Literature DB >> 12071300

Food safety evaluation of crops produced through biotechnology.

Bruce M Chassy1.   

Abstract

Agricultural biotechnology has been widely adopted in agriculture but is also the focus of controversy. Questions have arisen regarding food and environmental safety. In the US, responsibility for ensuring agricultural and environmental safety is delegated to the USDA and EPA, respectively. The FDA has primary responsibility for food safety, with the exception that the EPA has responsibility for the safety of proteins in plants associated with insect defense mechanisms. The food safety assessment, whether performed by the FDA or the EPA, requires evaluation of the safety of 1) the newly added DNA, 2) the safety of the newly introduced gene product and 3) the overall safety of the balance of the food. A paradigm called "Substantial Equivalence" guides the assessment. The principal food safety issues for new varieties crops are 1) potential toxicity of the newly introduced protein(s), 2) potential changes in allergenicity, 3) changes in nutrient composition, 4) unintended effects giving rise to allergenicity or toxicity and 5) the safety of antibiotic resistance marker-encoded proteins included with the transgene. All of these must be taken in the context of the predicted range of dietary exposures. The evaluation seeks to establish that there is a "reasonable likelihood of safety" and that new varieties are as safe as or safer than crops produced by traditional methods. Indeed, after extensive safety testing and some five years of experience with such crops in the marketplace, there is not a single report that would lead an expert food scientist to question the safety of such transgenic crops now in use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12071300     DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2002.10719261

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Nutr        ISSN: 0731-5724            Impact factor:   3.169


  7 in total

Review 1.  Safety risks for animals fed genetic modified (GM) plants.

Authors:  G Bertoni; P Ajmone Marsan
Journal:  Vet Res Commun       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.459

2.  Effects of Phytase Transgenic Maize on the Physiological and Biochemical Responses and the Gut Microflora Functional Diversity of Ostrinia furnacalis.

Authors:  Xiao Hui Xu; Yinghui Guo; Hongwei Sun; Fan Li; Shuke Yang; Rui Gao; Xingbo Lu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  iTRAQ-based quantitative tissue proteomic analysis of differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) in non-transgenic and transgenic soybean seeds.

Authors:  Weixiao Liu; Wentao Xu; Liang Li; Mei Dong; Yusong Wan; Xiaoyun He; Kunlun Huang; Wujun Jin
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Slow alignment of GMO allergenicity regulations with science on protein digestibility.

Authors:  Rod A Herman; John X Q Zhang; Jason M Roper
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2022-12-31       Impact factor: 3.118

5.  Randomly detected genetically modified (GM) maize (Zea mays L.) near a transport route revealed a fragile 45S rDNA phenotype.

Authors:  Nomar Espinosa Waminal; Ki Hyun Ryu; Sun-Hee Choi; Hyun Hee Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Plasmid-based complementation of large deletions in Phaeodactylum tricornutum biosynthetic genes generated by Cas9 editing.

Authors:  Samuel S Slattery; Helen Wang; Daniel J Giguere; Csanad Kocsis; Bradley L Urquhart; Bogumil J Karas; David R Edgell
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  CRISPR/Cas9 Directed Mutagenesis of OsGA20ox2 in High Yielding Basmati Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Line and Comparative Proteome Profiling of Unveiled Changes Triggered by Mutations.

Authors:  Gul Nawaz; Babar Usman; Neng Zhao; Yue Han; Zhihua Li; Xin Wang; Yaoguang Liu; Rongbai Li
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 5.923

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.