Ninety-day oral toxicity studies on two genetically modified maize MON810 varieties in Wistar Han RCC rats (EU 7th Framework Programme project GRACE)

Abstract

The GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence (GRACE; www.grace-fp7.eu) project is funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme. A key objective of GRACE is to conduct 90-day animal feeding trials, animal studies with an extended time frame as well as analytical, in vitro and in silico studies on genetically modified (GM) maize in order to comparatively evaluate their use in GM plant risk assessment. In the present study, the results of two 90-day feeding trials with two different GM maize MON810 varieties, their near-isogenic non-GM varieties and four additional conventional maize varieties are presented. The feeding trials were performed by taking into account the guidance for such studies published by the EFSA Scientific Committee in 2011 and the OECD Test Guideline 408. The results obtained show that the MON810 maize at a level of up to 33 % in the diet did not induce adverse effects in male and female Wistar Han RCC rats after subchronic exposure, independently of the two different genetic backgrounds of the event.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00204-014-1374-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

High-throughput Sequencing-based Analysis of the Intestinal Microbiota of Broiler Chickens Fed Genetically Modified Rice Expressing Cry1Ac/Cry1Ab Chimeric <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> Protein

“…Many types of Bt-crops have been commercialized worldwide, triggering concerns about their potential impact on the health of humans and livestock. A large number of feeding studies have shown that the Cry proteins expressed by Bt-crops are non-toxic to humans and mammals (Kılıç et al, 2008;Buzoianu et al, 2013;Zeljenková et al, 2014). Diets containing Bt-corn had no deleterious effects on weight gain and carcass yields of broilers (Brake et al, 2003;Taylor et al, 2003;McNaughton et al, 2007).…”

Invitation to an open scientific discussion

“…Besides my alleged, but nonexisting, ties to industry, Bauer-Panskus and Then (2014) suggest yet another 'conflict of interest' of myself and in a strange twist use this alleged conflict to request withdrawal of the article of Zeljenková et al (2014): In one of my previous publications (Hengstler et al 2011), coauthors have worked in a chemical company or as industry consultants. What a surprise that this publication was chosen to construct a conflict of interest against me, as it represents a consensus paper of the Advisory Committee of the German Society of Toxicology (GT).…”

“…Recently, the results of a 90-day feeding study with genetically engineered plants have been published in our journal (Zeljenková et al 2014). The subchronic study showed that engineered maize at a level of up to 33 % in the diet did not cause adverse effects in rats.…”

“…Next, the authors must have a fair chance to respond and defend their conclusions. To guarantee an open and fair procedure, we invite everyone who wishes to comment on this study (Zeljenková et al 2014) to publish their arguments in our journal. Of course, the authors will be given the opportunity to respond.…”

“…Besides the alleged manipulation argument, Bauer-Panskus and Then (2014) claim that it 'is unacceptable that this study (Zeljenková et al 2014) was published in the Archives of Toxicology,' because I, as the editor, and other editorial board members 'have current and past ties to industry' (Bauer-Panskus and Then 2014). This argument is difficult to understand.…”