, 2007 and Gordon and Waterhouse, 2007). They also readily transfer selleck to mammals through food where they can circulate in blood and alter gene expression in organs (Hirschi, 2012 and Zhang et al., 2012a). The stability and transmissibility of dsRNAs suggest the potential for existence of exposure routes that are relevant to human and environmental risk assessments of genetically engineered/modified (GM) organisms. As the great majority of existing GMOs in the environment or human food have been modified to introduce one or more additional proteins, there has been no formal international guidance on the risks specific to GMOs that introduce a new dsRNA, much less

the development and testing of validated safety assurance procedures specific to dsRNA. The topic is gaining attention as evidenced by recent conferences and reviews (CERA, 2011 and Parrott et al., 2010), but what is emerging is an ad hoc treatment of

the various products that intentionally create novel dsRNA molecules, with most (perhaps all so far) regulators not considering the potential for adverse effects, particularly any unintended adverse effects of the dsRNA. We examine the history of risk assessment of GMOs producing dsRNA, with a focus on the regulatory contexts of Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. Navitoclax price Australia and New Zealand have different regulators for food and the environment whereas Brazil has one regulator that performs

both functions. We show similarities in the approach by these three countries buy Depsipeptide to considering the risks of dsRNA. As new information becomes available, these regulatory procedures will no doubt evolve. The reason for this analysis is to both create a historical record of the emergence of this risk and for this risk to serve as another case study in how ‘early warnings’ may be incorporated into risk assessments at the cutting edge of technology. Risk assessments are required on GM plants prior to use as food or release into the environment in many countries (Paoletti et al., 2008). The Codex Alimentarius Commission, a joint UN Food and Agriculture and World Health Organization, provides international guidance on conducting such risk assessments for human foods (Codex, 2003a, Codex, 2003b and Codex, 2008). This body is recognized by many countries as the appropriate body for issuing guidance on food (e.g., Brent et al., 2003). Codex promotes trade harmonization by limiting the range of potential objections to transboundary movement of GM-based products (Millstone and van Zwanenberg, 2002 and Paoletti et al., 2008). The closest equivalent of the Codex on the environmental risk assessment of GMOs is the Secretariat to the Convention on Biodiversity which provide guidance in accordance with Annex III of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (AHTEG, 2010).