Advertisement

Agronomy for Sustainable Development

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 1–9 | Cite as

Pharmaceutical crops in California, benefits and risks. A review

  • Michelle Marvier
Review Article

Abstract

Crops are being genetically engineered to produce a wide variety of drugs, vaccines and other pharmaceutical proteins. Although these crops may open the door to less expensive and more readily available drugs, there is concern regarding the potential for contamination of human food and livestock feed, as well as environmental harm. The outlook for the production of pharmaceutical crops in California currently appears mixed. To date, 18 federal permits for field trials involving pharmaceutical or industrial proteins have been approved in California. However, the state’s farming community and general public have thus far rejected pharmaceutical crop production, and a handful of local governments have recently banned the cultivation of genetically modified crops, including pharmaceutical crops. In light of the many pros and cons, three major approaches — the precautionary approach, risk analysis and cost-benefit analysis — could be used to move the debate about pharmaceutical crops forward.

pharmaceutical crops transgene GMO protein vaccine blood thinners, hemoglobin insulin growth hormones cancer contraceptives hepatitis B cholera, rabies HIV malaria influenza maize bananas, tomatoes carrots lettuce risk 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bilsborrow P.E., Evans E.J., Bowman J. et al. (1998) Contamination of edible double-low oilseed rape crops via pollen transfer from high erucic cultivars, J. Sci. Food Agr. 76, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Conko G. (2003) Safety, risk and the precautionary principle: Rethinking precautionary approaches to the regulation of transgenic plants, Transgenic Res. 12, 639–647.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Daniell H., Khan M.S., Allison L. (2002) Milestones in chloroplast genetic engineering: An environmentally friendly era in biotechnology, Trends Plant Sci. 7, 84–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Editors of Nature Biotechnology (2004) Drugs in crops — the unpalatable truth, Nat. Biotechnol. 22, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elbehri A. (2005) Biopharming and the food system: Examining the potential benefits and risks, AgBioForum 8, 18–25.Google Scholar
  6. Ellstrand N.C. (2006) When crop transgenes wander in California, should we worry? Calif. Agr. 60, 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EuropaBio (2006) Understanding coexistence: Science, principles and practical experience, ABE/EuropaBio. www.europa-bio.be/documents/040406/Understanding%20Coexistence%20Fact %20File.pdf.Google Scholar
  8. Federal Register (2003) Field testing of plants engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds, Fed. Reg. 68, 11337–11340.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer R., Stoger E., Schillberg S. et al. (2004) Plant-based production of biopharmaceuticals, Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 7, 152–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giddings G., Allison G., Brooks D. et al. (2000) Transgenic plants as factories for biopharmaceuticals, Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 1151–1155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horn M.E., Woodward S.L., Howard J.A. (2004) Plant molecular farming: Systems and products, Plant Cell Rep. 22, 711–720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keenan R.J., Stemmer W.P.C. (2002) Nontransgenic crops from transgenic plants, Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 215–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirk D.D., McIntosh K., Walmsley A.M. et al. (2005) Risk analysis for plant-made vaccines, Transgenic Res. 14, 449–462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ma J.K.-C., Drake P.M.W., Christou P. (2003) The production of recombinant pharmaceutical proteins in plants, Nat. Rev. Genet. 4, 794–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ma J.K.-C., Barros E., Bock R. et al. (2005a) Molecular farming for new drugs and vaccines, EMBO Rep. 6, 593–599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ma J.K.-C., Chikwamba R., Sparrow P. et al. (2005b) Plant-derived pharmaceuticals — the road forward, Trends Plant Sci. 10, 580–585.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macilwain C. (2005) US launches probe into sales of unapproved transgenic corn, Nature 434, 423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marvier M., Van Acker R. (2005) Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mascia P.N., Flavell R.B. (2004) Safe and acceptable strategies for producing foreign molecules in plants, Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 7, 189–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Research Council (2004) Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms, Naticnal Academy Press Washington, DC, 284 p.Google Scholar
  21. O’Brien M. (2000) Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 352 p.Google Scholar
  22. Peterson R.K.D., Arntzen C.J. (2004) On risk and plant-based biopharmaceuticals, Trends Biotechnol. 22, 64–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raskin I., Ribnicky D.M., Komarnytsky S. et al. (2002) Plants and human health in the twenty-first century, Trends Biotechnol. 20, 522–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sala F., Rigano M.M., Barbante A. et al. (2003) Vaccine antigen production in transgenic plants: Strategies, gene constructs and perspectives, Vaccine 21, 803–808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stewart P.A., Knight A.J. (2005) Trends affecting the next generation of U.S. agricultural biotechnology: Politics, policy, and plant-made Pharmaceuticals, Technol. Forecast Soc. 72, 521–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stewart P.A., McLean W. (2004) Fear and hope over the third generation of agricultural biotechnology: Analysis of public response in the Federal Register, AgBioForum 7, 133–141.Google Scholar
  27. Union of Concerned Scientists (2003) Pharm and Industrial Crops: The Next Wave of Agricultural Biotechnology, Cambridge, MA, www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/pharm-and-industrial-crops.html.Google Scholar
  28. Union of Concerned Scientists (2007) Pharma Crop Approvals in the United States, Cambridge, MA, http://go.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/pharm/(accessed Feb.18, 2007).Google Scholar
  29. [USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2005) Audit Report: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Controls Over Issuance of Genetically Engineered Organism Release Permits, Office of the Inspector General, Audit #50601-8-Te, December.Google Scholar
  30. [USDA APHIS] Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2007) USDA Release Permits for Pharmaceuticals, Industrials, Value Added Proteins for Human Consumption, or for Phytoremediation Granted or Pending by APHIS, www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/ph_permits.html.Google Scholar
  31. Vogel G. (2006) Tracing the transatlantic spread of GM rice, Science 313, 1714.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walmsley A.M., Arntzen C.J. (2000) Plants for delivery of edible vaccines, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 11, 126–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wisner R. (2005) The Economics of Pharmaceutical Crops: Potential Benefits and Risks for Farmers and Rural Communities, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA, www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/economics-of-pharmaceutical-crops.html.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer S+B Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Studies Institute and Department of BiologySanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations