Detection Methods Fit-for-Purpose in Enforcement Control of Genetically Modified Plants Produced with Novel Genomic Techniques (NGTs)

Ribarits, Alexandra; Narendja, Frank; Stepanek, Walter; Hochegger, Rupert

doi:10.3390/agronomy11010061

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of such sensors that have so far been developed use element‐specific screening methods to target either CaMV35s promoter or nopaline synthase (NOS) terminator, both of which are integrated into the GMO gene in the recombination process (Holst‐Jensen et al., 2012). Novel genomic techniques (NGTs) have enabled gene editing, which can result in single‐nucleotide alteration (Ribarits et al., 2021). However, conventional detection methods such as qPCR cannot detect down to the single‐nucleotide level with high specificity.…”

Section: Crispr‐based Sensing Systems In the Field Of Food Science: C...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances in CRISPR‐based systems for the detection of foodborne pathogens

Shin

Miller

Wang

2022

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has long been a need for more advanced forms of pathogen detection in the food industry. Though in its infancy, biosensing based on clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) has the potential to solve many problems that cannot be addressed using conventional methods. In this review, we briefly introduce and classify the various CRISPR/Cas protein effectors that have thus far been used in biosensors. We then assess the current state of CRISPR technology in food-safety contexts; describe how each Cas effector is utilized in foodborne-pathogen detection; and discuss the limitations of the current technology, as well as how it might usefully be applied in other areas of the food industry. We conclude that, if the limitations of existing CRISPR/Cas-based detection methods are overcome, they can be deployed on a wide scale and produce a range of positive food-safety outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Crispr‐based Sensing Systems In the Field Of Food Science: C...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances in CRISPR‐based systems for the detection of foodborne pathogens

Shin

Miller

Wang

2022

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another general consideration regarding genetic modifications via GE is that the mutations introduced by SDN-1, SDN-2 and ODM applications typically are of small size. In some cases, only minimal sequence changes called single nucleotide variants (SNVs) are introduced [ 31 ]. As discussed in Section 3.1 , some regulatory frameworks exempt such GE applications, in particular SDN-1 applications, from the scope of their biosafety regulations.…”

Section: Generic Versus Case-specific Considerations For the Assessme...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biosafety of Genome Editing Applications in Plant Breeding: Considerations for a Focused Case-Specific Risk Assessment in the EU

Eckerstorfer

Grabowski²,

Lener

et al. 2021

BioTech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An intensely debated question is whether or how a mandatory environmental risk assessment (ERA) should be conducted for plants obtained through novel genomic techniques, including genome editing (GE). Some countries have already exempted certain types of GE applications from their regulations addressing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the European Union, the European Court of Justice confirmed in 2018 that plants developed by novel genomic techniques for directed mutagenesis are regulated as GMOs. Thus, they have to undergo an ERA prior to deliberate release or being placed on the market. Recently, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published two opinions on the relevance of the current EU ERA framework for GM plants obtained through novel genomic techniques (NGTs). Regarding GE plants, the opinions confirmed that the existing ERA framework is suitable in general and that the current ERA requirements need to be applied in a case specific manner. Since EFSA did not provide further guidance, this review addresses a couple of issues relevant for the case-specific assessment of GE plants. We discuss the suitability of general denominators of risk/safety and address characteristics of GE plants which require particular assessment approaches. We suggest integrating the following two sets of considerations into the ERA: considerations related to the traits developed by GE and considerations addressing the assessment of method-related unintended effects, e.g., due to off-target modifications. In conclusion, we recommend that further specific guidance for the ERA and monitoring should be developed to facilitate a focused assessment approach for GE plants.

show abstract

“…The methodological detection of most other genome-edited products, however, still remains a major hurdle, especially considering that a genome-edited organism may have multiple targeted point mutations, rendering detection of multiple events particularly challenging. However, evidence has been compiled in a number of publications that could enable the detection of genomeedited products or even identify the techniques behind their development (Bertheau, 2019;Ribarits et al, 2021a;Ribarits et al, 2021b;Ribarits et al, 2022;Fraiture et al, 2022;Potthof et al, 2023). In addition, initiatives such as the Norwegian Foodprint program NORCE (https://foodprintproject.org/; accessed on 21 March 2023) aim to develop gene-editing detection tools for traceability and labelling of genetically modified (GM) products throughout the food chain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…InfoCuria, 2018 ). Among other aspects, the demanding requirements of traceability, especially in connection with international trade activities (e.g., Ribarits et al, 2021a ; Ribarits et al, 2021b ), have triggered renewed discussions on whether or not a genome-edited organism should continue to be treated as a classical GMO (e.g., Winter 2019 ; van der Meer et al, 2020 ). Despite the existing establishment of strict approval procedures in Europe, a decision on the possible deregulation of genome-edited organisms is pending and expected to be announced from the European Commission in 2023.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contamination of imported kernels by unapproved genome-edited varieties poses a major challenge for monitoring and traceability during transport and handling on a global scale: inferences from a study on feral oilseed rape in Austria

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel techniques such as CRISPR/Cas are increasingly being applied for the development of modern crops. However, the regulatory framework for production, labelling and handling of genome-edited organisms varies worldwide. Currently, the European Commission is raising the question whether genome-edited organisms should still be regulated as genetically modified organisms in the future or whether a deregulation should be implemented. In our paper, based on the outcome of a 2-year case study on oilseed rape in Austria, we show that seed spillage during import and subsequent transport and handling activities is a key factor for the unintended dispersal of seeds into the environment, the subsequent emergence of feral oilseed rape populations and their establishment and long-term persistence in natural habitats. These facts must likewise be considered in case of genome-edited oilseed rape contaminants that might be accidentally introduced with conventional kernels. We provide evidence that in Austria a high diversity of oilseed rape genotypes, including some with alleles not known from cultivated oilseed rape in Austria, exists at sites with high seed spillage and low weed management, rendering these sites of primary concern with respect to possible escape of genome-edited oilseed rape varieties into the environment. Since appropriate detection methods for single genome-edited oilseed rape events have only recently started to be successfully developed and the adverse effects of these artificial punctate DNA exchanges remain largely unknown, tracing the transmission and spread of these genetic modifications places high requirements on their monitoring, identification, and traceability.

show abstract

Detection Methods Fit-for-Purpose in Enforcement Control of Genetically Modified Plants Produced with Novel Genomic Techniques (NGTs)

Cited by 11 publications

References 25 publications

Recent advances in CRISPR‐based systems for the detection of foodborne pathogens

Recent advances in CRISPR‐based systems for the detection of foodborne pathogens

Biosafety of Genome Editing Applications in Plant Breeding: Considerations for a Focused Case-Specific Risk Assessment in the EU

Contamination of imported kernels by unapproved genome-edited varieties poses a major challenge for monitoring and traceability during transport and handling on a global scale: inferences from a study on feral oilseed rape in Austria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About