Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Quantitative Safety Assessment Model For Transgenic Protein Products Produced In Agricultural Crops

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

Abstract

Transgenic plants are now being used to develop pharmaceutical and industrial products in addition to their use in crop improvement. Using confinement requirements, these transgenic plants are grown and processed under conditions that prevent intermixing with commodity crops. Regulatory agencies in the United States have provided guidance of zero tolerance of these new industrial crops with commodity crops. While this is a worthy goal, it is theoretically unattainable. In spite of the best containment practices, there is a potential risk using any system of production due to unforeseen incidences including natural disasters or exposure to workers. The precautionary principle has been used for numerous regulated articles in addressing the potential risks of new products and technology based on a risk assessment in similar situations. We present here a risk assessment model that could be used as a start to develop an accepted model for the industry. The model is based on current risk models used for other regulated articles, but adapted for these types of products. This could be used to determine action levels in the event of an unintended exposure or to ensure that detection or confinement methods are adequate to avoid risks. As an example, aprotinin, a therapeutic protein now being produced in maize, was evaluated for potential risk to humans using this model.

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

  • 21 CFR Part 570: Food additives.

  • 40 CFR Part 180: Tolerances and Exemptions from Tolerances for Pesticide Chemicals in Food; Part 185: Tolerances for Pesticides in Food; Part 186: Pesticides in Animal Feed.

  • D.A. Andow (2003) ArticleTitleUK Farm-scale Evaluations of Transgenic Herbicide-tolerant Crops NatureBiotechnology 21 IssueID12 1453–1454

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Report on Genetically Engineered StarLink Corn, June 15, 2001.

  • G. Conko (2003) ArticleTitleSafety, Risk and the Precautionary Principle: Rethinking Precautionary Approaches to the Regulation of Transgenic Plants Transgenic Research 12 639–647

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Cook (2003) Biotechnology: Cause and Consequence of Change in Agriculture A. Eaglesham S. Ristow R. Hardy (Eds) NABC Report 15, Biotechnology: Science and Society at a Crossroad National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Ithaca, New York 39–52

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Daniell S. Streatfield K. Wycoff (2001) ArticleTitleMedical Molecular Farming: Production of Antibodies, Biopharmaceuticals and Edible Vaccines in Plants Trends in Plant Science 6 219–226

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Davies A. Allen H. Kort N. Weerasena D. Rocco C. Paul B. Hunt M. Elliot (1997) ArticleTitleProspective, Randomized Double Blind Study of High-dose Aprotinin in Pediatric Cardiac Operations The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 63 IssueID2 497–503

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Emberlin (1999) A Report on the Dispersal of Maize Pollen National Pollen Research Unit, University College Worcester

    Google Scholar 

  • B.T.C. Goga F. Clementi (2002) ArticleTitleSafety Assurance of Foods: Risk Management Depends on Good Science But It Is Not a Scientific Activity Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 IssueID3 303–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimlich, R., J. Fernandez-Cornejo, W. McBride, C. Klotz-Ingram, S. Jans, and N. Brooks, “Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use?” Agricultural Outlook (August 2000), 13–17.

  • E.E. Hood S.L. Woodard (2002) Industrial Proteins Produced from Transgenic Plants E.E. Hood J.A. Howard (Eds) Plants as Factories for Protein Production Kluwer Academic Publishers Netherlands 119–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. A. and E. E. Hood, “Bioindustrial and Biopharmaceutical Products Produced in Plants”, Advances in Agronomy in press.

  • J. Jaffe (2004) ArticleTitleRegulating Transgenic Crops: a Comparative Analysis of Different Regulating Processes Transgenic Research 13 5–19

    Google Scholar 

  • A.R. Kusnadi Z. Nikolov J. Howard (1997) ArticleTitleProduction of Recombinant Proteins in Transgenic Plants: Practical Considerations Biotechnology and Bioengineering 56 473–484

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Laskowski I. Kato (1980) ArticleTitleProtein Inhibitors of Proteinases Annual Review of Biochemistry 49 593–626

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Lerner N.S. Binur (1990) ArticleTitleCurrent Research Review – Current Status of Surgical Adhesives Journal of Surgical Research 48 165–181

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Matras (1985) ArticleTitleFibrin Seal: the State of the Art Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 43 605–611

    Google Scholar 

  • InstitutionalAuthorNameNational Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process National Academy Press Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Pimentel P. Raven (2000) ArticleTitleBt Corn Pollen Impacts on Nontarget Lepidoptera: Assessment of Effects in Nature Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97 IssueID15 8198–8199

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Sears R. Hellmich D. Stanley-Horn K. Oberhauser J. Pleasants H. Mattila B. Siegfried G. Dively (2001) ArticleTitleImpact of Bt Corn Pollen on Monarch Butterfly Populations: A Risk Assessment Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98 IssueID21 11937–11942

    Google Scholar 

  • Segarra, A. and J. Rawson, StarLink Corn Controversy: Background, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 2001.

  • D. Stanley-Horn G. Dively R. Hellmich H. Mattila M. Sears R. Rose L. Jesse J. Losey J. Obrycki L. Lewis (2001) ArticleTitleAssessing the Impact of Cry 1Ab-Expressing Corn Pollen on Monarch Butterfly Larvae in Field Studies Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98 IssueID21 11931–11936

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Streatfield J.A. Howard (2003) ArticleTitlePlant-based Vaccines International Journal of Parasitology 33 479–493

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Streatfield J. Jilka E. Hood D. Turner M. Bailey J. Mayor S. Woodard K. Beifuss M. Horn D. Delaney I. Tizard J. Howard (2001) ArticleTitlePlant-based Vaccines: Unique Advantages Vaccine 19 2742–2748

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Trautschold E. Werle G. Zickgraf-kudel (1967) ArticleTitleTrasylol Biochemical Pharmacology 16 59–72

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Agriculture, Bt Corn Not a Threat to Monarchs, ARS Agricultural Research, February, 2002.

  • US Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/5409/1-89/002, 1989.

  • US Environmental Protection Agency, Scientific Report on ‘StarLink Corn, July, 2001.

  • US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Guidelines for Exposure Assessment, Federal Register 57 (104) 22888–22938, 29 May, 1992.

  • US Environmental Protection Agency, A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding: Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn , FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting SAP Report No. 2001-09, US Environmental Protection Agency, July 17–18, 2001.

  • US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, The Food Defect Action Levels-Levels of Natural or Unavoidable Defects in Foods that Present No Health Hazards for Humans. Defect Action Handbook, May, 1995, revised May, 1998.

  • US Food and Drug Administration, Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn: A Report to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, June 11, 2001.

  • US Food and Drug Administration, Draft Guidance for Industry, Drugs, Biologics, and Medical Devices Derived from Bioengineered Plants for Use in Humans and Animals, September 2002.

  • G.-Y. Zhong D. Peterson D. Delaney M. Bailey D. Witcher J. Register D. Bond C. Li L. Marshal E. Kulisek D. Ritland T. Meyer E. Hood J. Howard (1999) ArticleTitleCommercial Production of Aprotinin in Transgenic Maize Seeds Molecular Breeding 5 345–356

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Zwahlen A. Hilbeck R. Howald W. Nentwig (2003) ArticleTitleEffects of Transgenic Bt Corn Litter on the Earthworm Lumbricus terrestris Molecular Ecology 12 1077–1086

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. John A. Howard, 5819 Stallion Ridge, College Station, TX, 77845, USA

    John A. Howard & Kirby C. Donnelly

Authors
  1. John A. Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirby C. Donnelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John A. Howard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Howard, J.A., Donnelly, K.C. A Quantitative Safety Assessment Model For Transgenic Protein Products Produced In Agricultural Crops. J Agric Environ Ethics 17, 545–558 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-004-1470-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-004-1470-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation