The role of a German multi-stakeholder standard for livestock products derived from non-GMO feed

Venus, Thomas J.; Drábik, Dušan; Wesseler, Justus

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.02.009

Cited by 29 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Genetic engineering is likely to play a key role in further developments of non-food applications, but the use of modern biotechnology is not uncontroversial [17]. Policies related to the application of modern biotechnology can have wide-ranging implications that need to be considered for assessing impacts [18][19][20][21]. The debate on the use of modern biotechnology has been rekindled by the advent of so-called new plant breeding technologies (NPBTs) for gene editing and related regulatory issues.…”

Section: Advances In Biological Sciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Standards for biorefineries and bio-based products can be expected to be increasingly harmonized and foster positive externalities by reducing approval costs and length and trade disruptions caused by asynchronicity in product approval [43]. Examples are related to the labeling of food, feed, and other bio-based products [21]. This implies trade in products and innovations related to the bioeconomy as well as the regulatory environment at the international level needs to be monitored.…”

Section: Globalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of the Circular Bioeconomy: Drivers and Indicators

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU’s 2018 Bioeconomy Strategy Update and the European Green Deal recently confirmed that the bioeconomy is high on the political agenda in Europe. Here, we propose a conceptual analysis framework for quantifying and analyzing the development of the EU bioeconomy. The bioeconomy has several related concepts (e.g., bio-based economy, green economy, and circular economy) and there are clear synergies between these concepts, especially between the bioeconomy and circular economy concepts. Analyzing the driving factors provides important information for monitoring activities. We first derive the scope of the bioeconomy framework in terms of bioeconomy sectors and products to be involved, the needed geographical coverage and resolution, and time period. Furthermore, we outline a set of indicators linked to the objectives of the EU’s bioeconomy strategy. In our framework, measuring developments will, in particular, focus on the bio-based sectors within the bioeconomy as biomass and food production is already monitored. The selected indicators commit to the EU Bioeconomy Strategy objectives and conform with findings from previous studies and stakeholder consultation. Additionally, several new indicators have been suggested and they are related to measuring the impact of changes in supply, demand drivers, resource availability, and policies on sustainability goals.

show abstract

Section: Advances In Biological Sciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Globalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Circular Bioeconomy: Drivers and Indicators

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If NPBTs do not fall under the GMO regulation, labeling for food products will be simplified and it reduces costs. A voluntary market for negative labeling in the form of "does not contain…" may emerge similarly to what has been observed in the case of GMOs in the US and the EU (e.g., Castellari et al, 2018;Venus et al, 2018). The advantage of such a labeling scheme is that it is a market-driven response to a demand among some consumers, and similar to products sold under an organic label.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

The Economics of Regulating New Plant Breeding Technologies - Implications for the Bioeconomy Illustrated by a Survey Among Dutch Plant Breeders

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New plant breeding technologies (NPBTs) are increasingly used for developing new plants with novel traits. The science tells us that those plants in general are as safe as than those once developed using "conventional" plant breeding methods. The knowledge about the induced changes and properties of the new plants by using NPBTs is more precise. This should lead to the conclusion that plants developed using NPBTs should not be regulated differently than those developed using "conventional" plant breeding methods. This contribution discusses the economics of regulating new plant breeding technologies. We first develop the theoretical model and elaborate on the different regulatory approaches being used and compare their advantages and disadvantages. Then we provide a perspectives on EU regulation around mutagenesis-based New Plant Breeding Techniques (NPBT), formed by new insights from a survey among Dutch plant breeding companies. The survey measures the attitude of breeding companies towards the ruling of the EU Court of Justice that subjected the use of CRISPR-Cas in the development of new plant varieties under the general EU regulations around GMOs. The results show that plant breeders experience a financial barrier because of the ruling, with perceived negative impact on competitiveness and investments in CRISPR-Cas as a result. The degree of negative impact differs however significantly among seed-sectors and company sizes. One of the most striking results was the relative optimism of companies in the sector about more lenient legislation in the next five years, despite the stated negative effects.

show abstract

“…In Europe, the labeling requirements (European Regulation 1830European Parliament, 2003) on GM food and feed, results in those agricultural products not requiring labeling. However, some EU member countries have established regulations and guidelines to label animal products voluntarily as non-GM, to allow consumers to choose products where no GM feed stuff were directly used in its production (Venus et al, 2018).…”

Section: Labeling Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%