Showing posts with label GMO's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GMO's. Show all posts

Thursday, 17 July 2014

GMO DEBATE: GMO Labeling Supporters Gather on Capitol Hill to Protest ‘DARK Act’

GMO Labeling Supporters Gather on Capitol Hill to Protest ‘DARK Act’
 - Blogs
Print


House legislation that would preempt states from requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods is still sitting at a committee where it was assigned in April.

Critics of the bill have moved to ensure its demise. Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s, and groups in favor of labeling genetically engineering foods, assembled last week on Capitol Hill to protest the bill, which would also preclude the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from imposing mandatory labels based solely on the fact that the food includes bioengineered ingredients.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) introduced the “Safe and Accurate Labeling Act of 2014". He said the bill affirms FDA’s authority to require a label for foods that are considered unsafe and would eliminate the potential for a patchwork of state regulations that could drive up food costs, mislead consumers and burden farmers.

The legislation has 26 cosponsors and was assigned to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. According to GovTrack, the legislation has just a 17 percent chance of making it past committee and a 3 percent chance of being enacted.

Opponents of the bill have named it the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know Act) because they say it would thwart state efforts around the nation to require labels on genetically engineered foods or so-called GMOs (genetically modified organisms).

“I came to Washington to stand up for transparency in our nation’s food supply," Greenfield said, according to the Center for Food Safety. “I hope legislation that would keep consumers in the dark never sees the light of day, so states can continue to demand more information about their food."

Greenfield and the pro-labeling advocates delivered to lawmakers the names of more than half a million people who oppose Pompeo’s bill and urged them to support competing legislation that would require a federal label on genetically engineered foods. Last year, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act.

States have been taking matters into their own hands. Over the last two years, more than 70 GMO labeling bills and ballot initiatives have been introduced in more than 30 states, according to the Center for Food Safety. Connecticut, Maine and Vermont have passed into law GMO labeling bills, although Vermont is the only state whose legislation takes effect without the need for passage of similar bills in other states.

Last month, a powerful trade group (Grocery Manufacturers Association) in favor of Pompeo’s bill and three other trade groups sued Vermont to block the law from taking effect. According to the lawsuit, Act 120 violates the First Amendment and a number of other provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The trade groups claimed the law will severely burden the food industry because most foods today at grocery stores contain GMOs.

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

GMO DEBATE: GMO's To Feed a Hungry World

GMOs To Feed a Hungry World
 - Blogs
Print

Food biotechnology advocates frequently claim that GMOs will feed the world. This, however, is an oversimplification that detracts from the technology’s current applications, its limitation and, most of all, its potential.
Most people, from scientists to the general public, understand there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the complicated problem of world hunger. Nutrition deficits are due to unpredictable climate, crop disease or pests, or simply a lack of resources or mechanisms to get food to places where it is needed most.

Biotechnology alone will not feed the world; it can’t. However, it will be part of an integrated plan that will bring welcome relief to many in critical need. That is, once it is finally allowed to realize that potential.

Biotechnology solutions now exist that can provide lifesaving assistance throughout the world. However, misinformation has erected a barrier of fear that has blocked technology from reaching those who need it.
These solutions are real, proven and on-the-edge-of-deployable technologies, and have yet to be realized because there are no funds to validate them for safety and efficacy in application—the next steps before moving them to productive use.

Biofortification is one such solution. You may recall the case of Golden Rice, which was developed to alleviate vitamin A deficiency. Vitamin A deficiency affects 125 million children, and causes as many as 500,000 to go blind annually. Despite its potential, Golden Rice was never adopted.

And this is just one instance of vitamin deficiency—50 percent of the world’s population suffers from symptoms of vitamin deficiency due to a diet lacking diversity and fresh food. However, as was the case with Golden Rice, efforts to correct the deficiencies have yet to come to fruition due to activist intervention.

For a closer look at how biotechnology can, if given the opportunity, feed a hungry world, read the original article, “GMOs, Failing to Feed a Hungry World," in the latest issue of the Boardroom Journal, A World Without Hidden Hunger.

Thursday, 3 July 2014

THE NATURAL FOOD DEBATE CONTINUES - What are your views?

The ‘Natural’ Debate
 - Blogs
Print


Amid a maelstrom of class-action lawsuits, use of the seemingly simple word “natural" is one of the most risky
decisions today’s beverage innovators can make. Whether a product claims to be free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or gluten, or identifies itself as a beverage or dietary supplement, marketing and labeling issues have hit a whole new level of complexity.

In the free report, “The ‘Natural’ Debate and Other Regulatory Obscurities," a panel of experts shared an update on the controversial nature of natural, along with practical insight for the future.

Justin J. Prochnow, attorney and shareholder at Greenberg Traurig LLP, detailed some of the key regulatory and legal issues facing beverage and liquid dietary supplement companies. He also explained the threat of a class-action lawsuit has become one of the biggest concerns for brand holders. The lawsuits, frequently positioned as false or deceptive advertising actions, have covered a wide range of issues, with “all-natural" or “100-percent natural" claims leading the way.

Despite the shaky ground, Mark Rampolla, founder and former CEO of ZICO® Beverages, acknowledged the stakes are more lucrative than ever. Not only does “natural" represent a fundamental shift in what consumers are looking to drink, it also constitutes one of the fastest-growing segments of the beverage industry—one that’s birthed a number of mega brands.

In fact, according to Peter Leighton, founder of Abunda, more products on store shelves are using the term “natural" in some manner to help ingratiate the brands to consumers. As such, it’s important for marketers to provide clear information about a brand’s environmental and nutritional advantages.

The silver lining of the litigious environment, as pointed out by Eric Skae, CEO of The Bricktown Group, is that brands must reconsider what’s in their products. Additionally, it’s made the USDA organic and verified non-GMO seals much more relevant for beverages.

To read the full report, visit SupplySide Beverage Insights.

Wednesday, 2 July 2014

Trends and Insights From IFT 2014


 Trends and Insights From IFT 2014

Print

Innovation was center stage during the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) 2014 Annual Meeting & Food Expo in New Orleans, June 21-24. Considering 2014 also marks IFT’s 75th anniversary, the event was filled with celebration, innovation and an emphasis on feeding our growing global population.

The show floor was buzzing with excitement, which was no surprise considering more than 16,000 food industry technologists and professionals were in attendance. Food Product Design’s Executive Editor Lynn A. Kuntz and Assistant Editor Rachel Adams were in attendance and brought back a wealth of information about new products, ingredients and food trends.

A big topic of discussion this year was IFT’s FutureFood 2050 initiative designed to increase the dialogue on food issues via written stories and a documentary film. With the global population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, food science will play a key role in feeding this population. However, misinformation has caused concern among consumers about our food and where it comes from.

According to Josh Schonwald, contributing editor to FutureFood 2050, who participated in a panel about the initiative, FutureFood 2050 will highlight individuals who are “contributing in an impactful way" to solving the challenge of feeding a growing planet. On the other hand, despite skepticism of “big food" by consumers, many are beginning to understand the role of functional foods in their diets, and are turning to packaged foods to meet their dietary needs.

As such, ingredients that meet those demands—such as fiber or protein, among others—along with those that meet demands for “natural," non-GMO and clean label, were seen across the immense show floor.
For example, Cargill introduced a soybean oil made from identity-preserved (IdP), conventionally bred (or non-GMO) soybeans, and also launched IngreVita, a low-cost blend of canola oil, fish oil and proprietary antioxidants to deliver long-chain omega-3s that boost nutritional value in products.

Naturex launched Acerola Cherry 17, as a natural solution for shelf-life extension for meat and poultryapplications. The cherry-based antioxidants protect meat pigments from oxidation and can also be used as a curing accelerator in cured meats. Also launched during IFT was its XtraBlend® RA, an antioxidant that combines acerola with rosemary extract to create a powerful synergistic blend that protects both color and flavor in meat products.
And what better way to explore a new ingredient than to try it? Naturex showcased the efficacy of the new ingredients in an all-natural Jamaican jerk beef jerky concept product that had been preserved with a completely natural ingredient system.

And of course, innovation didn’t stop with ingredients. In fact, the expo opened on Sunday by honoring three different companies for exciting technological innovations, in addition to ingredient innovations, as part of IFT’s 2014 Food Expo Innovation Awards.

Among 27 qualified entries, the selected winners included Arla Food Ingredients for its Nutrilac® proteins for acid whey; PerkinElmer, Inc., for its DairyGuard Milk Powder Analyzer, which applies advanced algorithms to screen for known and unknown economic adulterants in milk powder; and Solazyme, Inc., which was honored for its high-stability high oleic oil derived from microalgae, which delivers superior performance and healthful attributes for a wide variety of foods without compromising on critical taste metrics.

And although the high level of activity and sheer size of the expo hall floor made it possible to miss a thing or two, there was no missing Ardent Mills’ new Mobile Innovation Center (MIC). The MIC—basically a state-of-the-art test kitchen and bakery on wheels—was designed to make grain innovation accessible and portable. Each day of the expo, a new lineup of grain-innovative treats were available for sampling (of which, Food Product Design’s Assistant Editor Rachel Adams was lucky enough to try the Rue Royale Blackberry Pie, made with SafeGuard Ready-to-Eat flour, and the King Red Velvet Cake).
If you attended the show, drop me a line telling me what piqued your interest.

Wednesday, 25 June 2014

GMO DEBATE: Should consumers be concerned about the healthfulness of the non-browning GMO Arctic Apple?


Should consumers be concerned about the healthfulness of the non-browning GMO Arctic Apple?

