free of charge pdf chapter available at: https://bdspublishing.com/_webedit/uploaded-files/All%20Files/Open%20Access/9781801462044.pdf ; International audience ; The growing knowledge in genetics, epigenomics, epitranscriptomics, and the 3D - or even 4D - genome structure provides an increasing number of detection targets that can be used to identify species or genetic lines, whether modified or not. Biotic and abiotic stresses also induce numerous unintentional genetic, epigenetic, and epitranscriptomic modifications. Those changes are transmissible and can be ordered in regions and classified. The detection target is characterised by the mutagenesis technique used. For instance, the detection of transgenic GMO or SDN3 modification of New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) will target their insertion's junction fragments into the genome. Each insertion induces epigenetic, and probably epitranscriptomic, changes which can also be targeted. In addition, one group of markers is linked to the trait(s) introduced or modified by the breeder whose sequence could be used in quantification and "screening". The other target will be a subset of the elements of a matrix approach (as described in the previous chapter). General selection markers, such as those used for plant breeding, together with mutagenesis techniques specific markers, could differentiate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) of any origin. They can be used to quantify and certify, through a global approach to the organism, that the trait modification is artefactual and not "natural." The growing mastery of single-cell sequencing techniques should soon make it possible to differentiate the modifications due, for example, to each step of a Crispr-Cas transformation of cells in culture. This chapter will focus mainly on detection targets based on nucleic acids, DNA, RNA, modified or unmodified, for their routine use in private and enforcement detection laboratories to comply with food labelling and European traceability rules. The chapter use the wording "hidden" ...
free of charge pdf chapter available at: https://bdspublishing.com/_webedit/uploaded-files/All%20Files/Open%20Access/9781801462044.pdf ; International audience ; The growing knowledge in genetics, epigenomics, epitranscriptomics, and the 3D - or even 4D - genome structure provides an increasing number of detection targets that can be used to identify species or genetic lines, whether modified or not. Biotic and abiotic stresses also induce numerous unintentional genetic, epigenetic, and epitranscriptomic modifications. Those changes are transmissible and can be ordered in regions and classified. The detection target is characterised by the mutagenesis technique used. For instance, the detection of transgenic GMO or SDN3 modification of New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) will target their insertion's junction fragments into the genome. Each insertion induces epigenetic, and probably epitranscriptomic, changes which can also be targeted. In addition, one group of markers is linked to the trait(s) introduced or modified by the breeder whose sequence could be used in quantification and "screening". The other target will be a subset of the elements of a matrix approach (as described in the previous chapter). General selection markers, such as those used for plant breeding, together with mutagenesis techniques specific markers, could differentiate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) of any origin. They can be used to quantify and certify, through a global approach to the organism, that the trait modification is artefactual and not "natural." The growing mastery of single-cell sequencing techniques should soon make it possible to differentiate the modifications due, for example, to each step of a Crispr-Cas transformation of cells in culture. This chapter will focus mainly on detection targets based on nucleic acids, DNA, RNA, modified or unmodified, for their routine use in private and enforcement detection laboratories to comply with food labelling and European traceability rules. The chapter use the wording "hidden" ...
free of charge pdf chapter available at: https://bdspublishing.com/_webedit/uploaded-files/All%20Files/Open%20Access/9781801462044.pdf ; International audience ; The growing knowledge in genetics, epigenomics, epitranscriptomics, and the 3D - or even 4D - genome structure provides an increasing number of detection targets that can be used to identify species or genetic lines, whether modified or not. Biotic and abiotic stresses also induce numerous unintentional genetic, epigenetic, and epitranscriptomic modifications. Those changes are transmissible and can be ordered in regions and classified. The detection target is characterised by the mutagenesis technique used. For instance, the detection of transgenic GMO or SDN3 modification of New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) will target their insertion's junction fragments into the genome. Each insertion induces epigenetic, and probably epitranscriptomic, changes which can also be targeted. In addition, one group of markers is linked to the trait(s) introduced or modified by the breeder whose sequence could be used in quantification and "screening". The other target will be a subset of the elements of a matrix approach (as described in the previous chapter). General selection markers, such as those used for plant breeding, together with mutagenesis techniques specific markers, could differentiate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) of any origin. They can be used to quantify and certify, through a global approach to the organism, that the trait modification is artefactual and not "natural." The growing mastery of single-cell sequencing techniques should soon make it possible to differentiate the modifications due, for example, to each step of a Crispr-Cas transformation of cells in culture. This chapter will focus mainly on detection targets based on nucleic acids, DNA, RNA, modified or unmodified, for their routine use in private and enforcement detection laboratories to comply with food labelling and European traceability rules. The chapter use the wording "hidden" ...
