Techniques such as radioimmunoassay (RIA), agglutination, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), require less concentration of the food extracts ; thus, they save time and are more sensitive. Latex agglutination (16) appears promising as a serological tool for identifying staphylococcal enterotoxins. Several ELISA methods (26,28,30,32,37,38,39) have been proposed for the identification of enterotoxins in foods, but, except for a polyvalent ELISA (7,9), their specificity has not been studied extensively.
Among ELISA methods, the "double antibody sandwich" ELISA is the method of choice, because reagents are commercially available in polyvalent and monovalent formats for both toxin screening and serotype specific identification(22). An automated enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (ELFA) has been developed and is commercially available.
This method has undergone specificity and sensitivity evaluations and has proven to be an effective serological system for the identification of staphylococcal enterotoxin in a wide variety of foods (14). Other methods, which have been used in the identification of the staphylococcal enterotoxins and may have application in foods, are the T-cell proliferation assay (35), and polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) combined with Western blotting (2).
References
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/bam-13a.html
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
toxic substances
Toxic Substances
Toxicant is a substance which when ingested at high levels produces harmful actions on Biolog mechanisms.
Natural toxicants can occur as contaminants of natural food products or as normal components of such foods. Contaminants can be of microbiological origin, such as toxins produced by bacteria, or they can be taken up by the food product in its normal growth process.
Comparative toxicology refers to comparing the concentration of inherent toxins, those that are naturally occurring and present in the food with the concentration of inherent toxins in the traditional counterpart of the new food.
Inherent substances are a subset of the naturally occurring chemicals that includes all substances except those that are not of biosynthetic origin and that are intentionally introduced into food through human activity. It is through this definition, mycotoxins are naturally occurring, even if they developed through mould growth.
Inherent toxicants are not the only undesirable food constituents. Food contaminants may be naturally occurring or synthetic.
The most important are naturally occurring contaminants in particular those produced by microorganisms. Microorganisms or their toxins occur far more frequently. Two general kinds of microbial toxins are mycotoxins and bacterial food poisoning toxins.
References
http://www.nafex.org/jansonfiles/JansonJuly77.htm
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/page1.htm http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/fsc_1_4_1_Contaminants_v78.pdf
Toxicant is a substance which when ingested at high levels produces harmful actions on Biolog mechanisms.
Natural toxicants can occur as contaminants of natural food products or as normal components of such foods. Contaminants can be of microbiological origin, such as toxins produced by bacteria, or they can be taken up by the food product in its normal growth process.
Comparative toxicology refers to comparing the concentration of inherent toxins, those that are naturally occurring and present in the food with the concentration of inherent toxins in the traditional counterpart of the new food.
Inherent substances are a subset of the naturally occurring chemicals that includes all substances except those that are not of biosynthetic origin and that are intentionally introduced into food through human activity. It is through this definition, mycotoxins are naturally occurring, even if they developed through mould growth.
Inherent toxicants are not the only undesirable food constituents. Food contaminants may be naturally occurring or synthetic.
The most important are naturally occurring contaminants in particular those produced by microorganisms. Microorganisms or their toxins occur far more frequently. Two general kinds of microbial toxins are mycotoxins and bacterial food poisoning toxins.
References
http://www.nafex.org/jansonfiles/JansonJuly77.htm
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/page1.htm http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/fsc_1_4_1_Contaminants_v78.pdf
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Package: Myths & Facts of GM Food
Hey people...
Some of these myths and facts may be of use for us...
Biotech Myth #1: Biotechnology is nothing new. The use of genetic engineering to improve food crops is merely a natural extension of plant breeding techniques that have been used since time immemorial. Promoters of agricultural biotechnology insist that genetic engineering is just a faster and more precise way to improve crops than traditional plant breeding methods, which can take several generations of breeding and therefore be a lot more time-consuming.
Fact: While it is true that conventional breeding methods have yielded a wide variety of plants and animals that did not exist previously, the genes that produce those traits have come from within their own or closely-related species. Modern genetic engineering can take genes from a species such as a fish or a virus and place them into an entirely different species, such as a tomato. This gives humans--actually, corporations--radical new powers, with unpredictable consequences.
