Carry-over of DNA from genetically modified soyabean and maize to cow’s milk

Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Feed: Is There Any Difference From Food?

Food security is one of major concerns for the growing global population. Modern agricultural biotechnologies, such as genetic modification, are a possible solution through enabling an increase of production, more efficient use of natural resources, and reduced environmental impacts. However, new crop varieties with altered genetic materials may be subjected to safety assessments to fulfil the regulatory requirements, prior to marketing. The aim of the assessment is to evaluate the impact of products from the new crop variety on human, animal, and the environmental health. Although, many studies on the risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) food have been published, little consideration to GM feedstuff has been given, despite that between 70 to 90% of all GM crops and their biomass are used as animal feed. In addition, in some GM plants such as forages that are only used for animal feeds, the assessment of the genetic modification may be of relevance only to livestock feeding. In this article, the regulatory framework of GM crops intended for animal feed is reviewed using the available information on GM food as the baseline. Although, the majority of techniques used for the safety assessment of GM food can be used in GM feed, many plant parts used for livestock feeding are inedible to humans. Therefore, the concentration of novel proteins in different plant tissues and level of exposure to GM feedstuff in the diet of target animals should be considered. A further development of specific methodologies for the assessment of GM crops intended for animal consumption is required, in order to provide a more accurate and standardized assessment to the GM feed safety.

Detection of dietary DNA, protein, and glyphosate in meat, milk, and eggs

Products such as meat, milk, and eggs from animals that have consumed genetically engineered (GE) feed are not currently subject to mandatory GE labeling requirements. Some voluntary "non-genetically modified organism" labeling has been associated with such products, indicating that the animals were not fed GE crops, as there are no commercialized GE food animals. This review summarizes the available scientific literature on the detection of dietary DNA and protein in animal products and briefly discusses the implications of mandatory GE labeling for products from animals that have consumed GE feed. Because glyphosate is used on some GE crops, the available studies on glyphosate residues in animal products are also reviewed. In GE crops, recombinant DNA (rDNA) makes up a small percentage of the plant's total DNA. The final amount of DNA in food/feed depends on many factors including the variable number and density of cells in the edible parts, the DNA-containing matrix, environmental conditions, and the specific transgenic event. Processing treatments and animals' digestive systems degrade DNA into small fragments. Available reports conclude that endogenous DNA and rDNA are processed in exactly the same way in the gastrointestinal tract and that they account for a very small proportion of food intake by weight. Small pieces of high copy number endogenous plant genes have occasionally been detected in meat and milk. Similarly sized pieces of rDNA have also been identified in meat, primarily fish, although detection is inconsistent. Dietary rDNA fragments have not been detected in chicken or quail eggs or in fresh milk from cows or goats. Collectively, studies have failed to identify full-length endogenous or rDNA transcripts or recombinant proteins in meat, milk, or eggs. Similarly, because mammals do not bioaccumulate glyphosate and it is rapidly excreted, negligible levels of glyphosate in cattle, pig and poultry meat, milk, and eggs have been reported. Despite consumer concern about the presence of trace concentrations of glyphosate that might have been applied to feed crops and/or the presence of rDNA or recombinant proteins in meat, milk, and eggs, the available data do not provide evidence to suggest that products from animals that have consumed approved GE feed crops differ in any distinguishable way from those derived from animals fed conventional feed or that products from animals fed GE feedstuffs pose novel health risks.