 | May 20, 2014 | 
Screen Shot 2014-05-18 at 12.10.47 AM

On April 23, a Twitter Party was organized under the hashtag #NoGMapple to stop the approval of the Arctic Apple. The Twitter Party was sponsored by several organic food companies and promoted by several “mommy bloggers”.
The Arctic Apple is currently under review for approval in Canada and the US. It is being made by a small company in British Columbia, Canada, called Okanagan Specialty Fruits, so it has not “suffered from Monsantonization” (a dreaded process in which our food is exposed to satanic rituals in Monsanto’s basement). The technology for the non-browning apples will be patented and owned by the company.
So, why non-browning apples? According to this article from the New York Times, 60 percent of consumers were likely to purchase the fruit (however, a separate survey found that 70 percent of Canadians did not approve of a genetically modified apple). The Arctic Apple’s website highlights the fact that a lot more people and places would use apples if they didn’t looked bruised or brown and that a lot of apples are thrown out.
When I examine my own shopping habits, I think it’s probably true. I never pick up a bruised apple. If you consider that groceries generally display their best produce, it leaves you wondering how many bruised apples were discarded from the farm to the store. A recent piece in NPR highlights that Americans throw away half their food, much of which is still edible. According to Wikipedia, apples are the third most discarded food in the UK, so it may rank high in the US as well. The company is also banking on the fact that the juice/cider from Arctic Apples is clear, so they will not need anti-browning treatment in the juice/cider production process.
Ultimately, this product is being made by a private company, so it is reasonable to assume it’s done all the research that there is a market for this product before investing millions of dollars in making a genetically modified fruit. After all, I thought the iPad was a stupid idea and now I own one….
Why apples brown
Before describing how the Arctic Apple has been genetically modified, we have to understand why apples turn brown (additional reference is here). Apples begin browning when they are injured: cells break down and release two molecules that were previously in different compartments. The joining of these two compounds in the presence of oxygen leads to the formation of a pigmented polymer. The two compounds that are joined are a) polyphenol oxidases (PPO), which are a class of enzymes, and b) phenols. So when you cut, bite or bruise an apple, you damage cells and bring these compounds into contact with one another. Some types of apples brown more quickly than others because they have more PPO. This is the same process that makes bananas brown as well.
The Arctic Apple doesn’t have as much of the PPO enzymes, because the transgene that has been added triggers a process called RNA interference (for a great video explanation, see this animation here). RNA interference is a naturally occurring defense mechanism against viruses that basically hacks up specific RNA. But scientists have been harnessing the same methodology for decades to decrease the amount of RNA for a gene. If you manage to get rid of the RNA, then the protein doesn’t get made. In the Arctic Apple, they added a DNA sequence that triggers RNA interference for all the different PPO enzymes. The RNA gets chopped up, the PPO enzyme never gets made, so the apples never brown. Apparently, the Arctic Apple manages to turn off the PPO enzyme by ~90 percent. It’s important to note that the sequence that has been added that triggers that RNA interference process is from the apple itself. It isn’t from a different species.
A few additional segments of DNA are in the Arctic Apple (outlined here). The most controversial of these is a gene conferring antibiotic resistance (to kanamyacin). When working with transgenes, these antibiotic resistant markers are needed in the early stages in the lab so that you can figure out which cells picked up the transgene and which ones didn’t.
Critics’ complaints
Critics have multiple complaints about the Arctic Apple. Here’s a list of the arguments I’ve found:
  • Scientists warn that this genetic manipulation poses health risks, as the manipulated RNA gets into our digestive systems and bloodstreams. There is no evidence that this occurs. A paper published in 2011 suggested that RNA from plants might regulate mammalian genes, but the findings of this paper have never been reproduced. Follow up studies suggest that the observations from the paper in 2011 may have been due to contamination. But for the sake of argument, I imagined the scenario where the ingestion of the manipulated RNA got into our system and actually did something. I think that the apocalypse that the article is implying is the possibility that ingesting RNA from the Arctic Apple might trigger the RNAi pathway within our bodies. However, I could not find any reference to the existence of the PPO enzyme in mammals nor does the DNA sequence from the PPO enzyme in the apple have a comparable sequence in mammals. If all we had to do was to eat the DNA/RNA of a gene to trigger RNA interference in our bodies, wouldn’t we be chugging the DNA/RNA for genes to make us skinny, lower cholesterol, regulate blood sugar, etc? Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
  • By “hiding” the browning of the apple, consumers will not know how old the apple really is. The company argues that by diminishing the browning, it will make mold and bacteria even more visible. Keep in mind that a perfectly fresh apple can be bruised/browned, so browning is not a measurement of age.
  • Customers do not want this apple. Some customers may not want this apple, but this customer does! I reached out to the Arctic Apple team to find out about their labelling policy. They stated that their apples will have an “Arctic Apple” sticker. Their website also states that food that have >5% Arctic Apple will be labelled with the Arctic logo.
Arctic apple will contaminate our apple supply with it’s GM pollen. I generally go peach picking each year, but last year, I went apple picking at a fantastic farm in Belleville, Ontario with my sister and our families. They had several different varieties growing side-by-side, and we were instructed on which varieties were ripe for that particular week, so different types of apples co-exist in the same orchard and they don’t all “convert” to the same variety. This is true for many different fruit trees. Although apple pollination is generally carried out by bees and not by wind, growers of Arctic Apples will be adhering to a Stewardship Agreement which includes a requirement for a buffer zone between the Arctic Apple orchard and surrounding orchards.
The company’s website also extols the health benefits of the Arctic Apple. They claim that by suppressing the amount of PPO in the apple, you actually have more anti-oxidants available to you. However, I believe that more research is needed to determine the actual health benefits.
Most of us live in nations with free markets. As such, this product has the right to exist and, once it clears regulatory hurdles, to be sold. The usual arguments that many have against GMOs do not apply in this case: it isn’t sold by Big Ag, it will be labelled as an Arctic Apple, it doesn’t need any special herbicides/pesticides (in fact, you could use organic farming practices), and the gene is from the apple itself. Those who don’t like it, don’t have to buy it. There are plenty of other options on the shelf. I, for one, look forward to a whole market of non-browning “Arctic” fruit (I’m keeping my fingers crossed for a non-browning avocado).
Can’t wait to bake my first apple crisp with an Arctic Apple!
Layla Katiraee, contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project, holds a PhD in Molecular Genetics from the University of Toronto and is a Senior Scientist in Product Development at a biotech company in California. All opinions and views expressed are her own.

Saturday, 7 June 2014

GMO DEBATE: California Still Leads Nationwide Fight for GMO Labeling

California Still Leads Nationwide Fight for GMO Labeling


 - Blogs
Print
Proposition 37, a California ballot initiative, triggered nationwide debate on whether special labels should accompany foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Although the initiative was defeated, Californians haven’t given up on GMO labeling.

The Golden State recently came close to placing a GMO labeling law on the books. Last month, Senate Bill 1381 received 19 votes, two shy of those needed to pass, according to the Center for Food Safety.

