Substantial equivalence

Last updated

In food safety, the concept of substantial equivalence holds that the safety of a new food, particularly one that has been genetically modified (GM), may be assessed by comparing it with a similar traditional food that has proven safe in normal use over time. [1] It was first formulated as a food safety policy in 1993, by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). [2]

Contents

As part of a food safety testing process, substantial equivalence is the initial step, establishing toxicological and nutritional differences in the new food compared to a conventional counterpart—differences are analyzed and evaluated, and further testing may be conducted, leading to a final safety assessment. [3]

Substantial equivalence is the underlying principle in GM food safety assessment for a number of national and international agencies, including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization. [4]

Origin

The concept of comparing genetically modified foods to traditional foods as a basis for safety assessment was first introduced as a recommendation during the 1990 Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on biotechnology and food safety (a scientific conference of officials and industry), although the term substantial equivalence was not used. [5] [6] Adopting the term, substantial equivalence was formulated as a food safety policy by the OECD, first described in their 1993 report, "Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles. [2]

The term was borrowed from the FDA's 1976 substantial equivalence definition for new medical devices—under Premarket Notification 510(k), a new Class II device that is essentially similar to an existing device can be cleared for release without further testing. [2] [7] The underlying approach of comparing a new product or technique to an existing one has long been used in various fields of science and technology. [2]

In June 1999, G8 leaders requested the OECD to “undertake a study on the implications of biotechnology and other aspects of food safety.” In 2000, the OECD Edinburgh Conference on Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods was held. Following those discussions, the OECD published an opinion that substantial equivalence is an important tool in analyzing the safety of novel foods, including GM foods. The document noted that substantial equivalence serves as a framework for approaching food safety assessment, rather than functioning as a quantitative standard or measure. [8]

Description

The OECD bases the substantial equivalence principle on a definition of food safety where we can assume that a food is safe for consumption if it has been eaten over time without evident harm. It recognizes that traditional foods may naturally contain toxic components (usually called antinutrients)—such as the glycoalkaloids solanine in potatoes and alpha-tomatine in tomatoes—which do not affect their safety when prepared and eaten in traditional ways. [9] [10] [11] [note 1]

The report proposes that, while biotechnology broadens the scope of food modification, it does not inherently introduce additional risk, and therefore, GM products may be assessed in the same way as conventionally bred products. [1] Further, the relative precision of biotech methods should allow assessment to be focused on the most likely problem areas. [1] The concept of substantial equivalence is then described as a comparison between a GM food and a similar conventional food, taking into account food processing, and how the food is normally consumed, including quantity, dietary patterns, and the characteristics of the consuming population. [note 2]

Assessment process

Substantial equivalence is the starting point for GM food safety assessment: significant differences between a new food item and its conventional counterpart would indicate the need for further testing. A "targeted approach" is taken, by selecting specific relevant molecules for comparison. For plants, selection of a suitable comparator may involve growing the new plant side by side with genetically closely-related varieties, or using publicly available composition data for closely-related varieties. [8]

Evaluation for substantial equivalence can be applied at different points in the food chain, from unprocessed harvested crop to final ingredient or product, depending on the nature of the food item and its intended use. [11]

For a GM plant, the overall evaluation process may be viewed in four phases: [3]

  1. Substantial equivalence analysis
    Considering introduced genes, newly expressed proteins, and new secondary metabolites
  2. Toxicological and nutritional analysis of detected differences
    Gene transfer, allergenicity, degradation characteristics, bioavailability, toxicity, and estimated intake levels
  3. Toxicological and nutritional evaluation
    If necessary, additional toxicity testing, possibly including whole foods (return to Phase 2).
  4. Final safety assessment of GM plant

Technological developments

There has been discussion about applying new biochemical concepts and methods in evaluating substantial equivalence, such as metabolic profiling and protein profiling. These concepts refer, respectively, to the complete measured biochemical spectrum (total fingerprint) of compounds (metabolites) or of proteins present in a food or crop. The goal would be to compare overall the biochemical profile of a new food to an existing food to see if the new food's profile falls within the range of natural variation already exhibited by the profile of existing foods or crops. However, these techniques are not considered sufficiently evaluated, and standards have not yet been developed, to apply them. [12] [ better source needed ]

Adoption

Approaches to GM food regulation vary by country, while substantial equivalence is generally the underlying principle of GM food safety assessment. This is the case for national and international agencies that include the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization. [11] [13] [4] In 1997, the European Union established a novel food assessment procedure whereby, once the producer has confirmed substantial equivalence with an existing food, government notification, with accompanying scientific evidence, is the only requirement for commercial release, however, foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are excluded and require mandatory authorization. [2]

To establish substantial equivalence, the modified product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes to a targeted set of components such as toxins, nutrients, or allergens, that are present in a similar unmodified food. The manufacturer's data is then assessed by a regulatory agency. If regulators determine that there is no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then there will generally be no further requirement for food safety testing. However, if the product has no natural equivalent, or shows significant differences from the unmodified food, or for other reasons that regulators may have (for instance, if a gene produces a protein that has not been a food component before), further safety testing may be required. [1]

Issues

There have been criticisms of the effectiveness of substantial equivalence.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "The safety of food for human consumption is based on the concept that there should be a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from intended uses under the anticipated conditions of consumption. Historically, foods prepared and used in traditional ways have been considered to be safe on the basis of long-term experience, even though they may have contained natural toxicants or anti-nutritional substances. In principle, food has been presumed to be safe unless a significant hazard was identified." (OECD, 1993) [1]
  2. ↑ "For foods and food components from organisms developed by the application of modern biotechnology, the most practical approach to the determination of safety is to consider whether they are substantially equivalent to analogous conventional food products, if such exist. Account should be taken of the processing that the food may undergo, as well as the intended use and the exposure. Exposure includes such parameters as the amount of food or food component(s) in the diet, the pattern of dietary consumption, and the characteristics of the consuming population(s). The approach provides a basis for an evaluation of food safety and nutritional quality." (OECD, 1993) [1]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biotechnology</span> Use of living systems and organisms to develop or make useful products

Biotechnology is a multidisciplinary field that involves the integration of natural sciences and engineering sciences in order to achieve the application of organisms and parts thereof for products and services.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified maize</span> Genetically modified crop

Genetically modified maize (corn) is a genetically modified crop. Specific maize strains have been genetically engineered to express agriculturally-desirable traits, including resistance to pests and to herbicides. Maize strains with both traits are now in use in multiple countries. GM maize has also caused controversy with respect to possible health effects, impact on other insects and impact on other plants via gene flow. One strain, called Starlink, was approved only for animal feed in the US but was found in food, leading to a series of recalls starting in 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetic engineering</span> Manipulation of an organisms genome

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification or genetic manipulation, is the modification and manipulation of an organism's genes using technology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified food</span> Foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA

Genetically modified foods, also known as genetically engineered foods, or bioengineered foods are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using various methods of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering techniques allow for the introduction of new traits as well as greater control over traits when compared to previous methods, such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.

Flavr Savr, a genetically modified tomato, was the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be granted a license for human consumption. It was developed by the Californian company Calgene in the 1980s. The tomato has an improved shelf-life, increased fungal resistance and a slightly increased viscosity compared to its non-modified counterpart. It was meant to be harvested ripe for increased flavor for long-distance shipping. The Flavr Savr contains two genes added by Calgene; a reversed antisense polygalacturonase gene which inhibits the production of a rotting enzyme and a gene responsible for the creation of APH(3')II, which confers resistance to certain aminoglycoside antibiotics including kanamycin and neomycin. On May 18, 1994, the FDA completed its evaluation of the Flavr Savr tomato and the use of APH(3')II, concluding that the tomato "is as safe as tomatoes bred by conventional means" and "that the use of aminoglycoside 3'-phosphotransferase II is safe for use as a processing aid in the development of new varieties of tomato, rapeseed oil, and cotton intended for food use." It was first sold in 1994, and was only available for a few years before production ceased in 1997. Calgene made history, but mounting costs prevented the company from becoming profitable, and it was eventually acquired by Monsanto Company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Generally recognized as safe</span> United States government designation for food additives

Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) is a United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) designation that a chemical or substance added to food is considered safe by experts under the conditions of its intended use. An ingredient with a GRAS designation is exempted from the usual Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) food additive tolerance requirements. The concept of food additives being "generally recognized as safe" was first described in the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, and all additives introduced after this time had to be evaluated by new standards. The FDA list of GRAS notices is updated approximately each month, as of 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified crops</span> Plants used in agriculture

Genetically modified crops are plants used in agriculture, the DNA of which has been modified using genetic engineering methods. Plant genomes can be engineered by physical methods or by use of Agrobacterium for the delivery of sequences hosted in T-DNA binary vectors. In most cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species. Examples in food crops include resistance to certain pests, diseases, environmental conditions, reduction of spoilage, resistance to chemical treatments, or improving the nutrient profile of the crop. Examples in non-food crops include production of pharmaceutical agents, biofuels, and other industrially useful goods, as well as for bioremediation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified food controversies</span>

Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population. In addition, products derived from GMO organisms play a role in the production of ethanol fuels and pharmaceuticals.

The United States is the largest grower of commercial crops that have been genetically engineered in the world, but not without domestic and international opposition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Non-GMO Project</span> Non-profit organization

The Non-GMO Project is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization focusing on genetically modified organisms. The organization began as an initiative of independent natural foods retailers in the U.S. and Canada, with the stated aim to label products produced in compliance with their Non-GMO Project Standard, which aims to prevent genetically modified foodstuffs from being present in retail food products. The organization is headquartered in Bellingham, Washington. The Non-GMO label began use in 2012 with Numi Organic Tea products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified soybean</span> Soybean that has had DNA introduced into it using genetic engineering techniques

A genetically modified soybean is a soybean that has had DNA introduced into it using genetic engineering techniques. In 1996, the first genetically modified soybean was introduced to the U.S. by Monsanto. In 2014, 90.7 million hectares of GM soybeans were planted worldwide, making up 82% of the total soybeans cultivation area.

Genetically modified canola is a genetically modified crop. The first strain, Roundup Ready canola, was developed by Monsanto for tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the commonly used herbicide Roundup.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of genetic engineering</span>

The regulation of genetic engineering varies widely by country. Countries such as the United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt use substantial equivalence as the starting point when assessing safety, while many countries such as those in the European Union, Brazil and China authorize GMO cultivation on a case-by-case basis. Many countries allow the import of GM food with authorization, but either do not allow its cultivation or have provisions for cultivation, but no GM products are yet produced. Most countries that do not allow for GMO cultivation do permit research. Most (85%) of the world's GMO crops are grown in the Americas. One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. Labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries. Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level or voluntary. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%. In Canada and the US labeling of GM food is voluntary, while in Europe all food or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.

Genetic engineering in the European Union has varying degrees of regulation.

Arctic apple is the trademark for a group of patented apples that contain a nonbrowning trait introduced through biotechnology. They were developed through a process of genetic engineering by Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. Specifically, gene silencing reduces the expression of polyphenol oxidase (PPO), thus delaying the onset of browning. It is the first genetically engineered apple to be approved for commercial sale. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2015, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Government of Canada in 2017, determined that Arctic apples are as safe and nutritious as conventional apples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Safe Medical Device Amendments of 1990</span>

Safe Medical Device Amendments of 1990 or Safe Medical Devices Act sanctioned progressive reporting and tracking rules for medical devices classified by the Medical Device Regulation Act. The Act mandates reporting requirements by medical device manufacturers regarding adverse safety events and product effectiveness of devices classified as substantially equivalent to Class III medical devices. The United States Statute established the Health and Human Services Office of International Relations and a U.S. Food and Drug Administration office for regulatory activities concerning healthcare products which are considered a combinational biological, device, or drug product. The Act of Congress transferred the electronic product radiation control provisions established by the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">March Against Monsanto</span> International protest movement

The March Against Monsanto was an international grassroots movement and protest against Monsanto, a producer of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. The movement was founded by Tami Canal in response to the failure of California Proposition 37, a ballot initiative which would have required labeling food products made from GMOs. Advocates support mandatory labeling laws for food made from GMOs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fisheries law</span> Regulations regarding fishing activities

Fisheries law is an emerging and specialized area of law. Fisheries law is the study and analysis of different fisheries management approaches such as catch shares e.g. individual transferable quotas; TURFs; and others. The study of fisheries law is important in order to craft policy guidelines that maximize sustainability and legal enforcement. This specific legal area is rarely taught at law schools around the world, which leaves a vacuum of advocacy and research. Fisheries law also takes into account international treaties and industry norms in order to analyze fisheries management regulations. In addition, fisheries law includes access to justice for small-scale fisheries and coastal and aboriginal communities and labor issues such as child labor laws, employment law, and family law.

GMO Answers is a front group launched by the agricultural biotechnology industry in July 2013 to participate in public debate around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crops in the U.S. food supply.

Genetic engineering in North America is any genetic engineering activities in North America

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles OECD (1993)
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Schauzu, Marianna (Apr 2000). "The concept of substantial equivalence in safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified organisms" (PDF). AgBiotechNet . 2.
  3. 1 2 Kok EJ, Kuiper HA (October 2003). "Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops" (PDF). Trends Biotechnol. 21 (10): 439–44. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2003.08.003. PMID   14512230. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-02-14. ()
  4. 1 2 "Substantial Equivalence in Food Safety Assessment" (PDF). Council for Biotechnology Information. March 2001. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 February 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2016. () (Page archive)
  5. ↑ "Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety" (PDF). FAO/WHO. October 1990. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-05-18. Retrieved 16 February 2016. "Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on the Assessment of Biotechnology in Food Production and Processing as Related to Food Safety" (1990)
    "When molecular, microbial, genetic and chemical data establish that the food or food ingredient is sufficiently similar to its conventional counterpart, only minimal toxicological testing will generally be required." - Section 6.3.1, "Strategies for Assessing the Safety of Foods Produced by Biotechnology", report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1991
  6. ↑ Millstone, Erik; Brunner, Eric; Mayer, Sue (October 1999). "Beyond 'substantial equivalence'". Nature. 401 (6753): 525–526. Bibcode:1999Natur.401..525M. doi:10.1038/44006. PMID   10524614. S2CID   4307069.
  7. ↑ "Premarket Notification 510(k)". US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 16 Sep 2015. Retrieved 5 February 2016.
    "A 510(k) is a premarket submission made to FDA to demonstrate that the device to be marketed is at least as safe and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device ... that is not subject to PMS [Premarket Approval]. Submitters must compare their device to one or more similar legally marketed devices and make and support their substantial equivalency claims."
  8. 1 2 "Pocket K No. 56: Substantial Equivalence of GM and Non-GM Crops". International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications . Retrieved Oct 13, 2024.
  9. ↑ Substantial equivalence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in genetically modified novel foods, Novak, W. K.; Haslberger, A. G.,Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 38 (6) p.473-483, 2000
  10. ↑ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Report of the Task Force for the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds C(2000)86/ADD1. May 17, 2000 Archived 2016-03-11 at the Wayback Machine
  11. 1 2 3 "GM food safety assessment: tools for trainers" (PDF). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2009. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 February 2016. Retrieved 8 February 2016. ()
  12. ↑ Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology (June 2000). "Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin" (PDF). World Health Organization (WHO). 4. Approaches to the Nutritional and Food Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 February 2016. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
  13. ↑ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. 9 Jun 2015. Retrieved 9 February 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.