Search EFSA Journal
Refine your search
All article types
Special Issue Item
Journal Editorial
Scientific opinions of Scientific/Scientific Panel
Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
Statement of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
Guidance of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
Other scientific outputs of EFSA
Statement of EFSA
Guidance of EFSA
Conclusion on pesticides
Reasoned opinion on pesticide
Scientific report of EFSA
Technical Report
All subjects
Animal health & welfare
Biological hazards
Biological monitoring
Dietary & chemical monitoring
Emerging risks
Food Ingredients and Packaging
Plant health
Assessment and methodological support
Scientific Committee
Scientific cooperation
Article ID
Digital Object ID
Sort by:
Publication date

Scientific Opinion on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed

EFSA Journal 2010; 8(7):1700 [168 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1700
  EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Panel Members Hans Christer Andersson, Salvatore Arpaia, Detlef Bartsch, Josep Casacuberta, Howard Davies, Patrick du Jardin, Gerhard Flachowsky, Lieve Herman, Huw Jones, Sirpa Kärenlampi, Jozsef Kiss, Gijs Kleter, Harry Kuiper, Antoine Messéan, Kaare Magne Nielsen, Joe Perry, Annette Pöting, Jeremy Sweet, Christoph Tebbe, Atte Johannes von Wright, and Jean-Michel Wal Acknowledgment The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on “The assessment of allergenicity of genetically modified foods” for the preparation of this Draft Scientific Opinion: Rob Aalberse, Hans Christer Andersson, Philippe Eigenmann, Ralf Einspanier, Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber, Gijs Kleter, Ilona Kryspin-Sorensen, Martinus Lövik, Clare Mills, Jean-Marie Saint-Remy, Willem Seinen, Daniel Soeria-Atmadja (until September 2009), Ingrid Van der Meer, Jean-Michel Wal (Chair) and John Warner (until September 2008); the following experts for their contribution on specialised issues: Dominique Kaiserlian (January 2007), Jean-Paul Lallès (July 2008), Gabriel Peltre (July 2007), André Penninks (January 2007); and EFSA’s staff members Ellen Van Haver and Antonio Fernandez Dumont for the support provided to this EFSA scientific output Contact
Type: Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel On request from: EFSA Question number: EFSA-Q-2005-125 Adopted: 30 June 2010 Published: 29 July 2010 Affiliation: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

The weight-of-evidence, case-by-case approach is considered the most appropriate way of assessing the allergenicity of genetically modified (GM) food and feed. This scientific opinion discusses various aspects to increase the strength and accuracy of this approach, including the latest developments pertaining to clinical aspects of allergic reactions, structural aspects of GM food and feed and in silico approaches, as well as IgE binding studies and cell-based methods, profiling techniques and animal models. In this context, conclusions and recommendations are provided to update and complement current risk assessment strategies for the allergenicity assessment of newly expressed protein(s) and whole GM food and feed. In summary, it is recommended that with regard to the search for sequence homology and structural similarities, the local alignment method with a known allergen with a threshold of 35% sequence identity over a window of at least 80 amino acids is considered a minimal requirement. When IgE binding tests are considered necessary, e.g. when there is sequence homology and/or structure similarity with known allergens, the use of individual sera from allergic individuals rather than pooled sera is recommended. In addition to the pepsin resistance test, it is recommended that the resistance to digestion of the newly expressed proteins is evaluated using other in vitro digestibility tests mimicking physiological conditions of humans. Finally, when the recipient of the introduced gene is allergenic, in order to compare the allergenicty of the whole GM plant with that of its appropriate comparator(s), it is recommended that relevant characterised endogenous allergens are included in the comparative compositional analysis of the GM plant and its appropriate comparator(s). Proposals for the use of additional testing that may improve the weight-of-evidence approach and suggestions for further evaluation of new promising methods that are as yet in an early phase of development are also addressed.

© European Food Safety Authority, 2010


This Opinion follows a request from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) to establish a Working Group on “The Assessment of allergenicity of genetically modified foods”.

The strategy summarised in this report for assessing the allergenicity of GM food and feed considers the allergenicity of the newly expressed proteins, the whole GM food and feed, and also other aspects, such as exposure. Particularly with regard to newly expressed proteins, it is based on a weight-of-evidence, case-by-case approach, in line with the approach followed in the EFSA guidance document and the Codex Alimentarius guideline. Different aspects of the allergenicity risk assessment of GMOs are discussed in this report, and where relevant, additional recommendations are provided to further strengthen the weight-of-evidence approach. These include recommendations with regard to the search for sequence homology and structural similarities, IgE binding tests and testing of the digestibility of newly expressed proteins. The recommendations also pertain to the comparative analysis of endogenous allergens and their structural characteristics in whole GM food and feed. In addition, proposals have been made with regard to other additional testing that may improve the assessment, e.g. animal models, as well as suggestions for further exploring new promising methods that are as yet in an early phase of development, particularly on 3-dimensional structure of allergens, profiling technology, exposure assessment and post-market monitoring.

The background information, scientific evidence and rationale on which the conclusions and recommendations are based, can be found in the annexes.

Annex 1 (Clinical aspects of food allergy) deals with the mechanisms, the prevalence and clinical pictures of food allergy, as well as the diagnostic procedures. Within the assessment of allergenicity of GMOs, attention is paid to the risk for populations with a particular or altered digestive physiology such as infants. In addition, the possible role of GMOs as adjuvants, i.e. substances that, when co-administered with a protein increases its immunogenicity and therefore might increase as well its allergenicity, is considered within the allergenicity assessment of GMOs. Where possible, the use of surveillance programmes such as post-market monitoring and survey of occurrence of occupational allergic reactions through different routes of exposure is proposed.

Annex 2 (Structural aspects of food allergens: conformation, in planta processing and food matrix interactions) addresses the structure and biological properties of a newly expressed protein in an integrative approach for assessing its possible allergenicity. Current understanding of how the allergenic potential relates to protein structure, biological properties, post-translational modifications and plant processing, and how it may be affected by food processing and interactions with the food matrix is presented. This is discussed within the context of the natural variability and taking into account that genetics, environmental factors and post-harvest conditions may affect the expression of allergens in plants. Therefore, the considerations developed in this Annex do also pertain to the assessment of allergenicity of the whole plant.

Annex 3 (Bioinformatics for the assessment of allergenicity of newly expressed proteins in GMOs) covers various bioinformatics methods available including allergen databases and algorithms for search of sequence identity of newly expressed proteins with known allergens and the assessment of the relevance of alignments observed. A recommendation is made that allergen databases are regularly updated and checked for accuracy (e.g. absence of irrelevant allergens and presence of minor true allergens with low frequency of sensitisation). Criteria for inclusion of proteins into allergen databases and for sequence identity searches are discussed as to improve the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of current bioinformatics approaches. Bioinformatics analyses are not appropriate for the assessment of the de novo sensitisation potential of a newly expressed protein but provide useful information on the possible IgE-cross-reactivity with known allergens. Such information should be confirmed by other tests to conclude on the likelihood of allergenicity of the newly expressed protein(s).

Annex 4 (Assessment of allergenicity of newly expressed proteins in GMOs using in vitro and cell-based tests) describes in vitro methods that can be used for assessing the allergenicity of newly expressed protein(s). This includes a discussion of different IgE binding assays and criteria for serum selection, and an overview of experimental conditions for performing and interpreting the outcome of in vitro digestibility tests. IgE-binding assays aim to test for possible IgE-cross reactivity of the newly expressed protein with known allergens. Specific serum screening is required if there is any indication of relationship or structure similarity with known allergens as evidenced in the previous step of the assessment, or if the source of the transgenic protein is considered allergenic, i.e. is known to produce one or more allergen(s). In view of the problems associated with the use of sera of human origin, the possibility of using well-characterised antibodies raised in animals for a pre-screening may be envisaged. Stability towards in vitro digestibility can provide additional information about the possible allergenic potential of the newly expressed protein. The conditions that should be observed for performing those tests and correctly interpreting the outcome are discussed in relation with the clinical considerations presented in Annex 1. Cell-based assays that employ either cells isolated from human or animal tissues or propagated from immortal cell lines are also considered.

Annex 5 (Analytical and profiling technology/in vitro protein analysis and proteomics methods for the allergenicity assessment of the whole GM plant) addresses analytical methods and profiling techniques for assessing the potential increase of the intrinsic allergenicity of the whole plant and derived products as an unintended effect of the genetic modification. When the recipient of the introduced gene is known to be allergenic, a potential quantitative and/or qualitative change in the allergenicity of the whole GM food should be tested by comparing the allergen repertoire of the GM plant with that of appropriate comparator(s) taking into account the natural variability in the endogenous allergen expression. Allergens in whole plants can be analysed based on their immunochemical and biological properties with gel-electrophoresis followed by immunoblotting. Alternative proteomic methods using, e.g. mass spectrometry for identifying and quantifying allergens are also reviewed. High throughput analytical techniques are a promising tool for non-targeted profiling of differences in protein expression in the GM plant compared with its appropriate comparator(s). It is proposed that they should be thoroughly assessed for accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and feasibility before being routinely used for allergenicity assessment.

In Annex 6 (Animal models) a review and a critical appraisal is made of the numerous animal models (including transgenic animals) that are currently available to test the capacity of a newly expressed protein to elicit an allergic reaction in allergic consumers already sensitised to a cross-reactive allergen or its potential to de novo sensitise predisposed individuals. Advantages and pitfalls of the different models are analysed. It is noted that none of these models fully reproduce either the diversity and variability of the IgE response in heterogeneous populations of allergic humans or the conditions of sensitisation that occur in the real life upon given conditions of exposure and environment. In addition, none of the current animal models has both enough sensitivity and specificity in order to guarantee the absence of false negative and false positive results. Animal models are, therefore, in general considered not validated and inconclusive for the assessment of the sensitising potential of a novel protein. However, they can provide useful information on the different mechanisms underlying the induction and development of an allergic reaction when there are indications of a sensitising or adjuvant potential of the newly expressed proteins.


Allergenicity, genetically modified organism, food, feed, safety, newly expressed protein, weight-of-evidence approach