1
|
Li Y, Han C, Shi L, Chen C, Zhao J, Liu T, Zhuo Q. Ninety-Day Feeding Test of Stacked DBN9936 × DBN9501 Maize on Sprague Dawley Rats. J Appl Toxicol 2025; 45:646-658. [PMID: 39639739 DOI: 10.1002/jat.4733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2024] [Revised: 10/29/2024] [Accepted: 11/12/2024] [Indexed: 12/07/2024]
Abstract
The transgenic maize DBN9936 × DBN9501, which confers resistance to insects and tolerance to herbicides, was developed via conventional cross breeding of transgenic maize DBN9936 and DBN9501. In our present study, a 90-day feeding toxicity study was conducted on Sprague Dawley rats to evaluate the safety of the maize. A total of 140 rats were randomly assigned to seven groups (n = 10/sex/group): one control group, three genetically modified (GM) groups with 17.5%, 35%, and 70% (wt/wt) GM maize, respectively, and three non-GM groups with corresponding incorporation rate of parental maize DBN318. The rats of control group were fed with AIN93G diet. The parameters including body weights, food consumption, hematology, serum biochemistry, organ weights, and histopathology were examined during the course of the study. Compared with the non-GM group or AIN93G control group, minor statistical differences were observed for some parameters in some groups, yet none of them was considered a GM-related adverse effect. In conclusion, the results demonstrated that no adverse effect was observed on rats following 90 days feeding with diet containing up to 70% GM maize. The results indicated that stacked maize DBN9936 × DBN9501 was as safe as its parental DBN318 maize.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Li
- Key Laboratory of Trace Element Nutrition of National Health Commission (NHC), National Institute for Nutrition and Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China
| | - Chao Han
- Key Laboratory of Trace Element Nutrition of National Health Commission (NHC), National Institute for Nutrition and Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China
| | - Lili Shi
- Key Laboratory of Trace Element Nutrition of National Health Commission (NHC), National Institute for Nutrition and Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China
| | - Chen Chen
- Key Laboratory of Trace Element Nutrition of National Health Commission (NHC), National Institute for Nutrition and Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China
| | - Jinpeng Zhao
- Key Laboratory of Trace Element Nutrition of National Health Commission (NHC), National Institute for Nutrition and Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China
| | - Tingting Liu
- Key Laboratory of Trace Element Nutrition of National Health Commission (NHC), National Institute for Nutrition and Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China
| | - Qin Zhuo
- Key Laboratory of Trace Element Nutrition of National Health Commission (NHC), National Institute for Nutrition and Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Casacuberta J, Barro F, Braeuning A, Cubas P, de Maagd R, Epstein MM, Frenzel T, Gallois JL, Koning F, Messéan A, Moreno FJ, Nogué F, Savoini G, Schulman AH, Tebbe C, Veromann E, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Dumont AF, Ferrari A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Grammatikou P, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize DAS1131 (application GMFF-2021-1530). EFSA J 2025; 23:e9282. [PMID: 40109670 PMCID: PMC11920813 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2025] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize DAS1131 was developed to confer resistance to certain susceptible lepidopteran pests, as well as tolerance to glyphosate herbicide, these properties were achieved by introducing the cry1Da2 and dgt-28 epsps expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DAS1131 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for crude fat in grain which does not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry1Da2 and DGT-28 EPSPS proteins as expressed in maize DAS1131 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize DAS1131. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DAS1131 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DAS1131 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and the non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of release of maize DAS1131 into the environment, including viable grains, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DAS1131. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DAS1131 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
3
|
EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, Camargo AM, De Sanctis G, Federici S, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Grammatikou P, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize DP202216 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-159). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8655. [PMID: 38510324 PMCID: PMC10952026 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8655] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize DP202216 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-containing herbicides and to provide an opportunity for yield enhancement under field conditions. These properties were achieved by introducing the mo-pat and zmm28 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP202216 and its comparator needs further assessment, except for the levels of stearic acid (C18:0), which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the PAT and ZMM28 proteins as expressed in maize DP202216, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize DP202216. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP202216 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as the comparator and non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP202216 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP202216. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as its comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
4
|
Fernandez A, Danisman E, Taheri Boroujerdi M, Kazemi S, Moreno FJ, Epstein MM. Research gaps and future needs for allergen prediction in food safety. FRONTIERS IN ALLERGY 2024; 5:1297547. [PMID: 38440401 PMCID: PMC10911423 DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2024.1297547] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2023] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 03/06/2024] Open
Abstract
The allergenicity and protein risk assessments in food safety are facing new challenges. Demands for healthier and more sustainable food systems have led to significant advances in biotechnology, the development of more complex foods, and the search for alternative protein sources. All this has increased the pressure on the safety assessment prediction approaches anchored into requirements defined in the late 90's. In 2022, the EFSA's Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms published a scientific opinion focusing on the developments needed for allergenicity and protein safety assessments of new products derived from biotechnology. Here, we further elaborate on the main elements described in this scientific opinion and prioritize those development needs requiring critical attention. The starting point of any new recommendation would require a focus on clinical relevance and the development of a fit-for-purpose database targeted for specific risk assessment goals. Furthermore, it is imperative to review and clarify the main purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment. An internationally agreed consensus on the overall purpose of allergenicity risk assessment will accelerate the development of fit-for-purpose methodologies, where the role of exposure should be better clarified. Considering the experience gained over the last 25 years and recent scientific developments in the fields of biotechnology, allergy, and risk assessment, it is time to revise and improve the allergenicity safety assessment to ensure the reliability of allergenicity assessments for food of the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A. Fernandez
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
| | - E. Danisman
- Experimental Allergy Laboratory, Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - M. Taheri Boroujerdi
- Experimental Allergy Laboratory, Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - S. Kazemi
- Experimental Allergy Laboratory, Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - F. J. Moreno
- Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias de la Alimentación (CIAL), CSIC-UAM, CEI (UAM+CSIC), Madrid, Spain
| | - M. M. Epstein
- Experimental Allergy Laboratory, Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, Camargo AM, De Sanctis G, Federici S, Fernández A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize DP23211 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-163). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8483. [PMID: 38239495 PMCID: PMC10794937 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize DP23211 was developed to confer control of certain coleopteran pests and tolerance to glufosinate-containing herbicide. These properties were achieved by introducing the pmi, mo-pat, ipd072Aa and DvSSJ1 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP23211 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for those in levels of histidine, phenylalanine, magnesium, phosphorus and folic acid in grain, which do not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD072Aa, PAT and PMI proteins and the DvSSJ1 dsRNA and derived siRNAs newly expressed in maize DP23211, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP23211. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP23211 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. Therefore, no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP23211 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP23211. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP23211 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
6
|
Mullins E, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Federici S, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 and 30 subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2018-149). EFSA J 2023; 21:e08011. [PMID: 37284025 PMCID: PMC10240405 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 was developed by crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, MON 89034, 5307 and GA21, the GMO Panel previously assessed the 6 single maize events and 27 out of the 56 possible subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombinations were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the six-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that six-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable six-event stack maize grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in 29 of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and covered by the scope of this application and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the six-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21. The GMO Panel concludes that six-event stack maize and the 30 subcombinations covered by the scope of the application are as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
7
|
EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Serrano JJS, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Devos Y, Federici S, Fernandez Dumont A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lanzoni A, Lenzi P, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified maize GA21 × T25 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2016-137). EFSA J 2023; 21:e07729. [PMID: 36721864 PMCID: PMC9880721 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7729] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize GA21 × T25 was developed by crossing to combine two single events: GA21 and T25. The GMO Panel previously assessed the two single maize events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in maize GA21 × T25 does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 × T25, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food and feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize GA21 × T25 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize GA21 × T25. Post-market monitoring of food and feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 × T25 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties tested, with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
8
|
EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Serrano JJS, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Federici S, Fernandez Dumont A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Lanzoni A, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87419 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2017-140). EFSA J 2023; 21:e07730. [PMID: 36698492 PMCID: PMC9853084 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7730] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize MON 87419 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba- and glufosinate-based herbicides. These properties were achieved by introducing the dmo and pat expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MON 87419 and its conventional counterpart needed further assessment, except for the levels of arginine and protein in grains which did not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the dicamba mono-oxygenase (DMO) and phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase (PAT) proteins as expressed in maize MON 87419. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 87419. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 87419 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87419 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 87419 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 87419. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87419 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|