Table 1 Classification of analyzed literature
Paper | Classification | Quote |
|---|---|---|
Weber et al., 2012 | Standpoint 1 (S1) | “Evaluating transgenic insertion stability in a GE stack does not provide information that can contribute to its safety assessment” |
Steiner et al., 2013 | Standpoint 1 (S1) | “If the events are unlikely to interact, no additional assessment should be needed to make a safety determination for the GE stack, because each individual event has already undergone extensive independent safety assessments” |
Kok et al., 2014 | Standpoint 1 (S1) | “… There is no sound scientific argument to require full dossiers for stacked GM event varieties that comprise single events that have already been elaborately assessed” |
Kramer et al., 2016 | Standpoint 1 (S1) | “An alternative food and feed risk assessment strategy for stacked GM events is suggested based on a problem formulation approach that utilizes (i) the outcome of the single event risk assessments, and (ii) the potential for interactions in the stack, based on an understanding of the mode of action of the transgenes and their products” |
Londo et al., 2011 | Standpoint 2 (S2) | “Understanding the potential fitness costs and benefits of combining transgenic traits in plant species is necessary to properly address impacts of crop production” |
Mesnage et al., 2012 | Standpoint 2 (S2) | “Potential side effects of combined pesticides residues should be assessed” |
Ben Ali et al., 2014 | Standpoint 2 (S2) | “Since stacked events contain multiple viral promoters the susceptibility to instabilities may be increased” |
Agapito-Tenfen et al., 2014 | Standpoint 2 (S2) | “GM plants containing stacked events cannot be considered generally recognized as safe without specific supporting evidence” |