jedzenie: Regulation of genetic engineering

Evidence: 100 • authority: 72

The regulation of genetic engineering varies widely by country. Countries such as the United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt use substantial equivalence as the starting point when assessing safety, while many countries such as those in the European Union, Brazil and China authorize GMO cultivation on a case-by-case basis. Many countries allow the import of GM food with authorization, but either do not allow its cultivation (Russia, Norway, Israel) or have provisions for cultivation, but no GM products are yet produced (Japan, South Korea). Most countries that do not allow for GMO cultivation do permit research. Most (85%) of the world's GMO crops are grown in the Americas (North and South…

Evidence: 45 • authority: 92

From lab to market: industrialization barriers and regulation optimization for new breeding technologies in China.. New Breeding Technologies (NBTs), particularly gene editing, are reshaping the global competitive landscape of the seed industry and providing technological support for ensuring food security and advancing the green transformation of agriculture. This study aims to assess China's distinctive position within the global regulatory spectrum of NBTs, an intermediary status between the European Union's process-based model and the product-based model adopted by countries such as the United States and Argentina. Building on this, the article constructs an institutional analysis frame…

Evidence: 45 • authority: 88

Do Joint Audit Have an Impact on Audit Quality: A Comparison Between Mandatory and Voluntary Regulation of Joint Audit. The topic of audit quality is sparked in every financial crisis and scandal. Therefore, joint audit has been seen as crucial. This literature review investigates the impact of mandatory and voluntary joint audit and audit quality by addressing the potential influence of regulatory responses on agency problems. The review focuses on empirical quantitative studies, excluding audit fee-related research, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of mandatory joint audit on audit quality. By comparing the impact of mandatory and voluntary joint audit on audit qua…

Evidence: 45 • authority: 80

Between voluntary and mandatory CSR

Evidence: 45 • authority: 80

Transparency ≠ Accountability? Rethinking Voluntary Vs. Mandatory Content Moderation Reports

Evidence: 45 • authority: 88

FROM DEEP SYNTHESIS TO MANDATORY LABELING: China’s Lifecycle Regulation of Synthetic Content and Its Rule-of-Law Logic. In March 2025, China promulgated the Measures for Labeling AI-Generated Synthetic Content, paired with the mandatory national standard GB 45438-2025. Together these instruments complete a four-year regulatory sequence—linking algorithmic-recommendation governance, deep-synthesis controls, and generative-AI service regulation—that this Article describes as the lifecycle governance of synthetic content. The labeling regime is not, at bottom, a consumer-disclosure obligation. It is a traceability infrastructure: it mandates machine-readable provenance metadata at the point of…

Evidence: 45 • authority: 80

Mandatory or voluntary labeling of genetically modified foods: Consequences for the Canadian canola sector

Evidence: — • authority: 72

Mandatory labelling or labeling (see spelling differences) is the requirement of consumer products to state their ingredients or components. This is done to protect people with allergies, and so that people can practice moral purchasing. Mandatory labelling is mandated in most developed nations and increasingly also in developing nations, especially for food products, e.g. "Grade A" meats. With regard to food and drugs, mandatory labelling has been a major battleground between consumer advocates and corporations since the late 19th century. Because of past scandals involving deceptive labelling, countries like the United States and Canada require most processed foods to have a nutrition fac…