Stacked Trait Products Are As Safe As Non-Genetically Modified (GM) Products Developed By Conventional Breeding Practices

International safety assessments and independent publications conclude that stacking genetically modified (GM) traits (events) through conventional breeding poses no greater risk to food or feed safety than stacking multiple non-GM traits by conventional breeding. Stacked trait products are not substantially different from their conventional comparator or their GM parent plants. Additional safety assessment of a stacked trait product produced by conventional breeding should not be required unless there is a plausible and testable hypothesis for interaction of the traits. However, the different approaches employed for the regulation of stacked trait products between countries results in asynchronous approvals, increasing the potential for trade flow disruptions, and adds to the regulatory burden for product developers. Considering their proven safety and benefit over the past 20+ years, regulatory authorities in some countries do not regulate stacked trait products, while others have simplified the approval process based on experience and sound science, reducing or eliminating the need for additional regulatory oversight. Countries that choose to regulate stacked trait products should consider integrating the more than 20 years of safety assessment experience, history of safe use, and global regulatory experience, in their approach to reduce redundancy, simplify regulations, and minimize the likelihood for trade disruption. doi: 10.21423/jrs-v09i1goodwi

Recommendations for Science-Based Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified (GM) Plants for Food and Feed Uses

Since the commercial introduction of genetically modified (GM) plants in agriculture over two decades ago, technology developers and regulatory authorities have gained significant experience in assessing their safety based on assessing potential impact to humans, animals and the environment.  Over 3500 independent regulatory agency reviews have positively concluded on the safety of GM plants for food and feed. Yet, divergent and increased regulatory requirements have led to delayed and asynchronous approvals, and have restricted access to innovative products for farmers and consumers. With accumulated knowledge from safety assessments conducted so far, an enhanced understanding of plant genomes, and a history of safe use, it is time to re-evaluate the current approaches to the regulation of GM plants used for food and feed.  A stepwise approach using weight-of-evidence should be sufficient for the safety assessment of newly expressed proteins in GM plants.  A set of core studies including molecular characterization, expression and characterization of the newly expressed proteins (or other expression product), and safety assessment of the introduced protein are appropriate to characterize the product and assess safety.  Using data from core studies, and employing a “problem formulation” approach, the need for supplementary hypothesis-driven or case-by-case studies can be determined.  Employing this approach for the evaluation of GM plants will remove regulatory data requirements that do not provide value to the safety assessment and provide a consistent framework for global regulation. doi: 10.21423/jrs-v09i1water

Assessment of potential adjuvanticity of Cry proteins

Genetically modified (GM) crops have achieved success in the marketplace and their benefits extend beyond the overall increase in harvest yields to include lowered use of insecticides and decreased carbon dioxide emissions. The most widely grown GM crops contain gene/s for targeted insect protection, herbicide tolerance, or both. Plant expression of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crystal (Cry) insecticidal proteins have been the primary way to impart insect resistance in GM crops. Although deemed safe by regulatory agencies globally, previous studies have been the basis for discussions around the potential immuno-adjuvant effects of Cry proteins. These studies had limitations in study design. The studies used animal models with extremely high doses of Cry proteins, which when given using the ig route were co-administered with an adjuvant. Although the presumption exists that Cry proteins may have immunostimulatory activity and therefore an adjuvanticity risk, the evidence shows that Cry proteins are expressed at very low levels in GM crops and are unlikely to function as adjuvants. This conclusion is based on critical review of the published literature on the effects of immunomodulation by Cry proteins, the history of safe use of Cry proteins in foods, safety of the Bt donor organisms, and pre-market weight-of-evidence-based safety assessments for GM crop

Core and Supplementary Studies to Assess the Safety of Genetically Modified (GM) Plants Used for Food and Feed

Genetically modified (GM) plants used for food and feed have an established history of safe use over more than 25 years of their commercialization. Developers and regulatory authorities have accumulated extensive experience in evaluating their safety over time. The studies required for the safety assessment of GM plants used for food and feed should now be re-defined to leverage this experience and increased scientific knowledge. This paper, a companion paper for Waters et al. also published in this issue, presents a systematic approach for the safety assessment of newly expressed proteins (NEPs) in GM plants by evaluating the two components of risk: hazard and exposure. Although the paper focuses on NEPs, the principles presented could also apply to other expression products that do not result in a NEP. A set of core studies is recommended, along with supplementary studies, if needed, to evaluate whether the GM plant poses risk. Core studies include molecular and protein characterization and hazard identification encompassing toxicity and allergenicity. In the absence of hazard, core studies are sufficient to conclude that GM plants are as safe as their conventional counterparts. Depending on the GM trait and intended use, supplementary studies should be performed to characterize hazard and exposure when a hazard is identified. Problem formulation should be used to identify hypothesis-driven supplementary studies. Acute toxicity studies, compositional assessment, and dietary exposure assessment are recommended to be hypothesis-driven supplementary studies. Further discussion on the current food and feed safety assessment landscape for GM plants and the use of problem formulation as a tool for identifying supplementary studies can be found in the companion paper [62]. doi: 10.21423/jrs-v09i1brun