Genetically modified food

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Genetically modified plum variety that is resistant to Sharka disease

A genetically modified food is a food consisting of genetically modified plants, animals or microorganisms ( genetically modified organisms , GMOs or in English CMO ) which contains this or is made from.

Legal position

In the EU, food produced with the help of transgenic microorganisms and animals fed with genetically modified feed are not included in the law. The Federation for Food Law and Food Science found that foods with genetically modified ingredients are already widespread in German supermarkets. It is estimated that 60% to 80% of all food in their production has come into contact with genetic engineering in some way. In Austria, due to the genetic engineering referendum of 1997, most products - with the exception of animal feed - are GMO-free.

For legal issues, see also genetic engineering and freedom from genetic engineering .

Labelling

In the EU, all foods in which at least one component comes from a genetically modified product must be labeled with a specific wording. Feed is also covered by the labeling requirement. Feed, in which at least one component comes from genetically modified organisms, must therefore be labeled like food. However, this label is only intended to provide information to feed buyers. For consumers, this type of labeling does not automatically make it clear whether genetically modified feed has been used. In this context, it is criticized that meat, dairy products and eggs from animals that have been fed genetically modified feed are not subject to the approval and labeling regulations.

plants

The use of transgenic plants began in 1996. In 2009, mainly transgenic maize , transgenic cotton , transgenic soybeans and transgenic rapeseed were grown in 25 countries on 134 million hectares (about 9% of the global agricultural area) . For human nutrition, these transgenic plants are primarily of indirect importance in Germany as feed in animal production , although the harmlessness of this use is controversial.

According to a survey in December 2013, 88% of Germans reject the cultivation of genetically modified plants. In Germany, there is a strict zero tolerance for seed controls; if GMO admixtures are detected in seeds, it is not marketable regardless of the level of the measured GMO proportion and is destroyed or plowed under. In 2014, GMOs were found in only 1.6 percent of the samples of maize seed. That was even less than in the previous year and significantly less than in 2011, when almost seven percent of the samples still contained GMOs.

Animals

salmon

A transgenic salmon could be used as the first genetically modified animal intended for human consumption . The GM salmon with the brand name AquAdvantage have a gene for a growth hormone from another salmon species ( king salmon ), and another gene from a fish species adapted to cold sea regions ( Zoarces americanus ). With these two genes, GM salmon produce more growth hormones. Instead of three years, it is ready for slaughter after 16 to 18 months. The application was made in the USA in 1995 and the safety tests required by the FDA have been passed (according to the FDA, GM salmon are just as safe as other salmon). Among other things, it had to be ensured that the genetic modifications remain stable and do not have any negative effects on animal health. All animals are also female and sterile and should be kept in closed tanks so that undesired outcrossing is not possible.

The approval process, which has now lasted more than 15 years, reached its last climax in September 2010, when the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (CMAC) published all data on health and environmental effects. The VMAC (a panel of independent vets and experts) wrote that AquAdvantage was as safe as conventional Atlantic salmon and that its consumption posed no health risk. There is also substantial and reliable data that allow the conclusion that no significant environmental impact is to be expected from the commercialization of AquAdvantage. In contrast, critics from the environment of consumer and environmental organizations continued to express concerns about health and environmental risks. In February 2011, Friends of the Earth , Earthjustice , Greenpeace , Oceana , Ocean Conservancy , Pew Environment Group and the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote to FDA Director Margaret Hamburg asking for a more comprehensive environmental assessment. 11 senators (mostly from states in the Pacific Northwest ) and 29 members of the House of Representatives wrote two letters to Hamburg and mentioned a lack of transparency and the possibility of public participation. On June 16, 2011, the House of Representatives voted in a vote with less than a dozen MPs in attendance on Don Young's (a representative of Alaska , a state with a large wild salmon industry) to approve a change in law that would prohibit the FDA from using the Money stuck in the approval process of genetically modified salmon. The Senate would have to approve the change in the law before it can be implemented.

Several scientists are calling for a more comprehensive approval assessment from the FDA. The FDA is comparing a single transgenic salmon to a non-transgenic salmon. This ignores possible health and environmental impacts that could result from changes in production and consumption. The health effects are assessed by the FDA by comparing the ingredients of the transgenic salmon with those of the non-transgenic and by looking for toxins and allergens. The implicit assumption is that the new product will replace the old one 1: 1 and that there will be no price and quantity changes. Since the transgenic salmon grow faster and require less feed, a reduction in production costs through transgenic salmon could lead to lower prices for salmon. If this price cut increases salmon consumption (and possibly reduces consumption of substitutes like beef at the same time ), it could improve public health . Poor households could be particularly affected. Apart from the health effects, the environmental effects are also insufficiently evaluated by the FDA. Should the production of salmon expand as a result of the introduction of transgenic salmon, for example, higher environmental pollution and increased pressure on wild fish stocks is possible. A higher demand for wild fish as feed could increase the economic yields of fisheries, but poor management increases the likelihood of overfishing . The risk of outcrossing to wild salmon could also increase with an expansion of production if the production facilities take on different forms as a result of the expansion.

Other animals

Other GM animals for human consumption that are or have been developed by companies and universities include BSE- resistant cattle or animal foods with a modified composition. Examples are leaner meat or meat with a relatively higher proportion of omega-3 fatty acids in the fat content, eggs with a lower cholesterol content and hypoallergenic milk.

Microorganisms

Genetically modified microorganisms are rarely used in food production. Research is being carried out on transgenic lactic acid bacteria that can, for example, accelerate the production of cheese . Second, enzymes from plants or animals are also produced by microorganisms through genetic modification. A third research area is transgenic yeasts , which can be used, for example, in the production of a lower-calorie beer .

Labelling

In the EU there is a labeling requirement for genetically modified foods, but not for those in whose production genetically modified feed was used. In the USA, voluntary labeling of genetically modified foods is possible as long as it is not misleading.

literature

  • Engelhard, M. et al. (Ed.): Genetic Engineering in Livestock. New Applications and Interdisciplinary Perspectives . Heidelberg / Berlin, 2009. ISBN 978-3-540-85842-3 .
  • Müller-Röber, B. et al .: Green genetic engineering. Current developments in science and business . Munich, 2007. ISBN 978-3-8274-1903-3 . ( Download as PDF )

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Basic position of the German food industry on green genetic engineering , bll.de
  2. ↑ The consumer is being fooled , zeit.de
  3. ↑ Comments: Industrial potato Amflora is approved , welt.de.
  4. ^ Federal Environment Agency: Labeling. Retrieved November 13, 2017 .
  5. ↑ ISAAA: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech / GM Crops: 2009 (English)
  6. ↑ Survey by the Society for Consumer Research on behalf of Greenpeace ( Memento from February 7, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  7. ↑ Genetic maize 1507 before approval Farmers warn of “genetic engineering war in the villages” , Süddeutsche Zeitung, February 11, 2014
  8. ↑ Maize seeds hardly contaminated with genetic engineering , Genetic Engineering Information Service, April 14, 2014
  9. ↑ USA: Still approval for genetically modified salmon? ( Memento from July 4, 2010 in the Internet Archive ), Transgen.de, June 29, 2010.
  10. ↑ USA: Conflicts over the approval of genetically modified salmon ( Memento from December 6, 2013 in the Internet Archive ), transgen.de, September 21, 2010.
  11. ↑ Alison L Van Eenennaam & William M Muir (2011): Transgenic salmon: a final leap to the grocery shelf? Nature Biotechnology 29 (8): 706-710.
  12. ↑ Martin D. Smith, Frank Asche, Atle G. Guttormsen, Jonathan B. Wiener: Genetically Modifi ed Salmon and Full Impact Assessment , Science, Vol. 330, November 19, 2010. pp. 1052-1053.
  13. ^ Rules Near for Animals' Engineering . In: New York Times , September 17, 2008.
  14. ↑ Van Eenennaam, Alison L. (2006): What is the future of animal biotechnology? In: California Agriculture Vol. 60, No. 3.
  15. ↑ Genetically Modified Microorganisms and Food Production (English), biotopics.co.uk
  16. ↑ Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants (English), FDA