Literature DB >> 15123382

Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops.

A König1, A Cockburn, R W R Crevel, E Debruyne, R Grafstroem, U Hammerling, I Kimber, I Knudsen, H A Kuiper, A A C M Peijnenburg, A H Penninks, M Poulsen, M Schauzu, J M Wal.   

Abstract

This paper provides guidance on how to assess the safety of foods derived from genetically modified crops (GM crops); it summarises conclusions and recommendations of Working Group 1 of the ENTRANSFOOD project. The paper provides an approach for adapting the test strategy to the characteristics of the modified crop and the introduced trait, and assessing potential unintended effects from the genetic modification. The proposed approach to safety assessment starts with the comparison of the new GM crop with a traditional counterpart that is generally accepted as safe based on a history of human food use (the concept of substantial equivalence). This case-focused approach ensures that foods derived from GM crops that have passed this extensive test-regime are as safe and nutritious as currently consumed plant-derived foods. The approach is suitable for current and future GM crops with more complex modifications. First, the paper reviews test methods developed for the risk assessment of chemicals, including food additives and pesticides, discussing which of these methods are suitable for the assessment of recombinant proteins and whole foods. Second, the paper presents a systematic approach to combine test methods for the safety assessment of foods derived from a specific GM crop. Third, the paper provides an overview on developments in this area that may prove of use in the safety assessment of GM crops, and recommendations for research priorities. It is concluded that the combination of existing test methods provides a sound test-regime to assess the safety of GM crops. Advances in our understanding of molecular biology, biochemistry, and nutrition may in future allow further improvement of test methods that will over time render the safety assessment of foods even more effective and informative. Copryright 2004 Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15123382     DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol        ISSN: 0278-6915            Impact factor:   6.023


  32 in total

1.  Natural variation explains most transcriptomic changes among maize plants of MON810 and comparable non-GM varieties subjected to two N-fertilization farming practices.

Authors:  Anna Coll; Anna Nadal; Rosa Collado; Gemma Capellades; Mikael Kubista; Joaquima Messeguer; Maria Pla
Journal:  Plant Mol Biol       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 4.076

2.  Simultaneous determination of insecticide fipronil and its metabolites in maize and soil by gas chromatography with electron capture detection.

Authors:  Tielong Wang; Jiye Hu; Chaolun Liu
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2013-12-13       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  NGS sequencing reveals that many of the genetic variations in transgenic rice plants match the variations found in natural rice population.

Authors:  Doori Park; Su-Hyun Park; Youn Shic Kim; Beom-Soon Choi; Ju-Kon Kim; Nam-Soo Kim; Ik-Young Choi
Journal:  Genes Genomics       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 1.839

4.  The contribution of transgenic plants to better health through improved nutrition: opportunities and constraints.

Authors:  Eduard Pérez-Massot; Raviraj Banakar; Sonia Gómez-Galera; Uxue Zorrilla-López; Georgina Sanahuja; Gemma Arjó; Bruna Miralpeix; Evangelia Vamvaka; Gemma Farré; Sol Maiam Rivera; Svetlana Dashevskaya; Judit Berman; Maite Sabalza; Dawei Yuan; Chao Bai; Ludovic Bassie; Richard M Twyman; Teresa Capell; Paul Christou; Changfu Zhu
Journal:  Genes Nutr       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 5.523

5.  A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms.

Authors:  Gregory Conko; Drew L Kershen; Henry Miller; Wayne A Parrott
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 54.908

6.  Guidance on allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants.

Authors:  Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikolaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Ebbesen Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Jean-Michel Wal; Philippe Eigenmann; Michelle Epstein; Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber; Frits Koning; Martinus Lovik; Clare Mills; Francisco Javier Moreno; Henk van Loveren; Regina Selb; Antonio Fernandez Dumont
Journal:  EFSA J       Date:  2017-06-22

7.  Variability of CP4 EPSPS expression in genetically engineered soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill).

Authors:  Parimala Chinnadurai; Duška Stojšin; Kang Liu; Gregory E Frierdich; Kevin C Glenn; Tao Geng; Adam Schapaugh; Keguo Huang; Andrew E Deffenbaugh; Zi L Liu; Luis A Burzio
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 2.788

8.  Comparative effects of dietary administered transgenic and conventional papaya on selected intestinal parameters in rat models.

Authors:  Melissa Powell; Andrew O Wheatley; Felix Omoruyi; Helen N Asemota; Nadia P Williams; Paula F Tennant
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2009-08-19       Impact factor: 2.788

9.  Comparison of transgenic Gerbera hybrida lines and traditional varieties shows no differences in cytotoxicity or metabolic fingerprints.

Authors:  Miia Marika Ainasoja; Leena Lyydia Pohjala; Päivi Sirpa Marjaana Tammela; Panu Juhani Somervuo; Pia Maarit Vuorela; Teemu Heikki Teeri
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.788

10.  A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health.

Authors:  Joël Spiroux de Vendômois; François Roullier; Dominique Cellier; Gilles-Eric Séralini
Journal:  Int J Biol Sci       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 6.580

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.