Advertisement

Safety Evaluation of Food Enzymes from Genetically Engineered Organisms

  • Nancy W. Zeman
  • W. Martin Teague

Abstract

Over the years, the evaluation of food safety has changed from simple trial and error sampling to a system of scientific screening and testing procedures that have accumulated from knowledge and experience gained in such areas as plant and animal breeding and the use of microorganisms in food products. During the development of a new food or food ingredient, the developer is responsible for evaluating and documenting the safety of the product. The safety evaluation must satisfy all applicable legal and regulatory requirements in the country of the substance’s intended use. Because cultures and public trust in scientific procedures vary from nation to nation, so will the legal and regulatory requirements.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen, Jarl R., Borge K. Diderichsen, Rolf K. Hjortkjaer, Anne S. de Boer, James Bootman, Heather West, and Roger Ashby. 1987. Determining the safety of maltogenic amylase produced by rDNA technology. J. Food Prot. 50:521–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berkowitz, D., and J. Maryanski. 1989. “Implications of Biotechnology on International Food Standards and Codes of Practice.” Paper presented at the Joint FAO/WHO Foods Standards Programme, Codex Alimentarious Commission, Eighteenth Session, 3–12 July 1989, Geneva.Google Scholar
  3. Bines, Valerie E., Paul Young, and Barry A. Law. 1989. Comparison of cheddar cheese made with a recombinant calf chymosin and with standard calf rennet. J. Dairy Res. 56:657–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CPC International, Inc. 1983. Filing of a petition for GRAS status (petition No. GRASP 3G0284). Fed. Reg. 48:43,096.Google Scholar
  5. CPC International, Inc. 1986. Filing of a petition for affirmation of GRAS status (petition No. GRASP 4G0293). Fed. Reg. 51:10,571.Google Scholar
  6. Diderichsen, Borge, and Lars Christiansen. 1988. Cloning of a maltogenic alpha-amylase from Bacillus stearothermophilus. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 56:53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Enzyme Bio-Systems Ltd. 1988. Filing of a petition for affirmation of GRAS status (petition No. GRASP 7G0328). Fed. Reg. 53:16, 191.Google Scholar
  8. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 1982. 21 U.S. Code §§301–392.Google Scholar
  9. Food Chemical News. October 17, 1988, p. 50.Google Scholar
  10. Food Chemical News. 1990a, March 5, p. 3.Google Scholar
  11. Food Chemical News. 1990b, May 28, p. 52.Google Scholar
  12. Food and Drug Administration. 1982. Appendix II. In Guidelines for Subchronic Oral Toxicity Studies, Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of Direct Food Additives and Color Additives Used in Food, pp 19–29. Reston, VA: Food and Drug Administration.Google Scholar
  13. Food and Drug Administration. 1985. National environmental policy act; policies and procedures, final rule. Fed. Reg. 50:16,636–16,669.Google Scholar
  14. Food and Drug Administration. 1990a. Direct food substances affirmed as generally recognized as safe; chymosin enzyme preparation derived from Escherichia coli K-12. Fed. Reg. 55:10,932–10,935.Google Scholar
  15. Food and Drug Administration. 1990b. Statement of organization, functions, and delegations of authority. Fed. Reg. 55:12,283–12,284.Google Scholar
  16. Genencor, Inc. 1989. Filing of a petition for GRAS status (petition No. GRASP 9G0352). Fed. Reg. 54:40,910–40, 911.Google Scholar
  17. Gibbs, Jeffrey N., and Jonathan S. Kahan. 1986. Federal regulation of food and food additive biotechnology. Admin. Law Rev. 38:1–32.Google Scholar
  18. Gist-Brocades, Inc. 1989. Filing of a petition for GRAS status (petition No. GRASP 9G0349). Fed Reg. 54:20,203.Google Scholar
  19. International Food Biotechnology Council. 1990. Biotechnologies and food: Assuring the safety of foods produced by genetic modification. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 12(3):S1–S196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konowalchuk, J., J. I. Speirs, and S. Stavric. 1977. Vero response to a cytotoxin of Escherichia coli. Infect. Immunol. 18:775–779.Google Scholar
  21. MacKenzie, K. M., S. R. W. Petsel, R. H. Weltman, and N. W. Zeman. 1989a. Subchronic toxicity studies in dogs and in in utero-exposed rats fed diets containing Bacillus megaterium amylase derived from a recombinant DNA organism. Food Chem. Toxic. 27:301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacKenzie, K. M., S. R. W. Petsel, R. H. Weltman, and N. W. Zeman. 1989b. Subchronic toxicity studies in dogs and in in utero-exposed rats fed diets containing Bacillus stearothermophilus alpha-amylase from a natural or recombinant DNA host. Food Chem. Toxic. 27:599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McNamara, Stephen H. 1987. FDA regulation of food substances produced by new techniques of biotechnology. J. Food Drug Cosmetic Law 42:50–64.Google Scholar
  24. Meisel, H. 1987. Charakterisierung von gentechnologisch gewonnenen labpraparaten im vergleich zu kalberlab 1, material and methoden. Milchwissenschaft 42:787–789.Google Scholar
  25. Meisel, H. 1988. Charakterisierung von gentechnologisch gewonnenen labpraparaten im vergleich zu kalberlab 2, ergebnisse. Milchwissenschaft 42:71–75.Google Scholar
  26. Metz, Raymond J., Larry N. Allen, Tin M. Cao, and Nancy W. Zeman. 1988. Nucleotide sequence of an amylase gene from Bacillus megaterium. Nucleic Acids Res. 16:5203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, Sanford A., and Susan Thompson. 1985. “Regulating Applications of Biotechnology in the Food Processing Industry.” Paper presented at the Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society Educational Seminar, Biotechnology Update 1985, 17 October 1985, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  28. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Food and Nutrition Board, Committee on Codex Specifications. 1981. Enzyme preparations. In Food Chemicals Codex, 3rd ed. pp. 107–110. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Institutes of Health. 1986. Guidelines for research involving recombinant DNA molecules. Fed. Reg. 51:16,958–16,985.Google Scholar
  30. Novo Laboratories, Inc. 1990. Filing of a petition for GRAS status (petition No. GRASP 7G0326). Fed. Reg. 55:9772–9773.Google Scholar
  31. Office of Science and Technology Policy. 1984. Proposal for a coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology. Fed. Reg. 49:50,856–50,907.Google Scholar
  32. Office of Science and Technology Policy. 1986. Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology. Fed. Reg. 51:23,302–23,350.Google Scholar
  33. Pfizer Central Research, Pfizer, Inc. 1988. Filing of a petition for affirmation of GRAS status (petition No. GRASP 8G0337). Fed. Reg. 53:3792.Google Scholar
  34. Prokipek, D. 1988. Herstellung von edamer und tilsiter kase mit gentechnologisch aus K. lactis gewonnenem rinder-chymosin. Kieler Milchwirtsch. Forschungs. 40:43–52.Google Scholar
  35. Teso, B. 1986. Recombinant DNA: From the lab to large-scale use, first steps toward international guidelines. OECD Observer, pp. 17–22.Google Scholar
  36. Van den Berg, Johan A., Kees J. van der Laken, Albert J. J. van Ooyen, Ton C. H. M. Renniers, Krijn Rietveld, Albert Schaap, Anthony J. Brake, Robert J. Bishop, Kathleen Schultz, Donna Moyer, Michael Richman, and Jeffrey R. Shuster. 1990. Kluveromyces as a host for heterologous gene expression: Expression and secretion of prochymosin. Bio/Technology 8:135–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ward, Michael, Lori J. Wilson, Katherine H. Kodama, Michael W. Rey, and Randy M. Berka. 1990. Improved production of chymosin in Aspergillus by expression as a glucoamylase-chymosin fusion. Bio/Technology 8:435–440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zeman, Nancy W., and Jan M. McCrea. 1985. Alpha-amylase production using a recombinant DNA organism. Cereal Foods World 30:777–779.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Van Nostrand Reinhold 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy W. Zeman
  • W. Martin Teague

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations