JOINT MEETING OF ACAF AND ACNFP:
1 December 1999

DraftMinutes of the Joint Meeting of ACNFP and ACAF:
1 December 1999, Mary Sumner House, London

PRESENT

1.1 Mr R Vaz was welcomed as an observer from the National Food Administration of Sweden.

1.2 It had been agreed that Professor Bainbridge, the ACNFP Chairman, would chair the first joint meeting of ACNFP and ACAF. She gave a brief introduction to the history of the ACNFP and explained the way in which it operates. She emphasised in particular the ACNFP’s commitment to greater transparency and the procedures that were being developed to achieve this.

1.3 The Chairman went on to suggest that while there were a number of issues that were distinct to each committee, there were others which were of relevance to both, such as the size of sample required to obtain statistically valid data and the role of animal/toxicological studies in safety assessment, and where it would be important to explore the possibility of taking a common approach.

1.4 The ACAF Chairman was invited to make some introductory remarks on behalf of ACAF. He explained the background to the remit of his committee and expressed the wish to learn as much as possible from the ACNFP's experience in dealing with the GM applications. He agreed that in areas of common interest the two committees should work as closely together as possible.

2.1 This paper formed the main item for discussion at the meeting. It gave a detailed account of the ACNFP's approach to GM assessments and described the EC guidelines which exist for bioproteins used in animal feed, the only area of animal feed for which a formal safety assessment was required.

2.2 The paper suggested that, while the type of materials used in animal feed and the level of exposure may differ from those for human food, in principle the approach to assessing the safety of human food appeared to be equally valid for animal feed. This was based on the concept of substantial equivalence with the need for particular studies (including toxicological work) being decided on a case-by-case basis.

2.3 The paper went on to invite the Committees to discuss the system of safety assessment for GM foods, the ACNFP's experiences in the area, and the applicability of the approach to the consideration of GM feed.

2.4 Members first looked at the relevance of the concept of substantial equivalence with respect to animal feed assessments. They recognised that it had been the practice within the feed industry to assess feed materials from non-GM crop varieties for some time. This focusses on the effect that any differences from existing crops might have on the ability of target animals to thrive. Where there was little difference, minimal or no testing was necessary. In other cases, feeding trials were carried out.

2.5 It was pointed out that the present emphasis for such trials was on nutritional performance rather than safety, although the animals are monitored for their general health status. These trials were conducted on a different basis to those undertaken in classical toxicology tests in that little, if any, pathology was carried out.

2.6 In the case of novel feed materials, non-novel counterparts were almost always available as most new crops were variants of existing crops. Consideration needed to be given however to the type of physiological system in the animal and its influence on degradability of the feed e.g. feeding trials carried out with monogastrics would not be directly applicable to ruminants. Such factors highlighted the need to assess each product on a case-by-case basis.

2.7 The EC guidelines on novel additives and bioproteins in feed were examined. These indicated the types of information and a list of studies that should be provided in support of new products, as well as specific guidance on target animal studies. Where GM technology is used, common procedures for assessment of potential risks have evolved which differ very little in principle to those adopted for the assessment of food. These concentrate on three aspects:

• Molecular biology of product/DNA insert etc
• Potential transfer to the environment
• Nature of expression products (i.e. of a gene expressed in an alternative host) investigated through toxicological studies.

2.8 In relation to food safety, it was recognised that the starting point of the assessment by each of the Committees is different. ACNFP is concerned with the safety of (a range of types of) novel foods as consumed whereas ACAF will examine the implications for the animal and their products from the consumption of novel feeds.

2.9 In view of the inherent difficulties in running meaningful animal toxicological studies, the need to have a clear scientific justification for carrying out animal testing was stressed as an important consideration. Tests should be performed to provide answers to specific questions and to confirm or refute particular expectations. However, it was recognised that, as with conventionally bred plants, animal studies cannot be expected to, and will not provide, all the answers. Their main function in respect of animal feed would be to continue to be able to test for nutritional adequacy.

2.10 Members agreed that the major issue facing them was that of the unpredictable, inadvertent changes that might occur in modified plants (and indeed newly bred varieties of non-GM plants) and the extent of the testing that can be performed to address these. They were aware that it was not possible to ensure the absolute safety of any product, be it GM or non-GM. It is a multi-faceted problem for which endless data could be collected. However, it is the interpretation of the data and its implications that is the key element in any rigorous safety assessment.

2.11 In conclusion it was agreed that each application for a novel food or feed needed to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It was clear however, that the concept of substantial equivalence is and would be very important to both Committees. Its application to date had proved an important tool in food safety assessment but the new generation of products would create new challenges. New developments in methodology, as recently reviewed by the ACNFP, will be important for the future. The two Committees agreed to continue to consult on common issues as these arise.

3.1 This paper provided a draft specification for a proposed research project investigating the fate of transgenic material in chickens. Broilers present an ideal medium for a study such as this because of their size and relatively short production cycle. It is not a safety study on the GM material involved, which has already been fully assessed. As highlighted in a recent Royal Society report, evidence to date indicates that little (if any) DNA survives processing and passage through an animal's digestive tract and any that does, does not end up in meat, milk or other animal products.

3.2 The results of the project will be presented to the Committees for their consideration and therefore members were invited to comment on the proposal before the project starts.

3.3 The Committees agreed that this was a useful piece of research but that attention should be paid to the feeding regime with respect to the relevance of the data obtained. However, it was recognised that some atypical feeding would be necessary and was acceptable since the purpose was to investigate whether and to what extent plant genetic material may be incorporated into mammalian cells. Also the investigation would involve searching for what is very likely to be a rare event and some specific addition of DNA to samples (positive control) would be required to augment the levels present.

3.4 Some potential complications were highlighted, such as problems with digestion and the possible need to spike the feed in order to overcome any issues with the sensitivity of the proposed analysis. The need for proper controls was also stressed. It was agreed that the proposal would be reviewed in the light of the members' comments. Both Committees would be interested in how the project progresses and in receiving and discussing the results.

4.1 It was agreed that the Committees would arrange to meet as the need for discussion on issues of common interest arose.

ACNFP Secretariat
JFSSG/MAFF
Room 239c
Ergon House
c/o Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR

Go to top of page

Back to ACNFP page

This page was last updated on 10 January 2000