Advanced Technology in Food Production

ATFP: Human Consumption of Plant Foods Produced Using Genetic Engineering (GE) Technologies (2015)

• Basic Research
  What is the effect of human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on food intake and nutrient adequacy?

  • Conclusion
    One neutral-quality randomized controlled trial reports that plant foods genetically engineered (GE) to contain higher levels of calcium [carrots (United States)] resulted in increased absorption of calcium in humans. Additional research on human consumption of genetically engineered (GE) plant foods is needed.
    
     
  • Grade: III
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: What is the effect of human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on food intake and nutrient adequacy?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Morris J, Hawthorne KM, Hotze T, Abrams SA, Hirschi KD. Nutritional impact of elevated calcium transport activity in carrots. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008; 105 (5): 1,431-1,435.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Food Intake/Nutrient Adequacy 2014
     
  What is the effect of human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on cancer?

  • Conclusion
    There were no human studies identified to address consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on cancer.
  • Grade: V
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Cancer 2014
     
  What is the effect of human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on gene translocation?

  • Conclusion
    There were no human studies identified to address consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on gene translocation.
  • Grade: V
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Gene Translocation 2014
     
  What is the effect of human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on food safety?

  • Conclusion
    There were no human studies identified to address consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on food safety.
  • Grade: V
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Food Safety 2014
     
  What is the effect of human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on phenotype expression?

  • Conclusion
    There were no human studies identified to address consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on phenotype expression.
  • Grade: V
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Phenotype Expression 2014
     
  What is the effect of human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on antibiotic resistance?

  • Conclusion
    There were no human studies identified to address consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on antibiotic resistance.
  • Grade: V
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Antibiotic Resistance 2014
     
  In subjects without existing food allergies, would the human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies cause allergenicity by sensitizing consumers to the novel proteins (or other proteins present at enhanced levels in the GE plant variety) contained in these GE plant foods?

  • Conclusion
    There were no human studies identified to address consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on causing allergenicity by sensitizing consumers to the novel proteins (or other proteins present at enhanced levels in the GE plant variety) in subjects without existing food allergies.
  • Grade: V
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Allergenicity 2014
     
  In subjects with existing food allergies, what is the effect of human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on reducing allergenicity?

  • Conclusion
    Three neutral-quality non-randomized crossover trials report that plant foods genetically engineered (GE) to silence their production of known allergenic proteins [tomatoes and carrots (Germany) and rice (Japan)] resulted in reduced allergenic reactivity to those proteins in human subjects with existing food allergies, when compared with non-genetically engineered (non-GE) plants. Additional research on human consumption of GE plant foods is needed due to the limitations of conducting allergenicity research in subjects with food allergies.
  • Grade: III
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: In subjects with existing food allergies, what is the effect of human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on reducing allergenicity?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Le LQ, Mahler V, Scheurer S, Foetisch K, Braun Y, Weigand D, Enrique E, Lidholm J, Paulus KE, Sonnewald S, Vieths S, Sonnewald U. Yeast profilin complements profilin deficiency in transgenic tomato fruits and allows development of hypoallergenic tomato fruits. FASEB J. 2010; 24(12): 4,939-4,947.
      • Peters S, Imani J, Mahler V, Foetisch K, Kaul S, Paulus KE, Scheurer S, Vieths S, Kogel KH. Dau c 1.01 and Dau c 1.02-silenced transgenic carrot plants show reduced allergenicity to patients with carrot allergy. Transgenic Res. 2011; 20 (3): 547-556.
      • Wakasa Y, Hirano K, Urisu A, Matsuda T, Takaiwa F. Generation of transgenic rice lines with reduced contents of multiple potential allergens using a null mutant in combination with an RNA silencing method. Plant Cell Physiol. 2011; 52 (12): 2,190-2,199.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Allergenicity 2014
     
  In subjects without existing food allergies, would the human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies increase the prevalence of allergies to those plant foods by increasing the levels of known allergenic proteins already inherent in those foods?

  • Conclusion
    Five non-randomized crossover trials (four positive-quality, one neutral-quality) and two neutral-quality non-controlled trials report that known allergenic proteins from genetically engineered (GE) plants [corn (Japan and the United States), garlic (India), maize (Portugal), mustard (India), potatoes (Korea) and soybeans (Korea and Portugal)], as well as known allergenic proteins from non-genetically engineered (non-GE) plants, did not increase the prevalence of allergic reactions in human control subjects without existing food allergies. Additional research on human consumption of genetically engineered plant foods is needed.
  • Grade: III
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: In subjects without existing food allergies, would the human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies increase the prevalence of allergies to those plant foods by increasing the levels of known allergenic proteins already inherent in those foods?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Batista R, Nunes B, Carmo M, Cardoso C, Jose HS, de Almeida AB, Manique A, Bento L, Ricardo CP, Oliveira MM. Lack of detectable allergenicity of transgenic maize and soya samples. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005; 116(2): 403-410.
      • Kim SH, Kim HM, Ye YM, Kim SH, Nahm DH, Park HS, Ryu SR, Lee BO. Evaluating the allergic risk of genetically modified soybean. Yonsei Med J. 2006; 47(4): 505-512.
      • Lee SK, Ye YM, Yoon SH, Lee BO, Kim SH, Park HS. Evaluation of the sensitization rates and identification of IgE-binding components in wild and genetically modified potatoes in patients with allergic disorders. Clin Mol Allergy. 2006; 4: 10.
        
         
      • Mondal HA, Chakraborti D, Majumder P, Roy P, Roy A, Bhattacharya SG, Das S. Allergenicity assessment of Allium sativum leaf agglutinin, a potential candidate protein for developing sap sucking insect resistant food crops. PLoS One, 2011; 6 (11): e27,716.
      • Nakajima O, Teshima R, Takagi K, Okunuki H, Sawada J. ELISA method for monitoring human serum IgE specific for Cry1Ab introduced into genetically modified corn. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007; 47(1): 90-95.
      • Raybourne RB, Williams KM, Vogt R, Reissman DB, Winterton BS, Rubin C. Development and use of an ELISA test to detect IgE antibody to Cry9c following possible exposure to bioengineered corn. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2003; 132 (4): 322-328.
      • Singh AK, Mehta AK, Sridhara S, Gaur SN, Singh BP, Sarma PU, Arora N. Allergenicity assessment of transgenic mustard (Brassica juncea) expressing bacterial codA gene. Allergy, 2006; 61 (4): 491-497.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Allergenicity 2014
     
  In subjects with existing food allergies, would the human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies elicit allergic reactions because of the presence of allergens or cross-reactive allergens from other biological sources (food or non-food) that are one of the novel proteins contained within these GE plant foods?

  • Conclusion
    Nine non-randomized crossover trials (four positive-quality, five neutral-quality) and two neutral-quality non-controlled trials reported no differences in allergenicity to known allergenic proteins from genetically engineered (GE) plants [broccoli (Taiwan), corn (Japan and the United States), garlic (India), maize (Portugal, Taiwan and the United States), mustard (India), potatoes (Korea), rice (Japan) and soybeans (Korea and Portugal)], compared to known allergenic proteins from non-genetically engineered (non-GE) plants, in human subjects with existing food allergies.

    However, four neutral-quality non-randomized crossover trials and one neutral-quality non-controlled trial did report differences in the allergic response to known allergenic proteins from GE plants [potatoes (Japan), soybeans (Korea) and wheat (France and Italy)] and non-GE plants. Additional research on human consumption of GE plant foods is needed, due to the limitations of conducting allergenicity research in subjects with food allergies.

  • Grade: III
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: In subjects with existing food allergies, would the human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies elicit allergic reactions because of the presence of allergens or cross-reactive allergens from other biological sources (food or non-food) that are one of the novel proteins contained within these GE plant foods?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Batista R, Nunes B, Carmo M, Cardoso C, Jose HS, de Almeida AB, Manique A, Bento L, Ricardo CP, Oliveira MM. Lack of detectable allergenicity of transgenic maize and soya samples. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005; 116(2): 403-410.
      • Kim SH, Kim HM, Ye YM, Kim SH, Nahm DH, Park HS, Ryu SR, Lee BO. Evaluating the allergic risk of genetically modified soybean. Yonsei Med J. 2006; 47(4): 505-512.
      • Ladics GS, Bardina L, Cressman RF, Mattsson JL, Sampson HA. Lack of cross-reactivity between the Bacillus thuringiensis derived protein Cry1F in maize grain and dust mite Der p7 protein with human sera positive for Der p7-IgE. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006; 44 (2): 136-143.
      • Lee SK, Ye YM, Yoon SH, Lee BO, Kim SH, Park HS. Evaluation of the sensitization rates and identification of IgE-binding components in wild and genetically modified potatoes in patients with allergic disorders. Clin Mol Allergy. 2006; 4: 10.
        
         
      • Liao EC, Chen JT, Chao ML, Yu SC, Chang CY, Chu WS, Tsai JJ. Nonadverse effects on allergenicity of isopentenyltransferase-transformed broccoli. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2013; 23(2): 112-119.
      • Lupi R, Denery-Papini S, Rogniaux H, Lafiandra D, Rizzi C, De Carli M, Moneret-Vautrin DA, Masci S, Larre C. How much does transgenesis affect wheat allergenicity? Assessment in two GM lines over-expressing endogenous genes. J Proteomics. 2013; 80: 281-291.
      • Mondal HA, Chakraborti D, Majumder P, Roy P, Roy A, Bhattacharya SG, Das S. Allergenicity assessment of Allium sativum leaf agglutinin, a potential candidate protein for developing sap sucking insect resistant food crops. PLoS One, 2011; 6 (11): e27,716.
      • Nakajima O, Koyano S, Akiyama H, Sawada J, Teshima R. Confirmation of a lack of IgE binding to Cry3Bb1 from genetically modified (GM) crops. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2010; 56 (3): 306-311.
      • Nakajima O, Teshima R, Takagi K, Okunuki H, Sawada J. ELISA method for monitoring human serum IgE specific for Cry1Ab introduced into genetically modified corn. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007; 47(1): 90-95.
      • Nakamura R, Satoh R, Nakamura R, Shimazaki T, Kasuga M, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Kikuchi A, Watanabe KN, Teshima R. Immunoproteomic and two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis analysis of Arabidopsis dehydration response element-binding protein 1A (DREB1A)-transgenic potato. Biol Pharm Bull. 2010; 33 (8): 1,418-1,425.
      • Raybourne RB, Williams KM, Vogt R, Reissman DB, Winterton BS, Rubin C. Development and use of an ELISA test to detect IgE antibody to Cry9c following possible exposure to bioengineered corn. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2003; 132 (4): 322-328.
      • Satoh R, Nakamura R, Komatsu A, Oshima M, Teshima R. Proteomic analysis of known and candidate rice allergens between non-transgenic and transgenic plants. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011; 59 (3): 437-444.
      • Sharma P, Singh AK, Singh BP, Gaur SN, Arora N. Allergenicity assessment of osmotin, a pathogenesis-related protein, used for transgenic crops. J Agric Food Chem. 2011; 59 (18): 9,990-9,995.
      • Singh AK, Mehta AK, Sridhara S, Gaur SN, Singh BP, Sarma PU, Arora N. Allergenicity assessment of transgenic mustard (Brassica juncea) expressing bacterial codA gene. Allergy, 2006; 61 (4): 491-497.
      • Takagi K, Teshima R, Nakajima O, Okunuki H, Sawada J. Improved ELISA method for screening human antigen-specific IgE and its application for monitoring specific IgE for novel proteins in genetically modified foods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006; 44 (2): 182-188.
      • Yum HY, Lee SY, Lee KE, Sohn MH, Kim KE. Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2005; 26 (3): 210-216.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Allergenicity 2014
     
  What is the effect of human consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on inflammation or inflammatory markers?

  • Conclusion
    There were no human studies identified to address consumption of plant foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) technologies on inflammation or inflammatory markers.
    
     
  • Grade: V
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Search Plan and Results: ATFP: Human Consumption of Genetically Engineered Plant Foods and Inflammation 2014