Literature DB >> 16209133

A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants.

Olivier Sanvido1, Franco Widmer, Michael Winzeler, Franz Bigler.   

Abstract

Genetically modified plants (GMPs) may soon be cultivated commercially in several member countries of the European Union (EU). According to EU Directive 2001/18/EC, post-market monitoring (PMM) for commercial GMP cultivation must be implemented, in order to detect and prevent adverse effects on human health and the environment. However, no general PMM strategies for GMP cultivation have been established so far. We present a conceptual framework for the design of environmental PMM for GMP cultivation based on current EU legislation and common risk analysis procedures. We have established a comprehensive structure of the GMP approval process, consisting of pre-market risk assessment (PMRA) as well as PMM. Both programs can be distinguished conceptually due to principles inherent to risk analysis procedures. The design of PMM programs should take into account the knowledge gained during approval for commercialization of a specific GMP and the decisions made in the environmental risk assessments (ERAs). PMM is composed of case-specific monitoring (CSM) and general surveillance. CSM focuses on anticipated effects of a specific GMP. Selection of case-specific indicators for detection of ecological exposure and effects, as well as definition of effect sizes, are important for CSM. General surveillance is designed to detect unanticipated effects on general safeguard subjects, such as natural resources, which must not be adversely affected by human activities like GMP cultivation. We have identified clear conceptual differences between CSM and general surveillance, and propose to adopt separate frameworks when developing either of the two programs. Common to both programs is the need to put a value on possible ecological effects of GMP cultivation. The structure of PMM presented here will be of assistance to industry, researchers, and regulators, when assessing GMPs during commercialization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16209133     DOI: 10.1051/ebr:2005008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Biosafety Res        ISSN: 1635-7922


  6 in total

Review 1.  EFSA's scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence: looking back and ahead.

Authors:  Yann Devos; Jaime Aguilera; Zoltán Diveki; Ana Gomes; Yi Liu; Claudia Paoletti; Patrick du Jardin; Lieve Herman; Joe N Perry; Elisabeth Waigmann
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 2.788

2.  Environmental change challenges decision-making during post-market environmental monitoring of transgenic crops.

Authors:  Olivier Sanvido; Jörg Romeis; Franz Bigler
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 2.788

3.  Quantifying the introgressive hybridisation propensity between transgenic oilseed rape and its wild/weedy relatives.

Authors:  Yann Devos; Adinda De Schrijver; Dirk Reheul
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2008-02-06       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  Use of Carabids for the Post-Market Environmental Monitoring of Genetically Modified Crops.

Authors:  Oxana Skoková Habuštová; Zdeňka Svobodová; Ľudovít Cagáň; František Sehnal
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 4.546

5.  A 2-year field study shows little evidence that the long-term planting of transgenic insect-resistant cotton affects the community structure of soil nematodes.

Authors:  Xiaogang Li; Biao Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A Three-Year Plant Study of Salt-Tolerant Transgenic Maize Showed No Effects on Soil Enzyme Activity and Nematode Community.

Authors:  Xing Zeng; Tongtong Pei; Yongfeng Song; Pei Guo; Huilan Zhang; Xin Li; Hao Li; Hong Di; Zhenhua Wang
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-11
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.