International audience ; The growing knowledge in genetics, epigenomics, epitranscriptomics, and the 3D - or even 4D - genome structure provides an increasing number of detection targets that can be used to identify species or genetic lines, whether modified or not. Biotic and abiotic stresses also induce numerous unintentional genetic, epigenetic, and epitranscriptomic modifications. Those changes are transmissible and can be ordered in regions and classified. The detection target is characterised by the mutagenesis technique used. For instance, the detection of transgenic GMO or SDN3 modification of New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) will target their insertion's junction fragments into the genome. Each insertion induces epigenetic, and probably epitranscriptomic, changes which can also be targeted. In addition, one group of markers is linked to the trait(s) introduced or modified by the breeder whose sequence could be used in quantification and "screening". The other target will be a subset of the elements of a matrix approach (as described in the previous chapter). General selection markers, such as those used for plant breeding, together with mutagenesis techniques specific markers, could differentiate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) of any origin. They can be used to quantify and certify, through a global approach to the organism, that the trait modification is artefactual and not "natural." The growing mastery of single-cell sequencing techniques should soon make it possible to differentiate the modifications due, for example, to each step of a Crispr-Cas transformation of cells in culture. This chapter will focus mainly on detection targets based on nucleic acids, DNA, RNA, modified or unmodified, for their routine use in private and enforcement detection laboratories to comply with food labelling and European traceability rules. The chapter use the wording "hidden" GMOs and "new" GMOs as defined by the French NGOs and farmers' union at the origin of the 2018 European Court of Justice ruling.
Différents points d'impact des mesures de suspension des farines et graisses animales ont été identifiés. En matière de technologie des aliments, les répercussions prévisibles sont liées au retrait des graisses animales avec un risque de plus grande friabilité des granulés et des difficultés d'incorporation de quantités importantes de graisses. Au plan nutritionnel, s'il existe des solutions techniques pour remplacer les farines et les graisses animales, on peut cependant prévoir des difficultés d'utilisation de certaines matières premières (tourteau de soja à taux plus élevés, huile de palme, huiles de récupération…), des perturbations de la consommation d'aliments, voire des baisses de performances (volailles surtout) et une surexcrétion d'eau (dinde, poule pondeuse) avec ses conséquences sanitaires. L'impact sur la qualité des produits animaux provient essentiellement du remplacement des graisses animales par des matières grasses d'origine végétale le plus souvent insaturées qui peut se traduire par des défauts de présentation des carcasses et une moins bonne conservation des produits animaux plus sensibles à l'oxydation. Concernant la sécurité alimentaire pour le consommateur, on peut s'attendre à un accroissement des risques potentiels d'ordre chimique (contaminants, mycotoxines et autres substances toxiques produites par les plantes) et biologique (bactéries pathogènes) associés à l'importation de matières premières de provenances multiples, souvent mal contrôlées et dépourvues de traçabilité. Certains de ces risques sont cependant encadrés par des réglementations spécifiques de l'Union Européenne. On peut s'attendre également à des difficultés de traçabilité pour les filières fonctionnant avec des signes officiels de qualité ou des certifications, en regard de l'importation de matières premières standard et OGM non différenciées. En revanche, il n'y a pas de risques identifiés associés aux plantes OGM ayant à ce jour reçu une autorisation de commercialisation. Enfin en matière d'environnement, il faut prévoir un arrêt du recyclage (phosphates " cachés " des farines de viande et d'os) et des prélèvements accrus sur des ressources non renouvelables (phosphates minéraux), ainsi que des risques de rejets plus importants de phosphore (biodisponibilité plus faible du phosphore végétal) et d'éléments traces métalliques (absents des farines animales) provenant des phosphates minéraux. ; Different consequences of the suspension of the use of meat and bone meals and fats of animal origin have been identified. In terms of food technology, the predictable implications are related to the withdrawal of animal fats with a risk of greater brittleness of the pellet and difficulty of incorporating large amounts of fats. From the nutritional point of view, even though technical solutions exist for the substitution of meat and bone meals and fats of animal origin, one must expect difficulties in the use of some raw materials (soybean meal at high level, palm oil, recycled oils.), altered consumption of the feeds, a possible decrease in performance (in particular with poultry) and an over-excretion of water (turkeys, laying liens) with sanitary consequences. The impact on the quality of the animal products comes essentially from the replacement of animal fats by vegetable oils which are the most often unsaturated and may cause faulty presentation of the carcasses and a poorer conservation, since the products are more sensitive to oxidation. For the consumer and in terms of food safety point, there may be higher potential chemical (contaminants, mycotoxins and other toxic substances produced by plants) and biological (pathogenic bacteria) risks associated with importing raw materials from different origins which are often poorly inspected and are not traceable. Some of these risks are covered by specific regulations of the European Union. There may also be traceability difficulties for those sectors which use official signs of quality or certifications, concerning the importing of non-differentiated raw materials (standard or GMO). There are not, however, identified risks associated with the GMO that have currently been authorised for commercialisation. Finally, concerning the environment, recycling must be stopped ('hidden phosphates' in meat and bone meal) and there must be an increased sampling of the non-renewable resources (mineral phosphates). In addition, there may be an increased rejection of phosphorus (lower bioavailability of plant phosphorus) and traces of metals (not present in meat meals) which come from mineral phosphates.
