Natural Products Insider

NOV-DEC 2016

INSIDER is the leading information source for marketers, manufacturers and formulators of dietary supplements, healthy foods and cosmeceuticals. Since 1997, INSIDER has been serving the needs of the global nutrition industry.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 68 of 74

62 INSIDER November/December 2016 GMOs The interest in non-GMO (genetically modifi ed organism) certifi cation for food and supplement products in the United States has skyrocketed. Reliable scientifi c evidence has shown the controls and verifi cation of non-GMOs have little (if any) impact on product safety, quality or "healthiness." But the movement has a legitimate purpose and lessons to offer. The recent, sudden shift toward availability of new sources of minimally processed ingredients that can be certifi ed non-GMO or organic had good intentions to improve quality. But new regulatory guidelines and the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) are also here now, and they offer broader and relevant aims to support public safety. What often goes unnoticed is the consumer-preferred certifi cation du jour, as primary purchasing criteria, can put us at risk of selecting less-safe and lower-quality materials. Many people, especially those outside of the United States, have observed that Americans want everything. We want it "new and improved;" to "taste great;" to be "natural," "healthy" and free from "toxins;" to be shelf stable; and available at a reasonable price. Despite the demands, Americans assume that products marketed are safe and meet label claims. Meanwhile, they have a mistrust of government and corporations to determine safety and quality of products. As a result, now we also want our foods unprocessed, traceable, local and sustainable. The demands seem reasonable to someone who doesn't understand how diffi cult it is to ensure food safety for more than 300 million people. But they are completely nutty to someone who does. We just can't have everything all at once. Although the FDA system is a global model for ensuring safety of food, it's under a lot of stress. New food safety and dietary supplement regulations and self-regulatory efforts for supplement ingredients, in the face of incredible industry growth, offer a unique set of forces like no time in recent memory. During a time of massive evolution, we risk throwing away effective preventive controls by prioritizing consumer preferences over public safety. A few scenarios show the balance between public safety and our demand for non-GMO/minimally processed/new and improved. Here's one: That unprocessed, certifi ed organic quinoa that is GPS traceable to a family chicken farm in Ecuador owned by Uncle Eddie, who started growing quinoa just this year due to the spike in demand? Unfortunately, Uncle Eddie did not have prior experience in GAPs (good agricultural practices) or the proper training to understand that crops grown next to a chicken farm are considered high-risk for Salmonella contamination. Because of consumer demand for raw, unprocessed ingredients, the quinoa did not undergo any processes that kill Salmonella. Meanwhile, the product arrives with something akin to a Good Housekeeping seal that carries perceived value. Despite the lack of clear preventive controls and effective monitoring, the material is approved for sale because the certifi cation is there. At what cost (including opportunity cost) does non-GMO certifi cation bear on a fi rm's ability to produce safe and healthy products? Could it demand a decision between choosing ingredients for the certifi cation, versus improving material selection criteria and testing for adulterants such as pesticides and mycotoxins? Just because we can trace an agricultural material to a farm and verify it does not contain DNA inserted by man using technological means does not automatically make it safe to consume. This is not to say the non-GMO and organic programs are worthless; in fact, they offer a great benefi t. They have served to educate industry fi rms that were previously unaware about the provenance and processes applied to their raw materials. They have brought to focus the level of documentation and trust that consumers ask for in the products they consume to support their health. But we should be cautious in allowing consumers to take control of the ultimate aims for product safety and quality. As part of supplement raw-material industry self-regulatory efforts, non-GMO and organic practices are being discussed within the larger picture. This includes applying food safety principles in a more rigorous way to dietary ingredients; assessing agricultural and collection practices at the fi eld and aggregation levels; improving foreign supplier verifi cation, understanding transformational steps at each point in the process; establishing better specifi cations and testing for identity and contaminants; and performing risk assessment to determine where to best focus efforts. It is important to include non-GMO and organic as specifi c but narrow examples of evidence to support the push, because the knowledge gained from them helps us understand how to improve on standards. The future is in building consumer trust to a level where we can communicate what is being done, and that will be enough. This trust will come from educating to a broader and deeper understanding of quality standards, with evidence in full view showing the requirements are being met. Non-GMO is a good start. Blake Ebersole has led a number of botanical quality initiatives and formed collaborations with dozens of universities and research centers. As president of NaturPro Scientifi c (npscientifi, Ebersole established quality compliance and product development services for supplements and ingredients such as ID Verifi edâ„¢. Follow him on Twitter at @NaturalBlake. Beyond Non-GMO for Supplements by Blake Ebersole

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Natural Products Insider - NOV-DEC 2016