Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31651217›Full record

ArticleGM crops & food2020

Weight of the evidence: independent research projects confirm industry conclusions on the safety of insect-protected maize MON 810.

Jay S Petrick, Erin Bell, Michael S Koch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GM crops & food, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Jay S PetrickProduct Safety Center, Bayer Crop Science, Chesterfield, Missouri, USA.
Erin BellProduct Safety Center, Monsanto Company, Chesterfield, Missouri, USA.
Michael S KochProduct Safety Center, Bayer Crop Science, Chesterfield, Missouri, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cumulative weight of the evidence demonstrates the safety and equivalence of genetically engineered (GE) crops compared to the conventional varieties from which they have been derived. Confirmatory toxicology and animal nutrition studies have nevertheless become an expected/mandated component of GE crop safety assessments, despite the lack of additional value these studies provide for product safety assessment. Characterization and safety data (e.g. trait protein safety; molecular, compositional, and agronomic/phenotypic assessments), and animal feeding studies form a weight of the evidence supporting the safety of insect-protected maize MON 810. Independent animal testing has recently confirmed the lack of MON 810 toxicity in subchronic and chronic toxicity studies. These results could have been predicted from the available safety data. Animal testing of GE crops should be supported by testable scientific hypotheses and testing should be consistent with ethical obligations to reduce, refine, and replace (3Rs) animal testing when possible.

Indexed as

InsectaZea maysAnimal FeedAnimalsCrops, AgriculturalPlants, Genetically Modifiedanimal testingBtCry1Abfeeding studiesGE cropsMON 810safety assessmentweight of evidence

Identifiers

PMID31651217
PMCPMC7064210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.