Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Calling the tunes on transgenic crops: the case for regulatory harmony

  • Published:
Molecular Breeding Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genetically modified (GM) crops are now grown commercially in 23 countries, with another 29 granting approval for import and release into the environment. Despite the socio-economic and environmental benefits of the technology, further development is being hampered by differences in national regulatory frameworks relating to research, biosafety, and to the trade and use of GM crops. The biosafety regulations in different countries are based on five main international instruments that influence the development of national biosafety systems in terms of field trial permit requirements, risk assessment criteria, labeling, traceability, transparency, public awareness, post-monitoring and import regulations. The global harmonization of data collection, testing procedures and information exchange would help to remove artificial trade barriers, expedite the adoption of GM crops, foster technology transfer and protect developing countries from exploitation, instilling confidence and bringing the benefits of GM products to the consumer.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AGBIOS (2008a) GM crop database. http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php. Accessed 11th August 2008

  • AGBIOS (2008b) Summary of regulatory approvals. MON810 environmental risk assessment case study. http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php?action=Submit&evidx=9. Accessed 11th August 2008

  • Alexander TW, Reuter T, Aulrich K, Sharma R et al (2007) A review of the detection and fate of novel plant molecules derived from biotechnology in livestock production. Anim Feed Sci Technol 133:31–62. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.08.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • AU Biosafety Project (2007) Case study on the African Union Commission-German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (AUC-BMZ), Africa-wide Biosafety Capacity-Building Project, presented at the 3rd coordination meeting for governments and organizations implementing or funding biosafety capacity-building activities, 26–28 February 2007, Lusaka, Zambia, Available online at http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/AUC/Departments/HRST/biosafety/DOC/doc1/Case%20study%20of%20the%20AU%20Biosafety%20Project-Lusaka%20Meeting.doc

  • Aumaitre A, Aulrich K, Chesson A, Flachowsky G, Piva G (2002) New feeds from genetically modified plants: substantial equivalence, nutritional equivalence, digestibility, and safety for animals and the food chain. Livest Prod Sci 74:223–238. doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00016-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government (2007) Website for general permit searches. http://www.apvma.gov.au/permits/permits.shtml. Accessed 11th August 2008

  • Barrett K (1999) Canadian agricultural biotechnology: risk assessment and the precautionary principle. PhD dissertation, University of British, Columbia

  • Baumüller H (2004) Domestic import regulations for genetically modified organisms and their compatibility with WTO rules. Asian Biotechnol Dev Rev 6:33–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer T (2003) Genes, trade and regulation: The seeds of conflict in food biotechnology. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer T (2005) Causes and consequences of international trade conflict over agricultural biotechnology. Int J Biotechnol 7:7–28. doi:10.1504/IJBT.2005.006442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijman J (1994) Biosafety regulation. Biotechnol Dev Monit 18:1415

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner C (2004) Telling transgenic technology tales: lessons from the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP) experience. ISAAA Briefs No. 31. ISAAA, Ithaca

  • Brent P, Bittisnich D, Brooke-Taylor S, Galway N et al (2003) Regulation of genetically modified foods in Australia and New Zealand. Food Contr 14:409–416. doi:10.1016/S0956-7135(03)00037-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes G, Barfoot P (2006) GM crops: the first ten years—global socio-economic and environmental impacts. ISAAA Brief No. 36. ISAAA, Ithaca

  • Carter CA, Gruère GP (2006) International approval and labeling regulations of genetically modified food in major trading countries. In: Just R, Alston JM, Zilberman D (eds) Regulating agricultural biotechnology. Economics and policies. Springer, New York, pp 459–480

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Christou P, Twyman RM (2004) The potential of genetically enhanced plants to address food insecurity. Nutr Res Rev 17:23–42. doi:10.1079/NRR200373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003) Foods derived from biotechnology (CAC/GL 44-2003). FAO/WHO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap JP (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J 33:19–46. doi:10.1046/j.0960-7412.2002.001607.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cuite CL, Aquino HL, Hallman WK (2005) An empirical investigation of the role of knowledge in public opinion about GM food. Int J Biotechnol 7:178–194. doi:10.1504/IJBT.2005.006453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins J (2004) Bt toxins in genetically modified crops: regulation by deceit. Sci Soc 22:32

    Google Scholar 

  • Eizaguirre M, Albajes R, Lopez C, Eras J et al (2006) Six years after the commercial introduction of Bt maize in Spain: field evaluation, impact and future prospects. Transgenic Res 15:1–12. doi:10.1007/s11248-005-3998-1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EPA/BPPD (1995) US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division. Memorandum from Kough J to Mendelsohn M, Review of product characterization and mammalian toxicology data submitted by Monsanto Corporation for corn expressing Cry IA(b) δ-endotoxin

  • Flint J, Gil L, Verastegui J, Irarrazabal C, Dellacha J (2000) Biosafety information management systems. A comparative analysis of the regulatory systems in Canada, Argentina and Chile. Electron J Biotechnol 3:9–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Drug Administration (1992) Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties. US Fed Reg 57:22984–23005

    Google Scholar 

  • Fransen L, La Vina A, Dayrit F, Gatlabayan L et al (2005) Integrating socio-economic considerations into biosafety decisions: the role of public participation. World Resources Institute White Paper, WRI, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruère GP (2006a) A preliminary comparison of the retail level effects of labeling policies of genetically modified food in Canada and France. Food Policy 31:148–161. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruère G (2006b) An analysis of trade related international regulations of genetically modified food and their effects on developing countries, EPTD discussion papers 147. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

  • Jaffe G (2004) Regulating transgenic crops: a comparative analysis of different regulatory processes. Transgenic Res 13:5–19. doi:10.1023/B:TRAG.0000017198.80801.fb

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • James C (2007) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2007. ISAAA Brief No. 37. ISAAA, Ithaca

  • König A, Cockburn A, Crevel RW, Debruyne E et al (2004) Assessment of the safety of food derived from genetically modified GM crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1047–1088. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HP, Kok EJ (2001) Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. Plant J 27:503–528. doi:10.1046/j.1365-313X.2001.01119.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DJ (2006) Comparison of international regulatory regimes for food products of biotechnology. Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat, Agriculture and Biotechnology Strategies (Canada) Inc., Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie D, McLean M (2002) Who’s afraid of GM feeds? Feed Mix 10:16–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P (2007) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on non-target invertebrates. Science 316:1475–1477. doi:10.1126/science.1139208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maryanski JH (1995) Food and drug administration policy for foods developed by biotechnology. In: Engel K-H, Takeoka GR, Teranishi R (eds) Genetically modified foods: safety issues. ACS Symposium Series 605. American Chemical Society, Washington, pp 12–22

  • McHughen A (2007) Fatal flaws in agbiotech regulatory policies. Nat Biotechnol 25:725–727. doi:10.1038/nbt0707-725

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell P (2003) EU biotech firms drastically cut back research. Nat Biotechnol 21:468–469. doi:10.1038/nbt0503-468

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nap JP, Met PLJ, Escaler M, Conner AJ (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment—Part I. Overview of current status and regulations. Plant J 33:1–18. doi:10.1046/j.0960-7412.2003.01602.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2007) Consensus document on safety information on transgenic plants expressing Bacillus thuringiensis-derived insect control protein. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology no. 42

  • Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) (2007) Website listing trial sites, intentional release and evaluation processes, monitoring and compliance, records of GMOs and GM product dealings. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/. Accessed 11th August 2008

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1993) Safety evaluation of foods produced by modern biotechnology. Concepts and principles. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramessar K, Peremarti A, Gómez-Galera S, Naqvi S et al (2007) Biosafety and risk assessment framework for selectable marker genes in transgenic crop plants: a case of the science not supporting the politics. Transgenic Res 16:261–280. doi:10.1007/s11248-007-9083-1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F (2007) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 107:235–278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shipworth D, Kenley R (1999) Fitness landscapes and the precautionary principle: the geometry of environmental risk. Environ Manage 24:121–131. doi:10.1007/s002679900220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suguru S (2006) Japan Biotechnology Annual Report 2006. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN) Report no. JA6049

  • The European Parliament the Council of the European Union (2002) EC 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Off J Eur Communities L31:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (1995) Application of the principles of substantial equivalence to the safety evaluation of foods or food components from plants derived by modern biotechnology. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (2000) Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on foods derived from biotechnology. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departament de Produccio Vegetal I Ciencia Forestal, University of Lleida, Avenue Alcalde Rovira Roure 177, 25198, Lleida, Spain

    Koreen Ramessar, Teresa Capell & Paul Christou

  2. Department of Biology, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK

    Richard M. Twyman

  3. Department of Biology, Calvin College, 1726 Knollcrest Circle, S.E., Grand Rapids, MI, 49546-4403, USA

    Hector Quemada

  4. Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats, Barcelona, Spain

    Paul Christou

Authors
  1. Koreen Ramessar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teresa Capell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard M. Twyman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hector Quemada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul Christou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Christou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramessar, K., Capell, T., Twyman, R.M. et al. Calling the tunes on transgenic crops: the case for regulatory harmony. Mol Breeding 23, 99–112 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-008-9217-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-008-9217-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation