Utility of Weight-of-Evidence Components in Risk Assessment: Example of Digestion Results in the Allergenicity Assessment of Newly Expressed Proteins in Genetically Engineered Crops
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21423/JRS-V09I2RODKeywords:
risk assessment, weight of evidence, genetically engineered crops, allergenicity, regulatory oversightAbstract
Various weight-of-evidence risk-assessment frameworks have been used for regulatory decision making. In this policy commentary, we critically assess the value of including gastric and/or intestinal digestion results in the weight of evidence designed to inform the allergenicity assessment of newly expressed proteins in genetically engineered crops. This example highlights a general concept: specifically, that there is negligible value in considering a factor as a component of the risk assessment when differing outcomes for this factor do not result in different risk decisions under any reasonable hypothetical scenario regarding results from the other components of the risk assessment. We conclude that equitable and science-based regulatory guidance should include examples of weight-of-evidence scenarios illustrating how differing outcomes for each individual component within the weight of evidence would result in a different conclusion on the acceptability of the potential risk under consideration. Critically assessing each component of the weight of evidence in this manner helps avoid inclusion of components that can only distract risk assessors from the critical decision-making process, possibly resulting in inconsistent risk assessment outcomes for the same datasets.
References
Akkerdaas, J., Totis, M., Barnett, B., Bell, E., Davis, T., Edrington, T., Glenn, K., Graser, G., Herman, R., Knulst, A., Ladics, G., McClain, S., Poulsen, L., Ranjan, R., Rascle, J. B., Serrano, H., Spejjer, D., Wang, R., Mouriès, L. P., Capt, A., & Ree, R. V. (2018). Protease resistance of food proteins: a mixed picture for predicting allergenicity but a useful tool for assessing exposure. Clinical and Translational Allergy, 8(30), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13601-018-0216-9
Bøgh, K. L., & Madsen, C. B. (2016). Food allergens: is there a correlation between stability to digestion and allergenicity? Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 56(9), 1545-1567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2013.779569
EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms, Naegeli, H., Bresson, J. L., Dalmay, T., Dewhurst, I. C., Epstein, M. M., Firbank, L. G., Guerche, P., Hejatko, J., Moreno, F. J., Mullins, E., Nogué, F., Rostoks, N., Serrano, J. J. S., Savoini, G., Veromann, E., Veronesi, F., & Dumont, A. F., (2021). Statement on in vitro protein digestibility tests in allergenicity and protein safety assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal, 19(1), e06350. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6350
Food and Argiculture Organization of the United States & World Health Organization. (2001). Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Dervived from Biotechnology. Rome Retrieved May, 2021 from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agns/pdf/topics/ec_jan2001.pdf.
Freidl, R., Gstöttner, A., Baranyi, U., Swoboda, I., Stolz, F., Focke-Tejkl, M., Wekerle, T., Ree, R. V., & Linhart, B. (2020). Resistance of parvalbumin to gastrointestinal digestion is required for profound and long‐lasting prophylactic oral tolerance. Allergy, 75(2), 326-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13994
Fu, T. T., Abbott, U. R., & Hatzos, C. (2002). Digestibility of food allergens and nonallergenic proteins in simulated gastric fluid and simulated intestinal fluid—a comparative study. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 24(50), 7154-7160. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf020599h
Herman, R. A., Bauman, P. A., Goodwin, L., Islamovic, E., Ma, E. H., Serrano, H., Silvanovich, A., Simmons, A. R., Song, P., & Wang, R. (2021). Mass spectrometric analysis of digesta does not improve the allergenicity assessment of GM crops. Transgenic Research, 30 283-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-021-00254-x
Herman, R. A., & Ladics, G. S. (2018). Allergenic sensitization versus elicitation risk criteria for novel food proteins - short communication. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 94 283-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.02.016
Herman, R. A., Roper, J. M., & Zhang, J. X. (2020). Evidence runs contrary to digestive stability predicting protein allergenicity. Transgenic Research, 29(1), 105-107.
Herman, R. A., Woolhiser, M. M., Ladics, G. S., Korjagin, V. A., Schafer, B. W., Storer, N. P., Green, S. B., & Kan, L. (2007). Stability of a set of allergens and non-allergens in simulated gastric fluid. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 58(2), 125-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637480601149640
Ladics, G. S. (2008). Current codex guidelines for assessment of potential protein allergenicity. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46(10), S20-S23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2008.07.021
Ladics, G. S., & Selgrade, M. K. (2009). Identifying food proteins with allergenic potential: Evolution of approaches to safety assessment and research to provide additional tools. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 54(3, Supplement), S2-S6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.10.010
Logan, K., Du Toit, G., Giovannini, M., Turcanu, V., & Lack, G. (2020). Pediatric Allergic Diseases, Food Allergy, and Oral Tolerance. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 36, 511-528. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100818-125346
Privalle, L., Bannon, G., Herman, R., Ladics, G., McClain, S., Stagg, N., Ward, J., & Herouet-Guicheney, C. (2011). Heat stability, its measurement, and its lack of utility in the assessment of the potential allergenicity of novel proteins. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 61(3), 292-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.08.009
Rhomberg, L. R., Goodman, J. E., Bailey, L. A., Prueitt, R. L., Beck, N. B., Bevan, C., Honeycutt, M., Kaminski, N. E., Paoli, G., Pottenger, L. H., Scherer, R. W., Wise, K. C., & Becker, R. A. (2013). A survey of frameworks for best practices in weight-of-evidence analyses. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 43(9), 753-784. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2013.832727
Su, S., Ezhuthachan, I. D., & Ponda, P. (2020). Genetically modified foods and food allergy. Journal of Food Allergy, 2(1), 111-114. https://doi.org/10.2500/jfa.2020.2.200012
Verhoeckx, K., Bøgh, K. L., Dupont, D., Egger, L., Gadermaier, G., Larré, C., Mackie, A., Menard, O., Adel-Patient, K., Picariello, G., Portmann, R., Smit, J., Turner, P., Untersmayr, E., & Epstein, M. M. (2019). The relevance of a digestibility evaluation in the allergenicity risk assessment of novel proteins. Opinion of a joint initiative of COST action ImpARAS and COST action INFOGEST. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 129, 405-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.04.052
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2021-06-24 (2)
- 2021-06-22 (1)
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Rod Herman, Jason M. Roper, Nicholas P. Storer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
By submitting content to the Journal of Regulatory Science (JRS), authors agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the JRS the right of first publication. Authors retain patent, trademark, and other intellectual property rights (including research data) and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article according to the Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International — CC BY-NC 4.0 license agreement. The JRS is an open access journal and, as a result, articles are free to use with proper acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process.
- If excerpts from other copyrighted works are included, the author(s) must obtain written permission from the copyright owners and credit the source(s) in the article.
- The publication of the submission has been approved by all co-authors and responsible authorities at the institute or organization where the work has been carried out.
- Copyright has not been breached in seeking publication of the submission.
