US food manufacturer assessment of and responses to bioengineered foods

AgBioForum

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 90-100

  Muth, Mary K ^a   Mancini, Dominic ^b   Viator, Catherine ^a  

^a RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b Office of Management and Budget   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioengineered foods; Consumer level traits; Food manufacturers; Identity preservation; Processing level traits; Regulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 2942635575     PISSN: 1522936X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council (AFFRC). (2002). System and procedures for the application of recombinant DNA crop plants in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and the food industry. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.s.affrc.go.jp/docs/sentan/eintro/intro.htm.
2. Biotech labeling moves closer in Indonesia. (2002). Food Traceability Report, 2(4), 5.
3. Chen, H.Y., and Chern, W.S. (2002). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods. Paper presented at the AAEA annual meetings, Long Beach, CA.
4. Chile moves toward mandatory biotech labeling. (2001). Food Traceability Report, 1(4), 13.
5. Codex Alimentarius Commission. (2002). Report of the third session of the codex ad hoc intergovernmental task force on foods derived from biotechnology. Available on the World Wide Web: ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/alinorm03/Al03_34e.pdf.
6. Colombia establishes rules for biotech imports. (2001). Food Traceability Report, 1(7), 15.
7. European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General. (2000, July 13). Commission takes initiative to restore confidence in GMO approval process (press release). Available on the World Wide Web: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/press/press62_en.html.
8. European Parliament committee toughens biotech labeling proposals. (2002). Food Traceability Report, 2(6), 15-16.
9. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. (2001). Directive 2001/18/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing council directive 90/220/EEC (Official Journal, L 106:0001-0039). Available on the World Wide Web: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/gmo/ gmo_legi_authorise_en.html.
10. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. (2000). Commission regulation (EC) no 49/2000 of 10 January 2000 amending council regulation (EC) no 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in directive 79/112/EEC (Offi-cial Journal, L 006:0013-0014.). Available on the World Wide Web: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ food/fs/gmo/gmo_legi_label _en.html.
11. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). (2002). Food standards code: Standard 1.5.2: Food produced using gene technology. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandardscode/.
12. Golan, E. (2000). Biotech food labeling. In E. Golan, F. Kuchler, L. Mitchell, C. Greene, & A. Jessup (Eds.), Economics of food labeling (Agricultural Economic Report Number 793, pp. 33-37). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.
13. Good, D., Bender, K., and Hill, L. (2000). Marketing of specialty corn and soybean crops (AE-4733). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics.
14. Health Canada. (2002). Regulation of novel foods. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/mh-dm/ofb-bba/nfi-ani/e_faq_1. html.
15. Hoban, T.J. (2001). Food industry leaders. perceptions of biotechnology. Presented at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
16. Huffman, W.E., Rousu, M., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A. (2002, July). Should the United States initiate a mandatory labeling policy for genetically modified foods? Selected paper at the 2002 AAEA meetings, Long Beach, CA.
17. James, C. (2002). Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 2001 (ISAAA Briefs No. 24). Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.isaaa.org/ Publications/briefs/briefs_24.htm.
18. Japan Bioindustry Association. (2002). The prime minister's biotechnology strategy council launched. Japan Bioindustry Letters, 19(1), 1. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.jba.or.jp/eng/letters/Vol-19/1-1.html.
19. Kalaitzandonakes, N., and Bijman J. (2003). Who is driving biotechnology acceptance? Nature Biotechnology, 21(April), 366-369.
20. Mendenhall, C.A., and Evenson, R.E. (2002). Estimate of willingness to pay a premium for non-GM foods: A survey. In V. Santaniello, R.E. Evenson, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Market development for genetically modified foods (pp. 55-61). New York: CAB International.
21. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW), Japan. (2003). Foods and food additives produced by recombinant DNA techniques. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/food/index.html.
22. Moon, W., and Balasubramanian, S.K. (2001). Public perceptions and willingness-to-pay a premium for non-GM foods in the US and UK. AgBioForum, 4(3&4), 221-231. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
23. Muth, M.K., Beach, R.H., Fanjoy, M.S., Gledhill, E.C., Kendall, D.L., Viator, C.L., and Hoban, T.J. (2002). Food manufacturer responses to bioengineered foods. Report prepared for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI.
24. Muth, M.K., Mancini, D., and Viator, C. (in press). The role of identity preservation systems in food manufacturer responses to bioengineered foods. Journal of the Food Distribution Research.
25. Paarlberg, R. (2002). The U.S.-E.U. trade conflict over GM foods: Implications for poor countries. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
26. Rousu, M., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A. (2002a, July). Are U.S. consumers tolerant of GM foods? Selected paper at the 2002 AAEA meetings, Long Beach, CA.
27. Rousu, M., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A. (2002b, February). The value of verifiable information in a controversial market: Evidence from lab auctions of GM foods (Department of Economics Staff Working Paper #3). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
28. Thailand sets biotech labeling rules. (2001). Food Traceability Report, 1(3), 18.
29. Traceability issue seen blocking Codex biotech safety principles. (2002). Food Traceability Report, 2(3), 1-16.
30. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. (2000, December 21). National organic program; final rule. Federal Register, 65(246), 80548-80596.
31. United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (2002). Regulatory oversight in biotechnology. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/OECD/usregs.htm.
32. United States Food and Drug Administration. (2001a, January 18). Draft guidance for industry: Voluntary labeling indicating whether foods have or have not been developed using bioengineering; Availability. Notice. Federal Register, 66(12), 4839-4842.
33. United States Food and Drug Administration. (2001b, January 18). Premarket Notice Concerning Bioengineered Foods. Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 66(12), 4706-4738.
34. United States General Accounting Office. (2002). Genetically modified foods: Experts view regimen of safety tests as adequate, but FDA's evaluation process could be enhanced (GAO-02-566). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.