Kitchen

[PickyPicky3]

---

@Mindy D wrote:

@PickyPicky3 Where did you read that the disclosure was required only on the first ingredient? 

---

Can't find it, but I know I saw it. It certainly didn't make sense. Probably will have to continue this tomorrow.

This seems like an especially obscure regulation for the average shopper. Maybe after the new year there will be some news about this.

Hasta Manana! 

Always grateful for your help 

[Mindy D]

FINALLY.

Now to answer your question

@PickyPicky3 Genetic engineering involves intentionally changing the gene sequence of an organism, such as a plant or an animal. It involves the DIRECT manipulation of the organism's genome (genetic information). Genes can be moved within a single species or genes can be moved from another species into another species and a new type of organism is created. In some cases the organisms are closely related and in some cases they aren't. When a gene is moved from a species that isnt closely related into another species, the new irgansim created is known as a trangenic organism. There are also different techniques used for gene editing which can include insertion, repression, deletion or silencing of the genes of a particular organism. One of the best known of these methods is called CRISPR. An organism created using gene editing it known as a subgenic organism. ALL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS ARE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS.

Now, for the old fashioned way of genetically modifying organisms. Genetic modification involves genetic engineering as stated above, OR methods such as breeding by selection or hybridization or sometimes with the introduction of viruses.  Deliberate breeding to obtain a desired trait in offspring is probably the most familiar method. Another is continued cross breeding until a desired result is obtained. Just one example, If you look at wild bananas, they have huge seeds. The bananas we buy in the grocery story have greatly diminished seeds..the tiny black dots you can sometimes see in the center of the fruit. This genetic modification involved finding bananas that naturally had smaller seeds and continuing to cross breed until ones with highly diminished seeds were obtained. These bananas were no longer able to reproduce sexually using pollen to pollinate the banana plants that were destined for consumption. The new strains must be reproduced asexually by sucker plants, in essence, clones of the parent plant. The sucker plants come up attached to a parent plant and are then severed from the parent and planted. Wild bananas can still reproduce sexually and produce seeds.  With all the older forms if genetic modification there is no direct altering of the DNA of an organism. Humans have been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years. Where the GMO thing got a bad rap was when the maker of an herbicide crop modified plants to be resistant to the herbicide and also sold seeds fromntne modified plants to farmers along with the sale of the herbicide. 

[Mindy D]

@PickyPicky3 It doesnt matter. I've broken down the answers to your questions as best as I could here. I put the answers into different posts. 

[PickyPicky3]

@Mindy D Thank you for all that work. The "first ingredient" rule is both hard to research and hard to comprehend. So is the fact that food made with bioengineered ingredients can be so highly processed and refined that almost no trace of the genetic change can be found.

I think Covid issues have bumped this topic out of news coverage. That I CAN understand.

I found a short and simple website on this -- a good place to start: Google Rutgers Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet FS1334. I always love university extension information. 

[Mindy D]

---

@PickyPicky3 wrote:

@Mindy D Thank you for all that work. The "first ingredient" rule is both hard to research and hard to comprehend. So is the fact that food made with bioengineered ingredients can be so highly processed and refined that almost no trace of the genetic change can be found.

I think Covid issues have bumped this topic out of news coverage. That I CAN understand.

I found a short and simple website on this -- a good place to start: Google Rutgers Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet FS1334. I always love university extension information. 

---

@PickyPicky3 Try reading this again. Its pretty good.

• Most products of new GMO techniques like CRISPR gene editing won’t require a BE disclosure. That’s because the law focuses on foods containing detectable modified genetic material in the final product. Products that contain GMOs made with new techniques are currently untestable.
• Foods that are heavily processed contain little or no intact genetic material for accurate testing, so they also fall outside of BE disclosure. That includes very common products like sugar and cooking oil, as well as packaged goods that contain such ingredients.
• The BE labeling law only applies to food intended for direct human consumption. GMO crops for livestock feed take up millions of acres of agricultural land and ultimately support the human food supply — but the BE labeling law does not look at it. Because of the sheer volume of GMO commodity crops grown for livestock feed, choosing Verified meat, dairy, and eggs is the key to building a non-GMO" 

• "There are also complexities in the new law that prevent GMOs in multi-ingredient products from being disclosed. For example, a canned soup containing GMO corn would not require disclosure if the formulation lists meat as the first ingredient. Under the BE labeling law, it doesn’t matter that the corn is prevalent and plainly visible in the product or that 92% of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. It doesn’t even matter that the corn might have detectable modified genetic material. With meat as the first ingredient, the product is not subject to disclosure. Even if water, broth or stock is the first ingredient and meat is the second, the loophole still applies because those kinds of liquids don’t count." 
  Above is quoted from an article

• What You Need To Know About Bioengineered (BE) Food Labeling

  May 26, 2021 -

   

[PickyPicky3]

@Mindy D   What you posted is clear. It's the intent of the first ingredient rule that is driving me crazy. And it's here that we cross into the political, the give-and-take of creating legislation.

Consumers simply want to know what they're eating: a simple and transparent system of ingredient identification.

Manufacturers just want consumers to buy.

If the bioengineered corn in soup can be ignored and not labeled because the first ingredient is meat, then why bother labeling?

I know you understand this. 

All this because I bought 1/2 pound of potato salad, but I'm still glad I brought up the topic. 

[Mindy D]

@PickyPicky3 Thanks for the interesting conversation. All this new labeling system will do is confuse the general public. So, if you buy some salmon mousse made with cream cheese and the new bioengineeered salmon chopped and processed in the mousee, you will never konw you are eating Frankensalmon. Even if you order a salmon dinner made from the whole new fish, you wont know unless the restaurant opts to tell you, since restaurants are exempt from the regulation. 

@PickyPicky3  This is the complete regulation from the government. 

The most interesting thing Ive read so mar is that in multi ingredient foods, if the thirdproduct is bioengineered, such as BE corn, then it must be labeled a BE food but if the second ingredient onnthe label is a BE pork and the first listed ingredient is broth, then the pork does not have to be listed as a BE food. 

National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard

A Rule by the Agricultural Marketing Service on 12/21/2018

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosu...

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-21/pdf/2018-27283.pdf

[Mindy D]

@PickyPicky3  Quoting directly from the National Register:

A multi-ingredient food product that contains broth, stock, water, or similar solution as the first ingredient, and a meat, poultry, or egg product as the second ingredient on the food label would also not be subject to the NBFDS. For example, a canned stew where pork is the primary ingredient followed by other ingredients such as sweet corn, would not be subject to the NBFDS. The corn may be bioengineered, but pork, which is subject to the labeling requirements of the FMIA, is the predominant ingredient, so the canned stew product is not subject to the NBFDS, per the amended Act. If, however, a meat, poultry, or egg product is the third most predominant ingredient or lower, the food would be subject to the NBFDS. For example, a soup with the following ingredient list—broth, carrots, chicken, etc., would be subject to disclosure under the NBFDS, and the analysis as to whether it would be considered a “bioengineered food” subject to the NBFDS's disclosure requirements would continue.

Seafood, except Siluriformes (catfishes), and meats such as venison and rabbit are subject to the FDCA (but not the Federal Meat Inspection Act). Thus, a multi-ingredient food product that contains one of these as the first ingredient would be subject to the NBFDS. A multi-ingredient product that contained one of these as the second most predominant ingredient or lower, could also require disclosure, unless the product is otherwise exempt (for example, due to the predominance of another ingredient such as chicken or beef, as described above).

C. Bioengineered Food

The amended Act delegates authority to the Secretary to establish the NBFDS regarding “bioengineered food.” 7 U.S.C. 1639b(a). This authority includes the ability to define “bioengineered food,” consistent with the statutory provisions that address this term. The amended Act also authorizes the Secretary to determine other terms that are similar to “bioengineering.” 7 U.S.C. 1639(1).

1. DEFINITION OF “BIOENGINEERING” AND “BIOENGINEERED FOOD”

The amended Act defines “bioengineering” with respect to a food as referring to a food “(A) that contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques; and (B) for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.” 7 U.S.C. 1639(1). In accordance with its statutory mandate and for purposes of consistency, AMS is directly incorporating this statutory definition into the definition of “bioengineered food”.

The NPRM invited public comment on two different interpretations of the statutory definition of “bioengineering” and on the scope of the regulatory definition of “bioengineered food.” Specifically, comments were solicited on whether refined foods and ingredients should be subject to disclosure under the NBFDS.

The first interpretation, identified as Position 1 in the NPRM, stated that refined products do not “contain genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques” because the refining process rendered genetic material undetectable using common testing methods. The second interpretation, identified as Position 2 in the NPRM, stated that the scope of the definition of “bioengineering” applies to all foods produced from bioengineering, such as refined products.

AMS adopts Position 1 with some modifications. The statutory definition of “bioengineering” makes clear that food must “contain[ ] genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques . . .” to be labeled as a “bioengineered food.” AMS believes that the definition of “bioengineering” sets forth the scope of the mandatory disclosure and, therefore, is incorporated into the definition of “bioengineered food.” A commenter suggested that AMS adopt a definition of “highly refined” if it adopts Position 1. We did not do so because the final rule does not use that term.

AMS has chosen to adopt the definition of “bioengineered food” that hews closely to the plain language of the amended Act. This definition references § 66.9 to explain how a regulated entity may demonstrate that a food, including a refined food ingredient, does not contain detectable modified genetic material. AMS has revised the proposed definition of “bioengineered food” to reflect its interpretation of the amended Act that foods with undetectable modified genetic material are not bioengineered foods.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosu...

[PickyPicky3]

It's more like directions for a board game than a system to help consumers make decisions about food.