<i>In vivo</i> experiments on the safety evaluation of GMcomponents of feeds and foods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last five years, the global area of transgenic crop (GM-genetically modified) cultivation increased 25-fold. About 98% of GM crops are grown in the USA, Argentina and Canada from where they are sent to many importers of soyabean and maize. The results of feeding experiments indicate that soyabean meal obtained from herbicide-tolerant lines and insect-resistant maize are substantially and nutritionally equivalent to their conventional lines. A higher content of insecticidal a-amylase inhibitors (as well as lectins and alkaloids) may increase plants' resistance to insect attack, as well as the decrease nutritional value of seeds. Evaluation of the concordance of the chemical composition of transgenic and conventional crops (i.e., verification of substantial equivalence) is not sufficient for proving the safety of transgenic food. Sub-chronic in vivo experiments as well as comparison of nutritional equivalence of transgenic and conventional crops are advisable. Such actions are justified not only by the possibility of undesirable transgenic effects, but also by the consumer's right to explicit information on food safety. Without evaluation of nutritional equivalence, information on GM-food safety is much more deficient than existing knowledge on the quality of feeds used in animal nutrition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".