Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chemical Composition of Food Products from Genetically Modified Organisms

  • Reference work entry
Book cover Handbook of Food Chemistry

  • 7796 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter describes the safety assessment of food from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in terms of its chemical composition. An analysis of the chemical composition of a GMO relative to that of a defined comparator is the principal approach used to assess the food safety and nutritious value of the modified entity. The comparison is relative to the chemical composition of the raw plant/animal/microorganism, and when found equivalent, it is assumed that the processed food would be as safe and nutritious as the products from the counterparts. In exceptional cases, a comparative analysis of the products is indicated. Where differences are observed (intended or unintended), the focus would be on an assessment of possible risk. Examples of products from different types of crops are given, such as stacked traits, abiotic and biotic stress tolerance, and enhanced nutritional value, with a brief explanation of how the food safety assessment would be undertaken in each case. The focus in this chapter is on the chemical compositions of crops as these form the center of international research activities, and to a lesser extent on animals and microorganisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson JA (1996) Allergic reactions to foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36(S1):19–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australia and New Zealand Food Standards (FSANZ) (2010) Food derived from GM plants containing stacked genes. Available via Australian Government http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed Apr 2014

  • Bartolomaeus A, Parrott W, Bondy G, Walker K (2013) The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: limitations and recommendations. Crit Rev Toxicol 43(52):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betton G, Cockburn A, Harpur E, Hopkins J, Illing P, Lumley C, Connors T (1994) A critical review of optimum chronic rodent testing for the determination of non-tumorigenic toxic potential: a report by the BTS working party on duration of toxicity testing. Human Exp Toxicol 13:221–232

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Box RJ, Spielmann H (2005) Use of the dog as non-rodent test species in the safety testing schedule associated with the registration of crop and plant protection products (pesticides): present status. Arch Toxicol 79(11):615–626

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brinckman D (2000) The regulation of rBST: the European case. AgBioForum 3(2&3):164–172. Available via http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a15-brinckman.htm. Accessed Sept 2014

  • Bush RK, Hefle SL (1996) Food allergens. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36(S1):119–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cellini F, Chesson A, Colquhoun I, Constable A, Davies H, Engel K, …, Leguay JJ (2004) Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1089–1125

    Google Scholar 

  • Chassy BM (2010) Can omics inform a food safety assessment? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 58(3):S62–S70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chassy B, Hlywka JJ, Kleter GA, Kok EJ, Kuiper HA, McGloughlin M, Munro IC, Phipps RH, Reid JE (2005) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology. Food Nutr Bull 26(4):S321–S326

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemente TE, Cahoon EB (2009) Soybean oil: genetic approaches for modification of functionality and total content. Plant Physiol 151:1030–1040

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) (2009) Foods derived from modern biotechnology, 2nd edn. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program, FAO/WHO, Rome. Available via ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/a1554e/a1554e00.pdf. Accessed May 2012

  • Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) (2014) Procedural manual, 22nd edn. Secretariat of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Rome. Available via http://www.codexalimentarius.org/procedures-strategies/procedural-manual/en/. Accessed May 2012

  • Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health, Board of Life Sciences, Food Nutrition Board, and Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council of the National Academies (2004) Safety of genetically engineered foods: approaches to assessing unintended health effects. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Available via http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309092094/html/R1.html. Accessed Sept 2012

  • Constable A, Jonas D, Cockburn A, Davis A, Edwards G, Hepburn P, …, Samuels F (2007) History of safe use as applied to the safety assessment of novel foods and foods derived from genetically modified organisms. Food Chem Toxicol 45:2513–2525

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies H (2010) A role for ‘omics’ technologies in food safety assessment. Food Control 21:1601–1610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diawara MM, Trumble JT, Quiros CF (1993) Linear furanocoumarins of three celery breeding lines: implications for integrated pest management. J Agric Food Chem 41:819–824

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duffus CM, Duffus JH (1991) Introduction and overview. In: D’Mello JPF, Duffus CM, Duffus JH (eds) Toxic substances in crop plants. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham T, Doucet J, Snyder LU (2011) Risk of regulation or regulation of risk? A de minimus framework for genetically modified crops. Ag Bio Forum 14(2):61–70

    Google Scholar 

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2009) Consolidated presentation of the joint scientific opinion on the GMO and BIOHAZ panels on the ‘use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker genes in genetically modified plants’ and the scientific opinion of the GMO GM panel on consequences of the opinion on the use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker genes in genetically modified plant on previous EFSA assessment of individual GM plants. EFSA J 1108:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2011a) Guidance on the selection of comparators for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA J 9(5):2149:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2011b) Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants. EFSA J 9(5):2150:1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2011c) Guidance on the risk assessment of genetically modified microorganisms and their products intended for food and feed use. EFSA J 9(6):2193:1–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2012a) Guidance on the risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified animals and on animal health and welfare. EFSA J 10(1):2501:1–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2012b) Scientific opinion on an application (EFSA-GMO-NL-2009-70) for the placing on the market of genetically modified drought tolerant maize MON 87460 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto. EFSA J 10(110):2936:1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2013a) Consideration on the applicability of OECD TG453 on whole food/feed testing. EFSA J 11(7):3347:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2013b) Scientific opinion on application EFSA-GMO-NL-2007-45 for the placing on the market of herbicide-tolerant, high-oleic acid, genetically modified soybean 305423 for food and feed uses, import and processing under regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from pioneer. EFSA J 11(12):3499:1–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganjewala D, Kumar S, Asha DS, Ambika K (2010) Advances in cyanogenic glycosides biosynthesis and analysis of plants: a review. Acta Biol Szeged 54:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman RE, Tetteh AO (2011) Suggested improvements for the allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants used in food. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 11(4):317–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan GG, Chassy B (2012) Challenges for metabolomics as a tool in safety assessments. In: Roessner U (ed) Metabolomics. Regulatory Product Characterization and Safety Centre, Monsanto Company, St Louis

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan GG, Harrison JM (2012) Assessing compositional variability through graphical analysis and Bayesian statistical approaches; case studies on transgenic crops. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 28:15–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan GG, Stork LG, Riordan SG, Reynolds TL, Ridley WP, Masucci JD, MacIsaac S, Halls SC, Orth R, Smith RG, Wen L, Brown WE, Welsch M, Riley R, MacFarland D, Pandravada A, Glenn KC (2007) Impact of genetics and environment on nutritional metabolite components of maize grain. J Agric Food Chem 55:6177–6185

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Health Canada (2006) Novel food information: wines derived from the genetically modified wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae ML01. Available via http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/nf-an107decdoc-eng.php. Accessed May 2014

  • Herman RA, Chassy BM, Parrott W (2009) Compositional assessment of transgenic crops: an idea whose time has passed. Trends Biotechnol 27(10):555–557

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez-Gifford JA, Gifford CA (2013) Role of reproductive biotechnologies in enhancing food security and sustainability. Animal Front 3(30):14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) (2003) Best practices for the conduct of animal studies to evaluate crops genetically modified for input traits. International Life Sciences Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) (2004) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology. In: Lewis AJ (ed) Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, vol 3. International Life Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, pp 1–104

    Google Scholar 

  • International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) (2007) Best practices for the conduct of animal studies to evaluate crops genetically modified for output traits. International Life Sciences Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) (2008) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology: case studies. In: Lewis AJ (ed) Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, vol 7. International Life Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, pp 1–113

    Google Scholar 

  • International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) ILSI- Crop Composition database. Available via http://www.cropcomposition.org. Accessed Apr 2014

  • James C (2013) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2013, ISAAA briefs, no 46, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, ISAAA, c/o IRRI, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen van Rijssen FW, Morris EJ, Eloff JN (2013) Food safety: importance of composition for assessing genetically modified cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). J Agric Food Chem 61:8333–8339

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kok EJ, Kuiper HA (2003) Comparative safety assessment of biotech crops. Trends Biotechnol 21(10):439–444

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HP, Kok EJ (2001) Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. Plant J 27:503–528

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuiper HA, Kok EJ, Davies HV (2013) New EU legislation for risk assessment of GM food: no scientific justification for mandatory animal feeding trials. Agricultural & Environmental Biotechnology, News report Oct 2013, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusser M, Parisi C, Plan D, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2012) New plant breeding techniques: state of-the-art and prospects for commercial development. JRC Scientific and Technical reports EUR 24760

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer RS, DuVal AE, Jensen HR (2012) Patterns and processes in crop domestication: a historical review and quantitative analysis of 203 global food crops. New Phytol 196:29–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morandini P, Salamini F (2003) Plant biotechnology and breeding: allied for years to come. Trends Plant Sci 8:70–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Munro IC, Ford RA, Kennepohl E, Sprenger JG (1996) Correlation of structural class with no-observed-effect levels: a proposal for establishing a threshold of concern. Food Chem Toxicol 34(9):829–867

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1993) Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology. Concepts and principles. Available via OECD, Paris http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/18/41036698.pdf. Accessed Apr 2012

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2002–2014) Consensus documents for the safety of novel foods and feed. Available via www.oecd.org/biotrack. Accessed Apr 2014

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for the testing of chemicals. Available via http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/oecdguidelinesforthetestingofchemicals.htm. Accessed Apr 2014

  • Prakash CS (2001) The genetically modified crop debate in the context of agricultural evolution. Plant Physiol 126:8–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ricroch AE, Bergé JB, Kuntz M (2011) Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiol 155:1752–1761

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley WP, Shillito RD, Coats I, Steiner HY, Shawgo M, Phillips A, Dussold P, Kurtyka L (2004) Development of the international life sciences institute crop composition database. J Food Comp Anal 17:423–438

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sicherer SH, Sampson HA (2010) Food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 125(2):S116–S125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siritunga D, Sayre R (2004) Engineering cyanogen synthesis and turnover in cassava (Manihot esculenta). Plant Mol Biol 56:661–669

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slater A, Scott N, Fowler M (2003) The genetic manipulation of pest resistance. In: Plant biotechnology: the genetic manipulation of plants. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner H-Y, Halpin C, Jez J, Kough J, Parrot W, Underhill L, Weber NA, Hannah LC (2013) Evaluating the potential for adverse interactions within genetically engineered breeding stacks. Plant Physiol 161:1587–1594

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sten E, Skov PS, Anderson SB, Torp A, Oelsen A, …, Bindsley-Jensen U (2004) A comparative study of the allergenic potency of wild-type and glyphosate-tolerant gene-modified soybean cultivars. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immuno 112(1):21–28

    Google Scholar 

  • University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Statewide Biotechnology Workgroup (2012) Is the Bt protein safe for human consumption? Available via http://cubiotech.org. Accessed May 2014

  • US FDA AquAdvantage Salmon (2010) Available via http://www.fda.gov/downloads/advisorycommittees/committeesmeetingmaterials/veterinarymedicineadvisorycommittee/ucm224762.pdf. Accessed May 2014

  • US FDA GRAS Available via http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/default.htm. Accessed 10 Apr 2014

  • Vachon V, Laprade R, Schwartz J-L (2012) Current models of the mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal proteins: a critical review. J Invert Pathol 111(1):1–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weber N, Halpin C, Hannah LC, Jez JM, Kough J, Parrot W (2012) Crop genome plasticity and its relevance to food and feed safety of genetically engineered breeding stacks. Plant Physiol. doi:10.1104/pp.112.204271

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolt JD (2008) Understanding risk and safety assessment for genetically modified plants. Available via http://www.agribiotech.info/more-details-on-specific-issues/files/WoltRiskAssessmentsenttoweb02.pdf. Accessed 8 Sept 2014

  • World Health Organization (WHO) (1998) Toxicological evaluation of certain veterinary drug residues in food: recombinant bovine somatotropins, vol 41, WHO food additive series. INCHEM/WHO, Geneva, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO) (2012) Global environment monitoring system. Available via http://www.who.int/nutrition/landscape_analysis/nlis_gem_food/en/. Accessed May 2014

  • World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995) Official documents and legal text. Available via WTO www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm#agreements. Accessed 29 Apr 2014

  • World Trade Organization (WTO) (2006) EC-Approval and marketing of biotech products (DS291, 292, 293). Available via WTO www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds291sum_e.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2014

  • Zhou J, Harrigan G, Berman KH, Webb EG, Klusmeyer TH, Nemeth MA (2011) Stability in the composition equivalence of grain from insect-protected maize and seed from glyphosate-tolerant soybean to conventional counterparts over multiple seasons, locations, and breeding germplasms. J Agric Food Chem 59:8822–8828

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Paraclinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X04, Onderstepoort, 0110, South Africa

    Wilna Jansen-van-Rijssen

  2. School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    E. Jane Morris

Authors
  1. Wilna Jansen-van-Rijssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Jane Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wilna Jansen-van-Rijssen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Food and Nutritional Sciences Program,School of Life Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, China

    Peter Chi Keung Cheung

  2. Dairy Chemistry Department, Sheth M.C. College of Dairy Science, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India

    Bhavbhuti M. Mehta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this entry

Cite this entry

Jansen-van-Rijssen, W., Morris, E.J. (2015). Chemical Composition of Food Products from Genetically Modified Organisms. In: Cheung, P., Mehta, B. (eds) Handbook of Food Chemistry. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36605-5_24

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation