Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
predominantly of fungal origin, although
several bacterial species also produce their
own phytases (Haefner
et al
.,
2005; Yao
et
al
., 2011). Although some cereals, such as
rye, wheat and barley, have their own
phytases, some other cereals, such as maize,
lack phytase activity (Eeckhout and de Pape,
1994). Moreover, plant phytases may be
inactivated during feed processing, and thus
supplementation of external phytase often
increases the nutritional value of feeds
signii cantly.
h e EU Register of Feed Additives (Euro-
pean Commission, 2012) currently includes
tens of dif erent enzyme preparations aimed
at monogastric animals, most of them endo-
1,3(4)-beta-glucanases either alone or in
combination with endo-1,4-beta-xylanases
or endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase, and dif erent
phytases. However, other types of enzymes
(such as amylases and proteinases) are also
being used, and some enzyme preparations
are also intended for ruminants.
masses do not require specii c authorization
in the EU, GMM-based biomasses do (see
Section 11.4.2).
Almost from the beginning, recombinant
DNA technology has created safety concerns.
Particularly, the potential unintended
ef ects and unforeseen environmental con-
sequences have frequently been pointed out
as the potential risks of genetically modii ed
organisms (GMOs). In 1975, for the i rst
time in history, the scientii c community in
the USA imposed voluntary restrictions on
the freedom of research by imposing certain
safety measures (Asilomar Conference,
1975; Berg
et al
., 1975), which were followed
in 1976 by specii c guidelines from the
National Institute of Health (NIH, 1976).
Since then, both national and international
legislation has been widely introduced to
address the safety aspects of GMOs in
research and in their various applications.
Regarding the specii c applications to
food and feed, dif erent countries have
adopted dif erent regulatory approaches.
One specii c case is the USA, where GM
foods and feeds are not subjected to any
specii c legislation, because of the basic
assumption that the technology as such
does not introduce any specii c safety
concerns that could not be addressed by the
general food and feed legislation. h us, the
regulatory responsibilities in the USA are
divided between the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). While
USDA and the FDA oversee the agricultural
and environmental aspects, the task of the
FDA is to ensure the safety of food and feed
according to the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act.
In contrast to the USA, the EU has
introduced a specii c and detailed regulatory
framework to ensure the safety of GM foods
and feed both for the consumer and for the
h e microbial production of amino acids is a
well-established technology, and currently
feed uses cover approximately more than
half of the global market value of amino
acids (Leuchtenberger
et al
.,
2005). Quanti-
tatively, the most important of these is
l-lysine as a limiting amino acid in pigs and
poultry. In the EU Register of Feed Additives
(European Commission, 2012), there are
several authorizations for l-lysine,
l-methionine, l-histidine, l-valine and
l-threonine.
Microbial biomasses (usually obtained as
side streams of various biotechnological
processes) are used to a certain extent as
protein-rich feed ingredients. Although
biomasses are thus not categorized as feed
additives, they can anyway form a means to
introduce GMM-derived materials in animal
feed. While conventional microbial bio-
