Filter Questions

Reset Filter

No questions match....

  • There have been no discussions since the expert answer was published.

  • Ben Schaefer's picture
    Ben Schaefer
    GMOs do through years of testing. Year by year, the pool of possible commercial products goes down until they have the single plant that they want to use.
    During that culling process, anything that has phonotypical (visible) ‘off’ characteristics is not advanced. After assays certain molecular characteristics will negate a plant moving forward. Sequencing is done to see exactly where a trait has been inserted. If it is not in a desirable place, it is not advanced. Proteins that are produced are checked to insure they are not new. If a new protein is found, it is compared (through various databases) to assess the properties (is it an allergen? Is it toxic?) and some may not advance. Finally the crop goes through various feeding trails on rats and chickens to assure there are no health effects. So basically, after 12-14 years of testing and retesting, they know an awful lot about what is in a crop and they have years of data and what to expect from that crop.
    Hope that helps!
  • Blob's picture
    ...preferably from a geneticist.
    • Joseph Najjar's picture
      Joseph Najjar
      I work for UGA, in the soybean breeding department, and what Ben says is right. These new GM crops are tested more extensively than any food ever has been in history. From discovery to deregulation, it takes over 13 years, and costs an average of $136 Million.


      Gene regulation plays a huge role in this as well. As we learn more and more about individual genes and their effects, we can start to control the rate of transcription. Researchers can see when and where a gene is activated, and where proteins are actually formed, through techniques like in-situ hybridization, where antibodies are injected to show where the proteins of interest are. Testing like that occurs for almost a decade before any commercial variety is released
  • Blob's picture
    @jtrav21 I must say, I was hoping for some on-topic responses.
  • jtrav21's picture
    @rickspalding - are you bringing any objectivity to this forum? Are you sharing any fact-based opinions? You are welcome to join the conversation, that's why this site was created.
  • rickspalding's picture
    I still find this fascinating that people are legitimately asking questions about biotech on a biotech website with biotech volunteers. Anyone with rational thought knows the lack of objectivity in this site.
  • ashepherd's picture
    If you want to read the truth about Martina Newell-McGoughlin and her excellent post at UC Davis; you can read all about her romantic (PAID) relationship with Monsanto here: http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/projects/biotech/c3_1.html