1. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010 Feb;48(2):453-64. Epub 2009 Dec 11. Genetically modified plants for non-food or non-feed purposes: straightforward screening for their appearance in food and feed. Alderborn A, Sundström J, Soeria-Atmadja D, Sandberg M, Andersson HC, Hammerling U. Dept. of Genetics and Pathology, The Rudbeck Laboratory, Uppsala University, SE-75185 Uppsala, Sweden. Genetically modified (GM) plants aimed at producing food/feed are part of regular agriculture in many areas of the World. Commodity plants have also found application as bioreactors, designated non-food/non-feed GM (NFGM) plants, thereby making raw material for further refinement to industrial, diagnostic or pharmaceutical preparations. Many among them may pose health challenge to consumers or livestock animals, if occurring in food/feed. NFGM plants are typically released into the environment, but are grown under special oversight and any among several containment practices, none of which provide full protection against accidental dispersal. Adventitious admixture with food or feed can occur either through distributional mismanagement or as a consequence of gene flow to plant relatives. To facilitate NFGM surveillance we propose a new mandatory tagging of essentially all such plants, prior to cultivation or marketing in the European Union. The suggested tag--Plant-Made Industrial or Pharmaceutical Products Tag (PMIP-T)--is envisaged to occur as a transgenic silent DNA identifier in host plants and designed to enable technically simple identification and characterisation of any NFGM. Implementation of PMIP-T would permit inexpensive, reliable and high-throughput screening for NFGM specifically. The paper outlines key NFGM prospects and challenges as well as the PMIP-T concept. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. PMID: 20004226 [PubMed - in process] 2. Risk Anal. 2009 Dec;29(12):1793-806. Epub 2009 Nov 23. Information processing of genetically modified food messages under different motives: an adaptation of the multiple-motive heuristic-systematic model. Kim J, Paek HJ. Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3018, USA. jykim@uga.edu Recent risk management research has noted the importance of understanding how the lay public processes and reacts to risk-related information. Guided by the multiple-motive heuristic-systematic model, this study examines (1) how individuals process messages in the context of genetically modified foods to change their attitudes and (2) how the persuasion process varies across types of motives. In the three treatment conditions of accuracy, defense, and impression motives, the respondents changed their attitudes through either the heuristic or the systematic mode, depending on their motives. The accuracy-motive group appeared to use the systematic processing mode, while the impression-motive group seemed to employ the heuristic processing mode. The empirical findings highlight the importance of incorporating motives to improve our understanding of the process of attitude change in risk management and communication contexts. PMID: 19948001 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 3. Biotechnol Adv. 2010 Jan-Feb;28(1):160-8. Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: a review of options for food security. Azadi H, Ho P. Centre for Development Studies, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. hos.azadi@gmail.com Since two decades ago, when the first GM crops were introduced, there have increasingly been hot debates on the applications of gene manipulation. Currently, the development of GM crop varieties has raised a wide range of new legal, ethical and economic questions in agriculture. There is a growing body of literature reflecting the socio-economic and environmental impacts of GM crops which aims to criticize their value for farming systems. While organic crops are promoted as environmentally-friendly products in developed countries, they have provoked great controversy in developing countries facing food security and a low agricultural productivity. Discussion has been especially vigorous when organic farming was introduced as an alternative method. There are in fact, a few tradeoffs in developing countries. On the one hand, farmers are encouraged to accept and implement GM crops because of their higher productivity, while on the other hand, organic farming is encouraged because of socio-economic and environmental considerations. A crucial question facing such countries is therefore, whether GM crops can co-exist with organic farming. This paper aims to review the main considerations and tradeoffs. PMID: 19913085 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 4. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 2008 Apr-Jun;15(2):277-91. [The public perception of information about the potential risks of genetically modified crops in the food chain] [Article in Portuguese] Furnival AC, Pinheiro SM. Departamento de Ciência da Informação, Universidade Federal de São Carlos-UFSCar, Rodovia Washington Luiz, Km 235, 13560-905 São Carlos, SP, Brasil. chloe@ufscar.br At a time when genetically modified (GM) crops are entering the Brazilian food chain, we present the findings of a study that makes use of a qualitative technique involving focal groups to look into the public's interpretation of the information available about this biotechnological innovation. This methodology produced results that revealed the interconnections drawn by the research subjects between this form of biotechnology, changes to the environment, and food production in general. The mistrust expressed about GM crops was particularly attributed by the participants to the non-availability of comprehensible information in the mass media or on product labels. PMID: 19397023 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 5. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2008 Nov;72(11):2953-8. Epub 2008 Nov 7. Real-time PCR method using capturing oligo-immobilized PCR tubes to determine the specific gene for soybean and genetically modified soybean in food matrices. Harikai N, Saito S, Abe M, Kondo K, Kitta K, Akiyama H, Teshima R, Kinoshita K. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Mukogawa Women's University, Hyogo, Japan. A new real-time PCR method using capturing oligo-immobilized PCR tubes is described. This method was used to detect specific genes for soybean and genetically modified (GM) soybean in food matrices. In a standard reaction using soybean genomic DNA and a capturing oligo for the lectin gene (Le1) immobilized on the tube, we examined the effects of such hybridization conditions as the location, length, and amount of the capturing oligo, and the incubation time and temperature. Under optimized conditions, the copy number of Le1 was determined in a concentration-dependent manner from soybean genomic DNA and soybean lysate (DNA 10-1000 ng, r=0.99; lysate 1-100%, r=0.99). The copy number of a Roundup Ready soybean (RRS) gene was also successfully detected in a concentration-dependent manner (1-100%, r=0.99) from GM soybean lysate, using PCR tubes with an immobilized capturing oligo for the transgene. Our data indicate that this is a rapid and simple method to determine specific genes for soybean and GM soybean in food matrices. PMID: 18997399 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 6. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2008 Oct;392(3):333-40. Genetically modified food from crops: progress, pawns, and possibilities. Morin XK. Princeton Writing Program and the Princeton Environmental Institute, South Baker Hall, Whitman College, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. xmorin@princeton.edu PMCID: PMC2556401 PMID: 18704376 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 7. Vopr Pitan. 2008;77(3):58-63. [Questions safety and tendency of using genetically modified microorganisms in food, food additives and food derived] [Article in Russian] Khovaev AA. In this article analysis questions of using genetically modified microorganisms in manufacture food production, present new GMM used in manufacture -food ferments; results of medical biological appraisal/ microbiological and genetic expert examination/ of food, getting by use microorganisms or there producents with indication modern of control methods. PMID: 18669333 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 8. Vet Res Commun. 2007 Aug;31 Suppl 1:385-8. Detection of genetically modified organisms in food: comparison among three different DNA extraction methods. Vodret B, Milia M, Orani MG, Serratrice G, Mancuso MR. Zooprofilattic Institute of Sardinia, Feed Hygiene Unit, Sassari, Italy. bruna.vodret@izs-sardegna.it PMID: 17682920 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 9. Ir Med J. 2007 May;100(5):475-6. Genetically modified food and health--a cause for concern? Cullen E. PMID: 17727126 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 10. Br J Soc Psychol. 2007 Jun;46(Pt 2):437-57. Predicting behaviour towards genetically modified food using implicit and explicit attitudes. Spence A, Townsend E. RASPH, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, UK. spenceAl@cardiff.ac.uk The predictive validity of implicit and explicit attitudes is a central question in social psychological research with important theoretical and empirical ramifications. Three main patterns of combining implicit and explicit attitudes to predict behaviour have been postulated. They are, double dissociation (in which implicit and explicit attitudes predict spontaneous and deliberate behaviour respectively), additive (in which implicit and explicit attitudes both predict variance in behaviour) and interactive (in which implicit and explicit attitudes combine to predict behaviour). These models were tested in this study using a structural equation modelling approach utilising three different measures of behaviour (of varying spontaneity) towards genetically modified (GM) food. The additive pattern, in which implicit and explicit attitudes both predict variance in behaviour, was found to best fit the data. In addition, all behaviour measures indicated that the majority of participants were willing to try GM food in some situations. PMID: 17565791 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 11. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Apr;45(4):530-42. Epub 2006 Aug 25. Approaches in the risk assessment of genetically modified foods by the Hellenic Food Safety Authority. Varzakas TH, Chryssochoidis G, Argyropoulos D. Hellenic Food Safety Authority (EFET), Directorate of Nutritional Policy and Research, Karystou 5, 115 23 Ampelokipoi, Greece. theovarzakas@yahoo.gr Risk analysis has become important to assess conditions and take decisions on control procedures. In this context it is considered a prerequisite in the evaluation of GM food. Many consumers worldwide worry that food derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be unhealthy and hence regulations on GMO authorisations and labelling have become more stringent. Nowadays there is a higher demand for non-GM products and these products could be differentiated from GM products using the identity preservation system (IP) that could apply throughout the grain processing system. IP is the creation of a transparent communication system that encompasses HACCP, traceability and related systems in the supply chain. This process guarantees that certain characteristics of the lots of food (non-GM origin) are maintained "from farm to fork". This article examines the steps taken by the Hellenic Food Safety Authority to examine the presence of GMOs in foods. The whole integrated European legislation framework currently in place still needs to be implemented in Greece. Penalties should be enforced to those who import, process GMOs without special licence and do not label those products. Similar penalties should be enforced to those companies that issue false certificates beyond the liabilities taken by the food enterprises for farmers' compensation. We argue that Greece has no serious reasons to choose the use of GMOs due to the fact that the structural and pedologic characteristics of the Greek agriculture favour the biological and integrated cultivation more. Greece is not in favour of the politics behind coexistence of conventional and GM plants and objects to the use of GMOs in the food and the environment because the processor has a big burden in terms of money, time and will suffer a great deal in order to prove that their products are GMO free or that any contamination is adventitious or technically unavoidable. Moreover, Greece owns a large variety of genetic material that should try to protect from patenting and commercialisation. Finally, we should be aware of the requirements of movement of GMOs within borders, i.e. GMOs grown or used in other countries but which are not intended to cross into Greece, since Greece is very close to countries that are non-EU. This is where the development of a new, integrated, trustworthy and transparent food quality control system will help to satisfy the societal demands for safe and quality products. On the other hand, Greece should not be isolated from any recent scientific technological development and should assess the possible advantages for some cultivation using a case by case approach. Finally, the safety assessment of GM foods and feed has been discussed according to the risk assessment methodology applied by EFSA. PMID: 17275157 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 12. Risk Anal. 2006 Dec;26(6):1707-19. Exploring the structure of attitudes toward genetically modified food. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Cardiff University, Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff, Wales, UK. PoortingaW@Cardiff.ac.uk Although it is often thought that the British public is opposed to genetically modified (GM) food, recent qualitative work suggests that most people are ambivalent about GM food and crops. In this article we explore the structure of attitudes in order to examine whether attitudinal ambivalence can be captured by more quantitative methods. Based on the finding that the perceived risks and benefits of GM food can be treated as independent dimensions, we propose a four-way typology of attitudes, consisting of a positive, negative, indifferent, and ambivalent group. This study showed that the differences between the four groups could best be described by three main dimensions: (1) a general evaluative dimension, (2) an involvement dimension, and (3) an attitudinal certainty dimension. While these different attitudinal dimensions have generally been studied in isolation, we argue that they should be studied collectively. PMID: 17184407 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 13. Prikl Biokhim Mikrobiol. 2006 Jul-Aug;42(4):485-8. [Accuracy of a real-time polymerase-chain-reaction assay for a quantitative estimation of genetically modified sources in food products] [Article in Russian] Abramov DD, Trofimov DIu, Rebrikov DV. The accuracy of a real-time polymerase-chain-reaction assay for genetically modified sources in food products was determined using two official test systems (kits) of primers and samples. These kits were recommended by the Federal Center of State Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance (Russian Ministry of Health) and the European Commission. We used the following three models of thermocyclers: iCycler iQ (BioRad, United States), Rotor-Gene 3000 (Corbett Research, Australia), and DT-322 (DNA-Technology, Russia). Studies of samples that contained 1% genetically modified sources showed that the error of a quantitative assay for genetically modified sources in food products corresponds to 20-30% and does not depend on the kit type and the thermocycler model used. PMID: 17022461 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 14. J Environ Health. 2006 Jul-Aug;69(1):33-4. The ethical dilemma of genetically modified food. Jefferson V. National Capital Area Environmental Health Association, Clinton, MD 20735, USA. Val.Jefferson@verizon.net PMID: 16910106 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 15. Food Drug Law J. 2006;61(2):167-96. The international regulation of genetically modified organisms: importing caution into the U.S. food supply. Strauss DM. Fairfield University, Charles F. Dolan School of Business, Fairfield, Conn., USA. PMID: 16903028 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 16. Risk Anal. 2006 Jun;26(3):657-70. Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Spence A, Townsend E. RASPH, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. lpxas@psychology.nottingham.ac.uk This study examined behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in a British community-based sample. We used an equivalent gain task in which participants actually received the options they chose to encourage truthful responding. In conjunction with this, theory of planned behavior (TPB) components were evaluated so as to examine the relative importance of behavioral influences in this domain. Here, the TPB was extended to include additional components to measure self-identity, moral norms, and emotional involvement. Results indicated that the monetary amounts participants accepted in preference to GM food were significantly lower than those accepted in preference to non-GM food. However, the vast majority of participants were indifferent between GM and non-GM food options. All TPB components significantly predicted behavioral intentions to try GM food, with attitudes toward GM being the strongest predictor. Self-identity and emotional involvement were also found to be significant predictors of behavioral intentions but moral norms were not. In addition, behavioral intentions significantly predicted behavior; however, PBC did not. An additional measure of participants' propensity to respond in a socially desirable manner indicated that our results were not influenced by self-presentation issues, giving confidence to our findings. Overall, it appears that the majority of participants (74.5%) would purchase GM food at some price. PMID: 16834625 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 17. J AOAC Int. 2006 May-Jun;89(3):893-7. Surface plasmon resonance for detection of genetically modified organisms in the food supply. Gambari R, Feriotto G. Ferrara University, Biotechnology Center, 44100, Ferrara, Italy. gam@dns.unife.it A review is presented demonstrating that biospecific interaction analysis, using surface plasmon resonance (SPR) and biosensor technologies is a simple, rapid, and automatable approach to detect genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Using SPR, we were able to monitor in real-time the hybridization between oligonucleotide or polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-generated probes and target single-stranded PCR products obtained by using as substrates DNA isolated from normal or transgenic soybean and maize. This procedure allows a one-step, nonradioactive detection of GMOs. PCR-generated probes are far more efficient in detecting GMOs than are oligodeoxyribonucleotide probes. This is expected to be a very important parameter, because information on low percentage of GMOs is of great value. Determination of the ability of SPR-based analysis to quantify GMOs should be considered a major research field for future studies, especially for the analyses of food supplies. PMID: 16792091 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 18. Plant Mol Biol. 2006 May;61(1-2):123-39. A microarray-based detection system for genetically modified (GM) food ingredients. Leimanis S, Hernández M, Fernández S, Boyer F, Burns M, Bruderer S, Glouden T, Harris N, Kaeppeli O, Philipp P, Pla M, Puigdomènech P, Vaitilingom M, Bertheau Y, Remacle J. Unité de Recherche en Biologie Cellulaire (URBC), Faculté Universitaire Notre Dame de la Paix, Namur, Belgium. A multiplex DNA microarray chip was developed for simultaneous identification of nine genetically modified organisms (GMOs), five plant species and three GMO screening elements, i.e. the 35S promoter, the nos terminator and the nptII gene. The chips also include several controls, such as that for the possible presence of CaMV. The on-chip detection was performed directly with PCR amplified products. Particular emphasis was placed on the reduction of the number of PCR reactions required and on the number of primers present per amplification tube. The targets were biotin labelled and the arrays were detected using a colorimetric methodology. Specificity was provided by specific capture probes designed for each GMO and for the common screening elements. The sensitivity of the assay was tested by experiments carried out in five different laboratories. The limit of detection was lower than 0.3% GMO for all tests and in general around 0.1% for most GMOs. The chip detection system complies with the requirements of current EU regulations and other countries where thresholds are established for the labelling of GMO. PMID: 16786296 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 19. Law Hum Genome Rev. 2005 Jul-Dec;(23):217-21. Report on genetically modified organisms in agriculture and food. [Article in English, Spanish] Ethics Advisory Committe on Scientific and Technological Research. PMID: 16628882 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 20. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 2005 Nov;34(6):732-4. [Detection of genetically modified organisms in food and animal feed by polymerase chain reaction] [Article in Chinese] Zhou JC, Yang MJ, Yang XF, Huang JM. Toxicological Laboratory, Guangdong Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou 510300, China. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the foods and animal feed samples in Guangzhou market. METHODS: The presence of GMO were investigated by PCR detection of camv 35S promoter and nos terminator, and the presence of RoundUp Ready Soybean (RRS), Bt176 Maximaizer or Mon810 YieldGard in GMO-positive samples were further determined by PCR detecting their specific DNA fragments respectively. RESULTS: One corn soup sample, two soybean samples, one potato fries sample as well as two animal feed samples were revealed to be GMO-positive in twenty-two food samples and three animal feed samples, and the presence of RRS in the GMO-positive soybean samples and the two positive animal feed samples were verified by PCR detection of a 129 bp RRS-specific DNA fragment, however, no Bt176 Maximaizer or Mon810 YieldGard specific PCR products were obtained with the GMO-positive corn soup and animal feed DNA samples used as PCR templates. CONCLUSION: Genetically modified organism presented in foods and animal feeds even though they were not been labelled. PMID: 16535848 [PubMed - in process] 21. Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Aug;111(2):374-83. Epub 2005 Dec 20. Genetically modified plants and food hypersensitivity diseases: usage and implications of experimental models for risk assessment. Prescott VE, Hogan SP. Division of Molecular Bioscience, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. The recent advances in biotechnology in the plant industry have led to increasing crop production and yield that in turn has increased the usage of genetically modified (GM) food in the human food chain. The usage of GM foods for human consumption has raised a number of fundamental questions including the ability of GM foods to elicit potentially harmful immunological responses, including allergic hypersensitivity. To assess the safety of foods derived from GM plants including allergenic potential, the US FDA, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO), and the EU have developed approaches for evaluation assessment. One assessment approach that has been a very active area of research and debate is the development and usage of animal models to assess the potential allergenicity of GM foods. A number of specific animal models employing rodents, pigs, and dogs have been developed for allergenicity assessment. However, validation of these models is needed and consideration of the criteria for an appropriate animal model for the assessment of allergenicity in GM plants is required. We have recently employed a BALB/c mouse model to assess the potential allergenicity of GM plants. We have been able to demonstrate that this model is able to detect differences in antigenicity and identify aspects of protein post-translational modifications that can alter antigenicity. Furthermore, this model has also enabled us to examine the usage of GM plants as a therapeutic approach for the treatment of allergic diseases. This review discusses the current approaches to assess the allergenic potential of GM food and particularly focusing on the usage of animal models to determine the potential allergenicity of GM foods and gives an overview of our recent findings and implications of these studies. PMID: 16364445 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 22. Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk. 2005;(10):30-7. [Principles of production of genetically modified food sources] [Article in Russian] Kirpichnikov MP, Tyshko NV. Methods of genetic engineering have given a powerful impulse to the development of fundamental and applied biology and biotechnology of plants. Methods of genetic plant transformation, such as agrobacterium-mediated and microprojectile bombardment-mediated transformation have been used for a long time. These methods allow production of transgenic plants which express the genes of interest. Dozens of transgenic plants have been obtained by now, and their number is steadily increasing. PMID: 16320704 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 23. Biomed Pharmacother. 2005 Dec;59(10):531-40. Epub 2005 Oct 21. Biological and biomedical aspects of genetically modified food. Celec P, Kukucková M, Renczésová V, Natarajan S, Pálffy R, Gardlík R, Hodosy J, Behuliak M, Vlková B, Minárik G, Szemes T, Stuchlík S, Turna J. Biomed Research and Publishing Group, Bratislava, Slovakia. petercelec@gmail.com Genetically modified (GM) foods are the product of one of the most progressive fields of science-biotechnology. There are major concerns about GM foods in the public; some of them are reasonable, some of them are not. Biomedical risks of GM foods include problems regarding the potential allergenicity, horizontal gene transfer, but environmental side effects on biodiversity must also be recognized. Numerous methods have been developed to assess the potential risk of every GM food type. Benefits of the first generation of GM foods were oriented towards the production process and companies, the second generation of GM foods offers, on contrary, various advantages and added value for the consumer. This includes improved nutritional composition or even therapeutic effects. Recombinant probiotics and the principle of alternative gene therapy represent the latest approach of using GM organisms for biomedical applications. This article tries to summarize and to explain the problematic topic of GM food. PMID: 16298508 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 24. Risk Anal. 2005 Oct;25(5):1241-52. Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Lang JT, Hallman WK. Department of Sociology and the Food Policy Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. John@Coolclass.com Trust is important for the perception of many types of risk, including those relating to genetically modified (GM) food. Who the public trusts in any given circumstance, however, is not well understood. In this study of public trust regarding GM food, an exploratory factor analysis with Promax rotation reveals public classification of three common institutional types-evaluators, watchdogs, and merchants. The structure of relationships among these stakeholders can act to enable or constrain public support for this new technology. Evaluators-scientists, universities, and medical professionals-are the most trusted. Watchdogs-consumer advocacy organizations, environmental organizations, and media sources-are moderately trusted. Merchants-grocers and grocery stores, industry, and farmers-are least trusted. While the federal government is seen as closest to being an evaluator, it is not highly correlated with any of the factors. The lack of trust in the organizations with the greatest resources and responsibilities for ensuring the safety of GM food should be seen as an important obstacle to the adoption of the technology. PMID: 16297228 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 25. Vet Res Commun. 2005 Aug;29 Suppl 2:31-4. Role of the "National Reference Centre for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) detection" in the official control of food and feed. Ciabatti I, Marchesi U, Froiio A, Paternò A, Ruggeri M, Amaddeo D. Department of Virology and Biotechnology, National Reference Centre for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) detection, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale Lazio e Toscana, via Appia Nuvoa 1411, 00178, Rome, Italy. iciabatti@rm.izs.it The National Reference Centre for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) detection was established in 2002 within the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale Lazio e Toscana, with the aim of providing scientific and technical support to the National Health System and to the Ministry of Health within the scope of the regulation of GMO use in food and feed.The recently adopted EU legislation on GMOs (Regulation CE no. 1829/2003 and no. 1830/2003) introduced more rigorous procedures for the authorisation, labelling and analytical control of food and feed consisting, containing or derived from GMOs. The National Reference Centre, besides its institutional tasks as one of the laboratories of the Italian National Health System, collects and analyses data and results of the national official control of GMOs; carries out scientific research aimed at developing, improving, validating and harmonising detection and quantification methods, in cooperation with other scientific institutions, the Community Reference Laboratory and within the European Network of GMOs laboratories (ENGL); collaborates with the Ministry of Health in the definition of control programmes and promotes educational and training initiatives. Objectives defined for 2004-2006, activities in progress and goals already achieved are presented. PMID: 16244921 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 26. Appetite. 2005 Dec;45(3):242-9. Epub 2005 Sep 12. Unpacking atitudes towards genetically modified food. de Liver Y, van der Pligt J, Wigboldus D. Social Psychology Program, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.n.deliver@uva.nl The present study investigates the structure of attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. A total of 431 respondents completed a questionnaire measuring their overall attitude, cognition and affect towards GM food. A model with distinct positive and negative, affective and cognitive components and a separate factor for perceived risk and worry best accounted for the data. Negative--but not positive--components directly affected behavioural intentions. Implications of these findings for our understanding of attitudes towards GM food and their impact on behaviour are discussed. PMID: 16154663 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 27. Anal Biochem. 2005 Sep 15;344(2):174-82. Development of a peptide nucleic acid polymerase chain reaction clamping assay for semiquantitative evaluation of genetically modified organism content in food. Peano C, Lesignoli F, Gulli M, Corradini R, Samson MC, Marchelli R, Marmiroli N. Department of Environmental Sciences, Division of Genetics and Environmental Biotechnology, University of Parma, 43100, Parma, Italy. In the present study a peptide nucleic acid (PNA)-mediated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) clamping method was developed and applied to the detection of genetically modified organisms (GMO), to test PCR products for band identity and to obtain a semiquantitative evaluation of GMO content. The minimal concentration of PNA necessary to block the PCR was determined by comparing PCRs containing a constant amount of DNA in the presence of increasing concentration of target-specific PNA. The lowest PNA concentration at which specific inhibition took place, by the inhibition of primer extension and/or steric hindrance, was the most efficient condition. Optimization of PCR clamping by PNA was observed by testing five different PNAs with a minimum of 13 bp to a maximum of 15 bp, designed on the target sequence of Roundup Ready soybean. The results obtained on the DNA extracted from Roundup Ready soybean standard flour were verified also on DNA extracted from standard flours of maize GA21, Bt176, Bt11, and MON810. A correlation between the PNA concentration necessary for inducing PCR clamping and the percentage of the GMO target sequence in the sample was found. PMID: 16055074 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 28. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005 Sep 1;207(2 Suppl):19-27. What determines the acceptability of genetically modified food that can improve human nutrition? Purchase IF. University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK. ifhp@chadzombe.u-net.com It has been predicted that by 2025 there will be an annual shortfall of cereals for feeding the human population of 68.5 million tones. One possible solution is the use of genetically modified (GM) crops, which are already grown extensively (59 million ha of GM crops were planted in 2002) in the USA, South America, Africa and China. Nevertheless, there is considerable disagreement about the advisability of using such crops, particularly in Europe. Obviously, the safety of the food derived from the GM crops is a primary consideration. Safety assessment relies on establishing that the food is substantially equivalent to its non-GM counterpart and specific testing for allergenicity of proteins and toxicity of metabolites and the whole food. There appears to be international agreement on the principles of safety assessment. Safety to the environment is equally important, but will not be covered in this presentation. The public's perception of the risk of new technology is critical to its acceptance. Perception of risk, in turn, depends on the credibility of the source of the information and trust in the regulatory process. In many countries, the public appears to have lost its trust in the scientists and government dealing with GM food, making the acceptability of GM crops uncertain. Of equal importance are the socio-economic factors that impinge on the viability of GM produce. These include intellectual property protection, trade liberalization (through subsidy and tariff barriers in developed countries) and the intensity of bio safety regulations. The socio-economic interests of developed and developing countries may diverge and may even be contradictory in any one country. Acceptance of GM crops will thus depend on detailed issues surrounding particular crops and economies. PMID: 15982686 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 29. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2005 Jun;137(2):153-66. Epub 2005 Jun 8. Assessing genetically modified crops to minimize the risk of increased food allergy: a review. Goodman RE, Hefle SL, Taylor SL, van Ree R. Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0955, USA. rgoodman2@unlnotes.unl.edu Comment in: Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2005 Jun;137(2):151-2. The first genetically modified (GM) crops approved for food use (tomato and soybean) were evaluated for safety by the United States Food and Drug Administration prior to commercial production. Among other factors, those products and all additional GM crops that have been grown commercially have been evaluated for potential increases in allergenic properties using methods that are consistent with the current understanding of food allergens and knowledge regarding the prediction of allergenic activity. Although there have been refinements, the key aspects of the evaluation have not changed. The allergenic properties of the gene donor and the host (recipient) organisms are considered in determining the appropriate testing strategy. The amino acid sequence of the encoded protein is compared to all known allergens to determine whether the protein is a known allergen or is sufficiently similar to any known allergen to indicate an increased probability of allergic cross-reactivity. Stability of the protein in the presence of acid with the stomach protease pepsin is tested as a risk factor for food allergenicity. In vitro or in vivo human IgE binding are tested when appropriate, if the gene donor is an allergen or the sequence of the protein is similar to an allergen. Serum donors and skin test subjects are selected based on their proven allergic responses to the gene donor or to material containing the allergen that was matched in sequence. While some scientists and regulators have suggested using animal models, performing broadly targeted serum IgE testing or extensive pre- or post-market clinical tests, current evidence does not support these tests as being predictive or practical. Based on the evidence to date, the current assessment process has worked well to prevent the unintended introduction of allergens in commercial GM crops. PMID: 15947471 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 30. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2005 Mar-Apr;79(2):271-82. [Genetically modified organisms: a new threat to food safety] [Article in Spanish] Spendeler L. Amigos de la Tierra España, Madrid. transgenicos@tierra.org This article analyzes all of the food safety-related aspects related to the use of genetically modified organisms into agriculture and food. A discussion is provided as to the uncertainties related to the insertion of foreign genes into organisms, providing examples of unforeseen, undesirable effects and of instabilities of the organisms thus artificially fabricated. Data is then provided from both official agencies as well as existing literature questioning the accuracy and reliability of the risk analyses as to these organisms being harmless to health and discusses the almost total lack of scientific studies analyzing the health safety/dangerousness of transgenic foods. Given all these unknowns, other factors must be taken into account, particularly genetic contamination of the non-genetically modified crops, which is now starting to become widespread in some parts of the world. Not being able of reversing the situation in the even of problems is irresponsible. Other major aspects are the impacts on the environment (such as insects building up resistances, the loss of biodiversity, the increase in chemical products employed) with indirect repercussions on health and/or future food production. Lastly, thoughts for discussion are added concerning food safety in terms of food availability and food sovereignty, given that the transgenic seed and related agrochemicals market is currently cornered by five large-scale transnational companies. The conclusion entails an analysis of biotechnological agriculture's contribution to sustainability. PMID: 15913060 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 31. Appetite. 2005 Aug;45(1):47-50. Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Tenbült P, de Vries NK, Dreezens E, Martijn C. Department of Health Education and Health Promotion, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. p.tenbult@gvo.unimaas.nl This study examines people's acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food. Results suggest that GM acceptance depends most on how natural the genetically modified product is perceived and not directly on how natural the non-GM product is seen. A GM product that is perceived as more natural is more likely to be accepted than a GM product that is perceived as less natural. The extent to which GM affects the perceived naturalness of a product partly depends on the kind of product. PMID: 15896875 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 32. J Agric Food Chem. 2005 May 18;53(10):3958-62. Development of a peptide nucleic acid array platform for the detection of genetically modified organisms in food. Germini A, Rossi S, Zanetti A, Corradini R, Fogher C, Marchelli R. Dipartimento di Chimica Organica e Industriale, Università di Parma, Parco area delle Scienze 17/A, 43100 Parma, Italy. Two previously developed platforms, a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and a peptide nucleic acid (PNA) array, the former allowing for the simultaneous detection of five transgenes and two endogenous controls in food and feed matrices and the latter for the assessment of the identity of amplified PCR products, were combined in order to develop a PNA array device for the screening of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. PNA probes were opportunely designed, synthesized, and deposited on commercial slides. The length of the probes as well as the distance of the probes from the surface were evaluated and found to be critical points. The most suitable probes were found to be 15-mer PNAs linked to the slide surface by means of two 2-(2-aminoethoxy)ethoxyacetic acids as spacers. The device was tested on a model system constituted by flour samples containing a mixture of standards at known concentrations of transgenic material, in particular Roundup Ready soybean and Bt11, Bt176, Mon810, and GA21 maize: The DNA was amplified using the specific multiplex PCR method and tested on the PNA array. The method proposed was found to be able to correctly identify every GMO present in the tested samples. PMID: 15884823 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 33. J Chromatogr A. 2005 Feb 11;1065(1):107-13. Detection of processed genetically modified food using CIM monolithic columns for DNA isolation. Jerman S, Podgornik A, Cankar K, Cadet N, Skrt M, Zel J, Raspor P. Department of Food Science and Technology, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, S-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. The availability of sufficient quantities of DNA of adequate quality is crucial in polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods for genetically modified food detection. In this work, the suitability of anion-exchange CIM (Convective Interaction Media; BIA Separations, Ljubljana, Slovenia) monolithic columns for isolation of DNA from food was studied. Maize and its derivates corn meal and thermally pretreated corn meal were chosen as model food. Two commercially available CIM disk columns were tested: DEAE (diethylaminoethyl) and QA (quaternary amine). Preliminary separations were performed with standard solution of salmon DNA at different pH values and different NaCl concentrations in mobile phase. DEAE groups and pH 8 were chosen for further isolations of DNA from a complex matrix-food extract. The quality and quantity of isolated DNA were tested on agarose gel electrophoresis, with UV-scanning spectrophotometry, and by amplification with real-time PCR. DNA isolated in this way was of suitable quality for further PCR analyses. The described method is also applicable for DNA isolation from processed foods with decreased DNA content. Furthermore, it is more effective and less time-consuming in comparison with the existing proposed methods for isolation of DNA from plant-derived foods. PMID: 15782956 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 34. Przegl Lek. 2004;61 Suppl 3:22-4. [Genetically modified food and allergy] [Article in Polish] Wiackowski SK. Katedra Ekologii i Ochrony Srodowiska, Akademia Swietokrzyska, Kielce. skwiack@wp.pl Author discusses both successes and threats related with introduction of new organisms to the natural environment. Attention was sacrificed not only profits but also different threat influencing environment and human health. PMID: 15682936 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 35. Soc Sci Med. 2005 Apr;60(7):1603-12. Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. Finucane ML, Holup JL. Center for Health Research, Hawai'i Kaiser Permanente Hawai'i, 501 Alakawa Street, Suite 201, Honolulu, Hawai'i 96817, USA. melissa.l.finucane@kp.org The rapid globalization of the world economy has increased the need for an astute understanding of cultural differences in perceptions, values, and ways of thinking about new food technologies. In this paper, we describe how socio-psychological and cultural factors may affect public perceptions of the risk of genetically modified (GM) food. We present psychological, sociological, and anthropological research on risk perception as a framework for understanding cross-national differences in reactions to GM food. Differences in the cultural values and circumstances of people in the US, European countries, and the developing world are examined. The implications of cultural theory for risk communication and decision making about GM food are discussed and directions for future research highlighted. PMID: 15652691 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 36. Appetite. 2005 Feb;44(1):115-22. Food and values: an examination of values underlying attitudes toward genetically modified- and organically grown food products. Dreezens E, Martijn C, Tenbült P, Kok G, de Vries NK. Department of Experimental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. e.dreezens@psychology.unimaas.nl This study addresses which specific values play a role in predicting participants' attitudes toward genetically modified food (GMF) and organically grown food (OGF). The first central question is whether the attitudes towards GMF and OGF are influenced by specific values and beliefs. The second central question is whether the attitudes towards GMF and OGF are related to each other, and whether the specific values underlying these two attitudes are also related to each other. A total of 100 participants responded to the Schwartz Value Survey and two questionnaires about GMF and organically grown food. When respondents scored high on the value power (dominance, submission), they rated GMF positively and OGF more negatively. Respondents who rated the value universalism (welfare for all people and protection of nature) high, rated OGF as positive. Furthermore, the relationship between attitudes and values was mediated by beliefs. These findings imply a meaningful relationship between specific values, beliefs, and these food-related attitudes, and suggest that values might play a role in explaining attitudes toward GMF and OGF products. PMID: 15604038 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 37. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. 2004 Nov;55(4):301-12. [Genetically modified organisms in food--production, detection and risks] [Article in Croatian] Zeljezić D. Institut za medicinska istrazivanja i medicinu rada, Zagreb. dzeljezi@imi.hr The first genetically modified plant (GMP) was a tobacco resistant to antibiotics in 1983. In 1996, the first genetically altered crop, a delayed-ripening tomato was commercially released. In the year 2003, the estimated global area of GM crops for was 67.7 million hectares. To produce such a plant a gene of interest has to be isolated from the donor. Together with a promoter, terminator sequence and marker gene it has to be introduced into the plant cell which is then stimulated to generate a whole GMP expressing new characteristics (herbicide/insect resistance, delayed ripening). The last few months have seen a strong public debate over genetically modified organisms which has raised scientific, economic, political, and ethical issues. Some questions concerning the safety of GMPs are still to be answered, and decisions about their future should be based on scientifically validated information. PMID: 15584557 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 38. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2004 Aug;45(4):184-90. [Detection of genetically modified organisms obtained from food samples ] [Article in Japanese] Monma K, Araki R, Ichikawa H, Sato M, Uno N, Sato K, Tobe T, Kuribara H, Matsuoka T, Hino A, Saito K. Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health: 3-24-1, Hyakunin-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0073, Japan. Genetially modified organisms (GMOs) were explored in food samples obtained from November 2000 to March 2003 in the Tokyo area by using PCR and real-time PCR techniques. The existence of Roundup Ready Soybean (RRS) was surveyed in processed foods derived from soybeans, such as tofu, boiled soybean, kinako, nama-age, abura-age, natto, miso, soymilk and yuba. RRS was detected in 3 of 37 tofu, 2 of 3 nama-age, 2 of 3 yuba and 3 of 3 abura-age samples. The CBH351 in 70 processed corn foods, NewLeaf Plus and NewLeaf Y in 50 processed potato foods, and 55-1 papaya in 16 papayas were surveyed. These GMOs were not detected among the samples. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of RRS and genetically modified (GM) corn were performed in soybean, corn and semi-processed corn products such as corn meal, corn flour and corn grits. RRS was detected in 42 of 178 soybean samples, and the amount of RRS in RRS-positive samples was determined. The content was in the range of 0.1-1.4% in identity-preserved soybeans (non-GMO), and 49.8-78.8% in non-segregated soybeans. On the other hand, GM corns were detected in 8 of 26 samples. The amount of GM corn in GM corn-positive samples was in the range of 0.1-2.0%. PMID: 15568468 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 39. Risk Anal. 2004 Oct;24(5):1385-93. Psychological determinants of willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food. Townsend E, Campbell S. Institute for the Study of Genetics, Biorisks and Society and Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham, UK. Ellen.Townsend@nottingham.ac.uk Decreasing acceptance of biotechnologies over time has been reported in Europe. Studies claim that attitudes are negative, even hostile, and that people are very worried about genetic engineering in food and medicine. However, such studies are mostly based on surveys and these have significant methodological problems, such as low response rates, which may indicate that only those with strong views respond, thus biasing the sample. Here an alternative method, involving "topic-blind" recruitment of participants and a behavioral measure (food tasting), was used. We show that in a topic-blind sample of 100 individuals, 93% willingly tasted and ate what they believed to be genetically modified (GM) food in an experimental setting, and 48% said they would buy GM food in the future, results that are surprising in the context of other reports about attitudes and intentions toward GM food. Purchasers and nonpurchasers differed in their attitudes toward GM food on key risk-related scales (particularly on a dread-not dread scale--a measure of integral affect--and an ethical-unethical scale). Despite these differences, however, and despite their negative attitude, most nonpurchasers (85.7%) still tasted the GM apple. Incidental affect (state stress and trait worry) was not found to influence risk-related judgments about GM food. Integral affect (dread of GM plants and animals used for food) and concerns about the future risks of GM animals in food were found to be key predictors of willingness to purchase GM food. PMID: 15563302 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 40. Risk Anal. 2004 Oct;24(5):1369-84. Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Townsend E, Clarke DD, Travis B. Institute of Genetics, Biorisks and Society and School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, UK. Ellen.Townsend@nottingham.ac.uk Recently, there has been a surge of interest in the role of feelings in framing perceptions and decisions about risk, yet no study has specifically examined the impact of feelings on perceptions/judgments about biotechnology. This exploratory study investigated current perceptions of genetically modified (GM) food to examine (1) the effects of context (making judgments about GM food at the same time as rating other current areas of concern), and (2) the effect of feelings of dread (integral affect) and background feelings of stress (negative incidental affect) on risk judgments about GM food. An established psychometric method (semantic differential task) used with a sample of 126 adults (recruited "topic-blind," mostly from a student population) showed that, when rated in the context of other current concerns such as human cloning and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), there was less concern about GM food than might have been anticipated. Participants were recruited "topic-blind" in order to ensure that they were unaware that the focus of the research was on GM food specifically (and thus preventing biased recruitment to the study). Relative to 19 other current concerns GM food was "not dreaded," not viewed as "unethical," was judged as "controllable," and was seen as the least "risky" of all the issues studied. GM food was viewed as a "hot topic," a new risk, and as relatively unnatural (although it was not the highest rated concern on this scale). Ratings of risks across concerns by individuals experiencing high levels of negative incidental affect (stress) did not differ significantly from those reporting low stress. PMID: 15563301 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 41. Risk Anal. 2004 Oct;24(5):1311-21. Reactions to genetically modified food crops and how perception of risks and benefits influences consumers' information gathering. Wilson C, Evans G, Leppard P, Syrette J. CSIRO, Health Sciences and Nutrition, PO Box 10041, Adelaide BC SA 5000. Carlene.Wilson@csiro.au Previous research has reported strong consumer perception that genetically modified (GM) food crops may lead to adverse outcomes in a number of different areas. This is despite the widespread promulgation of the potential benefits and opportunities ascribed to the same technology by many scientists and other experts. A computer-based information gathering and evaluation task was completed by 198 adults to assess the extent to which their initial focus on the dangers or opportunities of genetic modification, or both, could be ascribed to the manner in which they gathered information on the topic (heuristically vs. systematically). Results did not confirm the hypothesis that initial focus (risks, benefits, or both) predicted ongoing information gathering and evaluation behavior. Moreover, also contrary to prediction, most participants primarily used systematic strategies when deriving their initial position, regardless of that opinion. Participants found it difficult to achieve a balanced perspective on GM food crop, even though balanced argument, as measured by order of story selection and time spent reading, was preferred as the source of information. Perceived importance is probably the most influential variable determining information gathering about issues or events to which a level of risk is attached. PMID: 15563297 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 42. Biotechnol Annu Rev. 2004;10:85-122. Public health issues related with the consumption of food obtained from genetically modified organisms. Paparini A, Romano-Spica V. University of Rome Foro Italico (IUSM), Rome, Italy. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are a fact of modern agriculture and a major field of discussion in biotechnology. As science incessantly achieves innovative and unexpected breakthroughs, new medical, political, ethical and religious debates arise over the production and consumption of transgenic organisms. Despite no described medical condition being directly associated with a diet including approved GM crops in large exposed populations such as 300,000,000 Americans and a billion Chinese, public opinion seems to look at this new technology with either growing concern or even disapproval. It is generally recognized that a high level of vigilance is necessary and highly desirable, but it should also be considered that GMOs are a promising new challenge for the III Millennium societies, with remarkable impact on many disciplines and fields related to biotechnology. To acquire a basic knowledge on GMO production, GM-food consumption, GMO interaction with humans and environment is of primary importance for risk assessment. It requires availability of clear data and results from rigorous experiments. This review will focus on public health risks related with a GMO-containing diet. The objective is to summarize state of the art research, provide fundamental technical information, point out problems and perspectives, and make available essential tools for further research. Are GMO based industries and GMO-derived foods safe to human health? Can we consider both social, ethical and public health issues by means of a constant and effective monitoring of the food chain and by a clear, informative labeling of the products? Which are the so far characterized or alleged hazards of GMOs? And, most importantly, are these hazards actual, potential or merely contrived? Several questions remain open; answers and solutions belong to science, to politics and to the personal opinion of each social subject. PMID: 15504704 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 43. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2004 Sep;47(9):826-33. [Genetically modified plants and food safety. State of the art and discussion in the European Union] [Article in German] Schauzu M. Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, Berlin. m.schauzu@bfr.bund.de Placing genetically modified (GM) plants and derived products on the European Union's (EU) market has been regulated by a Community Directive since 1990. This directive was complemented by a regulation specific for genetically modified and other novel foods in 1997. Specific labelling requirements have been applicable for GM foods since 1998. The law requires a pre-market safety assessment for which criteria have been elaborated and continuously adapted in accordance with the state of the art by national and international bodies and organisations. Consequently, only genetically modified products that have been demonstrated to be as safe as their conventional counterparts can be commercialized. However, the poor acceptance of genetically modified foods has led to a de facto moratorium since 1998. It is based on the lack of a qualified majority of EU member states necessary for authorization to place genetically modified plants and derived foods on the market. New Community Regulations are intended to end this moratorium by providing a harmonized and transparent safety assessment, a centralised authorization procedure, extended labelling provisions and a traceability system for genetically modified organisms (GMO) and derived food and feed. PMID: 15378169 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 44. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2003 Mar;37(2):133-5. [Assessment of the allergenic potential of genetically modified food] [Article in Chinese] Xu M. School of Food and Biologic engineering, Hangzhou Collage of Commercial, Hangzhou 310035, China PMID: 15376370 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 45. Ceylon Med J. 2004 Jun;49(2):44-6. Genetically modified food: friend or foe? Perera BJ. Lady Ridgeway Hospital for Children, Sri Lanka. bjcp@sltnet.lk PMID: 15334797 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 46. Clin Lab. 2004;50(5-6):380-1. Consumer protection from an EU regulation on the mandatory labelling of genetically modified food. [No authors listed] On the 7. November 2003 a new regulation was enforced in the states of the EU to govern the authorisation and labelling of genetically modified food in standardized and legally binding form. Raw materials from GM crops now have to feature in the list of ingredients of the end products. The consumer is free to choose whether or not he accepts gene technology in his food purchases. PMID: 15209444 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 47. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 2004 Mar;33(2):176-9. [Study on food safety of genetically modified rice which expressed cowpea trypsin inhibitor by 90 day feeding test on rats] [Article in Chinese] Zhuo Q, Chen X, Piao J, Gu L. Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100050, China. OBJECTIVE: Rats were fed by transgenic rice which expressed insecticidal protein CPTI (cowpea trypsin inhibitor) to study if the transgenic rice possessed potential toxic or adverse effects. METHODS: Weanling Wistar rats were randomly divided into three groups: T, N and C group. The diet of T group contained 78.3% transgenic rice. The diet of N group contained 74.7% non transgenic rice which was the parent line of the transgenic one. The diet formula of C group was AIN93G. The macro- and micronutrient content were equal in three diets. The rats were fed for 90 days. Food intakes were weight every day, body-weight were weight and body-length were measured every week. In the middle and at the end of feeding period, haematological value and clinical chemistry parameters were measured, at the end of the 90th day, post-mortem organ coefficient were measured, organ tissues analysis was performed and bone density was measured. RESULTS: In most situation, there were no significant differences among the three groups(P > 0.05) and no histopathological damage were detected. At the end of the 1st month, the male rats' body length of the T group was longer than the other two groups and at the end of the test period, the male rats' blood glucose and ALT were lower than the other two groups. In the middle of the test period, the female rats' red blood cell number and hemoglobin were higher than the other two groups and at the end of the test period, the female rats' monocyte number was higher than the other two groups (P < 0.05). But all of the results were in the normal range which had been reported before. CONCLUSION: From the results of the 90 days feeding test of transgenic rice on rats there did not reveal any signs of toxic and adverse effects. PMID: 15208998 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 48. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004 Jul;42(7):1195-202. Safety assessment, detection and traceability, and societal aspects of genetically modified foods. European Network on Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Food Crops (ENTRANSFOOD). Concluding remarks. Kuiper HA, König A, Kleter GA, Hammes WP, Knudsen I; European Network on Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Food Crops (ENTRANSFOOD). RIKILT-Institute of Food Safety, Wageningen University & Research Centre, Bornsesteeg 45, PO Box 230, NL-6700 AE Wageningen, The Netherlands. harry.kuiper@wur.nl The most important results from the EU-sponsored ENTRANSFOOD Thematic Network project are reviewed, including the design of a detailed step-wise procedure for the risk assessment of foods derived from genetically modified crops based on the latest scientific developments, evaluation of topical risk assessment issues, and the formulation of proposals for improved risk management and public involvement in the risk analysis process. Copyright 2004 Elsevier Ltd. PMID: 15123387 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 49. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004 Jul;42(7):1157-80. Detection and traceability of genetically modified organisms in the food production chain. Miraglia M, Berdal KG, Brera C, Corbisier P, Holst-Jensen A, Kok EJ, Marvin HJ, Schimmel H, Rentsch J, van Rie JP, Zagon J. Istituto Superiore di Sanitá, Section of Cereal Chemistry, Laboratory of Food, Viale Regina Elena 299, I-00161 Rome, Italy. Both labelling and traceability of genetically modified organisms are current issues that are considered in trade and regulation. Currently, labelling of genetically modified foods containing detectable transgenic material is required by EU legislation. A proposed package of legislation would extend this labelling to foods without any traces of transgenics. These new legislations would also impose labelling and a traceability system based on documentation throughout the food and feed manufacture system. The regulatory issues of risk analysis and labelling are currently harmonised by Codex Alimentarius. The implementation and maintenance of the regulations necessitates sampling protocols and analytical methodologies that allow for accurate determination of the content of genetically modified organisms within a food and feed sample. Current methodologies for the analysis of genetically modified organisms are focused on either one of two targets, the transgenic DNA inserted- or the novel protein(s) expressed- in a genetically modified product. For most DNA-based detection methods, the polymerase chain reaction is employed. Items that need consideration in the use of DNA-based detection methods include the specificity, sensitivity, matrix effects, internal reference DNA, availability of external reference materials, hemizygosity versus homozygosity, extrachromosomal DNA, and international harmonisation. For most protein-based methods, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays with antibodies binding the novel protein are employed. Consideration should be given to the selection of the antigen bound by the antibody, accuracy, validation, and matrix effects. Currently, validation of detection methods for analysis of genetically modified organisms is taking place. In addition, new methodologies are developed, including the use of microarrays, mass spectrometry, and surface plasmon resonance. Challenges for GMO detection include the detection of transgenic material in materials with varying chromosome numbers. The existing and proposed regulatory EU requirements for traceability of genetically modified products fit within a broader tendency towards traceability of foods in general and, commercially, towards products that can be distinguished from each other. Traceability systems document the history of a product and may serve the purpose of both marketing and health protection. In this framework, segregation and identity preservation systems allow for the separation of genetically modified and non-modified products from "farm to fork". Implementation of these systems comes with specific technical requirements for each particular step of the food processing chain. In addition, the feasibility of traceability systems depends on a number of factors, including unique identifiers for each genetically modified product, detection methods, permissible levels of contamination, and financial costs. In conclusion, progress has been achieved in the field of sampling, detection, and traceability of genetically modified products, while some issues remain to be solved. For success, much will depend on the threshold level for adventitious contamination set by legislation. Copryright 2004 Elsevier Ltd. PMID: 15123385 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 50. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004 Jul;42(7):1127-56. The relevance of gene transfer to the safety of food and feed derived from genetically modified (GM) plants. van den Eede G, Aarts H, Buhk HJ, Corthier G, Flint HJ, Hammes W, Jacobsen B, Midtvedt T, van der Vossen J, von Wright A, Wackernagel W, Wilcks A. European Commission Directorate General Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Biotechnology and GMOs Unit, Via E. Fermi 1-T.P. 331, I-21020 Ispra (VA), Italy. guy.van-den-eede@cec.eu.int In 2000, the thematic network ENTRANSFOOD was launched to assess four different topics that are all related to the testing or assessment of food containing or produced from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Each of the topics was linked to a European Commission (EC)-funded large shared cost action (see http://www.entransfood.com). Since the exchange of genetic information through horizontal (lateral) gene transfer (HGT) might play a more important role, in quantity and quality, than hitherto imagined, a working group dealing with HGT in the context of food and feed safety was established. This working group was linked to the GMOBILITY project (GMOBILITY, 2003) and the results of the deliberations are laid down in this review paper. HGT is reviewed in relation to the potential risks of consuming food or feed derived from transgenic crops. First, the mechanisms for obtaining transgenic crops are described. Next, HGT mechanisms and its possible evolutionary role are described. The use of marker genes is presented in detail as a special case for genes that may pose a risk. Furthermore, the exposure to GMOs and in particular to genetically modified (GM) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is discussed as part of the total risk assessment. The review finishes off with a number of conclusions related to GM food and feed safety. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview to assist risk assessors as well as regulators and the general public in understanding the safety issues related to these mechanisms. Copryright 2004 Elsevier Ltd. PMID: 15123384 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 51. Johns Hopkins Med Lett Health After 50. 2001 Jul;13(5):8. Is genetically modified food safe? [No authors listed] PMID: 14727588 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 52. Vet Res Commun. 2003 Sep;27 Suppl 1:699-701. Detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food and feedstuff. Novelli E, Balzan S, Segato S, De Rigo L, Ferioli M. Dipartimento di Sanità Pubblica, Patologia Comparata e Igiene Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy. enrico.novelli@unipd.it PMID: 14535501 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 53. Vopr Pitan. 2003;72(3):20-3. [Monitoring of food products from genetically modified sources in Moscow] [Article in Russian] Tutel'ian VA, Filatov NN, Sorokina EIu, Chernysheva ON, Salova NIa, Sizykh EV, Anisimova OV. This paper presents results of a detection of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food from the shops of Moscow. The screening methods and event-specific assay based on the polymerase chain reaction is used. Transgenic DNA from genetically modified soybeans line 40-3-2 is detected in 17.2% samples of studied foods. Soybeans line 40-3-2 is allowed in Russian food supply. PMID: 12872657 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 54. Nutr Health. 2003;17(1):1-8. In vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed--with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified plant materials. Pryme IF, Lembcke R. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Bergen, Arstadveien 19, NO-5009 Bergen, Norway. ian.pryme@ibmb.uib.no This synopsis reviews published in vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed where the ingredients in question have consisted of genetically modified plant materials. The following, however, have not been taken into consideration:--ingredients consisting of genetically modified microorganisms or parts of animals/fish--ingredients produced by/from genetically modified organisms but without any DNA present--studies on consequences for the environment or biodiversity--in vitro studies or computer simulations. According to a Norwegian report "Gen-mat" (NOU 2000:29), and a more recent search in Medline and Citations Index, to our knowledge a total of ten studies have been published on the health effects of GM-foods and feeds. In this minireview the data made available in these published studies is discussed. PMID: 12803276 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 55. Lancet. 2003 May 24;361(9371):1798. USA fights Europe's ban on genetically modified food. Bosch X. PMID: 12781547 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 56. J Exp Bot. 2003 May;54(386):1317-9. Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies. Herman EM. Plant Genetics Unit, USDA/ARS, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, 975 N. Warson Road, St Louis, MO 63132, USA. eherman@danforthcenter.org Allergenic reactions to proteins expressed in GM crops has been one of the prominent concerns among biotechnology critics and a concern of regulatory agencies. Soybeans like many plants have intrinsic allergens that present problems for sensitive people. Current GM crops, including soybean, have not been shown to add any additional allergenic risk beyond the intrinsic risks already present. Biotechnology can be used to characterize and eliminate allergens naturally present in crops. Biotechnology has been used to remove a major allergen in soybean demonstrating that genetic modification can be used to reduce allergenicity of food and feed. This provides a model for further use of GM approaches to eliminate allergens. PMID: 12709477 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 57. Toxicol Sci. 2003 May;73(1):8-16. Epub 2003 Apr 15. Workshop overview: approaches to the assessment of the allergenic potential of food from genetically modified crops. Ladics GS, Holsapple MP, Astwood JD, Kimber I, Knippels LM, Helm RM, Dong W. The DuPont Co., Haskell Laboratory, Newark, Delaware 19714, USA. gregory.s.ladics@usa.dupont.com There is a need to assess the safety of foods deriving from genetically modified (GM) crops, including the allergenic potential of novel gene products. Presently, there is no single in vitro or in vivo model that has been validated for the identification or characterization of potential food allergens. Instead, the evaluation focuses on risk factors such as source of the gene (i.e., allergenic vs. nonallergenic sources), physicochemical and genetic comparisons to known allergens, and exposure assessments. The purpose of this workshop was to gather together researchers working on various strategies for assessing protein allergenicity: (1) to describe the current state of knowledge and progress that has been made in the development and evaluation of appropriate testing strategies and (2) to identify critical issues that must now be addressed. This overview begins with a consideration of the current issues involved in assessing the allergenicity of GM foods. The second section presents information on in vitro models of digestibility, bioinformatics, and risk assessment in the context of clinical prevention and management of food allergy. Data on rodent models are presented in the next two sections. Finally, nonrodent models for assessing protein allergenicity are discussed. Collectively, these studies indicate that significant progress has been made in developing testing strategies. However, further efforts are needed to evaluate and validate the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of many of these assays for determining the allergenicity potential of GM foods. PMID: 12700419 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 58. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2003 Jan 11;147(2):56-60. [Nutrition and health--genetically modified food] [Article in Dutch] Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Kok EJ. Wageningen Universiteit & Research Centre, Rijks-Kwaliteitsinstituut voor Land- en Tuinbouwproducten, Bornsesteeg 45, 6708 PD Wageningen. h.a.kuiper@rikilt.wag-ur.nl Comment on: Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2003 Jan 11;147(2):60-5. The genetically modified (GM) crops cultivated at present have new properties of benefit to agriculture. It is expected that in the future GM crops will also be cultivated with more complex genetic modifications that are aimed at improving the nutritional and health value to the consumer. The safety assessment of GM foods before market approval is based on a comparison of the characteristics of the GM food with those of the conventional counterpart. Identified differences are thoroughly tested for their toxicological and nutritional consequences. Supplementary modern analytical techniques are being developed for the assessment of future complex GM foods. No cases of adverse health or nutritional effects in consumers have been reported for the existing generation of GM foods. The feasibility of post-market surveillance of (GM) foods, in order to identify small or chronic effects that have not been noticed in the pre-market phase, is being investigated, yet its value should not be overestimated. Surveillance can be informative in case of specific questions concerning certain products as long as the consumer intake is well documented. To this end traceability and labelling systems must be set up. PMID: 12602068 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 59. Biochimie. 2002 Nov;84(11):1073-87. Genetically modified lactic acid bacteria: applications to food or health and risk assessment. Renault P. Génétique microbienne, Inra, domaine de Vilvert, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France. renault@jouy.inra.fr Lactic acid bacteria have a long history of use in fermented food products. Progress in gene technology allows their modification by introducing new genes or by modifying their metabolic functions. These modifications may lead to improvements in food technology (bacteria better fitted to technological processes, leading to improved organoleptic properties em leader ), or to new applications including bacteria producing therapeutic molecules that could be delivered by mouth. Examples in these two fields will be discussed, at the same time evaluating their potential benefit to society and the possible risks associated with their use. Risk assessment and expected benefits will determine the future use of modified bacteria in the domains of food technology and health. PMID: 12595135 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 60. Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi. 2002 Nov;49(11):1135-41. [Genetically modified food (food derived from biotechnology): current and future trends in public acceptance and safety assessment] [Article in Japanese] Nishiura H, Imai H, Nakao H, Tsukino H, Kuroda Y, Katoh T. Tokyo Metropolitan Ebara Hospital. Current and future trends regarding genetically modified (GM) crops and food stuffs were reviewed, with a particular focus on public acceptance and safety assessment. While GM foods, foods derived from biotechnology, are popular with growers and producers, they are still a matter of some concern among consumers. In fact, our recent surveys showed that Japanese consumers had become uneasy about the potential health risks of genetically modified foods. Many Japanese consumers have only vague ideas about the actual health risks, and they appear to be making decisions simply by rejecting GM food because of non-informed doubts. Although the debate about GM foods has increased in the mass media and scientific journals, few articles concerning direct studies on the potential toxicity or adverse health effects of GM foods have appeared. The roles of relevant international regulatory bodies in ensuring that GM crops and food are safe are therefore have summarized. Finally, the current debate on use of GM crops in agriculture and future trends for development of GM foods with enriched nutrients, better functionality, and medicinal ingredients, which will be of direct benefit to the consumer, are covered. PMID: 12508467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 61. Public Underst Sci. 2002 Jul;11(3):273-91. "It just goes against the grain." Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Shaw A. Division of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, UK. AlisonShaw@bristol.ac.uk This paper reports on one aspect of qualitative research on public understandings of food risks, focusing on lay understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK context. A range of theoretical, conceptual, and empirical literature on food, risk, and the public understanding of science are reviewed. The fieldwork methods are outlined and empirical data from a range of lay groups are presented. Major themes include: varying "technical" knowledge of science, the relationship between knowledge and acceptance of genetic modification, the uncertainty of scientific knowledge, genetic modification as inappropriate scientific intervention in "nature", the acceptability of animal and human applications of genetic modification, the appropriate boundaries of scientific innovation, the necessity for GM foods, the uncertainty of risks in GM food, fatalism about avoiding risks, and trust in "experts" to manage potential risks in GM food. Key discussion points relating to a sociological understanding of public attitudes to GM food are raised and some policy implications are highlighted. PMID: 12430532 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 62. Nahrung. 2002 Oct;46(5):360-3. Genetically modified maize and soybean on the Egyptian food market. el Sanhoty R, Broll H, Grohmann L, Linke B, Spiegelberg A, Bögl KW, Zagon J. Food Technology Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Giza, Egypt. The results of a survey study on food samples produced from genetically modified soybean and maize collected from the Egyptian market are presented. Forty samples of soybean and 40 samples of maize products have been gathered randomly from markets in Cairo and Giza. The genetic modification was detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using official detection methods according to section 35 of the German Foodstuffs Act. Samples were investigated for the presence of material derived from the following genetically modified organisms (GMOs) all of which are approved for food use in Europe: Roundup Ready soybean (RRS) and maize lines Bt176, Bt11, T25 and MON810. In addition, samples were examined in qualitative and quantitative analysis for the presence of material derived from the transgenic maize line StarLink (Aventis) which was approved for animal feed use exclusively in the US. Twenty % of 40 investigated soy samples contained Roundup Ready soybean; 15% of 40 maize samples tested positive for Bt176 and 12.5% positive for Bt11 maize. Furthermore, the presence of StarLink maize could clearly be demonstrated in four samples mixed with Bt176 and Bt11. The percentage of StarLink was less than 1% in quantitative analysis. The maize lines T25 and MON810 were not detected. PMID: 12428455 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 63. Internist (Berl). 2002 Jul;43(7):840-6. [Genetic techniques and food. Are genetically modified foods a health risk for us?] [Article in German] Jany KD, Kiener C. Molekularbiologisches Zentrum, Bundesforschungsanstalt für Ernährung, Haid-und-Neu-Strasse 9, 76131 Karlsruhe. klaus-dieter.jany@bfe.uni-karlsruhe.de PMID: 12219684 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 64. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2002 Apr;43(2):68-73. Increased digestibility of two products in genetically modified food (CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab) after preheating. Okunuki H, Teshima R, Shigeta T, Sakushima J, Akiyama H, Goda Y, Toyoda M, Sawada J. National Institute of Health Sciences: 1-18-1, Kamiyoga, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158-8501, Japan. We performed experiments on in vitro digestion of newly expressed proteins by SGF (simulated gastric fluid) and SIF (simulated intestinal fluid) to assess the allergenicity of food components derived from biotechnological modification. For newly expressed proteins, we chose CP4-EPSPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4) and Cry1Ab derived from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain HD-1. The former is expressed in GM-soybeans and the latter is expressed in GM-corns. Firstly, we examined the digestibility of purified CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab by SGF. Both proteins were rapidly digested within 60 sec. After preheating, the digestibility by SGF was slightly increased. Secondly, CP4-EPSPS in GM-soybean extracts and Cry1Ab in GM-corn extracts were digested by SGF. The digestion time of both proteins by SGF was almost the same as that of the purified proteins. Thirdly, the digestibility of CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab by SIF was examined. The digestion time of these proteins was 240 min or more. However, digestibility of these proteins by SIF was dramatically increased by preheating, and the digestion time was less than 5 sec. Fourthly, CP4-EPSPS in GM-soybean extracts and Cry1Ab in GM-corn extracts were digested by SIF. Digestion time of both proteins by SIF was almost the same as that of the purified proteins. From these results, we concluded that the digestibility of both CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab by SGF and SIF was increased by preheating. Therefore, we suggest that the allergenicity of both proteins should be extremely low because of the easy digestibility of these proteins by SGF and also by SIF with preheating. PMID: 12092415 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 65. Duodecim. 2001;117(1):112-6. [Genetically modified and other novel food products] [Article in Finnish] Mannonen L. Elintarvikevirasto PL 5, 00531 Helsinki. PMID: 12092344 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 66. J AOAC Int. 2002 May-Jun;85(3):762-7. Identity preservation of genetically modified organisms in the food chain: requirements, methods, and costs. Brookes G. PG Economics, Dorchester, Dorset, UK. Graham.Brookes@Btinternet.com The use of the technology of genetic modification (GM) in European agriculture and the food supply chain is currently controversial. Because of strong anti-GM technology sentiments, the use of ingredients derived from plants containing GM have largely been eliminated from foods manufactured for direct human consumption by the food supply chain in much of the European Union (EU). During the past year, the attention of those opposed to the technology has turned to the use of GM ingredients in livestock production systems by incorporation of GM soy and maize in animal feed. A discussion is presented of the key issues relating to this subject, focusing on how supplies of GM or non-GM products are segregated or how their identities are preserved. The discussion is centered on GM maize and soybeans into which agronomic traits, such as herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance, have been incorporated. These are currently the only crops into which some varieties containing GM have been approved for use in the EU. PMID: 12083272 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 67. J AOAC Int. 2002 May-Jun;85(3):646-53. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction methods for four genetically modified maize varieties and maize DNA content in food. Brodmann PD, Ilg EC, Berthoud H, Herrmann A. Kantonales Laboratorium Basel-Stadt, Basel, Switzerland. peter.brodmann@kl.bs.ch Quantitative detection methods are needed for enforcement of the recently introduced labeling threshold for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food ingredients. This labeling threshold, which is set to 1% in the European Union and Switzerland, must be applied to all approved GMOs. Four different varieties of maize are approved in the European Union: the insect-resistant Bt176 maize (Maximizer), Btl 1 maize, Mon810 (YieldGard) maize, and the herbicide-tolerant T25 (Liberty Link) maize. Because the labeling must be considered individually for each ingredient, a quantitation system for the endogenous maize content is needed in addition to the GMO-specific detection systems. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction detection methods were developed for the 4 approved genetically modified maize varieties and for an endogenous maize (invertase) gene system. PMID: 12083257 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 68. Toxicol Sci. 2002 Jul;68(1):4-8. Approaches to assessment of the allergenic potential of novel proteins in food from genetically modified crops. Kimber I, Dearman RJ. Syngenta Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TJ, United Kingdom. ian.kimber@syngenta.com The safety assessment of food derived from genetically modified plants continues to attract considerable attention. Among the important issues that need to be considered is whether the products of novel genes introduced into crop plants will have the potential to induce allergic sensitization or to elicit allergic disease. Hierarchical approaches to allergenicity testing have been proposed, and these incorporate evaluation of the structural and sequence homology and serological identity of novel proteins with known allergens, measurement of resistance to proteolytic digestion, and assessment of allergenic potential using animal models. Accounts of these approaches are available elsewhere, and it is not the purpose of this article to provide a detailed critique of specific methods. Our intention is rather to look more broadly at the strategy for assessment of allergenic potential, the challenges such assessments pose for the practicing toxicologist, and how some of these might best be addressed. PMID: 12075104 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 69. Science. 2002 Jun 14;296(5575):1948-9. Genetically modified food. TV drama sparks scientific backlash. Shouse B. PMID: 12065809 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 70. Proc Nutr Soc. 2002 Feb;61(1):31-7. Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food. Finucane ML. Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon 97401, USA. melissafinucane@hotmail.com The rapid globalization of the world economy has increased the need for a knowledge base of reliable socio-cultural differences in perceptions, values and ways of thinking about new food technologies. Awareness of socio-cultural differences is important because collaborative efforts to deal with food hazards presuppose some understanding of where, how and why the viewpoints of various stakeholders may differ. In the present paper factors that influence public perceptions of genetically-modified (GM) food are discussed, with a special focus on the unique circumstances of populations in the USA, Europe and developing countries. It is argued that effective communication and decision making about the risk of GM food depends critically on understanding how socio-cultural groups differ in their values and in the way they deal with the risks and benefits of new technologies. The implications of psychological aspects of perceived risk (including the roles of qualitative dimensions of risk, world views and trust) for public acceptance of new food technologies are highlighted. PMID: 12002793 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 71. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2002 Apr;13(2):73-4. Genetically modified food and the pediatric allergist. Warner JO. PMID: 12000476 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 72. Toxicol Pathol. 2002 Jan-Feb;30(1):129-31. Safety assessment and public concern for genetically modified food products: the European view. Moseley BE. bevmos@bmoseley.fsnet.co.uk The safety assessment for marketing purposes of genetically modified (GM) foods in the 15 Member States of the European Union (EU) is based on the Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulation adopted in May 1997. Before a GM food can be approved under the Regulation, it must satisfy three criteria: Gm food must be safe, it must not mislead the consumer and it must be nutritionally adequate. The EU Scientific Committee on Food has published a set of guidelines describing the type of information expected from a company in support of an application for approval of a GM food or food ingredient. Despite this rigorous procedure and there being no evidence of harm resulting from the consumption of GM foods worldwide, there is essentially no market in the EU for such products at present. Possible reasons for this are discussed and the view put forward that the market for GM foods will change only when there are more clearly perceived consumer benefits. PMID: 11892726 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 73. Toxicol Pathol. 2002 Jan-Feb;30(1):132-4. Safety assessments and public concern for genetically modified food products: the American view. Harlander SK. BlOrational Consultants, Inc, New Brighton, Minnesota 55112, USA. SKHARLAND@aol.com In the relatively short time since their commercial introduction in 1996, genetically modified (GM) crops have been rapidly adopted in the United States GM crops are regulated through a coordinated framework developed in 1992 and administered by three agencies-the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that ensures the products are safe to grow, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that ensures the products are safe for the environment, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that ensures the products are safe to eat. Rigorous food and environmental safety assessments must be completed before GM crops can be commercialized. Fifty-one products have been reviewed by the FDA, including several varieties of corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, rice, sugar beets, potatoes, tomatoes, squash, papaya, and flax. Because FDA considers these crops "substantially equivalent" to their conventional counterparts, no special labeling is required for GM crops in the United States and they are managed as commodities with no segregation or identity preservation. GM crops have thus made their way through commodity distribution channels into thousands of ingredients used in processed foods. It has been estimated that 70% to 85% of processed foods on supermarket shelves in the United States today contain one or more ingredients potentially derived from GM crops. The food industry and retail industry have been monitoring the opinions of their consumers on the GM issue for the past several years. Numerous independent groups have also surveyed consumer concerns about GM foods. The results of these surveys are shared and discussed here. PMID: 11890465 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 74. Toxicol Pathol. 2002 Jan-Feb;30(1):126-8. Safety assessment and public concerns for genetically modified food products: the Japanese experience. Hino A. Gustatory Biology Laboratory, National Food Research Institute, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. akhino@nfri.affrc.go.jp The recombinant DNA (rDNA) technique is expected to bring about great progress in the improvement of breeding technology and the development of new plant varieties showing high quality and high yield, such as those with excellent pest and disease resistance, those with environmental stress tolerance, and so forth. In the United States and Canada, many genetically modified (GM) crop plants were commercialized as early as 1994. In Japan, 35 transgenic crop plants, such as herbicide tolerant soybean, cotton, and canola, and insect-resistant corn, cotton, and potatos, were authorized and considered marketable until April 2001. The general public, however, is not familiar with rDNA technology, and some people seem to feel uncomfortable with biotechnology, frequently because of the difficulty of the technology and lacking of sufficient information. New labeling systems were initiated in April 2001 in Japan to provide information regarding the use of GM crops as raw material. PMID: 11890464 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 75. Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig. 2001;52(4):313-20. [Usefulness of an immunoassay test TRAIT for detection of genetically modified Roundup ready soybean in food products] [Article in Polish] Urbanek-Karłowska B, Fonberg-Broczek M, Sawilska-Rautenstrauch D, Badowski P, Jedra M. Zakład Badania Zywności i Przedmiotów Uzytku Państwowy Zakład Higieny 00-791 Warszawa. u.l. Chocimska 24 The test based on immunoassay TRAIT Test for the specific detection of Roundup Ready Soybean was used for reference material in the form of dried powdered soy beans contained 0, 0.3, 1.25, 2.5% of genetically modified material, for soy beans declared as Roundup Ready and for soy products from Warsaw market. The detection limit was approximately 0.1% GMO on dry weight basis. Experiment was also carried out on heated soybeans. The positive results was obtained since temperature was under 65 degrees C during 15 minutes of heating grounded beans; above this temperature specific protein was not recognisable by the antibody. The TRAIT Test should be regarded as a qualitative method and could be recommended for screening purposes. Investigation demonstrated that above mentioned test was useful for detection of protein of genetically modified soybean in unprocessed products. PMID: 11878012 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 76. J AOAC Int. 2001 Nov-Dec;84(6):1855-64. Validation of PCR methods for quantitation of genetically modified plants in food. Hübner P, Waiblinger HU, Pietsch K, Brodmann P. Kantonales Labor Zürich, Switzerland. For enforcement of the recently introduced labeling threshold for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food ingredients, quantitative detection methods such as quantitative competitive (QC-PCR) and real-time PCR are applied by official food control laboratories. The experiences of 3 European food control laboratories in validating such methods were compared to describe realistic performance characteristics of quantitative PCR detection methods. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) of GMO-specific, real-time PCR was experimentally determined to reach 30-50 target molecules, which is close to theoretical prediction. Starting PCR with 200 ng genomic plant DNA, the LOQ depends primarily on the genome size of the target plant and ranges from 0.02% for rice to 0.7% for wheat. The precision of quantitative PCR detection methods, expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD), varied from 10 to 30%. Using Bt176 corn containing test samples and applying Bt176 specific QC-PCR, mean values deviated from true values by -7to 18%, with an average of 2+/-10%. Ruggedness of real-time PCR detection methods was assessed in an interlaboratory study analyzing commercial, homogeneous food samples. Roundup Ready soybean DNA contents were determined in the range of 0.3 to 36%, relative to soybean DNA, with RSDs of about 25%. Taking the precision of quantitative PCR detection methods into account, suitable sample plans and sample sizes for GMO analysis are suggested. Because quantitative GMO detection methods measure GMO contents of samples in relation to reference material (calibrants), high priority must be given to international agreements and standardization on certified reference materials. PMID: 11767156 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 77. Plant J. 2001 Sep;27(6):503-28. Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HP, Kok EJ. National Institute for Quality Control of Agricultural Products (RIKILT), Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 230, NL 6700 AE Wageningen, The Netherlands. h.a.kuiper@rikilt.wag-ur.nl International consensus has been reached on the principles regarding evaluation of the food safety of genetically modified plants. The concept of substantial equivalence has been developed as part of a safety evaluation framework, based on the idea that existing foods can serve as a basis for comparing the properties of genetically modified foods with the appropriate counterpart. Application of the concept is not a safety assessment per se, but helps to identify similarities and differences between the existing food and the new product, which are then subject to further toxicological investigation. Substantial equivalence is a starting point in the safety evaluation, rather than an endpoint of the assessment. Consensus on practical application of the principle should be further elaborated. Experiences with the safety testing of newly inserted proteins and of whole genetically modified foods are reviewed, and limitations of current test methodologies are discussed. The development and validation of new profiling methods such as DNA microarray technology, proteomics, and metabolomics for the identification and characterization of unintended effects, which may occur as a result of the genetic modification, is recommended. The assessment of the allergenicity of newly inserted proteins and of marker genes is discussed. An issue that will gain importance in the near future is that of post-marketing surveillance of the foods derived from genetically modified crops. It is concluded, among others that, that application of the principle of substantial equivalence has proven adequate, and that no alternative adequate safety assessment strategies are available. PMID: 11576435 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 78. Ital J Biochem. 2000 Sep-Dec;49(3-4):52-6. The use of biotechnology in agriculture and the methods for the detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. Motti C, Dainese E, Mascini M, Minunni M, De Santis P, Cozzani I. Department of Structure, Function and Pathology of Animals and Biotechnology, University of Teramo, Italy. PMID: 11508058 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 79. Vopr Pitan. 2001;70(2):3-7. [Hygiene and standards aspects of registration, marking and labeling of food products prepared from genetically modified sources] [Article in Russian] Onishchenko GG. The basic requirements to problems of registration, marking and labelling of the foodstuff prepared from generically modified sources are stated. The comparative analysis of the above-named problems in the different countries (USA, countries of EU, Russia etc.) is given. PMID: 11494669 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 80. Vopr Pitan. 2000;69(6):37-40. [Organization of State sanitary inspection of food products from genetically modified sources] [Article in Russian] Petukhov AI. PMID: 11452373 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 81. J Environ Monit. 2001 Feb;3(2):26N-32N. Environmental and food safety issues of genetically modified crops. Kuiper HA. PMID: 11354743 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 82. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2000;17:327-52. Genetically modified food crops: current concerns and solutions for next generation crops. Daniell H. Department of Molecular Biology and Microbiology, 12722 Research Parkway, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32826-3227, USA. daniell@mail.ucf.edu PMID: 11255672 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 83. Lancet. 2000 Mar 11;355(9207):931. Toxins and genetically modified food. Trewavas A. Comment on: Lancet. 2000 Jan 29;355(9201):414. PMID: 10752731 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 84. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2000 Nov-Dec;113(11-12):454-8. [Detection of genetically modified soy (Roundup-Ready) in processed food products] [Article in German] Hagen M, Beneke B. Staatliches Veterinäruntersuchungsamt Detmold. In this study, the application of a qualitative and a quantitative method of analysis to detect genetically modified RR-Soy (Roundup-Ready Soy) in processed foods is described. A total of 179 various products containing soy such as baby food and diet products, soy drinks and desserts, tofu and tofu products, soy based meat substitutes, soy protein, breads, flour, granules, cereals, noodles, soy bean sprouts, fats and oils as well as condiments were investigated following the pattern of the section 35 LMBG-method L 23.01.22-1. The DNA was extracted from the samples and analysed using a soybean specific lectin gene PCR as well as a PCR, specific for the genetic modification. Additional, by means of PCR in combination with fluorescence-detection (TaqMan 5'-Nuclease Assay), suspicious samples were subjected to a real-time quantification of the percentage of genetically modified RR-Soy. The methods of analysis proved to be extremely sensitive and specific in regard to the food groups checked. The fats and oils, as well as the condiments were the exceptions in which amplifiable soy DNA could not be detected. The genetic modification of RR-Soy was detected in 34 samples. Eight of these samples contained more than 1% of RR-Soy. It is necessary to determine the percentage of transgenic soy in order to assess whether genetically modified ingredients were deliberately added, or whether they were caused by technically unavoidable contamination (for example during transportation and processing). PMID: 11153227 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 85. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2000 Oct;11(5):505-8. Gene transfer from genetically modified food. Gasson MJ. Food Safety Science Division, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norfolk, NR4 7UA, Norwich, UK. mike.gasson@bbsrc.ac.uk The current debate about the safety of genetically modified food includes some important scientific issues where more scientific data would aid the robustness of safety evaluation. One example is the possibility of gene transfer, especially from genetically modified plant material. PMID: 11024371 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 86. FEBS Lett. 2000 Sep 15;481(2):164-8. DNA stability in plant tissues: implications for the possible transfer of genes from genetically modified food. Chiter A, Forbes JM, Blair GE. School of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Room 8.10a Garstang Building, University of Leeds, Mount Preston Street, Leeds, UK. The potential for transfer of antibiotic resistance genes from genetically modified (GM) plant material to microbes through genetic recombination in the human or animal gut is a consideration that has engendered caution in the use of GM foods. This study was aimed at defining the optimal physical and chemical conditions necessary to ensure sufficient fragmentation of DNA in plant tissues to a size where it would be unlikely to be stably transferred to bacterial gut microflora. The ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase small subunit (Rubisco SS) genes are of similar size (approximately 1.4 kb) to transgenes present in GM plants. DNA analysis and PCR amplification of Rubisco SS genes showed that fresh maize and maize silage contained high molecular weight DNA and intact Rubisco SS genes. Relatively high temperatures and pressurised steam were necessary to degrade fully genomic DNA and Rubisco SS genes in maize and wheat grains, the source of most animal feedstuffs. Furthermore, chemical expulsion and extrusion of oilseeds resulted in residues with completely degraded genomic DNA. These results imply that stringent conditions are needed in the processing of GM plant tissues for feedstuffs to eliminate the possibility of transmission of transgenes. PMID: 10996317 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 87. J AOAC Int. 2000 Jul-Aug;83(4):919-27. Validation of an immunoassay for detection and quantitation of a genetically modified soybean in food and food fractions using reference materials: interlaboratory study. Lipp M, Anklam E, Stave JW, Lipp M, Anklam E, Stave JW. European Commission, Joint Research Center, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Food Products and Consumer Goods Unit, Ispra (Va), Italy. An immunoassay for detection of a specific genetically modified soybean (Roundup-Ready) was validated on dried soybean powder in an interlaboratory study. Different percentages of genetically modified soybeans in nonmodified soybean matrix were evaluated in a blind study. Thirty-eight laboratories from 13 countries participated. The immunoassay was evaluated for 2 endpoints: (1) To give a semiquantitative result, i.e., determination of a given sample above or below a given threshold, or (2) to compute a quantitative result, i.e., percentage of genetically modified soybeans in the sample. Semiquantitative results showed that a given sample which contained <2% genetically modified soybeans was identified as below 2% with a 99% confidence level. Quantitative use of the assay resulted in a repeatability (r) and reproducibility (R) that were computed to be RSDr = 7% and RSDR = 10%, respectively, for a sample containing 2% genetically modified soybeans. Application of this method depends on availability of appropriate reference materials for a specific food matrix. Only matrix-matched reference materials can be used for analysis of food or food fractions. PMID: 10995116 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 88. Anal Chem. 2000 Jul 1;72(13):454A-459A. Detecting genetically modified products in food. Erickson BE. PMID: 10905286 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 89. West J Med. 2000 Apr;172(4):220-1. The genetically modified food fight. Jacobson M. Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC 20009, USA. mjacobson@cspinet.org PMCID: PMC1070817 PMID: 10778361 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 90. Med J Aust. 2000 Feb 21;172(4):173-4. Genetically modified foods--food for thought. Leeder SR. Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, NSW. steve@medicine.usyd.edu.au Comment in: Med J Aust. 2000 Feb 21;172(4):148-9. We would be wise to hold off until we know more about the health, ecological and economic effects of genetically modified food. PMID: 10772590 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 91. Med J Aust. 2000 Feb 21;172(4):148-9. Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. Horton R. Comment on: Med J Aust. 2000 Feb 21;172(4):173-4. Med J Aust. 2000 Feb 21;172(4):170-3. PMID: 10772580 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 92. Vopr Pitan. 1999;68(5-6):3-8. [Current approaches to the evaluation of genetically modified food products. Soybean 40-3-2 data] [Article in Russian] Onishchenko GG, Tutel'ian VA, Petukhov AI, Korolev AA, Aksiuk IN, Sorokina EIu. Different methodological approaches were elaborated to evaluate quality and safety of genetically modified food products. The new engineering is proposed to rate medical, biological, genetic and technological advantage of these products. Using the same engineering, a complete analysis of the genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 ("Monsanto Co", USA) has been performed. PMID: 10641272 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 93. J Agric Food Chem. 1999 Dec;47(12):5038-43. Genetically modified organisms in food-screening and specific detection by polymerase chain reaction. Vollenhofer S, Burg K, Schmidt J, Kroath H. Austrian Research Centers Seibersdorf, Biotechnology Unit, A-2444 Seibersdorf, Austria. sabine.vollenhofer@arcs.ac.at Erratum in: J Agric Food Chem 2001 Jul;49(7):3508. PCR methods for the detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were developed that can be used for screening purposes and for specific detection of glyphosate-tolerant soybean and insect-resistant maize in food. Primers were designed to amplify parts of the 35S promoter derived from Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, the NOS terminator derived from Agrobacterium tumefaciens and the antibiotic marker gene NPTII (neomycin-phosphotransferase II), to allow for general screening of foods. PCR/hybridization protocols were established for the detection of glyphosate-tolerant RoundUp Ready soybean and insect-resistant Bt-maize. Besides hybridization, confirmation of the results using restriction analysis was also possible. The described methods enabled a highly sensitive and specific detection of GMOs and thus provide a useful tool for routine analysis of raw and processed food products. PMID: 10606569 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 94. Nature. 1999 Dec 9;402(6762):571. US food-safety body hears protests over genetically modified food. Macilwain C. PMID: 10604452 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 95. Nat Biotechnol. 1999 Nov;17(11):1137-8. Quantitation of genetically modified organisms in food. Hübner P, Studer E, Lüthy J. Official food control authority of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. klzh@bluewin.ch PMID: 10545927 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 96. Science. 1999 May 28;284(5419):1442-4. Genetically modified food. Britain struggles to turn anti-GM tide. Gavaghan H. PMID: 10383316 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 97. Curr Probl Dermatol. 1999;28:81-7. Genetically modified food: a danger or a benefit for atopics? Ebner C. Institute of General and Experimental Pathology, University of Vienna, Austria. PMID: 10374054 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 98. Praxis (Bern 1994). 1999 Apr 1;88(14):609-14, 616-8. [Food additives and genetically modified food--a risk for allergic patients?] [Article in German] Wüthrich B. Dermatologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsspital Zürich. Adverse reactions to food and food additives must be classified according to pathogenic criteria. It is necessary to strictly differentiate between an allergy, triggered by a substance-specific immunological mechanism, and an intolerance, in which no specific immune reaction can be established. In contrast to views expressed in the media, by laymen and patients, adverse reactions to additives are less frequent than is believed. Due to frequently "alternative" methods of examination, an allergy to food additives is often wrongly blamed as the cause of a wide variety of symptoms and illness. Diagnosing an allergy or intolerance to additives normally involves carrying out double-blind, placebo-controlled oral provocation tests with food additives. Allergic reactions to food additives occur particularly against additives which are organic in origin. In principle, it is possible that during the manufacture of genetically modified plants and food, proteins are transferred which potentially create allergies. However, legislation exists both in the USA (Federal Drug Administration, FDA) and in Switzerland (Ordinance on the approval process for GM food, GM food additives and GM accessory agents for processing) which require a careful analysis before a genetically modified product is launched, particularly where foreign genes are introduced. Products containing genetically modified organisms (GMO) as additives must be declared. In addition, the source of the foreign protein must be identified. The "Round-up ready" (RR) soya flour introduced in Switzerland is no different from natural soya flour in terms of its allergenic potential. Genetically modified food can be a blessing for allergic individuals if gene technology were to succeed in removing the allergen (e.g. such possibilities exist for rice). The same caution shown towards genetically modified food might also be advisable for foreign food in our diet. Luckily, the immune system of the digestive tract in healthy people tolerates foreign antigens. Food allergies in adults occur mainly among those allergic to pollen. PMID: 10321121 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 99. BMJ. 1998 Jun 20;316(7148):1845-6. Why all the fuss about genetically modified food?. Much depends on who benefits. Burke D. Comment in: BMJ. 1999 Jan 30;318(7179):332. PMCID: PMC1113357 PMID: 9632400 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]