Subchronic feeding study with genetically modified stacked trait lepidopteran and coleopteran resistant (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1xDAS-59122-7) maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats

Appenzeller, Laura M.; Malley, Linda A.; MacKenzie, Susan A.; Hoban, Denise; Delaney, Bryan

doi:10.1016/j.fct.2009.03.041

Cited by 48 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The obtained results also are in agreement with the results published by Elsanhoty et al (2004) who found that there were no significant differences between GM potato Spunta (G2 and G3), and potato Spunta control in the chemical composition including levels of glycoalkaloids, protease inhibitor activity and total phenol. Our results were also in agreement with previous results obtained by Wu et al (2006); He et al (2008); Appenzeller et al (2009);Rayan and Abbott (2015), who reported that there are no significant differences between the GM verities of corn and potato and their counterpart. Anjum et al (2006) and Jiang et al (2008) reported that, protein content ranged from 13.07 to 19.21%.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Composition and rheological properties of flour and dough from genetically modified wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Hi-Line 111

Elfattah

Elsanhoty

Ramadan

et al. 2016

Cereal Research Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of this work was to evaluate the composition, nutritional, physical and rheological properties of wheat flour and dough from genetically modified wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Hi-Line 111 (GMW) compared to conventional wheat (non-GMW). Analyses were conducted to measure the proximate chemical composition with references to 18 components including total solid, protein, lipids, crude fiber, ash, carbohydrate, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids. In addition, physical and rheological properties such as water absorption, arrival time, dough development time, stability value, dough weakening value, extensibility of dough, resistance to extension, and ratio of resistance/extensibility were evaluated. The results showed that there were no significant differences between GMW and non-GMW in terms of chemical composition. Results revealed the presence of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids wherein there were no significant differences between GMW and its counterpart in the levels of fatty acids. In addition, there were no significant differences on the levels of amino acids. In addition, there were no significant differences between the GMW and non-GMW in the physical and rheological properties. From these results, it can be concluded that GMW Hi-Line 111 is confirmed to have nearly the composition and rheological properties as non-GMW.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Composition and rheological properties of flour and dough from genetically modified wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Hi-Line 111

Elfattah

Elsanhoty

Ramadan

et al. 2016

Cereal Research Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…gonad weight, fecundity, fertility, gonadal histopathology) of female [23-26,46,47,85-96] and male [23-26,46,47,50,51,85,87,89-96] reproduction in animal feeding studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations

Eenennaam

2013

J Animal Sci Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2012, genetically engineered (GE) crops were grown by 17.3 million farmers on over 170 million hectares. Over 70% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food producing animals, making them the major consumers of GE crops for the past 15 plus years. Prior to commercialization, GE crops go through an extensive regulatory evaluation. Over one hundred regulatory submissions have shown compositional equivalence, and comparable levels of safety, between GE crops and their conventional counterparts. One component of regulatory compliance is whole GE food/feed animal feeding studies. Both regulatory studies and independent peer-reviewed studies have shown that GE crops can be safely used in animal feed, and rDNA fragments have never been detected in products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) derived from animals that consumed GE feed. Despite the fact that the scientific weight of evidence from these hundreds of studies have not revealed unique risks associated with GE feed, some groups are calling for more animal feeding studies, including long-term rodent studies and studies in target livestock species for the approval of GE crops. It is an opportune time to review the results of such studies as have been done to date to evaluate the value of the additional information obtained. Requiring long-term and target animal feeding studies would sharply increase regulatory compliance costs and prolong the regulatory process associated with the commercialization of GE crops. Such costs may impede the development of feed crops with enhanced nutritional characteristics and durability, particularly in the local varieties in small and poor developing countries. More generally it is time for regulatory evaluations to more explicitly consider both the reasonable and unique risks and benefits associated with the use of both GE plants and animals in agricultural systems, and weigh them against those associated with existing systems, and those of regulatory inaction. This would represent a shift away from a GE evaluation process that currently focuses only on risk assessment and identifying ever diminishing marginal hazards, to a regulatory approach that more objectively evaluates and communicates the likely impact of approving a new GE plant or animal on agricultural production systems.

show abstract

“…Long-term and multigenerational feeding studies Long-term feeding studies. In a 90-day or 13-weeks feeding studies on rats, several groups have reported that there were no effects on male reproductive organs such as testes, epididymides and prostate in rodents compared with rats receiving non-GM food in long-term study when the diet was treated with different GM foods (Hammond et al, 2006;MacKenzie et al, 2007;Schroder et al, 2007;Appenzeller et al, 2008Appenzeller et al, , 2009aAppenzeller et al, and 2009bDelaney et al, 2008b;Healy et al, 2008;He et al, 2008 and No apparent differences in percentages of testicular cell populations (haploid, diploid and tetraploid).…”

Section: Velimirov Et Al (2008)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the 90-day or 13-week feeding studies in rats, no statistical difference was uncovered in either the relative body and ovary weight of rats fed transgenic corns (Hammond et al, 2006;Healy et al, 2008), maize (MacKenzie et al, 2007;He et al, 2009;Appenzeller et al, 2009a and2009b), rice (Schroder et al, 2007) or soybeans (Appenzeller et al, 2008;Delaney et al, 2008b); and there were no histopathologic lesions in ovaries from rats fed DAS-59122-7 maize (Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins; He et al, 2008). Furthermore, Malley et al (2007) reported higher mean uterus weight during the estrous stage of rats fed maize DAS-59122-7 (Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins) or 5002B (commercial rodent diets) v. the 33R77 group (non-transgenic reference maize grain), 091 group (non-transgenic nearisogenic maize grain) or 5002A (commercial rodent diets); however, this might be due to the fact that the proportion of rats in proestrus and estrus in the 59122 and 5002B groups was greater than that in the 5002A, 091 and 33R77 maize grain groups, in which a greater proportion of rats were in metestrus and diestrus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do genetically modified crops affect animal reproduction? A review of the ongoing debate

Zhang

Shi

2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past few years, genetically modified (GM) crops aimed at producing food/feed that became part of the regular agriculture in many areas of the world. However, we are uncertain whether GM food and feed can exert potential adverse effects on humans or animals. Of importance, the reproductive toxicology of GM crops has been studied using a number of methods, and by feeding GM crops to a number species of animals to ensure the safety assessment of GM food and feed. It appears that there are no adverse effects of GM crops on many species of animals in acute and short-term feeding studies, but serious debates of effects of long-term and multigenerational feeding studies remain. The aims of this review are to focus on the latest (last 3 to 4 years) findings and debates on reproduction of male and female animals after feeding daily diets containing the GM crops, and to present the possible mechanism(s) to explain their influences.

show abstract

Subchronic feeding study with genetically modified stacked trait lepidopteran and coleopteran resistant (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1xDAS-59122-7) maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats

Cited by 48 publications

References 24 publications

Composition and rheological properties of flour and dough from genetically modified wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Hi-Line 111

Composition and rheological properties of flour and dough from genetically modified wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Hi-Line 111

GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations

Do genetically modified crops affect animal reproduction? A review of the ongoing debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About