Issue #4 2021-09-06
Issue #4 2021-09-06
A doctored food safety report, gene-edited food rules unpacked and how to eat Chris Hemsworth (with whisky)
A plant protein start-up, a doctored food safety report and stolen trade secrets
Genome edited foods; their definition, regulatory status and labelling rules
Forced labour in US fruit and vegetable supply chains
Eating Chris Hemsworth
Food fraud incidents added to the Food Fraud Risk Information Database in the past week
Hello!
Welcome to Issue 4 of The Rotten Apple, a weekly newsletter for professionals, policy-makers and purveyors.
Last week there was excitement among food compliance commentators over the publishing of a ‘primer’ on the world-wide regulatory status of GMO foods. In this issue thought I would briefly summarise the primer for you. But I failed. “Briefly summarise”? Not a chance! Instead, I decided to ask, and answer, some of the most pressing questions about genetically modified and gene-edited foods for food professionals, policy-makers and purveyors. I hope you find them helpful.
Also in this issue, the story of a fraudulently altered food safety report, with an unexpected twist. Plus a new risk assessment method for forced labour in supply chains is put to the test on US fruit and veg. Oh, and Chris Hemsworth, with whisky.
Have a great week,
Karen
P.S. If you want to know why I created this newsletter, read this.
Food Fraud
A doctored food safety report and stolen trade secrets
This is the story of a falsified food safety report. But it’s not what you think. The food safety report was doctored to make it look WORSE than it was. Surely anyone who fakes a food safety report makes it appear better, not worse?....
Once upon a time there was a plant protein start-up that created a huge amount of hype for its flagship product, a plant-based burger that is – they say – just as juicy and meaty as a traditional burger. The product contains beet juice ‘blood’ and is a segment leader in plant-based burgers.
The start-up engaged the services of an experienced food manufacturer to produce its burgers for customers like Wholefoods in the US. The manufacturer was Don Lee Farms, a California-based producer with almost 40 years’ experience in plant-based and meat-based protein. The agreement was a five-year exclusive supply agreement.
The relationship soon soured and the food start-up, Beyond Meat walked away from the contract and took their business elsewhere. Don Lee Farms claim they took processes developed under the exclusive supply agreement and shared the information with their new suppliers. It claims to have shared trade secrets, technology and production know-how with Beyond Meat and is suing Beyond Meat for fraud and breach of contract. Beyond Meat countersued.
But what about the doctored food safety report?
Don Lee Farms says that during the partnership they became concerned that raw materials produced by Beyond Meat, and presumably sent to Don Lee Farms for processing, were contaminated. They say this was the result of poor food safety protocols at Beyond Meat’s facility.
So perhaps Beyond Meat were doctoring food safety reports to cover up problems in their own processes? Nope. They did not doctor food safety reports to make themselves look better. Instead, Don Lee Farms alleges that Beyond Meat altered Don Lee Farm’s reports to make Don Lee Farms look worse. They then used the fraudulent report(s) as justification for breaking the contract, citing the false food safety concerns.
Last week, a Los Angeles court ruled against Don Lee Farms’ claims that Beyond Meat stole trade secrets. However, the other charges, including those related to the fraudulent food safety reports remain and will be contested in court in May 2022.
In short: 🍏 A brand owner and their co-manufacturer had a dispute 🍏 One alleges the other stole trade secrets and process-know-how 🍏 Food safety report(s) were falsified by one party to make the other look bad and to provide an excuse to break the contract 🍏 Lawyers and courts are involved 🍏
Sources:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210831006036/en/
https://www.foodprocessing.com/industrynews/2021/beyond-meat-wins-ruling-against-former-co-packer/
Food Regulations
Genome edited foods; their definition, regulatory status and labelling rules
With the rise of new gene editing techniques, including CRISPR*, the international food industry is scrutinising regulations around genetically modified and gene-edited organisms used for food.
I thought I’d give you a quick summary. But I thought wrong. Quick summary? I wish!
Some regulators and policy-makers make a distinction between foods produced by gene editing techniques and those they consider to be GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Others do not.
Alongside different definitions, individual countries use different methods for regulating GMOs and gene-edited foods. Plus, there are significantly different requirements for labelling of affected foods across the globe. It’s a challenge.
Instead of trying to list all the rules and regulations for different countries I thought this Q and A might provide a helpful foundation. As always, there are links to all sources, plus more information at the end of this section.
Question 1. Is gene editing and genetic modification the same thing?
Depends who you ask. Dr Bill Muir, Biotechnologist at Purdue University (USA), says that a GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) is any organism that has had its DNA modified, but not by classical breeding. And he says that according to that definition, gene editing is a specific type of genetic modification. According to Dr Muir, gene editing is more accurate and precise than older gene modification techniques.
Plant Geneticist Matthew R Willmann, speaking at the World Science Festival, March 2020, agrees and takes it one step further. He says that all methods, including conventional plant breeding are genetic modification.
Others, including the United Kingdom’s Food Safety Authority, disagree. They consider a GMO contains DNA from a different species, while gene-edited organisms only contain genetic material from their own species.
One group (Bullock, et al, link below) describes it such:
“In a very simple way, [GM and GE] technologies can be compared as technologies that “knock-in” versus “knock-out” genetic material, respectively, for GM and GE. GM plants are created by inserting another organism’s DNA (transgene insertion) into the original plant’s DNA……. [and] GE varieties are created by cutting out a part of a plant’s DNA or editing a part of the plant’s DNA.”
Question 2. Is gene editing the same as CRISPR*? (and what is CRISPR anyway?)
CRISPR is a method of doing gene editing. Other methods include TALEN and Zinc Finger.
CRIPR standards for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.
CRISPR has been likened to moving genetic material around in an organism’s DNA, like using a word processor to cut and paste words. Conventional breeding techniques, by contrast, can be thought of as using scissor and glue to edit the same information.
Question 3. What is a CRISPR-altered plant or animal?
CRISPR results in changes to the genomes of plants and animals that you could create without using foreign DNA.
The technology is significantly cheaper, easier and faster than older forms of bio-engineering. The technology is being used widely in plant and animal health and the agrifood industry.
Question 4. Is it possible to detect whether a food derives from a gene-edited organism?
Assuming we accept the definition of a gene-edited food as one that has not had DNA from a different species inserted into its genome, then no: a gene-edited plant or animal cannot be easily identified as such.
Question 5. What do consumers think about gene-edited Foods?
According to research commissioned by the United Kingdom’s Food Safety Authority and published in July 2021, consumers in the UK aren’t exactly sure what gene-edited food means.
When researchers educated consumers, telling them that gene-edited foods are foods that could be created using conventional breeding techniques, the consumers were more accepting of them than of foods modified by inserting DNA from other species.
The same research also found that consumers are generally more accepting of plant foods that have been genetically altered compared to animal foods.
Question 6. What do regulators say about GMOs and gene-edited foods?
Some countries or jurisdictions base their regulations upon the processes used to create the foods. These countries make an explicit distinction between conventional breeding, gene insertion technologies (DNA from other species) and – for some countries - gene editing (DNA from the same species). These countries have different rules for novel foods produced using the different technologies. European Union and Australian regulations work in that way.
Other countries, including Argentina, Canada and the United States, consider only the finished product, considering the safety of each novel food on its own merits.
Question 7. What are the labelling rules?
Some countries/jurisdictions, including the European Union, Australia and Brazil have mandatory labelling requirements for foods derived from, or containing GMOs. Other countries do not have mandatory labelling for GMO foods.
Question 8. Where to from here?
There are disagreements and disputes before the World Trade Organisation relating to cross-border regulatory issues and definitions of novel foods produced by gene modification and gene editing.
Some countries, including the United Kingdom, are currently reviewing their regulatory stance on foods derived from gene edited (eg. CRISPR-technique) organisms.
Consumers continue to be wary of foods derived from non-conventional gene techniques, particularly techniques where DNA from different species are combined and particularly for animal foods.
Watch this space….
In short: 🍏 Foods derived from gene-edited organisms are (sometimes) considered to be different from GMO foods (foods derived from genetically modified organisms) 🍏 But not by everyone 🍏 This affects regulatory status and rules for labelling 🍏 Definitions, regulations for approving such food and labelling rules vary from country to country 🍏 Organisations who want to buy and sell food across borders are confused and/or cranky 🍏
Sources and further information:
What is Gene Editing? Dr Bill Muir, Biotechnologist at Purdue University, IN, USA (video): https:/ /youtu.be/SkziFTwDRQ8
Definitions (Bullock et al): https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/293186/files/AAE793.pdf
Consumer Perceptions (United Kingdom Food Safety Authority): https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/consumer-perceptions-of-genome-edited-food.pdf (this is a direct download pdf link)
Is a CRISPR-altered Plant a GMO? (Plant Genetiscist Matthew R Willmann, speaking at the World Science Festival, March 2020), (video): https:/ /youtube.com/watch?v=VcY9wv8Z1jU
Comparison of international regulations: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/comparing-international-approaches-to-food-safety-regulation-of-gm-and-novel-foods_0.pdf (this is a direct download pdf link)
Ethical Supply Chains
Forced labour in US fruit and vegetable supply chains
Researchers have recently published a method for assessing the risk of forced labour in supply chains. They applied the risk assessment method to fruits and vegetables in the US retail supply chain.
The researchers combined data from labour practices in the country of origin (which included imports and US-grown foods) with commodity-specific information, such as whether the produce is usually harvested by hand or by machine .
Most food-country combinations were judged to be high risk or very high risk for having forced labour within their supply chains. Only 4.5% of the 307 food-country combinations the researchers looked at were scored as medium risk. Only 3.5% were scored as low risk.
The most ‘at risk’ fruits were avocadoes, bananas, tangerines, fresh pineapples and processed pineapples. These fruits accounted for 40% of the total contribution of forced labour risk in the US retail supply chain for fruit.
The worst-scoring vegetables were fresh tomatoes, fresh green peppers, processed chilli peppers, processed tomatoes and fresh asparagus. These five vegetables accounted for more of the overall supply chain risk than all other vegetables combined.
Unsurprisingly, the researchers highlighted a lack of data as one reason for the high risk ratings. Their forced labour risk assessment scoring method could prove useful to supply chain professionals and policy-makers.
In short: 🍏 We don’t have good data about the prevalence of forced labour in food supply chains 🍏 Researchers rated fruit and veg from the US retail supply chain according to their country of origin and commodity type 🍏 Most fruit and veg was judged to be high risk or very high risk for forced labour 🍏 Avacadoes and fresh tomatoes were among the foods most at risk 🍏
Read more:
https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/news/155762/forced-labour-food-supply/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00348-z
Just for Fun
Eating Chris Hemsworth
Celebrity stem cell meat could be the next big thing.
Stems cells from celebrities are – supposedly – being used to create meat cubes that you can eat as hors d’oeuvres.
According to their marketers, they are served “dipped in a whiskey glaze” and are “deliciously addictive”.
🍏 Okaaaaay. 🍏
Read more: https://bistro-invitro.com/en/dishes/celebrity-cubes/
Food Fraud Incidents and Horizon Scanning
Food fraud incidents added to the Food Fraud Risk Information Database in the past week
Nothing new this week.