Advocates of GMO labeling should thank California for its efforts. Proposition 37, in spite of failing at the polls, emboldened states across the country to consider adopting similar measures through ballot initiatives and legislation. Were it not for Prop 37, a state on the other side of the country from California (Vermont) may not have passed the nation’s first no-strings-attached GMO labeling law.

GMO labeling advocates in California are dogged and zealous. “That SB 1381 came so close to passage in the face of a massive industry lobby is a testament to the passion and dedication of those advocating for the right to know in California," declared Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director at Center for Food Safety, in a statement May 29.
A coalition of organizations, businesses and networks is trying to stay positive and has vowed to continue fighting for GMO labels despite the recent Senate vote. Monsanto Company, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and other opponents of SB 1381 should hold off on celebrating their victory and brace for what is likely to be years of vigorous debate in state capitols.

“Let's not be too disheartened....We moved mountains in a VERY short time in a capitol where no one thought we'd even get an author for the bill," Californians for GE Food Labeling declared on its website. “We've built new alliances and educated more people - particularly the legislators."

“We won't stop now," the coalition added.

Saturday, 17 May 2014

GMO DEBATE: Mandatory GMO Labeling Will Raise Grocery Costs

Mandatory GMO Labeling Will Raise Grocery Costs
 - Blogs
Print


Heated legislation surrounding GMOs—specifically regarding mandatory labeling of products containing them—has heightened consumer awareness, calling on the food and beverage industry to take an active role in educating consumers about GMO ingredients.

In January, more than 200 businesses and organizations urged President Obama to require food companies to disclose GMOs on labels. The businesses and groups referenced a 2007 speech from the then Illinois senator that pledged he would grant consumers the right to know if GMOs are present in their food.

On May 9, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the nation’s first no-strings-attached bill that requires GMOs in food to be labeled. Food manufacturers will have time to make the transition. Genetically modified foods will need to be labeled as of July 1, 2016. Nearly 30 states are considering similar legislation.

A pending bill in front of the New York State Assembly would make mandatory labeling law, but new research from Cornell University suggests mandatory labeling of foods with GMO ingredients would increase the cost of food for a family of four by about $500 a year, in addition to the millions of dollars it would cost the to implement and monitor labeling.

Gregory Jaffe, director, biotechnology project, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Washington, D.C., said both the proponents and opponents of genetically-engineered (GE) crops have introduced diametrically opposed legislation on the issue of mandatory labeling of foods made from GE crops. He said it is unlikely that Congress will take up this debate in 2014.


The GMO debate continues with growing concerns from consumers.

Heated legislation surrounding GMOs—specifically regarding mandatory labeling of products containing them—has heightened consumer awareness, calling on the food and beverage industry to take an active role in educating consumers about GMO ingredients.

In January, more than 200 businesses and organizations urged President Obama to require food companies to disclose GMOs on labels. The businesses and groups referenced a 2007 speech from the then Illinois senator that pledged he would grant consumers the right to know if GMOs are present in their food.

On May 9, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the nation’s first no-strings-attached bill that requires GMOs in food to be labeled. Food manufacturers will have time to make the transition. Genetically modified foods will need to be labeled as of July 1, 2016. Nearly 30 states are considering similar legislation.

A pending bill in front of the New York State Assembly would make mandatory labeling law, but new research fromCornell University suggests mandatory labeling of foods with GMO ingredients would increase the cost of food for a family of four by about $500 a year, in addition to the millions of dollars it would cost the to implement and monitor labeling.

Gregory Jaffe, director, biotechnology project, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Washington, D.C., said both the proponents and opponents of genetically-engineered (GE) crops have introduced diametrically opposed legislation on the issue of mandatory labeling of foods made from GE crops. He said it is unlikely that Congress will take up this debate in 2014.

Jaffe is a featured speaker at Ingredient Marketplace, June 2-3, in New York, and will discuss the hot topic in his presentation, “Biotechnology and the Future of the Ingredient Supply Chain,"

Food Product Design had the chance to sit down with him to discuss why GMO ingredients are important in the supply chain and how companies can work toward absolving consumer concerns surrounding such ingredients.Click here to read the interview.