Journal of the Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition (한국식품영양과학회지)

The Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition (한국식품영양과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Safety for the Supplement of Herbicide-resistant Rice in Old Male Rats

노령기 흰쥐에서 제초제 저항성 쌀의 급여에 대한 안전성 평가

  • 이성현 (농업과학기술원 농촌자원개발연구소 농산물가공이용과) ;
  • 박홍주 (농업과학기술원 농촌자원개발연구소 농산물가공이용) ;
  • 조소영 (농업과학기술원 농촌자원개발연구소 농산물이용) ;
  • 전혜경 (농업과학기술원 농촌자원개발연구소 농산물가공이용) ;
  • 박용환 (농업생명공학연구원 유전자제어공학과)
  • Published : 2004.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research was conducted to evaluate the safety of the herbicide-resistant rice, a genetically modified organism (GMO) developed by the Rural Development Administration by exposing it to 12 months old Sprague-Dawley rats for 8 weeks. The composition of herbicide-resistant brown rice with/without heating treatment was compared with those of conventional Ilpum brown rice with/without heating treatment to assess composition equivalence. Compositional analysis was performed to measure proximates, fiber, and minerals. The nutritional components of herbicide-resistant rice were similar to those of the nontransgenic control or were within the normal range of nontransgenic rice. Four groups of experimental male rats were fed one of the following diets for eight weeks: Ilpum brown rice (I) and its heated rice (IH) as non-GMO, and herbicide-resistant brown rice (G) and its heated rice (GH) as GMO- We checked clinical symptoms (anorexia, salivation, diarrhea, polyuria, anuria, fecal change), food intake, and water consumption every day, change of body weight once a week, and serum biochemistry and organ weights after 8 weeks of experimental feeding We did not find any significant differences in the above-mentioned items. These results suggested that genetically modified herbicide-resistant rice was compositionally equivalent to conventional Ilpum rice, and nutritional characteristics and safety of herbicide-resistant rice in old male rats treated for 8 weeks were not different from those of Ilpum rice, non-GMO.

본 연구는 농촌진흥청에서 개발된 유전자 변형 식품의 영양적 안전성을 검토하기 위하여 수행되었다. 발이 우리의 주식인 점을 고려하여 우선 안전성 이 검토되어야 할 시험 재료로 선정하였고, 유전자 변형(제초제 저항성) 쌀의 실질적 동등성 구명을 위해 일반 및 미량 영양소의 함량을 분석하였으며, 대표적 취약 계층인 노령기 모델에서 유전자 변형 쌀을 가지고 안전성을 검토하였다. 특히 항생제 저항성 유전자 마커가 현미 에 있을 수 있고 열처리시 변화될 수 있음을 고려하여 유전자 변형 품종의 현미 및 현미밥과 모종인 일품의 현미 및 현미밥으로 배합한 실험식이를 8주간 급여하였다. 그 결과 시험재료의 영양성분 함량에 큰 차이를 보이지 않았고, 실험식이를 급여하였을 때 모든 실험 동물에서 임상적 증상, 조직의 외형이나 무게 및 혈청 생화학적 지표에 차이가 없었다. 그러므로 본 실험에 사용된 유전자 변형 품종(제초제 저항성 )의 현미와 현미밥 모두 노령기 실험동물에 어떠한 부정적 영향도 미치지 않은 것으로 보인다. 그러나 유전자 변형식품의 안전성에 대해 종 더 보완된 in uiuo 실험법의 확립과 장기간의 급여에 따른 영향검토가 필요하고, 본 연구의 시험재료는 단지 제초제 저항성 품종의 현미에 대한 것으로 다른 유전자 변형 식품의 안전성에 대해서는 계속적인 확인 실험이 있어야 할 것으로 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Jeong JH, Han SS. 2000. Molecular breeding of herbicide resistance in higher plants. Korean J Weed Sci 20: 159-173.
  2. Young AL, Lewis CG. 1995. Biotechnology and potential nutritional implications for children. Pediatr Clin North Am 42: 917-930. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-3955(16)40022-2
  3. Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA, Bush RK. 1996. Identification of Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. N Engl J Med 334: 688-692. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103
  4. Hoef AM, Kok EJ, Bouw E, Kuiper HA, Keijer J. 1998. Development and application of a selective detection method for genetically modified soy and soy derived products. Food Addict Contam 15: 767-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652039809374708
  5. Koenig R. 1999. European researchers grapple with animal rights. Science 284: 1604-1606. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5420.1604
  6. Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S. 1999. Beyond 'substantial equivalence'. Nature 401: 525-526. https://doi.org/10.1038/44006
  7. Novak WK, Haslberger AG. 2000. Substatial equivalence of antinuitrients and internet plant toxins in genetically modified novel foods. Foods and Chemical Toxicol 38: 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6915(00)00040-5
  8. Kim TY, Che JH, Cho SD, Kang KS, Lee YS. 2001. Safety evaluation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) for a 90 day exposure in rats. J Toxicol Pub Health 17: 49-57.
  9. Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL, Balley MR, Mcdonald J,Holden LR, Fuchs RL. 1996. The composition of glyphosate tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J Nutr 126: 702-716. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/126.3.702
  10. Park SH. 2001. Safety assessment of food derived from genetically modified plants. Korean J Crop Sci 46: 14-23.
  11. Lee SH, Park HJ, Cho SY, Chun HK, Park YH, Joeng MH, Park SH. 2003. Evaluation of nutritional safety for the herbicide-resistanct rice in growing male rats. Korean J Nutr 36: 1-6.
  12. Korea Food & Drug Administration. 1999. Guides for safety evaluation of GMO.Food additives. in (http://www.cjfoodsafety. co.kr/contents/library/gmo/gmosimsa.htm).
  13. AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. Association of official analytical chemists, Washington DC. p 788.
  14. Lee SH. 2001. Annual report of national rural living science. National Rural Living Science Institute, Suwon. p 1-13.
  15. Folch J, Less M, Sloanestanley GH. 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipid from animal tissues. J Bio Chem 226: 497-509.
  16. National Rural Living Science Institute. 2001. Food composition table. 6th ed. p 36-40.
  17. Vasconcelos IM, Mata AA, Siebra EA, Oliveira JT, Carvalho AF, Melo VM, Carlini CR, Castelar LI. 2001. Nutritional study of two brazilian soybean (Glycine max) cultivars differing in the contents of antinutritional and toxic proteins. J Nutr Biochem 12: 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-2863(00)00148-0