Literature DB >> 22155268

Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review.

Chelsea Snell1, Aude Bernheim, Jean-Baptiste Bergé, Marcel Kuntz, Gérard Pascal, Alain Paris, Agnès E Ricroch.   

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed. Copyright Â
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22155268     DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048

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


  42 in total

1.  A 90-day subchronic feeding study of genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab protein in Sprague-Dawley rats.

Authors:  Huan Song; Xiaoyun He; Shiying Zou; Teng Zhang; Yunbo Luo; Kunlun Huang; Zhen Zhu; Wentao Xu
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 2.788

2.  How safe does transgenic food need to be?

Authors:  Laura DeFrancesco
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 54.908

3.  Rat study sparks GM furore.

Authors:  Declan Butler
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Facing up to Complexity: Implications for Our Social Experiments.

Authors:  Ronnie Hawkins
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Genetically engineered crops that fly under the US regulatory radar.

Authors:  Alex Camacho; Allen Van Deynze; Cecilia Chi-Ham; Alan B Bennett
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 6.  New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology.

Authors:  John Davison; Klaus Ammann
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2017-01-02       Impact factor: 3.074

7.  Biotechnology: Bring more rigour to GM research.

Authors:  François Houllier
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 8.  Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns-a review.

Authors:  A S Bawa; K R Anilakumar
Journal:  J Food Sci Technol       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 2.701

9.  Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats.

Authors:  Gemma Arjó; Manuel Portero; Carme Piñol; Juan Viñas; Xavier Matias-Guiu; Teresa Capell; Andrew Bartholomaeus; Wayne Parrott; Paul Christou
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 2.788

10.  Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  J Agric Environ Ethics       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.727

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.