Research Determines if Unintended Cosequences Plague GMO Pro

Discussions regarding real and/or perceived consequences of GMOs

Research Determines if Unintended Cosequences Plague GMO Pro

Postby buzz0x0000 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:34 pm

Research coordinated by Cornell University professor compared the "metabolome" of genetically modified tomato and those of a wide assortment of garden, heirloom, and other non-GMO varieties and found no significant differences between GMO and non-GMO fruit. The possibility of "unintended" or unknown biochemicals in food is frequently cited by the anti-technology and anti-GMO crowd. Now real scientific evidence exists to demonstrate these "objections" of the unknown are without merit and imaginary.

Does genetic manipulation causes unintended changes in food quality and composition? Are genetically modified (GM) foods less nutritious than their non-GM counterparts, or different in unknown ways?

Despite extensive cultivation and testing of GM foods, those questions still linger in the minds of many consumers. Now a new study in the March 2014 issue of The Plant Genome demonstrates a potentially more powerful approach to answering them.

In the research led by Owen Hoekenga, a Cornell University adjunct assistant professor, scientists used a water-alcohol solvent to extract roughly 1,000 biochemicals, or "metabolites," from the fruit of tomatoes they'd genetically engineered to delay fruit ripening. They then compared this metabolic profile from the GM fruit to the profile of its non-GM, parent variety.

Many metabolites, including pigments, amino acids, sugars, and various health-promoting compounds, are known to contribute to fruit quality and nutrition. And extracting and analyzing hundreds of them at once gives researchers a snapshot of the fruit's physiology-known as the "metabolome"-which can be compared against others. In this way, "metabolomic" analysis is very similar to genomics, where geneticists compare DNA sequence data to understand how genetically divergent different organisms are.

When Hoekenga and his colleagues performed their analysis, they did in fact uncover metabolic differences in the GM fruit relative to its parent, although these changes were mostly seen in biochemicals related to fruit ripening, Hoekenga says. "So that's part of an intended effect."

But when the scientists compared the metabolome of the GM tomato with those of a wide assortment of garden, heirloom, and other non-GM tomatoes, they found no significant differences overall. In other words, although the GM tomato was distinct from its parent, its metabolic profile still fell within the "normal" range of biochemical diversity exhibited by the larger group of varieties.

The finding suggests little or no accidental biochemical change due to genetic modification in this case, as well as a "useful way to address consumer concerns about unintended effects" in general, Hoekenga says.
He explains that the FDA already requires developers of GM crops to compare a handful of key nutritional compounds in GM varieties relative to their non-GM parents. Part of biotechnology risk assessment, the process is designed to catch instances where genetic manipulation may have affected nutritional quality, for example.

The approach of Hoekenga's team, in contrast, doesn't decide ahead of time which metabolites are important to measure, suggesting it could be more likely to snare a truly unexpected impact. "We throw a net in the water and try to get as many fish as we can," Hoekenga says.

Moreover, comparing a GM variety to diverse cultivars can help both scientists and consumers put into context any biochemical changes that are observed. "We accept that there isn't just one kind of tomato at the farmer's market. We look for diverse food experiences," Hoekenga says. "So we think that establishing the range of acceptable metabolic variability [in food] can be useful for examining GM varieties."

The techniques don't apply only to tomato. "The method can be applied to any plant or crop," Hoekenga says. "We've made something fundamentally useful that anyone can use and improve on." His group has already characterized the corn metabolome, and he hopes plant breeders will begin to see the utility of metabolomics, as well.
What we keep getting is more technology. All we really want is just stuff that works.
buzz0x0000
Site Admin
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 8:50 am

Re: Research Determines if Unintended Cosequences Plague GMO

Postby buzz0x0000 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:36 pm

Editor's Note: This is BIG news and important research supporting the safety of GMOs!
What we keep getting is more technology. All we really want is just stuff that works.
buzz0x0000
Site Admin
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 8:50 am


Return to GMOs and Unintended Consequences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron