Current development of GMF

The biotechnology of genetic engineering started from 1970s. With the help of new skills, genes can be transferred partially from the cells of animals, plants, or microbes to another organisms. By doing so the complicated genetic make-up of an active cell can be altered thoroughly and generate desired genes with new traits. Those genetically transferred animals or plants ore called Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and the food derived from this way is called Genetically Modified Food (GMF), or Gene Food. For example, the use of pesticide can be reduced after the genes encoded insect resistance traits have been transferred to the crops, or some soybeans or corns are genetically modified to improve the nutrient composition with transferring genes with high-vitamin or abundant mineral traits.
The ingredient of GMF launching to market earliest is genetically modified enzyme, which was used in 1994 to produce cheese, while the earliest GMF in market is Flavr-Savr tomatoes sold in 1994. With an eye to the high market potential of GMF, many multi-national pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies have invested in the research and development of GMF with large amount of capitals, in order to beat counter parties in grasp of market nitch at beginning of the green revolution presently. Most technologies of GMF are applied to enhance the resistance of crops to insects, certain viruses and pesticides, the others are to improve nutrient ingredients and tastes. Currently the highest proportion of genetically modified crops are those containing transgenes encoded herbicidal characteristics, with the percentage of 77%, and the second highest are those insect resistant corps, with the percentage of 22%. Most GM crops gather in American countries, and 99% are located in the following three ones: the United States, the biggest producer of 74% GM crops, followed by Argentina (15%), and Canada (10%). It is estimated that half of the soybeans and one-third of the corns grown in the U.S. were crops of genetic engineering in 1999. Since the main ingredients of lots of food are made of soybean and corn, it is self-evident that GMF has been quite prevalent in the market. To promote the production of foodstuff, Mainland China has also been devoting to the cultivation of genetically modified crops in the recent years.

Benefits and risk of GMF

The R&D and production of GMF have been full of arguments. The supporters believe that application of genetic engineering can meet various demands of human beings, such as drought resistance, nutrition improvement, enhance herbicide and pesticide resistance to increase unit yield. Another examples of genetic engineering are the cultivation of tomatoes with delay softening trait, insect resistant potatoes, corns, and soybeans. The improvement of crop production and nutrient value will be able to solve the lack of foodstuff and undernourishment resulting from overgrowth of populations in development countries. However, those in opposition to GMF said that the global foodstuff produced in the present time has been sufficient, and the traditional breeding can promote crop production and nutrient values as well, so it is not necessary to develop GMF. Moreover, the key point is that we human beings can not control the technology of genetic engineering, and the change of Natural Law will impact human health and environment very seriously. Nowadays such arguments are still proceeding since both parties do not have sufficient scientific evidences to persuade each other, though they have referred to relevant theories or data to support their respective stands.

To understand more about the substance of GMF, its potential benefits and risk are listed as the follows:

• Potential benefits:
  1. Application of genetic modification can enhance insect resistance and increase yield of corps, which will solve the lack of foodstuff resulting from overgrowth of population on the earth.
     　
  2. GMF can provide more nutrient and healthier food.
     　
  3. Genetic modification may increase the tolerance of corps to bad weathers, such as drought.
     　
  4. GMF will help reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides.
     　
  5. GMF will provide edible vaccines
     　
  6. GMF can provide cheaper, more tasty food of higher quality.
• Potential risk:
  1. It is not certain that what influence the transgenes will exert on human health.
     　
  2. The cultivation of great amount of genetically modified crops will reduce the biological diversification and disturb the balance of ecosystem.
     　
  3. The genes of genetically modified crops may be transferred beyond control and thus cause unintended modification of crops in the neighboring fields.
     　
  4. The transference of antibiotic resistant genes is likely to develop antibiotic resistant bacteria or viruses.
     　
  5. The application of genetic engineering is likely to increase the allergens and toxins of food, or alter the nutrient compositions.

Considering the potential benefits and risk above, regulators and manufacturers should pay attention to minimize the potential downside risk, as well as earning the benefits of genetic engineering when applying relevant technologies and establishing GMF management system.

Influence of GMF on Consumers

The arguments triggered by GMF have covered many topics, including:

1. Health Safety:
   What is the influence that GMF may exert on consumers' health and safety?
   　
2. Morality:
   May human beings play the role of the God by creating new genesis through genetic engineering?
   　
3. Environmental Safety:
   Will the technology of genetic engineering reduce the diversification of genesis and disturb the balance of ecosystem?
   　
4. Economy and International Trade:
   The disputes of international trades may result from different systems of economic and trading administrations adopted by different countries, which is due to each government's different recognition of GMF. For instance, European Union (EU) requires that the imported GMF must be marked, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) also takes side with EU, but the U.S. considers such requirement a "Technical-Barrier-to-Trade". This problem has caused disputes of international trade between EU and the U.S.
   　
5. Intellectual Property Rights:
   Will the application for patent of genetic modification corps increase production cost, or even give those multinational companies possessing genetic modification technologies the opportunity to exert influence on the development of global agriculture? The topic which consumers concern most is the possible affection of GMF to consumers' health and safety. This problem can be divided into three parts: allergens, toxins, and antibiotics. Presently there isn't sufficient evidence showing that GMF may cause damage to consumers' health, but consumers still doubt about the new technology. especially the consumers of European countries are most conservative to GMF. To face the discriminated attitudes that some consumers have taken against GMF, part of manufacturers also adopt certain strategies for correspondence. For example, Gerber and Heinz, the big baby food companies in the U.S., have stopped using GMF to produce baby formulas; Unilever and Nestle, the main food manufacturers in England also announced not to produce GMF. However, GMF is still quite popular in market, thus it is necessary for regulators to make strategies relevant to the R&D, production and sells of GMF.

International Attitudes towards GMF

The U.S.

The management of GMF in the U.S. is taken charge by three administrations. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for on-the-spot inspection of GM plants, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for monitoring safety and wholesomeness of GMF and its marks, and Department of Agriculture (DA) for controlling the use of pesticides and herbicides on GM corps. As for the launching of GMF into the market, the U.S. government has promulgated regulations that require pre-market safety assessment of GMF by the regulatory agencies, but the labeling of distinguishing marks on GMF are not implemented authoritatively. The U.S. is the primary country engaging in R&D and production of GMF in the world, with the production of 74% high of global amount of genetic engineering corps. She pays much attention on many advantages of GMF, such as solving the crisis of foodstuff inadequacy in developing countries, reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides, raising up the unit production of farmland, making food more tasty, and increasing the nutrient values, etc. Her primary point of views about GMF can be listed as the follows:

1. The characteristics of GMF and those of traditional food are of" Substantial Equivalence". GMF should be regarded as safe if it has gone through strict assessment of safety before launching into market in its productive origins. It is not necessary to mark GMF unless it has very much difference from traditional food. The requirement of marking GMF will misguide consumers' recognition and cost them more.
   　
2. GMF is as safe as traditional food if the former can pass relevant assessments of safety. Any doubt about the safety of GMF is lack of sufficient evidence in science.
   

European Union (EU)

EU members are the first countries imposing earliest controlling measures and throwing deepest doubt on GMF. Their unbelieving attitudes are due to the crisis of "mad caw disease" (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, BSE), the psychological impact exerted by other food safety problems, and most GMF launching to market without controlling. Basically, EU countries believe that the essence of GMF can't be regarded as safe or risky with certain, but the extent of its risk should depend on the characteristics of transgenes, the host organisms accepting transgens, and the way to transfer genes. EU started to research into genetically modified corps and GMF, and so far can't find any scientific evidence to prove that GMF is unsafe in substance, or it will cause any damage to human health and environment.
EU countries have stipulated two directives relevant to GMF: Directive 90/219/EEC (the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms), and Directive 90 /220/EEC (the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms to the environment). The former are regulations relevant to R&D and application of technology of genetic engineering, and the later concern primarily about the affection of genetically modified organisms to human health and environment.
In EU area, GMF is allowed to enter the market only after it has gone through scientific risk assessments of human health and environment.
The risk assessments are implemented case by case , with the consideration of the follows:

1. The ways that GMF is manufactured: The molecular analysis of original organisms of transgenes and the transferred organisms.
   　
2. The risk analysis of GMF, especially the contained protein. The purpose of such analysis is for understanding whether the transgenes contain toxins or allergens, and to make sure that they do not cause any effect beyond expectation.
   　
3. Is it possible that the transgenes, especially those with traits against antibiotics, are transferred to bacteria?

As for the mark of GMF, UN countries adopt mandatory policy. Any food containing genetically modified composition with percentage higher than 1% should be labeled with indication marks.

Japan

With regards to the consumer's right of making rational choice, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery in Japan has required foods and food additives produced by using genetic engineering to be properly labeled or marked, according to the Law concerning standardization and proper labeling of agriculture and forestry products, and Japanese Agriculture Standard Law (JAS Law).
The safety assessment of GMF is implemented on the basis of manufacturers' willingness, according to " Standards for Safety Assessment of Foods and Food Additives Produced by Recombinant DNA Techniques" set in 1991. But the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery has made the decision that such assessment should become a requirement put under a mandatory administration mechanism in future.
Japanese Government has enforced food-labeling laws nationwide. According to the relevant laws and regulations, all GMF must go through pre-market assessment of food safety, and the GMF made of soybean must be marked as well . As for those GMF unable to be inspected because of technical problems, Japanese Government even requires the manufacturers to mark them with "Having possibility of containing genetically modified compositions".

New Zealand and Australia

New Zealand and Australia are adopting the most strict administration system in the world, since they consider the safety of existing edible food manufactured by traditional skills has been proved to be safe, according to the experiences accumulated in the long history of human beings. GMF is a kind of new food, which should go through safety assessment of newly-made food without exception.
In New Zealand and Australia , the regulation of GMF is based on Standard A18 Foods Produced from Gene Technology of Food Standards Code, which was made by Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) in 1999. Standard A18 consists of two primary regulations: Mandatory safety assessment and mandatory labeling requirement. However, the following food is exempt from abeling requirement:

1. Highly processed food:

   All GMF compositions contained in highly processed food are eliminated in manufacturing process. For example, in the production process of edible oil, all genetic substances contained in oil are eliminated on the processing phase in high temperature.

2. Adjutants used in manufacturing process, or additives:

   Usually the adjuvant used in manufacturing process does not appear in final products, and the amount in additives contained in GMF is very little.

3. Seasonings:

   The seasonings contained at the percentage of less than 1% of seasoned food o not have to be indicated with labels or marks.

4. Food on selling spot:

   Such as the food sold in restaurants or hotels, or that sold out of spot. But business managers must understand the substance of the composition of food, and consumers have the right to know whether the food contains the ingredients made by genetic modification.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)
OECD hold "Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods" on March 6th, 2000, of which the participants totaling to four hundred and more included representatives of governments, enterprises and scientists coming from twenty-five countries. The participants reached consensus in some aspects, but still had arguments about other ones. Since these representatives and scientists came from the primary countries of GMF production and consumption, we can completely understand these countries' opinions about GMF if we go through the discussion records of these representatives in the conference. The topics of agreements and the arguments among participants in the conference are explained respectively as the follows:

Topics of Agreements

1. The discussion of GMF should cover wider field and accept more opinions of researchers in laboratories and workers in factories and farms. The subjects of debate and the process of policy making should be more opened and more transparent to the public . Not only should consumers have the "right to know", but their opinions should also be considered the important factors when legislators and regulators make relevant policies.
2. There is no scientific evidence showing that GMF is harmful to consumers' health.
3. The risk assessment of GMF b ased on substantial equivalence and prevention principle is to assure the safety of GMF , that it should be proceeded continuously.
4. The potential benefits and risk of GMF should go through incessant assessments. Only when the technology of genetic engineering is properly used can the benefit of increasing the amount of supply and the nutrient values of food stuff in developing countries be realized.
5. The consumers of developed countries have obtained the benefits from the GMF of the 1st generation, such as cost cutting and reductive use of pesticides , etc . The manufacturers of the GMF of the 2nd generation should pay more attention to the benefits of consumers' health.
6. There is no necessity using the technology of transferring genes with antibiotic trait in GMF production. The technology should be eliminated.

Topics of Arguments

1. Is it necessary to take the safety of GMF in consideration together with certain factors, such as the impact to environment, international trades, social and economic problems , and individual faith, etc.
2. Some representatives believed that GMF was nothing but the product made by applying another food technology , but others regarded genetic engineering a totally new scientific skill , which was basically different from traditional method and hence the safety should be assessed in accordance with new principles.
3. Will genetically modified feedstuff cause damage to the health of animals or human beings?
4. Should the administrative standards of GMF be set by global consent, or be made respectively as specific principles for individual country?
5. How should the topics consumers concern be assessed?
6. Should the circulation of GMF be tracked and monitored?

There were also some topics of discussion in the Conference unable to be assessed because of the lack of sufficient scientific knowledge about GMF:

1. The affection of GMF to the health of consumers and workers of production in long run.
   　
2. How should scientists or regulators improve the uncertainty existing in the safety assessment about the toxins and allergens contained in GMF?
   　
3. The influence that GMF exerts on environment, ecosystem, and biological diversification.
   　
4. Can the animal experiments of GMF be entirely applied to human bodies?

III.GMF and Consumer's Interests

Consumers have the rights to satisfy basic demands, pursue safety, know and make choices, express opinions, ask for compensation, get consumer education, keep healthy, and develop environment perpetually. There are four among the eight rights closely relevant to GMF: The rights to pursue safety, to know and make choices, to keep healthy, and to develop environment perpetually. They are explained as the follows:

To pursue safety

The most important to control the development of GMF is to assure the safety of consumers' health. So far the affection that GMF will exert on consumers' health is unknown, but it should go through a strict pre-market assessment of safety at least, in order to make sure that it will not injure the safety and health of consumers at existing technology.

To know and make choices

Information is not the guarantee for safety, but it can make consumers know more about GMF and make decision more easily about whether they should purchase or not. The proper labeling of GMF is the best way to provide consumers relevant information. In spite of labeling and marking, what affect consumers' right to make choices include the follows:

1. The manufacturers or importers take their food of traditional manufacturing off the shelves since they can't get the substitutes of these non-GMF products, or the sellers do not sell relevant commodities which brings no profits. The two scenarios will affect consumers' rights to make choices greatly.
   　
2. The implement of GMF management is estimated to increase the cost of production by 0-6%, which may be transferred to consumers. The other strategy that the sellers are very likely to take is raising up the prices of non-GMF, in order to alter consumers' willingness to purchase GMF.

The Government should prevent the cases described above in advance.

To keep healthy and to develop environment perpetually.
Together with the development of GMF, the balance of ecosystems and the possible impact to environment should be put in consideration, in order to construct a healthy and perpetually developing environment for consumers.

IV. GMF management for consumer protection

GMF management Structure

According to the estimation by DOA, about 40% of soybeans imported from the U.S. to Taiwan annually belong to GMF. With regards to risk management and consumers' right to know, the Government should set the administration structure of GMF as soon as possible, including management mechanisms, tracking and research in long run, and drawing relevant laws and regulations. The most important work at present is asking manufacturers for clearly labeling and marking GMF in market, by which consumers can choose to buy or not.
GMF is closed to consumers' health. Science, controlling and consumer educations are the three ways to protect consumers' interests, which can be explained respectively as the follows:
　

1. Science:
   So far there are no sufficient scientific researches or evidences supporting that GMF will do harm to the long-term health of consumers. However, the Government and relevant research institutes should proceed to scientific researches and safety assessments, in order to assure the safety and health of consumers.
   　
2. Controlling
   The long-term safety of GMF can't be make certain at present time. However, prohibition of GMF is not a practical strategy and will put consumers to inconvenience, so the Government should make wholesome policies to control the manufacturing from upstream to downstream, covering the circulation of GMF from R&D to consumers' tables. The main problems that the policy makers should deal with are including whether certain types of genetic modification technologies should be restricted, how to proceed safety assessments before GMF launches to market, the labeling and marking of GMF, and the extent of liabilities of causing damage to consumers' health. The strategies to solve the second and third problems--pre-market assessment and GMF labeling provide direct protection of consumers' interests, and will be discussed in the following two sections.
   Department of Health, Executive Yuan (DOH) held "The Conference for Division and Cooperation of Genetically Modified Food Management" on April 16, 1999. The representatives of National Science Council (NLAC), Environment Protection Agency (EPA), and Council of Agriculture (COA) were summoned to discuss the GMF management from upstream to downstream. As for the management of experiments and researches belong to the upstream of GMF manufacturing, the conclusion made in the Conference suggested that NLAC reassess and revise "The Experimental Principles of Gene Recombination". The midstream management of GMF production should conform to EPA's laws and regulations relevant to assessing the impact to environment. As to the examination and approval of GMF to launch to market, the pre-market assessment of GMF may base on "The Controlling Standards for the Field Trial of Transgenic Plants" and "The Controlling Standards for the Field Trial of Transgenic Animals" set by COA. However, the participants of the Conference suggested that COA consider the necessity whether it should establish a set of new regulations or a threshold of examination and approval with stronger legal effects. The GMF management of production and sales belonging to the phase of downstream should obey "Law Governing the Food Sanitation" and other relevant regulations. DOH has been drafting "The Regulations of Safety Assessment for DNA Derivative Food" for regulating GMF examination, registration, and labeling, which was proposed to promulgate at the end of 2000.
   　
3. Consumer Education
   The Government should keep collecting information relevant to GMF and provide consumers correct knowledge about the products of genetic engineering by arranging relevant curriculums, seminars, and posting literally propaganda. In addition, it should also take responsibility to tell consumers the amount, sorts and origins of the GMF sold in market, the potential benefits and affection of GMF exerted to human health and ecosystem, the development of GMF, and the results of inspections and experiments about GMF around the world. By taking advantage of the relevant information provided by the Government, consumers can obtain more accurate realization of GMF, which can do good for them to make rational choices.

Assessing mechanism of GMF safety

1. Safety assessment of GMF
People's primary concept of food safety is that such food can be made sure reasonably to do no harm to human health, on condition that the product is used according to expectation. Traditional food has been regarded as safe by people with the confidence derived from the experiences accumulated in the long history of human beings. However, GMF has just come out in recent years, and so the long-term safety of it has been the key point of debates, though so far we can't find sufficient reasons or scientific evidences to conclude that GMF is less safe than traditional food. Therefore the scientists in England declared a long-term research on realization of GMF safety in long run. Another point more worthy of note is whether GMF will injure human health, and the purpose of safety assessment is making sure with scientific methods that all GMF in market has all advantages owned by traditional food but has no extra risk.

The potential risk that GMF may injure consumers' safety and health is as the follows:
　

(1) Toxins: There are some plants or animals, such as some globefishes or mushrooms, which can produce certain toxins or compositions to prevent human bodies from absorbing nutrition. But those crops cultivated by human beings contain so small amount of toxins that do no harm to human bodies. Similarly, scientists have found some toxins harmful to human health in certain genetically modified crops. Therefore, all commercialized crops of genetic modification should be assured to contain no toxin, or to contain toxins within the range of safety. Besides, those genes of which the proteins have been known to include certain toxins or any compositions impeding the absorption of nutrition should not be used in GMF production. Moreover, the use of genetic engineering is also likely to activate some originally silent toxins.
The ways to evaluate whether certain GMF contains toxins include the follows:

1. Are those proteins of GMF derived from the animals or plants containing significant toxins.
2. Are those proteins of new genes similar to certain known toxins.
3. Is the GMF proved to contain toxins, according to the results of an animal experiment.

(2) The change of nutrition
Some crops are the main sources to our daily nutrition, such as oranges supply vitamin C, carrots vitamin A, beans the primary sources of proteins and amino acid. The application of genetic engineering is likely to alter the nutrient ingredients of these crops, so it is very possible that consumers will suffer from unbalanced nutrition or malnutrition in the existing dietetic habits.

