비 GMO 프로젝트

The Non-GMO Project
비 GMO 프로젝트
유형비영리 단체
산업제품 인정
설립.2007
본사벨링햄, 워싱턴, 미국
주요 인물
Megan Westgate, 전무이사
종업원수
20 (2016)

Non-GMO Project는 유전자 조작 생물에 초점을 맞춘 501(c)(3) 비영리 단체입니다.이 기구는 [1]미국과 캐나다의 독립 천연식품 소매상들의 이니셔티브로 시작되었으며, 유전자 변형 식품이 소매 식품에 존재하지 않도록 하는 것을 목표로 하는 비 GMO 프로젝트 [2]표준에 따라 생산된 제품에 라벨을 붙이는 것을 목표로 하고 있다.본부는 워싱턴 주 벨링햄에 있습니다.Non-GMO 라벨은 Numi Organic Tea 제품에 2012년부터 [3][4]사용되기 시작했습니다.

역사

2007년에 두 개의 천연 식품 소매점이 프로젝트를 설립하여 유전자 변형되지 않은 [5][6]유기체에 대한 표준화된 정의를 만드는 것을 목표로 했습니다.이 프로젝트는 FoodChain Global Advisors와 협력하여 과학 및 기술 전문 지식을 제공하였습니다.2007년 봄, 프로젝트의 이사회는[7], 다른 그룹의 대표자로 확대되어 기술 및 정책상의 [8]문제에 관한 자문 위원회를 구성했습니다.

미션

비 GMO 프로젝트의 목표는 "비 GMO 제품의 공급원을 보존 및 구축하고 소비자를 교육하며 검증된 비 GMO 선택지를 제공하는 것"입니다.유전자 변형되지 않은 식품 및 제품에 대한 제3자의 검증 및 라벨을 제공합니다.이 프로젝트는 또한 식품 제조업체, 유통업체, 재배업자 및 종자 공급 업체와 협력하여 유전자 변형 유기체의 검출과 유전자 변형 유기체에 의한 비유전자 변형 식품 공급의 오염 위험 감소를 위한 표준을 개발합니다.Global ID [9][10]Group의 일부인 FoodChain Global Advisors.

Non-GMO Project는 "소비자와 식품업계를 교육하여 GMO와 그것이 우리 건강에 미치는 영향에 대한 인식을 쌓을 수 있도록 할 것"[11]이라고 주장하고 있습니다.그것은 모든 사람이 유전자 변형 [11][12]유기체를 소비할지 여부에 대해 정보에 입각한 선택을 할 자격이 있다고 주장한다.

표준 및 라벨

비 GMO 프로젝트는 유전자 조작 유기체를 피하기 위한 베스트 프랙티스를 확보하기 위한 시스템의 개요를 정리한 합의 기반의 [13]표준을 유지하고 있습니다.이 기준서에서는 분리, 추적성, 리스크 평가, 샘플링 기법, 품질관리 관리 등의 방법을 강조하고 있다.

프로젝트의 제품 검증 프로그램은 표준 준수 여부를 확인하기 위해 재료, 제품 및 제조 시설을 평가합니다.주요 위험이 있는 모든 성분은 비 GMO 프로젝트 검증 [14]제품에 사용하기 전에 비 GMO 프로젝트 표준에 부합하는지 테스트해야 합니다.이 프로세스는 프로젝트를 [15]위해 개발된 웹 기반 애플리케이션 및 평가 프로그램을 통해 관리됩니다.프로젝트의 라벨은 표준 [16][17]준수를 나타냅니다.

판매의

Non-GMO Project에 따르면 2013년 9월 현재 Non-GMO Project Validated 제품은 35억 달러를 초과했습니다.이는 미국 전체 식품 매출(2012년 1조 [18]3천억 달러)의 약 0.4%에 해당한다.Non-GMO Project에서는 2013년 2분기 검증 프로그램 등록 문의가 797건으로 2012년 같은 기간 194건에 비해 300% 이상 [19]증가했습니다.

논란

비 GMO 프로젝트는 "저위험"으로 간주되는 투입물을 포함한 제품에 라벨을 붙이는 것으로 알려져 있으며, 여기에는 GMO에서 유래할 수 없는 투입물이 포함된 식품도 포함된다.본 프로젝트는 본질적으로 비 GMO(오렌지 주스 등)인 것으로 보이는 많은 제품들이 종종 GMO 유래 첨가물(구연산 등)을 함유하고 있기 때문에 이를 유지하고 있습니다.일부 비평가들은 이 프로젝트가 두려움과 정보 [20]부족에 기반을 둔 비즈니스 모델을 사용하고 있을 수 있다고 말한다.

현재 유전자 조작 작물에서 유래한 식품은 기존의 [25][26][27][28][29]식품보다 인간의 건강에 더 큰 위험을 초래하지 않지만,[30][31][32] 각 유전자 조작 식품은 도입 전에 케이스 바이 케이스(case by case)로 테스트해야 한다는 과학적 합의가[21][22][23][24] 있다.그럼에도 불구하고, 일반 대중들은 유전자 조작 식품이 [33][34][35][36]안전하다고 인식할 가능성이 과학자들보다 훨씬 적다.유전자 변형 식품의 법적, 규제적 지위는 국가에 따라 다르며, 일부 국가는 금지하거나 제한하고 있고,[37][38][39][40] 다른 국가는 규제 수준이 크게 다른 음식을 허용하고 있다.

「 」를 참조해 주세요.

참조

  1. ^ 비GMO 프로젝트 이사회
  2. ^ "The Standard – The Non-GMO Project". Nongmoproject.org. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
  3. ^ "Numi Organic Tea Brews "Pure Tea" Precedent with Non-GMO Verification - the Non-GMO Project". 29 August 2012.
  4. ^ 반 에넨나암, A.L., A.E.Young. 2014년.유전자 조작 사료의 보급과 가축 집단에 대한 영향.제이애니메.시 92:4255-4278.
  5. ^ "자연" 식품 소매업체, 비바이오텍 기준 마련 "식품화학뉴스"
  6. ^ "History – The Non-GMO Project". Nongmoproject.org. 29 January 2016. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
  7. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2009-10-04. Retrieved 2009-10-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: 제목으로 아카이브된 복사(링크)
  8. ^ 비 GMO 프로젝트 이력
  9. ^ Organic & Non-GMO 보고서.2007년 4월 유기농 및 비GMO 보고서:Non-GMO 프로젝트는 자연 식품 산업의 최전선에 있다.
  10. ^ Taipei Times의 William Neuman. 2009년 8월 30일 비 GMO 프로젝트는 식품 제조사의 제품에 생명공학 성분이 거의 없다는 주장을 뒷받침하는 것을 목표로 하고 있습니다.
  11. ^ a b "Non-GMO Project: About". Retrieved 12 June 2013.
  12. ^ "Q+A with Megan Westgate". Daily Camera. 26 July 2011.
  13. ^ "The Standard – The Non-GMO Project". Nongmoproject.org. 19 May 2017. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
  14. ^ Westgate, Megan. "Top 3 Things to Know About the Non-GMO Project". Retrieved 12 June 2013.
  15. ^ "Global ID는 비 GMO 검증 프로그램을 설계하고 관리하기 위해 비 GMO 프로젝트에 참여했습니다."골든 트라이앵글 신문 [1] 2008년 6월 14일 Wayback Machine에서 아카이브 완료
  16. ^ http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Revised-Seal-copy.jpg[베어 URL 이미지 파일]
  17. ^ 비GMO 프로젝트:우리 국새의 이해[2],
  18. ^ "Food Expenditures".
  19. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2013-12-26. Retrieved 2013-12-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: 제목으로 아카이브된 복사(링크)
  20. ^ Randy Krotz (July 10, 2017). "The Non-GMO Project: Creating fake news at the grocery store". AgWeek.
  21. ^ Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34 (1): 77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. S2CID 9836802. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

    The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. 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.
  22. ^ "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved August 30, 2019. 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. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). 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). 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). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).
  23. ^ Ronald, Pamela (May 1, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).
  24. ^ 단, 다음 항목도 참조하십시오.

    Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, 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. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

    Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. S2CID 40855100. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

    대비:

    Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 37 (2): 213–217. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN 0738-8551. PMID 26767435. S2CID 11786594. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

    The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

    그리고.

    Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96 (4): 1851–1855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

    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. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.
  25. ^ "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved August 30, 2019. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." 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.

    Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  26. ^ European Commission. Directorate-General for Research (2010). A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  27. ^ "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved August 30, 2019. A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.

    (from original report by AMA: [3])     {{cite web}}:외부 링크 quote=(도움말)"REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-09-07. Retrieved August 30, 2019. 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.
  28. ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. June 30, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.
  29. ^ National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering; Division on Earth Life Studies; Board on Agriculture Natural Resources; Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience Future Prospects (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). p. 149. doi:10.17226/23395. ISBN 978-0-309-43738-7. PMID 28230933. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.
  30. ^ "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that 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.

    GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, 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. 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.
  31. ^ Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21 (7): 739–741. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. S2CID 2533628. These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.
  32. ^ 영국 의사협회를 포함한 일부 의료단체는 예방원칙에 기초한 추가 주의를 주장한다.

    "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved August 30, 2019. 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. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

    When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. 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. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

    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. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.
  33. ^ Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved August 30, 2019. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. 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.
  34. ^ Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO Reports. 2 (7): 545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC 1083956. PMID 11463731.
  35. ^ Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Archived from the original on 2017-05-25. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  36. ^ Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243. S2CID 261060.
  37. ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  38. ^ Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. Archived from the original on June 21, 2018. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  39. ^ Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
  40. ^ Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (April 5, 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved August 30, 2019.