e study of India - phytojournal.com · Argentine Canola Papaya Soybean Potato ... Traceability in meat, milk, ... and it is possible only if all buyers

~ 2272 ~

Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2018; SP1: 2272-2282

E-ISSN: 2278-4136

P-ISSN: 2349-8234

JPP 2018; SP1: 2272-2282

Kusumakar Gautam

Assistant Professor, Department

of Agricultural Economics,

Ranchi College of Agriculture,

Birsa Agricultural University,

Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Saket Kushwaha

Former Vice Chancellor,

Lakshmi Narayan Mithila

University, Darbhanga, Bihar

and Professor-in-Charge, Rajeev

Gandhi South Campus,

Barkaccha, Banaras Hindu

University, Varanasi, India

Correspondence

Kusumakar Gautam

Assistant Professor, Department

of Agricultural Economics,

Ranchi College of Agriculture,

Birsa Agricultural University,

Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Genetically modified food trade: A case study of India

Kusumakar Gautam and Saket Kushwaha

Abstract Genetically modified (GM) food crops have the potential to raise agricultural productivity in developing

countries, but they are also associated with the risk of market access losses in sensitive importing

countries. GM crops (rice, wheat, maize, soybeans, and cotton) are resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses,

such as drought-resistant and insect pest resistance. Labelling is one of the key Issues by which will

separate supply chain of GM and Non-GM that coexist in food trade. In Europe & some countries

labelling is mandatory up to a threshold GM content level or in some countries it is voluntary like Canada

and USA. There are multiplicity of organizations and ministries dealing in GM issues. FSSAI is food

safety regulatory and monitoring body. Its main role is formulation of food safety standards based on

modern science and to regulate the food sector. Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is

another important organisation for recommending commercial GM product for production, sale, import

or use by Rule 11 of Rules 89. Besides environment safety tests, the GEAC requires extensive food

safety tests for new GM products like food stuffs, ingredients in food stuffs and additives including

processing aids containing or consisting of GMOs. This paper studies the present situation of GM crops,

its use, trade, traceability and trade regulation, GM food assessment regulation in India.

Keywords: Genetically Modified Food, International Trade, Developing countries

Introduction GM foods (Genetically modified foods) are foods products produced from genetically

modified crops developed through genetic engineering techniques. GMOs have introduced

with specific DNA for insect pest resistance, augmenting growth rate, pathogen resistance,

assimilation of extra nutrients. The genetic engineering techniques are much more precise [1]

than normal selective or mutation breeding where an organism is exposed to radiation or

chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change [2].

Genetically modified food is not marketed in India and as such there sis no approval to sale it

regulatory authority. However, genetically modified cotton is grown in Indian in large area and

few million tons of cotton seeds are produced every year. These seeds are used for oil

extraction and making animal feed. Cotton oil is used making vegetable oil. There is no any

separate supply chain of GM and Non-GM cotton seeds and oil extraction companies are

purchasing with non-transgenic seed. The very problems of traceability are nowhere declared

and mentionany where. This led to the loss of oil Extraction Company who is paying same

amount the seed of transgenic cotton while it has to less thus reducing the benefit. This led to a

series of unfair trade and consumer is kept in dark. This also indicating many such products

imported from many countries are not known for the traceability of GM.

Multitude of genetically modified foods commenced with tomato in which delayed ripening

character was introduced in 1994 [3] there are several products available in markets some of

them are directly consumable but most of them are processed to different form or smaller food

ingredients.

Table 1: List of Genetic Modified crops Species

Alfalfa Melon Rose Flax, Linseed

Argentine Canola Papaya Soybean Potato

Carnation Petunia Squash Tomato

Chicory Plum Sugar Beet Maize

Cotton Polish canola Sweet pepper Rice

Creeping Bentgrass Poplar Tobacco Wheat

Source: ISAAA Metalink: P4.ENV.ISAAA.BI0.GM.CR0PS, p. 349

~ 2273 ~

Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Direct consumption

Plant Products- Fruits and vegetables

Many fruit and vegetables have been genetically modified to

cater the market needs like in ‘SunUp’ [4] papaya, ‘Fortuna’

potato [5, 6], zucchini [7], apple [8] etcare grown in all over

world.

Fig 1: Area under Genetically Modified Crops

Indirect consumption

Processed Foods with protein or DNA remaining from

GMOs

Corn products corn is processed into grits, meal, and flour.

Grits are used in corn flakes, breakfast cereals, and snack

foods. Brewers’ grits are used in the beer manufacturing.

Corn meal is used in several products including cornbread,

muffins, fritters, cereals, bakery mixes, pancake mixes, and

snacks. The finest grade corn meal is used to coat English

muffins and pizzas. Cornmeal is also sold direct consumable

good. Corn flour is included in mixes for pancakes, muffins,

doughnuts, breadings, and batters, baby foods, meat products,

cereals, and some fermented products. Masa flour is used in

the production of taco shells, corn chips, and tortillas [9].

Soy products – Most of Soybean meal is used for livestock

feed and only small part is processed further into high protein

soy products that are used in a variety of foods, such as salad

dressings, soups, meat analogues, beverage powders, cheeses,

non-dairy creamer, frozen desserts, whipped topping, infant

formulas, breads, breakfast cereals, pastas, meat, poultry

products and pet foods [10, 11, 12, 13]. Highly processed derivatives containing little to no DNA or

protein lecithin. Soybean and corn oil contains lecithin, which

is widely used as an emulsifier in processed food [14, 15]. The

origin of Lecithin is nearly impossible to detect with standard

testing practices as it is free from protein and DNA from the

original GM [16].

Vegetable oilare of triglycerides extracted from plants or

seeds. They are further refined, double refined, deodorised

and hydrogenated to solid vegetable oil (ghee). During

refining process [17] nearly all nontriglyceride ingredients are

removed [18].

Sugars - Corn starch and starch Sugars, including syrups

Starch or amylum is a carbohydrate consisting of a large

number of glucose units joined by glycosidic bonds. These

products of that pure starch like Maltodextrin, glucose syrups,

Dextrose, High fructose syrup contain no GM DNA or

proteinli. Fructose corn syrup is the principal sweetener used

in sweetened beverages because of its microbiological

stability, and consistent sweetness/flavor [19, 20]. Sugar

alcohols, such as maltitol, erythritol, sorbitol, mannitol and

hydrogenated starch hydrolysate, are sweeteners made by

reducing sugars. In U.S. 90 per cent is extracted from

domestically grown sugar beet and sugarcane. Almost 50 per

cent sugar is derived from sugar beet, and the other 50 per

cent is from sugarcane. 95 per cent of sugar beet acres in US

was glyphosate-resistant in 2011 [21]. The products of sugar

beets are refined sugar and molasses; sugar produced is highly

refined and contains no DNA or protein. By product Pulp

from the refining process is used as animal feed [22].

Animal Products

Cheese – A mixture of enzymes used to coagulate cheese

called ‘Rennet’ which was only available in the fourth

stomach of calves, therefore it was scarce and expensive. Now

with genetic engineering, it became possible to extract similar

produce chymosin from certain bacteria, fungi or yeasts [23, 24].

The amino acid sequence may be present in these cheese in

trace quantities dueto retention of chymosin in whey of

cheese, but in ripe cheese, the detection is very difficult. In

1999, Almost 60 per cent of US hard cheese was produced

with Fermentation Produced Chymosin (FPC) and it has up to

80 per cent by 2008. In the US and Britain approximately 80

per cent to 90 per cent of commercially produced cheeses

were by using FPC [25].

Livestock and poultry- Most of the feed meals which are by

product of processed crops including GM crops are used as

animal feed. 98 per cent of soybean, 49 per cent of the total

maize harvested in 2011 was used for livestock feed [26, 27].

Traceability in meat, milk, or eggs of animals depending on

the type of feed they are fed. Presence of GMOs in animal

feed is analysed by origin of the feed itself [28].

Traceability Issues

Why traceability is needed

The traceability of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

describes as a system that ensures the identity of a GMO from

producer to its final buyer. It is essential prerequisite for

freedom of choice for consumers. The traceability of GMOs is

founded on two needs. First, why consumers in many

~ 2274 ~


countries will genetically modified foods, or use GM crops

for feed. Consequently, we have to maintain separate GM and

non-GM supply chains, and it is possible only if all buyers

along the production chain know what they are buying.

Secondly, even after approval for commercialization it must

pass a safety assessment, and accordingly it should be

withdrawn from the market if product is not meeting safety

standards.

Unique identifiers for GMOs

In 2002 to overcome the traceability issues OECD countries

developed a unique identifier is a code consisting of nine

letters and/or numbers. The first two or three characters

indicate the company submitting the application, while the

following six or five characters specify the respective

transformation event. The last digit serves as a verifier. All

the crop varieties derived from one transformation event will

share the same unique identifier. Initially, some member

countries (for example, the USA, but also Canada and

Australia) were opposed to the concept.

The unique identifier has been integrated in the Cartagena

Protocol on Biosafety [29] and in the European

Union legislation on the labelling and traceability of

genetically modified organisms [30].

Global perspective - In food and feed is routinely done using

molecular techniques like DNA microarrays or quantitative

PCR. These tests can be based on screening genetic elements

(like p35S, tNos, pat, or bar) or event specific markers for the

official GMOs (like Mon810, Bt11, or GT73). The array-

based method combines multiplex PCR and array technology

to screen samples for different potential GMOs, [31] combining

different approaches (screening elements, plant-specific

markers, and event-specific markers). The qPCR is used to

detect specific GMO events by usage of specific primers for

screening elements or event specific markers. Controls are

necessary to avoid false positive or false negative results. For

example, a test for CaMV is used to avoid a false positive in

the event of a virus contaminated sample. In a January 2010

paper, [32] the extraction and detection of DNA along a

complete industrial soybean oil processing chain was

described to monitor the presence of Roundup Ready (RR)

soybean: "The amplification of soybean lectin gene by end-

point polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was successfully

achieved in all the steps of extraction and refining processes,

until the fully refined soybean oil. The amplification of RR

soybean by PCR assays using event-specific primers was also

achieved for all the extraction and refining steps, except for

the intermediate steps of refining (neutralization, washing and

bleaching) possibly due to sample instability. The real-time

PCR assays using specific probes confirmed all the results

and proved that it is possible to detect and quantify

genetically modified organisms in the fully refined soybean

oil. To our knowledge, this has never been reported before

and represents an important accomplishment regarding the

traceability of genetically modified organisms in refined oils."

Regulation Main article: Regulation of the release of genetic

modified organisms The regulation of genetic engineering

concerns the approaches taken by governments to assess and

manage the risks associated with the use of genetic

engineering technology and the development and release of

genetically modified organisms (GMO). There are differences

in the regulation of GMOs between countries, with some of

the most marked differences occurring between the USA and

Europe. Regulation varies in a given country depending on

the intended use of the products of the genetic engineering.

For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not

reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety, [33] while

GM crops intended for use in human or animal food are

reviewed by such authorities. Additionally, various govern the

importation of GM commodities, as well as food made using

GM commodities.

Is there any Trade Regulation for GM Food?

The Cartagena Protocol is international environmental

agreement on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological

Diversity which is concerned with the trans-boundary

movement (i.e., trade) of genetically modified food [34]. It

mainly deals with “trans-boundary movement, transit,

handling and use of all living modified organisms that may

have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use

of biological diversity, considering risks to human health” [35].

It does not cover non-food or non-feed products derived from

LMOs (e.g. paper from GM trees) and LMOs used as

pharmaceuticals for humans. Till year 2013, 166 countries

were party to this protocol [36] only few notable exceptions

include major grain exporters like United States [37].

Fig 2: Countries that have ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

~ 2275 ~


Trade Regulation

At world level

Labelling is one of the key Issues by which will separate

supply chain of GM and Non-GM that coexist in food trade.

In Europe & some countries labelling is mandatory up to a

threshold GM content level or in some countries it is

voluntary like Canada and USA.

At India level (perspective of GM food in Indian context)

Role of Different Organizations

There are multiplicity of organizations and ministries dealing

in GM issues. FSSAI is food safety regulatory and monitoring

body. Its main role is formulation of food safety standards

based on modern science and to regulate the food sector. [38]

Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is another

important organization for recommending commercial GM

product for production, sale, import or use by Rule 11 of

Rules 89. Besides environment safety tests, the GEAC

requires extensive food safety tests for new GM products like

food stuffs, ingredients in food stuffs and additives including

processing aids containing or consisting of GMOs. However,

MoEF on 23 August, 2007 exempted all these categories from

Rule 11 if the end product was not an LMO [39]. Mainly the

GEAC is addressing LMO in GM (Assessment and

commercial release), FSSAI is addressing processed GM food

(safety and commercial release), RCGM (DBT) for research

in contained laboratories. There is no single window from

where the GM issue can be regulated or information can be

available.

Table 2: Governmental authorities regulating GMOs in India (excluding pharmaceutical applications) [40]

Responsible Authority Activity

RCGM (DBT) Ministry of Science & Technology Contained research (laboratory and greenhouse)

GEAC

Ministry of Environment and Forests

Environmental risk assessment of GM organisms

Approval for commercial release of GM foods (viable i.e. LMOs)

Approval for environmental (commercial) release of GM organisms

GEAC and RCGM Event selection trials/BRL 1 trials

FSSAI

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare

Food safety assessment of GM foods (viable and processed)

Approval for commercial release of GM foods (processed)

In June 2012, by the notification of Ministry of Consumer

Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, labelling of genetically

modified food was made compulsory and which came into

force in January 2013. For more than 3.5 years there is no

check on GM processed food and other items coming

imported from outside or produced in India in absence of any

regulations for GM processed food by FSSAI. The regulations

which came into force after January 2013 were wretchedly

prepared as they lack the basic criteria i.e. tolerance level

above which food will be regarded as GM. Moreover,

regulations does not include the food items which do not

contain the detectable amount of GM content like highly

processed food, edible oils, flavouring agents, juices, feeds

meat and animal products fed with GM feed [40].

India as a market

Due to many changes in Indian economy like dual wage

earners, increasing incomes, urbanization and busier

lifestyles, the tastes and preferences of Indian consumers are

changing. People get less time for traditional way of cooking

food therefore, to accommodate the changing lifestyle they

are shifting to Ready-meals and takeaway food. This is a

common not only in urban metropolises in the country but in

rural areas also as they feel alleviated socially buy consuming

these Ready-meals and takeaway food. Approximately 30 per

cent of India’s population lives in urban areas, mainly single

men, double income families and foreign travellers are more

exposed to such foods [41].

McKinsey & Company (2007) [42] forecasted that if the Indian

economy grows at the rate of 7.3 percent between 2005 and

2025, then by 2025, 583 million Indians will be in the middle

class, India was ranked as the twelfth largest consumer market

in the world and by 2025 it is expected to be the fifth largest

consumer market after the United States (US), Japan, China

and the United Kingdom (UK).

In India, the majority of the consumption expenditure is on

food compared to other countries [43]. Major imports (all

commodities) of the Indian includes cereals, edible oils and

petroleum products [44]. According to Technopak, the

consultancy, the gourmet food market in India will increase in

size from $1.3bn in 2012 to $2.7bn by 2015, a compound

annual growth rate of 20 per cent [45].

~ 2276 ~


Source:- http://www.fssai.gov.in/Portals/0/Pdf/fssa_interim_regulation_on_Operatonalising_GM_Food_regulation_in_India.pdf

Fig 3: The food safety administrative, assessment and approval procedures for GM foods in India

Major Imports of processed food by India from different

countries

U.S. exports of agricultural products to India totalled $723

million in 2011. In 2011 U.S. (not signed Cartagena

Protocol), had approximately 88 per cent of all field corn

(mostly used for cattle feed and ethanol production), 94 per

cent of all soybeans, 95 per cent of all sugar beets, and 90 per

cent of all cotton grown in the United States was genetically

engineered with one to as many as seven different genes. U.S.

farmers also grew GE canola as well as small amounts of

genetically engineered papayas, summer squash, and insect-

resistant sweet corn. All these engineered crops totaled

approximately 170 million acres in 2011 [46]. Imports may

total a 800,000 tons to 900,000 tons in each of the next three

months. Mehta said, “The country meets more than half its

demand through purchases of palm oil from Indonesia

andMalaysia and soybean oil from the U.S., Brazil and

Argentina” [47].

Fig 4: Total Agricultural Import in India from 2001-2011

~ 2277 ~


World Supply and Demand (thousand metric tonnes)

Most vegetable oil used in the US is produced from several

crops, including the GM crops canola, [48] corn, xiii [49] cotton, [50] and soybeans [51]. There is no, or a very small amount of

protein or DNA from the original GM crop in vegetable oil [52,

53]. Inbound shipments will climb to an unprecedented 10.5

million metric tons to 10.7 million tons in the year ending

Oct. 31 from 10.2 million tons a year earlier, according to

B.V. Mehta, executive director of the Solvent Extractors'

Association of India. Imports increased 11 percent to 8.03

million tonnes in the nine months through July 2013.

Trading countries like Malaysia and Indonesia

Some of the countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are trading

centers and they play very important role in food trade supply

chain. In the figure 5 given belowit is clear that country like

Malaysia is exporting same commodities which they are

importing. In few commodities Malaysia keep small amount

for their domestic consumption and rest of the produce is

exported.

~ 2278 ~


Fig 5: Malaysia's External trade (RM million)

Table 5: Malaysia's External trade percentage import and export of same commodities

Import Export Import Export

1. Foods* 69 per cent 67 per cent 68 per cent 74 per cent

2. Beverages and Tobacco* -15 per cent -16 per cent -1 per cent 2 per cent

3. Crude Materials, Inedible 13 per cent 2 per cent 0 per cent 21 per cent

4. Mineral Fuels, Lubricants, and Other -55 per cent -48 per cent -45 per cent -40 per cent

5. Oils & Animal and Vegetable fats* -89 per cent -87 per cent -84 per cent -85 per cent

6. Materials Chemistry? 18 per cent 18 per cent 17 per cent 18 per cent

7. Manufactured Goods 7 per cent 16 per cent 15 per cent 18 per cent

8. Machinery and Transport Equipment -14 per cent -7 per cent -5 per cent 0 per cent

9. Misc Manufactured Articles -51 per cent -48 per cent -44 per cent -46 per cent

10. Misc Transactions and Commodities 120 per cent 159 per cent 185 per cent 119 per cent

Table 6: Soybean Oil Imports by India (US$ million)

Country 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Argentina 521.81 861.14 881.69

Brazil 142.38 113.25 147.90

Thailand - - 20.20

Saudi Arabia 7.18 15.18 17.39

Indonesia - 4.26 15.87

China - 1.62 9.10

USA 189.11 72.59 8.05

Paraguay 4.54 4.45 7.77

Ukraine - - 6.46

Viet Nam - - 3.95

World 868.46 1075.12 1135.40

Source: Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics. Ministry of Commerce and industry, Govt. of India

~ 2279 ~


Export of Bulk consumption Processed Food

Exporting Countries

Trading countries

GM Food Trade in India

Fig 6: Distribution channel for imported food items

Fig 7: Oil seed Production in India

Fig 8: Availability of Oil seed in India

~ 2280 ~


From figure no 7 above it is clear that India mainly produces

mostly cotton, soybean, rapeseed /mustard and groundnut.

Due to higher demand of vegetable oils and as a consequence

import of soybean oil (table 6 above) the share of

rapeseed/mustard and groundnut have been decreased in

market or we can say that availability of Soybean oil have

been increased manifolds. This imported vegetable oil is

available not only in the oil form but also many other form

and mixed with indigenously produced non GM vegetable

soybean oil by various channels as given in figure 8 below.

Domestically

produced

soybean seeds

Solvent

Extraction

Soya products

from whole

soybeans

Meal Cake Solvent oilImported Crude

Oil

Domestic

Consumption Exports

Refined oil Imported

Refined Oil

Hydrogenated

Vanaspati

Storage tank

and Packing

Loose Blended PackedBakery

Shortening

Packaging and

cold room

treatment

Fig 9: Channels of Vegetable oils from GM crops in India

Who is benefitted and who suffered

Agriculture is main stay for people in India and government’s

main aim is to increase the income, livelihood of farmers,

therefore if biosafety is main issue and preventing the

commercialization of products that may harm people or the

environment (i.e., type I errors). Kalaitzandonakes et al.

