Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review
  • Published:
Transgenic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

  • 25 × ′25 National Steering Committee (2007) 25 × ′25 Action plan: charting America’s energy future. Energy Future Coalition, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Ames J (2002) New federal incentives promote biopower and biobased products. BioCycle 43:52–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Biomass Research, Development Board (2001) Fostering the bioeconomic revolution in biobased products and energy: an environmental approach. USDA & Department of Energy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Biomass Technical Advisory Committee (2002) Roadmap for Biomass Technologies in the United States. Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bothast RJ, Schlicher MA (2005) Biotechnological processes for conversion of corn into ethanol. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 67:19–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 8:576–581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:439–444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Castle LA, Wu G, McElroy D (2006) Agricultural input traits: past, present and future. Curr Opin Biotechnol 17:105–112

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, IA

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad U (2005) Polymers from plants to develop biodegradable plastics. Trends Plant Sci 10:511–512

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daniell H (2002) Molecular strategies for gene containment in transgenic crops. Nat Biotech 20:581–586

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Editorial (2004) Drugs in crops—the unpalatable truth. Nat Biotechnol 22:133

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Editorial (2006) Bioethanol needs biotech now. Nat Biotechnol 24:725–725

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand NC (2003a) Going to “Great Lengths” to prevent the escape of genes that produce specialty chemicals. Plant Physiol 132:1770–1774

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand NC (2003b) Current knowledge of gene flow in plants: implications for transgene flow. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 358:1163–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 217–236

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Australia

  • Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311:506–508

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fedoroff N, Brown NM (2004) Mendel in the kitchen: a scientist’s view of genetically modified foods. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox JL (2003) Puzzling industry response to ProdiGene fiasco. Nat Biotechnol 21:3–4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friedt W, Lühs W (1998) Recent developments and perspectives of industrial rapeseed breeding. Fett/Lipid 100:219–226

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:597–605

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graham RL, Nelson R, Sheehan J, Perlack RD, Wright LL (2007) Current and potential US corn stover supplies. Agron J 99:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene N (2004) Growing energy: how biofuels can help end America’s oil dependence. National Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenpeace (2006) Say no to genetic engineering [Online]. Available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

  • Gregory R, Flynn J, Slovic P (2001) Technological stigma. In: Flynn J et al (eds) Risk, media and stigma. Earthscan, London, pp 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigal DF, Berguson WE (1998) Soil carbon changes associated with short-rotation systems. Biomass Bioenergy 14:371–377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera S (2004) Industrial biotechnology—a chance at redemption. Nat Biotechnol 22:671–675

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera S (2005) Syngenta’s gaff embarrasses industry and White House. Nat Biotechnol 23:514–514

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera S (2006) Bonkers about biofuels. Nat Biotechnol 24:755–760

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 315:804–807

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hood EE (2002) From green plants to industrial enzymes. Enzyme Microb Technol 30:279–283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Horn ME, Woodard SL, Howard JA (2004) Plant molecular farming: systems and products. Plant Cell Rep 22:711–720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:808–812

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe G (2005) Withering on the vine: will agricultural biotech’s promises bear fruit? Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe G (2006) Regulatory slowdown on GM crop decisions. Nat Biotechnol 24:748–749

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James C (2006) Global Status of Biotech/GM Crops: 2006. ISAAA Brief No. 35, ISAAA: Ithaca, NY

  • 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, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalaitzandonakes N, Bijman J (2003) Who is driving biotechnology acceptance? Nat Biotechnol 21:366–369

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kinney AJ, Clemente TE (2005) Modifying soybean oil for enhanced performance in biodiesel blends. Fuel Process Technol 86:1137–1147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koonin SE (2006) Getting serious about biofuels. Science 311:435

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kort J, Collins M, Ditsch D (1998) A review of soil erosion potential associated with biomass crops. Biomass Bioenergy 14:351–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis AE, Theis TL (2005) Workshop on the economic and environmental impacts of biobased production. Int J Lifecycle Assess 10:226–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis AE, Theis TL (2006) Response to ‘Comments on workshop report on the economic and environmental impacts of biobased production.’ Int J Lifecycle Assess 11:213–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence S (2007) Agbiotech booms in emerging nations. Nat Biotechnol 25:271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee C (2006) Genetically engineered rice wins USDA approval. The Washington Post, Washington, DC, p 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee D, Natesan E (2006) Evaluating genetic containment strategies for transgenic plants. Trends Biotechnol 24:109–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Long SP, Zhu X-G, Naidu SL, Ort DR (2006) Can improvement in photosynthesis increase crop yields? Plant Cell Environ 29:315–330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ma JKC, Chikwarnba R, Sparrow P, Fischer R, Mahoney R, Twyman RM (2005) Plant-derived pharmaceuticals—the road forward. Trends Plant Sci 10:580–585

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marris E (2006) Drink the best and drive the rest. Nature 444:670–672

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 282–298

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin SB, Walsh ME (1998) Evaluating environmental consequences of producing herbaceous crops for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 14:317–324

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mead DJ (2005) Forests for energy and the role of planted trees. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:407–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellon M, Rissler J (2004) Gone to seed: transgenic contaminants in the traditional seed supply. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2:431–438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller HI (2001) The Bush administration deals a blow to biotechnology—and itself. Nat Biotechnol 19:807–808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 59–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen KM (2003) Transgenic organisms—time for conceptual diversification? Nat Biotechnol 21:227–228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1999) Review of the research strategy for biomass-derived transportation fuels. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2000a) Genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2000b) Biobased industrial products: research and commercialization priorities. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2002) Environmental effects of transgenic plants: the scope and adequacy of regulation. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2004) Biological confinement of genetically engineered organisms. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2006) Review of the department of energy’s genomics: GTL program. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish DJ, Fike JH (2005) The biology and agronomy of switchgrass for biofuels. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:423–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paster M, Pellegrino J, Carole TM (2003) Industrial bioproducts: today and tomorrow. Energetics Inc., Columbia, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen JF, Vogel KP, Funnell DL (2005) Impact of reduced lignin on plant fitness. Crop Sci 45:812–819

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, TN

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson RKD, Arntzen CJ (2004) On risk and plant-based biopharmaceuticals. Trends Biotechnol 22:64–66

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:845–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, USA

  • Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2003) Pharming the field: a look at the benefits and risks of bioengineering plants to produce pharmaceuticals, Washington, DC

  • Pollack A (2004) Genes from engineered grass spread for miles, study finds. The New York Times, New York, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulaski A (2004) Lawsuit tries to block grass tested in Oregon. The Oregonian, Portland, OR, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Raab RM, Tyo K, Stephanopoulos G (2005) Metabolic engineering. Adv Biochem Eng/Biotechnol 100:1–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 311:484–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reuters (2006) Biotech seen doubling US corn yields by 2030, December 12. Reuters News Service, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Rishi AS, Nelson ND, Goyal A (2001) Molecular farming in plants: a current perspective. J Plant Biochem Biotechnol 10:1–12

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 46:157–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, CA

  • Singh V, Batie CJ, Aux GW, Rausch KD, Miller C (2006) Dry-grind processing of corn with endogenous liquification enzymes. Cereal Chem 83:317–320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Snow AA, Palma PM (1997) Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. BioScience 47:86–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Stewart CN (2007) Biofuels and biocontainment. Nat Biotechnol 25:283–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart CN, Halfhill MD, Warwick SI (2003) Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives Nat Rev Genet 4:806–817

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 223–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun Grant Initiative (2007) Initiative Description [Online]. Available at http://www.sungrant.org/description.cfm (verified March 11, 2007)

  • Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2:455–459

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Twyman RM, Stoger E, Schillberg S, Christou P, Fischer R (2003) Molecular farming in plants: host systems and expression technology. Trends Biotechnol 21:570–578

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyson KS (2005) DOE analysis of fuels and coproducts from lipids. Fuel Process Technol 86:1127–1136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • US Congress (2000) Biomass Research and Development Act. Bill No. 106–224. 106th Session

  • US Congress (2005) Energy Policy Act. Bill No. 109–58. 109th Session

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulgiati S (2001) A comprehensive energy and economic assessment of biofuels: when “green” is not enough. Crit Rev Plant Sci 20:71–106

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:113–122

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2006) Fact sheet: genetically engineered rice. Release No. 0306.06. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Camp W (2005) Yield enhancement genes: seeds for growth. Curr Opin Biotechn 16:147–153

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vinocur B, Altman A (2005) Recent advances in engineering plant tolerance to abiotic stress: achievements and limitations. Curr Opin Biotechn 16:123–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel KP, Jung H-JG (2001) Genetic modification of herbaceous plants for feed and fuel. Crit Rev Plant Sci 20:15–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z-Y, Ge Y (2006) Recent advances in genetic transformation of forage and turf grasses. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 42:1–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 101:14533–14538

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer PR (2000) The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290:2088–2093

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, 20523, USA

    Saharah Moon Chapotin

  2. Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

    Jeffrey D. Wolt

  3. Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

    Jeffrey D. Wolt

Authors
  1. Saharah Moon Chapotin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey D. Wolt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey D. Wolt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chapotin, S.M., Wolt, J.D. Genetically modified crops for the bioeconomy: meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Res 16, 675–688 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-007-9122-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-007-9122-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation