Biotech crops no different from conventional crops

Genetically engineered (GE) crops are no different from conventional crops.

“To date, no scientifically valid demonstrations have shown that food safety issues of foods containing GE ingredients are greater than those from conventionally or organically produced foods,” according to a new publication released by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA).

ISAAA—based in the Philippines, Kenya and the United States—is a not-for-profit international organization which promotes the benefits of crop biotechnology and shares science-based information and appropriate technology to the public, including farmers and policy makers.

The safety of genetically-engineered crops and foods, just as those created by classical breeding and mutation and grown conventionally or organically, needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis so that informed decisions can be made about their utility, safety and appropriateness, ISAAA says in a primer, “Agricultural Biotechnology (A Lot More than Just GM Crops)”.

Data and information from peer-reviewed science on the safety of these products should be a part of the information considered when growing and consuming foods from these crops, it says, adding that factors beyond the technical, science-based facts should also be considered during the decision-making process.

“Although scientific testing and governmental regulation can reduce the safety risks of conventionally and organically produced and genetically engineered crops and food, 100 percent safety is not achievable,” it says.

However, before GE foods and products made from GE crops are approved for use, they have undergone safety testing by the companies or institutions that developed them. Data were reviewed by government regulatory agencies and scientific reviewers based on internationally-accepted protocols.

Frequently, GE foods are also tested by outside groups and the results published in respected journals reviewed by scientists. The process is comparable to safety assessments for pharmaceutical drugs and biomarkers.

“All GE products in the marketplace have undergone full reviews by regulatory agencies regarding safety and content relative to unmodified forms. Submitting the safety data is in the developer’s best interests given the legal liabilities incurred should a problem with the food arise following market introductions,” ISAAA says.

In July 2007, the European Food Safety Authority released statements on the fate of genes and proteins in food and feed: “After ingestion, a rapid degradation into short DNA or peptide fragments is observed in the gastrointestinal tract of animals and humans”.

To date, it said, “a large number of experimental studies with livestock have shown that recombinant DNA fragments or proteins derived from gene-modified plants have not been detected in tissues, fluids or edible products of farm animals”

According to the ISAAA, gene-modified foods are tested in comparison with conventional counterparts in terms of the nutritional composition: levels of protein, carbohydrate, fat, vitamin, mineral, fiber, moisture and phytochemicals, and analyzed if the composition is substantially equivalent.

Gene-modified crops and conventional crops should have been grown in comparable conditions to eliminate the effect of the environment in the nutritional composition.

There are also gene-modified crops which are developed to change the nutritional profiles of the foods such as those with increased Beta-carotene, flavonoids, calcium, folate and iron availability.

According to the policy of the US Food and Drug Administration, gene-modified foods with altered nutritional traits must be labeled to indicate nutritional differences; one example is a low-linoleic oil from gene-modified soybeans that can be used instead of trans fat-containing oils. Such crops should be tested for substantial equivalence to compounds unrelated to the introduced trait. (SciPhil)