Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops

Bringing New Plant Varieties to Market: Plant Breeding and Selection Practices Advance Beneficial Characteristics while Minimizing Unintended Changes

“…When genetic engineering of plants was first being developed, it was hypothesized that this technology might induce potentially unintended changes that affect food or feed safety-for example, by activating previously dormant pathways in the plant (Kessler et al, 1992). As a result, extensive regulatory requirements for GM crops, which use a comparative safety assessment process, are now in place (König et al, 2004;Cellini et al, 2004;EFSA, 2006;Paoletti et al, 2008;CODEX, 2009;Privalle et al, 2012;Hoekenga et al, 2013;Prado et al, 2014). Since that time, numerous studies have found that GM varieties are compositionally equivalent to conventional crops Herman and Price, 2013;Hoekenga et al, 2013;Ricroch, 2013;Xu et al, 2014;Ladics et al, 2015aLadics et al, , 2015bCurran et al, 2015;Venkatesh et al, 2015Venkatesh et al, , 2016.…”

Editor’s Choice: Evaluating the Potential for Adverse Interactions within Genetically Engineered Breeding Stacks

“…The key components of GE crop safety assessments include (1) descriptive information on the transgenes and inserted recombinant DNA; (2) detailed characterization of the DNA insert relative to the native genome, in planta concentration and stability of the products of the transgene(s), analysis of plant phenotype, and descriptive information such as efficacy, mechanism or mode of action of the new trait(s), and crop management considerations; (3) evaluation of the safety of the products of the transgene(s) in the context of common commercial crop practices and uses; and (4) comparative safety assessment for suitability as food and/or feed. Such analyses might include a determination of expression levels of known allergens and toxins, and overall composition, including nutrients, antinutrients, and selected metabolites for that crop (FAO/WHO, 1996Cellini et al, 2004;Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2009;Thomas et al, 2009). Assessments of nutrient composition and agronomic characteristics, as well as an assessment of potential allergenicity and toxicity, are widely recognized as significant components of GE crop safety assessments (FAO/WHO, 1996Metcalfe et al, 1996;Kuiper et al, 2001;Cellini et al, 2004;Delaney et al, 2008;Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2009;Thomas et al, 2009).…”

“…Such analyses might include a determination of expression levels of known allergens and toxins, and overall composition, including nutrients, antinutrients, and selected metabolites for that crop (FAO/WHO, 1996Cellini et al, 2004;Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2009;Thomas et al, 2009). Assessments of nutrient composition and agronomic characteristics, as well as an assessment of potential allergenicity and toxicity, are widely recognized as significant components of GE crop safety assessments (FAO/WHO, 1996Metcalfe et al, 1996;Kuiper et al, 2001;Cellini et al, 2004;Delaney et al, 2008;Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2009;Thomas et al, 2009). Differences between the GE crop and appropriate comparators are evaluated in terms of biological relevance, magnitude of difference, exposure, and impact on food or feed safety to determine the need for further investigation.…”

Field and laboratory assessments of sugarcane mutants selected in vitro for resistance to imazapyr herbicide

“…There were no statistically significant differences amongst mutant genotypes and N12. that the GM and the non-GM wild-type lines are similar, except for the transgene (Cellini et al 2004). However, mutation breeding might cause unintended pleiotropic phenotypes, due to mutation effects on more genes than only the desired one (Manabe et al 2007).…”