What is bioengineered food? An agriculture expert explains

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines bioengineered food as food that “contains detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques that cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature.”

If that definition sounds familiar, it is because it is essentially how genetically modified organisms, or GMOS, are defined – common vocabulary many people use and understand.

On Jan. 1, 2022, the USDA implemented a new U.S. bioengineered food disclosure standard. Shoppers are seeing labels on food products with the terms “bioengineered” or “derived from bioengineering” printed on a green seal with the sun shining down on cropland.

More than 90% of U.s.-grown corn, soybeans and sugar beets are genetically modified. This means that many processed foods containing high-fructose corn syrup, beet sugar or soy protein may fall under the new disclosure standard. Other whole foods on the USDA’S list of bioengineered foods, such as certain types of eggplant, potatoes and apples, may have to carry labels as well.

Disclosure debates

Food manufacturers have historically opposed labeling. They argue that it misleads consumers into thinking that bioengineered foods are unsafe. Countless studies, the USDA and the World Health Organization have concluded that eating genetically modified foods does not pose health risks.

However, many consumers have demanded labels that let them know whether foods contain genetically modified material. In 2014, Vermont enacted a strict law mandating GMO food labeling. Fearing a checkerboard of state laws and regulations, food manufacturers lobbied successfully for a federal disclosure law to preempt other states from doing the same. Now, the U.S. joins 64 countries that require some sort of labeling.

Consumer and right-toknow advocates are not happy with the new federal disclosure standard. The Center for Food Safety, the lead organization representing a coalition of food labeling nonprofits and retailers, has filed suit against the USDA, arguing that the standard not only fails to use common language but is deceptive and discriminatory.

According to this view, the standard is deceptive because loopholes exclude many bioengineered foods from mandatory disclosure, which critics say is inconsistent with consumer expectations. If the genetic material is undetectable or less than 5% of the finished product, no disclosure is required. As a result, many highly refined products – for example, sugar or oil made from a bioengineered crop – may be excluded from labeling requirements.

lergens.

This includes milk and eggs, but not the other animal-derived fining proteins. This can cause considerable uncertainty when selecting wines that are vegan-friendly.

Some wine labels now have a statement such as “this wine has been treated with fish product and traces may remain”.

Increasingly in Australia and especially in Europe, wines are now often labelled as “vegan-friendly” or “no animal products were used in the preparation of this wine”.

What are the alternatives to animal proteins?

Proteins derived from plants would appear to be an obvious alternative but, for now, most work on plant proteins is still in the research stage. Only one from potatoes is commercially available.

Gluten from cereals is effective in red wine, but presents obvious problems for those with coeliac disease or gluten allergies.

Grape seed extract is perhaps the most effective plant-based protein that has been trialled but it’s not commercially available. Obtaining regulatory approval across international markets is a significant barrier to the commercialisation of new products for use in wine.

Storing a wine on its fine lees (meaning the wine is aged in contact with its fine lees) after removal of the gross lees is one alternative to using animal proteins in winemaking. This can soften a wine and enhance the mouthfeel without the use of additives.

White wines can be stored on fine lees for nine months before bottling. Reds can take up to 18 months to obtain the desired mouthfeel.

Regular tasting during this ageing step is essential to ensure the wine is developing as desired. It is a somewhat expensive process as it ties up storage vessels and winery space.

The taste test

At a recent tasting of organic and biodynamic wines, some I presented were made by the conventional method, while others met the vegan-friendly criterion. The general comment after the tasting was: I couldn’t tell the difference.

Pairing vegan-friendly wines with food is not restricted to vegan-friendly food. In one classic example, a vegan-friendly sweet wine from the Loire Valley in France was also described as “excellent with foie gras”.

My advice is to explore with an open mind and enjoy the new experience. ■