Search

Background Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may experience venous thrombosis while data regarding arterial thrombosis are sparse. Methods Prospective multicenter study in 5 hospitals including 373 patients with Covid-19-related pneumonia. Demographic data, laboratory findings including coagulation tests and comorbidities were reported. During the follow-up any arterial or venous thrombotic events and death were registered. Results Among 373 patients, 75 (20%) had a thrombotic event and 75 (20%) died. Thrombotic events included 41 venous thromboembolism and 34 arterial thrombosis. Age, cardiovascular disease, intensive care unit treatment, white blood cells, D-dimer, albumin and troponin blood levels were associated with thrombotic events. In a multivariable regression logistic model, intensive care unit treatment (Odds Ratio [OR]: 6.0; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.8–12.6; p p = 0.022); and albumin levels (OR: 0.49; 95% CI 0.28–0.87; p = 0.014) were associated with ischemic events. Age, sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure, coronary heart disease, intensive care unit treatment, in-hospital thrombotic events, D-dimer, C-reactive protein, troponin, and albumin levels were associated with mortality. A multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that in-hospital thrombotic events (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.72; 95% CI 1.59–4.65; p p = 0.001), and albumin (HR: 0.447; 95% CI 0.277–0.723; p = 0.001) predicted morality. Conclusions Covid-19 patients experience an equipollent rate of venous and arterial thrombotic events, that are associated with poor survival. Early identification and appropriate treatment of Covid-19 patients at risk of thrombosis may improve prognosis.

© 2020 European Food Safety Authority., Maize MZIR098 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate‐ammonium‐containing herbicides and resistance to certain coleopteran pests. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MZIR098 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for neutral detergent fibre (NDF) in grains, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the eCry3.1Ab, mCry3A and PAT proteins as expressed in maize MZIR098, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MZIR098. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MZIR098 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZIR098 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non‐GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MZIR098 grains into the environment, maize MZIR098 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZIR098. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MZIR098, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM maize reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (three‐event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single soybean events: MON 87705, MON 87708 and MON 89788. This combination is intended to alter the fatty acid profile in the seed (in particular increasing the levels of oleic acid) and tolerance to glyphosate‐based and dicamba herbicides. The Genetically Modified Organisms Panel previously assessed the three single soybean events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single soybean events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. In the case of accidental release of viable three‐event stack soybean seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and the reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788. Considering the altered fatty acid profile of the three‐event stack soybean, a proposal for post‐market monitoring needs to be provided by the applicant. The GMO Panel notes that in the context of this application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2015‐126 the applicant did not provide a 90‐day study on MON 87705 soybean in line with the applicable legal requirements. Therefore, the GMO Panel is not in the position to finalise the risk assessment of soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 under the current regulatory frame.

© 2020 European Food Safety Authority., Oilseed rape MS11 has been developed to confer male sterility and tolerance to glufosinate‐ammonium‐containing herbicides. Based on the information provided in the application and in line with the scope of application EFSA‐GMO‐BE‐2016‐138, the genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel concludes that the molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic characteristics tested between oilseed rape MS11 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. No conclusions can be drawn for the compositional analysis due to the lack of an appropriate compositional data set. No toxicological or allergenicity concerns are identified for the Barnase, Barstar and PAT/bar proteins expressed in oilseed rape MS11. Owing to the incompleteness of the compositional analysis, the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment of oilseed rape MS11 cannot be completed. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape MS11 seeds into the environment, oilseed rape MS11 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the scope of the application. Since oilseed rape MS11 is designed to be used only for the production of hybrid seed, it is not expected to be commercialised as a stand‐alone product for food/feed uses. Thus, seeds harvested from oilseed rape MS11 are not expected to enter the food/feed chain, except accidentally. In this context, the GMO Panel notes that, oilseed rape MS11 would not pose risk to humans and animals, while the scale of environmental exposure will be substantially reduced compared to a stand‐alone product.

Soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (four‐event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87751, MON 87701, MON 87708 and MON 89788. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events have been identified that would lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological and allergenicity assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack soybean, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four‐event stack soybean into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack soybean. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack soybean is as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411. The genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and four of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the four subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins and dsRNA in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the six maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to the application for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified (GM) maize 3272 (EFSA‐GMO‐UK‐2006‐34). The applicant conducted new agronomic, phenotypic and compositional analysis studies on maize 3272 and assessed the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein, addressing elements that remained inconclusive from previous EFSA opinion issued in 2013. The GMO Panel is of the opinion that the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics as well as forage and grain composition of maize 3272 do not give rise to food and feed safety, and nutritional concerns when compared to non‐GM maize. Considering the scope of this application and the characteristics of the trait introduced in this GM maize, the effect of processing and potential safety implications of specific food or feed products remain to be further investigated. Regarding the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein and considering all possible food and feed uses of maize 3272, the Panel concludes that the information provided does not fully address the concerns previously raised by the Panel in 2013. Owing to the nature and the knowledge available on this protein family, it is still unclear whether under specific circumstances the alpha‐amylase AMY797E has the capacity to sensitise certain individuals and to cause adverse effects. To further support the safety of specific products of maize 3272, the applicant provided thorough information relevant for the allergenicity assessment of dried distiller grains with solubles (DDGS), which is the main product of interest for importation into the EU. Having considered the information provided on this product, the Panel is of the opinion that under the specific conditions of use described by the applicant, DDGS produced from maize 3272 does not raise concerns when compared to DDGS from non‐GM maize.

Recent epidemiological studies have demonstrated that the consumption of healthy foods that are particularly rich in polyphenols might reduce the incidence of cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. In particular, chlorogenic acids (CGAs) occur ubiquitously in food and represent the most abundant polyphenols in the human diet. A number of beneficial biological effects of CGAs, such as anti-inflammatory activity, anti-carcinogenic activity, and protection against neurodegenerative diseases, have been reported. However, the molecular mechanisms at the base of these biological activities have not yet been investigated in depth. By combining NMR spectroscopy, molecular docking, surface plasmon resonance and ex vivo assays of the Ras-dependent breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231, we contribute to the elucidation of the molecular basis of the activity of CGAs and natural extracts from green and roasted coffee beans as chemoprotective dietary supplements.

The scope of application EFSA-GMO-DE-2016-133 is for food and feed uses, import and processing ofgenetically modified (GM) maize MZHG0JG in the European Union. Maize MZHG0JG was developed toconfer tolerance to the herbicidal active substances glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium. Themolecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feedsafety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositionalcharacteristics tested between maize MZHG0JG and its conventional counterpart needs furtherassessment, except for early stand count (pre-thinning). The GMO Panel does not identify safetyconcerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the mEPSPS and PAT proteins as expressed inmaize MZHG0JG, andfinds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overallallergenicity of maize MZHG0JG. The nutritional impact of food/feed derived from maize MZHG0JG isexpected to be the same as that of food/feed derived from the conventional counterpart andcommercial non-GM maize reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZHG0JG isnutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize referencevarieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case ofaccidental release of viable maize MZHG0JG grains into the environment, maize MZHG0JG would notraise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reportingintervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZHG0JG. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considersthat maize MZHG0JG, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart andthe tested non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animalhealth and the environment.

The potential impact of global temperature change on global crop yield has recently been assessed with different methods. Here we show that grid-based and point-based simulations and statistical regressions (from historic records), without deliberate adaptation or CO2 fertilization effects, produce similar estimates of temperature impact on wheat yields at global and national scales. With a 1 °C global temperature increase, global wheat yield is projected to decline between 4.1% and 6.4%. Projected relative temperature impacts from different methods were similar for major wheat-producing countries China, India, USA and France, but less so for Russia. Point-based and grid-based simulations, and to some extent the statistical regressions, were consistent in projecting that warmer regions are likely to suffer more yield loss with increasing temperature than cooler regions. By forming a multi-method ensemble, it was possible to quantify ‘method uncertainty’ in addition to model uncertainty. This significantly improves confidence in estimates of climate impacts on global food security.