How Is Food Biotechnology Used?

How Is Food Biotechnology Used?
Image Courtesy:
link: http://www.foodinsight.org/articles/fact-sheet-benefits-food-biotechnology
author: Food Insight

C O N T E N T S:

KEY TOPICS

  • From 1997-2013, the ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee (IFBiC) served as a biotechnology resource that aided science-based decision-making in food and feed crop safety assessments.(More…)
  • Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate.(More…)
  • Second thing is biotechnology and food technology are two different things (food technology is a part of biotechnology).(More…)
  • Ron Herring writes that today ” ngredients such as soybean oil, corn starch, or corn syrup derived from the processing of GE feed crops are pervasively used by America’s processed and packaged food industries, but GE staple food crops, fruits, and vegetables intended for direct human consumption remain largely unplanted, even in the United States.”(More…)
  • The rules would continue to allow the dangerous practice of producing drugs and industrial chemicals in food crops grown in the open environment, and in many cases even allow the biotechnology industry to decide whether their GE crops are regulated at all.”(More…)

POSSIBLY USEFUL

  • “Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops”.(More…)
  • Keeping in mind that you are interested in doing food technology not biotechnology,here is my answer.(More…)
  • These resources encompass all aspects of agriculture such as animal and veterinary sciences including poultry and dairy, entomology, plant sciences such as horticulture, crop and soil science, and plant pathology, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries, farming and farming systems, rural and community development, agricultural economics, extension and education, food and human nutrition, food science, agricultural engineering, and earth and environmental sciences.(More…)
  • By 2006, “almost 90 percent of the U.S. soy crop, 83 percent of the cotton crop, and 60 percent of the corn crop were genetically engineered, and thanks to the ubiquity of GM corn syrup, corn oil, and canola oil in processed food, GMOs had come to form part of almost every American’s daily diet.”(More…)
  • For these reasons, it is the position of Down to Earth ALL VEGETARIAN Organic and Natural that the development of GMO crops and their introduction into our food supply pose health and safety risks that far outweigh the benefits.(More…)

RANKED SELECTED SOURCES

KEY TOPICS

From 1997-2013, the ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee (IFBiC) served as a biotechnology resource that aided science-based decision-making in food and feed crop safety assessments. [1] She has held the position of Chief of Canada’s Plant Biotechnology Office, the federal regulatory authority for the assessment and release of genetically modified plants, and was President of AGBIOS, a consultancy that works internationally with governments, non-governmental organizations, and the public and private sectors on issues of policy and regulation pertaining to genetically modified foods, crops, and forest tree species. [1] Surveys indicate public concerns that eating genetically modified food is harmful, that biotechnology is risky, that more information is needed and that consumers need control over whether to take such risks. [2] Food writer Michael Pollan does not oppose eating genetically modified foods, but expressed concerns about biotechnology companies holding the intellectual property of the foods people depend on, and about the effects of the growing corporatization of large-scale agriculture. [2] “The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology”. [2] Dr. McLean has served as a technical expert on biotechnology risk assessment, regulation and policy for many organizations, including the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank, the United States Agency for International Development, the United National Environmental Program and the Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as many national governments. [1] In 2006, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology made public a review of U.S. survey results between 2001 and 2006. [2] Scientific advances in biotechnology, such as genome editing and synthetic biology, hold enormous potential to improve human and animal health, animal welfare, and food security. [3]

Advancements in food biotechnology such as genetic engineering and gene editing have allowed for the sequencing of various crop species like pearl millet. [4] Food biotechnology methods also shorten the time needed to develop and release a food item because molecular markers allow users and producers to select for a plant with favorable genes that can lead to resistance against biotic and abiotic stressors like microbial infections or harsh climate conditions. [4] Food biotechnology can also improve food security by increasing the nutritional value of food. [4]

Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. [2] These cases have been used as evidence that genetic modification can produce unexpected and dangerous changes in foods, and as evidence that safety tests effectively protect the food supply. [2] National Academies Press. pp R9-10: “In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. [2] The herbicide glyphosate used to grow GMOs kills milkweed, the only food source of monarch butterflies, and by 2015 about 90% of the U.S. population has declined. [2] Genetic modification can also be used to remove allergens from foods, potentially reducing the risk of food allergies. [2] This scientific symposium will explore how protected cultivation of fruits and vegetables can be used to provide a reliable, affordable, and sustainably produced supply of nutrient dense foods, with an emphasis on production opportunities in urban and peri-urban settings. [1] For example rice is used as staple food in many countries of world. [5]

Provides funding and program leadership for activities in food and agricultural biotechnology. [6] It is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. [2] During a conference in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, Kingsley Amoako, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), encouraged African nations to accept GM food and expressed dissatisfaction in the public’s negative opinion of biotechnology. [2] In July 2013, the agricultural biotechnology industry launched a GMO transparency initiative called GMO Answers to address consumers? questions about GM foods in the U.S. food supply. [2] Elaborates standards, guidelines, or recommendations for foods derived from modern biotechnology. [6]

FDA’s CFSAN conducts voluntary food safety evaluations for those who wish to commercialize genetically engineered crops to be used for food or feed. [6]

Second thing is biotechnology and food technology are two different things (food technology is a part of biotechnology). [7] Biotechnology combines a vast repertoire of knowledge obtained from biochemistry, microbiology and engineering sciences to produce things like beer, corn, fabrics used for clothes, active pharmaceuticals and much more. [4]

Impossible? No. Impossible Foods, a Redwood City, CA-based company has used biotechnology to create a plant-based burger amazingly similar to the bovine original. [8] The Genetic Literacy Project is a 501(c)(3) non profit dedicated to helping the public, journalists, policy makers and scientists better communicate the advances and ethical and technological challenges ushered in by the biotechnology and genetics revolution addressing both human genetics and food and farming. [9] Principles of food preservation, epidemiology of foodborne illness, agents of foodborne illness, food fermentations and biotechnology. [10]

Food laws and regulations, regulatory and commerical grading standards used in the food industry. [10] The bio-based economy is now an integral part of the circular economy, whereby all waste streams of the food and fuel industry are used to produce other materials such as fatty acids or biofuels or chemicals and materials. [11] PET is an acronym for polyethylene terephthalate and is a common resin of the polyester family that is used extensively in clothing fibers, liquid and food containers, and various manufacturing using plastic. [12]

Genetically modified animal biotechnology can be used to improve our food supply and develop new medical treatments. [13] Annual reports, presentations of the major players at leading conferences on marine biotechnology and the bio-based economy, and public announcements or press releases of companies and funding agencies were used. [14]

Interestingly, support for medical biotechnology remains high (in the 57-91% range in U.S. and EU) while support for food biotechnology is on average 30 points lower. [15] Support for medical biotechnology consistently outpaces support for food biotechnology. [15]

“Whereas the biotechnology industry and many EU government officials… strongly preferred a system that would regulate biotechnology on the basis of the food, medicine, and other products the technology produced (a ‘ product-based system’), opponents of the technology, as well as many environmental officials, wanted a process-based system that would apply to all genetically modified organisms, whatever their final form and use. [15] The French, purportedly biotechnology supporters as recently as 1997, began to waver in the teeth of protest at home before converting completely, pushing in 1999 for “a suspension of all commercial GMO authorizations” by the EU. The British retreated from their pro-biotech positions “as public protested the democratic deficit in policymaking and called for greater transparency and public accountability on food issues.” [15] Marine biotechnology is involving in many kinds like food, health, cosmetics, aquaculture, agriculture and many more. [13] As mentioned, European food retailers and processors came to view U.S. biotechnology firms like Monsanto as arrogant liabilities rather than valuable partners. [15] ” onsumer acceptance of green biotechnology in the European Union was already rather low before 1996, when GE foods first appeared on the EU market and extensive NGO campaigns began. [15] “T he European Union has moved from a situation of no regulation of agricultural biotechnology in the early- to mid-1980s to very strict approval regulation for GE crops, foods, and feeds, and to increasingly strict and harmonized labeling requirements.” [15]

The switch invigorated the opponents of biotechnology and ultimately dismayed the industry’s allies — the farmers, agricultural universities and food companies. [15] Provide a comprehensive understanding of modern biotechnology and its role in ensuring an adequate supply of nutritious food. [16]

Ultimately, in response to public comments from organizations and individuals, including the organic industry (which sought to prevent market share gains by the nascent plant biotechnology companies), and because of anti-biotechnology sentiment in USDA’s political leadership, USDA used its discretion to exclude genetically engineered products from the definition of organic food. [17] Some of the potential benefits of biotechnology includes but not limited to environmental conservation, improved food security and reduced malnutrition, use of biofuel to complement the non-renewable energy and source of raw materials used in industries. [18]

