The use of existing environmental networks for the post-market monitoring of GM crop cultivation in the EU

Smets, Greet; Alcalde, E.; Andrés, David; Carron, Didier; Delzenne, Pascale; Heise, Andreas; Legris, G.; Parrilla, Marc; Verhaert, J.; Wandelt, Christine; Ilegems, M.; Rüdelsheim, Patrick

doi:10.1039/c4em00093e

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall summary reports with graphs, communications, distribution maps and other publications are made publicly available (Smets et al, 2014). While they represent a contextual interpretation, they may not allow subsequent analysis and/or interpretation with other datasets owing to, for example, different methodology or different parameters.…”

Section: Concerns Pertaining To Data Ownership and Availabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the use of existing environmental surveillance networks to support the post‐market environmental monitoring of genetically modified plants

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, a set of assessment criteria was developed to support the selection of existing environmental surveillance networks for post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants (GMPs). In compliance with these criteria, some networks and associated programmes were identified as being of potential use subject to further caseby-case analysis. When considering PMEM of GMPs, the approach would also require comparing sites monitored by the networks and the locations where GMPs are cultivated. The reporting of the sites surveyed by networks and locations of cultivated GMPs should thus follow the same standards in order to ensure interoperability and to potentially establish a causal link between a change observed and the GMPs. In this respect, technical support might be required by networks to transform their data records into workable standards. Moreover, the EFSA GMO Panel was asked by the European Commission to examine the sensitivity of statistical analyses used by the networks to detect change. A decision tree is provided for selecting the optimal method for statistical analysis based on the study design and the datasets from networks. Sufficient statistical power needs to be ensured to detect an effect for a particular indicator. Sample size is one of the main contributing factors in determining the power of any network to detect an effect of a product release into the environment. Increasing the sample size implies variable extra-costs depending on whether data are collected by volunteers or professionals. A more powerful statistical analysis can also be achieved by pooling datasets collected by different networks; this needs further investigation because of important covariates leading to differentiated responses. In general, PMEM would benefit from a move towards 'open data' policies for re-analysis or pooling data collected by different networks. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy ABSTRACTFollowing a request from the European Commission, a set of assessment criteria was developed to support the selection of existing environmental surveillance networks for post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants (GMPs). In compliance with these criteria, some networks and associated programmes were identified as being of potential use subject to further case-by-case analysis. When considering PMEM of GMPs, the approach would also require comparing sites monitored by the networks and the locations where GMPs are cultivated. The reporting of the sites surveyed by networks and locations of cultivated GMPs should thus follow the same standards in order to ensure interoperability and to potentially establish a causal link between a change observed and the GMPs. In this respect, technical support might be required by networks to transform their data records into workable standards. Moreover, the EFSA GMO Panel was asked by the European Commission to examine the sensitivity of statistical analyses used by...

show abstract

Section: Concerns Pertaining To Data Ownership and Availabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the use of existing environmental surveillance networks to support the post‐market environmental monitoring of genetically modified plants

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the GMO Panel notes that efforts have been made to develop a methodological framework to facilitate the use of existing networks in the broader context of environmental monitoring (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Perseus et al, 2014;EFSA GMO Panel, 2014b;Smets et al, 2014). The GMO Panel encourages that these efforts are continued by relevant parties (EFSA GMO Panel, 2011b The search strategy 29 used for the literature search was similar to that applied in the search reported in the previous annual PMEM report (for further details see EFSA GMO Panel, 2016).…”

Section: Existing Monitoring Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this external report and other publications (e.g. Smets et al, 2014), several existing networks were identified as potentially suitable for GS of GM plants, although their usefulness is limited due to issues pertaining to data accessibility, data reporting format, and data connectivity with GMO registers (EFSA GMO Panel, 2014b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The GMO Panel therefore adopted scientific opinions on the 2009 to 2014 annual PMEM reports (EFSA GMO Panel, 2011a, 2012a, 2013, 2014a, 2015a,b, 2016. From the data provided in the previous annual PMEM reports, the GMO Panel did not identify adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment resulting from the cultivation of maize MON 810.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Annex VII was supplemented by notes providing guidance on the objectives, general principles and design of the monitoring plan. GMO Panel, 2011a, 2012a, 2013, 2014a, 2015a,b, 2016 Following the request by the consent holder for the renewed market authorisation of maize MON 810, the GMO Panel adopted a scientific opinion on the renewal applications submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 for: existing food and food ingredients produced from maize MON 810; feed consisting of and/or containing maize MON 810, including the use of seed for cultivation; and food and feed additives, and feed materials produced from maize MON 810 (EFSA, 2009). The GMO Panel concluded that maize MON 810 is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health, and that maize MON 810 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on the environment in the context of its intended uses, especially if appropriate management measures are put in place in order to mitigate possible exposure of non-target (NT) Lepidoptera.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Annual post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in 2015 from Monsanto Europe S.A.

Naegeli

Birch²,

Casacuberta³

et al. 2017

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (GMO Panel) assessed the annual post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report for the 2015 growing season of the Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810 provided by Monsanto Europe S.A. The GMO Panel concludes that the insect resistance monitoring data submitted to EFSA do not indicate a decrease in susceptibility of field Iberian populations of corn borers to the Cry1Ab protein during the 2015 season. However, since the methodology for insect resistance monitoring remained unchanged compared to previous PMEM reports, the GMO Panel reiterates its previous recommendations on resistance monitoring to provide sufficient detection sensitivity. Although the farmer alert system to report complaints about product performance could complement the information obtained from the laboratory bioassays, the GMO Panel is currently not in a position to appraise its usefulness, and therefore encourages the consent holder to provide more information on this complementary resistance monitoring tool. The data on general surveillance (GS) do not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. The GMO Panel reiterates its previous recommendations on the analysis of farmer questionnaires, and advises the consent holder to provide more detailed information on the conducting and reporting of the literature search in future annual PMEM reports. Moreover, the GMO Panel encourages relevant parties to continue developing a methodological framework to use existing networks in the broader context of environmental monitoring. The GMO Panel concludes that the case-specific monitoring (CSM) and GS activities of maize MON 810 as carried out by the consent holder do not provide evidence that would invalidate previous GMO Panel evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810.

show abstract

The Catalan butterfly monitoring scheme has the capacity to detect effects of modifying agricultural practices

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Lee, M. S., J. Comas, C. Stefanescu, and R. Albajes. 2020. The Catalan butterfly monitoring scheme has the capacity to detect effects of modifying agricultural practices. Ecosphere 11(1):Abstract. Impacts of agricultural management practices on the receiving environment are seldom suitably assessed because environmental monitoring is costly. In this regard, data generated by already existing environmental survey networks (ESNs) may have sufficient capacity to detect effects. Here, we study the capacity of the Catalan butterfly monitoring scheme (CBMS) to detect differences in butterfly abundance due to changes in agricultural practices. As a model, we compared butterfly abundance across two landscape types according to agricultural intensification. A 2 km diameter buffer area was centered on the CBMS transect, the control group were transects located in areas where intensive agriculture represented <20% of the area; a treated group was simulated by selecting transects located in areas where intensive agriculture occupied an area over 40%. The Welch t-test (a = 0.05 and 80% power) was used to compare butterfly abundance per section across landscape types. The capacity of the t-test to detect changes in mean butterfly abundance, of 12 butterfly indicators relevant to farmland, was calculated annually and for 5-, 10-, and 15-yr periods. Detection capacity of the t-test depended mainly on butterfly data sample size and variability; difference in butterfly abundance was less important. The t-test would be capable of detecting acceptably small population changes across years and sites. For instance, considering a 15-yr period, it would be possible to detect a change in abundance below 10% of the multispecies indicators (all butterfly species, open habitat species, mobile species, and grassland indicators) and two single species (Lasiommata megera and Lycaena phlaeas). When comparisons were carried out within each year, the t-test would only be capable of detecting a change below 30% for all butterfly species, mobile species, and L. megera. However, detection capacity rapidly improved with the addition of further years, and with 5 yr of monitoring, all indicators but Thymelicus acteon had a detection capacity below 30%. We therefore conclude that, from a statistical point of view, the CBMS data "as is" are sensitive enough for monitoring effects of changes in agricultural practices. It could be used, for instance, for the general surveillance of genetically modified crops.

show abstract

The use of existing environmental networks for the post-market monitoring of GM crop cultivation in the EU

Cited by 15 publications

References 22 publications

Scientific Opinion on the use of existing environmental surveillance networks to support the post‐market environmental monitoring of genetically modified plants

Scientific Opinion on the use of existing environmental surveillance networks to support the post‐market environmental monitoring of genetically modified plants

Annual post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in 2015 from Monsanto Europe S.A.

The Catalan butterfly monitoring scheme has the capacity to detect effects of modifying agricultural practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About