(2007) concluded that regulatory trials over a long period will

take time, energy and cost including indirect costs in terms of

foregone benefits. Beyond these direct regulatory costs, there

are (preventing the use of safe products is referred to as type

II errors).

Consumer resistance to agricultural GMOs also comes from a

deeper source. Consumers find it easy to reject GMO foods

and crops because, so far, they have provided almost no direct

consumer benefit. Genetically modified soybeans or corn do

not taste better, look better, prepare better, or nourish better

than conventional soybeans or corn. They are not noticeably

cheaper because most of the economic gains from using the

technology are captured by the farmer (who saves money by

using less insecticide or fewer herbicides) or by the patent

owning biotechnology company. In the absence of any clear

new consumer benefit, citizens in rich countries (few of

whom are farmers) typically have little to lose when they

reject agricultural GMOs. India will be world power in Food

& Agriculture by 2020 [54].

~ 2281 ~


References 1. David K. UK GM Science Review panel, GM Science

Review First Report, 2003, 9.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ genetically-modified-foods,

Retrieved 2012-12-29

3. "Consumer Q&A". Fda.gov. 2009-03-06.Retrieved 2012-

12-29.

4. Li Quan, Cluskey M, Wahl J, Thomas. "Effects of

information on consumers’ willingness to pay for GM-

corn-fed beef". Journal of Agricultural and Food

Industrial Organization. 2004; 2(2):1-16.

5. James C. "ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of

Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011". ISAAA

Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the

Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).

Retrieved 2011-2012-06-02.

6. Center for Food Safety “About Genetically Engineered

Foods”

7. Gonsalves D. Transgenic papaya in Hawaii and beyond.

AgBioForum 2004; 7(1&2):36-40

8. Ronald, Pamela, McWilliams. James Genetically

Engineered Distortions the New York Times, May 14,

2010, Retrieved July 26, 2010.

9. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/new-leaf-

potato.aspx

10. The History and Future of GM Potatoes".Potatopro.com.

2010-03-10.Retrieved 2012-12-29.

11. Research in Germany, November 17, 2011. Business

BASF applies for approval for another biotech potato.

12. Johnson, Stanley R et al. Quantification of the Impacts on

US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted

in 2006 National Center for Food and Agricultural

Policy, Washington DC, February 2008. Retrieved

August 12, 2010.

13. Staff. South Dakota State University, College of

Agriculture and Biological Sciences, Agricultural

Experiment Station. June 2004. Corn-Based Food

Production in South Dakota: A Preliminary Feasibility

Study.

14. Singh P et al. [1] Functional and Edible Uses of Soy

Protein Products Comprehensive Reviews in Food

Science and Food Safety 2008; (7)1:14–28

15. Presentation by Dr. Karl Weingartner and Bridget Owen

of the National Soybean Research Laboratory, University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. March. Soy Protein

Applications in Nutrition & Food Technology, 2009

16. Staff, World Initiative for Soy in Human Health

(WISHH) Soy Protein Concentrate Reference Guide.

17. "Soyatech.com". Soyatech.com. Retrieved 2012-12-29.

18. Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, 2006. Food Fats

and Oils accessdate=2011-11-

19. Michelle Simon for Food Safety News. ConAgra Sued

Over GMO ’100 per cent Natural’ Cooking Oils, August

24, 2011.

20. "Ingredients of margarine". Imace.org. Retrieved 2012,

12-29.

21. Miller, Henry. "A golden opportunity, squandered".

Trends in biotechnology 2009; 27(3):129–130.

22. "How Cooking Oil is Made". Madehow.com. 1991-04-

27.Retrieved 2012-12-29.

23. Crevel RW et al. Allergenicity of refined vegetable oils.

Food Chem Toxicol. Article analyzed oil for protein

content - this is a non-GM oil but shows the principle

2000; 38(4):385-93.

24. "International Starch: Production of corn starch".

Starch.dk. Retrieved 2011-06-12.

25. "ISAAA Pocket K No. 2: Plant Products of

Biotechnology". Isaaa.org. Retrieved 2012-12-29.

26. Law, Barry A. Technology of Cheesemaking. UK:

WILEY-BLACKWELL. ISBN 978-1-4051-8298-0.

2010, 100-101.

27. "Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science,

Regulation, and Issues". U.S. Department of State.

Retrieved, 2006-08-14.

28. http://www.chr-hansen.com/products/product-

areas/enzymes/our-product-offering.html

29. http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/

30. http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003

:268:0024:0028:EN:PDF

31. Greg Cima, November for JAVMA News. November 18,

2010. Appellate court gives mixed ruling on Ohio rBST

labelling rules

32. leagle.com. "INTERNATIONAL DAIRY FOODS ASS'N

v. BOGGS – Argued: June 10, 2010". Leagle.com.

33. Staff, National Centre for Biotechnology Education, Case

Study: Chymosin, 2006.

34. A Living Modified Organism (LMO) is defined in the

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as any living organism

that possesses a novel combination of genetic material

obtained through the use of modern biotechnology. The

Protocol also defines the terms 'living organism' and

'modern biotechnology'

35. Article 4

(http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/articles.shtml?a=cpb-04)

36. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety List of Parties:

http://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml#tab=1

37. “Genetically modified crops”,part 4,

www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2490e/i2490e04d.pdf

38. Framework Document_FSSAI_2012-13(07-05-2012),

www.fssai.gov.in/GazettedNotifications.aspx

39. 37th report of committee on agriculture, August, (2012)

on topic “Cultivation of Genetically Modified Food crops

–Prospects and Effects”,

http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Agriculture/GM_Rep

ort.pdf

40. Bansal Sangeeta “Labelling of Genetically Modified

Foods in India” Economic and Political weekly, August

24, 2013; XLVIII(34):15-17

41. Agri-Food Past, Present & Future Report, http://www.ats-

sea.agr.gc.ca/asi/4574-eng.htm(7/09/2013)

42. “The ‘Bird of gold’: The Rise of India’s Consumer

Market”, May, 2007.

http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/india/mckinseyonind

ia/pdf/India_Consumer_Market.pdf

43. “The Consumption Pattern of the Rising Middle Class in

India” January 06, 2013,

http://www.boaoreview.com/report-

2012//2012/1125/38.html, retrieved on September 22,

2013

44. “Exports & Imports :: Import Procedure”

http://agritech.tnau.ac.in/export_import/importsystem_pr

ocedure_introduction.html

45. “Premium food brands boom in India”

www.warc.com/LatestNews/News/Premium_food_brand

s_boom_inIndia_.news?l D=30740, retrieved on

September 3, 2013

46. Gregory Jaffe, Director of the CSPI Biotechnology

Project. “Straight Talk on Genetically Engineered

Foods”, http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/biotech-faq.pdf

~ 2282 ~


47. www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08/India-seen-defying-

rupee-plunge-to-import-record-cooking-oils.html

48. Corn Refiners Association.Corn Oil 5th Edition, 2006

49. Greg Jaffe, Director of Biotechnology at the Center for

Science in the Public Interest. In the Atlantic. February 7,

2013. What You Need to Know About Genetically

Engineered Food.

50. Gertruida M Marx, Dissertation submitted in fulfillment

of requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in

the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free

State, South Africa. December 2010. Monitoring of

Genetically Modified Food Products in South Africa.

51. Staff, Food Navigator.com, July 1, 2005. Danisco

emulsifier to substitute non-GM soy lecithin as demand

outstrips supply

52. Isolated Soy Proteins

53. John Davison, Yves Bertheau. EU regulations on the

traceability and detection of GMOs: difficulties in

interpretation, implementation and compliance CAB

Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary

Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 2007, 2(77).

54. John E. Peters and Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam (Hon’ble Ex.

President), India a Vision for the new Millennium,

Chapter 4 Food, Agriculture & Processing, 2020.

Documents

e study of India - phytojournal.com · Argentine Canola Papaya Soybean Potato ... Traceability in meat, milk, ... and it is possible only if all buyers