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.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to 'Cisgenic' as a product designation

Nature Biotechnology volume 24, pages 1331–1333 (2006)Cite this article

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Schouten and colleagues respond:

Schubert and Williams contend that genetic engineering is a highly mutagenic and imprecise process, an argument that they have previously touted in a correspondence to this journal1 relating to an article by Strauss and colleagues2 published in the April 2005 issue. Readers who are interested in the scientific evidence rebutting their old arguments—with respect to (i) comparison of the 'lack of precision' of genetic engineering with 'lack of precision' in conventional breeding (including wide crosses), (ii) genetic changes that do occur naturally due to the inherent dynamic nature of the plant's genome and (iii) the elaborate screening in the laboratory, greenhouse and field for abnormal, unstable or undesirable genetically modified (GM) genotypes during cultivar development—are referred to the responses provided by Strauss and colleagues3, as well as the literature cited in our articles4,5. Here, we respond only to the new arguments raised by Schubert and Williams.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Schubert, D. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 785–787 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bradford, K.J., Van Deynze, A., Gutterson, N., Parrott, W. & Strauss. S.H. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 439–444 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bradford, K.J., Gutterson, N., Parrott, W., Van Deynze, A. & Strauss. S.H. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 787–789 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schouten, H.J., Krens, F.A. & Jacobsen, E. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 753 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schouten, H.J., Krens, F.A. & Jacobsen, E. EMBO Rep. 7, 750–753 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gardiner, S.E. et al. Theor. Appl. Genet. 93, 485–493 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. European Parliament. Off. J. Eur. Comm. L 106, 1–38 (2001).

  8. http://www.ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf#search=%22eurobarometer%202005%22

  9. Anonymous. Field Crops. Recommended List of Varieties 2005 (GSB, Naarden, The Netherlands, 2004). http://documents.plant.wur.nl/cgn/rassenlijst/algemeen/gewassen.html

  10. Nielsen, K.M. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 227–228 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ross, H. Potato Breeding: Problems and Perspectives (Parey, Berlin, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chahal, G.S., Gosal, S.S. Principles and Procedures of Plant Breeding: Biotechnological and Conventional Approaches (Alpha Science International, Pangbourne, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schmidt, R., Plant Mol. Biol. 48, 21–37 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Anonymous. Rassenlijst voor Fruitgewassen. (Nederlandse Fruittelers Organisatie, The Hague, 1999).

  15. Soleimani, V.D., Baum, B.R. & Johnson, D.A. Genome 49, 389–396 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ebert, K.M., Smith, T.E., Buonoma, F.C., Overstrom, E.W. & Low, M.J. Animal Biotechnol. 1, 145–159 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pursel, V.G. et al. Vet. Immonol. Immunopathol. 17, 303–312 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lusk, J.L. & Sullivan, P. Food Technol. 56, 32–37 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Myskja, B.K. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 19, 225–238 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lammerts van Bueren, E.T., Struik, P.C., Tiemens-Hulscher, M. & Jacobsen, E. Crop Sci. 43, 1922–1929 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reply to 'Cisgenic' as a product designation. Nat Biotechnol 24, 1331–1333 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1106-1331

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1106-1331

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced 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