Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The case for regulating intragenic GMOs

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses the ethical and regulatory issues raised by “intragenics” – organisms that have been genetically modified using gene technologies, but that do not contain DNA from another species. Considering the rapid development of knowledge about gene regulation and genomics, we anticipate rapid advances in intragenic methods. Of regulatory systems developed to govern genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, the Australian system stands out in explicitly excluding intragenics from regulation. European systems are also under pressure to exclude intragenics from regulation. We evaluate recent arguments that intragenics are safer and more morally acceptable than transgenic organisms, and more acceptable to the public, which might be thought to justify a lower standard of regulation. We argue that the exemption of intragenics from regulation is not justified, and that there may be significant environmental risks associated with them. We conclude that intragenics should be subject to the same standard of regulation as other GMOs.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • APHIS (USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) (1992). Response to Calgene petition for determination of regulatory status, 1992, Petition no.92-196-01, USDA

  • Baumgartner C. (2006). Exclusion by Inclusion? On Difficulties with Regard to an Effective Ethical Assessment of Patenting in the Field of Agricultural Bio-technology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 521–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S. (2003). Glowing red GM fish to sell in US. NewScientist.com news service, 24 November 2003. Retrieved Jan 11, 2007, from http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4411

  • Bodmer, W. (1992), “Patent Absurdity.” Science and Public Affairs, Summer, 3–4

  • Brown N., M. Michael (2001). Transgenics, Uncertainty and Public Credibility. Transgenic Research 10, 279–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce D. M. (2002). A Social Contract for Biotechnology: Shared Visions for Risky Technologies? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 279–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buiatii M. (2005). Biologies, Agricultures, Biotechnologies. Tailoring Biotechnologies, 1(2), 9–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrows B. (2001). Safety First. In B. Tokar (ed.), Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering. London: Zed Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch L. (2002). The Homiletics of Risk. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carman J. (2004). Is GM Food Safe to Eat? In R. Hindmarsh, G. Lawrence (eds.), Recoding Nature: Critical Perspectives on Genetic Engineering. Sydney: UNSW Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrillo L. A., R. E. Lee, J. A. Wyman, M. R. Lee, S. T. Rutherford (2001). Field Persistence of Ice-nucleating Bacteria in Overwintering Colorado Potato Beetles. Biological Control, 21(1), 11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) (2004). Updated Directive 94-08 (Dir94-08) Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants With Novel Traits. Ottawa: CFIA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J. I. (2001). Harnessing Biotechnology for the Poor: Challenges Ahead for Capacity, Safety and Public Investment. Journal of Human Development, 2(2), 239–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, A. J., and J. M. E. Jacobs “GM Plants Without Foreign DNA: Implications from New Approaches in Vector Development,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetic Modified Organisms: Biosafety Research and Environmental Risk Assessment (Jeju Island, Korea, 2006) September 24–29, pp. 195–201

  • Cormick C. (2003). Perceptions of Risk Relating to Biotechnology in Australia. International Journal of Biotechnology 5(2), 95–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch M. L. (2001). From Golden Rice to Terminator Technology: Agricultural Biotechnology Will Not Feed the World or Save the Environment. In B. Tokar (ed.), Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering. London: Zed Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Dall, D. and G. Neumann, Daughterless Carp: An Analysis of Legal, Technical and Other Risks to Delivery. A report to the Pest Animal Control CRC (Canberra, 2004)

  • Davidson S. (2002). Carp Crusades. ECOS, 112, 8–12

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cock Buning T., E. T. Lammerts van Bueren, M. A. Haring, H. C. De Vriend, P. C. Struik (2006). Correspondence. Nature Biotechnology, 24(11), 1329–1331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis C. (2002). Gene Regulation: The Brave New World of RNA. Nature, 418, 122–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin R. H., T. Y. Yesaki, C. A. Biagi, E. M. Donaldson, P. Swanson, W. K. Chan (1994). Extraordinary Salmon Growth. Nature, 371, 209–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin R. H., C. A. Biagi, T. Y. Yesaki (2004). Growth, Viability and Genetic Characteristics of GH Transgenic Coho Salmon Strains. Aquaculture, 236, 607–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin R. H., L. F. Sundström, W. M. Muir (2006). Interface of Biotechnology and Ecology for Environmental Risk Assessments of Transgenic Fish. Trends in Biotechnology, 24(2), 89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, A. (2004), “Sons, No Daughters,” The Land 12, 32

  • European Parliament, “Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC,” Offical Journal of European Community L106 (2001), 1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • EU SCP (European Union Scientific Committee on Plants) (1998). Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants Regarding Submission for Placing on the Market under Directive 90/220/EEC of Genetically Modified Processing Tomato Line TGT7F Notified by Zeneca. Notification C/ES/96/01 [available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scp/out19_en.html, accessed 9 Jan 07]

