European Union reviews, rebukes bizarre Ayyadurai claim of formaldehyde in GMO soy

| January 8, 2016
Screen Shot at AM
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

The food safety regulator for the European Union has concluded that a recent journal article claiming that formaldehyde accumulated in genetically modified soybeans didn’t hold much water (and the soybeans contained essentially no formaldehyde). The rebuke — the first from a government entity — arrives amid a host of scientists who disputed the validity of the paper, and anti-GMO groups that praised it.

alarming_new_evidence_GMOs_Formaldehyde_20151-197x300Last summer, V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai — a scientist best known for developing an email program — and co-author Prabhakar Deonikar published a paper in what’s considered a predatory journal (also known as a pay-for-play journal in which writers “buy” their way to publication) entitled “Do GMOs Accumulate Formaldehyde and Disrupt Molecular Systems Equilibria? Systems Biology May Provide Answers.”

In a press release from Ayyadurai’s organization accompanying the release of the study, the International Center for Integrative Systems claimed that the paper “applie[d] 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.”

Not surprisingly, the paper was met with praise from many in the anti-GMO community. “Within days of publication, anti-biotechnology organizations such as the Organic Consumers Association and GMO Inside were touting the paper, with sensational headlines such as “Formaldehyde in GMO Soy?” and “New Study Shows GMO Soy Accumulates Cancer Causing Chemical Formaldehyde,” accompanied by alarmist graphics,” noted writer Kavin Senapathy, writing for the Genetic Literacy Project.11755210_1058980887453334_2736665452952957029_n

Anti-GMO NGOs immediately tried to leverage the questionable study:

  • Breaking bombshell! warned Food Democracy Now, which wrote that “a groundbreaking new study claimed that genetic engineering significantly disrupts basic cellular functions in GMO plants at an alarming level,” and asked its readers to petition the White House to require labeling of all GM foods.
  • The Organic Consumers Association cited the study as an example of how “when the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) wrongfully declared GMOs substantially equivalent to non-GMO foods, the agency set the table for decades of corruption. Corruption of our food supply. Corruption of our health. Corruption of our Democracy.”

Elusive methods, no data
The GLP previously looked into the controversial MIT bioengineer and his links to fringe anti-GMO

MIT scientist with new wife Fran Drescher
MIT scientist Ayyadurai with new wife Fran Drescher

science and activism. Now the European Food Safety Authority, the organization responsible for regulating food and animal feed for the European Union, has now formally examined Ayyadurai’s report, and criticized both its methodology and findings:

First, the EFSA found that although Ayyadurai and Deonikar wrote that they aggregated data from six thousand studies on Roundup Ready soybeans culled from such online searches as PubMed and Google Scholar, “the origin of the data and their validity is not described and cannot be evaluated.”

Related article:  Young Ugandan biotech advocates push back against scare tactics of European and American-funded anti-GMO African environmental activists

Second, the EFSA wrote that Ayyadurai’s systems biology approach, a computer model called CytoSolve Collaboratory, “has not been validated using real data.” Noting that any computer model’s ability to predict an outcome depends on the quality of input data, and the algorithms used to make those predictions, the EFSA reported that “No such information is given.”

Third, the EFSA criticized the Ayyadurai study for not determining degrees of reproducibility of different levels of proteins and enzymes found in the studies retrieved.

Finally, the EFSA disputed the claim the authors made that “genetic modification is a stress factor affecting the whole organism,” observing that “such prediction is made based on a single pathway (here: C1 metabolism).”

What do formaldehyde and glutathione do?

Formaldehyde is considered a carcinogen depending on its dosage and how it’s used, but it occurs naturally in living animals and plants. Humans produce it as part of the C1, or one-carbon metabolism pathway, in which amino acids are metabolized. Humans, other animals and plants metabolize formaldehyde very quickly into formic acid, and it does not accumulate in organisms.

Glutathione is an antioxidant, destroying harmful free radicals and other harmful substances in the body. Made up of three amino acids (glutamate, cysteine and glycine), glutathione is found in the liver, lungs, kidneys, heart and brain. Glutathione levels in plants can be affected by many factors, including temperature, and other environmental stresses.

The C1 metabolic pathway provides chemical units of one carbon to molecules such as proteins, nucleic acids (the building blocks of DNA and RNA), and compounds containing the methyl chemical group. It is an important process for regulating plant growth and development, which it controls through regulating gene expression and DNA replication. But, as the EFSA report points out, the C1 metabolic pathway is by no means the only one that regulates growth and metabolism.

In a rebuke last summer of the Ayyadurai study, which received financial support from the Rodale Institute, University of Florida biologist Kevin Folta said that measuring levels of formaldehyde in plant extracts is quite easy to do in a laboratory. And no studies (including the ones allegedly data-mined by Ayyadurai and Deonikar) actually showed higher levels of formaldehyde or effects on glutathione in Roundup Ready soy or other plants, beyond what occurs naturally in all organisms.

Without data, it’s not science.

Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. He is based in Camarillo, California. Follow @AMPorterfield on Twitter.

The GLP featured this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. The viewpoint is the author’s own. The GLP’s goal is to stimulate constructive discourse on challenging science issues.

Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
sperm swim

Video: Sperm are ‘spinners not swimmers’—because they are lopsided

Research by fertility scientists in the UK and Mexico challenges the accepted view of how sperm “swim”, suggesting that it ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
breastfeeding bed x facebook x

Infographic: We know breastfeeding helps children. Now we know it helps mothers too

When a woman becomes pregnant, her risk of type 2 diabetes increases for the rest of her life, perhaps because ...
biotechnology worker x

Can GMOs rescue threatened plants and crops?

Some scientists and ecologists argue that humans are in the midst of an "extinction crisis" — the sixth wave of ...
food globe x

Are GMOs necessary to feed the world?

Experts estimate that agricultural production needs to roughly double in the coming decades. How can that be achieved? ...
eating gmo corn on the cob x

Are GMOs safe?

In 2015, 15 scientists and activists issued a statement, "No Scientific consensus on GMO safety," in the journal Environmental Sciences ...
Screen Shot at PM

Charles Benbrook: Agricultural economist and consultant for the organic industry and anti-biotechnology advocacy groups

Independent scientists rip Benbrook's co-authored commentary in New England Journal calling for reassessment of dangers of all GMO crops and herbicides ...
Screen Shot at PM

ETC Group: ‘Extreme’ biotechnology critic campaigns against synthetic biology and other forms of ‘extreme genetic engineering’

The ETC Group is an international environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Canada whose stated purpose is to monitor "the impact of emerging technologies and ...
Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend