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

Giraldo, Paula Andrea; Shinozuka, Hiroshi; Spangenberg, Germán; Cogan, Noel O. I.; Smith, K. F.

doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01592

Cited by 48 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 174 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…На современном этапе учеными выделены 529 линий растений 3 (устоявшиеся качества), к которым относятся такие культуры, как соя, кукуруза, рис, пшеница, томаты, сахарная свекла, хлопок и др. (Kiliç & Akay, 2008;Lu, Wu & Jiang et al, 2012;Miroshnichenko et al, 2019), а в некоторых странах культивируют ГМ-животных, рыб и ГМ-корм для животных, к примеру, осенью 2020 г. в США была одобрена генетическая модификация свиней, предназначенная для употребления в пищу, а также использования их мяса в терапевтических (медицинских) целях 4 . Эта линия получила название GalSafe и по результатам исследователей, культивировавших данный вид свиней, мясо данных животных рекомендовано лицам, страдающих аллергическими реакциями.…”

Section: постановка проблемы в области оборота гмоunclassified

“…гг. прошлого века (Giraldo, Shinozuka & Spangenberg et al, 2019). В результате этого в 1986 г. Исполнительным аппаратом главы Управления по разработке научно-технической политики США был опубликован акт «Координированные рамки регулирования биотехнологии», который разработан для рассмотрения вопроса о том, подходит ли нормативная база, регулирующая производство и оборот традиционных продуктов, для ГМО.…”

Section: законодательство сша о гмоunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Legal regulation in the field of genetically modified organisms (GMO) turnover in Russia and foreign countries

Novikova

Галимовна²

2021

Vestn. Ross. univ. družby nar., Ser. Ûrid. nauki

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most relevant issues, which todays society face is the use of advanced technologies in the field of GMO and GM-food. Taking a look at the world map of law we can see diverse legal regulation of GMO turnover, especially in the context of regulation and control of genomic studies and their practical application, risk assessment of uncontrollable GMO spreading and technologies of genetic editing of organisms including at the level of research planning. The comparative legal analysis of foreign regulation (including in dominant jurisdictions), provided in this article allows revealing those distinctions, determining the basic tendencies in GMO legal development and connected products with GMO components, including the matters of control with regard to GMO turnover. The analysis allowed drawing several recommendations on borrowing foreign experience for the sake of revising Russian regulation, i.e., taking regulatory measures to develop the relevant sphere of social relationships - legal acts, governmental decrees, etc. oriented towards the development of biotechnologies, raising confidence of citizens in genetics, stimulation of GMO production efficiency, and innovative development. Russia is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU); therefore, the article discusses the national laws of these countries concerning GMO and contains recommendations for harmonizing the legal framework of the supranational level in the field of GMO turnover.

show abstract

Section: постановка проблемы в области оборота гмоunclassified

Section: законодательство сша о гмоunclassified

Legal regulation in the field of genetically modified organisms (GMO) turnover in Russia and foreign countries

Novikova

Галимовна²

2021

Vestn. Ross. univ. družby nar., Ser. Ûrid. nauki

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite unlimited applications, strict GMO regulations due to environmental (invasiveness, intraspecific, and interspecific hybridization) and health (food toxicity and allergenicity) biosafety concerns (Stewart et al, 2000), are the significant limitations. Developing a genetically modified crop is therefore expensive as every GM crop must be assessed for environmental and health biosafety (Giraldo et al, 2019). Transgenics resulted in crops with improved traits, e.g., nutritional value (Broun et al, 1999;Hirschberg, 1999), tolerance to various abiotic stresses (Holmberg and Bulow, 1998;Koh et al, 2007), herbicide resistance (Anthony et al, 1999), insect resistance (Dempsey et al, 1998), modified flower color (Mol et al, 1999), etc.…”

Section: Transgenics (Plant Transformation)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Crop Improvement: Present Techniques and Futuristic Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Aspects of DNA Repair and Recombination in Crop Improvement

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adverse effects of global climate change combined with an exponentially increasing human population have put substantial constraints on agriculture, accelerating efforts towards ensuring food security for a sustainable future. Conventional plant breeding and modern technologies have led to the creation of plants with better traits and higher productivity. Most crop improvement approaches (conventional breeding, genome modification, and gene editing) primarily rely on DNA repair and recombination (DRR). Studying plant DRR can provide insights into designing new strategies or improvising the present techniques for crop improvement. Even though plants have evolved specialized DRR mechanisms compared to other eukaryotes, most of our insights about plant-DRRs remain rooted in studies conducted in animals. DRR mechanisms in plants include direct repair, nucleotide excision repair (NER), base excision repair (BER), mismatch repair (MMR), non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR). Although each DRR pathway acts on specific DNA damage, there is crosstalk between these. Considering the importance of DRR pathways as a tool in crop improvement, this review focuses on a general description of each DRR pathway, emphasizing on the structural aspects of key DRR proteins. The review highlights the gaps in our understanding and the importance of studying plant DRR in the context of crop improvement.

show abstract

“…Transgenic crops, such as soybean (Pallett, 2018;Tian et al, 2019), corn (Li et al, 2018), rapeseed (Zhang et al, 2020), and cotton (Chen et al, 2019) are cultivated to improve crop yield and resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Transgenic crops have greatly contributed to meet the increasing demand for food by the growing world population (Aldemita et al, 2015;Koch et al, 2015;Giraldo et al, 2019). In 2018, a total of 70 countries have planted or imported genetically modified (GM) crops or products, and 26 countries have planted nearly 0.2 billion ha of GM crops (International organization for the application of agricultural biotechnology services (ISAAA), 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular and Toxicity Analyses of White Granulated Sugar and Other Processing Products Derived From Transgenic Sugarcane

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to prepare the sugar industry for the possible introduction of genetically modified (GM) sugarcane and derived retail sugar products and to address several potential public concerns regarding the characteristics and safety of these products. GM sugarcane lines with integrated Cry1Ab and EPSPS foreign genes were used for GM sugar production. Traditional PCR, real-time fluorescent quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were performed in analyzing leaves, stems, and other derived materials during sugar production, such as fibers, clarified juices, filter mud, syrups, molasses, and final GM sugar product. The toxicity of GM sugar was examined with a feeding bioassay using Helicoverpa armigera larvae. PCR and RT-qPCR results showed that the leaves, stems, fibers, juices, syrups, filter mud, molasses, and white granulated sugar from GM sugarcane can be distinguished from those derived from non-GM sugarcane. The RT-qPCR detection method using short amplified product primers was more accurate than the traditional PCR method. Molecular analysis results indicated that trace amounts of DNA residues remain in GM sugar, and thus it can be accurately characterized using molecular analysis methods. ELISA results showed that only the leaves, stems, fibers, and juices sampled from the GM sugarcane differed from those derived from the non-GM sugarcane, indicating that filter mud, syrup, molasses, and white sugar did not contain detectable Cry1Ab and EPSPS proteins. Toxicity analysis showed that the GM sugar was not toxic to the H. armigera larvae. The final results showed that the GM sugar had no active proteins despite containing trace amounts of DNA residues. This finding will help to pave the way for the commercialization of GM sugarcane and production of GM sugar.

show abstract

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

Cited by 48 publications

References 174 publications

Legal regulation in the field of genetically modified organisms (GMO) turnover in Russia and foreign countries

Legal regulation in the field of genetically modified organisms (GMO) turnover in Russia and foreign countries

Structural Aspects of DNA Repair and Recombination in Crop Improvement

Molecular and Toxicity Analyses of White Granulated Sugar and Other Processing Products Derived From Transgenic Sugarcane

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About