Ron Herring writes that today ” ngredients such as soybean oil, corn starch, or corn syrup derived from the processing of GE feed crops are pervasively used by America’s processed and packaged food industries, but GE staple food crops, fruits, and vegetables intended for direct human consumption remain largely unplanted, even in the United States.” [15] Enzymes are used in the food, agricultural, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industries to control and speed up reactions in order to quickly and accurately obtain a valuable final product. [19] As a very important coenzyme in the cell metabolism, Vitamin B 12 (cobalamin, VB 12 ) has been widely used in food and medicine fields. [20]

Agricultural biotechnology, on the other hand, invades otherwise “natural” processes of cultivating land and growing food, and the genetic engineering of food offers no well-known successes in the way of polio vaccines and penicillin. [15] Public attitudes toward those regulating and deploying biotechnology tend to predict eventual support or opposition for GM food. [15]

Koly Ereky, a Hungarian agricultural engineer, coined the term “biotechnology” in 1919 when he predicted that biology could be purposefully used to manufacture products intended to improve the quality of human life. [21] Mankind has used biotechnology for thousands of years in agriculture and medicine but in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, biotechnology expanded to include new and diverse sciences and techniques. [22] Plant biotechnology describes in which scientific techniques are used to develop useful and beneficial plants. [13]

The rules would continue to allow the dangerous practice of producing drugs and industrial chemicals in food crops grown in the open environment, and in many cases even allow the biotechnology industry to decide whether their GE crops are regulated at all.” [23] Unfortunately, along with many food manufacturers, other retailers, and consumers, Down to Earth is essentially a victim of the biotechnology industry. [23] Abouzar Ghasemi, Marzieh Moosavi-Nasab, Asma Behzadnia, and Mahboobe Rezaei, “Enhanced biosurfactant production with low-quality date syrup by Lactobacillus rhamnosus using a fed-batch fermentation,” Food Science and Biotechnology, 2018. [24] Samir A. El-Shazly, Mohamed M. Ahmed, Mohammad S. AL-Harbi, Mohamed E. Alkafafy, Hanan B. El-Sawy, and Sayed A. M. Amer, “Physiological and molecular study on the anti-obesity effects of pineapple (Ananas comosus) juice in male Wistar rat,” Food Science and Biotechnology, 2018. [24]

The U.S. Government agencies responsible for oversight of the products of agricultural biotechnology are the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA). [23] As the use of agricultural biotechnology increases globally currently biotech crops are preferred by more than 15 million growers in 29 countries, people need to be better informed about food production. [25] The applications of biotechnology to fish farming and ornamental fish production are numerous and valuable in both economic (food production, aquarium trade) and environmental terms (conservation of natural biodiversity for endangered species and protection of natural biodiversity from escapee domesticated strains). [26] Biotechnology has confirmed to be an essential tool in meeting this challenge of growing our safe and affordable food supply. [25]

These food safety methods of preservation and control are used widely in food sector as part of HACCP plans to reliably produce food for an intake with high quality and safety. [25] Dietary supplements are functional foods are intended to provide nutritional support for the healthy people, whereas the medical foods are intended to provide support for nutritional management of a specific diseases and it is used to be under the supervision of a physician. [25]

Biotechnology was used for breeding livestock and crops long before the scientific basis of these techniques was understood. [27] Blue Biotechnology is used to protect the marine organisms from harmful diseases underwater. [26] Experience with… materials of construction used in the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries preferred. [28] Industrial biotechnology involves working with nature to maximize and optimize existing biochemical pathways that can be used in manufacturing. [26]

Keeping in view, industry to market process, food safety concerns include food labeling, food hygiene, food additives and pesticide residues, as well as programs on biotechnology and guidelines for the management and authorization systems for foods. [25]

Agricultural biotechnology is a collection of scientific techniques used to improve plants, animals and microorganisms. [26]

POSSIBLY USEFUL

“Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops”. [2] To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). [2] Some scientists suggest that a second Green Revolution including use of modified crops is needed to provide sufficient food. : 12 The potential for genetically modified food to help developing nations was recognised by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, but as of 2008 they had found no conclusive evidence of a solution. [2] In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group opposed to genetic engineering and cloning of food animals, summarized peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of GM soybeans and maize in the U.S. The report concluded that other agricultural methods had made a greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering. [2] The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. [2] Fully 88% of AAAS scientists say it is generally safe to eat genetically modified (GM) foods compared with 37% of the general public who say the same, a gap of 51 percentage points. [2]

Prior to the new federal rules taking effect, while it does require pre-market approval, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not required GMO labeling as long as there are no differences in health, environmental safety, and consumer expectations based on the packaging. [2] For genetically engineered animals, FDA evaluates not only the safety of food or drug products derived from that animal, but also the effect of the genetic alteration on the health of the animal. [3] Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. [2]

Specific concerns include mixing of genetically modified and non-genetically modified products in the food supply, effects of GMOs on the environment, the rigor of the regulatory process, and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs. [2] The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects. [2] “The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” [2] This article attempts to develop a framework that would enable assessment of the impacts of plant diseases, referred collectively to as crop health, on food security via its components. [1] “Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants”. [2] The world’s sixth largest wheat producer sought to reassure trading partners on Monday that genetically modified wheat plants discovered on an Alberta farm were few and posed no food safety risks, after Japan and South Korea. [29] These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). [2] Food safety is recognized as a universal public health concern. [1] “Genetically modified foods face rigorous safety evaluation”. [2] “Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement” (PDF). [2]

The plaintiff argued both for mandatory labeling on the basis of consumer demand, and that GMO foods should undergo the same testing requirements as food additives because they are “materially changed” and have potentially unidentified health risks. [2] Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. [2] With respect to the question of “Whether GMO foods were safe to eat,” the gap between the opinion of the public and that of American Association for the Advancement of Science scientists is very wide with 88% of AAAS scientists saying yes in contrast to 37% of the general public. [2] Scientists are also exploring editing the genomes of animals with the goal of improving the health and welfare of food producing animals and public health, for example by reducing their susceptibility to diseases like novel influenzas and resistance to zoonotic or foreign animal diseases. [3] Flachowsky concluded in a 2005 review that food with a one-gene modification were similar in nutrition and safety to non-modified foods, but he noted that food with multiple gene modifications would be more difficult to test and would require further animal studies. [2] While this idea could understandably lead to questions — Antibiotic resistance genes in my food? — multiple safety reviews conducted. [30]

A 2009 review by Maga-Gez found that although most studies concluded that modified foods do not differ in nutrition or cause toxic effects in animals, some did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by specific modified foods. [2] The reasons included lack of a plausible hypothesis to test, lack of knowledge about the potential long-term effects of conventional foods, variability in the ways humans react to foods and that epidemiological studies were unlikely to differentiate modified from conventional foods, which come with their own suite of unhealthy characteristics. [2] No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. [2] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food. [2] Two studies on the possible effects of feeding animals with genetically modified food found no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins in any organ or tissue samples. [2] The company reiterated that genetically modified foods were safe and improved crop yields. [2] In 2002, in the midst of a famine, Zambia refused emergency food aid that contained food from genetically modified crops, based on the precautionary principle. [2] The U.S. had a pre-GMO policy of shipping U.S. crops as food aid, rather than buying crops in/near the countries that needed aid. [2] Critics claimed that shipment of U.S. food to southern Africa was more about promoting the adoption of biotech crops in the region than about hunger. [2]

This activity provided an opportunity for participants to engage in practical exercises highlighting the fundamental concepts employed in food and feed safety assessments of genetically engineered (GE) crops. [1] “All aspects of workshop were valuable and useful in strengthening our capability in assessing safety of foods and feeds derived from GE crop. Applying problem formulation to the safety assessment of GE foods and feeds is most valuable for me.” [1]

There they interact directly with organisms that feed on the crops and indirectly with other organisms in the food chain. [2] The labeling should include objective information to the effect that a food or feed consists of, contains or is produced from GMOs. [2] The movement was founded by Tami Canal in response to the failure of California Proposition 37, a ballot initiative which would have required labeling food products made from GMOs. [2] Labeling requirements for distribution of processed food products containing GMO components do not apply at this time.” [2] “Want to Know If Your Food Is Genetically Modified? Across the country, an aggressive grassroots movement is winning support with its demands for GMO labeling. [2] “A review of international labeling policies of genetically modified food to evaluate India’s proposed rule”. [2] A 2013 review, of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 found no plausible evidence of dangers from the use of then marketed GM crops. [2] “Review of the Salini et al. (2012) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology”. [2] Once some of the African countries realized that these shipments contained GM maize, they rejected the shipments and stopped releasing the food that had been sent to them. [2]

In 2012 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel said that “novel hazards” could be associated with transgenic strains. [2] The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) then concluded that the differences were all within the normal range. [2]

Finding accurate and reliable information about the safety of foods derived from genetically engineered plants can be daunting, particularly for regulators who may not have a specific application on their desk. [1] “Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security”. [2] FDA has decades of experience successfully evaluating products of complex technologies, such as recombinant DNA-derived plant foods, medicines made with nanotechnology, and cellular and gene therapy products. [3] The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption. [2] National food safety and regulatory agencies also reviewed the paper and dismissed it. [2] “Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods”. [2] Groups such as Rural Advancement Foundation International raised concerns that further food safety and environmental testing needed to be done before T-GURT would be commercialized. [2] Most of these resources are focused on improving food safety through the reduction of harm from chemical and microbial contaminants present in foods, rather than on the safety of the foods themselves. [1] Michael R. Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety in 1991. [2] As a complement to in-person training, participants were encouraged to take food safety e-Learning courses as part of this program. [1]

This lack of knowledge re conventional food means that modified foods may differ in anti-nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant, possibly allowing harmful changes to be missed. [2] Since 2001, conventional and organic food and feedstuffs can contain up to 0.9% of authorised modified material without carrying a GMO label. (any trace of non-authorised modification is cause for a shipment to be rejected). [2] Regulatory authorities require that new modified foods be tested for allergenicity before they are marketed. [2]

“Response to “Health risks of genetically modified foods ” “. [2] “Key issues for the assessment of the allergenic potential of genetically modified foods: breakout group reports”. [2] Religious groups have raised concerns over whether genetically modified food will remain kosher or halal. [2] When Cooperation Fails: the international law and politics of genetically modified foods. [2] “Substantial equivalence–an appropriate paradigm for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods?”. [2] “The concept of substantial equivalence in safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified organisms” (PDF). [2]

GM crops are as natural and safe as today’s bread wheat, opined Dr. Borlaug, who also reminded agricultural scientists of their moral obligation to stand up to the antiscience crowd and warn policy makers that global food insecurity will not disappear without this new technology and ignoring this reality would make future solutions all the more difficult to achieve. [2] Leaders in driving public perception of the harms of such food in the media include Jeffrey M. Smith, Dr. Oz, Oprah, and Bill Maher ; organizations include Organic Consumers Association, Greenpeace (especially with regard to Golden rice ) and Union of Concerned Scientists. [2] The Union of Concerned Scientists works to strengthen the federal oversight needed to prevent such products from contaminating our food supply”. [2] A 2014 Vermont law went into effect on July 1, 2016, and some food manufacturers (including General Mills, Mars, Kellogg’s, the Campbell Soup Company, PepsiCo, ConAgra, Frito-Lay, and Bimbo Bakeries USA ) began distributing products either locally or nationwide with labels such as “Partially produced with Genetic Engineering”. [2]

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96 (6): 1851-5. doi : 10.1002/jsfa.7523. [2] Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 49 (2): 164-75. doi : 10.1080/10408390701855993. [2]

“The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: a review”. [2] Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. [2]

Traceability has become commonplace in the food and feed supply chains of most countries, but GMO traceability is more challenging given strict legal thresholds for unwanted mixing. [2] Many protests occurred in Southern California, and some participants carried signs expressing support for mandatory labeling of GMOs that read “Label GMOs, It’s Our Right to Know”, and “Real Food 4 Real People”. [2] As of March 2015, Israel was in the process of issuing regulations for labeling of food with ingredients from GMOs. [2] As of 1 January 2013, all foods containing GMOs must be labelled. [2] Generally, these conspiracy theories posit that GMOs are being knowingly and maliciously introduced into the food supply either as a means to unduly enrich agribusinesses or as a means to poison or pacify the population. [2] Connecticut and Maine had passed laws in 2013 and 2014 respectively, which would have required GMO food labels if Northeast states with a population of at least 20 million had passed similar laws (and for Connecticut, representing at least four states). [2] “Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in Southern Africa” (PDF). [2]

Similar and equally beneficial applications of genome editing are currently being explored in food crops. [3] Proceedings from the 2012 IFBiC Plant Compositional Analysis Workshop, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (Blair et al. 2013;61(35):8287-8294). [1] Skeptics such as John Avise claim that apparent shortages are caused by problems in food distribution and politics, rather than production. : 73 Other critics say that the world has so many people because the second green revolution adopted unsustainable agricultural practices that left the world with more mouths to feed than the planet can sustain. [2] These exercises focused on the ability to identify and use available information resources associated with food and feed safety assessments as well as providing an opportunity to consider topics in more detail. [1] “As a member of the feed safety assessment technical team, the workshop was very useful for gaining detail information about food and feed safety assessment.” [1]

Given the number of components and interactions at play, a systems modelling approach is required to address the functioning of food systems exposed to plant disease risks. [1] “Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: perception and reality”. [2]

It reported the presence of pesticides associated with the modified foods in women and in pregnant women’s fetuses. [2] He has led numerous food and agriculture life cycle assessment projects: milk, cheese, milk delivery systems, yogurt, swine, poultry, corn, and beef. [1] In this role, he provides leadership on the Bank’s lending and knowledge activities spanning issues such as climate-smart agriculture, agriculture policy reform, food and nutrition security, and agriculture value chain development. [1]

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 61 (48): 11695-701. doi : 10.1021/jf400135r. [2] Food and Chemical Toxicology. 42 (7): 1047-88. doi : 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.019. [2] In March 2013, Salini responded to these criticisms in the same journal that originally published his study, and a few scientists supported his work. : 5 In November 2013, the editors of Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper. [2] Food and Chemical Toxicology published many critical letters, with only a few expressing support. [2]

Genetically modified food controversies in Ghana have been widespread since 2013. [2] The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 states that “every package containing the genetically modified food shall bear at the top of its principal display panel the letters ‘GM.'” [2] “The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?”. [2] “Dr. Strangelunch Or: Why we should learn to stop worrying and love genetically modified food”. [2] “Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada”. [2] “Examining the scientific evidence against genetically modified foods”. [2] “Editorial: Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea”. [2] Green: Mandatory labeling required; Red: Ban on import and cultivation of genetically engineered food. [2] Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle led to the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, the first major U.S. legislation on the subject. [2] Critics in the U.S. protested the appointment of lobbyists to senior positions in the Food and Drug Administration. [2] The U.S. was supplying Africa with meals and support during a food crisis they were facing in the early 2000s. [2]

“Half the world’s population faces major food crisis by 2100, Science study finds”. [2] Food Policy. 36 (2): 197-203. doi : 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.016. [2] A 2005 review of the results from allergen testing stated that “no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions”. [2] Enormous economic and human resources are invested globally to ensure that there is a safe food supply. [1] As a scientist, Dr. Mitcham is an internationally renowned expert in postharvest physiology, with an emphasis on reducing food loss and maintaining produce freshness after harvest. [1] Kuiper noted practical difficulties in applying this standard, including the fact that traditional foods contain many toxic or carcinogenic chemicals and that existing diets were never proven to be safe. [2] In 2016, Domingo published an updated analysis, and concluded that as of that time there were enough independent studies to establish that GM crops were not any more dangerous acutely than conventional foods, while still calling for more long-term studies. [2] The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. [2] The General Accounting Office (in a review of FDA procedures requested by Congress) and a working group of the Food and Agricultural and World Health organizations both said that long-term human studies of the effect of GM food are not feasible. [2] GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. [2] There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. [2]

A 2016 study by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that GM foods are safe for human consumption and they could find no conclusive evidence that they harm the environment nor wildlife. [2] In May 2003, the U.S. and twelve other countries filed a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization that the EU was violating international trade agreements, by blocking imports of U.S. farm products through its ban on GM food. [2]

FDA is taking concrete and proactive steps to help ensure the safety of plant and animal biotechnology products, while promoting innovation and enhancing public and market confidence in FDA’s regulation of these products at home and abroad. [3] In the coming months, we?ll release an Action Plan that lays out the steps we intend to take to ensure that we have a flexible regulatory framework for evaluating the safety of products that also supports plant and animal biotechnology innovation. [3] FDA is committed to helping ensure the safety of biotechnology products, while also facilitating innovation by applying a risk-based regulatory approach that provides developers with regulatory clarity and predictability and maintains public confidence in our regulatory system. [3] The same year Millstone, Brunner and Mayer argued that the standard was a pseudo-scientific product of politics and lobbying that was created to reassure consumers and aid biotechnology companies to reduce the time and cost of safety testing. [2] FDA will continue to apply a risk-based framework grounded in sound science to evaluate products of plant and animal biotechnology, and our framework will continue to evolve as science advances and experience with these technologies grows. [3] We know that products enabled by new techniques of biotechnology have the potential to significantly enhance public health. [3] Strives for international harmonization of regulatory oversight in modern biotechnology to ensure environmental health and safety and avoid trade barriers. [6] Dr. Pehu has published extensively in biotechnology of crops, and also in tropical agriculture and international development. [1] We?ll continue the work we began to modernize the regulatory system for biotechnology, including the effort in 2015 with USDA and EPA to ensure preparedness of federal regulatory agencies for future products of biotechnology; as well as the implementation of the 2018 recommendations of the Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity. [3] EPA regulates certain microbial biotechnology products to ensure that they are safely developed for commercial use in a broad range of industrial and environmental applications. [6]

Domingo and Bordonaba reviewed the literature again in 2011 and said that, although there had been a substantial increase in the number of studies since 2006, most were conducted by biotechnology companies “responsible of commercializing these GM plants.” [2] The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. [2] “Biotechnology in the developing world: A case for increased investments in orphan crops”. [2] Plant Biotechnology Journal. 6 (1): 2-12. doi : 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00300.x. [2] Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34 (1): 77-88. doi : 10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. [2] International Journal of Biotechnology. 10 (2/3): 113-21. doi : 10.1504/IJBT.2008.018348. [2]

This post answers more tough questions surrounding GMOs and better explains the reason biotechnology is incorporated into agriculture. [30] GMO Answers’ resources included conventional and organic farmers, agribusiness experts, scientists, academics, medical doctors and nutritionists, and “company experts” from founding members of the Council for Biotechnology Information, which funds the initiative. [2] The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. [2] The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee that reviewed Canada’s regulations in 2003 was accused by environmental and citizen groups of not representing the full spectrum of public interests and for being too closely aligned to industry groups. [2] Most of the Chinese National Biosafety Committee are involved in biotechnology, a situation that led to criticisms that they do not represent a wide enough range of public concerns. [2]

The country relies on a “complex but relaxed” combination of three federal agencies (FDA, EPA, and USDA/APHIS) and states’ common law tort systems to manage coexistence. : 44 The Secretary of Agriculture convened an Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) to study coexistence and make recommendations about the issue. [2] “Agriculture Committee continues study on biotechnology while Bill C-474 is debated”. iPolitics. [2]

Nature Biotechnology. 21 (7): 739-41. doi : 10.1038/nbt0703-739. [2] Biotechnology Advances. 18 (3): 179-206. doi : 10.1016/S0734-9750(00)00033-1. [2] “Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change?” (PDF). [2] We?ll also continue to build on our Formal Agreement with the USDA, which commits the FDA and USDA to better align and enhance our efforts to develop regulatory approaches to biotechnology. [3] “Since I am a Technical Manager of Biotechnology Laboratory who is responsible for GMF detection, this training course bridges my knowledge on safety assessment (pre market control) and post market control (GMF detection).” [1]

A 2013 Scientific American article noted that a “tiny minority” of biologists have published concerns about GM food, and said that scientists who support the use of GMOs in food production are often overly dismissive of them. [2] In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. [2] Scientific publishing on the safety and effects of GM foods is controversial. [2] Individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. [2] The authors called for the development of better study guidelines for determining the long-term safety of eating GM foods. [2]

Advocacy groups such as the Center for Food Safety, Organic Consumers Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace say risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. [2] Traceability should also facilitate the implementation of risk management measures in accordance with the precautionary principle. (4) Traceability requirements for food and feed produced from GMOs should be established to facilitate accurate labeling of such products. [2] “Differentiating the consumer benefits from labeling of GM food products”. [2] Major GM food crop exporters like the United States (until 2018), Argentina, and Canada have adopted voluntary labeling approaches; China and Brazil have major GM (largely non-food) crops and have adopted mandatory labelling. [2] In June 2003, the European Parliament ratified a U.N. biosafety protocol regulating international trade in GM food, and in July agreed to new regulations requiring labeling and traceability, as well as an opt-out provision for individual countries. [2] In 2014, 64 countries required labeling of all GM foods. : 7 These include the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, China and India. [2]

The authors argue, compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for GM food crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty. [2] On March 21, 2014, the Indian government revalidated 10 GM-based food crops and allowed field trials of GM food crops, including wheat, rice and maize. [2] “Govt regulator paves way for field trials of GM food crops including wheat, rice and maize”. [2]

Crops not intended as foods are generally not reviewed for food safety. [2] In 2001, when the Starlink corn recall became public, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was criticized for being slow to react by Joseph Mendelson III of the Center for Food Safety. [2] This document provides a comprehensive review of information and data relevant to the assessment of the EPSPS protein for food and feed safety. [1]

The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture attempted to remedy this problem, but results have been inconsistent. [2] At Cornell, he also served on the Program Committee of Cornell’s International Institute for Food, Agriculture, and Development (CIIFAD), as the Global Coordinator of the GEF-UNDP-CGIAR program on “Alternatives to Slash and Burn Agriculture” (ASB), and as a Principle Investigator in the NASA-supported, Large Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere (LBA-Eco) program in the Brazilian Amazon. [1]

Allergen testing is routine for products intended for food, and passing those tests is part of the regulatory requirements. [2]

The review concluded that “More scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any form of health problem”. [2] The review showed that Americans’ knowledge of GM foods and animals was low throughout the period. [2] Dona and Arvanitoyannis’ 2009 review concluded that “results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters”. [2] Arpad Pusztai published the first peer-reviewed paper to find negative effects from GM food consumption in 1999. [2] “Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects”. [2]

PABE also found that the public does not demand “zero risk” in GM food discussions and is “perfectly aware that their lives are full of risks that need to be counterbalanced against each other and against the potential benefits. [2] Members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. [2] Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points. [2] By the late 1990s, public awareness of GM foods reached a critical level and a number of public interest groups emerged to focus on the issue. [2]

A Deloitte survey in 2010 found that 34% of U.S. consumers were very or extremely concerned about GM food, a 3% reduction from 2008. [2] Consumer concerns about food quality first became prominent long before the advent of GM foods in the 1990s. [2] This began an enduring concern over the purity and later “naturalness” of food that evolved from a single focus on sanitation to include others on added ingredients such as preservatives, flavors and sweeteners, residues such as pesticides, the rise of organic food as a category and, finally, concerns over GM food. [2]

GM foods are not tested in humans before marketing because they are not a single chemical, nor are they intended to be ingested using specific doses and intervals, which complicate clinical study design. [2] As of 2012 it was the only human feeding study to have been conducted with GM food. [2] While some groups and individuals have called for more human testing of GM food, multiple obstacles complicate such studies. [2]

A poll by The New York Times in 2013 showed that 93% of Americans wanted labeling of GM food. [2] The 2013 vote, rejecting Washington State’s GM food labeling I-522 referendum came shortly after the 2013 World Food Prize was awarded to employees of Monsanto and Syngenta. [2]

The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation. [2] The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. [2] Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food. [2] Workshops and consultations organized by the OECD, WHO, and FAO have worked to acquire data and develop better understanding of conventional foods, for use in assessing GM foods. [2] Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods. [2] As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis. [2]

The workshop introduced important concepts and components for food and feed safety assessment, including problem formulation, toxicity, composition and allergenicity assessment as well as molecular characterization. [1] Advocates support mandatory labeling laws for food made from GMOs. [2]

“Antibiotic resistance genes are used in some GMOs to identify plants where the added DNA has been successfully incorporated. [30] Another concern is that the antibiotic resistance gene commonly used as a genetic marker in transgenic crops could be transferred to harmful bacteria, creating resistant superbugs. [2] Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns. [2] Marsh sued on the grounds that Baxter used a method of harvesting his crop that was substandard and negligent, and on the basis that his land had been widely contaminated. [2] The ILSI Crop Composition Database contains over 972,000 data points on the natural composition variability of conventionally grown crops that can be used to assess similarities and differences in important nutrients and anti-nutrients. [1]

Genome editing in animals and plants also can be used to produce human drugs, devices, or biologics, including tissues or organs for xenotransplantation. [3] For instance, these new methods can be used to alter animals to minimize or prevent their ability to spread human disease. [3]

In 2007, 2009, and 2011, Gilles-. ric Salini published re-analysis studies that used data from Monsanto rat-feeding experiments for three modified maize varieties (insect-resistant MON 863 and MON 810 and glyphosate -resistant NK603). [2] Bt proteins have been used as organic sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and the U.S. since 1958, with no reported ill effects. [2] Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested. [2] The antibiotic resistance genes used in genetic engineering are naturally found in many pathogens and antibiotics these genes confer resistance to are not widely prescribed. [2] This video explains how genetic engineering was used to make the Hawaiian papaya resistant to the deadly papaya ring spot virus. [30]

Over the years, many microorganisms have been used for the production of citric acid. [31] Among these, strains of Candida are widely used for the production of citric acid. [31] Production by yeasts, carried out in aerobic and agitated fermentation broth and at temperatures of 25-35C, depended on the yeast strains and equipment used. [31]

“Bales and balance: A review of the methods used to assess the economic impact of Bt cotton on farmers in developing economies” (PDF). [2] A group of academic scientists criticized the analysis, writing: “We are deeply concerned about the inappropriate methods used in their paper, the lack of ecological context, and the authors? advocacy of how laboratory studies on non-target arthropods should be conducted and interpreted”. [2] The study has been used by environmental groups to argue that use of agrochemicals causes unintended harm to the environment and to biodiversity. [2] The amount of isocitric acid produced depends on the yeast strains used, the chemical composition of the substrates, the fermentation system, and generally the conditions under which fermentation takes place. [31] To aid in the discovery and understanding of lncRNA biology, newly published work from Richard and Eichhorn in SLAS Technology features the technological platforms and methodology presently used to identify the roles of lncRNA. [29]

Keeping in mind that you are interested in doing food technology not biotechnology,here is my answer. [7] Food technologist are hired for applying various principles which they are taught in their course for manufacturing, preservation, packaging, processing of various food products. [7] Pearl millet is commonly cultivated in sub-Saharan Africa, India and other South Asian countries and is commonly regarded as a staple food and a source of straw and fuel, but is difficult to produce because it can only grow in dry conditions where irrigations, fertilizer and pesticides are hard to come by. [4] For a lot of developing countries, this rapid population growth makes it more difficult to eradicate poverty and ensure food security. [4]

Biotechnology methods allow for the transfer of these important agronomic-efficient traits to other crops to increase the viability of the transgenic plant, thereby increasing the yield and promoting commercialization in developing countries. [4] By definition, biotechnology is any technological approach that makes use of biological systems, organisms or the like to make new products or modify current ones for a singular purpose. [4] Biotechnology is just one way to meet people’s daily without putting future generations at risk of starvation. [4]

One such example of inducing earlier production is the Indian mustard plant, a plant commonly exported from developing countries to the U.S. in the form of vegetable oil and used by locals as a medicinal herb. [4]

These resources encompass all aspects of agriculture such as animal and veterinary sciences including poultry and dairy, entomology, plant sciences such as horticulture, crop and soil science, and plant pathology, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries, farming and farming systems, rural and community development, agricultural economics, extension and education, food and human nutrition, food science, agricultural engineering, and earth and environmental sciences. [32] CAB Direct also includes a Global Health section which covers international and public health, including bacterial, viral and prion diseases, mycology, parasitology, disease vectors, zoonotic diseases, nutrition and food safety, medicinal plants, toxicology and public and rural health. [32] With less costly and less time consuming regulation, small companies could flood the market with innovative gene edited crops and foods, and demonstrate to the public the safety and benefits of genetic engineering. [9] Some topics covered include population and food, immigration, the environment; crop and livestock agriculture; global trade; sustainability; food security, the role of women in agriculture, and the role of dairy products in a healthy diet. [10] The bio-based economy is the sustainable production and conversion of biomass, for a range of food, health, fibre and industrial products and energy. [11] Course covers the basic chemical, physical and microbiological properties of food and manipulation of these properties in the manufacture of food products. [10] The non-GMO certificate has become very successful and covers food products worth 4.400.000.000. [9] Application of quantitative techniques to the determination of composition and quality of food products. [10]

The Green Party soon realized how profitable promoting ignorance could be; public opposition to GMO food became a central fund-raising tool for its opponents. [9] A recent survey by the BfR (Bundesamt f Risikobewertung) on CRISPR/Cas gene editing has cast some more light on these results: 64 percent of the participants considered food from gene edited plants as “unhealthy”. [9] The second strategy is to encourage consumers to reject “gene food”. [9]

“Global food insecurity is a huge problem in developing countries, with around 108 million people in food crisis-affected countries still at risk or experiencing food insecurity,” said Graham Brookes, Director of PG Economics and co-author of the socio-economic and environmental impact paper. [33] Established in 2000, the Global Farmer Network is committed to inserting the worlds farmers voice in the global dialogue regarding food and nutritional security. [9] The Global Farmer Network identifies, engages and supports strong farmer leaders from around the world who can work with others to innovate, encourage and lead as full stakeholders in the work that is being done to fill the world’s food and nutrition security gap in a sustainable manner. [9]

Each of these areas has its own conferences, but it is only in their combination that the synergy effects we call ” Revolution in Food and Biomass Production ” become clear. [11] Our work also includes new technology and innovation in biomass production and the innovative food sector, which will be the focal points of our new conference ” Revolution in Food and Biomass Production.” [11] Over 20 years since its launch, the work of the nova-Institute has rapidly changed along with breakthroughs in technology and innovation, particularly relating to the production of food. [11] Ahead of nova-Institute’s upcoming food technology conference, Carus talks about the revolution in food and biomass production. [11] Introduction to the science and the technology of food manufacture. [10] Introduction to the food industry for incoming (freshmen and transfers) Food Science majors. [10] Also the fact that today we can produce healthy food in cities, in the desert and even in space through controlled environment agriculture is a revolution in food industry. [11] Application of statistics for the purpose of monitoring and controlling food industry production. [10] Find out more about the Revolution in Food and Biomass Production event in Cologne, Germany here. [11]

Lectures and experiments in food engineering operations selected from topics such as: thermodynamics, transport processes, biological kinetics and bioreactor design, thermal process calculations, separation processes, process instrumentation and control, process design and economics, and the use of computers. [10] You can now use CO 2 to produce proteins and fatty acids with the help of bacteria and algae, which will be a revolution in food similar to the widespread use of insects for protein. [11]

Karen’s favorite biotech food is papaya, and her favorite genetically engineered animal is the spidey-goat. [33] Relationship between food, additives, processing and health. [10] The seal “ohne Gentechnik” is endorsed by the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture and is awarded by a commercial association (VLOG). [9] These databases are the best bets for finding articles on food science topics. [32] A very important question! The food sector has a lot of catching up to do in terms of sustainability and life cycle assessments. [11] The interest in these innovations is very high in the food and pharmaceutical industry. [11] Provides a brief introduction to the different areas of study and career opportunities within the food industry. [10]

Chemistry, microbiology, and technology of foods and beverages in which fermentations are important (e.g. cheese, bread, pickles, beer). [10] Application of engineering principles in the analysis of food process operations: properties of gases and vapors, psychrometrics, material and energy balances, fluid flow, heat transfer, microwave heating, mass transfer, packaging film permeability, dehydration. [10] Nature and chemical behavior of food constituents including proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, water, and enzymes. [10]

BA monitors more than 5,000 international journals to ensure that virtually every life science topic is covered, including agriculture, biochemistry, biology, botany, molecular biology, biotechnology, physiology, microbiology, neurology, pharmacology, public health, toxicology, zoology, and ecology and the environment. [32] At about the same time, however, “progressive? advocacy groups turned their ire towards “green biotechnology”–agricultural uses of biotechnology, including GMO crops. [9] In Germany, legislation requires scientists to publish the exact location of a crop biotechnology field trial. [9] Attempts by the new Green party leadership to reconsider their blanket opposition to crop biotechnology were met by strong opposition from within their party; it appears they are locked into their anti-biotechnology position. [9] T he German opposition to biotechnology crystallized and became the trademark issue of the country’s Green Party when Hoechst asked for approval for a manufacturing plant to produce GMO insulin. [9] The Future of Marine Biotechnology for Industrial Applications to 2025 states that key drivers for the market are new applications of marine derived enzymes in the cosmetics industry and use of marine algae and micro algae in biofuel production. [14] In 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report, “Bioengineering for Pollution Prevention,” noted that industrial biotechnology and biobased manufacturing are more efficient, cleaner and make better use of sustainable renewable resources. [12]

The ISAAA report was released in conjunction with a similar study by PG Economics, Ltd. Both studies highlight and quantify the continued social, environmental and economic benefits of the global adoption of biotechnology in agriculture. [33] The complementary studies – PG Economics? ” GM Crops: Global Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts 1996-2016 ” and ISAAA’s ” Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2017 ” – examine the continued widespread adoption of global crop biotechnology, and the significant positive socio-economic and environmental impacts of this adoption by farmers and communities around the globe. [33] The global market for marine biotechnology has the potential to reach $6.4 billion by 2026. [14]

A 2017 repor t by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), noted, “Since 2007, companies have commercialized products that demonstrate industrial biotechnology’s unique ability to reduce pollution, achieving measurable improvements in biomass sustainability, energy efficiency and carbon re-utilization.” [12] North America has the largest market for marine biotechnology, mainly focused on the production of algae-derived bioenergy. [14]

There are only very drastic (and almost impossible) ways to regulate CRISPR, according to the current GMO legislation: a constant monitoring of plant science labs to ascertain that the method is not being used on crop plants or prohibiting the entire technology in Germany. [9] For universities financed by the states, this officially means that no resources may be used for work on transgenic plants. [9]

One example is the dairy industry, which can use its wastewater for the production of bioplastics that can later be used to package butter and cheese. [11] Procurement and production methods used to control costs in foodservice operations; field trips. [10]

Located in Chicago, Provectus offers a number of products that are used to clean up environmental hazards. [12] Biofuels Digest said the project “combines the best technology from leading technology providers LanzaTech and InEnTec with the local availability of waste orchard wood and other feedstock that can be used to produce Aemetis? high-value cellulosic ethanol and valuable byproducts.” [12] Provect-IR, an antimethanogenic ISCR (in situ chemical reduction) reagent, which is used to treat chlorinated solvents, organochlorine pesticides, and other halogenated compounds. [12]

By 2006, “almost 90 percent of the U.S. soy crop, 83 percent of the cotton crop, and 60 percent of the corn crop were genetically engineered, and thanks to the ubiquity of GM corn syrup, corn oil, and canola oil in processed food, GMOs had come to form part of almost every American’s daily diet.” [15] Despite ranking third in global food production (behind China and India) and even lower in hectares planted, the U.S. is a runaway first in GM planting. [15] European consumers showed more concerns about food quality and the details of food production than did U.S. consumers, who “showed more concern about the convenience and price of food than they did about whether or not it was genetically modified. [15] While U.S. consumers trust scientific associations and the FDA as sources of information on food safety issues, Europeans express more trust in consumer and environmental groups.” [15] European consumers grew more concerned about food safety, more concerned about food quality, and less trusting of government attempts to ensure either of these. [15] Consumer survey data shows that supporters of agri-biotech applications tend to perceive the technology as useful, morally acceptable, are less concerned about risks, and trust the safety of their food supply. [15] This scenario is not without risk, however: food safety scares render the public more fearful and likely less willing to trust new food in general. [15] British revelations of deaths from BSE (mad cow disease) just five days “after Europe voted to accept Roundup Ready soybeans” did little to boost public confidence in European regulators or food safety. [15] This rapid pace of progress has brought with it a number of new challenges in regulation, food safety, biosafety considerations, intellectual property issues and public awareness. [16]

Under the former approach, some GMOs might not be subjected to any regulatory process or requirements if they were considered to be’substantially equivalent’ to foods or crops currently on the market; under the latter approach, every use of genetic engineering techniques would be regulated by a new set of policies designed specifically for this purpose.” [15] The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food has been riddled with controversy for five decades, including various cases of adoption and rejection that coincide with a range of messaging and activism. [15] Red biotech includes medical and pharmaceutical products and processes; white involves biocatalysis for industrial processes; green applies to agriculture, including GMOs; and yellow relates to food production. [21] The increased expense and uncertainty of bringing GM products to market dissuaded biotech companies from developing or introducing genetically-modified food. [15] Major U.S. food producers (Frito Lay, Gerber, Heinz) switched from GM ingredients from fear of backlash in 1999. [15] Consumer pressure from beneath moved up the supply chain when supermarkets like Iceland Foods renounced GM ingredients. [15] Over the next year and half, dozens of other European food companies followed Iceland’s lead and moved to clear their own shelves and brands of GM food.” [15] A further example comes in Calgene’s and Zeneca’s marketing of their GM tomatoes and tomato paste as high quality because they had been genetically engineered, not in spite of it: Zeneca, for example, “spent an enormous amount of time cultivating British journalists and lining up partners in the food business. [15] Activist pressure on food retailers led to a somewhat abrupt victory when Iceland Foods, a supermarket chain based in the UK, announced it would stop using GM ingredients in its own-brand goods. [15]

“Scientists can change the genes in some food crops and farm animals to make them grow faster or bigger and be more resistant to bugs, weeds and disease. [15] Agricultural biotech proponents argue that engineered crops enable farmers to grow at a time of global food shortages, insidious pests, weeds and extreme weather. [34]

The number of U.S. consumers reporting that they would be less likely to purchase foods modified for insect resistance increased from 23% in 1997 to 27% in 1999. [15] These include efforts to build public trust by strengthening (rather than weakening) food regulators and liability laws, reducing production costs and improving production efficiency, increasing perceived consumer benefit, and a renewed focus on developing markets. [15] Most early victories (prior to 1996) for U.S. anti-GMO activists did not involve widespread public outcry, but came in the form of pressuring specific links in food supply chains (particularly foodservice firms). [15] Food retailers and processors were growing increasingly skeptical of U.S. agritech firms as reliable partners offering lucrative product innovations. [15] It can also be created new products such as potato to produce more kcal and this could potentially reduce global food insecurity. [13] “Company A manufactures… some food products that have genetically engineered ingredients and some products which have all natural ingredients. [15] We support mandatory labeling of foods derived from genetically engineered plants, although we do not have policy on what such labeling should look like. [15] Taste, shelf life, nutrition and quality of food are more in gene-modified plants and animals and few help in providing the best enzymes which are very useful in today’s world. [13]

Food retail firms tend to be highly visible, which meant that questions of reputational damage became more important than they otherwise might have, intensifying concerns around perceived food quality and safety. [15] Food safety incidents may have an ambiguous impact on clean meat reception. [15]

“Although the Reagan administration had been championing deregulation across multiple industries, Monsanto had a different idea: the company wanted its new technology, genetically modified food, to be governed by rules issued in Washington — and wanted the White House to champion the idea. [15] The need to increase total food production by increasing the productivity of land and water, using modern, sustainable technology, is well recognized by many Asian leaders. [16] The Asian region has over 60% of the world’s people, some of the oldest civilizations, and many countries that are technological leaders in the electronic industry and in food production. [16] Depending on your interests, joining AIChE’s Society for Biological Engineering (SBE); Food, Pharmaceutical and Bioengineering Div. (FP&BE); or Forest Bioproducts Div. (FBP); or another biotech association can help you to network and learn from current engineers and scientists in the industry. [21]

Those who said that such modifications would make them more likely to purchase modified foods declined modestly over the same time period, from 55% to 51% (although these numbers rose again in subsequent polls, reaching 58% in 2001 and 54% in 2002). [15] “Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological considerations.” [15] The risk of backlash is highest, rather, when concerns from different areas overlap and intensify one another (e.g., corporate control of food meets unnaturalness). [15] Marcel Kuntz, “The GMO case in France: Politics, lawlessness and postmodernism,” GM Crops & Food 5, no. 3 (2014): 163-169. [15] The companies renouncing GMOs included “virtually every major supermarket chain and food manufacturer on the continent as well as the British Isles.” [15]

European food processors already had non-GMO sellers available to them, further reducing any dependence on U.S. firms that might have otherwise existed. [15] The “response by downstream producers to consumer and NGO demands has been facilitated by high concentration in the food retail sector in the European Union and low concentration in the farm and grain-handling sectors. [15] Therefore, they were both likely to succumb to perceived consumer pressure and possessed the ability to effect sweeping changes in ingredient lists and food processing. [15] “NFU also values consumer rights, including the ability of consumers to have access to as much pertinent information as they want to know about their food. [15] That status would remain available to handlers, food processors, retailers, and so forth as the corn made its way to consumers. [15]

Securing buy-in from retailers and other distributors has already been a matter of consequence for plant-based meat companies like Impossible Foods (whose partnership with the largest food distributor in the United States, Dot Foods, was crucial to its expansion) and Beyond Meat (whose products Whole Foods began carrying nationwide in April 2018). [15] It is too early to tell if Impossible and Beyond products will resemble Calgene’s Flavr Savr, a novel product from a young company that sold well and generated interest before being discontinued, or will become permanent, scalable components of the food supply. [15] Company B manufactures… only food products which have all natural ingredients. [15] “Reflecting its US-centric and supremely confident attitude, Monsanto had arrived on the continent without so much as a phone call to any major food processing and retail company in Europe, even though the company was thoroughly dependent on these firms to buy and sell its products. [15]

“I believe that in the long run, the potential benefits of genetically modified foods will outweigh the potential risks.” [15] “Foods with genetically modified ingredients are generally ____ than foods with no genetically modified ingredients.” [15]

These young genetic engineers did believe that their work would be good for the planet, possibly making it easier to grow food or reducing agriculture’s dependence on chemicals. [15] Clean meat experts, even (or especially) those familiar with the technology, should be wary of any consensus view that claims that clean meat will transform the global food system in this or that radical way. [15] “In Europe, public outrage and NGO campaigns a wedge between biotech firms on the one hand and food processors, retailers, and farmers on the other hand,” reducing “the collective action capacity of pro-biotech interests.” [15] As most bioscientists saw it, genetic engineering was simply one more in a long line of advances in the way human beings produce their food. [15] A variety of farmers who weren’t even in the EU refrained from planting GM crops because European food handlers, processors, retailers, and customers might refuse to purchase them. [15] “Available indices of market concentration suggest that in 1996, when the controversy over biotech food began, the top 20 retail firms in the European Union controlled around 40-60 percent of the EU market. [15] European supermarkets were unusually susceptible to activist pressure because twenty years of mergers and concentration in the sector (from the 1980s through the 1990s) created an environment where firms were few and powerful but extremely competitive with one another, often on the basis of perceived food quality. [15] Note that similar tactics worked in Europe: “One of the anti-GMO movement’s chief strategies after 1995 involved organizing pressure campaigns on European food retailers. [15]

This discourse was particularly persuasive in France, where artisan agriculture and notion of ‘terroir’ were part and parcel of people’s food identity and culture.” [15] This could be because of growing marine science programs — and a desire to have a hands-on connection with the food system. [35] The available data also suggests that concentration in the U.S. retail food market was lower at that point in time. [15] In Philadelphia, food banks are working with farmers to use that milk to make food that goes to pantries and shelters. [35] Of course, we can?t overlook the importance of enzymes in the food industry. [19] ” he food industry as a whole became extremely vulnerable to the perception that the food it was selling was unsafe. [15]

Thomas Bernauer argues that the most substantial obstacles confronting GM food adoption today are “low consumer trust in the safety of the food supply in key markets” (especially in the EU), concerns about “long-term health and environmental effects,” questions about corporate control of food supplies, and “insufficient consumer benefits from GE products.” [15] The double-digit drops in support for GM products in Europe documented earlier coincide with a ctivist efforts that, starting in 1996, led to “20 point increases in awareness” of GM food in multiple European countries. [15] Why does Europe grow so much less GM food than the US? Schurman and Munro describe a two-pronged victory for anti-GMO activists in Europe: (i) pressure on food retailers led to clearing shelves of products containing GM ingredients while (ii) a “political shift at the level of the European Union” made possible the 1998 moratorium which has remained essentially intact for twenty years. [15]

Zeneca and Calgene’s marketing of their tomato products as GM and stronger for it succeeded in a way later public relations strategies around GM food did not. [15] GM foods, transgenic foods, GMO foods, etc. While terms like “genetically modified” and “transgenic” are not scientifically identical, these differences end up playing virtually no role in the public perception and adoption of genetically modified food. [15] Unwillingness to regulate GMOs in a timely manner may have soured the public more than they otherwise would have been on GM food. [15] Gaskell shows that a greater increase in European press coverage of GM food from 1993 to 1996 preceded the greater rise in negative attitudes toward GM food among the European public. [15]

As described above, the wave of supermarkets dropping GM ingredients in the late 1990s was made possible by highly competitive retail firms who couldn’t risk losing customers, by a supply chain structure in which sellers were susceptible to pressure from buyers, and by the failure of American biotechnology firms to secure buy-in from European processors, handlers, and retailers. [15] Much of literature assumes or asserts that as consumers grow more educated (about biotechnology and in general), they become more supportive of GM products. [15] They facilitated the access of” competent authorities to scientific papers and scientists who provided evidence that a given GM product was riskier than biotechnology firms maintained. [15] These firms came under pressure to make their large investments in biotechnology pay off in the form of lucrative new GM products. [15]

Biological drugs, biofuels, industrial biocatalysts, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are among the many product breakthroughs that are driving tremendous growth in the biotechnology sector. [21] Commercial crop biotechnology products consist of different crop varieties possessing specific desirable traits. [16] The commercialization of any biotechnology product in agriculture produced using genetic engineering (R-DNA technology) requires that there be policies and procedures to ensure that these products are environmentally safe. [16] The company was preparing to introduce to farmers the first product from its biotechnology program: a growth hormone produced in genetically altered bacteria. [15] Industrial biotechnology includes the modern application of biotechnology for sustainable processing and production of chemical products, materials and fuels. [13]

The wave of European supermarkets dropping GM ingredients in the late 1990s was intensified by a highly competitive retail environment, by a supply chain structure in which sellers were susceptible to pressure from buyers, and by the failure of American biotechnology firms to secure buy-in from European processors, handlers, and retailers. [15] The failure of the U.S. biotechnology industry to persuade European retailers to “buy in” on the technology turned out to be a serious error in judgment. [15] One of the key steps in the European GMO struggle was work of activists to develop “an alternative discourse on biotechnology challenging ‘expert knowledge’ and trying to influence the construction of regulatory frameworks at the level of national governments and the EU as a whole.” [15] Sylvie Bonny, “Why are most European opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe,” Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 6, no. 1 (2003): 64. [15] Adapted from Schurman and Munro, Fighting, 108 and Gaskell et al., “Biotechnology and the European public,” Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000): 935-38. [15]

Biotechnology in particular has the potential to significantly increase crop and animal yields while improving the income of small farmers and enhancing the environment. [16] The London Times recently reported that a biotechnology company in San Francisco called LS9 had genetically modified industrial yeast to munch on plant sugars and excrete crude oil. [34] ‘But when I got to Monsanto, it was just instantly apparent that if I wanted to do plant biotechnology, this was the place to be.’ It wasn’t just that Monsanto offered superior resources, Klee says. [15]

“Now, as you may know, more than half of the products at the grocery store are produced using some form of biotechnology or genetic modification. [15] Biotechnology is the use of living systems and organisms to develop or make products in order to make (or modify) products or processes for a specific use. [22] If you are intrigued by how these novel products are developed or want to get involved in this biotech boom, then consider a career move to the biotechnology industry. [21] The platform model has always been very popular in the biotechnology field because a company with a truly innovative product can easily coast for a long period of time existing solely on licensing revenues. [22]

Biotechnology covers a broad spectrum of scientific application that is applied in many sectors including health and agriculture. [13] Ron Herring, “Epistemic brokerage in the bio-property narrative: contributions to explaining opposition to transgenic technologies in agriculture,” New Biotechnology 27, no. 5 (2010): 614-622. [15]

“Austria, Denmark, Greece, and Luxembourg,” for instance, “had all taken very cautious attitudes toward GMOs in their own countries and were motivated to create a strong set of biotechnology regulations at the EU level…. [15] Public sector scientists, R&D managers, government officials responsible for driving commercialization of biotechnology, and regulators, managers of biotechnology projects. [16] From their perspective, the naysayers who failed to acknowledge the benefits of biotechnology were simply anti-technology “neo-Luddites” or environmental extremists who were unlikely to garner much sympathy among policymakers or the general public. [15]

Environmental Biotechnology gives the response to a chemical that helps to measure the level of damage caused or the exposure of the toxic or the pollution effect caused. [13] As mentioned, a profusion of over 100 small startups dominated the biotechnology scene in the 1970s and 1980s before being absorbed by larger, older firms like Dow Chemical and Monsanto. [15]

Collected by Ronald Herring and Robert Paarlberg in “The Political Economy of Biotechnology,” Annual Review of Resource Economics (2016): 8.1-8.20, who are also relying on Rachel Schurman, “Fighting ‘Frankenfoods’: industry opportunity structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe,” Social Problems 51, no. 2 (2004): 243-68. [15] The biotechnology industry of today is organized into ten subspecialties and each is associated with a particular color. [21] “The biotechnology industry actually began not with large multinational corporations with but with a group of small, specialized firms called ‘new biotechnology firms’ or ‘biotech startups.’ These firms first came onto the scene in the mid-1970s and grew rapidly in number over the next half dozen or so years.” [15] Several business models exist in the biotechnology industry. [22] Biotechnology managers with bilateral and multilateral donor organizations who want to gain a full understanding of this exciting new industry. [16] “Somewhere along the line, Monsanto specifically and the industry in general lost the recipe of how we presented our story,” said Will Carpenter, the head of the company’s biotechnology strategy group until 1991. [15] One additional implication of the two-phase industry model is that clean meat adoption could be radically changed if the industry underwent a round of mergers and acquisitions similar to biotechnology in the 1990s. [15]

Hoban, Thomas J. “Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: An international perspective.” [15] The political campaign that would lead to the EU moratorium on GM crops achieved its first major victory in a 1995 decision by the European Parliament around biotechnology patenting. [15] Gaskell, George, et al. “Biotechnology and the European public.” [15]

Since at least 1988, the EU had been considering legislative action to bring its patent laws around biotechnology in harmony with standards in the U.S. and Japan. [15] This dynamic was weaker in U.S. in part because U.S. states have fewer options to regulate biotechnology themselves. [15] U.S. attitudes toward biotechnology remain more positive than in those in Europe. [15]

