Systemic risks of genetically modified crops: the need for new approaches to risk assessment

Abstract

Purpose: Since more than 25 years, public dialogues, expert consultations and scientific publications have concluded that a comprehensive assessment of the implications of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production needs to include health, environmental, social and economical aspects, but only very few legal frameworks allow to assess the two latter aspects. This article aims to explain the divergence between societal debate and biosafety legislation and presents approaches to bring both together. Main features: The article reviews the development of biosafety regulations in the USA and the EU, focussing on diverging concepts applied for assessing the risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Results:The dominant environmental risk assessment methodology has been developed to answer basic questions to enable expedient decision making. As a first step, methodologies that take into account complex environmental and landscape aspects should be applied. Expanding the scope of risk assessment, more holistic concepts have been developed, for example the Organisation for Econonomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) concept of systemic risks which includes socio-economic aspects. International bodies as the OECD, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the European Union (EU) have developed the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as an instrument that includes the additional aspects of risk assessment as demanded by many stakeholders. Interestingly, there had been no attempts yet to link the existing frameworks of GMO risk assessment and SEA. Conclusions: It is recommended to adapt current models of SEA to assess the systemic risks of GMOs. It is also suggested to revise the EU GMO legislation to promote the inclusion of SEA elements.

Salt tolerant SUV3 overexpressing transgenic rice plants conserve physicochemical properties and microbial communities of rhizosphere

“…Wide utilization of antibiotic marker genes in GM crops led to the considerable gene flow in GM food (Hilbeck et al, 1998a,b;Losey et al, 1999;Meyer, 2011 collected from 1765 households of Mexico was also reported (Gilbert, 2013). In particular, transgene expression may influence soil biological processes and microbial community composition (Vettori et al, 2003).…”

Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards

“…The EFSA GMO Panel also found the doses chosen for the study (11% or 33% of diet) appropriate, as they did not distort the nutritional balance of the experimental animals. We argue that the concept of substantial equivalence or the concept of familiarity, originally developed in the context of the US regulatory system for GM organisms and based on opposite assumptions as the EU regulatory system [60], is not per se applicable in the EU context. One element of this US approach is the additional use of unrelated varieties as reference controls to establish the natural variation against which GM food products need to be evaluated.…”

Outcome of the public consultation on the draft guidance on the agronomic and phenotypic characterisation of genetically modified plants

“…the minimum number of sites or the suitable statistical models that should be applied to the dataset generated for the comparative analysis) will not be discussed further since these aspects are described in detail in previous guidance issued by the EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA GMO Panel, 2010b, 2011.…”