Grafting has been widely applied in agricultural production in order to utilize agriculturally valuable traits. The use of genetically modified (GM) plants for grafting with non-GM crops will soon be implemented to generate chimeric plants (transgrafting)*, and the non-GM edible portions thus obtained could fall outside of the current legal regulations. A number of metabolites and macromolecules are reciprocally exchanged between scion and rootstock, affecting the crop properties as food. Accordingly, the potential risks associated with grafting, particularly those related to transgrafting with GM plants, should be carefully evaluated based on scientific evidence. In this study, we prepared a hetero-transgraft line composed of non-GM tomato scion and GM-tobacco rootstock expressing firefly luciferase. We also prepared a homograft line (both rootstock and scion are from non-GM tomato) and a heterograft line (non-GM tobacco rootstock and non-GM tomato scion). The non-GM tomato fruits were harvested from these grafted lines and subjected to comprehensive characterization by multi-omics analysis. Proteomic analysis detected tobacco-derived proteins from both heterograft and hetero-transgraft lines, suggesting protein transfer from the tobacco rootstock to the tomato fruits. No allergenicity information is available for these two tobacco-derived proteins. The transcript levels of the genes encoding two allergenic tomato intrinsic proteins (Sola l 4.0101 and Sola l 4.0201) decreased in the heterograft and hetero-transgraft lines. Several differences were observed in the metabolic profiles, including α-tomatine and nicotine. The accumulation of tobacco-derived nicotine in the tomato fruits of both heterograft and hetero-transgraft lines indicated that the transfer of unfavorable metabolites from rootstock to scion should be assessed as a food safety concern. Further investigations are needed to clarify whether variable environmental conditions and growth periods may influence the qualities of the non-GM edible parts produced by such transgrafted plants.

Foodborne pathogens, such as Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella spp., develop antimicrobial resistance (AMR) over time, resulting in compromised food safety. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the prevalence, compliance against Malaysia’s veterinary standing procedure directive (APTVM 16 (c): 1/2011): Appendix 7¹³⁾, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles of S. aureus and Salmonella spp., in raw poultry meat, poultry meat products, and poultry-based ready-to-eat (RTE) foods. Here, 699 raw poultry meat and meat products samples were obtained from selected hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP)-certified poultry meat-processing plants. Additionally, 377 samples of poultry-based RTE meals were collected from dine-in establishments and hospital catering facilities in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Salmonella spp. and S. aureus were present in 2.1% and 2.8% of the analyzed samples, respectively. Salmonella spp isolated from raw poultry meat and its products displayed resistance to ampicillin (100%), chloramphenicol (87.0%), cefuroxime (60.9%), cefazolin (56.5%), and kanamycin (52.2%). Similarly, S. aureus isolated from raw poultry meat, its products, and poultry-based RTE foods exhibited resistance against tetracycline, chloramphenicol, penicillin, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim, kanamycin, and cefoxitin. The multi-antibiotic resistance (MAR) demonstrated by these foodborne pathogens makes their prevalence disconcerting. This highlights the need for more stringent monitoring and enduring sanitary and hygiene practices in HACCP establishments to prevent foodborne infections and potential transmission of AMR bacteria.

Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) conducted a risk assessment of cyphenothrin (CAS No. 39515-40-7), a pyrethroid insecticide, intended to be used to exterminate cockroaches in piggeries. This was based on documents of pigsty sprays containing the active substance d∙d-T-Cyphenothrin submitted, and risk assessment reports of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and others. The data of d-T80-Cyphenothrin and d∙d-T-Cyphenothrin, with different abundance ratios of the eight optical isomers composing both cyphenothrins, were used for the evaluation. The data used in the assessment include pharmacokinetics (rats), residues (rats), genotoxicity, acute toxicity (mice and rats), subacute toxicity (mice, rats and dogs), chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity (mice, rats and dogs), reproductive toxicity (rats and rabbits), neurotoxicity (rats), general pharmacology and others. In the various genotoxicity tests, no genotoxicity of d-T80-Cyphenothrin were observed on living organisms. d∙d-T-Cyphenothrin was not expected to cause genotoxity from the results of d-T80-Cyphenothrin studies. FSCJ thus recognized it to be possible to specify an acceptable daily intake (ADI). The lowest no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) obtained from all the studies was 3 mg/kg bw per day. This value was based on the following effects of administration using d-T80-Cyphenothrin in dogs: Vomiting in a 13-week subacute toxicity study in males and females, and vomiting and redness of the oral mucous membranes in a 52-week chronic toxicity study in males. Addition of the safety factor 2 was appropriate based on the fact that the toxicity of d∙d-T-Cyphenothrin was slightly stronger than that of d-T80-Cyphenothrin. FSCJ thus specified an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.015 mg/kg bw per day after applying a safety factor of 200 to the NOAEL.