Should genetically modified foods be abandoned on the basis of allergenicity?

Bachas-Daunert, Stephanie; Deo, Sapna K.

doi:10.1007/s00216-008-2123-8

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to scientific data collected until today there were no records of negative effects of GM food which could be harmful for human and animal health, except its possible allergenicity of its protein product, so many scientists agree that this should not be a reason against GMO (Bachas-Daunert and Deo, 2008) but from other hand the usage of GM plants raised many controversies and public concerns about the possible its impact on human health, the environment and socio-economic systems (Daniell, 1999, Romeis et al, 2013. In consequence, low public acceptance of GM products has resulted in increasing the regulatory requirements for safety assessment of food and feed containing GMOs and different countries have established their own biosafety laws and regulations regarding their production, import and risk assessments (Ahmed, 2002, De Jong, 2010, Premanandh et al, 2012, Stewart and Knight, 2005.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of Glyphosate Resistance Gene EPSPS in Different Fodders

2017

ZJPAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the controversy over GM food and feed, these products are still on the market. Iraqi Biosafety Law had not yet come into force and no law has so far been enacted on the labeling of genetically modified food and feed. To our knowledge there is no available quantitative data on the prevalence of GM crops in feeds in Iraq. The aim of the present study was to detect the presence of GMO feeds by PCR based method. Five fodder kinds from various markets in Iraq were chosen as materials. Feed1 (seed mixture; including safflower, flax, millet with colorful protein supplements), feed 2 which feed crushed, feed 3 (seeds mixture; including wheat, corn, sorghum and sunflower), feed 4 which is grain mixture with main barley seeds and feed 5 which is a fodder pellet. The screening of all samples was performed using the primers for Chloroplast rbcL (internal control), CaMV35S promoter, NOS terminator, Cry1Ac and EPSPS genes. The study proved the existence of genetic modification in all samples. For confirmation procedures the amplified fragments corresponding to the EPSPS were verified by sequencing.

show abstract