International Center for Integrative Systems: Biology of GMOs

A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES applies modern computational systems biology methods to reveal genetically engineered soy (the GMO) creates significant disruption to the levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and glutathione, an important anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification.

In the GMO, formaldehyde dramatically accumulates (Illustration 1) and glutathione is depleted (Illustration 2).

gmo-formaldehyde-accumulation-3

Illustration 1: Formaldehyde Accumulation in GMO

(click to enlarge)

gmo-glutathione-depletion-3

Illustration 2: Glutathione Depletion in GMO 

(click to enlarge)

The study is the first systems biology analysis of its kind and is an outcome of three previous scientific papers, published in AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES and THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCES.

The U.S. government’s gold standard for safety assessment of GMOs is based on the principle of “substantial equivalence,” which deems a GMO safe for human consumption and allows it to be fast-tracked to market, without any real testing, if the GMO, based on certain criteria, is “substantially equivalent” to its non-GMO counterpart. The study suggests that if formaldehyde and glutathione were used as criteria for assessment, then the GMO would not be “equivalent” to its non-GMO counterpart, and would not have been allowed.

DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT HERE

 Read more from the source:

International Center for Integrative Systems: Biology of GMOs

Print Friendly
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “GMO Soy Produces Formaldehyde and Disrupts Plant Metabolism”

  1. mgw says:

    The very one! Thank you.

  2. mgw says:

    And thus “substantially equivalent” was shown to be “superficially indistinguishable”. On another note Barbara, could you possibly republish your excellent post on how ineffective labelling can be and how masking terms can evade the supposed intent of labelling. You demonstrated so perfectly that labelling is basically unenforceable, therefore meaningless. Could you please report this piece? I’d like to keep it front and center. Thank you for your work?