Skip to main content

Facilitating Market Access for GE Crops Developed Through Public Sector Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology: The United States and Canada

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Battisti DS, Naylor RL (2009) Historical warnings of future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat. Science 323:240–244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dubcovsky J, Dvorak J (2007) Genome plasticity a key factor in the success of polyploid wheat under domestication. Science 316:1862–1865

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson DS (2001) The recombinant DNA controversy: a memoir. Am Soc Microbiol, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Frizzi A, Huang S (2010) Tapping RNA silencing pathways for plant biotechnology. Plant Biotechnol J 8:655–677

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Graff GD, Zilberman D, Bennett AB (2009) The contraction of agbiotech product quality innovation. Nat Biotechnol 27:702–704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Izawa T, Konishi S, Shomura A, Yano M (2009) DNA changes tell us about rice domestication. Cur Opin Plant Biol 12:185–192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller FP (2008) After 10,000 years of agriculture, whither agronomy? Agron J 100:22–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JK, Bradford KJ (2010) The regulatory bottleneck for biotech specialty crops. Nat Biotechnol 28:1012–1014

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NAS (1987) Introduction of recombinant DNA-engineered organisms into the environment: key issues. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NIH (1976) Recombinant DNA research. Guidelines. Fed Regist 41:27 902, 27 911–27 943

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1989) Field testing genetically modified organisms: framework for decisions. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2004) Safety of genetically engineered foods. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1986) Recombinant DNA safety considerations: safety considerations for industrial, agricultural and environmental applications of organisms derived by recombinant DNA techniques. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1993) Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology—concepts and principles. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OSTP (1986) Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology: announcement of policy and notice for public comment. Federal Reg 51:23, 302–323, 393

    Google Scholar 

  • OSTP (1992) Exercise of federal oversight within scope of statutory authority: planned introductions of biotechnology products into the environment. Fed Regist 57:6753–6762

    Google Scholar 

  • PIPRA (2011) http://www.pipra.org/. Access date 25 Apr 2011

  • Potrykus I (2010). Regulation must be revolutionized. Nature 466:561

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommens CM (2010) Barriers and paths to market for genetically engineered crops. Plant Biotechnol J 8:101–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth S, McHughen A (2008) Regulating innovative crop technologies in Canada: the case of regulating genetically modified crops. Plant Biotechnol J 6:213–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu F (2006) Mycotoxin reduction in Bt corn: potential economic, health, and regulatory impacts. Transgenic Res 15:277–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zitnak A, Johnston GR (1970) Glycoalkaloid content of B5141-6 potatoes. Am Potato J 47:256–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina V. Fedoroff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics