Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24164514›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in toxicology2013

The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: limitations and recommendations.

Andrew Bartholomaeus, Wayne Parrott, Genevieve Bondy, Kate Walker, ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee Task Force on Use of Mammalian Toxicology Studies in Safety Assessment of GM Foods

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in toxicology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. An Outlook on Global Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Crops.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The food and environmental safety of Bt crops.Frontiers in plant science · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Andrew BartholomaeusTherapeutics Research Centre, School of Medicine, University of Queensland , Queensland , Australia .
Wayne Parrott
Genevieve Bondy
Kate Walker
ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee Task Force on Use of Mammalian Toxicology Studies in Safety Assessment of GM Foods
Health Canada · CAInternational Life Sciences Institute · USUniversity of Canberra · AUUniversity of Georgia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is disagreement internationally across major regulatory jurisdictions on the relevance and utility of whole food (WF) toxicity studies on GM crops, with no harmonization of data or regulatory requirements. The scientific value, and therefore animal ethics, of WF studies on GM crops is a matter addressable from the wealth of data available on commercialized GM crops and WF studies on irradiated foods. We reviewed available GM crop WF studies and considered the extent to which they add to the information from agronomic and compositional analyses. No WF toxicity study was identified that convincingly demonstrated toxicological concern or that called into question the adequacy, sufficiency, and reliability of safety assessments based on crop molecular characterization, transgene source, agronomic characteristics, and/or compositional analysis of the GM crop and its near-isogenic line. Predictions of safety based on crop genetics and compositional analyses have provided complete concordance with the results of well-conducted animal testing. However, this concordance is primarily due to the improbability of de novo generation of toxic substances in crop plants using genetic engineering practices and due to the weakness of WF toxicity studies in general. Thus, based on the comparative robustness and reliability of compositional and agronomic considerations and on the absence of any scientific basis for a significant potential for de novo generation of toxicologically significant compositional alterations as a sole result of transgene insertion, the conclusion of this review is that WF animal toxicity studies are unnecessary and scientifically unjustifiable.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimalsFood, Genetically ModifiedFood SafetyGenetic EngineeringHumansPlants, Genetically ModifiedReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentToxicity Tests

Identifiers

PMID24164514
PMCPMC3833814
OpenAlexW2149027575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.