National legislation in selected countries
Resolutions no 656 (1992) and no 289 (1997) regulate research and environmental release of GMOs. They are administered by the National Advisory COmmission on Agricultural Biotechnology (CONABIA) under the Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Foods (SAGPyA). GM food and feed are regulated by Resolutions no 412 (2002), no 511 (1998) and no 289 (1997), administered by the NAtional Service of Health and Agrogood Quality (SENASA). The regulations apply to GMOs that are not substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. There are currently no requirements for mandatory labelling of GMOs.
The Brazilian Biosafety Law (24 March 2005) regulates the use of genetic engineering techniques in the ocnstruction, culture, production, manipulation, transportation, transfer, import, export, storage, research, marketing, environmental release and discharfe of genetically modified organisms. The law is administered by the national technical biosafety committee (CTNBio), which has the binding authority to make decisions on import, export, environmental release and all other GMO activities by issuing its technical opinion on a case-by-case basis regarding the biosafety of GMOs; authorizing the import of GMOs and their by-products for research; deciding if a GMO has to undergo a risk assessment prior to release or notl and identifying activities which have the potential to damage the environment. Decree No 4.680, published in April 2003 requires labelling for all foods or food ingredients with a labelling threshold of 1 percent. The decree also mandates the labelling of animals fed with GM grains and products prepared with these animals.
REgulations are administered by the Agricultural GMO Safety Administration Office responsible for safety administration of agricultural GMO imports. The regulations require labelling of certain agricultural GMOs, including those derived from but no longer containing GMOs, as set out in the labelling regulations (currently soybeans andmaize including their seeds, powder, oil and meal; rapeseed, oil and meal; cotton seed; and tomatoes, tomato seed and tomato paste).
The Administrative Measures on Hygiene of GMO Foodstuffs (2001) regulated foods and food additives made from the animals, plants and micro-organisms whose genome composition is modified through biotechnology. They are administered by the GMO Food Expert Commission under the Ministry of Health. Labelling is required for all food product including raw and processed foods.
According to the regulation, Directive requires operators to transmit and retain specified information for GMOs, includingin their unique codes, at all stages of the placing on the market. With regard to labelling, the new regulations extend the current labelling requirements to all GM food or feed, irrespective of whether the GM material can still be detected. Thus, all pre-packaged products consisting of or containing GMOs on the market must be labelled as 'containing GMOs', while products, including bulk quantities that are not packaged and the use of a label is not possible, must be accompanied by the relevant information. The labelling threshold is 0.9 percent, below which GMproducts are exempt from labelling. The threshold for the accidental presence of unauthorized GM material is 0.5 percent, provided that the GMOs, have been judged as safe for human health and the environment by the relevant Scientific Committee or the European Food Authority.
In the United States, GMOs are regulated through existing legislation, which is implemented by three federal agencies, namely USDA, EPA and FDA. There are no mandatory risk assessment requirements and labelling is voluntary.
Health Concerns for human
The transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic.
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if
antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred.
What is "Antibiotic resistance"?
The serious concern over GM crops is the possible spread of antibiotic resistant genes from living modified organisms (LMO) to humans and animals. This current method for checking that tranfer of a desired trait in an LMO has succeeded is through the marker gene, which is usually a gene that confers resistance to antibiotics. This is done by inserting the antibiotic resistance trait as well as the desired trait into the LMO.
The health risk linked to the use of antibiotic marker genes is that through eating GM crops the marker gene might be transferred from the crop to bacteria in the stomach, thereby making potentially harmful bacteria resistant to antibiotics, resulting infections that cannot be cured with traditional antibiotics, for example new strains of salmonella, e-coli etc. Scientists agree that this risk factor is very low because enzymes of the digestive tract would largely break up the antibiotic resistance strains become intergrated into the human and animal genetic code are also very low.
Based on this
website, a study was conducted by Dr. Marc Lappe in 1999, published in the Journal of Medicinal Food, found that concertrations of beneficial phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect against heart disease and cancer were lower in genetically modified soybeans than in traditional strains. These and other studies, including Dr. Pusztai's, indicated that genetically engineering food will likely result in foods lower in quality and nutrition. For example, the milk from cows injected with rBGH contains higher levels of pus, bacteria and fat.
The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as 'outcrossing'), as well as the mixing of crops derived form conventional seeds with those growth using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in the maize products for human consumption in the USA. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.
Other Concerns
Consumers support mandatory labeling for products of GM technology. The justification for GM food labelling varies. Some people want labels in order to avoid certain GM products. For example, vegetarians might want to know if the GM food contains an animal gene or protein. SOme people want labels to enable them to avoid GM foods entirely. Consumers are given choice to avoid GM food if they don't want.
