Food Safety Assessment of Commercial Genetically Modified Soybeans in Rats

Although the safety of commercial genetically modified (GM) soybeans has been well evaluated and GM soybeans are legally sold under government management, some consumers still have concerns about their safety. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of commercial GM soybeans sold in markets as a food source. In the present study, two commercial GM (GM-1 and -2) soybeans and one non-GM soybean were randomly purchased and subjected to a whole food toxicity assessment. Rats (SD), male and female, were divided into six groups (10/sex/group). Two dosages of 1 g/kg/day and 5 g/kg/day of soybeans were selected for the low- and high-dose groups. Rats were administered the soybeans via daily oral fed for 90 days. The results indicate that the body weight, organ weight, biochemistry, hematology, and urology showed no biologically adverse effects. At necropsy, no significant differences between organ weights were noted between the non-GM- and GM soybeans-treated groups. Moreover, no gross or histopathological lesions were observed in the high-dosage (5 g/kg/day) fed groups of the non-GM and GM soybean fed rats. In conclusion, this food safety assessment revealed that commercial GM soybeans are substantially equivalent to non-GM soybeans in rats.

Transparency in risk-disproportionate regulation of modern crop-breeding techniques

Despite over 25 years of safe deployment of genetically engineered crops, the number, complexity, and scope of regulatory studies required for global approvals continue to increase devoid of adequate scientific justification. Recently, there have been calls to further expand the scope of study and data requirements to improve public acceptance. However, increased regulation can actually generate consumer distrust due to the misperception that risks are high. We believe risk-disproportionate regulation as a means to advocate for acceptance of technology is counterproductive, even though some regulatory authorities believe it part of their mandate. To help avoid public distrust, the concept of regulatory transparency to demystify regulatory decision-making should be extended to clearly justifying specific regulatory requirements as: 1) risk-driven (i.e., proportionately addressing increased risk compared with traditional breeding), or 2) advocacy-driven (i.e., primarily addressing consumer concerns and acceptance). Such transparency in the motivation for requiring risk-disproportionate studies would: 1) lessen over-prescriptive regulation, 2) save public and private resources, 3) make beneficial products and technologies available to society sooner, 4) reduce needless animal sacrifice, 5) improve regulatory decision-making regarding safety, and 6) lessen public distrust that is generated by risk-disproportionate regulation.

Weight of the evidence: independent research projects confirm industry conclusions on the safety of insect-protected maize MON 810

The cumulative weight of the evidence demonstrates the safety and equivalence of genetically engineered (GE) crops compared to the conventional varieties from which they have been derived. Confirmatory toxicology and animal nutrition studies have nevertheless become an expected/mandated component of GE crop safety assessments, despite the lack of additional value these studies provide for product safety assessment. Characterization and safety data (e.g. trait protein safety; molecular, compositional, and agronomic/phenotypic assessments), and animal feeding studies form a weight of the evidence supporting the safety of insect-protected maize MON 810. Independent animal testing has recently confirmed the lack of MON 810 toxicity in subchronic and chronic toxicity studies. These results could have been predicted from the available safety data. Animal testing of GE crops should be supported by testable scientific hypotheses and testing should be consistent with ethical obligations to reduce, refine, and replace (3Rs) animal testing when possible.

A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward

A special regulatory regime applies to products of recombinant nucleic acid modifications. A ruling from the European Court of Justice has interpreted this regulatory regime in a way that it also applies to emerging mutagenesis techniques. Elsewhere regulatory progress is also ongoing. In 2015, Argentina launched a regulatory framework, followed by Chile in 2017 and recently Brazil and Colombia. In March 2018, the USDA announced that it will not regulate genome-edited plants differently if they could have also been developed through traditional breeding. Canada has an altogether different approach with their Plants with Novel Traits regulations. Australia is currently reviewing its Gene Technology Act. This article illustrates the deviation of the European Union's (EU's) approach from the one of most of the other countries studied here. Whereas the EU does not implement a case-by-case approach, this approach is taken by several other jurisdictions. Also, the EU court ruling adheres to a process-based approach while most other countries have a stronger emphasis on the regulation of the resulting product. It is concluded that, unless a functioning identity preservation system for products of directed mutagenesis can be established, the deviation results in a risk of asynchronous approvals and disruptions in international trade.

Characterization of scientific studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food/feed

GM crops are the most studied crops in history. Approximately 5% of the safety studies on them show adverse effects that are a cause for concern and tend to be featured in media reports. Although these reports are based on just a handful of GM events, they are used to cast doubt on all GM crops. Furthermore, they tend to come from just a few laboratories and are published in less important journals. Importantly, a close examination of these reports invariably shows methodological flaws that invalidate any conclusions of adverse effects. Twenty years after commercial cultivation of GM crops began, a bona fide report of an adverse health effect due to a commercialized modification in a crop has yet to be reported.