Skip to main content

Global regulatory burden for field testing of genetically modified trees

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Ahuja MR (2011) Fate of transgenes in the forest tree genome. Tree Genet Genomes 7:221–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boerjan W (2005) Biotechnology and the domestication of forest trees. Curr Opin Biotechnol 16:159–166

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grattapaglia D, Plomion C, Kirst M, Sederoff RR (2009) Genomics of growth traits in forest trees. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12:148–156

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harfouche A, Meilan R, Altman A (2011) Tree genetic engineering and applications to sustainable forestry and biomass production. Trends Biotechnol 29:9–17

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale DB, Kremer A (2011) Forest tree genomics: growing resources and applications. Nat Rev Genet 12:111–122

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schouten H, Jacobsen E (2008) Cisgenesis and intragenesis, sisters in innovative plant breeding. Trends Plant Sci 13:260–261

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss SH (2003a) Genomics, genetic engineering, and domestication of crops. Science 300:61–62

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss SH (2003b) Regulation of biotechnology as though gene function mattered. BioScience 53:453–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valenzuela S, Balocchi C, Rodríguez J (2006) Transgenic trees and forestry biosafety. Electron J Biotechnol 9:335–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walter C, Fladung M, Boerjan W (2010) The 20-year environmental safety record of GM trees. Nat Biotechnol 28:656–658

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeller SL, Kalinina O, Brunner S, Keller B, Schmid B (2010) Transgene x environment interactions in genetically modified wheat. PLoS One 5:e11405

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven H. Strauss.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-011-0445-8

Keywords

  • Genetically modified trees
  • Genetically engineered trees
  • Forest biotechnology
  • Cisgenic
  • Intragenic
  • Forest plantations