Abstract
Crops modified by recombinant DNA techniques have been an unqualified success from scientific, environmental, and economic perspectives. Generally known as GE (genetically engineered), GM (genetically modified), or GMOs (genetically modified organisms), such crops have been adopted by farmers at a historically unprecedented rate. The farm income benefit attributable to GE crops from 1996 to 2008 was US $52 billion, half in the developed and half in the developing world. The environmental and health impacts have all been positive, including substantial reductions in the use of pesticides and herbicides, as well as a significant reduction in mycotoxin contamination of maize. GE crops have caused neither environment damage nor either animal or human health problems. However, bringing a new GE variety to farmers is far more complex and costly than releasing a new variety created by older methodologies because unique regulatory requirements are imposed on crops modified by molecular methods, creating major barriers to their development and introduction. The lower profitability of fruit and vegetable than commodity crops discourages investment by seed companies, while universities and other public sector research organizations that have traditionally produced new varieties of such crops are excluded by both the financial and technical requirements of regulatory compliance.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Genetically modified (GM) is a much broader concept than the term ‘genetically engineered (GE),’ which we generally use herein to denote organisms modified by molecular techniques.
References
Atkinson RC, Beachy RN, Conway G, Cordova FA, Fox MA, Holbrook KA, Klessig DF, McCormick RL, McPherson PM, Rawlings HR 3rd, Rapson R, Vanderhoef LN, Wiley JD, and Young CE (2003) Intellectual property rights. Public sector collaboration for agricultural IP management. Science 301:174–175
Battisti DS, Naylor RL (2009) Historical warnings of future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat. Science 323:240–244
Berg P, Baltimore D, Boyer HW, Cohen SN, Davis RW, Hogness DS, Nathans D, Roblin R, Watson JD, Weissman S, Zinder ND (1974) Biohazards of recombinant DNA. Science 185:303
Bradford KJ, Deynze AV, Gutterson N, Parrott W, Strauss SH (2005) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23:439–444
Brookes G, Barfoot P (2010) GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2008. PG Economics Ltd, UK. http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/. Access date 25 Apr 2011
CAMBIA (2011) http://www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/home.html. Access date 25 Apr 2011
Doebley J (2004) The genetics of maize evolution. Annu Rev Genet 38:37–59
Dubcovsky J, Dvorak J (2007) Genome plasticity a key factor in the success of polyploid wheat under domestication. Science 316:1862–1865
EC (1990) Council directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31990L0220&model=guichett
EC (2001) EC-sponsored research on safety of genetically modified organisms.In: Kessler C, Economidis I (eds) http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/gmo. Access date 25 Apr 2011
EC (2010) A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). In: Economidis I, Cichocka D, Högel J (eds) http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf. Access date 25 Apr 2011
EC press release (2010) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/222. Access date 25 Apr 2011
FAO Report: The state of food and agriculture (2000) http://www.fao.org/docrep/x4400e/x4400e10.htm. Access date 25 Apr 2011
Fedoroff N, Brown NM (2004) Mendel in the kitchen: a scientist’s view of genetically modified foods. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC
Fredrickson DS (2001) The recombinant DNA controversy: a memoir. Am Soc Microbiol, Washington, DC
Frizzi A, Huang S (2010) Tapping RNA silencing pathways for plant biotechnology. Plant Biotechnol J 8:655–677
Graff GD, Zilberman D, Bennett AB (2009) The contraction of agbiotech product quality innovation. Nat Biotechnol 27:702–704
Izawa T, Konishi S, Shomura A, Yano M (2009) DNA changes tell us about rice domestication. Cur Opin Plant Biol 12:185–192
James C (2011) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2010. ISAAA brief 42. http://www.isaaa.org/
Kalaitzandonakes N, Alston JM, Bradford KJ (2007) Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops. Nat Biotechnol 25:509–511
Mahfouz MM, Li L, Shamimuzzaman M, Wibowo A, Fang X, Zhu J-K (2011) De novo-engineered transcription activator-like effector (TALE) hybrid nuclease with novel DNA binding specificity creates double-strand breaks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:2623–2628
Miller FP (2008) After 10,000 years of agriculture, whither agronomy? Agron J 100:22–34
Miller JK, Bradford KJ (2010) The regulatory bottleneck for biotech specialty crops. Nat Biotechnol 28:1012–1014
NAS (1987) Introduction of recombinant DNA-engineered organisms into the environment: key issues. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
NIH (1976) Recombinant DNA research. Guidelines. Fed Regist 41:27 902, 27 911–27 943
NRC (1989) Field testing genetically modified organisms: framework for decisions. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
NRC (2004) Safety of genetically engineered foods. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
OECD (1986) Recombinant DNA safety considerations: safety considerations for industrial, agricultural and environmental applications of organisms derived by recombinant DNA techniques. OECD, Paris
OECD (1993) Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology—concepts and principles. OECD, Paris
OSTP (1986) Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology: announcement of policy and notice for public comment. Federal Reg 51:23, 302–323, 393
OSTP (1992) Exercise of federal oversight within scope of statutory authority: planned introductions of biotechnology products into the environment. Fed Regist 57:6753–6762
PIPRA (2011) http://www.pipra.org/. Access date 25 Apr 2011
Potrykus I (2010). Regulation must be revolutionized. Nature 466:561
Rommens CM (2010) Barriers and paths to market for genetically engineered crops. Plant Biotechnol J 8:101–111
Seligman PJ, Mathias CGT, O’Malley MA, Beier RC, Fehrs LJ, Serrill WS, Halperin WE (1987) Phytophotodermatitis from celery among grocery store workers. Arch Dermatol 123:1478–1482
Sheldon I (2004) Europe’s regulation of agricultural biotechnology: precaution or trade distortion? J Agric Food Ind Org. doi:10.2202/1542-0485.1060
Shukla VK, Doyon Y, Miller JC, DeKelver RC, Moehle EA, Worden SE, Mitchell JC, Arnold NL, Gopalan S, Meng X, Choi VM, Rock JM, Wu Y-Y, Katibah GE, Zhifang G, McCaskill D, Simpson MA, Blakeslee B, Greenwalt SA, Butler HJ, Hinkley SJ, Zhang L, Rebar EJ, Gregory PD, Urnov FD (2009) Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea maysusing zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 459:437–441
Smyth S, McHughen A (2008) Regulating innovative crop technologies in Canada: the case of regulating genetically modified crops. Plant Biotechnol J 6:213–225
Tripathi S, Suzuki J, Gonsalves D (2007) Development of genetically engineered resistant papaya for papaya ringspot virus in a timely manner: a comprehensive and successful approach. Methods Mol Biol 354:197–240
USDA (2005) Plant Variety Protection Act. http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5426. Access date 25 Apr 2011
USDA Workshop (2004) http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/biotech/pdfs/small_mkt.pdf. Access date: 25 Apr 2011
USDA Workshop (2011) http://specialtycropassistance.org/content.cfm?ID=241. Access date 25 Apr 2011
Watson JD (2003) A conversation with Jim Watson. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/4081/1/Watson.pdf
Watson JD, Crick FHC (1953) A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 171:737–738
Wu F (2006) Mycotoxin reduction in Bt corn: potential economic, health, and regulatory impacts. Transgenic Res 15:277–289
Zitnak A, Johnston GR (1970) Glycoalkaloid content of B5141-6 potatoes. Am Potato J 47:256–260
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 US Government
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fedoroff, N.V., Beachy, R. (2012). Facilitating Market Access for GE Crops Developed Through Public Sector Research. In: Wozniak, C., McHughen, A. (eds) Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology: The United States and Canada. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2156-2_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2156-2_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2155-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2156-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)