Pancreatic response of rats fed genetically modified soybean

Safety assessment of subchronic feeding of insect-resistant and herbicide-resistant transgenic soybeans to juvenile channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)

Transgenic soybean is one of the most planted crops for human food and animal feed. The channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) is an important aquatic organism cultured worldwide. In this study, the effect of six different soybean diets containing: two transgenic soybeans expressing different types of cp4-epsps, Vip3Aa and pat genes (DBN9004 and DBN8002), their non-transgenic parent JACK, and three conventional soybean varieties (Dongsheng3, Dongsheng7, and Dongsheng9) was investigated in juvenile channel catfish for eight weeks, and a safety assessment was performed. During the experiment, no difference in survival rate was observed in six groups. The hepatosomatic index (HSI) and condition factor (CF) showed no significant difference. Moreover, comparable feed conversion (FC), feeding rate (FR), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were found between transgenic soybean and JACK groups. Assessment of growth performance showed that the weight gain rate (WGR) and specific growth rate (SGR) of channel catfish were consistent. In addition, there were no changes in enzyme activity indexes (lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT)) in channel catfish among treatments. The research provided an experimental basis for the aquaculture feed industry to employ transgenic soybean DBN9004 and DBN8002 for commercial purposes.

The Integration and Harmonisation of Secular and Islamic Ethical Principles in Formulating Acceptable Ethical Guidelines for Modern Biotechnology in Malaysia

The Malaysian government recognises the potential contribution of biotechnology to the national economy. However, ongoing controversy persists regarding its ethical status and no specific ethical guidelines have been published relating to its use. In developing such guidelines, it is important to identify the underlying principles that are acceptable to Malaysian society. This paper discusses the process of determining relevant secular and Islamic ethical principles and establishing their similarities before harmonising them. To achieve this, a series of focus group discussions were conducted with 23 knowledge experts representing various stakeholders in the biotechnology community. Notably, several principles between the secular and Islamic perspectives are indirectly or directly similar. All the experts agreed with the predominant six ethical principles of secular and Islamic philosophy and their importance and relevance in modern biotechnology. These are beneficence and non-maleficence as the main or overarching principles, the preservation of religious and moral values, the preservation of the intellect and the mind, the protection of human safety, the protection of future generations, and protection of the environment and biological diversity. Several adjustments were made to the terminologies and definitions of these six principles to formulate acceptable guiding principles for the ethics of modern biotechnology in Malaysia. These can then be adopted as core values to underpin future national guidelines on modern biotechnology ethics. These principles will be particularly important in guiding the policy makers, enforcers, industries and researchers to streamline their activities. In so doing, modern biotechnology and its products can be properly managed without jeopardising the interests of the Muslim community as well as the general public. Importantly, they are expansive and inclusive enough to embrace the religious sensitivity of diverse quarters of Malaysia.

Characterization of scientific studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food/feed

GM crops are the most studied crops in history. Approximately 5% of the safety studies on them show adverse effects that are a cause for concern and tend to be featured in media reports. Although these reports are based on just a handful of GM events, they are used to cast doubt on all GM crops. Furthermore, they tend to come from just a few laboratories and are published in less important journals. Importantly, a close examination of these reports invariably shows methodological flaws that invalidate any conclusions of adverse effects. Twenty years after commercial cultivation of GM crops began, a bona fide report of an adverse health effect due to a commercialized modification in a crop has yet to be reported.

Adaptation of the ToxRTool to Assess the Reliability of Toxicology Studies Conducted with Genetically Modified Crops and Implications for Future Safety Testing

To determine the reliability of food safety studies carried out in rodents with genetically modified (GM) crops, a Food Safety Study Reliability Tool (FSSRTool) was adapted from the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods' (ECVAM) ToxRTool. Reliability was defined as the inherent quality of the study with regard to use of standardized testing methodology, full documentation of experimental procedures and results, and the plausibility of the findings. Codex guidelines for GM crop safety evaluations indicate toxicology studies are not needed when comparability of the GM crop to its conventional counterpart has been demonstrated. This guidance notwithstanding, animal feeding studies have routinely been conducted with GM crops, but their conclusions on safety are not always consistent. To accurately evaluate potential risks from GM crops, risk assessors need clearly interpretable results from reliable studies. The development of the FSSRTool, which provides the user with a means of assessing the reliability of a toxicology study to inform risk assessment, is discussed. Its application to the body of literature on GM crop food safety studies demonstrates that reliable studies report no toxicologically relevant differences between rodents fed GM crops or their non-GM comparators.

The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: limitations and recommendations

There is disagreement internationally across major regulatory jurisdictions on the relevance and utility of whole food (WF) toxicity studies on GM crops, with no harmonization of data or regulatory requirements. The scientific value, and therefore animal ethics, of WF studies on GM crops is a matter addressable from the wealth of data available on commercialized GM crops and WF studies on irradiated foods. We reviewed available GM crop WF studies and considered the extent to which they add to the information from agronomic and compositional analyses. No WF toxicity study was identified that convincingly demonstrated toxicological concern or that called into question the adequacy, sufficiency, and reliability of safety assessments based on crop molecular characterization, transgene source, agronomic characteristics, and/or compositional analysis of the GM crop and its near-isogenic line. Predictions of safety based on crop genetics and compositional analyses have provided complete concordance with the results of well-conducted animal testing. However, this concordance is primarily due to the improbability of de novo generation of toxic substances in crop plants using genetic engineering practices and due to the weakness of WF toxicity studies in general. Thus, based on the comparative robustness and reliability of compositional and agronomic considerations and on the absence of any scientific basis for a significant potential for de novo generation of toxicologically significant compositional alterations as a sole result of transgene insertion, the conclusion of this review is that WF animal toxicity studies are unnecessary and scientifically unjustifiable.

A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants

In recent years, there has been a notable concern on the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods/plants, an important and complex area of research, which demands rigorous standards. Diverse groups including consumers and environmental Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) have suggested that all GM foods/plants should be subjected to long-term animal feeding studies before approval for human consumption. In 2000 and 2006, we reviewed the information published in international scientific journals, noting that the number of references concerning human and animal toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods/plants was very limited. The main goal of the present review was to assess the current state-of-the-art regarding the potential adverse effects/safety assessment of GM plants for human consumption. The number of citations found in databases (PubMed and Scopus) has dramatically increased since 2006. However, new information on products such as potatoes, cucumber, peas or tomatoes, among others was not available. Corn/maize, rice, and soybeans were included in the present review. An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. All this recent information is herein critically reviewed.

Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health

The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models, and parameters. The most common result is that GM and conventional sources induce similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. Diversity among the methods and results of the risk assessments reflects the complexity of the subject. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.