  • Ferrara J., M. K. Dorsey (2001). Genetically Engineered Foods: A Minefield of Safety Hazards. In B. Tokar (ed.), Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering. London: Zed Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddings L. V. (2006). Correspondence. Nature Biotechnology, 24(11), 1329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groot A. T., M. Dicke (2002). Insect-resistant Transgenic Plants in a Multi-trophic Context. The Plant Journal, 31(4), 387–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallerman, E. M. (2004), “GloFish, the first GM animal commercialized: profits amid controversy.” ISB News Report, June 2004

  • Hallerman E. M., E. McLean, I. A. Fleming (2007). Effects of Growth Hormone Transgenes on the Behaviour and Welfare of Aquacultured Fishes: A Review Identifying Research Needs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 104(3–4), 265–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoedemaekers R. (2001). Commercialisation, Patents and Moral Assessment of Biotechnology Products. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 26(3), 273–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen E., H. J. Schouten (2007). Cisgenesis Strongly Improves Introgression Breeding and Induced Translocation Breeding of Plants. Trends in biotechnology, 25(5), 219–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S. (1995). Product, Process, or Programme: Three Cultures and the Regulation of Biotechnology. In M. Bauer (ed.), Resistance to New Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson R. A. (2001). Trancending Transgenics: Are There Babies in the Bathwater, or is That a Dorsal Fin? In P. G. Pardey (ed.), The Future of Food: Biotechnology Markets and Policies in an International Setting (pp. 75–95). Washington, DC: John Hopkins Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones D. A., M. H. Ryder, B. G. Clare, S. K. Farrand, A. Kerr (1988). Construction of a Tra- Deletion Mutant of pAgK84 to Safeguard the Biological Control of Crown Gall. Molecular and General Genetics, 212, 207–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer M., R. Sanders, H. Bolkan, C. Waters, R. E. Sheehy, W. R. Hiatt (1992). Postharvest Evalutation of Transgenic Tomatoes with Reduced Levels of Polygalacturonase: Processing, Firmness and Disease Resistance. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 1, 241–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky S. (1991). Biotechnics in Society: The Rise of Industrial Genetics. New York: Praeger

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammerts Van Bueren E. T., H. Verhoog, M. Tiemens-Hulscher, P. C. Struik, M. Haring, (2007). Organic Agriculture Requires Process Rather Than Product Evaluation of Novel Breeding Techniques. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54, 401–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrman S. (1992). US Proposes Relaxing Rules on Trials of Biotech Crops. Nature, 360, 94

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow L. (2005). Divergent Concepts of Sustainability: The Case of GM Crops. In G. Banse, I. Hronszky, G. Nelson (eds.), Rationality in an Uncertain World (pp. 133–144). Berlin: Edition Sigma

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow L., A. Carr, R. von Schomberg, D. Wield (1996). Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe: Harmonisation Difficulties, Opportunities, Dilemmas. Science and Public Policy 23(3), 135–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Logar N., L. K. Pollock (2005). Transgenic Fish: Is a New Policy Framework Necessary for a New Technology? Environmental Science and Policy, 8, 17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen K. H., P. B. Hom, J. Lassen, P. Sandoe, (2002). Ranking Genetically Modified Plants According to Familiarity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 267–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T. (In press). Agri-food Contestations in Rural Space: GM in its Regulatory Context. Geoforum. Available on-line at: doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.11. 013

  • McNally R., P. Wheale (1996). Biopatenting and Biodiversity: Comparative Advantages in the New Global Order. The Ecologist, 26(5), 222–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Millstone E., E. Brunner, S. Mayer (1999). Beyond ‹substantial equivalence’. Nature, 401, 525–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir W. M., R. D. Howard (2004). Characterization of Environmental Risk of Genetically Engineered (GE) Organisms and Their Potential to Control Exotic Invasive Species. Aquatic Sciences 66, 414–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myskja, B. K., “Is there a moral difference between intragenic and transgenic modification of plants?” Paper presented at EurSafe 2004: 5th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, 2004)

  • Myskja B. K. (2006). The Moral Difference Between Intragenic and Transgenic Modification of Plants. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 225–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam Y. K., J. K. Noh, Y. S. Cho, H. J. Cho, K.-N. Cho, C. G. Kim, D. S. Kim (2001). Dramatically Accelerated Growth and Extraordinary Gigantism of Transgenic Mud Loach Misgurnus mizolepis. Transgenic Research 10, 353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam Y. K., I.-S. Park, D. S. Kim (2004). Triploid Hybridization of Fast-Growing Transgenic Mud Loach Misgurnus mizolepis Male to Cyprinid Loach Misgurnus anguillicaudatus Female: The First Performance Study on Growth and Reproduction of Transgenic Polyploid Hybrid Fish. Aquaculture 231, 559–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin D. (2002). Patenting Genes and the Public Interest. American Journal of Bioethics, 2(3), 13–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen K. M. (2003). Transgenic Organisms – Time for Conceptual Diversification? Nature Biotechnology 21, 227–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble D. (2006). The Music of Life: Biology Beyond the Genome. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation, Development) (1993). Safety considerations for biotechnology: scale-up of crop plants. Paris: OECD

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, G. (2004), “Silence of the Genes.” Australian Life Scientist Oct/Nov 2004, 12–14

  • Orser, C. S., R. Lotstein, B. J. Staskawicz, D. Dahlbeck, E. Lahue, D. K. Willis, S. E. Lindow, and N. J. Panopoulos, “Molecular Genetics of Bacterial Ice Nucleation.” In Proceedings of the 2nd Working Group on Pseudomonas Syringae Pathovars (The Hellenic Phytophathological Society, Athens, 1984)

  • Piller C. (1986). From Ice-nine to Ice-minus; Regulating Altered Genes. The Nation, 243, 400–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollan M. (2003). The Botany of Desire: A Plant’s Eye View of the World. London: Bloomsbury

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhein, R. Jr “‹Ice-minus’ May End Killer Frosts – And Stop the Rain...” Business Week, Nov 25, 1985, 42–43

  • Rommens C. M. (2004). All-native DNA Transformation: A New Approach to Plant Genetic Engineering. TRENDS in Plant Science 9(9), 457–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rommens C. M., J. M. Humara, J. Ye, H. Yan, C. Richael, L. Zhang, R. Perry, K. Swords (2004). Crop Improvement Through Modification of the Plant’s own Genome. Plant Physiology, 135, 421–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell A. W. (2001). Gene Technology in R&D Provision to the Australian Sugar Industry: Sweetening up Public Research? Rural Society, 11(3), 163–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, A. W., “GMOs and Their Contexts: A Comparison of Potential and Actual Performance of GM Crops in a Local Agricultural Setting.” Geoforum. Available on-line at: doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.04.001

  • Sagoff M. (2002). Intellectual Property and Products of Nature. American Journal of Bioethics, 2(3), 12–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz S. A. (2001). Cloning Profits: The Revolution in Agricultural Biotechnology. In B. Tokar (ed.), Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering. London: Zed Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Schouten H. J., F. A. Krens, E. Jacobsen (2006a). Cisgenic Plants are Similar to Traditionally Bred Plants. EMBO Reports 7(7), 750–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schouten H. J., F. A. Krens, E. Jacobsen (2006b). Do Cisgenic Plants Warrant Less Stringent Oversight? Nature Biotechnology 24(7), 753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schouten H. J., F. A. Krens, E. Jacobsen (2006c). Correspondence: Schouten and Colleagues Respond. Nature Biotechnology 24(11), 1331–1333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert D. (2002). A Different Perspective on GM Food. Nature Biotechnology, 20(10), 969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert D., D. Williams (2006). Correspondance. Nature Biotechnology 24(11), 1327–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seralini G. E., D. Cellier, J. S. de Vendomois (2007). New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 52(4), 596–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiva V. (1997). Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Boston, MA: South End Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Shohet S. (1996). Biotechnology in Europe: Contentions in the Risk-Regulation Debate. Science and Public Policy, 23(2), 117–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow A. (2003). Unnatural Selection. Nature 424, 619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson J. R., A. Warnes (1996). Release of Genetically Modified Micro-organisms into the Environment. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 65, 5–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stotzky G. (2000). Persistence and Biological Activity in Soil of Insecticidal Proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis and of Bacterila DNA Bound on Clays and Humin acids. Journal of Environmental Quality, 29(3), 691–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timbs, S., K. Adams, and W. M. Rogers (2006) Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and The Gene Technology Agreement. Retrieved 23 Mar, 2007 from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/gtreview-report.htm

  • Tokar B. (2001). Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering. London: Zed Books

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Eede G., H.-J. Aarts, H. Buhk, G. Corthier, H. J. Flint, W. Hammes, B. Jacobsen, T. Midtvedt, J. van der Vossen, A. von Wright, W. Wackernagel, A. Wilcks (2004) The Relevance of Gene Transfer to the Safety of Food and Feed Derived from Genetically Modified (GM) Plants. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 1127–1156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S. (1994). Molecular Politics: Developing American and British regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972–1982. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

    A. Wendy Russell

  2. Departmental Visitor, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    A. Wendy Russell

  3. School of Philosophy and Bioethics, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Robert Sparrow

  4. Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Robert Sparrow

Authors
  1. A. Wendy Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Sparrow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Wendy Russell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Russell, A.W., Sparrow, R. The case for regulating intragenic GMOs. J Agric Environ Ethics 21, 153–181 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9074-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9074-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation