Author:
Carlson Anne B.,Mathesius Carey A.,Gunderson Tim A.,Hession Aideen,Bruyere Reba,Mirsky Henry P.,Zhang John,Sandmann Mat,Fallers Melissa N.,Herman Rod A.
Abstract
AbstractFundamental to the safety assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops is the concept of negligible risk for newly expressed proteins for which there is a history of safe use. Although this simple concept has been stated in international and regional guidance for assessing the risk of newly expressed proteins in GM crops, its full implementation by regulatory authorities has been lacking. As a result, safety studies are often repeated at a significant expenditure of resources by developers, study results are repeatedly reviewed by regulators, and animals are sacrificed needlessly to complete redundant animal toxicity studies. This situation is illustrated using the example of the selectable marker phosphomannose isomerase (PMI) for which familiarity has been established. Reviewed is the history of safe use for PMI and predictable results of newly conducted safety studies including bioinformatic comparisons, resistance to digestion, and acute toxicity that were repeated to gain regulatory reapproval of PMI expressed from constructs in recently developed GM maize. As expected, the results of these newly repeated hazard-identification and characterization studies for PMI indicate negligible risk. PMI expressed in recently developed GM crops provides an opportunity to use the concept of familiarity by regulatory authorities to reduce risk-disproportionate regulation of these new events and lessen the resulting waste of both developer and regulator resources, as well as eliminate unnecessary animal testing. This would also correctly imply that familiar proteins like PMI have negligible risk. Together, such modernization of regulations would benefit society through enabling broader and faster access to needed technologies.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Agronomy and Crop Science,Genetics,Animal Science and Zoology,Biotechnology
Reference29 articles.
1. Bøgh KL, Madsen CB (2016) Food allergens: Is there a correlation between stability to digestion and allergenicity? Crit Rev Food Sci 56:1545–1567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2013.779569
2. Burdock GA, Carabin IG (2004) Generally recognized as safe (GRAS): history and description. Toxicol Lett 150:3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.07.004
3. Carlson AB, Mathesius CA, Ballou S, Boeckman CJ, Gunderson TA, Mirsky HP, Mukerji P, Roe JC, Schmidt JM, Zhang J, Delaney B (2019) Safety assessment of coleopteran active IPD072Aa protein from Psuedomonas chlororaphis. Food Chem Toxicol 129:376–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.04.055
4. Carlson AB, Mathesius CA, Ballou S, Fallers MN, Gunderson TA, Hession A, Mirsky H, Stolte B, Zhang J, Woods RM, Herman RA, Roper JM (2022) Safety assessment of the insecticidal protein IPD079Ea from the fern, Ophioglossum pendulum. Food Chem Toxicol 166:113187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.113187
5. Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003) Alinorm 03/34: Appendix III: Draft guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants, and Appendix IV: Proposed Draft Annex of the Assessment of Possible Allergenicity. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization, Rome, pp 47–60