CRS — Legal Issues with Federal Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food: In Brief (August 28, 2014)

Legal Issues with Federal Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food: In Brief (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via National Agricultural Law Center)

Genetically engineered (GE) foods, sometimes referred to as genetically modified foods (GMO foods), are foods that are derived from scientific methods used to introduce new traits or characteristics to an organism. The labeling of GE foods has been the subject of debate among members of the general public and federal and state governments since the introduction of GE foods to the food supply in the 1990s.

Federal law does not impose specific labeling requirements on a food just because it may or may not contain GE ingredients or was derived using GE techniques. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to issue formal regulations and policies on the labeling of GE food. However, this absence of direct federal regulation does not mean that GE foods are free from any federal oversight. Instead, labels of GE foods follow the same federal labeling requirements and guidelines outlined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as non-GE foods. These labeling requirements prohibit false or misleading labels and address material information that may be relevant to the consumption of that food. However, some states have enacted laws that specifically demand manufacturers disclose the presence of GE ingredients in certain foods on the label.

Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms

Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms
Source: Law Library of Congress

The report discusses the legislation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically modified (GM) plants and foods in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, England and Wales, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, and the United States. The European Union and International Protocols. This report summarizes enacted laws on the cultivation, and sale of GMOs, as well as public opinion on GM products.

A bibliography is included.

CRS — Genetically Engineered Salmon

Genetically Engineered Salmon (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via National Agricultural Law Center)

If approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Atlantic salmon would be the first genetically engineered (GE) animal to be marketed in the United States for human consumption. Genetic engineering techniques are used by scientists to insert genetic material from one organism into the genome of another organism. Genetically engineered salmon have been modified to grow more quickly and use feed more efficiently. However, some are concerned that, in this rapidly evolving field, current technological and regulatory safeguards are inadequate to protect the environment and ensure that these products are safe to be used as food.

USITC — Trade Barriers that U.S. SMEs Perceive as Affecting Exports to the EU

Trade Barriers that U.S. SMEs Perceive as Affecting Exports to the EU
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission

Standards and a variety of other trade barriers in the European Union disproportionately affect the exports of U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises more than those of large firms, reports the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in its new publication Trade Barriers that U.S. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Perceive as Affecting Exports to the European Union.

The USITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, completed the report for the U.S. Trade Representative.

As requested, the report catalogs trade-related barriers that U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and related industry associations reported as limiting their exports to the European Union (EU). Highlights of the report follow.

SMEs explained that many EU trade barriers, particularly those related to standards and regulations, affect their exports. They stated that complying with EU regulations and procedures are costly for all firms, but potentially prohibit SMEs from exporting to the EU because such costs are often the same regardless of a firm’s size or export revenue. Other difficulties that were cited include protection of trade secrets, high patenting costs, and logistics challenges, especially customs requirements, inconsistent Harmonized System classifications, and the EU’s value-added tax system.

• SMEs and related industry associations described many industry-specific barriers. For example:
• SMEs in the chemical industry frequently cited the high cost of complying with the EU chemical regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals or REACH).
• SMEs exporting cosmetics expressed difficulties meeting the EU’s cosmetics directive.
• SME clothing exporters said that they were disproportionately affected by the recent EU retaliatory additional duties on U.S. exports of women’s denim jeans.
• SMEs producing machinery, electronic, transportation, and other goods cited a lack of harmonized international standards and mutual recognition for conformity assessment, as well as problems complying with technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures.

A number of barriers reportedly constrain U.S. exports of agricultural products. SMEs and industry groups in the corn, dried fruit, animal feed, cheese, and wheat industries cited high tariffs, stringent and inconsistent EU rules and testing mandates, lack of a science-based regulatory focus (especially for genetically modified traits), lack of harmonization between U.S. and EU standards, and the EU’s protected designations of origin (PDOs). The U.S. poultry and lamb industries reported that they are effectively banned from exporting to the EU.
U.S. services SMEs in the healthcare, engineering, testing, and audiovisual industries highlighted a lack of mutual recognition of licensing, credentials, and standards, as well as issues with broadcasting and film quotas, language dubbing requirements, government subsidies, and safeguarding intellectual property.
In certain industries, SMEs or industry associations also provided suggestions for increasing U.S. SME transatlantic trade with the EU and, at times, stories of successfully exporting to the EU.

Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States

Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States
Source: USDA Economic Research Service

Genetically engineered (GE) crops (mainly corn, cotton, and soybeans) were planted on 169 million acres in 2013, about half of U.S. land used for crops. Their adoption has saved farmers time, reduced insecticide use, and enabled the use of less toxic herbicides. Research and development of new GE varieties continues to expand farmer choices.

Pathways to Productivity: The Role of GMOs for Food Security in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda

Pathways to Productivity: The Role of GMOs for Food Security in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda
Source: Center for Strategic and International Studies

This report provides an overview of the debate in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda over genetically modified (GM) crops and their potential role in improving food security among smallholder farmers. Specifically, in each country, it examines regulatory structures, science and research capacity, communication and public opinion, the views of smallholder farmers, and the forecast for adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Additionally, it examines regional regulatory efforts and potential trade impacts. Finally, the report provides a set of policy recommendations targeted toward the U.S. government, focus country governments, the donor community, and nongovernmental organizations.

Genetically modified crops in Africa

Genetically modified crops in Africa
Source: International Food Policy Research Institute

A variable climate, political instability, and other constraints have limited agricultural development in African countries south of the Sahara. Genetically modified (GM) crops are one tool for enhancing agricultural productivity and food security despite such constraints. Genetically Modified Crops in Africa: Economic and Policy Lessons from Countries South of the Sahara investigates how this tool might be effectively used by evaluating the benefits, costs, and risks for African countries of adopting GM crops. The authors gather together studies on GM crops’ economic effects and impact on trade, how consumers view such crops, and other issues. They find that GM crops have had, on average, a positive economic effect in the nations where they were used and identify future steps for enhancing GM crop adoption’s positive effects. Promising policy initiatives include making biosafety regulations that do not make GM crop development prohibitively expensive, fostering intraregional trade in GM crops, and providing more and better information about GM crops to consumers who might currently be skeptical of them. These and other findings in Genetically Modified Crops in Africa indicate ways biotechnology can contribute to economic development in Africa south of the Sahara.

CRS — Unapproved Genetically Modified Wheat Discovered in Oregon: Status and Implications

Unapproved Genetically Modified Wheat Discovered in Oregon: Status and Implications (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via National Agricultural Law Center)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on May 31, 2013, that a variety of genetically engineered (GE) wheat had been discovered in a field in eastern Oregon. No varieties of genetically modified wheat have been approved, or deregulated, by the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the USDA agency responsible for regulating the release of GE plants into the environment. Release of GE plants into the natural environment is regulated by APHIS under the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), as amended.

APHIS began a formal investigation in early May after notification by an Oregon State University scientist that preliminary tests of the wheat samples from the Oregon farm indicated the possible presence of GE glyphosate-tolerant wheat plants. Test results by APHIS indicated the presence of a glyphosate-tolerant variety field-tested by Monsanto Company, a major corporate presence in agricultural biotechnology, under APHIS approval at approximately 100 field trials in 16 states between 1998 and 2005. The agency approved field testing of GE wheat in Oregon in 2001. At this time, APHIS does not know how the presence of the unapproved wheat variety occurred, how the wheat could have gotten into the field after so many years, whether violations under the PPA occurred, or whether the growth of the wheat is more widespread. Answers to these questions are among the objectives of the APHIS investigation.

The safety of GE organisms for food and feed is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). A voluntary consultation on the safety of food derived from the GE wheat variety was completed by FDA in 2004. FDA determined that the GE wheat variety was as safe for food and feed as non-GE wheat, and that there were no public health concerns.

As of early June 2013, APHIS has stated that there is no evidence that GE wheat has entered commerce. Initial tests of wheat imported by Japan, South Korea, and European Union have found no evidence of the unapproved GE trait. The presence of GE wheat in the market could have significant trade implications if the variety turns out to be widespread. The United States is a major wheat exporter, exporting about 50% of its wheat crop. About 90% of Oregon’s wheat crop is exported. Many countries, including Japan, the European Union, and South Korea, have zerotolerance policies regarding imports of unapproved GE varieties. Japan, the largest buyer of U.S. wheat, and South Korea have temporarily halted imports of U.S. soft white wheat grown in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest.

Monsanto Company, the variety’s developer, provided a validated testing method for the presence of the GE trait to APHIS and to government regulators in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the European Union. If APHIS’s investigation shows that the GE wheat is isolated to the one field and a few unintended volunteer wheat plants, the trade implications are likely to be minimal. Should the investigation show that the contamination is from commingled seed, or that the GE wheat is widely dispersed, the trade implications could be more significant.

Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security

Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security

Source: PLoS ONE

The role of genetically modified (GM) crops for food security is the subject of public controversy. GM crops could contribute to food production increases and higher food availability. There may also be impacts on food quality and nutrient composition. Finally, growing GM crops may influence farmers’ income and thus their economic access to food. Smallholder farmers make up a large proportion of the undernourished people worldwide. Our study focuses on this latter aspect and provides the first ex post analysis of food security impacts of GM crops at the micro level. We use comprehensive panel data collected over several years from farm households in India, where insect-resistant GM cotton has been widely adopted. Controlling for other factors, the adoption of GM cotton has significantly improved calorie consumption and dietary quality, resulting from increased family incomes. This technology has reduced food insecurity by 15–20% among cotton-producing households. GM crops alone will not solve the hunger problem, but they can be an important component in a broader food security strategy.

The Generation-X Report — Food: Shared, Prepared, Organic, and Genetically Modified

The Generation-X Report — Food: Shared, Prepared, Organic, and Genetically Modified (PDF)

Source:  University of Michigan (Longitudinal Study of Youth)

Food is a central part of human life. We need it to survive. We share it with our families and our friends and we often make it a central part of our celebrations. We shop for it, cook it, read about it, talk about it, and sometimes worry about it.

In this report, the third of a continuing series, we look at the ways that young adults in Generation X are involved with food. Using data from our 2010 national survey, this report will look at the level and kinds of involvement that young adults in the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) report about their own shopping, cooking, and sharing of food. We will also examine the attitudes of Generation X toward organic foods and genetically modified foods. And we will take a brief look at the places from which young adults obtain information about food-based issues such as genetically-modified foods.

CRS — Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood: Environmental Concerns

Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood: Environmental Concerns (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via National Agricultural Law Center)

In the process of congressional oversight of executive agency regulatory action, concerns have been raised about the adequacy of the FDA’s review of a genetically modified (GM) salmon. More specifically, concern has focused on whether and how potential environmental issues related to this GM salmon might be addressed. In response to these concerns, several bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress seeking to declare GM fish unsafe and thus prevent FDA approval of this salmon for human consumption (S. 230 and H.R. 521) or to require that GM fish be specifically labeled as such (S. 229 and H.R. 520). No action has been taken on these bills thus far in the 112th Congress.

Genetic engineering techniques allow the manipulation of inherited traits to modify and improve organisms. Several GM fish and seafood products are currently under development and offer potential benefits such as increasing aquaculture productivity and improving human health. However, some are concerned that, in this rapidly evolving field, current technological and regulatory safeguards are inadequate to protect the environment and ensure public acceptance that these products are safe for consumption. (The safety of GM foods for human consumption is not addressed in this report.)

In the early 2000s, several efforts began to develop GM fish and seafood products, with a GM AquAdvantage salmon developed by AquaBounty, Inc., in the forefront of efforts to produce a new product for human consumption. By September 2010, requested data had been provided to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by AquaBounty, and FDA’s Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee held public hearings on the approval of AquAdvantage salmon for human consumption. The public comment period on FDA approval closed on November 22, 2010, and FDA action on approval has not yet been announced. If approved, AquAdvantage salmon would be the first GM animal approved for human consumption.

Environmental concerns related to the development of GM fish include the potential for detrimental competition with wild fish, and possible interbreeding with wild fish so as to allow the modified genetic material to escape into the wild fish population. Sterilization and bioconfinement have been proposed as means of isolating GM fish to minimize harm to wild fish populations. To address these concerns, AquaBounty has proposed producing salmon eggs (all sterile females) in Canada, shipping these eggs to Panama, growing and processing fish in Panama, and shipping table-ready, processed fish to the United States for retail sale.

GMOs : Commission publishes report on socio-economic aspects of GMO cultivation in Europe

GMOs : Commission publishes report on socio-economic aspects of GMO cultivation in Europe
Source: European Commission

A European Commission report presented today demonstrates the current limitations in assessing the socio-economic implications of cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union. Specifically, the report to the European Parliament and the Council, which is based on information principally provided by Member States, reveals that the existing information is often statistically limited and that it is frequently based on already preconceived ideas about GMO cultivation. In the report, the Commission also presents an analysis of the socio-economic dimensions of GMO cultivation as reported in the international scientific literature and in the conclusions of research projects funded under the European Framework Programme for Research.

+ Full Report (PDF)