Advertisement

Transgenic Research

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 1–7 | Cite as

The Romanian experience and perspective on the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops in Europe

  • Mihael Cristin IchimEmail author
Review

Abstract

Romania was the third country in Europe and the tenth in the world, to commercially adopt genetically modified crops in 1999, only 3 years after they were first marketed globally. Half a million hectares of transgenic herbicide resistant soybean and insect resistant maize were grown in Romania during an uninterrupted 17-year period. After several years of continued declining area, the commercial cultivation of transgenic plants recently ended. The commercial cultivation of transgenic crops in Romania remains legally and technically possible, according to the EU and national regulations. However, the declining area cultivated with these crops in Romania seems to be the result of farmers’ conscious decision, while waiting for more profitable genetically modified crops to become available that better fit their needs. This expectation would be a logical result of the EU GMO opt-out Directive 2015/412 and the advent of the new plant breeding techniques. The GMO opt-out mechanism is still expected to unblock the EU authorization process after the large majority of the EU member states have already prohibited the cultivation of genetically modified organisms in their territory. As the new plant breeding techniques offer significant technical and economic advantages, they could be rapidly adopted by commercial breeders and farmers outside Europe. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that plants obtained with the new gene editing techniques must go through the same authorization procedure as transgenic plants. This decision is expected to delay the approval and availability of these new plant varieties on the EU market and their commercial cultivation.

Keywords

GM crops Transgenic plants GMOs NPBTs Genome editing Europe 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This is publication no. 39 produced within the framework of the Framework Programme (FP) 7 AMIGA (Assessing and Monitoring the Impacts of Genetically modified plants on Agro-ecosystems) project funded by the European Commission (Grant Agreement no. 289706). The maps were created on mapchart.net.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its electronic supplementary materials.

Supplementary material

11248_2018_95_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 31 kb)
11248_2018_95_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (626 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 626 kb)

References

  1. Aldemita RR, Hautea RA (2018) Biotech crop planting resumes high adoption in 2016. GM Crops Food 9:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2018.1428166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brookes G (2009) The existing and potential impact of using GM insect resistant (GM IR) maize in the European Union. PG Economics, UK. http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/btmaizeeuropejune2009.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept 2018
  3. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2006) GM crops: the first ten years—global socio-economic and environmental impacts. ISAAA Br No 36. ISAAA, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2014) Economic impact of GM crops: the global income and production effects 1996–2012. GM Crops Food 5:65–75.  https://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.28098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaway E (2018) CRISPR plants now subject to tough GM laws in European Union. Nature 560:16.  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05814-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter JE (2010) Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. Nat Biotechnol 28:319–321.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0410-319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castañera P, Farinós GP, Ortego F, Andow DA (2016) Sixteen years of Bt Maize in the EU hotspot: why has resistance not evolved? PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154200 Google Scholar
  8. Chneiweiss H, Hirsch F, Montoliu L et al (2017) Fostering responsible research with genome editing technologies: a European perspective. Transgenic Res 26:709–713.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-017-0028-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devos Y, Demont M, Dillen K et al (2009) Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:11–30.  https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eriksson D, de Andrade E, Bohanec B et al (2018) Why the European Union needs a national GMO opt-in mechanism. Nat Biotechnol 36:18–19.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission and European Parliament B (2012) Eurobarometer 73.1 (Jan–Feb 2010). ZA5000 data file version 4.0.0.  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11428
  12. Ferrante M, Lövei GL, Magagnoli S et al (2017) Predation pressure in maize across Europe and in Argentina: an intercontinental comparison. Insect Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12550 Google Scholar
  13. Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N et al (2011) The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nat Biotechnol 29:113–114.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gómez-Barbero M, Berbel J, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2008) Bt corn in Spain—the performance of the EU’s first GM crop. Nat Biotechnol 26:384–386.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0408-384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ISAAA (2016) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2016. ISAAA Br No 52. ISAAA, Ithaca, NY.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0014479706343797 Google Scholar
  16. ISAAA (2017) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops in 2017: biotech crop adoption surges as economic benefits accumulate in 22 years. ISAAA Br No 53. ISAAA, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. James C (1999) ISAAA Briefs No 12 Preview. ISAAA, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  18. James C (2002) ISAAA Briefs No 27. ISAAA, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  19. James C (2006) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2006. ISAAA Br No 35. ISAAA, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Pellegrino E, Bedini S, Nuti M, Ercoli L (2018) Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data. Sci Rep 8:3113–3124.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. RMARD (2017) Romanian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development/Official communication, Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM2)Google Scholar
  22. RMARD Romanian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development/Official registry: total area commercially cultivated with GM crops in Romania (2007–2017). http://www.madr.ro/organisme-modificate-genetic.html. Accessed 3 Sept 2018
  23. Sheridan C (2009) Report claims no yield advantage for Bt crops. Nat Biotechnol 27:588–589.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0709-588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Slot MM, van de Wiel CCM, Kleter GA et al (2018) The assessment of field trials in GMO research around the world and their possible integration in field trials for variety registration. Transgenic Res 27:321–329.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-018-0076-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Songstad DD, Petolino JF, Voytas DF, Reichert NA (2017) Genome editing of plants. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci 36:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2017.1281663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tabashnik BE, Carrière Y (2017) Surge in insect resistance to transgenic crops and prospects for sustainability. Nat Biotechnol 35:926–935.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3974 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thieme TGM, Buuk C, Gloyna K et al (2018) Ten years of MON 810 resistance monitoring of field populations of Ostrinia nubilalis in Europe. J Appl Entomol 142:192–200.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Research and Development for Biological Sciences“Stejarul” Research Centre for Biological SciencesPiatra NeamtRomania

Personalised recommendations