Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Universität Hamburg US regulation of gm foods BIOGUM Dr. Susanne Stirn Forschungsschwerpunkt Biotechnik, Gesellschaft und Umwelt (FSP BIOGUM) Universität Hamburg, Ohnhorststr. 18, 22609 Hamburg [email protected] US regulation Universität Hamburg BIOGUM Basis of regulation: Process of biotechnology poses no special risks. Foods derived from biotechnology should be regulated in the same way as traditional foods. Therefore: The same laws are applicable. Three federal agencies have responsibility: US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Universität Hamburg BIOGUM Basis of regulation: Protecting the US agriculture from agricultural pests and noxious weeds (Federal Plant Pest Act) Gm plants: All plants carrying DNA from an organism considered to be a plant pest (Agrobacterium, CaMV) are defined as “regulated articles”. Stepwise procedure for deliberate release of gm plants: Field trial authorisation (physical confinement), Determination of non-regulated status (required for unrestricted release and movement in the US). 3 USDA [2/3] Universität Hamburg BIOGUM A petition for nonregulated status must consider: harm to other organisms (beneficial & non-target org.), increase in weediness, adverse effects on the handling, processing or storage of commodities, threat to biodiversity. No tests requirements laid down in the Federal Plant Pest Act. Generally performed tests to exclude toxic effects: data from field experiments on the lack of toxic effects on animals (counting), comparison of the nutritional composition with a conventional counterpart. 4 USDA [3/3] Universität Hamburg BIOGUM 61 gm plants are no longer regulated by USDA (August 2003). These include: 10x maize (HT, IR), 10x tomatoes (PQ), 4x soybeans (HT), 4x oilseed rape (HT), 3x cotton (HT), 3x potatoes (IR, VR). 5 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Universität Hamburg BIOGUM Basis of regulation: Manufacture, sale and use of pesticides; environmental safety as well as tolerance levels for presence in foods Gm plants: Substances produced in a living plant to control pests (plant-incorporated protectants [PIPs]) (e.g. Bt-toxins, viral proteins) In general, the data requirements for a registration of PIPs are based on those for microbial pesticides. 6 EPA [2/3] Universität Hamburg BIOGUM These general data requirements include: product characterisation, mammalian toxicity (acute oral toxicity), effects on non-target organisms (avian, aquatic species, beneficial insects, soil organisms), allergenicity potential (AA sequence homology, heat / processing stability, in vitro digestibility in gastric fluids), environmental fate, and, if appropriate, insect resistance management. The exact data requirements for a registration are developed on a case-by-case basis. 7 EPA [3/3] Universität Hamburg BIOGUM 8 plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) have been registered by EPA (June 2003): Bt Cry IA(b) in maize (2x), Bt Cry IA(c) in cotton, Bt Cry IIIA in potato, Bt Cry 1F in maize, Bt K Cry IA(c) in maize (2x), Potato Leaf Roll Virus replicase in potato (Monsanto) 8 Food and Drug Adimistration (FDA) Universität Hamburg BIOGUM Basis of regulation: - Whole foods are under post-market authority. - A premarket-approval is only necessary when substances are added to foods that are not “generally recognised as safe” (GRAS) Food additive petition. Gm plants: - No pre-market approval necessary. - All food crops on the market have undergone voluntary consultations. - Responsibility (liability) rests with the companies. Nevertheless, the FDA developed guidance documents for the industry. 9 FDA [2/3] Universität Hamburg BIOGUM Summary information on the following topics are discussed: the source of the introduced genetic material, information on the agronomic and quality attributes of the plant, genetic analysis of the modification, evaluation of the safety of the newly introduced proteins - toxicity (known toxicants, “history of safe use”, feeding tests) - allergenicity (AA sequence homology, in vitrodigestibility), chemical analysis of important nutrients and toxicants. 10 FDA [3/3] Universität Hamburg BIOGUM 55 consultations on gm plants for human food and/or animal feed use have been completed by the FDA. These include: 14x maize (HT, IR, MS), 10x oilseed rape (HT, PQ, MS), 6x cotton (HT, IR), 5x tomatoes (PQ), 4x potatoes (IR, VR). 3x soybeans (HT, PQ). 11 US regulation: different GMOs Universität Hamburg Trait / Organism Agency reviewed for: BIOGUM Insect Resistance / USDA safe to grow food crop EPA safe for the environment and human consumption (PIPs) FDA safe to eat (except for PIPs) and wholesomeness Herbicide tolerance / USDA safe to grow food crop EPA use of the companion herbicide FDA safe to eat and wholesomeness Modified oil content / USDA safe to grow food crop FDA safe to eat and wholesomeness Modified flower colour USDA safe to grow ornamental crop 12 Safety tests performed by the companies Universität Hamburg BIOGUM Despite the differences in regulation in the USA and the EU, the tests on food safety are similar. The FDA guidelines are explicitly based on the “concept of substantial equivalence” of the OECD and the principles developed by FAO/WHO. Most of the gm plants intended for deliberate release and food use in the EU have previously been approved in the USA. The companies have sometimes performed additional tests to ensure consumer confidence (e.g. livestock feeding tests). 