Biotech Myth #2: Biotech foods are the most extensively researched and regulated food products ever.
Fact: Every industry likes to pretend that its products are the most extensively researched and regulated products in existence. The nuclear power industry has made this claim, as have the makers of vinyl chloride, dioxin, fen-phen, MSG and Olestra.
Back in 1992, the FDA decreed that genetically engineered foods were no different than conventional foods. Under FDA law, unless a food is "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS), a legal determination, it must be thoroughly tested. Because biotech foods have been determined "GRAS," they undergo no independent safety testing. Instead, government regulators rely on biotech companies to do their own safety tests and also determine themselves if the product in question is GRAS.
Testing biotech crops for their environmental safety is equally lax. It is up to the USDA to ensure that genetically modified crops are ecologically safe. The New York Times recently reported that the agency has not rejected a single application for a biotech crop and that many scientists say "the department has relied on unsupported claims and shoddy studies by the seed companies."
Biotech Myth #3: Genetically engineered crops will allow us to reduce, if not eliminate, environmentally toxic pesticides and fertilizers. Biotechnology is therefore good for the environment.
Fact: So far, the opposite has been true. The vast majority of genetically engineered crops currently on the market have been modified to either withstand herbicide (so that more can be sprayed) or produce their own insecticide.
This year, more than half of the US soybean crop was genetically engineered to survive spraying with Monsanto's best-selling weedkiller, Roundup. An analysis of 8,200 university research trials revealed that farmers planting Roundup Ready soybeans are using two to five times as much of the herbicide as farmers growing conventional varieties. Chuck Benbrook, who reported the results of the studies, said nobody is testing the crops for increased residues of Roundup. The EPA, moreover, has raised the allowable residue limits for Roundup on forage crops.
Producing a plant that can make its own insecticide so that farmers don't have to spray insecticides may sound like a good idea, but anything more than the most superficial consideration reveals otherwise. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a natural soil bacterium that destroys the digestive tracts of certain very pesky insects, like the Colorado Potato Beetle and the European Corn Borer. It is one of the safest insecticides known and has been used in spray form by organic farmers for years. Biotech companies have engineered crops--corn, cotton, canola, and potatoes--with a Bt gene so that Bt crops express the toxin in every cell of the plant. Such widespread use of the toxin will eventually make the bugs it targets resistant to it. That's just evolution, plain and simple. The loss of Bt, which is currently used sparingly by organic farmers, will deprive sustainable agriculture of one of its most effective tools.
Another point that biotech promoters never mention is that unlike other forms of pollution, genetic pollution produces live organisms that can grow, reproduce, mutate, and migrate. For that reason, genetic pollution may cause greater long-term harm than the petrochemical toxins now plaguing the planet, as Jeremy Rifkin observes in his book, The Biotech Century.
Already there have been instances of genes escaping much farther than anyone predicted. Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article last year saying, "There's no way of knowing what the downstream effects will be or how [genetic engineering] might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another" (emphasis his).
Biotech Myth #4: Biotechnology will increase crop yields, help farmers and rebuild rural economies.
Fact: So far, the opposite has been true. Aside from throwing corn and soybean growers into a tailspin because of the international consumer revolt against genetic engineering, 8,200 university research trials comparing the performance of different varieties of soybeans show that yields of genetically engineered herbicide resistant soybeans are lower than comparable conventional varieties. Since more than half of the soybeans planted this year were Roundup Ready varieties, the 5-10 percent yield drag is a significant drop--some 80 to 100 million bushels.
The contracts governing the use of transgenic seeds are not exactly farmer-friendly, either. Genetic engineering turns the seeds themselves into "intellectual property," so the farmers using the seeds don't legally own them. Monsanto likes to use the analogy of leasing a car--at the end of the lease, the car is returned. This new ownership arrangement makes it illegal to engage in the time-honored practice of saving seeds, a practice which is especially common in the Third World. In the United States and Canada, Monsanto pressed this concept to the point of hiring private investigators to swipe plants from farmers who didn't buy their seeds to see if they are planting Monsanto's transgenic varieties. Monsanto has also encouraged its farmers to snitch on neighbors they suspected of planting transgenics without paying for them. There's even a case in Canada of an elderly farmer who is being sued by Monsanto for intellectual property theft. He swears he never planted Monsanto's transgenic seed, yet it showed up in his field, quite possibly through genetic drift--i.e., contamination of his crops by wind-blown, genetically-engineered pollen. While this type of harassment continues, genetic engineering can be considered a "benefit" to rural communities only insofar as farmers enjoy living in a police state.
Biotech Myth #5: Biotechnology is the only hope we have to feed a growing world population.
Fact: Starvation and malnutrition are very real problems, but they are caused by unequal distribution of wealth, not by food scarcity. According to the United Nations World Food Program, there is currently more than enough food produced to feed everyone on the planet an adequate and healthy diet. The reason that approximately 800 million people go hungry each year is that they don't have access to food by either being able to afford it or grow their own. Biotechnology, by turning living crops into "intellectual property," increases corporate control over food resources and production. Rather than alleviate world hunger, biotechnology is likely to exacerbate it by increasing everybody's dependence on the corporate sector for seeds and the materials.
From : http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question148.htm&url=http://www.vegsource.com/articles/gmo_feed_myth.htm
Some of these myths and facts may be of use for us...
Biotech Myth #1: Biotechnology is nothing new. The use of genetic engineering to improve food crops is merely a natural extension of plant breeding techniques that have been used since time immemorial. Promoters of agricultural biotechnology insist that genetic engineering is just a faster and more precise way to improve crops than traditional plant breeding methods, which can take several generations of breeding and therefore be a lot more time-consuming.
Fact: While it is true that conventional breeding methods have yielded a wide variety of plants and animals that did not exist previously, the genes that produce those traits have come from within their own or closely-related species. Modern genetic engineering can take genes from a species such as a fish or a virus and place them into an entirely different species, such as a tomato. This gives humans--actually, corporations--radical new powers, with unpredictable consequences.
Biotech Myth #2: Biotech foods are the most extensively researched and regulated food products ever.
Fact: Every industry likes to pretend that its products are the most extensively researched and regulated products in existence. The nuclear power industry has made this claim, as have the makers of vinyl chloride, dioxin, fen-phen, MSG and Olestra.
Back in 1992, the FDA decreed that genetically engineered foods were no different than conventional foods. Under FDA law, unless a food is "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS), a legal determination, it must be thoroughly tested. Because biotech foods have been determined "GRAS," they undergo no independent safety testing. Instead, government regulators rely on biotech companies to do their own safety tests and also determine themselves if the product in question is GRAS.
Testing biotech crops for their environmental safety is equally lax. It is up to the USDA to ensure that genetically modified crops are ecologically safe. The New York Times recently reported that the agency has not rejected a single application for a biotech crop and that many scientists say "the department has relied on unsupported claims and shoddy studies by the seed companies."
Biotech Myth #3: Genetically engineered crops will allow us to reduce, if not eliminate, environmentally toxic pesticides and fertilizers. Biotechnology is therefore good for the environment.
Fact: So far, the opposite has been true. The vast majority of genetically engineered crops currently on the market have been modified to either withstand herbicide (so that more can be sprayed) or produce their own insecticide.
This year, more than half of the US soybean crop was genetically engineered to survive spraying with Monsanto's best-selling weedkiller, Roundup. An analysis of 8,200 university research trials revealed that farmers planting Roundup Ready soybeans are using two to five times as much of the herbicide as farmers growing conventional varieties. Chuck Benbrook, who reported the results of the studies, said nobody is testing the crops for increased residues of Roundup. The EPA, moreover, has raised the allowable residue limits for Roundup on forage crops.
Producing a plant that can make its own insecticide so that farmers don't have to spray insecticides may sound like a good idea, but anything more than the most superficial consideration reveals otherwise. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a natural soil bacterium that destroys the digestive tracts of certain very pesky insects, like the Colorado Potato Beetle and the European Corn Borer. It is one of the safest insecticides known and has been used in spray form by organic farmers for years. Biotech companies have engineered crops--corn, cotton, canola, and potatoes--with a Bt gene so that Bt crops express the toxin in every cell of the plant. Such widespread use of the toxin will eventually make the bugs it targets resistant to it. That's just evolution, plain and simple. The loss of Bt, which is currently used sparingly by organic farmers, will deprive sustainable agriculture of one of its most effective tools.
Another point that biotech promoters never mention is that unlike other forms of pollution, genetic pollution produces live organisms that can grow, reproduce, mutate, and migrate. For that reason, genetic pollution may cause greater long-term harm than the petrochemical toxins now plaguing the planet, as Jeremy Rifkin observes in his book, The Biotech Century.
Already there have been instances of genes escaping much farther than anyone predicted. Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article last year saying, "There's no way of knowing what the downstream effects will be or how [genetic engineering] might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another" (emphasis his).
Biotech Myth #4: Biotechnology will increase crop yields, help farmers and rebuild rural economies.
Fact: So far, the opposite has been true. Aside from throwing corn and soybean growers into a tailspin because of the international consumer revolt against genetic engineering, 8,200 university research trials comparing the performance of different varieties of soybeans show that yields of genetically engineered herbicide resistant soybeans are lower than comparable conventional varieties. Since more than half of the soybeans planted this year were Roundup Ready varieties, the 5-10 percent yield drag is a significant drop--some 80 to 100 million bushels.
The contracts governing the use of transgenic seeds are not exactly farmer-friendly, either. Genetic engineering turns the seeds themselves into "intellectual property," so the farmers using the seeds don't legally own them. Monsanto likes to use the analogy of leasing a car--at the end of the lease, the car is returned. This new ownership arrangement makes it illegal to engage in the time-honored practice of saving seeds, a practice which is especially common in the Third World. In the United States and Canada, Monsanto pressed this concept to the point of hiring private investigators to swipe plants from farmers who didn't buy their seeds to see if they are planting Monsanto's transgenic varieties. Monsanto has also encouraged its farmers to snitch on neighbors they suspected of planting transgenics without paying for them. There's even a case in Canada of an elderly farmer who is being sued by Monsanto for intellectual property theft. He swears he never planted Monsanto's transgenic seed, yet it showed up in his field, quite possibly through genetic drift--i.e., contamination of his crops by wind-blown, genetically-engineered pollen. While this type of harassment continues, genetic engineering can be considered a "benefit" to rural communities only insofar as farmers enjoy living in a police state.
Biotech Myth #5: Biotechnology is the only hope we have to feed a growing world population.
Fact: Starvation and malnutrition are very real problems, but they are caused by unequal distribution of wealth, not by food scarcity. According to the United Nations World Food Program, there is currently more than enough food produced to feed everyone on the planet an adequate and healthy diet. The reason that approximately 800 million people go hungry each year is that they don't have access to food by either being able to afford it or grow their own. Biotechnology, by turning living crops into "intellectual property," increases corporate control over food resources and production. Rather than alleviate world hunger, biotechnology is likely to exacerbate it by increasing everybody's dependence on the corporate sector for seeds and the materials.
From : http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question148.htm&url=http://www.vegsource.com/articles/gmo_feed_myth.htm
Package 2:Concerns on genetically modified food
It is now possible to breed, virtually overnight, plants and animals with improved nutritional and health benefits to humans. This compares to the thousands of years it has taken to breed the familiar varieties we see today. Scientists can insert genes from one organism into another to produce, for example, extra vitamins, less fat and substances that are in short supply or difficult to manufacture. Genetically modified bacteria producing chymosin have largely replaced calves, whose stomach was the only source of rennet for cheese making.
Biotechnology companies have rushed to produce characteristics such as resistance to drought, disease and insects in food crops that previously did not have them. Many new crops require less processing in the factories and fewer additives. Because they have genes that make them last longer, there is less wastage. .
Another possible benefit is the reduced use of pesticides, fertilisers and energy compared to conventional farming methods. Farmers do not need to till the soil, lessening soil erosion and reducing labour and machinery.
The development of global planning and production of food could be the means to eradicate poverty and hunger, but it will not happen if left in the hands of the biotechnology companies. The intense competition for markets and to realise a profit on investments undermines the possibility of planning in a co-operative and systematic way.
The demands for deregulation have greatly increased concerns about the safety of genetically modified food. When scientists move genes between organisms of the same species and between different species, entirely new problems are posed.
Said Dr. Pusztai who is a world authority in plant chemicals research, it is difficult to predict how the introduced genes will interact with existing ones, or what the possible side effects on humans or the environment will be. Testing on laboratory rats may not reveal possible effects on humans or other species.The biotechnology companies admit there are dangers, but say research is thorough and the industry well regulated. However, things have gone wrong. Salmon that grow twice as fast as normal have escaped into the wild and one company had to withdraw some oil-seed rape seeds because they contained the "wrong" gene. There are concerns that genes resistant to pesticide and antibiotics could spread. Recent research has shown that a new type of herbicide-resistant oil-seed rape can cross breed with a related wild weed, making it resistant.
Besides the safety problems, the effects on agricultural practices have been enormous as the biotechnology companies reach into every corner of the world. In India, farmers have grown certain varieties of rice for thousands of years, but companies have patented many of these strains and put them beyond the budgets of small farmers. Other farmers find themselves increasingly tied to the biotechnology companies. When they buy Monsanto's modified soya beans, for example, they have to spray with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide that kills all other plants. Only Monsanto's seeds and beans survive because they contain a gene that makes them resistant to the herbicide. Farmers must sign contracts that say they must not sow the seeds or beans produced by their crop the following year, and companies are developing "terminator technology" to prevent new seeds germinating.
In the 1980s the seed producers said the introduction of high yielding hybrid crops in the "Green Revolution" would end hunger and help poor farmers. Instead, the result has been the increased development of huge agribusinesses in the West "overproducing" and creating "food mountains" whilst millions starve in the Third World. Small farmers in both areas are ruined. It is cheaper for small farmers in Mexico to buy North American maize in their local markets than it is to grow their own. The development of genetically modified crops will exacerbate this development.
From: http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question148.htm&url=http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/nov1998/gen-n21.shtml
Biotechnology companies have rushed to produce characteristics such as resistance to drought, disease and insects in food crops that previously did not have them. Many new crops require less processing in the factories and fewer additives. Because they have genes that make them last longer, there is less wastage. .
Another possible benefit is the reduced use of pesticides, fertilisers and energy compared to conventional farming methods. Farmers do not need to till the soil, lessening soil erosion and reducing labour and machinery.
The development of global planning and production of food could be the means to eradicate poverty and hunger, but it will not happen if left in the hands of the biotechnology companies. The intense competition for markets and to realise a profit on investments undermines the possibility of planning in a co-operative and systematic way.
The demands for deregulation have greatly increased concerns about the safety of genetically modified food. When scientists move genes between organisms of the same species and between different species, entirely new problems are posed.
Said Dr. Pusztai who is a world authority in plant chemicals research, it is difficult to predict how the introduced genes will interact with existing ones, or what the possible side effects on humans or the environment will be. Testing on laboratory rats may not reveal possible effects on humans or other species.The biotechnology companies admit there are dangers, but say research is thorough and the industry well regulated. However, things have gone wrong. Salmon that grow twice as fast as normal have escaped into the wild and one company had to withdraw some oil-seed rape seeds because they contained the "wrong" gene. There are concerns that genes resistant to pesticide and antibiotics could spread. Recent research has shown that a new type of herbicide-resistant oil-seed rape can cross breed with a related wild weed, making it resistant.
Besides the safety problems, the effects on agricultural practices have been enormous as the biotechnology companies reach into every corner of the world. In India, farmers have grown certain varieties of rice for thousands of years, but companies have patented many of these strains and put them beyond the budgets of small farmers. Other farmers find themselves increasingly tied to the biotechnology companies. When they buy Monsanto's modified soya beans, for example, they have to spray with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide that kills all other plants. Only Monsanto's seeds and beans survive because they contain a gene that makes them resistant to the herbicide. Farmers must sign contracts that say they must not sow the seeds or beans produced by their crop the following year, and companies are developing "terminator technology" to prevent new seeds germinating.
In the 1980s the seed producers said the introduction of high yielding hybrid crops in the "Green Revolution" would end hunger and help poor farmers. Instead, the result has been the increased development of huge agribusinesses in the West "overproducing" and creating "food mountains" whilst millions starve in the Third World. Small farmers in both areas are ruined. It is cheaper for small farmers in Mexico to buy North American maize in their local markets than it is to grow their own. The development of genetically modified crops will exacerbate this development.
From: http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question148.htm&url=http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/nov1998/gen-n21.shtml
Package 2: GM foods
What are genetically modified (GM) foods?
In the past, the only tool to “genetically modifying” has been selective breeding. For example, if you wanted to create a breed of corn with resistance to a certain fungus, you would plant a plot of corn and see how individual plants did with the fungus. Then you would take seeds from the plants that did well, plant them, look at their performance against the fungus and so on over the years until you had created a strain of corn plant that had very high resistance to the fungus in question.
Using selective breeding techniques, people have created everything from variegated roses to giant pumpkins to strains of wheat with twice the yield and very high disease tolerance. In the same way, you can take chickens, analyze their eggs and find chickens with eggs that contain less cholesterol. Then you can breed them to create a strain of low-cholesterol chickens. You can select on any detectable trait and selectively breed members of the species that do well on that trait.
Genetic engineering techniques now allow scientists to insert specific genes into a plant or animal without having to go through the trial-and-error process of selective breeding. Genetic engineering is therefore extremely rapid compared to selective breeding. With genetic engineering, you can also cross species very easily.
There are a variety of techniques used to modify plants and animals through genetic engineering. For example, there is a widely used herbicide called Roundup, made by Monsanto. Roundup kills any plant that it touches. Monsanto has genetically modified soybeans and other crop plants to create "Roundup Ready" strains that are not affected by Roundup. By planting Roundup Ready seeds, a farmer can control weeds by spraying Roundup right over the crop. The crop completely ignores the herbicide, but the weeds are eliminated. Roundup Ready seeds reduce production costs and increase yield, so food becomes less expensive. Other scientists have inserted genes that produce a natural insecticide into corn plants to eliminate damage from corn borers, and a variety of anti-fungal genes can be inserted as well. The list goes on and on -- there really is no limit to what can be done.
Reference
http://home.howstuffworks.com/question148.htm
In the past, the only tool to “genetically modifying” has been selective breeding. For example, if you wanted to create a breed of corn with resistance to a certain fungus, you would plant a plot of corn and see how individual plants did with the fungus. Then you would take seeds from the plants that did well, plant them, look at their performance against the fungus and so on over the years until you had created a strain of corn plant that had very high resistance to the fungus in question.
Using selective breeding techniques, people have created everything from variegated roses to giant pumpkins to strains of wheat with twice the yield and very high disease tolerance. In the same way, you can take chickens, analyze their eggs and find chickens with eggs that contain less cholesterol. Then you can breed them to create a strain of low-cholesterol chickens. You can select on any detectable trait and selectively breed members of the species that do well on that trait.
Genetic engineering techniques now allow scientists to insert specific genes into a plant or animal without having to go through the trial-and-error process of selective breeding. Genetic engineering is therefore extremely rapid compared to selective breeding. With genetic engineering, you can also cross species very easily.
There are a variety of techniques used to modify plants and animals through genetic engineering. For example, there is a widely used herbicide called Roundup, made by Monsanto. Roundup kills any plant that it touches. Monsanto has genetically modified soybeans and other crop plants to create "Roundup Ready" strains that are not affected by Roundup. By planting Roundup Ready seeds, a farmer can control weeds by spraying Roundup right over the crop. The crop completely ignores the herbicide, but the weeds are eliminated. Roundup Ready seeds reduce production costs and increase yield, so food becomes less expensive. Other scientists have inserted genes that produce a natural insecticide into corn plants to eliminate damage from corn borers, and a variety of anti-fungal genes can be inserted as well. The list goes on and on -- there really is no limit to what can be done.
Reference
http://home.howstuffworks.com/question148.htm
Saturday, April 21, 2007
AVA - AGRI-FOOD & VETERINARY
The core functions are:
Ensuring food safetyAVA is the national authority on food safety for both primary and processed food. AVA ensures the safety of all food from production to just before retail. AVA adopts a science-based risk analysis and management approach based on international standards to evaluate and ensure food safety.
The vital components of AVA’s comprehensive and integrated food safety system include:
-Review of production systems and practices at source
-Risk assessment and the setting of food safety and food labeling standards
-Tagging of consignments of primary produce to trace sources, and food labeling to facilitate recall
-Inspection of primary produce and processed food at the points of entry into Singapore
-Pre and post-slaughter inspections at local abattoirs
-Inspection and accreditation of source farms, abattoirs, food-processing factories, both local and overseas
-Monitoring and surveillance programmes for a wide range of food-borne hazards in primary and processed food
-State-of-the art laboratory testing capabilities for detecting and analyzing a wide range of pathogens and chemical contaminants in livestock, frozen and chilled meat, live and chilled fish, vegetables, fruits, eggs and processed food
-Promoting the adoption of good agricultural and manufacturing practices, and food safety assurance systems by the food industry
-Close rapport with other national authorities
-Close monitoring of world situation for new developments in food safety and potential threats
This food safety system is backed up by enforcement of food safety standards through a well-established legal framework as well as through food safety public education on the collective responsibility of AVA, the food industry and the public in ensuring food safety.
Ensuring resilience in food supplyAVA strives to provide Singapore with an adequate and stable supply of food. We achieve this by diversifying the sources of supply to Singapore through efforts in the following areas:
-Approving new sources for importation of food by the private sector
-Participating in trade missions to seek out new sources
-Collaborating with the private sector, such as through AVA's agri-food Business Clusters in food sourcing
AVA's food diversification strategy allows Singapore to have resilience in supply. It gives us increased flexibility and adaptability when supply from a particular source falls short. Coupled with Singapore's open market, source diversification has helped to maintain stability in the prices of our food.
Reference: http://www.ava.gov.sg/Legislation/ListOfLegislation/
Ensuring food safetyAVA is the national authority on food safety for both primary and processed food. AVA ensures the safety of all food from production to just before retail. AVA adopts a science-based risk analysis and management approach based on international standards to evaluate and ensure food safety.
The vital components of AVA’s comprehensive and integrated food safety system include:
-Review of production systems and practices at source
-Risk assessment and the setting of food safety and food labeling standards
-Tagging of consignments of primary produce to trace sources, and food labeling to facilitate recall
-Inspection of primary produce and processed food at the points of entry into Singapore
-Pre and post-slaughter inspections at local abattoirs
-Inspection and accreditation of source farms, abattoirs, food-processing factories, both local and overseas
-Monitoring and surveillance programmes for a wide range of food-borne hazards in primary and processed food
-State-of-the art laboratory testing capabilities for detecting and analyzing a wide range of pathogens and chemical contaminants in livestock, frozen and chilled meat, live and chilled fish, vegetables, fruits, eggs and processed food
-Promoting the adoption of good agricultural and manufacturing practices, and food safety assurance systems by the food industry
-Close rapport with other national authorities
-Close monitoring of world situation for new developments in food safety and potential threats
This food safety system is backed up by enforcement of food safety standards through a well-established legal framework as well as through food safety public education on the collective responsibility of AVA, the food industry and the public in ensuring food safety.
