Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Breakthrough Offers Promise of Improved GMO Testing

Does this food contain genetically modified organisms?

That’s what many consumers, including overseas trading partners, want to know about the food they’re buying.

A prime example of that is the recent initiative in California, dubbed the “Right to Know” campaign, which calls for food manufacturers in the Golden State to identify genetically engineered ingredients on the labels of food products sold in that state. 

GMO-sidebar.jpg

With almost as many as 1 million signatures gathered on the petition in time  for the April 22 deadline, organizers predict that the measure will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot. (The state requires just over a half million valid signatures for an initiative to qualify to be on the ballot.)  

On a global level, 40 countries, including all of Europe, Japan and China, require labeling of foods, or of certain foods, containing GMOs. The U.S. has resisted labeling, and in 1992 the Food and Drug Administration established a policy declaring there is no substantial or material difference between genetically engineered foods and foods that haven’t been genetically engineered.

Sleuthing for GMOs 

The question arises: How in the world do scientists determine if foods contain GMOs?

There are technologies that can do that, of course. But the conventional method, referred to as a PCR system (polymerase chain reaction), has some distinct disadvantages. It requires complex DNA extraction procedures, relatively expensive equipment, and assays that need to be carried out in a laboratory. It has also proven difficult to design cost-effective portable devices for PCR.

In what has been called “a major breakthrough” in GMO detection and monitoring, scientists at Lumora Ltd. in the United Kingdom have developed a method they say is far more practical because it’s simpler, quicker, more precise and less expensive than PCR.

An article about this breakthrough, which uses a combination of two technologies — bioluminescence and isothermal DNA amplification — was recently published in BioMed Central’s open access journal, BMC Biotechnology.

Lumora’s bioluminescence technology, known as BART, uses luciferase, the same enzyme that lights up fireflies  As part of the detection procedure, the luciferase is coupled to DNA detection so as to light up when it detects specific DNA and RNA sequences. By using DNA signals that are specific to genetically modified crops, the system can detect even low levels of contamination.

Lumora CEO Laurence Tisi told Food Safety News that compared to a lab-based PCR system, “Lumora’s hardware is probably a lot less than 1/10 the cost.”

He also said that Lumora’s new system can detect even very low levels of GMO ingredients.

Another advantage of this technology is that GMO detection can be done out in the field as well as in a food processing center.

As such, it may offer the advantage of being a “field-ready” solution for monitoring genetically modified crops and their interaction with wild plants or non-GM crops, as well as in food processing facilities.

Tisi said that the technology detects DNA and because all plants have DNA, it can detect GMO from any plants.

This comes as good news for those who want, or require, labeling for genetically engineered crops or for processed foods that contain genetically engineered crops. While genetically modified foods may be relatively safe by science-based approaches to risk assessment, the issue of labeling GMO foods is about public confidence and also about market protection. 

Tisi said that people want to know what they are eating, for all sorts of reasons. Being able to assess where their food comes from from has value to consumers, buyers and others, he said, since it means “they can be confident they are getting what they pay for.”

He pointed out that where there are regulations on food labeling, the producers need to be sure that their products comply with regulations. This varies from country to country, but in order to be able to state that a crop is non-GMO it is necessary to show that less than a certain percentage of the product contains any GMOs. In the European Union, for example, that percentage is 0.9 percent.

Lumora’s new technology can recognize GM presence as low as 0.1 percent in corn.

“In fact,” Tisi said, “there are DNA signatures in plants that can even tell you what variety the crop is and sometimes even where it came from.”

The work that Lumora has done on GMO detection was part of a much bigger EU-wide consortium known as Co-Extra, a project that looks at the co-existence and traceability of genetically modified crops.

“This project came to be as a direct consequence of the desire to better regulate GMO material in the EU,”  Tisi said.

When it comes to GMOs, the challenge for growers, processors and buyers is that even if a crop hasn’t been genetically engineered, it can be contaminated, often through pollen drift or cross-pollination, by a crop that has.

For wheat growers in Washington state, for example, that can spell the doom of their livelihoods since most of the wheat grown in that state is exported to countries that won’t accept shipments that contain any traces of GMOs.

For organic growers and processors, GMO contamination of their food is equally troubling since any food or food items that contain GMOs are not allowed to carry USDA’s  ”organic” label.

While concerns continue to swirl around whether foods containing GMOs can be harmful to the environment and human health, Tisi said that one common health concern is whether or not a GMO crop could produce an allergen.

On the food-safety front, Lumora’s GMO-detection technology can also be used to test for and identify pathogens such as Salmonella, which Tisi said “can have an enormous economic, and indeed, human impact.” 

He also predicts that increasingly the focus will also be on livestock, “since there could be more of a shift towards testing animals themselves to determine if they are carriers of pathogens such E. coli O157, as well as Campylobacter in chickens.”

“More testing on the livestock and their environment may help prevent down-stream contamination in food-processing,” he said.

Backing him up on that, the UK’s Food Standards Agency is calling for proposals and research and development to increase molecular surveillance of Campylobacter in chickens, which is the most common source of bacterial food poisoning in the U.K.

  

Lumora’s technology has been out-licensed for certain applications, but Tisi said he couldn’t comment on this except to say that the company would welcome commercialization partners for the GMO tests it has developed.

Welcome news

Jaydee Hanson, senior policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, told Food Safety News that Lumora’s GMO-detection technology is an example of efforts to make gene detection easier and cheaper.

“The good news for us who are tracking food safety is that this technology will help quickly identify if food contains GMOs as well as track pathogens like Salmonella quickly,” he said. “This is one of many technologies scientists are working on.”

Hanson also said it would be good for farmers to have a cheap reliable way to test products for GMOs that they’re shipping out. And it would allow testing by more agents, which would provide statistically valid results showing that a crop is not a GMO product or that it’s GMO-free.

It will also be a tool food processors can use, said Hanson, although the “ideal technology” probably needs to be even simpler and cheaper than this new technology developed by Lumora.

“But if they get this right, it could be used by the big food processors,” he said.

Mark Kastel, co-founder of The Cornucopia Institute told Food Safety News that Lumora’s new test “would have great utility” if it’s reasonably priced and quick enough.”

“There are a lot of organic companies that want to ascertain whether or not any of their products have become contaminated by genetically modified organisms,” he said.

Organic manufacturers that do a fair amount of testing generally find very low incidental levels of contamination — less than 1 percent.

But that’s not always the case. “When we find higher levels of contamination, they directly point to gross mismanagement or fraud,” he said. “And we quite frankly would like to be able to have a cost-effective mechanism to hold people responsible.”

The need to do that came to the forefront when Cornucopia tested some foods marketed as “natural foods” and found high levels of GMO commodities — up to 100 percent — in them.

In a news release about these findings, Cornucopia’s research director Will Fantle said that as part of that testing, the institute bought a readily available box of Kashi’s Go Lean cereal from a Whole Foods store. It then sent a sample to an accredited national lab for testing and found that the soy in what was billed as a “natural cereal” was 100 percent GMO.

In its defense, Kashi, which is owned by the Kellogg Company, put out a video that said that any genetically engineered contamination in its food was from incidental sources rather than crops intentionally grown from GMO seed.

While acknowledging that over 80 percent of the soybeans grown in North America are GMO, the company explained that “practices in agricultural storage, handling and shipping have led to an environment where GMOs are not sufficiently controlled.” 

But Kastel calls that “a smoke screen and a feeble attempt at damage control,” and points out that if a company wants to buy non-GMO crops, it can.

Kashi was not the only cereal put under Cornucopia’s microscope that failed to meet the test of being GMO-free. Some others were Barbara’s (Weetabix), Bare Naked and Peace.

The institute provides a rundown of cereal products it tested in “Cereal Crimesreport”  as well as a video about its testing of “natural” products in the breakfast aisle in supermarkets.

Kastel told Food Safety News that when it published “Cereal Crimes,” it spent quite a bit of money on GMO testing.

“We had to pick and choose products because of the cost,” he said. “A more reasonably priced testing protocol would be highly advantageous for organic industry watchdogs like the Cornucopia Institute and high-integrity manufacturers.”

Biotech industry response  Karen Batra, spokesperson for Biotechnology Industry Organization told Food Safety News that the organization has not yet taken a position on Lumora’s new technology.        

       

© Food Safety News
  • http://www.mapsofworld.com/ MapsofWorld

    All- New Infographic & Analysis About Genetic Engineering Of Crops & GMO http://www.mapsofworld.com/poll/should-genetically-modified-foods-be-banned.html

  • Arnie

    This technology will improve detection of fraud in organic and all-natural premium markets. Organic producers, if they can no longer cheat by substituting conventional product, will be compelled to focus on organic crop yields (which are limiting, even abysmal in current organic systems). Two birds killed with one stone here: cheaters exposed and incentive to move organic toward acceptably productive use of land resources.
    The greatest use for this new test will be to expose patent infringement. Holders of patented genetic property will be able easily to screen any and every instance of product in the marketplace to assure appropriate acknowledgements are made and royalties paid. As Kastel admits, any significant level of GMO presence in organic food indicates fraud, so cheaters will be brought to heel in short order. Should be interesting to learn who the cheaters really are!

  • Marcia

    If it is true over 80% of foods already benefit from GMO technology this new test will boost consumer confidence. First it might prove most of our modern food is really consistent quality and scientifically up to date as we think it is. That will bring people around to understanding we should only label the tiny fraction of backward foods that are guaranteed not to have GMO. Plus we can test those for deceptive advertising. The test only tells if it is present or absent, not how much is present so labeling food as “without GMO” and testing that is the only intelligent course of action (that’s why California is doing the opposite). I hope this test is simple so people can take it around with them when shopping at farmers markets to check if promises are being kept. Too bad there isn’t a surefire test to prove if something is organic when it is promised.

  • Wynann Brownell

    WHY is the US dragging it’s ever loving feet on not getting Lumora GMO-detection technology???? I really don’t give a rat’s behind what the FDA or scientist say in how safe GMO is. I for one DO NOT WANT IT IN MY FOOD that I eat!!!! I also signed the petition CA had!

  • Ted

    The BART test finally makes it possible to establish and regulate a GMO-free label for specialty retail foods, just like organic or kosher or halal. Labeling the few specialty products that are intended to contain no GMO will be so much easier and more efficient than labeling all ordinary foods made abundant safe & affordable by technologies like GE. So much more sensible to label a few boutique foods than to label everything with statements of the obvious. Brilliant! Even sworn technology haters should love this scientific breakthrough.

  • Gary Yee

    It’s very important to understand if the foods you buy are genetically modified or not. A powerful documentary I just saw at the San Francisco International Film Festival called BITTER SEEDS (http://www.teddybearfilms.com) explained what effect GM foods had on the farmers that grow GM crops. It’s a little known fact which is exposed in the documentary that in India a farmer commits suicide every 30 minutes.

  • http://www.isitorganic.ca Mischa Popoff

    Sorry folks, but this is a complete waste of time as far as the organic industry is concerned.
    Sure, organic activists complain – very loudly – about “evil” GMO contamination in organic fields. But it’s not like a fraudster in the organic industry will benefit in any way.
    The real challenge faced in organic farm-production is not GMOs, but fraud with good old fashion substances like pesticides, herbicides, and the BIG MONEYMAKER… synthetic ammonium nitrate which can easily TRIPLE yields.
    Does anyone really think no one who claims to be organic is using synthetic ammonium nitrate? How about “organic” farmers in China that obtain their USDA-NOP certification based on a single “inspection” – all on paper – performed by a Chinese state “inspector”? Yeah… real credible.
    Until we start testing for the very items that the organic industry has claimed to be opposed to in food since the early 1920s, there’s no point bothering with testing for GMOs. None.

  • Jim

    I hope that California bans GMO’s in food…. less Californians might be a good thing over time. Harsh but organic production will not be able to feed the world’s increasing population so we might as well start with California.
    Do you really believe that GMO cotton causes anyone to commit suicide? You must have eaten too much GMO contaminated food.

  • http://www.facebook.com/groups/378850855494732/ Diana Reeves

    Hi I’m a CT mom starting an anti GMO consumer email initiative. We had wide bi-partisan support for a bill that would have required labeling of GMO’s but it died because Monsanto threatened to sue the state if it passed. I’m fed up with corporate bullying and with the FDA. I started a group on facebook and I’m rounding up 5,000 people to bombard one food manufacturer a week with emails to ask if they’re using genetically modified ingredients, express concerns about their safety and give them an earful. Almost 700 people from all over the country joined my campaign last week. I hope you’ll join us. It won’t take but a minute to cut and paste one email a week – together we are stronger and we can get this done. This new GMO testing technology is wonderful. I’d love to be able to test products from the companies we email. I bet it’s going to be mighty expensive, though…
    Here are links to the group, also in yahoo for those not on facebook:
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/378850855494732/
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GMOFreeUSA/
    If the FDA won’t label it, we will!
    Diana Reeves
    One angry mom from Connecticut.

  • http://www.mylifevantage.com/blessedwellness ERS

    HI~Lets put more presure on our congressmen and ladies.
    No reason for draging out feet or our health and life will
    soon be gone in this USA. An alternative is to get the good
    news to everyone that if you take “Protndim” there is hope for
    you Health…check out the Global Website…www.pubmed.gov and
    serarch by Dr.Joe McCord ,Protandim, oxidative stress etc.
    or go to http://www.bigbluecalendar.com and check out the peer-reviews and new health patents.or check http://www.ABCLiveit.com or http://www.docmarvin.com id240604 for all the upto date info….You can take care of yourself or DIE,Choice is YOURS!!!!

  • Jason

    I want to test trader joes food. How can I?