The United States intends to use genetically modified mandatory labeling: renamed bioengineering food.

category:Hot
 The United States intends to use genetically modified mandatory labeling: renamed bioengineering food.


Recently, the United States Department of agriculture (USDA) announced the rule of the national bioengineering food information disclosure standard (NationalBioengineeredFoodDisclosureStandard) on the identification of biological engineering food, and asked for the public meaning of how many biological engineering ingredients contained in the food engineering products. See you. The document recommends that food producers use Bioengineered (BE) to label these foods, and the very use of GeneticallyModified. The deadline for soliciting opinions is July 3rd. The final version should be published before July 29th and will be formally implemented after promulgation. According to Washington Post recently reported that the United States Secretary of agriculture Sonny Padu said earlier that the final version may not be determined until the end of summer. Previously, GM food labels in the United States follow the general identification requirements. Unlike federal policies in the United States, some states explicitly support the mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods through legislation. And between States and different interest groups have been debating the issue of identification. In July 2016, in order to unify the legislation of GMF labeling, the US Congress passed the national bioengineering information disclosure standard act. In the same month, former US President Obama signed the bill. However, due to the question of which foods should be identified and what labels should be used by food manufacturers, the mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms should be postponed. The US Department of agriculture has two years to develop specific identification schemes. The specific work is responsible for the Ministry of agricultures marketing service (AMS). The above documents are 106 pages. For which food should be labeled, AMS takes into account the relevant data published by the US Department of agricultures Economic Research Service (ERS) and the international agricultural biotechnology service (ISAAA). At the same time, AMS also considered the views of industry stakeholders and consumers. AMS suggested that the relevant products of genetically modified crops such as rapeseed, corn, cotton, soybean and sugar beet should be identified. At the same time, the non browning apples, browning resistant potatoes, papaya and other related products should be identified. The documents show that three types of entities are responsible for marking, namely, food manufacturers, importers and certain retailers. If the food has been packaged before the retailer receives it, the food manufacturer or importer should be responsible for the information disclosure of the food label. If the retailer is responsible for packaging, he must bear the responsibility of information disclosure. The document also says that a restaurant or a retail food store or a very small food manufacturer can be exempted from the relevant identification. There are two kinds of mandatory identification of genetically modified organisms. One is the mandatory identification of contents according to the catalogue, such as China, and the other is quantitative mandatory identification. Quantitative compulsory identification involves the problem of threshold. The threshold of EU is 0.9%, that is, when the content of transgenic components exceeds 0.9%, it must be identified. For this problem, AMS calls for the maximum reduction of cost and the impact on the domestic and foreign industrial chain, as well as the convenience and consistency of the implementation of the regulated entities and consumers. They are asking for advice on different thresholds (GM or total weight content is 0.9%, 5%, etc.). In addition, the above documents also show that, for highly refined sugar and oil products, they may be exempted from identification. AMS claims that there is a view that highly refined products are not in the bioengineering scope, because they do not contain genetic material modified by recombinant DNA (DNA) technology in vitro, and do not need to be disclosed as bioengineered food. Because of the highly refined products made from bioengineered crops, such as sucrose, glucose, corn starch, and so on, they are chemically identical to those made from non bioengineered crops. But there are objections that the definition of bioengineering covers all foods produced by bioengineering, such as highly refined products. AMS solicited public comments on this matter and further assessed whether to exempt such products. According to Washington Post, consumer groups say it will effectively exempt genetically modified organisms from 70% of food labels. How to make a mandatory logo? AMS says, or there are 3 ways to disclose the ingredients. For example, it is possible to disclose through text, and AMS recommends the use of bioengineered food or bioengineered food ingredients, while also considering the use of genetically modified or genetic engineering terms. Secondly, it can be identified by symbol identification, such as smiley face or sun symbol. It can also be disclosed through electronic or digital links. The mandatory logo pattern is not yet determined which NationalBioengineeredFoodDisclosureStandard diagram to use. It is worth noting that the Disclosure Act is only for market purposes and has nothing to do with the safety of GM foods. In 2016, the National Academy of Sciences, engineering and Medical Sciences released a 408 page report that genetically modified crops are no different from traditional foods in terms of safety. At the same time, the Disclosure Act will not affect the integrity of the voluntary labeling act of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on food safety or nutrition. The United States has been a leader in the commercialization of GM crops since 1996. Of the 73 million hectares of GM crops planted in the United States in 2016, corn was 35 million 50 thousand hectares, 31 million 840 thousand hectares of soya beans, 3 million 700 thousand hectares of cotton, and other genetically modified crops such as alfalfa. In February 2017, genetically modified non browning apples were listed in some parts of the United States. The source of this article: surging news editor: Han Jiapeng _NN9841 It is worth noting that the Disclosure Act is only for market purposes and has nothing to do with the safety of GM foods. In 2016, the National Academy of Sciences, engineering and Medical Sciences released a 408 page report that genetically modified crops are no different from traditional foods in terms of safety. At the same time, the Disclosure Act will not affect the integrity of the voluntary labeling act of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on food safety or nutrition. The United States has been a leader in the commercialization of GM crops since 1996. Of the 73 million hectares of GM crops planted in the United States in 2016, corn was 35 million 50 thousand hectares, 31 million 840 thousand hectares of soya beans, 3 million 700 thousand hectares of cotton, and other genetically modified crops such as alfalfa. In February 2017, genetically modified non browning apples were listed in some parts of the United States.