Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Pharmaceutical crops in California, benefits and risks. A review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Agronomy for Sustainable Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Conko G. (2003) Safety, risk and the precautionary principle: Rethinking precautionary approaches to the regulation of transgenic plants, Transgenic Res. 12, 639–647.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Editors of Nature Biotechnology (2004) Drugs in crops — the unpalatable truth, Nat. Biotechnol. 22, 133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbehri A. (2005) Biopharming and the food system: Examining the potential benefits and risks, AgBioForum 8, 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand N.C. (2006) When crop transgenes wander in California, should we worry? Calif. Agr. 60, 116–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EuropaBio (2006) Understanding coexistence: Science, principles and practical experience, ABE/EuropaBio. www.europa-bio.be/documents/040406/Understanding%20Coexistence%20Fact %20File.pdf.

  • Federal Register (2003) Field testing of plants engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds, Fed. Reg. 68, 11337–11340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer R., Stoger E., Schillberg S. et al. (2004) Plant-based production of biopharmaceuticals, Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 7, 152–158.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Giddings G., Allison G., Brooks D. et al. (2000) Transgenic plants as factories for biopharmaceuticals, Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 1151–1155.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Horn M.E., Woodward S.L., Howard J.A. (2004) Plant molecular farming: Systems and products, Plant Cell Rep. 22, 711–720.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan R.J., Stemmer W.P.C. (2002) Nontransgenic crops from transgenic plants, Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 215–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk D.D., McIntosh K., Walmsley A.M. et al. (2005) Risk analysis for plant-made vaccines, Transgenic Res. 14, 449–462.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ma J.K.-C., Barros E., Bock R. et al. (2005a) Molecular farming for new drugs and vaccines, EMBO Rep. 6, 593–599.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ma J.K.-C., Chikwamba R., Sparrow P. et al. (2005b) Plant-derived pharmaceuticals — the road forward, Trends Plant Sci. 10, 580–585.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Macilwain C. (2005) US launches probe into sales of unapproved transgenic corn, Nature 434, 423.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marvier M., Van Acker R. (2005) Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascia P.N., Flavell R.B. (2004) Safe and acceptable strategies for producing foreign molecules in plants, Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 7, 189–195.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2004) Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms, Naticnal Academy Press Washington, DC, 284 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien M. (2000) Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 352 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson R.K.D., Arntzen C.J. (2004) On risk and plant-based biopharmaceuticals, Trends Biotechnol. 22, 64–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Raskin I., Ribnicky D.M., Komarnytsky S. et al. (2002) Plants and human health in the twenty-first century, Trends Biotechnol. 20, 522–531.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • [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.

  • [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.

  • Vogel G. (2006) Tracing the transatlantic spread of GM rice, Science 313, 1714.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley A.M., Arntzen C.J. (2000) Plants for delivery of edible vaccines, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 11, 126–129.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle Marvier.

Additional information

Reprinted with permission from Marvier M. (2007) Pharmaceutical crops have a mixed outlook in California, Calif. Agr. 61, 59–66. Copyright: 2007 Regents of the University of California. Permission has been kindly given by Janet Byron, managing Editor of California Agriculture journal. URL: http:/CaliforniaAgriculture.ucop.edu

About this article

Cite this article

Marvier, M. Pharmaceutical crops in California, benefits and risks. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 28, 1–9 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007050

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007050

Navigation