Europos Sąjungos (ES) ir Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų (JAV) teisės aktai, reglamentuojantys Genetiškai modifikuotus organizmus (GMO)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim and objectives: The aim is to find the main difference in the legislation and opinion on GMOs in the EU and the US. In order to find the main difference in the legislation and opinion on GMOs in the EU and the US, following questions will be addressed: 1. Where do the legislations and policies on GMOs mainly differ? 2. What is the outcome of the EU and US regulatory regimes? 3. What is the public opinion on GMOs? Methodology: The author is conducting a comparative research with the aim to find the main differences in the legislation and opinion on GMOs in the EU and the US. Public governmental documents, scientific publications and legal reports will be analyzed and compared. Results: The EU has strict legislations regulating GMOs while the US lack a legislation specific to GMOs. All genetically modified (GM) food products in the EU must go through a process of authorization before introduced to the EU market, while in the US GM food products can get a premarket approval which exempts them from the process of authorization. All GM food products must be labeled in the EU, exemption to the rule is if the product does not exceed the threshold of 0.9 %. In the US there are no labeling requirements unless the product is materially different from conventional food products. The outcome of the EU and US regulatory regimes are that approval of new GM products and cultivation of GMOs are much higher than in the EU. The general public in the EU are more aware of GMOs than in the US. The majority of the people asked in the EU and the US supports labeling of GM foods. Conclusion: GMOs are less regulated in the US due to lack of specific legislation to it. Premarket approval makes it easier to get GM foods approved in the US. The US nonmandatory labeling rule makes it harder for consumers to make an informed choice, which strongly favors the manufacturer. People in EU are more aware of GMOs. EU and the US assess the potential risks and benefits of GMO use differently although same scientific data are evaluated. The GM business in the US is more lucrative than in the EU.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".