The USDA's Economic Research Service notes that costs for labeling would be significant because it would require identity preservation. The higher costs would affect all consumers and thereby be similar to a regressive tax, because the poor spend a proportionately larger share of their income on food than do high-income households. Although the exact costs of labeling are not known, some studies have estimated that it could be as high as 15 percent. One study (Huffmann et al.,2002) indicated that a voluntary, rather than mandatory, labeling policy would be more effective in the United States.
Why some companies are refusing to label GM products?"Why are they making such a fuss, unless the companies just want to restrict our choice?"
"Do they think the products just won't sell if people know what they are?"
It's part of the companies' concern that consumers will avoid products with a GM label.
COmpanies aruged that if GM products are 'substantially equivalent' to conventional counterparts, GM label would be misleading. Labels intended to warn or to provide nutritional information. If the GM nature of the product has no bearing on either of these, regulators see it as misleading by consumers who interpret labels, often unconsciously, as warnings.
Issues of concern include
- Capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations.
A concern associated with herbicide tolerant weeds is that the inserted genes may 'escape' from the crop by being transferred to another crop or wild relative which in turn may become 'super-weeds' that are difficult to control and could impact on the functions and biodiversity of the ecosystem that they invade.
- Persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested.
- Susceptibility of non-target organisms (eg insects that are not pests) to the gene product.
Example of concern associated with plants engineered to produce a toxin relates to the unintended harm to non-target species--making the plant 'toxic' to wildlife that feeds on the crop-- or indirect effects on ecosystem dynamics resulting for instance, from changes in the abailability or quality of the target pest as prey for other species.
- Stability of the gene.
- Reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity.
- Increased use of chemicals in agriculture.
A brief summarize on the Benefits and Controversies of GM productsBenefitsCrops- Enhanced taste and quality
- REduced maturation time
- Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
- Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
- New products and growing techniques
Animals- Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness and feed efficiency
- Better yields of meat, eggs and milk
- Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
Environment- "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
- Consevation of soil, water and energy
- Bioprocessing for forestry products
- Better natural waste management
- More efficient processing
Society- Increased food secuirty for growing populations
ControversiesSafety-Potiental human health impacts: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers
-Potiental environment impacts: Unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollution
Ethics- Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
- Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
- Objections to comsuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Labeling- Not mandatory in some countries
- Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts
Source of the information
Genetically Modified FoodsWhat are genetically modified (GM) foods?Genetically modified organisms(GMOs) can be definded as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. Genes are being combined from different genes. Such technology is also known as reconbinant DNA technology. Other terms also include 'modern biotechnology', 'gene technology' or 'genetic engineering'. The resulting organisms is said to be 'genetically modified'. This technology allows selected individual genes to be transferred form one organism into another, also between non-related species.
Examples of GM products includes medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds and fibers. Crops that are commonly genetically modified are maize, soybeans, rice, potatoes etc.
These technologies offer dramatic promise for meeting some areas of greatest challenge for the 21st century. They also have some risks, both known and unknown.
Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on:
- Human and environmental safety
- Labelling and consumer choice.
- Intellectual property rights.
- Ethnics
- Food security
- Poverty reduction
- Environmental conservation
Why are GM foods produced?GM foods is meant to translate into a rpoduct with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value. The inital objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on market are aimed at an
increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or increased tolerance towards herbicides.
Those crops are achieved by incorporating into the food plant with the genes for toxin production from bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin is currently used as conventional insecticides in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. The insecticidal activity of commercially used Bt comes from endotoxins included in crystals formed during sporulation. The crystals of different strains of most Bts contain varying combinations of insecticial crystal proteins (ICPs), and different ICPs are toxic to different groups of insects. When ingested, the sporulated Bt cells are solubilized in the alkaline midgut of the insect, and protein toxin fragments then bind to specific molecular receptors on the midguys of susceptible insects. Pores are created in the insect gut, causing an imbalance in osmotic pressure, and the insect stops feeding and starves to death. Bt toxins are engineered in major crops, such as tomato, corm, potato, and cotton.
It is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. It had been developed in some important crops including potatoes, wheat, corn and beans. However, virus resistance genes have not been identified in wild relatives of many crops, so genetic engineering has been employed. In 1980s, scientists femonstrated in a plant that the expression of a coat protein (CP) gene from a virus could confer resistance to that virus when it attempted to infect the plant. A large number of virus-resistant transgenic plants have been developed uisng "pathogen-derived resistance" techniques. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.
It is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides.