Marine biotechnology may include techniques such as bioprocessing, bio harvesting, bioprospecting, bioremediation, biochemistry, genetics, genomics using bioreactor and many more. [13] Animal biotechnology is a recently revolutionized concept of Biotechnology. [13] When biotech firms like Monsanto proactively went to the federal government to build a regulatory framework they were met with regulators reluctant to do so: Monsanto executive Will Carpenter “ended up arguing not just with… biotech companies… opposed any special regulations for biotechnology, but also with government officials themselves. [15] Monsanto’s head of regulatory affairs, Leonard Guarraia, argued that anti-regulation FDA spokesman Henry Miller “did more harm to biotechnology than Jeremy Rifkin ever did. [15]

Bernauer argues, for example, that “global regulatory polarization and trade conflicts have exacerbated already existing domestic controversies over agricultural biotechnology.” (“Global regulatory polarization” just describes the fact that the EU regulates agricultural biotechnology strictly, the U.S. in a more relaxed manner, and the rest of world finds various balance points.) [15] EU consumers, for example, “appear better informed about agricultural biotechnology than U.S. consumers, are not more ‘technophobic’ than U.S. consumers, but are much less supportive of agri-biotech applications.” [15]

Public sector scientists, R&D managers, senior government officials desiring an introduction to agricultural biotechnology. [16] European activists in the 1990s “portrayed agricultural biotechnology as the latest trend in large-scale, industrial agriculture, one that carried the potential to destroy the thousands of small farms that dotted the European countryside. [15] There is no convincing empirical support for the assumption that people who know more about agricultural biotechnology are, as a consequence, more supportive of that technology. [15]

Many of the framing shifts around GM food took place independently of any meaningful change in the underlying reality of the product or technology in question. [15] Throughout debates over GM food, successes and failures of different products would often turn on changes in framing and perception rather than shifts in underlying technological, economic, or agricultural realities. [15] The ‘uncertainty avoidance’ score for Americans is only 46, compared to 65 for Germans, 86 for the French, and 92 for the Japanese.” (Japan plants no GM crops and requires labeling for most GM food imports.) [15] As mentioned, the U.S. plants 39% of the world’s GM food, far higher than any other country. [15] I begin with an outline of genetic engineering technology and the route GM foods have taken to acceptance or rejection in U.S. and EU markets, since these have been the main battlegrounds of GM adoption. [15] Many early experts on GM food technology predicted a future in which applied genetic engineering had solved major problems in agriculture, nutrition, sustainability, and food security. [15] In 1996, for example, 61% of Europeans opting for one of the three common logics were either supporters or risk-tolerant supporters of GM foods, and 39% were opponents; but three years later, 47% were supporters or risk-tolerant supporters, and an overall majority of 53% were opponents of this technology. [15] GM foods lacked union support in key areas in France and other European countries. [15] This dependence, however, was not mutual, because European food retailers and manufacturers could survive perfectly well without getting involved in the GM food trade. (After the mid-1990s, in fact, they were likely to be better off if they stayed out of the GM food business, since their customers were telling them that they did not want GM food.) [15] Number of articles on GM food appearing in twelve European newspapers and The Washington Post, 1984-1996. [15] Europeans saw Monsanto as an “Ugly American” company, and GM food adoption suffered as a result. [15] Note that European attitudes on GM food were in most cases moving from an already-suspicious baseline [15]

If clean meat does face regulatory impediments and public backlash, a variety of remedies currently prescribed for GM food could work to break up an impasse. [15] The furore over GM food in Europe began to negatively influence public perceptions in the rest of the world. [15]

Concerns arose that GM food production would deepen existing centralization in the food system. [15] A moderate decline in support for the production of GM crops and a sharp decline in support for GM foods have taken place. [15]

Attitudes of secrecy and arrogance (or the widespread perception thereof) by large GMO producers, especially Monsanto from the mid-1990s to today, hurt the adoption of GM food. [15] Note the question omits the term “GMO,” possibly contributing to broadly more favorable results for GM foods. [15] The bulk of the report will discuss various analogies and disanalogies between GM food adoption and the case of clean meat, a nascent food technology that could face similar controversies. [15] The history of GM food indicates that concerns around unnaturalness alone are not sufficient to provoke widespread backlash (or else many medical procedures and drugs would go unused). [15] There is little evidence that GM foods were ever able to leave behind naturalness concerns. [15] Opposition to GM food arose as one component of broader set of societal concerns relevant in the rich democracies from the 1960s on. [15]

Though clean meat is far away from being affected by the sort of regulatory polarization that has settled into place around GM food, the prospect is not unthinkable, especially if one or more governments jump bring forward clean meat regulations earlier than expected. [15] The first commercially-available GM food, Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomato, incorporated a gene that slowed pectin degradation and therefore extended the tomato’s shelf life. [15]

Discussion of the factors driving society’s need for more and better quality food — population growth, shifts in standard of living, declining natural resources for food production. [16] Concerns about unnaturalness could be significantly greater for food than for other applications like medicine. [15]

He points to the castor plant, whose beans make versatile oil that can be used in a wide range of products, from jet engine lubricant to shampoo. [34] Fermentation technology is mainly used and involves microorganisms and enzymes for production of the compound. [13] Enzymes are also increasingly being used in the production of biofuels and biopolymers. [19]

Others, such as horseradish peroxidase, are used for chemical detection of biomarkers in tissue. [19]

For these reasons, it is the position of Down to Earth ALL VEGETARIAN Organic and Natural that the development of GMO crops and their introduction into our food supply pose health and safety risks that far outweigh the benefits. [23] The nature of some current food safety regulatory issues will change with time include regulation of genetically modified foods including labeling, nutrition and health claims, rapid response to food emergencies, food borne disease outbreaks and emerging pathogens. [25] Currently, up to 80 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as are 91 percent of soybeans. 1 It has been estimated that 75-80 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients. 2 Yet another common GMO food source is dairy products from cows injected with the genetically modified hormone Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). [23] With promises of making more and supposedly “better” food, this new technology – also known as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) – has invaded our grocery stores and our kitchen pantries by fundamentally altering some of our most important staple food crops. [23]

RANKED SELECTED SOURCES(35 source documents arranged by frequency of occurrence in the above report)

1. (178) Genetically modified food controversies – Wikipedia

2. (128) Sentience Institute | What can the adoption of GM foods teach us about the adoption of other food technologies?

3. (25) GE Food and Feed Safety Assessment | ILSI Research Foundation

4. (15) Food Science (FOOD SCI) < University of Wisconsin-Madison

5. (15) How the Green Party-Led Anti-Biotechnology Movement Captured German Policy and Why it Endangers Germany’s Future Innovation in Gene Editing | Genetic Literacy Project

6. (14) FDA’s New Efforts to Advance Biotechnology Innovation | FDA Voice

7. (12) The Revolution in Food and Biomass Will See Co2 Making Proteins

8. (11) Call for abstracts | Paper Submission | Article Submission | Biotechnology Conferences | Health Care Conferences

9. (11) Executive Briefings in Biotechnology Commercialization & Biosafety for Asia-Pacific

10. (10) How Food Biotechnology Is Improving Food Security – BORGEN

11. (6) Biotechnology and the Environment: Can Biotech Save the Planet? | BioSpace

12. (6) Consider a Career in Biotech | AIChE

13. (6) Risks of Genetic Engineering | Down to Earth Organic and Natural

14. (6) Food Safety Conferences|Events|Meetings|USA|Europe|Middle East|2019|Conference Series

15. (5) USDA APHIS | Biotechnology Related Websites

16. (4) Marine Biotechnology Market Research & Reports | Smithers Rapra

17. (4) Industrial uses of enzymes

18. (4) Biotech Business Models and Strategies

19. (4) 12th World Congress on Biotechnology and Microbiology (CSE) S Tickets, Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:00 AM | Eventbrite

20. (4) what are the causes and effects of gmos | GMO Answers

21. (4) Microorganisms Used For The Production Of Citric Acid – Food Biotechnology

22. (4) Food Science – Articles and Databases – Food Science – Library Guides at Penn State University

23. (4) As More Countries Adopt Crop Biotechnology, Farm Families and the Environment Benefit | BIOtechNow

24. (3) Top 10 Genetically Engineered Crops – Seeker

25. (3) What is the scope of food biotechnology? – Quora

26. (2) Biotechnology Research International An Open Access Journal

27. (2) Biotechnology News – Biology News

28. (2) Food For Thought : The Salt : NPR

29. (1) Why not genetically engineered organic foods?

30. (1) Crop Biotechnology Course – PCDN : PCDN

31. (1) BMC Biotechnology | Articles

32. (1) 17.1: Biotechnology – Biology LibreTexts

33. (1) Biotechnology Jobs in Utrecht | Glassdoor

34. (1) Food Biotechnology | Global Events | USA| Europe | Middle East| Asia Pacific

35. (1) Biotech Primer WEEKLY | Biotechnology for the non-scientist weekly newsletter