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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metabolic Engineering Strategies for Flavonoid Biosynthesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Current Advances and Future Perspectives.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2026Review
- Pediatric and adult point of view on the gut-kidney axis in CKD.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Review
- Literature horizon scan for new scientific data on plants, microorganisms and animals, and their products obtained by new genomic techniques (October 2025).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
- Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feeds as notified to EFSA.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
- A specifically designed multi-biotic reduces uremic toxin generation and improves kidney function.Gut microbes · 2025Article
- Guidance on the characterisation of microorganisms in support of the risk assessment of products used in the food chain.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- New developments in biotechnology applied to animals: An assessment of the adequacy and sufficiency of current EFSA guidance for animal risk assessment.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Guidance on the scientific requirements for an application for authorisation of a novel food in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- Review
- New developments in biotechnology applied to microorganisms.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- Scanning the Horizon for Environmental Applications of Genetically Modified Viruses Reveals Challenges for Their Environmental Risk Assessment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Long-Term Application of a Synbiotic Chitosan andMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Risk Reduction Assessment ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Evaluation of existing guidelines for their adequacy for the food and feed risk assessment of microorganisms obtained through synthetic biology.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022Article
- Scientific Opinion on development needs for the allergenicity and protein safety assessment of food and feed products derived from biotechnology.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.