Untargeted Metabolomics Are Not Useful in the Risk Assessment of GM Crops

Transparency in risk-disproportionate regulation of modern crop-breeding techniques

Despite over 25 years of safe deployment of genetically engineered crops, the number, complexity, and scope of regulatory studies required for global approvals continue to increase devoid of adequate scientific justification. Recently, there have been calls to further expand the scope of study and data requirements to improve public acceptance. However, increased regulation can actually generate consumer distrust due to the misperception that risks are high. We believe risk-disproportionate regulation as a means to advocate for acceptance of technology is counterproductive, even though some regulatory authorities believe it part of their mandate. To help avoid public distrust, the concept of regulatory transparency to demystify regulatory decision-making should be extended to clearly justifying specific regulatory requirements as: 1) risk-driven (i.e., proportionately addressing increased risk compared with traditional breeding), or 2) advocacy-driven (i.e., primarily addressing consumer concerns and acceptance). Such transparency in the motivation for requiring risk-disproportionate studies would: 1) lessen over-prescriptive regulation, 2) save public and private resources, 3) make beneficial products and technologies available to society sooner, 4) reduce needless animal sacrifice, 5) improve regulatory decision-making regarding safety, and 6) lessen public distrust that is generated by risk-disproportionate regulation.

Promoting Human Nutrition and Health through Plant Metabolomics: Current Status and Challenges

Simple Summary

This review summarizes the status, applications, and challenges of plant metabolomics in the context of crop breeding, food quality and safety, and human nutrition and health. It also highlights the importance of plant metabolomics in elucidating biochemical and genetic bases of traits associated with nutritive and healthy beneficial foods and other plant products to secure food supply, to ensure food quality, to protect humans from malnutrition and other diseases. Meanwhile, this review calls for comprehensive collaborations to accelerate relevant researches and applications in the context of human nutrition and health.

Abstract

Plant metabolomics plays important roles in both basic and applied studies regarding all aspects of plant development and stress responses. With the improvement of living standards, people need high quality and safe food supplies. Thus, understanding the pathways involved in the biosynthesis of nutritionally and healthily associated metabolites in plants and the responses to plant-derived biohazards in humans is of equal importance to meet people’s needs. For each, metabolomics has a vital role to play, which is discussed in detail in this review. In addition, the core elements of plant metabolomics are highlighted, researches on metabolomics-based crop improvement for nutrition and safety are summarized, metabolomics studies on plant natural products including traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for health promotion are briefly presented. Challenges are discussed and future perspectives of metabolomics as one of the most important tools to promote human nutrition and health are proposed.

Evaluation of the use of untargeted metabolomics in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops

BACKGROUND

The safety assessment of foods and feeds from genetically modified (GM) crops includes the comparison of key characteristics, such as crop composition, agronomic phenotype and observations from animal feeding studies compared to conventional counterpart varieties that have a history of safe consumption, often including a near isogenic variety. The comparative compositional analysis of GM crops has been based on targeted, validated, quantitative analytical methods for the key food and feed nutrients and antinutrients for each crop, as identified by Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED). As technologies for untargeted metabolomic methods have evolved, proposals have emerged for their use to complement or replace targeted compositional analytical methods in regulatory risk assessments of GM crops to increase the number of analyzed metabolites.

AIM OF REVIEW

The technical opportunities, challenges and strategies of including untargeted metabolomics analysis in the comparative safety assessment of GM crops are reviewed. The results from metabolomics studies of GM and conventional crops published over the last eight years provide context to enable the discussion of whether metabolomics can materially improve the risk assessment of food and feed from GM crops beyond that possible by the Codex-defined practices used worldwide for more than 25 years.

KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW

Published studies to date show that environmental and genetic factors affect plant metabolomics profiles. In contrast, the plant biotechnology process used to make GM crops has little, if any consequence, unless the inserted GM trait is intended to alter food or feed composition. The nutritional value and safety of food and feed from GM crops is well informed by the quantitative, validated compositional methods for list of key analytes defined by crop-specific OECD consensus documents. Untargeted metabolic profiling has yet to provide data that better informs the safety assessment of GM crops than the already rigorous Codex-defined quantitative comparative assessment. Furthermore, technical challenges limit the implementation of untargeted metabolomics for regulatory purposes: no single extraction method or analytical technique captures the complete plant metabolome; a large percentage of metabolites features are unknown, requiring additional research to understand if differences for such unknowns affect food/feed safety; and standardized methods are needed to provide reproducible data over time and laboratories.

Obligatory metabolomic profiling of gene-edited crops is risk disproportionate

It has been argued that the application of metabolomics to gene-edited crops would present value in three areas: (i) the detection of gene-edited crops; (ii) the characterization of unexpected changes that might affect safety; and (iii) building on the track record of rigorous government regulation in supporting consumer acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Here, we offer a different perspective, relative to each of these areas: (i) metabolomics is unable to differentiate whether a mutation has resulted from gene editing or from traditional breeding techniques; (ii) it is risk-disproportionate to apply metabolomics for regulatory purposes to search for possible compositional differences within crops developed using the least likely technique to generate unexpected compositional changes; and (iii) onerous regulations for genetically engineered crops have only contributed to unwarranted public fears, and repeating this approach for gene-edited crops is unlikely to result in a different outcome. It is also suggested that article proposing the utility of specific analytical techniques to support risk assessment would benefit from the input of scientists with subject matter expertise in risk assessment.