361 research outputs found
Assessment of genetically modified maize Bt11\ua0x\ua0MIR162\ua0x\ua01507\ua0x\ua0GA21 and three subcombinations independently of their origin, for food and feed uses under Regulation (EC) No\ua01829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2010-86)
In this opinion, the GMO Panel\ua0assessed the four-event stack maize Bt11\ua0
7\ua0MIR162\ua0
7\ua01507\ua0
7\ua0GA21 and three of its subcombinations, independently of their origin. The GMO Panel\ua0previously assessed the four single events and seven of their combinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or the seven subcombinations leading to modification of the original conclusions were identified. Based on the molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics, the combination of the single events in the four-event stack maize did not give rise to food/feed safety issues.\ua0Based on the nutritional assessment of the compositional characteristics of maize Bt11\ua0
7\ua0MIR162\ua0
7\ua01507\ua0
7\ua0GA21, foods and feeds derived from the genetically modified (GM) maize are expected to have the same nutritional impact as those derived from non-GM maize varieties. In the case of\ua0accidental release of viable grains of maize Bt11\ua0
7\ua0MIR162\ua0
7\ua01507\ua0
7\ua0GA21 into the environment, this\ua0would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel\ua0concludes that maize Bt11\ua0
7\ua0MIR162\ua0
7\ua01507\ua0
7\ua0GA21 is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as its non-GM comparator in the context of the scope of this application. For the three subcombinations included in the scope, for which no experimental data were provided, the GMO Panel\ua0assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events and concluded that their combinations would not raise safety concerns. These maize subcombinations are therefore expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize Bt11\ua0
7\ua0MIR162\ua0
7\ua01507\ua0
7\ua0GA21 and its subcombinations. A minority opinion expressed by a GMO Panel\ua0member is appended to this opinion
Assessment of genetically modified maize Bt11 Ă MIR162 Ă MIR604 Ă 1507 Ă 5307 Ă GA21 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSAâGMOâDEâ2011â103)
Maize Bt11 Ă MIR162 Ă MIR604 Ă 1507 Ă 5307 Ă GA21 (sixâevent stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21. The GMO Panel previously assessed the six single events and 22 of their combinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the maize single events or their 22 combinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the sixâevent stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the sixâevent stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its nonâGM comparator and the nonâGM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the sixâevent stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the 34 maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the sixâevent stack maize. The postâmarket environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the sixâevent stack maize. Postâmarket monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the sixâevent stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its nonâGM comparator and the tested nonâGM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment
Recommended from our members
Fuzzy Finite State Machine for human activity modelling and recognition
Independent living is a housing arrangement designed exclusively for older adults to support them with their Activity of Daily Living (ADL) in a safe and secure environment. The provision of independent living would reduce the cost of social care while elderly residents are kept in their own homes. Therefore, there is a need for an automated system to monitor the residents to be able to understand their activities and only when abnormal activities are identified, provide human support to resolve the issue.
Three main approaches are used for gathering data representing the humanâs activities; ambient sensory device-based, wearable sensory device-based and camera vision device-based. Ambient sensory devices-based systems use sensors such as Passive Infra-Red (PIR) and door entry sensors to capture a userâs presence or absence within a specific area and record them as binary information. Gathering data using these sensory devices are widely accepted, as they are unobtrusive and it does not affect the ADLs. However, wearable sensory devices-based and camera vision device-based approaches are undesirable to many users especially for the older adults users as they more often forget to wear them and due to some privacy concerns.
Recognising and modelling human activities from unobtrusive sensors is a topic addressed in Ambient Intelligence (AmI) research. The research proposed in this thesis aims to recognise and model human activities in an indoor environment based on ambient sensory device-based data. Different methods including statistical, machine learning and deep learning techniques are already researched to address the challenges of recognising and modelling human activities. The research in this thesis is mainly focusing on the application of Fuzzy Finite State Machine (FFSM) for human activities modelling and proposes ways for enhancing the FFSM performance to improve the accuracy of human activity modelling.
In this thesis, three novel contributions are made which are outlined as follows; Firstly, a framework is proposed for combining the learning abilities of Neural Networks (NNs), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) with the existing FFSM for human activity modelling and recognition. These models are referred to as NN-FFSM, LSTM-FFSM and CNN-FFSM. Secondly, to obtain the optimal feature representation from the acquired sensory information, relevant features are extracted and fuzzified with the selected membership degrees, these features are then applied to the different enhanced FFSM models. Thirdly, binary data gathered from the ambient sensors including PIR and door entry sensors are represented as greyscale images. A pre-trained Deep Convolutional Neural Network (DCNN) such as AlexNet is used to select and extract features from the generated greyscale image for each activity. The selected features are then used as inputs to Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost) and Fuzzy C-means (FCM) classifiers for modelling and recognising the ADL for a single user.
The proposed enhanced FFSM models were tested and evaluated using two different datasets representing the ADL for a single user. The first dataset was collected at the Smart Home facilities at NTU and the second dataset is a public dataset collected from CASAS smart home project
Assessment of genetically modified maize MON89034x1507xNK603xDAS-40278-9 and subcombinations independently of their origin for food and feed uses, import and processing, under Regulation (EC) No1829-2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2013-112)
Maize MON 89034 Ă 1507 Ă NK603 Ă DASâ40278â9 (fourâevent stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 89034, 1507, NK603 and DASâ40278â9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and four of their subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the maize single events or their four subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicates that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the fourâevent stack maize does not give rise to food/feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the fourâevent stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its nonâGM comparator and the nonâGM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the fourâevent stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the six maize subcombinations for which no experimental data were provided, and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the fourâevent stack maize. The postâmarket environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the fourâevent stack maize. No postâmarket monitoring for food/feed is necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the fourâevent stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its nonâGM comparator and the tested nonâGM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment
Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87708 Ă MON 89788 Ă A5547â127, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSAâGMOâNLâ2016â135)
Soybean MON 87708 Ă MON 89788 Ă A5547â127 (threeâevent stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single events: MON 87708, MON 89788 and A5547â127. The GMO Panel previously assessed the three single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the threeâevent stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the threeâevent stack soybean, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its conventional counterpart and the nonâGM reference varieties tested. The nutritional impact of food/feed derived from the threeâevent stack soybean is expected to be the same as that of food/feed derived from the conventional counterpart and nonâGM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the threeâevent stack soybean into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The postâmarket environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the threeâevent stack soybean. Postâmarket monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the threeâevent stack soybean is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested nonâGM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment
EFSA guidance on the submission of applications for authorisation of genetically modified plants under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003
This document provides guidance to applicants for submitting an application for authorisation of genetically modified (GM) plants for food and feed uses, import and processing, and/or cultivation in the European Union under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The EFSA submission guidance describes the community procedures in the European Union for handling GM plant applications, and provides instructions to applicants on how to prepare and present data in an application. It is supplemented with seven appendices providing templates of data presentation to be followed by applicants, including a completeness checklist. The earlier versions are now updated to account for requirements outlined in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. Instructions for submission described in this EFSA guidance are applicable to all GM plant applications submitted under Articles 5, 11, 17 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003
Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 à MON 87460 Ă MON 89034 Ă MIR162 Ă NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSAâGMOâNLâ2016â134)
Maize MON 87427 ĂMON 87460 Ă MON 89034 Ă MIR162 Ă NK603 (fiveâevent stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the five single maize events and eleven of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the 11 subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the fiveâevent stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the fiveâevent stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its nonâGM comparator and the nonâGM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the fiveâevent stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the 14 maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the fiveâevent stack maize. The postâmarket environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the fiveâevent stack maize. Postâmarket monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the fiveâevent stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its nonâGM comparator and the tested nonâGM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment
Are all GMOs the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India
Citation: Shew, A. M., Nalley, L. L., Danforth, D. M., Dixon, B. L., Nayga, R. M., Delwaide, A. C., & Valent, B. (2016). Are all GMOs the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 14(1), 4-7. doi:10.1111/pbi.12442India has more than 215 million food-insecure people, many of whom are farmers. Genetically modified (GM) crops have the potential to alleviate this problem by increasing food supplies and strengthening farmer livelihoods. For this to occur, two factors are critical: (i) a change in the regulatory status of GM crops, and (ii) consumer acceptance of GM foods. There are generally two classifications of GM crops based on how they are bred: cisgenically bred, containing only DNA sequences from sexually compatible organisms; and transgenically bred, including DNA sequences from sexually incompatible organisms. Consumers may view cisgenic foods as more natural than those produced via transgenesis, thus influencing consumer acceptance. This premise was the catalyst for our study-would Indian consumers accept cisgenically bred rice and if so, how would they value cisgenics compared to conventionally bred rice, GM-labelled rice and 'no fungicide' rice? In this willingness-to-pay study, respondents did not view cisgenic and GM rice differently. However, participants were willing-to-pay a premium for any aforementioned rice with a 'no fungicide' attribute, which cisgenics and GM could provide. Although not significantly different (P = 0.16), 76% and 73% of respondents stated a willingness-to-consume GM and cisgenic foods, respectively
Prevalencia de anticuerpos contra anaplasma marginale y babesia spp. En la zona centro del Estado de Guerrero
El desarrollo de la ganaderĂa en ĂĄreas tropicales y sub tropicales, en MĂ©xico, al igual que en otras partes del mundo, se ha visto limitada por la presencia de enfermedades que atacan a los bovinos y disminuyen considerablemente la producciĂłn
- âŠ