Cited by 27Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchAgricultural safety and regulations

Allergic to bureaucracy? Regulatory allergenicity assessments of novel food: motivations, challenges, compromises, and possibilities

Open access
Kedar, Odeya, Golberg, Alexander, Obolski, Uri, Confino‐Cohen, Ronit·2024·Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety

Abstract

New sources of proteins are essential to meet the demands of the growing world population and evolving food trends. Assessing the allergenicity of proteins in novel food (NF) poses a significant food safety regulatory challenge. The Codex Alimentarius Commission presented an allergenicity assessment protocol for genetically modified (GM) foods, which can also be adapted for NF. Since no single laboratory test can adequately predict the allergenic potential of NF, the protocol follows a weight-of-evidence approach, evaluated by experts, as part of a risk management process. Regulatory bodies worldwide have adopted this safety protocol, which, among other things, promotes global harmonization. This review unravels the reliability and various motivations, terms, concepts, and approaches of allergenicity assessments, aiming to enhance understanding among manufacturers and the public. Health Canada, Food Safety Commission JAPAN, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand were surveyed, focusing on the European Food Safety Authority and the US Food Safety Administration for examples of scientific opinions regarding allergenicity assessments for novel and GM foods, from 2019 to 2023. According to our findings, current regulatory allergenicity assessments for NF approval primarily rely on literature reviews. Only a few of the NF assessments proactively presented additional tests. We recommend conducting bioinformatic analyses on NF when a panel of experts deems that there is insufficient prior scientific research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1541-4337.13300

Cites

147 of 147 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Australia and New Zealand have adopted a joint system through FSANZ, in which novel food applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, focusing on dietary exposure and allergenic risks.

    “Australia and New Zealand have adopted a joint system through Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), in which novel food applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, focusing on dietary exposure and allergenic risks (Kedar et al., 2024).”

    From Microalgae biotechnology and its role in sustainable and healthy food design (2025) · cites this paper as Kedar et al., 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kedar, O., Golberg, A., Obolski, U., & Confino‐Cohen, R.
Affiliations
Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
Kedar, Odeya
Venue
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-03
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
e13300-e13300
ISSN
1541-4337 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392751256
Cited by
27
References
147
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 3
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
Keywords
novel foods, allergenicity assessment, genetically modified foods, Codex Alimentarius, weight-of-evidence approach, expert panel, food safety regulation, regulatory harmonization, bioinformatics analysis, scientific opinion
MeSH terms
Allergens, Food Hypersensitivity, Humans, Motivation, Proteins, Reproducibility of Results, Plants, Genetically Modified

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