Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 164, Issue 3, pp 845–852 | Cite as

Determining indicators, methods and sites for monitoring potential adverse effects of genetically modified plants to the environment: the legal and conceptional framework for implementation

  • Wiebke Züghart
  • Armin Benzler
  • Frank Berhorn
  • Ulrich Sukopp
  • Frieder Graef
Article

Abstract

According to Directive 2001/18/EC commercial cultivation of genetically modified plants (GMPs) have to be monitored. The aim of the monitoring is to identify potential adverse effects of the GMPs and their use on human health and the environment. There are few concepts showing how GMP monitoring may be implemented. This article indicates monitoring requirements with a focus on environmental issues. GMP monitoring has to be appropriate to detect direct and indirect, immediate and long-term as well as unforeseen effects. For choosing suitable monitoring indicators and methods, we propose a case-by-case approach, which is hypothesis-driven and related to specified protection targets. We present criteria for selecting suitable monitoring sites and demonstrate possibilities to integrate GMP monitoring with existing environmental monitoring programmes. To ensure comparability, interpretability and quality of GMP monitoring data a harmonisation on both national and international level is proposed.

Keywords

GM crops Monitoring Environmental protection Conceptual framework 

References

  1. ACRE (2004) Guidance on best practice in the design of post-market monitoring plans in submissions to the Advisory Committee on releases to the environment. ACRE Guidance Note 16. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/postmarket/acre_postmarketmonitor-guidance.pdfGoogle Scholar
  2. Andow DA, Hilbeck A (2004) Science-based risk assessment for nontarget effects of transgenic crops. BioScience 54(7):637–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BfR (2007) Official analytical methods for residues of plant protection products and pesticides (L 00.00 15). http://www.bfr.bund.de/cd/1637Google Scholar
  4. Birch ANE, Geoghean IE, Majerus MEN, McNicol JW, Hackett CA, Gatehouse AMR, Gatehouse JA (1999) Tri-trophic interactions involving pest aphid, predatory 2-spot ladybirds and transgenic potatoes expressing snowdrop lectin for aphid resistance. Mol Breed 5:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bühler C (2006) Biodiversity monitoring in Switzerland: what can we learn for General Surveillance of GM crops? J Verbr Lebensm 1(Supplement 1):37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Devaux C, Lavigne C, Falentin-Guyomarch H, Vautrin S, Lecomte J, Klein EK (2005) High diversity of oilseed rape pollen clouds over an agro-ecosystem indicates long-distance dispersal. Mol Ecol 14:2269–2280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douville M, Gagné F, Blaise C, André C (2006) Occurence and persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and transgenic Bt corn cry1Ab gene from an aquatic environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. DOI:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2006.01.002Google Scholar
  8. European Community (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Officinal J Eur Commun 2001/18/EC:1–64Google Scholar
  9. European Community (2002) COUNCIL DECISION of 3 October 2002 establishing guidance notes supplementing AnnexVII to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing. Council Directive 90/220/EEC:1–10Google Scholar
  10. European Community (2007) Information on analytical methods for the detection of irradiated foods standardised by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). http://www.ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/irradiation/anal_methods_en.htmGoogle Scholar
  11. EFSA (2006) Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified microorganisms and their derived products intended for food and feed use. EFSA J 374:1–115Google Scholar
  12. Fink M, Seitz H, Beismann H (2006) Concepts for General Surveillance: VDI proposals. Standardisation and harmonisation in the field of GMO monitoring. J Verbr Lebensm 1:11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graef F, Stachow U, Werner A Schütte G (2007) Review: agricultural practice changes with cultivating genetically modified herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape. Agric Syst 94:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graef F, Züghart W, Hommel B, Heinrich U, Stachow U, Werner A (2005) Methodological scheme for designing the monitoring of genetically modified crops at the regional scale. Env Monitor Assess 111(1–3):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hails RS (2002) Assessing the risks associated with new agricultural practices. Nature 418:685–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawes C, Haughton AJ, Osborne JL, Roy DB, Clark SJ, Perry JN, Rothery P, Bohan DA, Brooks DR, Champion GT, Dewar AM, Heard MS, Woiwod IP, Daniels RE, Young MW, Parish AM, Scott RJ, Firbank LG, Squire GR (2003) Responses of plants and invertebrate trophic groups to contrasting herbicide regimes in the farm scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 358:1899–1913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes KR, Gregg PC, Cupta VVSR, Jessop R, Lonsdale WM, Sindel B, Stanley J, Williams CK (2004) Identifying hazards in complex ecological systems Part 3: Hierarchical Holographic Model for herbicide tolerant oilseed rape. Environ Biosafety Res 3:109–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinemann JA, Traavik T (2004) Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nat Biotechnol 22:1105–1109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lefol E, Fleury A, Darmency H (1996) Gene dispersal from transgenic crops. II. Hybridization between oilseed rape and the wild hoary mustard. Sex Plant Reprod 9:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leigh RA, Johnston, AE (1994) Long-term experiments in agricultural and ecological sciences. In: Proceedings of a Conference to Celebrate the 150th Anniversary of Rothamsted Experimental Station, Rothamsted, 14–17 July 1993. CAB International, Wallingford, p 428Google Scholar
  21. Meier MS, Hilbeck A (2005) Faunistische Indikatoren für das Monitoring der Umweltwirkungen gentechnisch veränderter Organismen (GVO). Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 29:1–137Google Scholar
  22. Metzger M, Bunce B, Jongman R, Mücher S, Watkins JW (2005) A climatic stratification of the environment in Europe. Global Ecol Biogeogr 14:549–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nielsen KM, van Elsas JD, Smalla K (2001) Dynamics, horizontal transfer and selectionof novel DNA in the phytosphere of transgenic plants. Ann Microbiol 51:79–94Google Scholar
  24. Perry JN, Rothery P, Clark SJ, Heard MS, Hawes C (2003) Design, analysis and statistical power of the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. J Appl Ecol 40:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Relyea RA (2005) The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecol Appl 15(2):618–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rieger MA, Lamond M, Preston C, Powles SB, Roush RT (2002) Pollen-mediated movement of herbicide resistance between commercial canola fields. Science 296:2386–2388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reuter H, Verhoeven R, Middelhoff U, Breckling B (2006) Information System for the Monitoring of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) – ISMO –. J Verbr Lebensm 1:89–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanvido O, Widmer F, Winzeler M, Bigler F (2005) A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants. Environ Biosafety Res 4:13–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schröder W, Schmidt G (2001) Defining ecoregions as framework for the assessment of ecological monitoring networks in Germany by means of GIS and classification and regression trees (CART). Gate Environ Health Sci 3:1–9Google Scholar
  30. Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment. PNAS 98(21):11937–11942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stein A, Ettema C (2003) An overview of spatial sampling procedures and experimental design of spatial studies for ecosystem comparisons. Agric Ecosyst Environ 94:31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Traxler A, Heissenberger A, Frank G, Lethmayer C, Gaugitsch H (2000) Ökologisches Monitoring gentechnisch veränderter Organismen. Monographien Umweltbundesamt Wien 126:1–240Google Scholar
  33. VDI (2006) VDI Guidelines: monitoring the ecological effects of genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified plants. Basic principles and strategies. VDI 4330 (Part 1):1–16Google Scholar
  34. Wilkinson MJ, Davenport IJ, Charters YM, Jones AE, Allainguillaume J, Butler HT, Mason DC, Raybould AF (2000) A direct regional scale estimate of transgene movement from genetically modified oilseed rape to its wild progenitors. Mol Ecol 9:983–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Züghart W, Breckling B (2003) Konzeptionelle Entwicklung eines Monitoring von Umweltwirkungen transgener Kulturpflanzen, Teil 1 und 2. UBA-Texte 50/03:1–543Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wiebke Züghart
    • 1
  • Armin Benzler
    • 1
  • Frank Berhorn
    • 1
  • Ulrich Sukopp
    • 1
  • Frieder Graef
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN)BonnGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape- and Land Use Research (ZALF)MuenchebergGermany

Personalised recommendations