| |
| Web URL(s): | http://www.swss.ws/wp-content/uploads/docs/2005 Proceedings-SWSS.pdf#page=206
Last checked: 07/18/2013
Requires: PDF Reader
Notes: Item is within a single large file |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Report |
|---|
| Author(s): | Suttner, D. L.;
Nelson, E.;
Williamson, D. H. |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Suttner: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO; Nelson: The Scotts Company, Marysville, OH; Williamson: Monsanto Company, Charleston, SC |
|---|
| Title: | Biotechnology in turfgrasses: The road to market |
|---|
| Section: | Use & impact of transgenic turfgrass species in the Southeastern US
Other records with the "Use & impact of transgenic turfgrass species in the Southeastern US" Section
|
|---|
| Meeting Info.: | Charlotte, North Carolina: January 24-26, 2005 |
|---|
| Source: | Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Southern Weed Science Society. Vol. 58, 2005, p. 131. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Champaign, Illinois: Southern Weed Science Society |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 1 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Biotechnology; Transgenic turfgrasses; Turfgrass industry trends; Varietal registration
|
|---|
| Geographic Terms: | Southeastern United States |
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "The development and commercialization of transgenic turfgrass products is a complex and expensive process that requires careful coordination among an array of functional areas of expertise and multiple regulatory agencies. The process should begin with analysis of market fit/value along with consideration of vulnerabilities and opportunities. Elucidation of stakeholders who may be affected by the product will define vulnerabilities and should be accompanied by a detailed plan to describe gain for each of the stakeholder groups. Consultation with regulatory agencies should begin as early in the process as the technical product concept will allow. FDA, USDA and EPA may be involved in aspects of the regulatory process. USDA plays the lead role with deregulation and approaches it from the perspective of its jurisdiction over the release of potential pests. Since many turfgrass species are open pollinated perennials there will be unique requirements for regulatory approval. These requirements will include collection of data over multiple years and complete characterization of pollen and its movement. The ecological fitness profile will include full evaluation of the transformed plant against suitable controls over the life cycle of the plant from establishment through growth, flowering/reproduction to seed production and beyond. Studies will need to reflect all geographical and environmental conditions where the plant could occur. The data profile for molecular will require sophisticated skills in molecular biology and protein biochemistry as well as the ability to conduct studies under GLP. A well executed project plan can assist in coordinating the laboratory portion of the package and avoid unnecessary delays. Timelines for turfgrass projects can range from less than six years to more than eight years depending on the issues and the course the process takes. The need for an Environmental Impact Statement can lengthen the process significantly. An eight to ten year regulatory cycle can place severe pressure on project financials. The need for product stewardship during the R&D stage as well as during production and commercial use, especially with a perennial grass, will also challenge the financials for the project. Development costs range widely for projects depending on whether the project involves new genes or ones already in use in other crops. Investments can go from as little as $8M to as much as $12M or more to bring a new product to market. These figures ignore the facility and human resource development costs associated with having a competent organization capable of doing the work. Stamina will be required to sustain the project through a range of challenges including negative media attention and even litigation because the technology is controversial. The prospect of commercialization can be equally daunting. Turfgrass markets are not accustomed to the products of modern biotechnology. Channel partners will have to be recruited. Training of both end users and the channel will demand planning and flawless execution. The threat of technology piracy will be real and a strategy to prevent piracy developed. Value capture approaches will need to be developed that address the unique issues presented by perennial crops. All of these issues and many more will need to be melded into a coherent business model for the product. Commercial success will accrue to those who have compelling product concepts and the technological, regulatory and commercial acumen to plan, coordinate, execute and deliver transgenic turfgrass to the market." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 0 |
|---|
| Note: | "The changing world of weed science"
This item is an abstract only! |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Suttner, D. L., E. Nelson, and D. H. Williamson. 2005. Biotechnology in turfgrasses: The road to market. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Proc. 58:p. 131. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=225187 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 225187. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| Web URL(s):
http://www.swss.ws/wp-content/uploads/docs/2005 Proceedings-SWSS.pdf#page=206
Last checked: 07/18/2013
Requires: PDF Reader
Notes: Item is within a single large file |
| 
MSU catalog number: b2207931 |
| Find from within TIC:
Digitally in TIC by file name: swssp2005 |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
