Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms

Current regulatory regimes for genetically engineered crops fail to use a scientifically defensible approach or tailor the degree of regulatory review to the level of actual hazard or risk. We describe a rational way forward.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Label originally proposed by the EPA for virus-resistant plum.
Figure 2: Different technologies have been implemented over history (time) in the plant breeding process.
Figure 3: Tabular algorithm used to classify GMOs into the Stanford Model environmental risk categories for regulatory purposes.
Figure 4: EPSPS from different plants and microbes.

References

  1. 1

    National Research Council (NRC). Field Testing Genetically Modified Organisms: Framework for Decisions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1989).

  2. 2

    Barton, J., Crandon, J., Kennedy, D. & Miller, H. A model protocol to assess the risks of agricultural introductions. Nat. Biotechnol. 15, 845–848 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    James, C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014. ISAAA Brief No. 49 (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), Ithaca, New York, USA, 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Ricroch, A. & Hénard-Damave, M.-C. Next biotech plants: new traits, crops, developers and technologies for addressing global challenges. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 10.3109/07388551.2015.1004521 (2015).

  5. 5

    Jones, W. in GMO Answers Blog https://gmoanswers.com/experts/wendelyn-jones (9 January 2015), accessed 26 February 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    UNIDO/UNEP/WHO/FAO. Section II–C-1, General Principles. in Voluntary Code of Conduct for the Release of Organisms into the Environment (1991).

  7. 7

    WHO/FAO. Codex Alimentarius, Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology edn. 2 (CAC/GL 44–2003).

  8. 8

    NRC. Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment: Key Issues (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1987).

  9. 9

    OSTP. Exercise of federal oversight within scope of statutory authority: planned introductions of biotechnology products into the environment; Announcement of policy. Fed. Regist. 57, 6753–6762 (1992).

  10. 10

    United Kingdom Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). Towards an evidence-based regulatory system for GMOs http://www.defra.gov.uk/acre/files/Report-1.pdf (2013).

  11. 11

    ACRE. Why a modern understanding of genomes demonstrates the need for a new regulatory system for GMOs. http://www.defra.gov.uk/acre/files/Report-2.pdf (2013).

  12. 12

    ACRE. Towards a more effective approach to environmental risk assessment of GM crops under current EU legislation http://www.defra.gov.uk/acre/files/Report-3.pdf (2013).

  13. 13

    Schnell, J. et al. A comparative analysis of insertional effects in genetically engineered plants: considerations for pre-market assessments. Transgenic Res. 24, 1–17 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F. & Rosellini, D. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 34, 77–88 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    European Union. EUR 24473: A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research 2001–2010 (Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2010).

  16. 16

    Van Eenennaam, A.L. & Young, A.E. Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations. J. Anim. Sci. 92, 4255–4278 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    OSTP. Improving transparency and ensuring continued safety in biotechnology. White House blog (2 July 2015).

  18. 18

    Matsuoka, Y. Evolution of polyploid triticum wheats under cultivation: the role of domestication, natural hybridization and allopolyploid speciation in their diversification. Plant Cell Physiol. 52, 750–764 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Hancock, J. Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species (CABI Publishing, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Jones, S.S., Murray, T.D. & Allan, R.E. The use of alien genes for development of disease resistance in wheat. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 33, 429–443 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Ahloowalia, B.S., Maluszynski, M. & Nichterlein, K. Global impact of mutation-derived varieties. Euphytica 135, 187–204 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    IAEA/MVD. Joint FAO/IAEA Mutant Variety Database http://mvgs.iaea.org/AboutMutantVarieties.aspx, accessed 10 August 2015.

  23. 23

    Goodman, R.M., Hauptli, H., Crossway, A. & Knauf, V.C. Gene transfer in crop improvement. Science 236, 48–54 (1987).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Young, N.D. & Tanksley, S.D. RFLP analysis of the size of chromosomal segments retained around the Tm-2 locus of tomato during backcross breeding. Theor. Appl. Genet. 77, 353–359 (1989).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Hajjar, R. & Hodgkin, T. The use of wild relatives in crop improvement: A survey of developments over the last 20 years. Euphytica 156, 1–13 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Steiner, H.Y. et al. Evaluating the potential for adverse interactions within genetically modified breeding stacks. Plant Physiol. 161, 1587–1594 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Committee on Scientific Evaluation of the Introduction of Genetically Modified Microorganisms and Plants into the Environment, NRC. Field Testing Genetically Engineered Organisms: Framework for Decisions (National Academies Press, 1989).

  28. 28

    National Biotechnology Policy Board. 1992 National Biotechnology Policy Board Report (National Institutes of Health). Biotechnol. Law Rep. 12, 127–182 (1992).

  29. 29

    OECD. Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on Improving the Quality of Government Regulation, including the OECD Reference Checklist for Regulatory Decision Making (OECD, Paris, 1995).

  30. 30

    OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance (OECD, Paris, 2012).

  31. 31

    WTO. Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. Annex 1A, Multilateral Agreement on Trade in Goods: Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO, Geneva, 1994). https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15-sps.pdf

  32. 32

    OSTP. Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology; announcement of policy; notice for public comment. Fed. Regist. 51, 23302–23350 (1986).

  33. 33

    EPA. Regulations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for Plant-Incorporated Protectants (Formerly Plant-Pesticides). Fed. Regist. 66, 37772–37817 (2001).

  34. 34

    Ames, B.N., Profet, M. & Gold, L.S. Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7777–7781 (1990).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    EPA. Pesticides import enforcement: Pioneer Hi-Bred https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014–07/documents/pioneer-cafo.pdf (2013). https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/pesticides-imports-enforcement-pioneer

  36. 36

    EPA. Pioneer Hi-Bred fined for illegally importing genetically modified corn seed. Pesticide Import Watch Newslett. 14, 3 (2014).

  37. 37

    Bock, R. The give-and-take of DNA: horizontal gene transfer in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 15, 11–22 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Staginnus, C. & Richert-Pöggeler, K.R. Endogenous pararetroviruses: two-faced travelers in the plant genome. Trends Plant Sci. 11, 485–491 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Pollack, A. By “editing” plant genes companies avoid regulation. New York Times B2 (2 January 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Camacho, A., Van Deynze, A., Chi-Ham, C. & Bennett, A.B. Genetically engineered crops that fly under the US regulatory radar. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 1087–1091 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Price, W.D. & Underhill, L. Application of laws, policies, and guidance from the United States and Canada to the regulation of food and feed derived from genetically modified crops: interpretation of composition data. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 8349–8355 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Van Haver, E. et al. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials. Food Chem. Toxicol. 46, S2–S70 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    GRACE. Conclusions and Recommendations on Animal Feeding Trials and Alternative Approaches and on the Use of Systematic Reviews on Evidence Maps for GMO Impact Assessment http://www.grace-fp7.eu/sites/default/files/GRACE_Conclusions%20&Recommendations.pdf (2015).

  44. 44

    Kessler, D.A., Taylor, M.R., Maryanski, J.H., Flamm, E.L. & Kahl, K.S. The safety of foods developed by biotechnology. Science 256, 1747–1749 (1992).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Mumm, R.H. A look at product development with genetically modified crops: examples from maize. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 8254–8259 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Privalle, L.S., Gillikin, N. & Wandelt, C. Bringing a transgenic crop to market: where compositional analysis fits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 8260–8266 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    Weber, N. et al. Crop genome plasticity and its relevance to food and feed safety of genetically engineered breeding stacks. Plant Physiol. 160, 1842–1853 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48

    Anonymous. Genetically modified mush. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 2 (2006).

  49. 49

    Lee, R.Y. et al. Genetically modified a-amylase inhibitor peas are not specifically allergenic in mice. PLoS One 8, e52972 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Bradford, K.J., Van Deynze, A., Gutterson, N., Parrott, W. & Strauss, S.H. Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 439–444 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.html (2015), accessed 5 July 2015.

  52. 52

    USDA-APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Services. Request to Extend Nonregulated Status from a Previous Determination: Extension Guidance for Developers http://www.aphis.usda.gov (22 February 2016).

  53. 53

    FDA. Statement of policy—foods derived from new plant varieties. Fed. Regist. 57, 22984–23006 (1992).

  54. 54

    Liu, W., Yuan, J.S. & Stewart, C.N. Jr. Advanced genetic tools for plant biotechnology. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 781–793 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    CDC. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories edn. 5 http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/BMBL.pdf (2009).

  56. 56

    Wolt, J.D. et al. Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants. Transgenic Res. 19, 425–436 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    Taheripour, F., Mahaffey, H. & Tyner, W. Evaluation of economic, land use, and land use emission impacts of substituting non-GMO crops for GMO in the U.S. AgBioForum (in the press).

  58. 58

    Office of the Gene Regulator (OGTR), Australia. Risk Analysis Framework http://www.ogtr.gov.au (2009), accessed 15 August 2009.

  59. 59

    OECD. Guiding Principles for Regulatory Quality and Performance (OECD, Paris, 2005).

  60. 60

    Goodman, R.E., Panda, R. & Ariyarathna, H. Evaluation of endogenous allergens for the safety evaluation of genetically engineered food crops: review of potential risks, test methods, examples and relevance. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 8317–8332 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61

    Delaney, B. et al. Evaluation of protein safety in the context of biotechnology. Food Chem. Toxicol. 46, S71–S97 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62

    Hammond, B., Kough, J., Herouet-Guicheney, C. & Jez, J.M. ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee Task Force on Use of Mammalian Toxicology Studies in Safety Assessment of GM Foods. Toxicological evaluation of proteins introduced into food crops. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 43 (Suppl. 2), 25–42 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63

    Kuiper, H.A., Kleter, G.A., Noteborn, H.P. & Kok, E.J. Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. Plant J. 27, 503–528 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64

    Cellini, F. et al. Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42, 1089–1125 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65

    Shewry, P.R. et al. Natural variation in grain composition of wheat and related cereals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 8295–8303 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66

    Brune, P.D., Culler, A.H., Ridley, W.P. & Walker, K. Safety of GM crops: compositional analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 8243–8247 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67

    König, A. et al. Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42, 1047–1088 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68

    Bartholomaeus, A., Parrott, W., Bondy, G. & Walker, K. ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee Task Force on Use of Mammalian Toxicology Studies in Safety Assessment of GM Foods. The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: limitations and recommendations. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 43 (Suppl. 2), 1–24 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69

    NRC Committee on Scientific Evaluation of the Introduction of Genetically Modified Microorganisms and Plants into the Environment. Field Testing Genetically Engineered Organisms: Framework for Decisions (NRC, Washington, DC, 1989).

  70. 70

    Parrott, W. et al. Application of food and feed safety assessment principles to evaluate transgenic approaches to gene modulation in crops. Food Chem. Toxicol. 48, 1773–1790 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71

    Weber, N. et al. Evaluating the potential for adverse interactions within genetically engineered breeding stacks. Plant Physiol. 161, 1587–1594 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72

    McDougall, P. The Cost and Time Involved in the Discovery, Development and Authorisation of a New Plant Biotechnology Derived Trait http://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf_files/Getting-a-Biotech-Crop-to-Market-Phillips-McDougall-Study.pdf (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73

    Newell-McGloughlin, M. Nutritionally improved agricultural crops. Plant Physiol. 147, 939–953 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74

    Murray, J.D. & Maga, E.A. A new paradigm for regulating genetically engineered animals that are used as food. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3410–3413 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75

    Clinton, W. Executive Order no. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review. Fed. Regist. 58, 51735 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76

    OSTP. Principles for regulation and oversight of emerging technologies: memorandum for heads of executive departments and agencies (OSTP, 11 March 2011).

  77. 77

    Sasu, M., Ferrari, M.J. & Stephenson, A.G. Interrelationships among a virus-resistant transgene, herbivory, and a bacterial disease in a wild cucurbita. Intl. J. Plant Sci. 171, 1048–1058 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78

    Snow, A.A. et al. A Bt transgene reduces herbivory and enhances fecundity in wild sunflowers. Ecol. Appl. 13, 279–286 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79

    Burke, J.M. & Rieseberg, L.H. Fitness effects of transgenic disease resistance in sunflowers. Science 300, 1250 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80

    Miller, H.I. & Conko, G. The Frankenfood Myth (Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut, USA, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81

    Biopesticides Registration Action Document Proposed Decision: Coat Protein Gene of Plum Pox Virus. PC Code 006354 (EPA, 7 May 2010).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry Miller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

D.K. is a retired law professor who has represented clients and served as an expert witness in matters relating to agricultural biotechnology. G.C. is at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received non-directed contributions from Monsanto, Syngenta, and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. W.P. performs public-sector-funded research with genetically modified crops and has done public outreach under the auspices of the ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee and CropLife International. H.M. has been an expert consultant in litigation involving agribusiness companies

Additional information

Editor's note: This article has been peer-reviewed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Conko, G., Kershen, D., Miller, H. et al. A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms. Nat Biotechnol 34, 493–503 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3568

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing