Advertisement

Global Regulation of Transgenic Crops

  • Bruce M. ChassyEmail author
Part of the Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry book series (AGRICULTURE, volume 63)

Globally, transgenic maize comprised about 25% of the 102 million hectares of transgenic cropland planted in 2006 by more than 10 million farmers in 21 countries (James 2007). These transgenic maize plants contain inserted gene(s) expressing a variety of Cry proteins that confer resistance to stem borers and rootworms. Approximately 45% of the transgenic maize planted also contains inserted gene(s) that mediate herbicide tolerance (James 2007). Transgenic crop varieties must be granted pre-market approval by regulatory authorities, and more than 43 transgenic maize varieties have been approved to date (Agbios GM Database, http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php, accessed 14 January 2008). It must be shown that novel transgenic crops are safe for agriculture and the environment prior to their commercialization and planting. Since maize is widely used as animal feed and in human food, the pre-market regulatory approval process also evaluates the safety of transgenic maize as food and feed. This chapter describes the evolution of the regulatory paradigm and regulations applied to transgenic crops around the world with emphasis on maize, briefly highlights differences in approaches between nations, details the scientific considerations of the regulatory review process, focusing primarily on food safety issues that have been of concern to consumers around the globe, and concludes with an assessment of the consequences and impact of the stringent global regulation of transgenic crops. The chapter will also review claims regarding potential adverse effects of transgenic plants that received attention in the media and which have shaped negative public perceptions about transgenic crops.

Keywords

Safety Assessment European Food Safety Authority Transgenic Crop Transgenic Maize Food Chem Toxicol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berche P (1998) Les plantes transgéniques et la resistance aux antibiotiques. Méd Thérap 4:709– 719Google Scholar
  2. Bradford KJ, Van Deynze A, Gutterson N, Parrott W, Strauss SH (2005) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23:439–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breiteneder H, Mills CEN (2005) Plant food allergens — structural and functional aspects of aller genicity. Biotechnol Adv 23:395–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2006) Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmen tal effects in the first ten years of commercial use. AgBioForum 9:139–151. http://www. agbioforum.org. Accessed 14 January 2007Google Scholar
  5. Calva, JJ, Sifuentes-Osornio J, Cerón C (1996) Antimicrobial resistance in fecal flora: longitudinal community-based surveillance of children from urban Mexico. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 40:1699–1702PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Catchpole GS, Beckmann M, Enot DP, Mondhe M, Zywicki B, Taylor J, Hardy N, Smith A, King RD, Kell DB, Fiehn O, Draper J (2005) Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:14458–14462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cellini F, Chesson A, Colquhoun I, Constable A, Davies HV, Engel KH, Gatehouse AM, Karenlampi S, Kok EJ, Leguay JJ, Lehesranta S, Noteborn HP, Pedersen J, Smith M (2004) Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42: 1089–1125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chassy B (2002) Safety and regulatory assessment of crops developed via biotechnology. J Am Coll Nutr 21:166S–173SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chassy BM (2007) The history and future of GMOs in food and agriculture. Cereal Foods World 52:169–173Google Scholar
  10. Chassy B, Abramson SH, Bridges A, Dyer WE, Faust MA, Harlander SK, Hefle SL, Munro IC, Rice ME (2001) Evaluation of the U.S. regulatory process for crops developed through biotech nology. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, AmesGoogle Scholar
  11. Chassy B, Hlywka JJ, Kleter GA, Kok EJ, Kuiper HA, McGloughlin M, Munro IC, Phipps RH, Reid JE (2004) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology. Comp Rev Food Sci Food Saf 3:35–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chassy B, Parrott W, Roush R (2005) Crop biotechnology and the future of food: a scientific assessment. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, AmesGoogle Scholar
  13. Chassy B, Egnin M, Gao Y, Glenn K, Kleter GA, Nestel P, Newell-McGloughlin M, Phipps RH, Shillito R (2008) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology: case studies. Comp Rev Food Sci Food Saf (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Codex Alimentarius (2003) Principles for risk analysis and guidelines for safety assessment of foods derived from modern biotechnology. Codex Alimentarius, Rome. http://www. codexalimentarius.net/web/publications.jsp?lang=en. Accessed 10 January 2008
  15. Delmer DP (2005) Inaugural article: agriculture in the developing world: connecting innova tions in plant research to downstream applications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:15739– 15746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EFSA (2007) Minutes of the 37th plenary meeting of the scientific panel on genetically modi fied organisms held on 22–23 November 2007 in Brussels (adopted on 18 December 2007 as “Annex: Analysis by the GMO panel of the PNAS publication of Rosi-Marshall et al. 2007. Tox ins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems.” http://www.efsa. europa.eu/EFSA/Event Meeting/GMO Minutes 37th plenmeet,1.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2008
  17. Ewen SW, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353–1354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) (1992) Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties. Notice. US Federal Register 57:22,984–23,005Google Scholar
  19. Fuchs M, Gonsalves D (2007) Safety of virus-resistant transgenic plants two decades after their introduction — lessons from realistic field risk assessment studies. Ann Rev Phytopath 45:173– 202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodman RE, Vieths S, Sampson HA, Hill D, Ebisawa M, Taylor, SL, van Ree R (2008) Aller-genicity assessment of genetically modified crops: what makes sense? Nat Biotech 26:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hathcock JN (2000) The precautionary principle — an impossible burden of proof for new products. AgBioForum 3:255–258. http://www.agbioforum.org. Accessed 14 January 2008
  22. James C (2007) Executive summary ISAAA brief 35: global status of commercialized biotech/ GM crops: 2006. ISAAA, Ithaca. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/35/ executivesummary/default.html. Accessed 14 Jan 2008
  23. Kalaitzandonakes N (2000) Why does biotech regulation differ so much between the US and EU? AgBioForum 3:75–76. http://www.agbioforum.org. Accessed 14 January 2008
  24. Kalaitzandonakes N, Alston J, Bradford K (2007) Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops. Nat Biotech 25:509–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kok EJ, Kuiper HA (2003) Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops. Trends Biotechnol 21:439–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kok EJ, Keijer J, Kleter GA, Kuiper HA (2008) Comparative safety assessment of plant-derived foods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 50:98–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Konig A, Cockburn A, Crevel RWR, Debruyne E, Grafstroem R, Hammerling U, Kimber I, Knud-sen I, Kuiper HA, Peijnenburg AACM, Penninks AH, Poulsen M, Schauzu M, Wal JM (2004) Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1047–1088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuiper HA, Noteborn HP, Peijnenburg AA (1999) Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods. Lancet 354:1315–1316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehesranta SJ, Davies HV, Shepherd LV, Nunan N, McNicol JW, Auriola S, Koistinen KM, Suoma-lainen S, Kokko HI, Karenlampi SO (2005) Comparison of tuber proteomes of potato varieties, landraces, and genetically modified lines. Plant Physiol 138:1690–1699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshall A (2007) GM soybeans and health safety — a controversy reexamined. Nat Biotech 25:981–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McHughen A, Smythe S (2008) US regulatory system for genetically modified [genetically modi fied organism (GMO), rDNA or transgenic] crop cultivars. Plant Biotechnol J 6:2–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. NAS (National Academy of Science, USA) (1987) Introduction of recombinant DNA-engineered organisms into the environment: key issues. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. OECD (2002) Environmental health and safety publications. Series on the safety of novel foods and feeds. No. 6. Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of maize (Zea mays): key food and feed nutrients, anti-nutrients and secondary plant metabolites. Environment Directorate. OECD, Paris. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2002doc.nsf/LinkTo/ NT00002F66/$FILE/JT00130429.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2008
  35. Parrott W (2005) The nature of change: towards sensible regulation of transgenic crops based on lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Proc 17th Meeting National Agri cultural Biotechnology Council, Nashville, June 27–29, pp 209–220. NABC, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosi-Marshall EJ, Tank JL, Royer TV, Whiles MR, Evans-White M, Chambers C, Griffiths NA, Pokelsek J, Stephen ML (2007) Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:16204–16208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assess ment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11937–11942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Séralini G-E, Cellier D, de Vendomois J (2007) New analysis of a rat feeding study with a ge netically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52:596–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shewry PR, Baudo M, Lovegrove A, Powers S, Napier JA, Ward JL, Baker JM, Beale MH (2007) Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different? Trends Food Sci Technol 18:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor SL, Hefle SL (2001) Will genetically modified foods be allergenic? J Allergy Clin Immunol 107:765–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van den Eede G, Aarts H, Buhk HJ, Corthier G, Flint HJ, Hammes W, Jacobsen B, Midtvedt T, van der Vossen J, von Wright A, Wackernagel W, Wilcks A (2004) The relevance of gene transfer to the safety of food and feed derived from genetically modified (GM) plants. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1127–1156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.40 NSRC, 1101 West PeabodyUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations