IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1325-d143120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Detection and Quantification of Genetically Modified Soybean in Some Food and Feed Products. A Case Study on Products Available on Romanian Market

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Rosculete

    (Department of Terrestrial measurements, Management, Mechanization, University of Craiova, 13 A.I. Cuza Street, 200585 Craiova, Romania)

  • Elena Bonciu

    (Department of Agricultural and Forestry Technology, University of Craiova, 13 A.I. Cuza Street, 200585 Craiova, Romania)

  • Catalin Aurelian Rosculete

    (Department of Terrestrial measurements, Management, Mechanization, University of Craiova, 13 A.I. Cuza Street, 200585 Craiova, Romania)

  • Elena Teleanu

    (Sanitary Veterinary Direction for Food Safety Prahova, 11 Corlatesti Street, 100532 Ploiesti, Romania)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to trace genetically modified soybean in food and feed products present on the Romanian market by using molecular extraction, identification and quantification methodologies. Nine samples (3 food samples, 5 soybean samples and 1 soybean meal) were analysed using the classical and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. DNA-genetically modified organism (GMO) was not detected in two of the three analysed samples (food products). However, it could be found in four samples ranging below the limit of 0.9%, and in three samples, above the limit of 0.9%. The results obtained through real-time PCR quantification show that DNA-RRS was detectable in different amounts in different samples: ranging between 0.27% and 9.36% in soy beans, and reaching 50.98% in soybean meal. The current research focuses on how products containing GMO above the limit (it is common knowledge that it is necessary to label the products containing more than 0.9% Genetically Modified DNA) are differentiated on the market with a view to labeling food and feed products in terms of the accidental presence of approved genetically modified plants. The benefits brought by genetic engineering in obtaining genetically modified organisms can be balanced with their public acceptance and with certain known or unknown risks that they can bring.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Rosculete & Elena Bonciu & Catalin Aurelian Rosculete & Elena Teleanu, 2018. "Detection and Quantification of Genetically Modified Soybean in Some Food and Feed Products. A Case Study on Products Available on Romanian Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1325-:d:143120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1325/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1325/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vijesh Krishna & Matin Qaim & David Zilberman, 2016. "Transgenic crops, production risk and agrobiodiversity," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 137-164.
    2. McFadden, Brandon & Lusk, Jayson, 2016. "What Consumers Don’t Know about GM Food," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235325, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    4. Bovay, John & Alston, Julian M., 2018. "GMO food labels in the United States: Economic implications of the new law," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 14-25.
    5. Jonathan P. Doh & Terrence R. Guay, 2006. "Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An Institutional‐Stakeholder Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 47-73, January.
    6. Craig F. Berning & Brian E. Roe, 2017. "Assessing the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Can Americans Access Electronic Disclosure Information?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, May.
    7. John Crespi & Stéphan Marette, 2003. "“Does Contain” vs. “Does Not Contain”: Does it Matter which GMO Label is Used?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 327-344, November.
    8. Hielscher, Stefan & Pies, Ingo & Valentinov, Vladislav & Chatalova, Lioudmila, 2016. "Rationalizing the GMO debate: The ordonomic approach to addressing agricultural myths," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(5), pages 1-10.
    9. Dacinia Crina Petrescu & Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, 2015. "Organic Food Perception: Fad, or Healthy and Environmentally Friendly? A Case on Romanian Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, August.
    10. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    11. Zilberman, David & Kaplan, Scott & Gordon, Ben, 2018. "The political economy of labeling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 6-13.
    12. Jale Tosun & Simon Schaub, 2017. "Mobilization in the European Public Sphere: The Struggle Over Genetically Modified Organisms," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(3), pages 310-330, June.
    13. Paul Vincelli, 2016. "Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-by-Case Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-22, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shwu-Pyng Joanna Chen & Man-Wah Li & Ho-Yan Wong & Fuk-Ling Wong & Tingting Wu & Junyi Gai & Tianfu Han & Hon-Ming Lam, 2022. "The Seed Quality Assurance Regulations and Certification System in Soybean Production—A Chinese and International Perspective," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gautam, Ruskin & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Brooks, Kathleen R., 2017. "Label Position and it Impacts on WTP for Products Containing GMO," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258105, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    3. Dolores Garrido & Ana Espínola‐Arredondo & Felix Munoz‐Garcia, 2020. "Can mandatory certification promote greenwashing? A signaling approach," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(6), pages 1801-1851, December.
    4. Frewer, L.J. & Coles, D. & Dijkstra, A.M. & Kuznesof, S. & Kendall, H. & Kaptan, G, 2016. "Synthetic Biology Applied In The Agrifood Sector: Societal Priorities And Pitfalls," APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 10(2-3), pages 1-8, October.
    5. Ventura, Vera & Frisio, Dario G. & Ferrazzi, Giovanni, 2015. "How Scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211921, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. De Marchi, E. & Cavaliere, A. & Banterle, A., 2018. "Consumer choice behavior for cisgenic food: exploring attribute processing strategies and the role of time preference," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277393, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    8. Carter, Colin Andre & Schaefer, K. Aleks, 2018. "GE Labeling Laws and Segmentation of the Sugar Market," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273855, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Samantha L. Mosier & Arbindra Rimal & Megan M. Ruxton, 2020. "A Song of Policy Incongruence: The Missing Choir of Consumer Preferences in GMO‐Labeling Policy Outcomes," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 511-534, July.
    10. Zhao, Li & Gu, Haiying & Yue, Chengyan & Ahlstrom, David, 2013. "Consumer welfare and GM food labeling: A simulation using an adjusted Kumaraswamy distribution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 58-70.
    11. Ellison, Brenna & Bernard, John C. & Paukett, Michelle & Toensmeyer, Ulrich C., 2016. "The influence of retail outlet and FSMA information on consumer perceptions of and willingness to pay for organic grape tomatoes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 109-119.
    12. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Rice, Emma D., 2020. "Understanding the U.S. Publics’ Voting on Animal Welfare and Genetically Modified Organism Labeling Ballot Initiatives," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304519, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. H. Eggert & M. Greaker, 2011. "Trade, GMOs and Environmental Risk: Are Current Policies Likely to Improve Welfare?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(4), pages 587-608, April.
    14. Rana, Mohammad B. & Elo, Maria, 2017. "Transnational Diaspora and Civil Society Actors Driving MNE Internationalisation: The Case of Grameenphone in Bangladesh," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 87-106.
    15. Dirk Boehe & Luciano Barin Cruz, 2010. "Corporate Social Responsibility, Product Differentiation Strategy and Export Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 325-346, February.
    16. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    17. Abbate, Stefano & Centobelli, Piera & Cerchione, Roberto, 2023. "From Fast to Slow: An Exploratory Analysis of Circular Business Models in the Italian Apparel Industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    18. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    19. Daniel P. Roberts & Autar K. Mattoo, 2018. "Sustainable Agriculture—Enhancing Environmental Benefits, Food Nutritional Quality and Building Crop Resilience to Abiotic and Biotic Stresses," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    20. Koji Domon & Alessandro Melcarne & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2022. "Fake & original: the case of Japanese food in Southeast Asian countries," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 327-347, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1325-:d:143120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.