner that help to tend to provide the necessary levels of safety, transparency and reassurance. Beginning of the 2000ies, European officials insisted that new regulations were needed to "restore consumer confidence" in the technology. These new regulations required strict labeling and traceability of all food and animal feed containing more than 0.5 percent GM ingredients. Directives, such as directive 2001/18/EC, were designed to require authorisation for the placing on the market of GMO, in accordance with the precautionary principle.
One of the features of the european system is a comprehensive pre-market risk assessment, a system trying to provide means for products to be followed at each stage of their production and distribution, by both transmission of accurate information and labelling. This traceability is a means to implement post-market measures such as monitoring and withdrawals.
This system is not only limited to GMO products but should englobe any food product ultimately.
In GMO products, traceability is usually limited to products where transformed DNA and/or transformed protein are detectables, not to products that have been produced from GMOs but no longer appears to contain modified DNA and/or proteins.
Officials stress out that whilst traceability facilitates the implementation of safety measures, where appropriate, it cannot and should not be considered as a safety measure.
In 1999, a 4 years ban was pronounced on new genetically modified crops. At the end of 2002, European Union environment ministers agreed new controls on GMOs could eventually lead the 15-member bloc to reopen its markets to GM foods. European Union ministers agreed to new labelling controls for genetically modified goods which will have to carry a special harmless DNA sequence (a DNA code bar) identifing the origin of the crops, making it easier for regulators to spot contaminated crops, feed, or food, and enabling products to be withdrawn from the food chain should problems arise. A series of additional sequences of DNA with encrypted information about the company or what was done to the product could also be added to provide more data.
European Union and United States trade "war" on GM food
The proposal adopted by the European Parliament's Environment Committee has deep cultural roots, which are difficult to understand for the US agricultural community.
The European Union and United States are in strong disagreement over the EU's ban on most genetically modified foods. The ban over agricultural biotechnology commodities is said by some americans to breach World Trade Organisation rules. However, beginning of 2003, the Bush administration decided to postpone any suing action. However, Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, indicated the european position toward GMO was thought as being "immoral", since leading to starvation in the developing world.
The value of agricultural trade existing between the US and the European is estimated at $57 billion at the beginning of XXI century, and some in the U.S. farmers and food manufacturers are concerned that the new proposal by the European Union could be a barrier to much of that trade. The EU proposal, adopted by the European Commission (EC) in summer 2002 and expected to be implemented in 2003, requires that all food/feed containing or derived from genetically modified organisms be labeled and any GM ingredients in food be traced. It would also require documentation tracing biotechnological products through each step of the grain handling and food production processes.
The new European proposal would particularly concern US corn gluten and soybean exports, as a lot of these crops are genetically modified in the USA (about 25 percent of US corn and 65 percent of soybeans are genetically modified in 2002).
The U.S. grow about three quarters of all GM crops grown worldwide, and export mostly corn, cotton and soybeans -- large percentages of which are genetically modified.
The ultimate resolution of this case is widely thought as resting on labeling rather than food aid. Many European consumers are asking food regulation (demanding labels that identify which food has been genetically modified), while the American agricultural industry is arguing for free trade (and is strongly opposed to labeling, saying it gives the food a negative connotation).
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Watch indicates that american agricultural industry is "using trade agreements to determine domestic health, safety and environmental rules." because they fear that "by starting to distinguish which food is genetically modified, then they will have to distinguish energy standards, toxic standards that are different than those the European promotes,".
The American Agricultural Department officials answer that since the United States do not require labelling, the Europe should not require labelling either. They claim mandatory labelling could imply there is something wrong with genetically modified food, which would be also a trade barrier. Current U.S. laws do not require GM crops to be labeled or traced because U.S. regulators do not believe that GM crops pose any unique risks over conventional food. Europe answers that the labelling and traceability requirements are not only limited to GM food, but will apply to any agricultural goods.
The american agricultural industry also complain about the costs implied by the labelling.
See also Biosafety Protocol, conventional food, organic food, pre-market risk assessment, food monitoring, food withdrawal
External links