Advertisement

Food safety considerations for the assessment of a genetically modified tomato fortified for folate production

  • Marianela Araya-Quesada
  • Bruno Mezzetti
  • George Tzotzos
Review

Abstract

Tomatoes are a very important part of the Mediterranean diet. The possibility of a much healthier tomato option represents a great opportunity for the population to enhance their daily diet. Folate is an important bioactive compound for human health and increasing folate content in tomatoes can contribute to reduce some of the problems associated with this deficiency. In this review, the new option of a biofortified tomato produced by the use of DNA recombinant technology will be discussed in terms of food safety of the new genetically modified product. The possibility to increase folate content has been recently demonstrated through two modifications: the first was based on the development of a synthetic form of engineered GTP cyclohydrolase I (GCHI) (based on mammalian synthesis), which was introduced in the plants to prevent the retroinhibition of the GCHI (folate precursor) in plants; the second was based on the pteridine-overproduction trait expressing the aminodeoxychorismate synthase (AtADCS) from Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetically modified tomatoes, able to accumulate an average of 25-fold more folate than controls, were produced. These fruits could provide the complete adult daily requirement in less than one standard serving. The modification also resulted in a 20 times higher accumulation of pteridines and PABA as compared with the wild-type control. The possible risks and benefits derived from the GM modification of the tomato, and the safety of the final product for consumers will be discussed.

Keywords

Transgenic food Tomato Folate fortification Food safety Risk assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailey L (2000) New standard for dietary folate intake in pregnant women. Am J Clin Nutr 71:1304S–1307SGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krishnaswamy K, Madhavan N (2001) Importance of folate in human nutrition. Br J Nutr 85:S115–S124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang Q-H, Carter HK, Mulinare J et al (2007) Race-ethnicity differences in folic acid intake in women of childbearing age in the United States after folic acid fortification: findings from the National Health and Nutrition examination survey. Am J Clin Nutr 85:1409–1416Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murphy M (2004) Folate (folacin, folic acid). Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet. Available at http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5553.html. (Accessed 20 September 2008)
  5. 5.
    European Commission (2000) Opinion of the Scientific Committee on the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Folate. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out80e_en.pdf. (Accessed 24 May 2009)
  6. 6.
    Office of Dietary Supplements (2004) Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Folate. National Institute of Health. Available at http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/folate.asp. (Accessed 24 September 2008)
  7. 7.
    Bekaert S, Storozhenko S, Mehrshahi P et al (2008) Folate biofortification in food plants. Trends Plant Sci 13:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Branthôme F (2004) The tomato processing industry. Available at http://www.tomatonews.com/processing.php. (Accessed 3 May 2009)
  9. 9.
    Bedhomme M, Hoffmann M, McCarthy EA et al (2005) Folate metabolism in plants: an Arabidopsis homolog of the mammalian folate transporter mediates folate import into chloroplasts. J Biol Chem 280:34823–34831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Díaz de la Garza RI, Gregory JF, Hanson AD (2007) Folate biofortification of tomato fruit. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:4218–4222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herbert V (1999) Folic acid. In: Shils M, Olson J, Shike M, Ross AC (eds) Nutrition in health and disease. Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology (2007) Biotechnology and Biofortification. Available at http://www1.ub.edu/fvd4/wq/wqt/Dades/Doc-Pocket_K27.pdf. (Accessed 3 May 2009)
  13. 13.
    Liao JC, Higashide W (2008) Metabolic engineering of nextgeneration biofuels. Society for Biological Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles. http://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/SBE/MemberCenter/0808519(2).PDF (Accessed 7 May 2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu G, Zheng Y, Qureshi I et al. (2006) SGDB: a database of synthetic genes re-designed for optimizing protein over-expression. Nucleic Acids Res 35[Database issue]:D76–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cummins J, Ho M (2006) GM crops for health Institute of Science in Society. Report no. 24/09/06. Available at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Crops_for_Health.php. (Accessed 20 September 2008)
  16. 16.
    European Food Safety Authority (2006) Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA Journal 99:1–100Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Codex Alimentarius Commission (2008) Codex Principles and Guidelines on Foods derived from Biotechnology. Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/ProcManuals/Manual_18e.pdf. (Accessed 10 May 2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OECD (2008) Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of tomato: key food and feed nutrients, toxicants and allergens. No. 17. ENV/JM/MONO(2008)26. Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, Paris. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/27/41703892.pdf.(Accessed 19 May 2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003) Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants. CAC/GL 45-2003. CACGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodman RE, Hefle SL, Taylor SL, van Ree R (2005) Assessing genetically modified crops to minimize the risk of increased food allergy: a review. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 137:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    FAO/WHO (2001) Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology. Available at www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/en/ec_jan2001.-pdf. (Accessed 28 September 2008)
  22. 22.
    Chardin H, Mayer C, Senechal H et al (2003) Lipid transfer protein 1 is a possible allergen in Arabidopsis thaliana. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 131:85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clark EA (2000) Food safety of GM crops in Canada: toxicity and allergenicity. University of Guelph. Available at www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/safety.htm. (Accessed 13 September 2008)
  24. 24.
    US Food and Drug Administration (2009) Food Additive Status List. Available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opaappa.html#ftnA. (Accessed 24 May 2009)
  25. 25.
    Cockburn A (2002) Assuring the safety of genetically modified foods: the importance of a holistic, integrative approach. J Biotechnol 98:79–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Storozhenko S, De Brouwer V, Volckaert M et al (2007) Folate fortification of rice by metabolic engineering. Nat Biotechnol 25:1277–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nunes AC, Kalkmann DC, Aragão FJ (2009) Folate biofortification of lettuce by expression of a codon optimized chicken GTP cyclohydrolase I gene. Transgenic Res 18:661–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianela Araya-Quesada
    • 1
  • Bruno Mezzetti
    • 2
  • George Tzotzos
    • 3
  1. 1.Plant Biotechnology, UNIDO-UNIVPM programTriesteItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni VegetaliMarche Polytechnic UniversityAnconaItaly
  3. 3.Technology Unit UNIDOUNIDO, PTC/PEMViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations