Kent Bradford and Allen Van Deynze (SBC), Neal Gutterson (Mendel Biotech), Wayne Parrott (University of Georgia) and Steve Strauss (Oregon State University) have published an article in Nature Biotechnology (2005, 23: 439-444) titled “Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics.”

The abstract states: “The costs of meeting regulatory requirements and market restrictions guided by regulatory criteria are substantial impediments to the commercialization of transgenic crops. Although a cautious approach may have been prudent initially, we argue that some regulatory requirements can now be modified to reduce costs and uncertainty without compromising safety. Long-accepted plant breeding methods for incorporating new diversity into crop varieties, experience from two decades of research on and commercialization of transgenic crops, and expanding knowledge of plant genome structure and dynamics all indicate that if a gene or trait is safe, the genetic engineering process itself presents little potential for unexpected consequences that would not be identified or eliminated in the variety development process before commercialization. We propose that as in conventional breeding, regulatory emphasis should be on phenotypic rather than genomic characteristics once a gene or trait has been shown to be safe.”

The full article can be obtained at http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n4/full/nbt1084.html or from the SBC website at http://sbc.ucdavis.edu .

Related news item from CropBiotech Net

Research proposes new regulatory requirements for GM

Genetically modified (GM) crops are stringently regulated before market entry, and the process of regulation itself, although thorough, is growing to be increasingly costly. Kent Bradford and colleagues at the University of California Davis provide new proposals on "Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics." Their paper is published in the latest issue of Nature Biotechnology.

The researchers admit that a cautious approach to admitting GM was prudent, but the experience of long years of work with GM crops, as well as expanding knowledge of plant genome structure and dynamics, can allow regulatory requirements to be modified, in order to reduce costs and uncertainty without compromising safety. They also propose that, as in conventional breeding, regulatory emphasis should be on phenotypic rather than genomic characteristics once a gene or trait has been shown to be safe.