13 Differences in safety tests between USA and EU? Universität Hamburg BIOGUM Two interesting argumentation lines of FDA: High oleic soybeans (DuPont) “not materially different ... from soybeans already on the market”. Safety assessment focussed on molecular characterisation and compositional analysis to exclude unexpected effects. No toxicity assessment of the altered oil quality because of “history of safe use” (conventionally bred high oleic soybeans and the lack of known toxicity of oleic acid in other species). 14 Differences in safety tests between USA and EU? Universität Hamburg BIOGUM Not yet decided in the EU. Potential scenario: According to the concept of substantial equivalence “without substantial equivalence”: safety assessment of the introduced protein, the changed fatty acid profile, potential unexpected effects, and exposure of consumers (aggregate exposure, vulnerable consumer groups, bioavailability of nutrients). 15 Differences in safety tests between USA and EU? Universität Hamburg BIOGUM Virus-resistant plants (coat protein mediated) No registration with EPA necessary. Long history of human consumption in virusinfected plants (higher virus levels than in transgenic plants). FDA is looking at nutritional composition and unexpected effects. Safety assessment of virus-resistant plants in the EU? 16 Summary [1/2] Universität Hamburg BIOGUM The regulatory approaches towards gm foods in the US and the EU are totally different: USA: Gene technology as an extension of traditional breeding methods (including mutagenesis, wide crosses and cell fusion) no specific laws required EU: Specific risks attributed to genetic engineering new regulations implemented for all “genetically modified organisms” (including all organisms which can not be obtained by sexual crosses protoplast fusion, mutagenesis and wide crosses) 17 Summary [2/2] Universität Hamburg Safety assessments are essentially the same: BIOGUM USA: Food safety is the interest of the companies due to unlimited liability. EU: Food safety is determined by government agencies (main responsibility) with general test requirements laid down in the regulations. Internationally: Detailed test requirements have been developed by OECD, FAO/WHO, Codex Alimentarius. 18 Universität Hamburg Ende des Vortrages! BIOGUM 19 Summary Universität Hamburg BIOGUM The extent to which more traditional breeding methods are considered safe is different: USA: unintended effects happen also with more traditional breeding methods (mutation breeding, wide crosses), breeders have successfully eliminated plants exhibiting unexpected adverse effects no regulatory oversight necessary EU: Some of the risks are common to genetic engineering and traditional breeding methods (unintended effects) regulation for all “genetically modified plants” (include all plant characteristics which could not be achieved through sexual crosses) 20 US regulation: Agencies Universität Hamburg Agency Responsibility in case of gm plants: BIOGUM USDA plant pests, gm crop plants with plant pest risks, veterinary biologics All gm plants which are plant pests or which carry DNA from a plant pest (CaMV, Agrobacterium) are defined as “regulated articles” EPA microbial pesticides, plants producing toxic substances, plant-incorporated protectants (PIP) Substances produced in a plant through genetic engineering with the intention to control pests (PIP) FDA food, feed, food Voluntary consultations, additives, drugs, guidance on safety tests, medical devices, responsibility rests with the cosmetics producer 21 Toxicity assessment Universität Hamburg Agency Aim of regulation Toxicity assessment (what/how) BIOGUM USDA No significant plant a) Impact on non-target organisms pest risk should result from the widespread planting of GMP EPA Safety of PIPs for man (beneficial, endangered species) b) field observations, nutritional composition a) Impact on non-target organisms and the environment (beneficial, birds, fish, honey- (analogous to bio- bees, invertebrates) chemical pesticides) b) acute oral toxicity, AA sequence homology with known toxins FDA Foods and feed from a) Impact on humans and animals GMP should be as safe b) nutritional composition, known and nutritious as their toxicants, feeding tests, parental species history of safe use 22 Allergenicity assessment Universität Hamburg Agency Aim of regulation Allergenicity (aim/method) BIOGUM USDA No significant plant a) worker safety pest risk from the b) evaluation based on a planting of GMP EPA literature survey Safety of PIPs for man a) Food safety of PIPs and the environment b) IFBC-concept: (analogous to bio- - amino acid sequence homology, chemical pesticides) - in vitro digestibility, - stability to heat and processing FDA Foods and feed from a) Food safety (except for PIPs) GMP as safe and b) allergenic substance not present nutritious as their in the new food or parental species - AA sequence homology and - in vitro digestibility 23