Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35991959›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2022

Evaluation of existing guidelines for their adequacy for the food and feed risk assessment of microorganisms obtained through synthetic biology.

EFSA Scientific Committee, Simon More, Vasileios Bampidis, Diane Benford, Claude Bragard, Thorhallur Halldorsson, Antonio Hernández-Jerez, Susanne Hougaard Bennekou, Kostas Koutsoumanis, Claude Lambré and 15 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2022. 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
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Pediatric and adult point of view on the gut-kidney axis in CKD.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Journal of bacteriology · 2024
    Review
  10. New developments in biotechnology applied to microorganisms.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Risk Reduction Assessment ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

25 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

EFSA Scientific Committee
Simon More
Vasileios Bampidis
Diane Benford
Claude Bragard
Thorhallur Halldorsson
Antonio Hernández-Jerez
Susanne Hougaard Bennekou
Kostas Koutsoumanis
Claude Lambré
Kyriaki Machera
Ewen Mullins
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Josef Schlatter
Dieter Schrenk
Dominique Turck
Maged Younes
Lieve Herman
Carmen Pelaez
Henk van Loveren
Just Vlak
Joana Revez
Jaime Aguilera
Reinhilde Schoonjans
Pier Sandro Cocconcelli
Lille Inflammation Research International Center · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to evaluate synthetic biology (SynBio) developments for agri-food use in the near future and to determine whether or not they are expected to constitute potential new hazards/risks. Moreover, EFSA was requested to evaluate the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment of SynBio and if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this Opinion covers food and feed risk assessment, the variety of microorganisms that can be used in the food/feed chain and the whole spectrum of techniques used in SynBio. This Opinion complements a previously adopted Opinion with the evaluation of existing guidelines for the microbial characterisation and environmental risk assessment of microorganisms obtained through SynBio. The present Opinion confirms that microbial SynBio applications for food and feed use, with the exception of xenobionts, could be ready in the European Union in the next decade. New hazards were identified related to the use or production of unusual and/or new-to-nature components. Fifteen cases were selected for evaluating the adequacy of existing guidelines. These were generally adequate for assessing the product, the production process, nutritional and toxicological safety, allergenicity, exposure and post-market monitoring. The comparative approach and a safety assessment per se could be applied depending on the degree of familiarity of the SynBio organism/product with the non-genetically modified counterparts. Updated guidance is recommended for: (i) bacteriophages, protists/microalgae, (ii) exposure to plant protection products and biostimulants, (iii) xenobionts and (iv) feed additives for insects as target species. Development of risk assessment tools is recommended for assessing nutritional value of biomasses, influence of microorganisms on the gut microbiome and the gut function, allergenic potential of new-to-nature proteins, impact of horizontal gene transfer and potential risks of living cell intake. A further development towards a strain-driven risk assessment approach is recommended.

Indexed as

agri‐food usefeedfoodgenetically modified microorganism (GMM)guidancerisk assessmentsynthetic biology

Identifiers

PMID35991959
PMCPMC9380697
OpenAlexW4291964282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-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.