Do whole-food animal feeding studies have any value in the safety assessment of GM crops?

Hypothesis-based food, feed, and environmental safety assessment of GM crops: A case study using maize event DP-202216-6

Event DP-2Ø2216-6 (referred to as DP202216 maize) was genetically modified to increase and extend the expression of the introduced zmm28 gene relative to endogenous zmm28 gene expression, resulting in plants with enhanced grain yield potential. The zmm28 gene expresses the ZMM28 protein, a MADS-box transcription factor. The safety assessment of DP202216 maize included an assessment of the potential hazard of the ZMM28 protein, as well as an assessment of potential unintended effects of the genetic insertion on agronomics, composition, and nutrition. The history of safe use (HOSU) of the ZMM28 protein was evaluated and a bioinformatics approach was used to compare the deduced amino acid sequence of the ZMM28 protein to databases of known allergens and toxins. Based on HOSU and the bioinformatics assessment, the ZMM28 protein was determined to be unlikely to be either allergenic or toxic to humans. The composition of DP202216 maize forage and grain was comparable to non-modified forage and grain, with no unintended effects on nutrition or food and feed safety. Additionally, feeding studies with broiler chickens and rats demonstrated a low likelihood of unintentional alterations in nutrition and low potential for adverse effects. Furthermore, the agronomics observed for DP202216 maize and non-modified maize were comparable, indicating that the likelihood of increased weediness or invasiveness of DP202216 maize in the environment is low. This comprehensive review serves as a reference for regulatory agencies and decision-makers in countries where authorization of DP202216 maize will be pursued, and for others interested in food, feed, and environmental safety.

Food and feed safety of DAS-444Ø6-6 herbicide-tolerant soybean

DAS-444Ø6-6 soybean was genetically engineered (GE) to withstand applications of three different herbicides. Tolerance to glufosinate and glyphosate is achieved through expression of the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) and double-mutated maize 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthase (2mEPSPS) enzymes, respectively. These proteins are expressed in currently commercialized crops and represent no novel risk. Tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is achieved through expression of the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase 12 (AAD-12) enzyme, which is novel in crops. The safety of the AAD-12 protein and DAS-444Ø6-6 event was assessed for food and feed safety based on the weight of evidence and found to be as safe as non-GE soybean.

2015 Evidence Analysis Library Systematic Review on Advanced Technology in Food Production

In the late 20th century, plant breeders began using molecular biology techniques such as recombinant DNA, also known as genetic engineering, along with traditional cross-breeding. Ten plant and one animal food have been approved for commercialization in the United States. Today, foods and ingredients from genetically engineered (GE) crops are present throughout the food supply, which has led to varying levels of acceptance. Much discussion exists among consumers and health professionals about the believability of statements made regarding benefits or risks of GE foods. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the evidence on the association of consumption of GE foods and ingredients derived from them on human health, specifically allergenicity, food safety, pesticide consumption, nutrient adequacy, inflammation, and antibiotic resistance. An expert panel conducted a systematic review on advanced technology in food production. The 30 developed questions focused on effects of human consumption of GE foods and the effects of human consumption of foods containing pesticide residues on human health. Primary research published from 1994 to 2014 were identified using PubMed and Agricultural Online Access databases. Additional studies were identified by searching references of review articles. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Relevant research addressed five of 30 questions. Four questions focused on food allergenicity, the fifth on nutrient adequacy, and all received a Grade III (limited/weak) rating. No human studies addressed 25 questions on the consumption of foods produced using genetic engineering technologies on gene translocation, cancer, food safety, phenotype expression, inflammation and inflammatory markers, or antibiotic resistance. These questions received a Grade V (grade not assignable). Evidence from human studies did not reveal an association between adverse health effects and consumption of foods produced using genetic engineering technologies. Although the number of available human studies is small, they support that there are no clear adverse health effects-as they relate to allergenicity and nutrient adequacy-associated with consumption of GE foods. The present systematic review is aligned with a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences that included human and animal research.

Safety Assessment of Food and Feed from GM Crops in Europe: Evaluating EFSA's Alternative Framework for the Rat 90-day Feeding Study

Regulatory-compliant rodent subchronic feeding studies are compulsory regardless of a hypothesis to test, according to recent EU legislation for the safety assessment of whole food/feed produced from genetically modified (GM) crops containing a single genetic transformation event (European Union Commission Implementing Regulation No. 503/2013). The Implementing Regulation refers to guidelines set forth by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the design, conduct, and analysis of rodent subchronic feeding studies. The set of EFSA recommendations was rigorously applied to a 90-day feeding study in Sprague-Dawley rats. After study completion, the appropriateness and applicability of these recommendations were assessed using a battery of statistical analysis approaches including both retrospective and prospective statistical power analyses as well as variance-covariance decomposition. In the interest of animal welfare considerations, alternative experimental designs were investigated and evaluated in the context of informing the health risk assessment of food/feed from GM crops.

Safety considerations derived from Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1 structure and function

Insecticidal proteins developed for in-plant protection against crop pests undergo extensive safety testing during the product development process. Safety considerations for insecticidal proteins expressed in crops follow recommended, science-based guidelines and specific studies are conducted on a case by case basis. Corn events expressing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 were developed to protect maize from Diabrotica virgifera virgifera (western corn rootworm) feeding damage. The protein crystal structures of Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 are different from the more common three-domain Cry or Vip3 proteins expressed in insect resistant maize varieties. Cry34Ab1 is a single domain protein that folds into a beta sandwich structure that resembles membrane-active proteins, including several cytolysins, from a variety of natural sources. Cry35Ab1 has two domains, one domain with structural relatedness to sugar binding motifs and a second domain with an extended beta sheet structure that is clearly related to beta pore forming proteins, some of which are insecticidal, e.g. B. sphaericus BinA/BinB. In this review we discuss Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1 structure and function in the context of protein safety studies for insect resistant crops.

Transgenic maize event TC1507: Global status of food, feed, and environmental safety

Maize (Zea mays) is a widely cultivated cereal that has been safely consumed by humans and animals for centuries. Transgenic or genetically engineered insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant maize, are commercially grown on a broad scale. Event TC1507 (OECD unique identifier: DAS-Ø15Ø7–1) or the Herculex®^# I trait, an insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant maize expressing Cry1F and PAT proteins, has been registered for commercial cultivation in the US since 2001. A science-based safety assessment was conducted on TC1507 prior to commercialization. The safety assessment addressed allergenicity; acute oral toxicity; subchronic toxicity; substantial equivalence with conventional comparators, as well as environmental impact. Results from biochemical, physicochemical, and in silico investigations supported the conclusion that Cry1F and PAT proteins are unlikely to be either allergenic or toxic to humans. Also, findings from toxicological and animal feeding studies supported that maize with TC1507 is as safe and nutritious as conventional maize. Maize with TC1507 is not expected to behave differently than conventional maize in terms of its potential for invasiveness, gene flow to wild and weedy relatives, or impact on non-target organisms. These safety conclusions regarding TC1507 were acknowledged by over 20 regulatory agencies including United States Environment Protection Agency (US EPA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) before authorizing cultivation and/or food and feed uses. A comprehensive review of the safety studies on TC1507, as well as some benefits, are presented here to serve as a reference for regulatory agencies and decision makers in other countries where authorization of TC1507 is or will be pursued.

EFSA's scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence: looking back and ahead

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and derived food and feed products are subject to a risk analysis and regulatory approval before they can enter the market in the European Union (EU). In this risk analysis process, the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which was created in 2002 in response to multiple food crises, is to independently assess and provide scientific advice to risk managers on any possible risks that the use of GMOs may pose to human and animal health and the environment. EFSA's scientific advice is elaborated by its GMO Panel with the scientific support of several working groups and EFSA's GMO Unit. This review presents EFSA's scientific activities and highlights its achievements on the risk assessment of GMOs for the first 10 years of its existence. Since 2002, EFSA has issued 69 scientific opinions on genetically modified (GM) plant market registration applications, of which 62 for import and processing for food and feed uses, six for cultivation and one for the use of pollen (as or in food), and 19 scientific opinions on applications for marketing products made with GM microorganisms. Several guidelines for the risk assessment of GM plants, GM microorganisms and GM animals, as well as on specific issues such as post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) were elaborated. EFSA also provided scientific advice upon request of the European Commission on safeguard clause and emergency measures invoked by EU Member States, annual PMEM reports, the potential risks of new biotechnology-based plant breeding techniques, evaluations of previously assessed GMOs in the light of new scientific publications, and the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM plants. Future challenges relevant to the risk assessment of GMOs are discussed. EFSA's risk assessments of GMO applications ensure that data are analysed and presented in a way that facilitates scientifically sound decisions that protect human and animal health and the environment.