Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
ment. h e complete assessments are sum-
marized in Table 11.1.
No live GMM to be used as a feed additive
has so far been notii ed in the EU for
authorization. Given the controversial
nature of the public acceptance of GMOs in
the EU and the complicated environmental
safety assessment associated with a
deliberate release of GMMs, the likelihood
of such a notii cation in the near future is
remote. Moreover, as noted in Section
11.3.1, the mechanisms of probiotic action
are still rather unknown and consequently
the intentional enhancement of probiotic
properties by genetic means waits for future
breakthroughs in the understanding of the
interactions between probiotic micro-
organisms and the host. h eoretically,
GMMs with enhanced antimicrobial
properties or enzymatic activities could be
used in silage fermentations to control
spoilage microorganisms or enhance acid
production. Even then, the dii culties with
public acceptance of such products
undoubtedly discourage development of
these applications.
In contrast to live GMMs, the prospects
of GMM biomasses entering into the market
as feed ingredients are much more likely,
due to the prevalence of GMMs in dif erent
biotechnological processes and the con-
sequent formation of such biomasses as
industrial side streams. GMM biomasses
have already been notii ed to the EFSA,
although none has been authorized in the
EU, yet.
h e most relevant GMM products in the
EU, so far, are enzymes and amino acids.
Since 2006, the EFSA has assessed at least
nine enzymes and two amino acids (l-valine
and l-isoleucine) produced by GMMs, while
several others are in the process of assess-
Although live GMMs currently are not used
directly in feeds as additives or ingredients,
GMM products, like enzymes and amino
acids, already have an established position
as feed additives. It is to be expected that in
the near future more and more of these
types of product will be introduced. Genetic
engineering will, undoubtedly, lead to even
more versatile biotechnological products
with optimized properties for each particular
application.
Safety of the biotechnological products is,
of course, of primary importance to
consumers, regulators, industry and users.
While there have been many public concerns
related to GMOs, no adverse ef ects associated
with these relatively highly purii ed GMM
products containing no production organisms
or recombinant DNA (Category 1 and 2
products) have been observed, either during
the risk assessment or the subsequent use of
the products. h e adverse ef ects, such as skin
or eye irritation observed in some cases, are
specii c for the product itself and its
formulation, not a result of it being produced
by a GMM. While this situation should not
trigger complacency or undue relaxation of
safety standards, it should be taken as an
indication that the current safety assessment
practices are ef ective.
1
SCAN was an expert committee under the
Directorate General for Health and Consumers
that performed the tasks of the present
FEEDAP Panel before the establishment of the
EFSA.