(3) Allergens
There is about 1% to 2% of people allergic to certain proteins or food. Some serious allergies are likely to cause damage to people's lives. More than 90% of allergens is existing in the following food: Cow Milk, Eggs, Wheat, Fish, Crustacean, Nuts, Peanuts, and Beans. The genes newly transferred in GMF must be assessed that if they will cause allergies. For instance, if the genes of peanuts are transferred into corns, those consumers who are allergic to peanuts may be allergic to the genetically modified corns as well. The principles of assessing whether the GMF may cause allergies include the follows:

1. If the genes are transferred from the bio-organisms with allergens.
2. If the genetically modified crops contain allergens.
3. If the new genetic protein is similar to any known allergen.
4. If the new genetic protein has the same characteristic as the known allergen does.

(4) Weakening the curative effect of antibiotic
Scientists usually use the so-called "marker genes" in the nature of antibiotic resistance to test if trangenes have been transferred into target bio-organisms. Suppose the antibiotic genes are transferred into the viruses existing in the environment or human bodies, the viruses will be immune from antibiotics, and so the curative effect of antibiotics will be weakened. Scientists and medical doctors should consider the follows when using antibiotic genes in genetic engineering:

1. The protein of the marker genes may contain toxins.
2. The protein of the marker genes may cause allergies.
3. The medical importance of antibiotics.
4. The frequency of using antibiotics
5. The characteristics of antibiotics.
6. Is it possible to transfer mark genes into viruses? Will the transference of antibiotics strengthen the surviving abilities of viruses?
7. The possibility that general viruses existing in nature with the characteristic of antibiotic resistance.

Since it is not necessary to apply the skill of mark gene with potential risk to genetic engineering, all countries have agreed not to use this technology, but the safety assessment should remain to be proceeded before entire termination of using mark genes. The use of any new technology is accompanied with potential risks, so governments should play important parts in management and proper assessment of these risks, and any GMF must go through strict safety assessment before launching to market. The safety assessment of GMF should be based on the principle of " Substantial Equivalence" and the principle of "Prevention". The so-called substantial equivalence is the principle for assessing whether there is substantial difference between GMF and traditional-made food, and the principle of prevention means that governments should be more conservative to GMF when adopting prevention measures. Generally speaking, the principles for safety assessment of GMF include the follows:

1. Scientific Evidence

   Safety assessment should be proceeded with the most advanced scientific knowledge from manufacturers, scientific journals, general information of technology, independent research institutes, relevant institutes of management, and international organizations.

2. Review by Cases

   GMF made by different technologies should go through different safety assessments by cases. For instance, GMF made of soybeans by applying different genetic engineering skills should be assessed respectively.

3. Considering the new characteristics of GMF

   Considering the new characteristics of GMF
   GMF may contain new ingredients of genetic substances or protein, which must be carefully analyzed in safety assessments.

4. Considering All Anticipated and Unanticipated Effects of Genetic Modification

   Both expectable and non-expectable effects should go through safety assessments. For example, scientists should evaluate whether genetic modification will produce toxins, allergens, or change the nutrient components of food.

5. Comparison of GMF with Food Made by traditional methods

   The difference between GMF and traditional food in the aspects of toxins, allergens, and nutrient components can be told by comparing GMF with those food made by traditional methods and proved to be safe by long-term experience.

The safety assessment of GMF may be divided into the following four steps:

1. Explanation of Genetic Engineering

   This step is collecting all information relevant to GMF, which is the preparatory work for general safety assessment in the next step. The collected information should contain the follows:

   1. The methods and technologies of genetic modification.
      　
   2. The sources and functions of new genes.
      　
   3. The characteristics of new genes.
      　
   4. The stability of new genes.
2. General Safety Assessment
   1. History of the consumption of GMF.
      If the traditionally made food has been proved to be safe
   2. The essentials of new genetic protein.
   3. The affection, especially the one of trangenes with antibiotic traits to the health or curative effect of antibiotics of human bodies if new genes are transferred to the digestive organs.
3. The Analysis of Toxin and Allergens
   1. The density of naturally existing toxins
   2. The toxins possibly produced by new genetic proteins.
   3. The density of naturally existing allergens
   4. The allergens possibly produced by new genetic proteins.
4. The Analysis of Nutrition
   1. The Analysis of Nutrition
   2. The components impeding the absorption of nutrition.
   3. The helpfulness to the health of human bodies.
      　

The science of genetic engineering is developing acceleratively, thus the principles and steps of GMF safety assessment should renew incessantly to come up with such development, in order to protect consumers' health.

GMF Indication

Currently there are more than twenty countries in the world carrying out different GMF labeling laws. The GMF significantly different from traditionally made food should be indicated with marks or labels. In addition to the existing labeling law, some countries set another regulations requiring that food should go through the strict pre-market safety assessments proceeded by local food business and supervisory agencies at origins. Advocates of GMF labeling believe that GMF labeling may provide consumers sufficient information which is helpful for them to make choice, according to their demands in health, nutrition or tastes of cooking. However, those in opposition to GMF labeling consider GMF substantially equivalent to traditionally made food, and the special requirement of GMF labeling may only make consumer afraid of GMF unnecessarily. But there seems to be a logic contradiction in the opposite argument, that biotechnological companies should not apply for patents since they have announced that GMF and traditionally made food are substantially equivalent. For protecting consumers' rights of making correct choices, GMF labeling should be considered a requirement, since there are advantages as the follows:

• Some entrepreneurs may benefit from manufacturing GMF or non-GMF and so obtain superiority in both international and domestic markets. For instance, they have explored the markets in Japan and European Union by selling GMF or non-GMF there.
• Consumers may obtain sufficient information to make rational choices.

The Government should take the follows in consideration when making policies of GMF labeling:

• How should GMF be defined?
  　
• Should the Government adopt voluntary or mandatory GMF labeling policy?
  　
• Should all GMF or only part of GMF be labeled?
  　
• Should all ingredients or only primary ingredients of GMF be indicated?
  　
• What's the threshold for GMF labeling? For example, what is the percentage of genetically modified ingredients or important genetically modified ingredients contained in the food product may such product be considered GMF?
  　
• Should the products made of animals fed by GMF feedstuff be labeled?
  　
• Should the food sold at restaurants or for out be labeled?
  　
• How should GMF be labeled?
  　
• How may genetically modified components be told from a food product?
  　
• Should non-GMF product be indicated with non-GMF labels?

In addition, GMF labeling should function to maintain consumers' rights to know and remind consumers the potential impacts exerted by GMF. Therefore, GMF labeling should conform to the following principles:

• Sufficient Information: For protecting consumers' rights to know, the content and extent of labeling, such as ingredients, nature, the way to use, benefits and risk, suggestions and warnings, etc. should be taken in consideration
  　
• Potential Risk
  Consumers should be informed of the alternation of nutrient components and allergens. Peanuts are frequently seen allergens, and consumers of genetically modified corns with trangenes of peanuts should be informed since they do not expect to be allergic to corns.
  　
• Consumer Protection from Misunderstanding
  The more important point that should be paid attention about GMF labeling is how consumers explain the content of labeling. Consumers may misunderstand the content of labeling since they are not well-trained in biochemical science. GMF labeling is not for safety, but for providing sufficient information to consumers to make wise choices. Some consumers may be unwilling to have GMF for the reasons of morality, religions, or environment protection, etc., therefore the purpose of GMF labeling is giving consumers the rights to make choice but not the warning sign of health or unsafe food, otherwise it should not be sold in market. The government is obliged to educate consumers whether the meaning of labeling is similar to "Smoking is harmful to health", "The juice is made from concentrate", or "Be cautious of the boiling hot coffee". If consumers choose only non-GMF due to misunderstanding the GMF labeling, they will encounter the follows:
  1. Consumers will have less opportunities to make choice because manufacturers cease producing GMF or they cannot obtain the substitutes of non-GMF.
     　
  2. Food price may go up (it is estimated that the price of non-GMF may grow up by 5-500%). In addition, if mid-and small business cannot produce non-GMF, they will be forced to close business and cause some social problems such as unemployment.