Advertisement

Transgenic Research

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 675–688 | Cite as

Genetically modified crops for the bioeconomy: meeting public and regulatory expectations

  • Saharah Moon Chapotin
  • Jeffrey D. Wolt
Review
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

As the United States moves toward a plant-based bioeconomy, a large research and development effort is focused on creating new feedstocks to meet biomass demand for biofuels, bioenergy, and specialized bioproducts, such as industrial compounds and biomaterial precursors. Most bioeconomy projections assume the widespread deployment of novel feedstocks developed through the use of modern molecular breeding techniques, but rarely consider the challenges involved with the use of genetically modified crops, which can include hurdles due to regulatory approvals, market adoption, and public acceptance. In this paper we consider the implications of various transgenic crops and traits under development for the bioeconomy that highlight these challenges. We believe that an awareness of the issues in crop and trait selection will allow developers to design crops with maximum stakeholder appeal and with the greatest potential for widespread adoption, while avoiding applications unlikely to meet regulatory approval or gain market and public acceptance.

Keywords

Genetic engineering Biofuels Bioproducts Regulatory policy Genetically modified organism 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 25 × ′25 National Steering Committee (2007) 25 × ′25 Action plan: charting America’s energy future. Energy Future Coalition, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Advanced Energy Initiative (2006) [Online]. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-6.html (posted 31 January 2006; verified 7 January 2007). Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, Washington, DC
  3. Ames J (2002) New federal incentives promote biopower and biobased products. BioCycle 43:52–55Google Scholar
  4. Biomass Research, Development Board (2001) Fostering the bioeconomic revolution in biobased products and energy: an environmental approach. USDA & Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Biomass Technical Advisory Committee (2002) Roadmap for Biomass Technologies in the United States. Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Boerjan W (2005) Biotechnology and the domestication of forest trees. Curr Opin Biotechnol 16:159–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bothast RJ, Schlicher MA (2005) Biotechnological processes for conversion of corn into ethanol. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 67:19–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Boudet AM, Kajita S, Grima-Pettenati J, Goffner D (2003) Lignins and lignocellulosics: a better control of synthesis for new and improved uses. Trends Plant Sci 8:576–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 23:439–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell FT, Asante-Owusu R (2001) GE trees: proceed only with caution. In: Strauss SH, Bradshaw HDT (eds) First international symposium on ecological and societal aspects of transgenic plantations. College of Forestry, Oregon State University, ORGoogle Scholar
  11. Castle LA, Wu G, McElroy D (2006) Agricultural input traits: past, present and future. Curr Opin Biotechnol 17:105–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Christensen MJ, Misra MK, Rai S, Shyy Y-Y, Wolt JD (2004) Confined production processes for non-food corn. Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products, Ames, IAGoogle Scholar
  13. Conrad U (2005) Polymers from plants to develop biodegradable plastics. Trends Plant Sci 10:511–512PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniell H (2002) Molecular strategies for gene containment in transgenic crops. Nat Biotech 20:581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Editorial (2004) Drugs in crops—the unpalatable truth. Nat Biotechnol 22:133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Editorial (2006) Bioethanol needs biotech now. Nat Biotechnol 24:725–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellstrand NC (2003a) Going to “Great Lengths” to prevent the escape of genes that produce specialty chemicals. Plant Physiol 132:1770–1774CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellstrand NC (2003b) Current knowledge of gene flow in plants: implications for transgene flow. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 358:1163–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellstrand NC, Prentice HC, Hancock J (2002) Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. In: Syvanen M, Kado CI (eds) Horizontal gene transfer, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 217–236Google Scholar
  20. Farmacule (2006) Genetic technology to produce cheaper ethanol from sugarcane [Online]. Available at http://farmacule.com/news/news7/ (verified 7 January 2007). Farmacule Bioindustries, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  21. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311:506–508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fedoroff N, Brown NM (2004) Mendel in the kitchen: a scientist’s view of genetically modified foods. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Fox JL (2003) Puzzling industry response to ProdiGene fiasco. Nat Biotechnol 21:3–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedt W, Lühs W (1998) Recent developments and perspectives of industrial rapeseed breeding. Fett/Lipid 100:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Good AG, Shrawat AK, Muench DG (2004) Can less yield more? Is reducing nutrient input into the environment compatible with maintaining crop production? Trends Plant Sci 9:597–605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham RL, Nelson R, Sheehan J, Perlack RD, Wright LL (2007) Current and potential US corn stover supplies. Agron J 99:1–11Google Scholar
  27. Greene N (2004) Growing energy: how biofuels can help end America’s oil dependence. National Resources Defense Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenpeace (2006) Say no to genetic engineering [Online]. Available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  29. Gregory R, Flynn J, Slovic P (2001) Technological stigma. In: Flynn J et al (eds) Risk, media and stigma. Earthscan, London, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  30. Grigal DF, Berguson WE (1998) Soil carbon changes associated with short-rotation systems. Biomass Bioenergy 14:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herrera S (2004) Industrial biotechnology—a chance at redemption. Nat Biotechnol 22:671–675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Herrera S (2005) Syngenta’s gaff embarrasses industry and White House. Nat Biotechnol 23:514–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Herrera S (2006) Bonkers about biofuels. Nat Biotechnol 24:755–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Himmel M, Ding S-Y, Johnson DK, Adney WS, Nimlos MR, Brady JW, Foust TD (2007) Biomass recalcitrance: engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels production. Science 315:804–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hood EE (2002) From green plants to industrial enzymes. Enzyme Microb Technol 30:279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Horn ME, Woodard SL, Howard JA (2004) Plant molecular farming: systems and products. Plant Cell Rep 22:711–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hu W-J, Harding SA, Lung J, Popko JL, Ralph J, Stokke DD, Tsai C-J, Chiang VL (1999) Repression of lignin biosynthesis promotes cellulose accumulation and growth in transgenic trees. Nat Biotechnol 17:808–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Jaffe G (2005) Withering on the vine: will agricultural biotech’s promises bear fruit? Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaffe G (2006) Regulatory slowdown on GM crop decisions. Nat Biotechnol 24:748–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. James C (2006) Global Status of Biotech/GM Crops: 2006. ISAAA Brief No. 35, ISAAA: Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson B, Kirby K (2001) Potential impacts of genetically modified trees on biodiversity of forestry plantations: a global perspective. In: Strauss SH, Bradshaw HDT (eds) First international symposium on ecological and societal aspects of transgenic plantations. College of Forestry, Oregon State University, ORGoogle Scholar
  42. Kalaitzandonakes N, Bijman J (2003) Who is driving biotechnology acceptance? Nat Biotechnol 21:366–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kinney AJ, Clemente TE (2005) Modifying soybean oil for enhanced performance in biodiesel blends. Fuel Process Technol 86:1137–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koonin SE (2006) Getting serious about biofuels. Science 311:435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Kort J, Collins M, Ditsch D (1998) A review of soil erosion potential associated with biomass crops. Biomass Bioenergy 14:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Landis AE, Theis TL (2005) Workshop on the economic and environmental impacts of biobased production. Int J Lifecycle Assess 10:226–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Landis AE, Theis TL (2006) Response to ‘Comments on workshop report on the economic and environmental impacts of biobased production.’ Int J Lifecycle Assess 11:213–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lawrence S (2007) Agbiotech booms in emerging nations. Nat Biotechnol 25:271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee C (2006) Genetically engineered rice wins USDA approval. The Washington Post, Washington, DC, p 3Google Scholar
  50. Lee D, Natesan E (2006) Evaluating genetic containment strategies for transgenic plants. Trends Biotechnol 24:109–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Long SP, Zhu X-G, Naidu SL, Ort DR (2006) Can improvement in photosynthesis increase crop yields? Plant Cell Environ 29:315–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Ma JKC, Chikwarnba R, Sparrow P, Fischer R, Mahoney R, Twyman RM (2005) Plant-derived pharmaceuticals—the road forward. Trends Plant Sci 10:580–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Marris E (2006) Drink the best and drive the rest. Nature 444:670–672CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Mayer S (2001) International regulation and public acceptance of GM trees: demanding a new approach to risk evaluation. In: Strauss SH, Bradshaw HDT (eds) First international symposium on ecological and societal aspects of transgenic plantations. College of Forestry, Oregon State University, ORGoogle Scholar
  55. McLaughlin S, Bouton J, Bransby D, Conger B, Ocumpaugh WR, Parrish DJ, Taliaferro C, Vogel KP, Wullschleger S (1999) Developing switchgrass as a bioenergy crop. In: Janick J (ed) Perspectives on new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA, pp 282–298Google Scholar
  56. McLaughlin SB, Walsh ME (1998) Evaluating environmental consequences of producing herbaceous crops for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 14:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mead DJ (2005) Forests for energy and the role of planted trees. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:407–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mellon M, Rissler J (2004) Gone to seed: transgenic contaminants in the traditional seed supply. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  59. Menassa R, Zhu H, Karatzas CN, Lazaris A, Richman A, Brandle J (2004) Spider dragline silk proteins in transgenic tobacco leaves: accumulation and field production. Plant Biotechnol J 2:431–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Miller HI (2001) The Bush administration deals a blow to biotechnology—and itself. Nat Biotechnol 19:807–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Nichols NN, Dien BS, Bothast RJ, Cotta MA (2006) The corn ethanol industry. In: Minteer S (ed) Alcoholic fuels. CRS Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 59–78Google Scholar
  62. Nielsen KM (2003) Transgenic organisms—time for conceptual diversification? Nat Biotechnol 21:227–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. NRC (1999) Review of the research strategy for biomass-derived transportation fuels. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  64. NRC (2000a) Genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  65. NRC (2000b) Biobased industrial products: research and commercialization priorities. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  66. NRC (2002) Environmental effects of transgenic plants: the scope and adequacy of regulation. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  67. NRC (2004) Biological confinement of genetically engineered organisms. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  68. NRC (2006) Review of the department of energy’s genomics: GTL program. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  69. Parrish DJ, Fike JH (2005) The biology and agronomy of switchgrass for biofuels. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:423–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Paster M, Pellegrino J, Carole TM (2003) Industrial bioproducts: today and tomorrow. Energetics Inc., Columbia, MDGoogle Scholar
  71. Pedersen JF, Vogel KP, Funnell DL (2005) Impact of reduced lignin on plant fitness. Crop Sci 45:812–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TNGoogle Scholar
  73. Peterson RKD, Arntzen CJ (2004) On risk and plant-based biopharmaceuticals. Trends Biotechnol 22:64–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Peterson RKD, Meyer SJ, Wolf AT, Wolt JD, Davis PM (2006) Genetically engineered plants, endangered species and risk: a temporal and spatial exposure assessment for Karner blue butterfly larvae and Bt maize pollen. Risk Anal 26:845–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2002) Three years later: lessons learned from the monarch butterfly controversy [Online]. Available at http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/monarch.pdf (posted 30 May 2002; verified 7 January 2007), Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  76. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2003) Pharming the field: a look at the benefits and risks of bioengineering plants to produce pharmaceuticals, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  77. Pollack A (2004) Genes from engineered grass spread for miles, study finds. The New York Times, New York, p 1Google Scholar
  78. Pulaski A (2004) Lawsuit tries to block grass tested in Oregon. The Oregonian, Portland, OR, p 1Google Scholar
  79. Raab RM, Tyo K, Stephanopoulos G (2005) Metabolic engineering. Adv Biochem Eng/Biotechnol 100:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ragauskas AJ, Williams CK, Davison BH, Britovsek G, Cairney J, Eckert CA, Frederick WJJ, Hallett JP, Leak DJ, Liotta CL, Mielenz JR, Murphy R, Templer R, Tschaplinski T (2006) The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311:484–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Reuters (2006) Biotech seen doubling US corn yields by 2030, December 12. Reuters News Service, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  82. Rishi AS, Nelson ND, Goyal A (2001) Molecular farming in plants: a current perspective. J Plant Biochem Biotechnol 10:1–12Google Scholar
  83. Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Moser LE, Eskridge KM, Perrin RK (2006) Establishment stand thresholds for switchgrass grown as a bioenergy crop. Crop Sci 46:157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schwarzenegger A (2006) Executive Order S-06-06 by the Governor of the State of California [Online]. Available at http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/executive-order/183/ (posted 25 April 2006; verified 7 January 2007). State of California, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  85. Singh V, Batie CJ, Aux GW, Rausch KD, Miller C (2006) Dry-grind processing of corn with endogenous liquification enzymes. Cereal Chem 83:317–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Snow AA, Palma PM (1997) Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. BioScience 47:86–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. State of Illinois (2006) Gov. Blagojevich unveils ambitious energy independence plan to reduce Illinois’ reliance on foreign oil [Online]. Available at http://www100.state.il.us/PressReleases/PressReleasesListShow.cfm?RecNum=5200 (posted 22 August 2006; verified 7 January 2007). Office of the Governor
  88. Stewart CN (2007) Biofuels and biocontainment. Nat Biotechnol 25:283–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Stewart CN, Halfhill MD, Warwick SI (2003) Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives Nat Rev Genet 4:806–817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Strauss SH (2003) Genomics, genetic engineering, and domestication of crops. Science 300:61–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Strauss SH, Bradshaw HDT (2001) Forest biotechnology perspective. In: Strauss SH, Bradshaw HDT (eds) First international symposium on ecological and societal aspects of transgenic plantations. College of Forestry, Oregon State University, OR, pp 223–224Google Scholar
  92. Sun Grant Initiative (2007) Initiative Description [Online]. Available at http://www.sungrant.org/description.cfm (verified March 11, 2007)
  93. Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Trewavas AJ, Leaver CJ (2001) Is opposition to GM crops science or politics? An investigation into the arguments that GM crops pose a particular threat to the environment. EMBO reports 2:455–459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Twyman RM, Stoger E, Schillberg S, Christou P, Fischer R (2003) Molecular farming in plants: host systems and expression technology. Trends Biotechnol 21:570–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Tyson KS (2005) DOE analysis of fuels and coproducts from lipids. Fuel Process Technol 86:1127–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. US Congress (2000) Biomass Research and Development Act. Bill No. 106–224. 106th SessionGoogle Scholar
  98. US Congress (2005) Energy Policy Act. Bill No. 109–58. 109th SessionGoogle Scholar
  99. US DOE (2006) Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol: a joint research agenda. DOE/SC-0095, Office of Science and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  100. Ulgiati S (2001) A comprehensive energy and economic assessment of biofuels: when “green” is not enough. Crit Rev Plant Sci 20:71–106Google Scholar
  101. Umezawa T, Fujita M, Fujita Y, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K (2006) Engineering drought tolerance in plants: discovering and tailoring genes to unlock the future. Current Opin Biotechnol 17:113–122Google Scholar
  102. USDA (2006) Fact sheet: genetically engineered rice. Release No. 0306.06. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  103. USDA-APHIS (2006) Draft guidance for APHIS permits for field testing or movement of organisms with pharmaceutical or industrial intent. Biotechnology Regulatory Services, USDA-APHIS, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  104. USFDA, USDA-APHIS (2002) Guidance for industry: drugs, biologics, and medical devices derived from bioengineered plants for use in humans and animals. US Food and Drug Agency and US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  105. US DOE (2006) Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol: a joint research agenda. DOE/SC-0095, Office of Science and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  106. Van Camp W (2005) Yield enhancement genes: seeds for growth. Curr Opin Biotechn 16:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Vinocur B, Altman A (2005) Recent advances in engineering plant tolerance to abiotic stress: achievements and limitations. Curr Opin Biotechn 16:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Vogel KP, Jung H-JG (2001) Genetic modification of herbaceous plants for feed and fuel. Crit Rev Plant Sci 20:15–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wang Z-Y, Ge Y (2006) Recent advances in genetic transformation of forage and turf grasses. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 42:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Watrud LS, Lee EH, Fairbrother A, Burdick C, Reichman JR, Bollman M, Storm M, King G, Van de Water PK (2004) Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:14533–14538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer PR (2000) The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290:2088–2093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. World Agricultural Outlook Board (2006) USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections to 2015. USDA OCE-2006-1 [Online]. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/OCE061 (posted 10 February 2006; verified 7 January 2007). Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Agency for International DevelopmentWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural ProductsIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  3. 3.Department of AgronomyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options