MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2603063009

One Turkey, Seven Drumsticks: A Look at Genetically Modified Food Labeling Laws in the United States and the European Union

2016· article· en· W2603063009 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica A. Murray

Notice bibliographique

RevueSuffolk transnational law review · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEuropean unionGenetically modified foodGenetically modified organismFood and drug administrationPolitical scienceBiotechnologyBusinessLawAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceInternational tradeEconomicsBiology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION If you want to know whether the lunch you eat exceeds the suggested daily caloric intake, or if it contains high fructose corn syrup, you simply read the label to find out. (1) If you would like to know if the food you are eating contains a genetically modified organism (GMo), however, you will not find that information on the package. (2) Currently, up to 80% of processed foods contain GMos and with the American diet largely consisting of processed foods, chances are, a majority of what you are eating contains food made in a lab. (3) In 2006, the United States became the world's largest producer of genetically engineered (GE) crops and while proponents argue that GE crops provide important benefits, such as increased crop yields and decreased pesticide usage, opponents claim that there are significant risks such as the transfer of genetically modified proteins to human cells. (4) Despite consumer desire for GMO labeling, and the overwhelming amount of countries that require some type of regulation, the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided almost twenty years ago that GMOs do not need to be labeled, reasoning that they were not materially different from other foods. (5) GE plants have been strongly resisted in Europe, and in response to public fear and desire to abolish the growth and importation of GMOs, the European Union tried to ban the use of GMOs completely. (6) The United States, Argentina, and Canada, however, challenged this ban at the World Trade Organization leaving the European Union to rely on strict processes and labeling regimes in order to control the domestic growth and importation of GMOs. (7) The anti-GMO attitude of the European Union has spread, resulting in sixty-four countries' mandating GMO food labeling laws in place, while the United States lags behind. (8) Currently, in the United States, more than seventy bills have been introduced at the Federal level in over thirty states to either require GMO labeling or prohibit genetically engineered foods. (9) This Note proposes a framework for establishing mandated labeling of GMOs in the United States as a result of comparing current state initiatives in comparison to the E.U. regime. (10) Part II provides the history and development of biotechnology, addressing concerns regarding GMOs. (11) Part III discusses the effects of GMOs giving rise to mandatory labeling laws and rationale behind consumers' right to know what is in their food. (12) Part IV will examine the E.U.'s approach to regulating agricultural biotechnology in comparison to current food labeling laws in the United States. (13) Part V will propose a labeling regime for the United States based on that of the European Union, which allows all states to have some form of GMO labeling law in place, through state police powers. (14) Finally, this Note concludes with a discussion of potential issues, namely economic issues that companies may face due to inconsistencies nation-wide and a shift in consumer behavior away from GMOs, that could be the result of the proposed labeling regime led by individual states. (15) II. HISTORY AND CONTROVERSY OF BIOTECHNOLOGY For 10,000 years, farmers have been selecting and breeding desirable characteristics to improve plants and animals that are commonly used in crop and livestock agriculture. (16) Biotechnology has developed in such a way that researchers can take one or more specific genes from any organism and introduce that gene into the genome of another organism. (17) Scientists start by identifying a desired gene, then cutting that gene out of the DNA of an organism, copying the gene, adding other DNA to both ends of the copied gene, and introducing it to the cells of another organism, resulting in the production of new varieties of crops. (18) As described above, the use of biotechnology through recombinant DNA has increased over time, as the first genetically engineered plant varieties were planted in the United States and Canada in 1990 and the first commercial release of such plant varieties was in 1992. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,733
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,247

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,244
Écart entre enseignants0,208 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSuffolk transnational law reviewMême sujetGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchTravaux en français237 207