10 replies to this topic

[mcureton]

I keep getting different responses from different people about this topic. From a manufacturers perspective I have been told that they are seperate and two different things whereas from a consumer and customer perspective it appears to be one in the same.  Can someone clarify this because the answers tend to reflect the best interest of whoever is stating it when I ask my suppliers and vendors.

[Spidey]

According to the "Food Science for the Non-Food Scientist" class that I took through the IFT (right before the pandemic started), GMO has been replaced by bioengineered.  See attached slide.

Attached Files

•  BE vs GMO.pdf   154.48KB   46 downloads

[SQFconsultant]

And then there is genetically modified.

 

Which is exactly what they did to the US wheat crops in the late 1950's - early 1960's.

 

At least they did not go after popcorn!

[TimG]

They are one in the same for all intents and purposes. However, customers are have been requesting a document that specifically lists 'bioengineered' due to:

 U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard on December 20, 2018. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law, passed by Congress in July of 2016, directed USDA to establish this national mandatory standard for disclosing foods that are or may be bioengineered.

I ended up conceding and re-wording our GMO statement to also include bioengineered. Even though we synthetically create a completely inorganic mineral...

[Ryan M.]

Things to consider are:

 

• Do the ingredients and process meet the FDA definition of bioengineered?
• Do you have any customers that require "non-GMO" in the product?
• Do you have any customers that require "non-GMO" labeling on the product?
• Do you have any customers that require verification (certification such as non-GMO project) of "non-GMO" labeling on the product?

 

These are all different.

[Spidey]

And then there is CRIPSR, which is gene editing.  Apparently, gene editing is ok because you are just removing DNA vs bioengineering where you are adding DNA.  Isn't technology a wonderful terrible thing?

[Ryan M.]

And then there is CRIPSR, which is gene editing.  Apparently, gene editing is ok because you are just removing DNA vs bioengineering where you are adding DNA.  Isn't technology a wonderful terrible thing?

 

CRIPSR would fall under GMO meaning if a company has customers that want "non-GMO" foods (certified, verified, etc) CRIPSR would be a part of that.  The article below has some good information on CRIPSR and implications with GMP / non-GMO foods.

 

https://cals.ncsu.ed...enetic sequence.

[Fishlady]

The US inspection agencies use the term "bioengineered" because scientifically some types of conventional cross-breeding could be considered genetic modification.  However, the term "genetically modified" or "GMO" has entered the lexicon prior to the regulations, so most consumers probably are more acquainted with the term "GMO."  If you are selling in the US and your product has detectable material, then you are required to declare it as "bioengineered." I believe the regulators will not object if you also include the term "GMO," but they do want you to use their language where it is required.

[Gracezy]

 

It is pretty similar, but Bioengineered labeling is a new requirement from USDA.  e.g., even products are Non-GMO verifed product, it is not automatically exempt from NBFDS disclosure.

 

1. To be complaint with National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard  means your products meet the requirements with the USDA’s Standard. If, as outlined by the standard, your products have bioengineered ingredients in them, you will need to label your products as bioengineered, using the USDA’s labeling guidelines.

 

2. If your products do not contain any of the ingredients that are on the list , or any derivatives of them, this will not trigger the need for a NBFDS label. But please note, many of these ingredients show up in ways you may not expect. An example, maltodextrin is commonly derived from Potato, so now any maltodextrin would need to be evaluated. Another example would be Flavor extracts, the sugar used to produce the alcohol for extracts may be sugar beet, which means it would need to be evaluated further. The USDA has declined to give a list of potential derivatives at this time.

 

I believe most Non-GMO certifers are trying to change the requirements in a way to ensure that the products should comply with NBFDS and will not trigger Labeling requirements. 

 

List of Bioengineered Foods;

https://www.ams.usda...ered-foods-list

[Sousa]

And then there is CRIPSR, which is gene editing.  Apparently, gene editing is ok because you are just removing DNA vs bioengineering where you are adding DNA.  Isn't technology a wonderful terrible thing?

 

There's a lot of other gene editing technologies. This one is cheaper and as precise (or more) then the others. Hence the revolution.

 

Gene editing can be Cis or Trans. Cis is basically editing the organism from within, deleting, moving or repeating genes from that same organism. Trans is picking genes from one organism and putting it in another organism, therefore TRANSgenic.

[Bo16]

other things to consider:

Processing aid:  out of scope of BE ruling

Genetic material removed (validated process) not BE 

BE but not on the list,  still BE

 

Read carefully, also you can use the USDA site, they have an easy to follow decision tree (questions)