Allergenitätsbewertung von Lebensmitteln aus gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen

Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Das Inverkehrbringen gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen in den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union (EU) bedarf einer Genehmigung der Europäischen Kommission. Voraussetzung für die Zulassung von Pflanzen, die zur Herstellung von Lebensmitteln verwendet werden können, ist der Nachweis, dass die aus den genetisch veränderten Pflanzen gewonnenen Produkte sich hinsichtlich der gesundheitlichen Unbedenklichkeit nicht von vergleichbaren konventionellen Erzeugnissen unterscheiden. Dazu gehört auch die Bewertung der Pflanzen hinsichtlich möglicher Allergenität gemäß der auf international vereinbarten Empfehlungen basierenden aktuellen Leitlinie der Europäischen Lebensmittelsicherheitsbehörde (EFSA). Die bisher in der EU zugelassenen gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen wurden von der EFSA geprüft. Das für die Sicherheitsbewertung zuständige EFSA-Gremium hat in allen Fällen eine Veränderung der Allergenität als unwahrscheinlich bewertet.

Schlüsselwörter

Lebensmittel Sicherheitsbewertung Allergenität Gentechnik Gentechnisch veränderte Pflanzen 

Assessment of allergenicity of genetically modified food crops

Abstract

The placing on the European Union’s market of genetically modified crops requires authorization by the European Commission which is based on the proof that the derived foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts. The assessment of potential allergenicity is part of the necessary investigations recommended in the updated Guidance Document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is based on internationally agreed recommendations. All genetically modified crops which so far have been authorized in the European Union were evaluated by the EFSA GMO Panel which considered it unlikely that their overall allergenicity has been altered.

Keywords

Foods Safety assessment Allergenicity Genetic engineering Genetically modified plants 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1829/2003 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 22. September 2003 über genetisch veränderte Lebensmittel und Futtermittel. Amtsbl Europ Union L 268:1–23Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    WHO (1991) Strategies assessing the safety of foods produced by biotechnology. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    FDA (1992) Guidance to industry for foods derived from new plant varieties. FDA Federal Register 57 (104):22984, May 29, 1992Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OECD (1993) Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology: concepts and principles. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Redenbaugh K, Hiatt W, Martineau B, Emlay D (1995) Determination of the safety of genetically engineered crops. In: Engel KH, Takeoka GR, Teranishi R (Hrsg) Genetically modified foods – safety issues, ACS Symposium Series 605: 72–87. American Chemical Society, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fötisch K, Son DY, Altmann F et al (2001) Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) allergens in pollen-allergic patients. Eur Food Res Technol 213:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibarrola I, Arilla MC¸ Matinez A, Asturias JA (2004) Identification of a polygalacturonase as a major allergen (Pla a 2) from Platanus acerifolia pollen. J Allergy Clin Immunol 113(6):1185–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schauzu M (1997) Zur Bewertung der Sicherheit gentechnisch veränderter Lebensmittel: Das Beispiel der „Flavr Savr“ Tomate. Ernahrungs Umschau 44 (7):246–250Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    EFSA (2006) Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed (adopted on 24 September 2004, updated on 7 December 2005, final edited version of 28 April 2006). EFSA J 99:1–100Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pöting A, Schauzu M (2010) Sicherheitsbewertung von Lebensmitteln aus gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz 53:583–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    WHO and FAO (2009) Foods derived from modern biotechnology, 2. Aufl. ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/Booklets/Biotech/Biotech_2009e.pdfGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    EFSA (2010) Scientific opinion on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed. EFSA J 8(7):1700Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    EFSA (2011) Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants. EFSA J 9(5):2150Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cellini F, Chesson A, Colquhoun I et al (2004) Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modifed crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1089–1125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fuchs RL, Astwood JD (1996) Allergenicity assessment of foods derived from genetically modified plants. Food Technol 50:83–88Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lehrer SB, Horner WE, Reese G (1996) Why are some proteins allergenic? Implications for biotechnology. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36(6):553–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2011) Food Allergy Research and Resource Program (FARP) allergen protein database Version 11, released on Feb 2011. http://www.allergenonline.org/Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holmgren J, Adamsson J, Anjuère F et al (2005) Mucosal adjuvants and anti-infection and anti-immunopathology vaccines based on cholera toxin, cholera toxin B subunit and CpG DNA. Immunol Lett 97(2):181–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Metcalfe DD, Astwood JD, Townsend R et al (1996) Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered crop plants. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36(S):165–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fu TJ, Abbott UR, Hatzos C (2002) Digestibility of food allergens and non-allergenic proteins in simulated gastric fluid and simulated intestinal fluid – a comparative study. J Agric Food Chem 50:7154–7160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sherlock O, Dobrindt U, Jensen JB et al (2006) Glycosylation of the self-recognizing Escherichia coli Ag43 autotransporter protein. J Bacteriol 188(5):1798–1807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA et al (1996) Identification of a brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. N Engl J Med 334:688–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jäger L, Vieths S (2008) Nahrungsmittelallergene. In: Jäger L, Wüthrich B, Ballmer-Weber B, Vieths S (Hrsg) Nahrungsmittelallergien und -intoleranzen. Elsevier Urban & Fischer, München, S 180–181Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thelen J (2011) Quantitation of soybean allergens using tandem mass spectrometry. Presentation at the ILSI Biotechnology Workshop, May 11, 2011, OECD Conference Center, Paris, France. Presentation Abstract, p 6–7. http://www.ilsi.org/FoodBioTech/Pages/ILSI_Biotech_Workshop.aspxGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    European Commission: EU register of genetically modified food and feed. http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfmGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Center for Environmental Risk Assessment (2001) CERA GM Crop Database Product Description. http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action = gm_crop_database&mode = ShowProd&data = CBH-351Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    CDC (2001) Investigation of human health effects associated with potential exposure to genetically modified corn. A report to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration form the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9Creport/Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    EFSA (2010) Outcome of the public consultation on the draft Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed. EFSA J 8 (7):1–6Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    James C (2010) Global status of commercializedbiotech/GM crops: 2010. ISAAA Brief No. 42. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. http://www.isaaa.org/Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thomas K, Aalbers M, Bannon GA et al. (2004) A multi-laboratory evaluation of a common in vitro pepsin digestion assay protocol used in assessing the safety of novel proteins. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 39:87–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bundesinstitut für RisikobewertungBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations