Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:21, 8 March 2014

Governments have taken different approaches to assess and manage the risks associated with the use of genetic engineering technology and the development and release of genetically modified organisms (GMO), including genetically modified crops and genetically modified fish. There are differences in the regulation of GMOs between countries, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the USA and Europe. Regulation varies in a given country depending on the intended use of the products of the genetic engineering. For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety.

One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level (which varies between countries) or voluntary. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%. In Canada and the USA labeling of GM food is voluntary, while in Europe all food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health. Some scientists and advocacy groups, such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund, have however called for additional and more rigorous testing for GM food.

History

The development of a regulatory framework concerning genetic engineering began in 1975, at Asilomar, California. The first use of Recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology had just been successfully accomplished by Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer two years previously and the scientific community recognized that as well as benefits this technology could also pose some risks. The Asilomar meeting recommended a set of guidelines regarding the cautious use of recombinant technology and any products resulting from that technology. The Asilomar recommendations were voluntary, but in 1976 the US National Institute of Health (NIH) formed a rDNA advisory committee. This was followed by other regulatory offices (the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), effectively making all rDNA research tightly regulated in the USA. In 1982 the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report into the potential hazards of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment as the first transgenic plants were being developed. As the technology improved and genetically organisms moved from model organisms to potential commercial products the USA established a committee at the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) to develop mechanisms to regulate the developing technology. In 1986 the OSTP assigned regulatory approval of genetically modified plants in the US to the USDA, FDA and EPA.

The basic concepts for the safety assessment of foods derived from GMOs have been developed in close collaboration under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations' World Health Organisation (WHO) and Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). A first joint FAO/WHO consultation in 1990 resulted in the publication of the report ‘Strategies for Assessing the Safety of Foods Produced by Biotechnology’ in 1991. Building on that, an international consensus was reached by the OECD’s Group of National Experts on Safety in Biotechnology, for assessing biotechnology in general, including field testing GM crops. That Group met again in Bergen, Norway in 1992 and reached consensus on principles for evaluating the safety of GM food; its report, ‘The safety evaluation of foods derived by modern technology – concepts and principles’ was published in 1993. That report recommends conducting the safety assessment of a GM food on a case-by-case basis through comparison to an existing food with a long history of safe use. This basic concept has been refined in subsequent workshops and consultations organized by the OECD, WHO, and FAO, and the OECD in particular has taken the lead in acquiring data and developing standards for conventional foods to be used in assessing substantial equivalence. In 2003 the Codex Alimentarius Commission of the FAO/WHO adopted a set of "Principles and Guidelines on foods derived from biotechnology" to help countries coordinate and standardize regulation of GM food to help ensure public safety and facilitate international trade. and updated its guidelines for import and export of food in 2004,

Substantial equivalence

"Substantial equivalence" is a starting point for the safety assessment for GM foods that is widely used by national and international agencies - including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization and the OECD.

A quote from FAO, one of the agencies that developed the concept, is useful for defining it: "Substantial equivalence embodies the concept that if a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety (i.e., the food or food component can be concluded to be as safe as the conventional food or food component)". The concept of substantial equivalence also recognises the fact that existing foods often contain toxic components (usually called antinutrients) and are still able to be consumed safely - in practice there is some tolerable chemical risk taken with all foods, so a comparative method for assessing safety needs to be adopted. For instance, potatoes and tomatoes can contain toxic levels of respectively, solanine and alpha-tomatine alkaloids.

To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of components such as toxins, nutrients, or allergens that are present in the unmodified food. The manufacturer's data is then assessed by a regulatory agency, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. That data, along with data on the genetic modification itself and resulting proteins (or lack of protein), is submitted to regulators. If regulators determine that the submitted data show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then the regulators will generally not require further food safety testing. However, if the product has no natural equivalent, or shows significant differences from the unmodified food, or for other reasons that regulators may have (for instance, if a gene produces a protein that had not been a food component before), the regulators may require that further safety testing be carried out.

A 2003 review in Trends in Biotechnology identified seven main parts of a standard safety test:

1. Study of the introduced DNA and the new proteins or metabolites that it produces;
2. Analysis of the chemical composition of the relevant plant parts, measuring nutrients, anti-nutrients as well as any natural toxins or known allergens;
3. Assess the risk of gene transfer from the food to microorganisms in the human gut;
4. Study the possibility that any new components in the food might be allergens;
5. Estimate how much of a normal diet the food will make up;
6. Estimate any toxicological or nutritional problems revealed by this data in light of data on equivalent foods;
7. Additional animal toxicity tests if there is the possibility that the food might pose a risk.

There has been discussion about applying new biochemical concepts and methods in evaluating substantial equivalence, such as metabolic profiling and protein profiling. These concepts refer, respectively, to the complete measured biochemical spectrum (total fingerprint) of compounds (metabolites) or of proteins present in a food or crop. The goal would be to compare overall the biochemical profile of a new food to an existing food to see if the new food's profile falls within the range of natural variation already exhibited by the profile of existing foods or crops. However, these techniques are not considered sufficiently evaluated, and standards have not yet been developed, to apply them.

There are controversies over the definition and application of substantial equivalence. See section in genetically modified food controversies.

By continent

Africa

In 2010, after nine years of talks, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) produced a draft policy on GM technology, which was sent to all 19 national governments for consultation in September 2010. Under the proposed policy, new GM crops would be scientifically assessed by COMESA. If the GM crop was deemed safe for the environmental and human health, permission would be granted for the crop to be grown in all 19 member countries, although the final decision would be left to each individual country. In 2012 South Africa was the major commercial grower of Genetically Modified crops in Africa, with smaller amounts grown in Burkina Faso (maize), Egypt (cotton) and Sudan (cotton). The National Assembly of Burkina Faso passed a biosafety law in early 2006, which established a National Biosafety Agency that would regulate GM products with the advice of various governmental and non-governmental advisory committees. In Burkina Faso, the African Biosafety Network of Expertise school, set up by the African Union and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, opened in April 2010. Its aim was to train and develop African regulators to approve, monitor and track genetically modified crops. Kenya passed laws in 2011, and Ghana and Nigeria passed laws in 2012 which allowed the production and importation of GM crops. By 2013 Cameroon, Malawi and Uganda had approved trials of genetically altered crops. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%. Studies for Uganda show that transgenic bananas have a high potential to reduce rural poverty but that urban consumers with a relatively higher income may reject the introduction.

In 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of genetically modified food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme on the basis of the Cartagena Protocol. This left the population without food aid during a famine. In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize. However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods."

Asia

India and China are the two largest producers of genetically modified products in Asia. India currently only grows GM cotton, while China produces GM varieties of cotton, poplar, petunia, tomato, papaya and sweet pepper. Cost of enforcement of regulations in India are generally higher, possibly due to the greater influence farmers and small seed firms have on policy makers, while the enforcement of regulations was more effective in China. Other Asian countries that grew GM crops in 2011 were Pakistan, the Philippines and Myanmar. Japan requires labeling so consumers can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins.

China

GM crops in China go through three phases of field trials (pilot field testing, environmental release testing, and preproduction testing) before they are submitted to the Office of Agricultural Genetic Engineering Biosafety Administration (OAGEBA) for assessment. Producers must apply to OAGEBA at each stage of the field tests. The Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology developed the first biosafety regulations for GM products in 1993 and they were updated in 2001. The 75 member National Biosafety Committee evaluates all applications, although OAGEBA has the final decision. Most of the National Biosafety Committee are involved in biotechnology leading to criticisms that they do not represent a wide enough range of public concerns.

India

The release of transgenic crops in India is governed by the Indian Environment Protection Act, which was enacted in 1986. The Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBSC), Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) and Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) all review any genetically modified organism to be released, with transgenic crops also needing permission from the Ministry of Agriculture. India regulators cleared the Bt brinjal, a genetically modified eggplant, for commercialisation in October 2009. Following opposition from some scientists, farmers and environmental groups a moratorium was imposed on its release in February 2010.

Official Reports on GMO

There have been four official reports on GMO in India till August 2013 :

1. The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ - February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal
2. The Sopory Committee Report - August 2012
3. The Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) Report on GM crops - August 2012
4. Final Report of The Technical Expert Committee established by Supreme Court - July 2013

South America

Brazil and Argentina are the 2nd and 3rd largest producers of GM food behind the USA.

The Argentine government was one of the first to accept GM food. Assessment of GM products for release is provided by the National Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee (environmental impact), the National Service of Health and Agrifood Quality (food safety) and the National Agribusiness Direction (effect on trade), with the final decision made by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fishery and Food. The government is looking to tighten the current law which allows farmers to keep seed without paying royalties in a bid to encourage more private investment.

In Brazil the National Biosafety Technical Commission is responsible for assessing environmental and food safety and prepares guidelines for transport, importation and field experiments involving GM products. The Council of Ministers evaluates the commercial and economical issues with release. The National Biosafety Technical Commission has 27 members and includes 12 scientists, 9 ministerial representatives and 6 other specialists.

Honduras, Costa Rica, Colombia, Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile, and Uruguay also allow GM crops to be grown.

Venezuela banned genetically modified seeds in 2004, in 2008, Ecuador prohibited genetically engineered crops and seeds in its 2008 Constitution, approved by 64% of the population in a referendum (although Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa said in 2012 that this was "a mistake"} and Peru has banned transgenic crops.

Europe

Until the 1990s, Europe's regulation was less strict than in the United States, one turning point being cited as the export of the United States' first GM-containing soy harvest in 1996. The GM soy made up about 2% of the total harvest at the time, and EuroCommerce and European food retailers required that it be separated. In 1998, the use of MON810, a Bt expressing maize conferring resistance to the European corn borer, was approved for commercial cultivation in Europe. Shortly thereafter, the EU enacted a de facto moratorium on new approvals of GMOs pending new regulatory laws passed in 2003.

Those new laws provided the European Union (EU) with possibly the most stringent GMO regulations in the world. All GMOs, along with irradiated food, are considered "new food" and subject to extensive, case-by-case, science based food evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The criteria for authorization fall in four broad categories: "safety," "freedom of choice," "labelling," and "traceability." The EFSA reports to the European Commission who then draft a proposal for granting or refusing the authorisation. This proposal is submitted to the Section on GM Food and Feed of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and if accepted it will be adopted by the EC or passed on to the Council of Agricultural Ministers. Once in the Council it has three months to reach a qualified majority for or against the proposal, if no majority is reached the proposal is passed back to the EC who will then adopt the proposal. However, even after authorization, individual EU member states can ban individual varieties under a 'safeguard clause' if there are "justifiable reasons" that the variety may cause harm to humans or the environment. The member state must then supply sufficient evidence that this is the case. The Commission is obliged to investigate these cases and either overturn the original registrations or request the country to withdraw its temporary restriction. The laws of the EU also stipulated that member nations establish coexistence regulations. In many cases national coexistence regulations include minimum distances between fields of GM crops and non-GM crops. The distances for GM maize from non-GM maize for the six largest biotechnology countries are; France: 50 meters, Britain: 110 meters for grain maize and 80 for silage maize, Netherlands: 25 meters in general and 250 for organic or GM-free fields, Sweden: 15–50 meters, Finland: data not available, and Germany: 150 meters and 300 from organic fields. Larger minimum distance requirements discriminate against adoption of GM crops by smaller farms.

Skevas, T., P. Fevereiro, J. Wesseler (2010): Coexistence Regulations & Agriculture Production: A Case Study of Five Bt Maize Producers in Portugal. Ecological Economics. 69(12):2402-2408.

In 2006, the World Trade Organization concluded that the EU moratorium, which had been in effect from 1998 to 2004, had violated international trade rules. The moratorium had not affected previously approved crops. The only crop authorised for cultivation before the moratorium was Monsanto's MON 810. The next approval for cultivation was the Amflora potato for industrial applications in 2010 which was grown in Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic that year.

The slow pace of approval has been criticized as endangering European food safety although as of 2012, the EU has authorized the use of 48 genetically modified organisms. Most of these were for use in animal feed (it was reported in 2012 that the EU imports about 30 million tons a year of GM crops for animal consumption.), food or food additives. 26 of these were varieties of maize. In July 2012 the EU gave approval for an Irish trial cultivation of potatoes resistant to the blight that caused the Great Irish Famine.

The safeguard clause mentioned above has been applied by many member states in various circumstances, and in April 2011 there were 22 active bans in place across six member states: Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Greece, and Hungary. However, on review many of these have been considered scientifically unjustified.

• In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, which was subsequently authorized by the EU.
• In February 2008 the French government used the safeguard clause to ban the cultivation of MON810 after Senator Jean-François Le Grand, chairman of a committee set up to evaluate biotechnology, said there were "serious doubts" about the safety of the product (although this ban was declared illegal in 2011 by the European Court of Justice and the French Conseil d'État). The French farm ministry reinstated the ban in 2012, but this was rejected by the EFSA.
• In 2009 German Federal Minister Ilse Aigner announced an immediate halt to cultivation and marketing of MON810 maize under the safeguard clause.
• In March 2010, Bulgaria imposed a complete ban on genetically modified crop growing either commercially or for trials. The cabinet of Boyko Borisov initially imposed a 5-year moratorium, but later extended it to a permanent ban after widespread public protests against the introduction of genetically modified crops in the country. And in recent years, France and several other European countries banned cultivation of Monsanto's MON-810 corn and similar genetically modified food crops.
• Since January 2013 Poland's government placed a ban on Monsanto's GM corn, MON 810 and has launched a communication campaign with farmers', announcing they will now be strictly monitoring farms for GM corn crops. Poland is the eighth EU member to ban the production of GMOs although they have been approved by European Food Safety Authority. Europe is not against the use of GM crops when it comes to laboratory research, they are working to regulate the field.

In 2012, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) released a "Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis" in a response to a request from the European Commission. The opinion was, that while "the frequency of unintended changes may differ between breeding techniques and their occurrence cannot be predicted and needs to be assessed case by case," "similar hazards can be associated with cisgenic and conventionally bred plants, while novel hazards can be associated with intragenic and transgenic plants." In other words, cisgenic genetic engineering approaches should be considered similar in risk to conventional breeding approaches, each of which are less risky than transgenic approaches.

Labeling and traceability

The regulations concerning the import and sale of GMOs for human and animal consumption grown outside the EU involve providing freedom of choice to the farmers and consumers. All food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled. Twice GMOs unapproved by the EC have arrived in the EU and been forced to return to their port of origin. The first was in 2006 when a shipment of rice from America containing an experimental GMO variety (LLRice601) not meant for commercialisation arrived at Rotterdam. The second in 2009 when trace amounts of a GMO maize approved in the US were found in a "non-GM" soy flour cargo.

The coexistence has raised significant concern in many European countries and so EU law also requires that all GM food be traceable to its origin, and that all food with GM content greater than 0.9% be labelled. Due to high demand from European consumers for freedom of choice between GM and non-GM foods. EU regulations require measures to avoid mixing of foods and feed produced from GM crops and conventional or organic crops, which can be done via isolation distances or biological containment strategies. (Unlike the US, European countries require labeling of GM food.) European research programs such as Co-Extra, Transcontainer, and SIGMEA are investigating appropriate tools and rules for traceability. The OECD has introduced a "unique identifier" which is given to any GMO when it is approved, which must be forwarded at every stage of processing. Such measures are generally not used in North America because they are very costly and the industry admits of no safety-related reasons to employ them. The EC has issued guidelines to allow the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops through buffer zones (where no GM crops are grown). These are regulated by individual countries and vary from 15 meters in Sweden to 800 meters in Luxembourg. All food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.

A 5-digit price look-up code beginning with the digit 8 indicates genetically modified food. However the absence of the "8" does not necessarily indicate the food is not genetically modified since no retailer to date has elected to use the digit in voluntarily labeling genetically modified foods.

North America

The United States, Canada, and Mexico do not require labeling of genetically modified foods.

United States

Federal regulation

The USA is the largest commercial grower of genetically modified crops in the world.

United States regulatory policy is governed by the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology This regulatory policy framework that was developed under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation. The policy as it developed had three tenets: "(1) U.S. policy would focus on the product of genetic modification (GM) techniques, not the process itself, (2) only regulation grounded in verifiable scientific risks would be tolerated, and (3) GM products are on a continuum with existing products and, therefore, existing statutes are sufficient to review the products."

For a genetically modified organism to be approved for release, it must be assessed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) agency within the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and may also be assessed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental protection agency (EPA), depending on the intended use of the organism. The USDA evaluates the plant's potential to become a weed. The FDA has a voluntary consultation process with the developers of genetically engineered plants. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which outlines FDA's responsibilities, does not require pre-market clearance of food, including genetically modified food plants. The EPA regulates genetically modified plants with pesticide properties, as well as agrochemical residues. Most genetically modified plants are reviewed by at least two of the agencies, with many subject to all three. Within the organization are departments that regulate different areas of GM food including, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN,) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). As of 2008, all developers of genetically modified crops in the US had made use of the voluntary process. Final approval can still be denied by individual counties within each state. In 2004, Mendocino County, California became the first and only county to impose a ban on the "Propagation, Cultivation, Raising, and Growing of Genetically Modified Organisms", the measure passing with a 57% majority.

Several laws govern the US regulatory agencies. These laws are statutes the agencies review when determining the safety of a particular GM food. These laws include:

• The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (EPA);
• The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (EPA);
• The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (FDA and EPA);
• The Plant Protection Act (PPA) (USDA);
• The Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (VSTA) (USDA);
• The Public Health Service Act (PHSA)(FDA);
• The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) (FDA)
• The Meat Inspection Act (MIA)(USDA);
• The Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (USDA);
• The Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (USDA); and
• The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

State regulation

Several states have passed regulations concerning labelling of GM food, Connecticut passed a GMO labeling bill in May 2013, but the bill will only be triggered after four other states enact similar legislation. On January 9, 2014, Maine’s governor signed a bill requiring labeling for foods made with GMO's, with a similar triggering mechanism as Connecticut's bill.

Canada

Mainland Canada is one of the world's largest producers of GM canola and also grows GM maize, soybean and sugarbeet. Health Canada, under the Food and Drugs Act, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are responsible for evaluating the safety and nutritional value of genetically modified foods. Environmental assessments of biotechnology-derived plants are carried out by the CFIA's Plant Biosafety Office (PBO). The Canadian regulatory system is based on whether a product has novel features regardless of method of origin. In other words, a product is regulated as GM if it carries some trait not previously found in the species whether it was generated using traditional breeding methods (e.g. selective breeding, cell fusion, mutation breeding) or genetic engineering. Canadian law requires that manufacturers and importers submit detailed scientific data to Health Canada for safety assessments for approval. This data includes: information on how the GM plant was developed; nucleic acid data that characterizes the genetic change; composition and nutritional data of the novel food compared to the original non-modified food' potential for new toxins; and potential for being an allergen. A decision is then made whether to approve the product for release along with any restrictions or requirements. Labeling of foods as products of Genetic Engineering or not products of Genetic Engineering is voluntary. The Canadian regulations were reviewed by the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee between 1999 and 2003, with the conclusion that the current level of regulation was satisfactory. The committee was accused by environmental and citizen groups of not representing the full spectrum of public interests by only having one member of the board of 20 representing non-governmental organisations and for being too closely aligned to industry groups.

Mexico

On the 15 February 2005, after consulting the Mexican Academy of Sciences, Mexico's senate passed a law allowing planting and selling of genetically modified cotton and soybean. The law requires all genetically modified products to be labelled according to guidelines issued by the Mexican Ministry of Health. In 2009 the government enacted statutory provisions for the regulation of genetically modified maize. Mexico is the center of diversity for maize and concerns have been raised about the impact genetically modified maize could have on local strains.

Oceania

Malaysia, New Zealand, and Australia require labeling so consumers can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand must approve any food produced from GM crops, or made using genetically engineered enzymes, before it can be marketed in Australia or New Zealand. FSANZ makes a list of such approvals available on its website.

Genetic engineering in Australia was originally (since 1987) overseen by the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee, before the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand took over in 2001. The OTGR is a Commonwealth Government Authority within the Department of Health and Ageing and reports directly to Parliament through a Ministerial Council on Gene Technology and has legislative powers. It was established as part of the Gene Technology Act 2003 and operates according to the Gene Technology Regulations 2001. The OGTR reports directly to Parliament through a Ministerial Council on Gene Technology and has legislative powers. The OGTR decides on license applications for the release of all genetically modified organisms, while regulation is provided by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for GM medicines or Food Standards Australia New Zealand for GM food. The individual state governments are then able to assess the impact of release on markets and trade and apply further legislation to control approved genetically modified products.

Genetically modified cotton, canola, and carnations are grown in Australia. Genetically modified cotton has been grown commercially in New South Wales and Queensland since 1996. GM canola was approved in 2003 and was first grown in 2008.

In 2011 genetically modified plants were grown in all states except South Australia and Tasmania, who have extended their moratoriums until 2019 and 2014. The Queensland and Northern Territory Governments have not implemented any further legislation beyond the national level, but several other states placed bans on planting certain GM crops. In 2007 the New South Wales government extended a blanket moratorium on GM food crops until 2011, but allowed groups to apply for exemptions. New South Wales approved GM Canola for commercial cultivation in 2008, while the Victorian government let the moratorium on GM Canola expire in 2007. Western Australia passed the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act in 2003 and was declared a GM free area in 2004. In 2008 an exception was made for the commercial cultivation of GM cotton in the Ord River Irrigation Areas. Trials of GM canola were carried out in 2003 and in 2010 the Western Australian government allowed the commercialisation of GM canola.

In New Zealand, no genetically modified food is grown and no medicines containing live genetically modified organisms have been approved for use. However, medicines manufactured using genetically modified organisms that do not contain live organisms have been approved for sale, and imported foods with genetically modified components are sold. In 2000 the Government appointed a Royal Commission to report on issues relating to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, released in July 2001, concluded that New Zealand should keep its options open with regard to genetic engineering and to proceed carefully in order to minimise and manage any risks. Field trials have been carried out with GM pine trees and brassicas.

See also

• Genetic engineering
• Genetically modified crops
• Genetically modified food
• Genetically modified food controversies
• Genetically modified organisms

