Abstract
Transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic profiling techniques have been increasingly applied
to the analysis of genetically engineered (GE) crop plants with regard to their food safety and
nutritional equivalence. This literature survey is based on 44 recent “omic” comparisons between
GE and non-GE crop lines with or without deliberate modification of metabolic pathways.
Metabolomics is becoming the prevalent approach but does not yet provide added value for food
safety assessment compared to the currently used analytical methods. All three “omic”
approaches, on either crop plants or on Arabidopsis thaliana, a research model organism,
converge in their conclusions when the effects of a genetic modification itself is compared to
inter-variety variation or environmental effects. Transgenesis has less impact on the expression of
genomes or on protein and metabolite levels than conventional breeding or plant (non-directed)
mutagenesis when comparison is available. In addition, environmental conditions usually have a
larger impact. The present update highlights the need to place pair-wise differences between GE
crops and their comparators in a wider context of natural variation. None of the published “omic”
assessments has raised new safety concerns about marketed GE cultivars. From a scientific point
of view, these observations indicate that the current regulatory burden on GE crops should be
lowered. Mandatory use of “omics” techniques in reglementary GE food safety assessment
cannot be recommended. More basic research is required before non-targeted large-scale
methodologies can be internationally certified and accepted...
