Cited by 35Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchFood and Agricultural SciencesAgricultural safety and regulations

Assessing the natural variability in crop composition

Harrigan, George G., Glenn, Kevin C., Ridley, William P.·2010·Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Abstract

The number of evaluations of the nutrient composition of food and feed crops has increased over the past 15years due to the introduction of new crops using the tools of modern biotechnology. The composition of these crops has been extensively compared with conventional (non-transgenic) controls as an integral part of the comparative safety assessment process. Following guidelines outlined in the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Consensus Documents, most of these studies have incorporated field trials at multiple geographies and a diverse range of commercially available varieties/hybrids that are analyzed to understand natural variability in composition due to genetic and environmental influences. Using studies conducted in the US, Argentina and Brazil over multiple growing seasons, this report documents the effect of geography, growing season, and genetic background on soybean composition where fatty acids and isoflavones were shown to be particularly variable. A separate investigation of 96 different maize hybrids grown at three locations in the US demonstrated that levels of free amino acids, sugars/polyols, and molecules associated with stress response can vary to a greater degree than that observed for more abundant components. The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) crop composition database has proven to be an important resource for collecting and disseminating nutrient composition data to promote a further understanding of the variability that occurs naturally in crops used for food and feed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.08.023

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harrigan, G. G., Glenn, K. C., & Ridley, W. P.
Affiliations
Monsanto (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Ridley, William P.
Venue
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-12
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
S13-S20
ISSN
0273-2300 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2008014920
Cited by
35
References
36
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
Keywords
crop composition, natural variation, genetically modified crops, soybean, maize hybrids, fatty acids, isoflavones, free amino acids, genetic background, environmental effects, regional variation, growing season effects
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Feed, Biotechnology, Zea mays, Food Analysis, Humans, Nutritive Value, Glycine max, Databases, Factual, Guidelines as Topic, Crops, Agricultural

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review