Statistical considerations for the safety evaluation of GMOs

EFSA Journal

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

compositional analysis; confidence interval; difference test; equivalence limits; equivalence test; field trials; GMO; mixed model; proof of hazard; proof of safety

Indexed keywords

EID: 84979490490     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18314732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1250     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Altman D. and Bland J.M. 1995. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. British Medical Journal, 311:485.
2. Altman D. and Bland J.M. 2004. Confidence intervals illuminate absence of evidence. British Medical Journal, 328:1016–1017.
3. Anon. 2007. EPPO Guideline for the efficacy Evaluation of plant protection products: Design and Analysis of Efficacy Evaluation Trials, PP 1/152(3). EPPO/OEPP, Paris.
4. Basford K.E. and Cooper M. 1998. Genotype × environment interactions and some considerations of their implications for wheat breeding in Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 49: 153–174.
5. Benjamini Y and Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 57: 289–300.
6. Berger R.L. 1982. Multiparameter hypothesis testing and acceptance sampling. Technometrics, 24: 295–300.
7. Berger R.L. and Hsu J.C. 1996. Bioequivalence trials, intersection-union tests and equivalence confidence sets. Statistical Sciences, 11: 283–319.
8. Bofinger E. and Bofinger M. 1995. Equivalence with respect to a control: stepwise tests. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 57: 721–733.
9. Brown L.D., Casella G. and Hwang J.T.G. 1995. Optimal confidence sets, bioequivalence, and the limaçon of Pascal. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90: 880–889.
10. Chen Y.-H. and Zhou X.-H. 2006. Interval estimates for the ratio and the difference of two lognormal means. Statistics in Medicine, 25: 4099–4113.
11. Clark S.J., Rothery P. and Perry J.N. 2005. Farm Scale Evaluations of spring-sown genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops: a statistical assessment. Proc. R. Soc. series B, 273, 237– 243. doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3282.
12. Clark S.J., Rothery P., Perry J.N. and Heard M.S. 2007. Analysis of within-field variation and assessment of sampling schemes for arable weeds using data from the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Weed Research, 47: 157–163.
13. Codex Alimentarius. 2003. Codex principles and guidelines on foods derived from biotechnology. Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, FAO, Rome.
14. Dilba B., Bretz F., Guiard V., Hothorn L.A. 2004. Simultaneous confidence intervals for ratios with application to the comparison of several treatments with a control. Meth. Inf Medicine 43: 465–469.
15. Dudoit S., Shaffer J.P. and Boldrick J.C. 2003. Multiple hypothesis testing in microarray experiments. Statistical Science, 18: 71–103.
16. EC. 2003. Guidance document for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. Joint Working Group on Novel Foods and GMOs (SCP, SCF and SCAN), European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General.
17. Enot D.P. and Draper J. 2007. Statistical measures for validating plant genotype similarity assessments following multivariate analysis of metabolome data. Metabolomics, 3: 349–355.
18. EFSA. 2006. Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy.
19. EFSA. 2007. EFSA review of statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 863 90-day rat feeding study. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy.
20. EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials. 2008. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46: S2–S70.
21. EMEA. 2001. Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. Document CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98, European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products, London, UK.
22. FDA. 1997. Div. of Bio-equivalence, Office of Generic Drugs. Statistical procedures for *bioequivalence studies using standard two-treatment crossover design. In: Guidance for Industry, Rockville, MD, USA.
23. FDA. 2001. Guidance for Industry-Statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
24. Fieller E.C. 1954. Some problems in interval estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 16: 175–185.
25. Gardner M.J. and Altman D.G. 1986. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. British Medical Journal, 292: 746–750.
26. Hammond B., Lemen J., Dudek R., Ward D., Jiang C., Nemeth M. and Burns J. 2006. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 44: 147–160.
27. Herman R.A., Storer N.P., Phillips A.M., Prochaska L.M. and Windels P. 2007. Compositional assessment of event DAS-59122-7 maize using substantial equivalence. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 47: 37–47.
28. Hill R.A. and Sendashonga C. 2003. General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: Lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2: 81–88.
29. Hoenig J.M. and Heisley D.M. 2001. The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. Am. Stat., 55: 19–24.
30. Hothorn L.A. and Oberdoerfer R. 2006. Statistical analysis used in the nutritional assessment of novel food using the proof of safety. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 44: 125–135.
31. Hothorn T. and Munzel U. 2002. Non-parametric confidence interval for the ratio. Report University of Erlangen, Department Medical Statistics 2002; available via: www.stat.uni-muenchen.de/-hothorn/bib/TH_TR.html.
32. Kenward M.G. and Roger J.H. 1997. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics, 53: 983–997.
33. Kieser M. and Hauschke D. 2005. Assessment of clinical relevance by considering point estimates and associated confidence intervals. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 4: 101–107.
34. Kuiper H.A., Kleter G.A., Noteborn H.P.J.M. 2002. Substantial equivalence-an appropriate paradigm for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods? Toxicology, 181: 427–431.
35. Lindley D. 1998. Decision analysis and bioequivalence trials. Statistical Science, 13: 136–141.
36. Munk A. and Pflüger R. 1999. 1-α equivalent confidence rules for convex alternatives are α/2-level tests-with applications to the multivariate assessment of bioequivalence. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94: 1311–1319.
37. McNaughton J.L., Roberts M., Rice D., Smith B., Hinds M., Schmidt J., Locke M, Bryant A., Rood T., Layton R., Lamb I. and Delaney B. 2007. Feeding performance in broiler chickens fed diets containing DAS-59122-7 maize grain compared to diets containing non-transgenic maize grain. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 132: 227–239.
38. Newman M.C. 2008. “What exactly are you inferring?” A loser look at hypothesis testing. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27: 1013–1019.
39. Nordic Council. 2000. Safety assessment of novel food plants. Chemical analytical approaches to the establishment of substantial equivalence. TemaNord 1998:591. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, DK.
40. Oberdoerfer R.B., Shillito R.D., De Beuckeleer M and Mitten D.H. 2005. Rice (Oryza sativa L.) containing the bar gene is compositionally equivalent to the nontransgenic counterpart. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53: 1457–1465.
41. Pawitan Y., Michiels S., Koscielny S., Gusnanto A. and Ploner A. 2005. False discovery rate, sensitivity and sample size for microaraay studies. Bioinformatics, 21: 3017–3024.
42. Perry J.N., Rothery P., Clark S.J., Heard M.S. and Hawes C. 2003. Design, analysis and power of the Farm-Scale Evaluations of Genetically-Modified Herbicide-Tolerant crops. Journal of Applied Ecology: 40, 17–31.
43. Romano J.P. 2005. Optimal testing of equivalence hypotheses. The Annals of Statistics, 33: 1036–1047.
44. Quan H., Bolognese J. and Yuan W.Y. 2001. Assessment of equivalence on multiple endpoints. Statistics in Medicine, 20: 3159–3173.
45. Schuirmann D.J. 1987. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 15: 657–680.
46. Shaffer J.P. 1995. Multiple hypothesis testing. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 46: 561–584.
47. Spilke J., Piepho H.P. and Hu X. 2005. A simulation study on tests of hypotheses and confidence intervals for fixed effects in mixed models for blocked experiments with missing data. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, 10: 374–389.
48. Storey J.D. 2002. A direct approach to false discovery rates. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 64: 479–498.
49. Storey J.D. and Tibshirani R. 2003. Statistical significance for genomewide studies. PNAS, 100: 9440–9445.
50. Tamhane A.C. and Logan B.R. 2004. Finding the maximum safe dose level for heteroscedastic data. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 14: 843–856.
51. Tempelman R.J. 2004. Experimental design and statistical methods for classical and bioequivalence hypothesis testing with an application to dairy nutrition studies. Journal of Animal Science, 82: E162–E172.
52. Walters S.J. 2008. Consultants' forum: should post hoc sample size calculations be done? Pharmaceutical Statistics, published online DOI: 10.1002/pst.334.
53. Wang W., Hwang J.T.G. and Dasgupta A. 1999. Statistical tests for multivariate bioequivalence. Biometrika, 86: 395–402.
54. Wellek S. 2002. Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence. CRC Press, ISBN: 1584881607, 284 pp.
55. WHO. 1995. Application of the principle of substantial equivalence to the safety evaluation of foods or food components from plants derived by modern biotechnology. Report of a WHO workshop, WHO, Geneva.