References

1. ^ PotatoPro Cite error: The named reference "PotatoPro" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
2. ^ Gerda M. Botha and Christopher D. Viljoen (2009) "South Africa: A case study for voluntary GM labelling" Food Chemistry 112(4):1060–1064
3. ^ The Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods
4. ^ John Davison (2010)"GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations" Plant Science 178(2):94–98
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers
6. Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20.
7. Bett, Charles (August 2010). "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food". Food Policy. 35 (4): 332–340. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.003. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
8. American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods
9. ^ United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text. National Academies Press. See pp11ff on need for better standards and tools to evaluate GM food. Cite error: The named reference "NRC2004" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
10. Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM (June 2008). "Genetically modified plants and human health". J R Soc Med. 101 (6): 290–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. PMC 2408621. PMID 18515776.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
11. Berg P, Baltimore D, Boyer HW, Cohen SN, Davis RW, Hogness DS, Nathans D, Roblin R, Watson JD, Weissman S, Zinder ND (1974). "Letter: Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules" (PDF). Science. 185 (4148): 303. doi:10.1126/science.185.4148.303. PMID 4600381.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
12. Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Brenner, S., Roblin, R. O., and Singer, M. F. (1975). "Summary Statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules". Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 72 (6): 1981–1984. doi:10.1073/pnas.72.6.1981. PMC 432675. PMID 806076.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
13. Hutt, P.B. (1978). "Research on recombinant DNA molecules: the regulatory issues". South Calif Law Rev. 51 (6): 1435–50. PMID 11661661.
14. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00300.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00300.x instead. Cite error: The named reference "McHughen2007" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
15. Bull, A.T., Holt, G. and Lilly, M.D. (1982). Biotechnology : international trends and perspectives (PDF). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
16. U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (1986). "Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology" (PDF). Fed Regist. 51 (123): 23302–50. PMID 11655807. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)
17. FAO/WHO Report 1991
18. OECD(1992)Safety Considerations for Biotechnology
19. ^ OECD(1993)Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles
20. OECD (2010) Consensus Document on Molecular Characterisation of Plants Derived from Modern Biotechnology
21. OECD harmonization webpage
22. Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2003 Principles and Guidelines on foods derived from biotechnology
23. Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2004 Food Import & Export
24. Substantial Equivalence in Food Safety Assessment, Council for Biotechnology Information, March 11, 2001
25. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety. Rome, Italy, 30 September to 4 October 1996 p. 4
26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Report of the Task Force for the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds C(2000)86/ADD1. May 17, 2000 Quote: "Much experience has been gained in the safety assessment of the first generation of foods derived through modern biotechnology, and those countries that have conducted assessments are confident that those GM foods they have approved are as safe as other foods."
27. Substantial equivalence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in genetically modified novel foods, Novak, W. K.; Haslberger, A. G.,Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 38 (6) p.473-483, 2000
28. Kok EJ, Kuiper HA (October 2003). "Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops". Trends Biotechnol. 21 (10): 439–44. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2003.08.003. PMID 14512230.
29. FAO. Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin - Consultations 4. Approaches to the Nutritional and Food Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods
30. Transgenic harvest Editorial, Nature 467 , pages 633–634, 7 October 2010, doi:10.1038/467633b. Retrieved 9 November 2010
31. ^ Dunmore, Charlie and Kumwenda, Olivia (6 June 2013) As health fears ebb, Africa looks at easing GM crop bans Reuters, Retrieved 9 August 2013
32. ^ Slides & Tables : Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010 - ISAAA Brief 42-2010 | ISAAA.org
33. AgBioForum 10(3): Biofortified Foods and Crops in West Africa: Mali and Burkina Faso
34. "A Search for Regulators and a Road Map to Deliver GM Crops to Third World Farmers" The New York Times
35. Denge, Mark and Gachenge, Beatrice (4 July 2011) Kenya approves law to allow GM crops Reuters Africa, Retrieved 9 November 2011
36. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1089/blr.2012.9900, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1089/blr.2012.9900 instead.
37. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1089/blr.2012.9901, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1089/blr.2012.9901 instead.
38. Kikulwe, E., J. Wesseler J. Falck-Zepeda (2011): Attitudes, Perceptions, and Trust: Insights from a Consumer Survey Regarding Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda. Appetite 57(2):401-413
39. Kikulwe, E., E. Birol, J. Wesseler, J. Falck-Zepeda (2011): A Latent Class Approach to Investigating Developing Country Consumers’ Demand for Genetically Modified Staple Food Crops: The Case of GM Banana in Uganda. Agricultural Economics. 42:547–560
40. Maharaj, Davan and Mukwita, Anthony (28 August 2002) Zambia Rejects Gene-Altered U.S. Corn Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 9 November 2011
41. Zambian Leader Defends Ban On Genetically Altered Foods – New York Times. Nytimes.com (2002-09-04). Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
42. Zambia Allows Its People To Eat. Consumerfreedom.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
43. Africans vow to resist any US pressure on GMOs, Reuters, 2/9/2006
44. World Environment News. Planet Ark. Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
45. ^ ISAAA Brief 37-2007 - Slides & Tables > ISAAA.org
46. Inderscience. Inderscience.metapress.com. Retrieved on 2014-01-14.
47. James, C (2011). "ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011". ISAAA Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Retrieved 2012-08-30.
48. ^ Northwestern.edu Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Paper on: "Consumer Protection" Consumer Strategies and the European Market in Genetically Modified Foods
49. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144810, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144810 instead.
50. AgBioForum 5(4): Agricultural Biotechnology Development and Policy in China
51. TNAU Agritech Portal :: Bio Technology. Agritech.tnau.ac.in (1989-12-05). Retrieved on 2014-01-14.
52. "India puts on hold first GM food crop on safety grounds". BBC. 9 February 2010. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
53. "Govt says no to Bt brinjal for now". The Times of India. February 9, 2010. Retrieved February 9, 2010.
54. Chaudhury, Shoma (March 7, 2010). "The Gene Gun At Your Head". Tehelka Magazine. Retrieved 12 August 2013.
55. "Report of Dr S K Sopory Committee on BNLA106 event" (PDF). Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Retrieved 12 August 2013.
56. "Committee on agriculture - Ministry of Agriculture (Department of agriculture and cooperation) "Cultivation of genetically modified food crops –prospects and effects" Thirty seventh report" (PDF). Retrieved 12 August 2013.
57. "Monthly Policy Review July 2013" (PDF). PRSIndia. p. 9. Retrieved 12 August 2013.
58. ^ BASF presentation
59. Argentina poised to update seed law-Argentina, seed, GM, crop, biotech
60. (2010) Biotech Facts and Trends Honduras 2010 ISAAA, Retrieved 9 August 2013
61. (2013)GM Crop Events approved in Costa Rica ISAAA GM Approval database, Retrieved 9 August 2013
62. (2012) Biotech Facts and Trends Columbia 2012 ISAAA, Retrieved 9 August 2013
63. Herbst, Allyson (6 June 2013) Government Plans to Expand Use of GM Foods Bolivia Weekly, Retrieved 9 August 2013
64. (2013) Biotech Facts and Trends Paraguay 2013 ISAAA, Retrieved 9 August 2013
65. (2012) Biotech Facts and Trends Chile 2012 ISAAA, Retrieved 9 August 2013
66. (2012) Uruguay Annual Biotechnology Report 2012 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network Retrieved 9 August 2013
67. Venezuela: Chavez Dumps Monsanto. Globalpolicy.org (2004-05-05). Retrieved on 2011-02-08.
68. Pena, Karla (2008) "Putting Food First in the Constitution of Ecalthough Puador," Food First Institute for Food & Development Policy, https://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2301, (updated 31 October 2008, accessed 21 May 2008).
69. ^ (2 October 2012)Transgenic Products Gain Ground Central American Data, Retrieved 9 Augiust 2013
70. Lynch D, Vogel D. (2001). The Regulation of Gmos in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics..
71. GMO Compass: The European Regulatory System. Retrieved 28 July 2012.
72. Wesseler J. and N. Kalaitzandonakes (2011): Present and Future EU GMO policy. In Arie Oskam, Gerrit Meesters and Huib Silvis (eds.), EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas. Second Edition, pp. 23-323 – 23-332. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers
73. ^ "Health and Consumers: Food and feed safety." (under "What are the National safeguard measures?") Link. Retrieved 28 July 2012.
74. Beckmann, V., C. Soregaroli, J. Wesseler (2006): Co-Existence Rules and Regulations in the European Union. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(5):1193-1199
75. Cooper, Alice. "Political Indigestion: Germany Confronts Genetically Modified Foods." German Politics 18.4 (2009): 536-558. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Dec. 2012.
76. Beckmann, V., C. Soregaroli, and J. Wesseler (2010). Ex-Ante Regulation and Ex-Post Liability under Uncertainty and Irreversibility: Governing the Coexistence of GM Crops. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Vol. 4, 2010-9
77. Groeneveld, R., J. Wesseler, P. Berentsen (2013): Dominos in the dairy: An analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming. Ecological Economics 86(2):107-116
78. Staf (19 May 2004) European Union lifts GM food ban BBC, Retrieved 7 eptember 2012
79. EU GMO ban was illegal, WTO rules Published 12 May 2006, retrieved 28 July 2012.
80. EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (Disputes DS291, 292, 293) World Trade Organisation, retrieved 28 July 2012.
81. "GM Potato Approval 'A Big Step for Germany'" Link. Published 3 March 2010, retrieved 28 July 2012.
82. Scientific background report AMFLORA potato VIB (Flemish Institute for biotechnology), Belgium, Retrieved 20 October 2010
83. Prof. František Sehnal, Prof. Jaroslav Drobník, Editors,(2009) White book Genetically Modified Crops
84. "Biotech firms warn EU over pace of GM crop approvals." Link. Published 11 Oct 2011, retrieved 28 July 2012.
85. Hogan, Michael (5 April 2012) BASF to undertake GMO potato trials in Europe Reuters, Retrieved 7 September 2012
86. Staff EU register of genetically modified food and feed European Commission, Health and Consumers, EU register of authorised GMOs, Retrieved 15 August 2012
87. "The Irish Potato: Will Consumers Eat Genetically Modified Spuds?" Published 27 July 2012, retrieved 28 July 2012. Link.
88. Nature Biotechnology. "Europe legitimizes GM crop exclusion zones." Table 1: National bans currently implemented under the 'safeguard clause.' Link. Retrieved 28 July 2012.
89. Ricroch A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M (February 2010). "Is the German suspension of MON810 maize cultivation scientifically justified?". Transgenic Res. 19 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1007/s11248-009-9297-5. PMC 2801845. PMID 19548100.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
90. (AFP) – 8 February 2008 (8 February 2008). "AFP: French GM ban infuriates farmers, delights environmentalists". Afp.google.com. Retrieved 8 March 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
91. French ban on biotech Monsanto corn ruled illegal Agrimony UK, 28 November 2011. Retrieved 30 December 2011
92. "French ban of Monsanto GM maize rejected by EU." Link. Published 22 May 2012, retrieved 28 July 2012.
93. Thorsten Severin and Michael Hogan (14 April 2009). "Germany to ban cultivation of GMO maize-Minister". Reuters. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
94. "Bulgaria Puts Total Ban on GM Crops". Novinite. 18 March 2010. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
95. "GMO : POLAND PROMISES STRICT CONTROL ON GM CROPS." Europe Agri 25 Mar. 2013: 332575. General OneFile. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.
96. European Food Safety Authority, 2012. Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA Journal 2012;10(2):2561ff
97. Directorate-general for agriculture and rural development. "Economic impact of unapproved gmos on eu feed imports and livestock production" (PDF). European Commission.
98. Europa summaries of EU legislation: Traceability and labelling of GMOs. Link.
99. ^ GMO Safety. "New coexistence - Guidelines in the EU: Cultivation bans are now permitted".
100. Coextra
101. BioTrack Product Database
102. accessed 21 January 2011
103. Plucodes.com
104. "Jeffrey Smith: PLU Codes Do Not Indicate Genetically Modified Produce". Huffingtonpost.com. 25 May 2011. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
105. Trade barriers seen in EU label for bio-engineered ingredients. (Regulatory and Policy Trends). Business and the Environment 13.11 (Nov 2002): p14(1).
106. Clive James (2009). "ISAAA Brief 41-2009: Executive Summay: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops The first fourteen years, 1996 to 2009".
107. United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website
108. ^ Emily Marden, Risk and Regulation: U.S. Regulatory Policy on Genetically Modified Food and Agriculture, 44 B.C.L. Rev. 733 (2003)
109. FDA page for Q & A on GM Food
110. FDA page on Regulation of GM Plants in Animal Feed
111. ^ "Guide to U.S. Regulation of Genetically Modified Food and Agricultural Biotechnology Products" (PDF). The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2001. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
112. "Consultation Procedures under FDA's 1992 Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties". FDA. June 1996; Revised October 1997. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
113. Peggy G. Lemaux [http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/9Ntsbp8nBKFATMuPqVje/full/10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840 Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part I)} Annual Review of Plant Biology 59: 771-812 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840. Quote: "Although GE foods can be marketed without certain regulatory approvals, to date all products in the marketplace have undergone full review by regulatory agencies regarding safety and content relative to unmodified forms (searchable data on specific events available at 84). Submitting the safety data is in the developer's best interests, however, given the legal liabilities incurred should a problem with the food arise following market introduction"
114. Marygold Walsh-Dilley (2009) "Localizing control: Mendocino County and the ban on GMOs" Agriculture and Human Values 26(1-2):95-105
115. Reilly, Genevieve (11 December 2013). "Malloy signs state GMO labeling law in Fairfield". ctpost.com. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
116. Herling, Daniel J. (12 January 2014). "As Maine Goes, So Goes The Nation? Labeling for Foods Made with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)". The National Law Review. Retrieved 8 March 2014. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
117. GMO Compass Rapeseed July 27, 2010. Retrieved August 6, 2010.
118. Canadian Food Inspection Agency - Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology
119. Genetically Modified Food.
120. Evans, Brent and Lupescu, Mihai (15 July 2012) Canada - Agricultural Biotechnology Annual – 2012 GAIN (Global Agricultural Information Network) report CA12029, United States Department of Agriculture, Foreifn Agricultural Service, Retrieved 2 November 2012
121. McHugen, Alan (September 14, 2000). "Chapter 1: Hors-d'oeuvres and entrees/What is genetic modification? What are GMOs?". Pandora's Picnic Basket. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198506744.
122. Staff (28 November 2005) Health Canada - The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food Glossary definition of Genetically Modified: "An organism, such as a plant, animal or bacterium, is considered genetically modified if its genetic material has been altered through any method, including conventional breeding. A 'GMO' is a genetically modified organism.", Retrieved 2 November 2012
123. Staff (20 July 2012) Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods that are and are not Products of Genetic Engineering Public Works and Government Services Canada, National Standard of Canada, Retrieved 1 November 2012
124. Making the Market "Safe" for GM Foods: The Case of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee | Prudham | Studies in Political Economy
125. Mexico approves planting and sale of GM crops - SciDev.Net
126. Mexico: controlled cultivation of genetically modified maize
127. Warning issued on GM maize imported to Mexico - SciDev.Net
128. GM maize found ‘contaminating’ wild strains - SciDev.Net
129. FSANZ GM food approvals
130. ^ "Welcome to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator Website". Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Retrieved 25 March 2011.
131. ^ Agriculture - Department of Primary Industries
132. ^ Rosemary Polya (17 October 2008). "Chronology of genetic engineering regulation in Australia: 1953–2008". Commonwealth of Australia: Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
133. GM Crops and Stockfeed
134. GM Carnations in Australia
135. ^ Information Paper on Genetically Modified Canola A report by the Ministerial GMO Industry Reference Group Chaired by the Hon Kim Chance MLC. May 2009
136. ^ "GM canola gets the green light". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2003-04-01.
137. GRDC - Australia's first GM canola crop comes off
138. ^ Crothers, Lindy (29 June 2011) Australia, Agricultural Biotechnology Annual, 2011 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network Report Number AS 1120, Retrieved 29 September 2011
139. Genetically modified medicines and food New Zealand Ministry for the Environment
140. "Rotorua GE Tree Trial Remains Environment Threat". Soil and Health Association. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
141. Williams, David (2009-01-20). "GE activists call for trials to be ended". The Press. Retrieved 2009-01-27.

• Regulation of genetically modified organisms