Ensuring resilience in food supplyAVA strives to provide Singapore with an adequate and stable supply of food. We achieve this by diversifying the sources of supply to Singapore through efforts in the following areas:
-Approving new sources for importation of food by the private sector
-Participating in trade missions to seek out new sources
-Collaborating with the private sector, such as through AVA's agri-food Business Clusters in food sourcing
AVA's food diversification strategy allows Singapore to have resilience in supply. It gives us increased flexibility and adaptability when supply from a particular source falls short. Coupled with Singapore's open market, source diversification has helped to maintain stability in the prices of our food.
Reference: http://www.ava.gov.sg/Legislation/ListOfLegislation/
Product Recall
Product recall
Product recall is a request to return to the maker a batch or an entire production run of a product, usually due to the discovery of safety issues. The recall is an effort to limit liability for corporate negligence (which can cause costly legal penalties) and to improve or avoid damage to publicity. Recalls are costly to a company because they often entail replacing the recalled product or paying for damages caused in use, albeit possibly less costly than indirect cost following damages to brand name and reduced trust in the manufacturer.
Information on recalls
Being aware of product recalls is important for the safety of anyone who comes in contact with the product and perhaps for the enjoyment of a product's full value. Recalls are not always easy to learn about, and companies do not always publicize a recall in an effort to limit the cost of replacing the product.
Common Sources of Recall Information:-
Grocery Stores (listings)
Mailings
News (television/print)
Internet, particularly consumer groups' websites
General Steps to a Product Recall
A product recall usually involves the following steps, which may differ according to local laws:
Maker or dealer notifies the authorities responsible of their intention to recall a product. Consumer hotlines or other communication channels are established. The scope of the recall, that is, which serial numbers or batch numbers etc. are recalled, is often specified.
Product recall announcements are released on the respective government agency's website (if applicable), as well as in paid notices in the metropolitan daily newspapers. In some circumstances, heightened publicity will also result in news television reports advising of the recall.
When a consumer group learns of a recall it will also notify the public by various means.
Typically, the consumer is advised to return the goods, regardless of condition, to the seller for a full refund or modification.
Avenues for possible consumer compensation will vary depending on the specific laws governing consumer trade protection and the cause of recall.
Commonly Recalled Products
Things causing harm or danger
Other defects diminishing functionality
Inadequate documentation (typically requires just re-shipment of documentation rather than a recall)
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_recall
Product recall is a request to return to the maker a batch or an entire production run of a product, usually due to the discovery of safety issues. The recall is an effort to limit liability for corporate negligence (which can cause costly legal penalties) and to improve or avoid damage to publicity. Recalls are costly to a company because they often entail replacing the recalled product or paying for damages caused in use, albeit possibly less costly than indirect cost following damages to brand name and reduced trust in the manufacturer.
Information on recalls
Being aware of product recalls is important for the safety of anyone who comes in contact with the product and perhaps for the enjoyment of a product's full value. Recalls are not always easy to learn about, and companies do not always publicize a recall in an effort to limit the cost of replacing the product.
Common Sources of Recall Information:-
Grocery Stores (listings)
Mailings
News (television/print)
Internet, particularly consumer groups' websites
General Steps to a Product Recall
A product recall usually involves the following steps, which may differ according to local laws:
Maker or dealer notifies the authorities responsible of their intention to recall a product. Consumer hotlines or other communication channels are established. The scope of the recall, that is, which serial numbers or batch numbers etc. are recalled, is often specified.
Product recall announcements are released on the respective government agency's website (if applicable), as well as in paid notices in the metropolitan daily newspapers. In some circumstances, heightened publicity will also result in news television reports advising of the recall.
When a consumer group learns of a recall it will also notify the public by various means.
Typically, the consumer is advised to return the goods, regardless of condition, to the seller for a full refund or modification.
Avenues for possible consumer compensation will vary depending on the specific laws governing consumer trade protection and the cause of recall.
Commonly Recalled Products
Things causing harm or danger
Other defects diminishing functionality
Inadequate documentation (typically requires just re-shipment of documentation rather than a recall)
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_recall
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)