Literature DB >> 21607784

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

Olivier Sanvido1, Jörg Romeis, Franz Bigler.   

Abstract

The ability to decide what kind of environmental changes observed during post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified (GM) crops represent environmental harm is an essential part of most legal frameworks regulating the commercial release of GM crops into the environment. Among others, such decisions are necessary to initiate remedial measures or to sustain claims of redress linked to environmental liability. Given that consensus on criteria to evaluate 'environmental harm' has not yet been found, there are a number of challenges for risk managers when interpreting GM crop monitoring data for environmental decision-making. In the present paper, we argue that the challenges in decision-making have four main causes. The first three causes relate to scientific data collection and analysis, which have methodological limits. The forth cause concerns scientific data evaluation, which is controversial among the different stakeholders involved in the debate on potential impacts of GM crops on the environment. This results in controversy how the effects of GM crops should be valued and what constitutes environmental harm. This controversy may influence decision-making about triggering corrective actions by regulators. We analyse all four challenges and propose potential strategies for addressing them. We conclude that environmental monitoring has its limits in reducing uncertainties remaining from the environmental risk assessment prior to market approval. We argue that remaining uncertainties related to adverse environmental effects of GM crops would probably be assessed in a more efficient and rigorous way during pre-market risk assessment. Risk managers should acknowledge the limits of environmental monitoring programmes as a tool for decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21607784     DOI: 10.1007/s11248-011-9524-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transgenic Res        ISSN: 0962-8819            Impact factor:   2.788


  33 in total

1.  UK field-scale evaluations answer wrong questions.

Authors:  Bruce Chassy; Catherine Carter; Martina McGloughlin; Alan McHughen; Wayne Parrott; Christopher Preston; Richard Roush; Anthony Shelton; Steven H Strauss
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  A novel approach to the use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops for environmental benefit.

Authors:  Alan M Dewar; Mike J May; Ian P Woiwod; Lisa A Haylock; Gillian T Champion; Beulah H Garner; Richard J N Sands; Aiming Qi; John D Pidgeon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2003-02-22       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Farming and the fate of wild nature.

Authors:  Rhys E Green; Stephen J Cornell; Jörn P W Scharlemann; Andrew Balmford
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-12-23       Impact factor: 47.728

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

Authors:  Olivier Sanvido; Franco Widmer; Michael Winzeler; Franz Bigler
Journal:  Environ Biosafety Res       Date:  2005 Jan-Mar

5.  Effects on weed and invertebrate abundance and diversity of herbicide management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant winter-sown oilseed rape.

Authors:  David A Bohan; Caroline W H Boffey; David R Brooks; Suzanne J Clark; Alan M Dewar; Les G Firbank; Alison J Haughton; Cathy Hawes; Matthew S Heard; Mike J May; Juliet L Osborne; Joe N Perry; Peter Rothery; David B Roy; Rod J Scott; Geoff R Squire; Ian P Woiwod; Gillian T Champion
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-03-07       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: a case of the emperor's new clothes?

Authors:  Shane H Morris
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2006-11-20       Impact factor: 19.536

7.  Statistical aspects of environmental risk assessment of GM plants for effects on non-target organisms.

Authors:  Joe N Perry; Cajo J F Ter Braak; Philip M Dixon; Jian J Duan; Rosie S Hails; Alexandra Huesken; Marc Lavielle; Michelle Marvier; Michele Scardi; Kerstin Schmidt; Bela Tothmeresz; Frank Schaarschmidt; Hilko van der Voet
Journal:  Environ Biosafety Res       Date:  2009-10-16

8.  Farm questionnaires for monitoring genetically modified crops: a case study using GM maize.

Authors:  Kerstin Schmidt; Ralf Wilhelm; Jörg Schmidtke; Lutz Beissner; Wenke Mönkemeyer; Petra Böttinger; Jeremy Sweet; Joachim Schiemann
Journal:  Environ Biosafety Res       Date:  2008-09-20

Review 9.  Derivation and interpretation of hazard quotients to assess ecological risks from the cultivation of insect-resistant transgenic crops.

Authors:  Alan Raybould; Geoffrey Caron-Lormier; David A Bohan
Journal:  J Agric Food Chem       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 5.279

10.  A mathematical model of exposure of non-target Lepidoptera to Bt-maize pollen expressing Cry1Ab within Europe.

Authors:  J N Perry; Y Devos; S Arpaia; D Bartsch; A Gathmann; R S Hails; J Kiss; K Lheureux; B Manachini; S Mestdagh; G Neemann; F Ortego; J Schiemann; J B Sweet
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 5.349

View more
  7 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.  The policy chicken and the science egg. Has applied ecology failed the transgenic crops debate?

Authors:  A J Gray
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 2.788

3.  Post-release monitoring: the Brazilian system, its aims and requirements for information.

Authors:  P P Andrade; M A Melo; E A Kido
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2014-03-23       Impact factor: 2.788

4.  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

5.  Global analysis of differentially expressed genes and proteins in the wheat callus infected by Agrobacterium tumefaciens.

Authors:  Xiaohong Zhou; Ke Wang; Dongwen Lv; Chengjun Wu; Jiarui Li; Pei Zhao; Zhishan Lin; Lipu Du; Yueming Yan; Xingguo Ye
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Transportability of confined field trial data for environmental risk assessment of genetically engineered plants: a conceptual framework.

Authors:  Monica Garcia-Alonso; Paul Hendley; Franz Bigler; Edgar Mayeregger; Ronald Parker; Clara Rubinstein; Emilio Satorre; Fernando Solari; Morven A McLean
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 2.788

7.  Policy-Led Comparative Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops: Testing for Increased Risk Rather Than Profiling Phenotypes Leads to Predictable and Transparent Decision-Making.

Authors:  Alan Raybould; Phil Macdonald
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2018-04-10
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.