Abstract
Field trials are widely known to be essential for understanding the value and adaptability of trees produced via conventional and transgenic biotechnologies. However, obtaining permission for transgenic field trials is often considered to be very difficult in many countries. To understand the extent of regulatory requirements around the world and the burdens they impose, we surveyed 36 scientists and practitioners from 20 different countries who had experience or direct knowledge of regulatory compliance with field trials of transgenic trees. Results showed that permits and monitoring were universally required, and that public disclosure of field trial locations was required in three quarters of countries. Other major findings were that: separate approvals for different constructs, tree species, and trial locations were required in more than three quarters of the countries; characterization of each transgene insertion event was required as part of the application in four fifths of countries; and the application process itself was perceived as the largest single burden. Regulatory tiers that differentiate different kinds of transgenic trees based on perceived risk were present in only one fifth of countries. The data confirm the widespread perception among scientists that the costs and burdens of conducting field trials with transgenic trees are nearly universal substantial impediments to scientific and breeding progress.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahuja MR (2011) Fate of transgenes in the forest tree genome. Tree Genet Genomes 7:221–230
Boerjan W (2005) Biotechnology and the domestication of forest trees. Curr Opin Biotechnol 16:159–166
Bradford KJ, Van Deynze A, Gutterson N, Parrot W, Strauss SH (2005) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology, and genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23:439–444
Brunetti G, Farrag K, Rovira PS, Nigro F, Senesi N (2011) Greenhouse and field studies on Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn phytoextraction by Brassica napus from contaminated soils in the Apulia region, Southern Italy. Geoderma 160:517–523
Campos H, Cooper M, Habben JE, Edmeades GO, Schussler JR (2004) Improving drought tolerance in maize: a view from industry. Field Crops Res 90:19–34
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2011) Plants with novel traits (PNTs)—approved confined research field trials/terms and condition. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/confine.shtml#sum. Accessed 15 August 2011
CTNBio (National Technical Biosafety Committee) (2011) Annual reports. http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/1144.html. Accessed 15 August 2011
Environmental Protection Authority (2011) HSNO application register. http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/applications-search.aspx. Accessed 15 August 2011
Euliss K, Ho C-H, Schwab AP, Rock S, Banks MK (2008) Greenhouse and field assessment of phytoremediation for petroleum contaminants in a riparian zone. Bioresour Technol 99:1961–1971
Ewald D, Hu J, Yang M (2006) Transgenic forest trees in China. In: Fladung M, Ewald D (eds) Tree transgenesis. Springer, Berlin, pp 25–45
Grattapaglia D, Plomion C, Kirst M, Sederoff RR (2009) Genomics of growth traits in forest trees. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12:148–156
Harfouche A, Meilan R, Altman A (2011) Tree genetic engineering and applications to sustainable forestry and biomass production. Trends Biotechnol 29:9–17
Information Systems for Biotechnology (2011) USDA field tests of GM crops: search the release data. http://www.isb.vt.edu/search-release-data.aspx. Accessed 15 August 2011
Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Center (2011) Deliberate releases and placing on the EU market of genetically modified organisms-GMO register. http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_browse.aspx. Accessed 15 August 2011
Japan Biosafety Clearing House (2011) Approved LMO’s. http://www.bch.biodic.go.jp/english/lmo.html. Accessed 15 August 2011
Laurentius AC, Voesenek J, Pierik R (2008) Plant stress profiles. Science 320:880–881
Luquez V, Hall D, Albrectsen BR, Karlsson J, Ingvarsson P, Jansson S (2008) Natural phenological variation in aspen (Populus tremula): the SwAsp collection. Tree Genet Genomes 4:279–292
Neale DB, Kremer A (2011) Forest tree genomics: growing resources and applications. Nat Rev Genet 12:111–122
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (2011) List of applications and licenses for dealings involving Intentional Release (DIR) of GMO’s into the environment. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/ir-1. Accessed 15 August 2011
Poupin MJ, Arce-Johnson P (2005) Transgenic trees for a new era. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 41:91–101
Robischon M (2006) Field trials with transgenic trees—state of the art and developments. In: Fladung M, Ewald D (eds) Tree Transgenesis. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–23
Schouten H, Jacobsen E (2008) Cisgenesis and intragenesis, sisters in innovative plant breeding. Trends Plant Sci 13:260–261
Strauss SH (2003a) Genomics, genetic engineering, and domestication of crops. Science 300:61–62
Strauss SH (2003b) Regulation of biotechnology as though gene function mattered. BioScience 53:453–454
Strauss SH, Tan H, Boerjan W, Sedjo R (2009a) Strangled at birth? Forest biotech and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nat Biotechnol 27:519–527
Strauss SH, Schmitt M, Sedjo R (2009b) Forest scientist views of regulatory obstacles to research and development of transgenic forest biotechnology. J For 107:350–357
Strauss SH, Kershen DL, Bouton JH, Redick TP, Tan H, Sedjo RA (2010) Far-reaching deleterious impacts of regulations on research and environmental studies of recombinant-DNA modified perennial biofuel crops in the United States. BioScience 60:729–741
Valenzuela S, Balocchi C, Rodríguez J (2006) Transgenic trees and forestry biosafety. Electron J Biotechnol 9:335–339
Viswanath V, Strauss SH (2010) Modifying plant growth the cisgenic way. Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report. www.isb.vt.edu/news/2010/…/Modifying-Plant-Growth-Cisgenic-Way.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2011
Voelker SL, Lachenbruch B, Meinzer FC et al (2010) Antisense down-regulation of 4CL expression alters lignification, tree growth and saccharification potential of field-grown poplar. Plant Physiol 154:874–886
Walter C, Fladung M, Boerjan W (2010) The 20-year environmental safety record of GM trees. Nat Biotechnol 28:656–658
Zeller SL, Kalinina O, Brunner S, Keller B, Schmid B (2010) Transgene x environment interactions in genetically modified wheat. PLoS One 5:e11405
Acknowledgments
We gratefully thank all the scientists who took part in the survey. The Carl Trygger Foundation supported studies of ecotype-associated phenotypic metabolic responses to BA. We dedicate this paper to the memory of Professor Zhiyi Zhang of Beijing Forestry University, a leader in forest tree biotechnology and an adviser on this survey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by W. Boerjan
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(PDF 203 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Viswanath, V., Albrectsen, B.R. & Strauss, S.H. Global regulatory burden for field testing of genetically modified trees. Tree Genetics & Genomes 8, 221–226 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-011-0445-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-011-0445-8