Unintended Compositional Changes in Genetically Modified (GM) Crops: 20 Years of Research

Abstract

The compositional equivalency between genetically modified (GM) crops and nontransgenic comparators has been a fundamental component of human health safety assessment for 20 years. During this time, a large amount of information has been amassed on the compositional changes that accompany both the transgenesis process and traditional breeding methods; additionally, the genetic mechanisms behind these changes have been elucidated. After two decades, scientists are encouraged to objectively assess this body of literature and determine if sufficient scientific uncertainty still exists to continue the general requirement for these studies to support the safety assessment of transgenic crops. It is concluded that suspect unintended compositional effects that could be caused by genetic modification have not materialized on the basis of this substantial literature. Hence, compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for GM crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

Demystification of GM crop costs: releasing late blight resistant potato varieties as public goods in developing countries

“…For the same reason, glycoalkaloid analysis in Process 3 is certainly justified, but any compositional assessment beyond that may not be needed. According to a recent paper, "after two decades of compositional equivalence studies… there appears to be overwhelming evidence that transgenesis is less disruptive of crop composition compared with traditional breeding, which itself has a tremendous history of safety" (Herman and Price, 2013). How much would the total cost be without these expenditures?…”

Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-by-Case Decision-Making

“…This is a fundamental requirement of the social pillar of sustainability. The weight of the evidence in favor of safety of crop improvement using GE is overwhelming, as reflected in the position statements of diverse, prestigious scientific societies [148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163]; scientific review papers [164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171], and hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers. This is not to suggest that there will never be a GE plant produced that has some unintended, negative effect on a consuming animal or human.…”

“…To my knowledge, there is no published, validated research showing any fundamental biochemical or biophysical difference between DNA recombined in a test tube vs. that recombined in a living cell. (2) Compared to other breeding techniques, targeted DNA manipulations achieved during transgenesis, cisgenesis, intragenesis, or genome editing are no more disruptive-and are commonly less disruptive-to a plant's genome, transcriptome, proteome, and composition than other methods of crop improvement [170,171,[195][196][197][198][199][200]. If unanticipated health consequences from GE manipulations merit concern, so do the unanticipated health consequences of each new conventionally bred crop variety [201].…”

The precautionary principle: Making managerial decisions on GMOs is difficult

“…Compositional safety is considered in the context of the normal composition of the crop by including a number of commercial non-GM crops in the trials that are conducted across several environments. Safety is informed by considering the normal array of compound levels present in crops that have a history of safe consumption 19 including the antinutrients, toxicants and endogenous allergens of the crop. The nutritional value of the crops is an important consideration in the assessment.…”

“…The debate also includes evaluation of uncertainty in risk assessment, the validity of animal models 54 , variability in data 19 and lack of sufficient knowledge 47 . Approaches to assessment of GMOs, for example the substantial equivalence, and concepts of familiarity and 'history of safe use' have been criticised as pseudoscience.…”