The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and feed safety assessment
Open accessAbstract
The Scientific Committee reviewed the current state-of-the-science on genotoxicity testing and provided a commentary and recommendations on genotoxicity testing strategies. A step-wise approach is recommended for the generation and evaluation of data on genotoxic potential, beginning with a basic battery of in vitro tests, comprising a bacterial reverse mutation assay and an in vitro micronucleus assay. Consideration should be given to whether specific features of the test substance might require substitution of one or more of the recommended in vitro tests by other in vitro or in vivo tests in the basic battery. In the event of negative in vitro results, it can be concluded that the substance has no genotoxic potential. In case of inconclusive, contradictory or equivocal results, it may be appropriate to conduct further testing in vitro. In case of positive in vitro results, review of the available relevant data on the test substance and, where necessary, an appropriate in vivo study to assess whether the genotoxic potential observed in vitro is expressed in vivo is recommended. Suitable in vivo tests are the mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test, transgenic rodent assay, and Comet assay. The approach to in vivo testing should be step-wise. If the first in vivo test is positive, no further testing is necessary and the substance should be considered as an in vivo genotoxin. If the test is negative, it may be possible to conclude that the substance is not an in vivo genotoxin. However, in some cases, a second in vivo test may be necessary (e.g. if the first test is negative but more than one endpoint in the in vitro tests are positive, an in vivo test on a second endpoint may be necessary). The combination of assessing different endpoints in different tissues in the same animal in vivo should also be considered.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Do cytotoxicity and cell death cause false positive results in the in vitro comet assay?
Azqueta, A., Stopper, H., Zegura, B., Dusinska, M., & Møller, P. (2022) · Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis · doi:10.1016/j.mrgentox.2022.503520 · Cited by 80
Precup, G., Marini, E., Zakidou, P., Beneventi, E., Consuelo, C., Fernández-Fraguas, C., Garcia Ruiz, E., Laganaro, M., Magani, M., Mech, A., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2024.1390734 · Cited by 62
Nuin Garciarena, I., Ackerl, R., García Ruiz, E., Glymenaki, M., Mendes, V., Muñoz-González, A., Noriega Fernández, E., Precup, G., Rodríguez-Fernández, P., Roldán-Torres, R., et al. (2025) · Future Foods · doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100661 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- EFSA Scientific Committee
- Venue
- EFSA Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 9
- ISSN
- 1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4235201712
- Cited by
- 479
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and feed safety assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2379
- The paper
- EFSA Scientific Committee. (2011). Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and feed safety assessment. EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2379
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.