Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Genetic Modification of Plants pp 553–574Cite as

Regulatory Oversight and Safety Assessment of Plants with Novel Traits

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry ((AGRICULTURE,volume 64))

Abstract

Further progress in plant breeding will be achieved by the combination of plant breeding based on experimental field work and novel techniques based on biotechnology. Because both approaches complement one another, their association might offer promising possibilities for agriculture, nutrition, industry, and even for medicine. These developments in plant breeding have had and will continue to have implications for the regulatory oversight and safety assessment of plants with novel traits. Though the introduction of new traits, including the stacking of several genes, may result in extensive changes of metabolic pathways, composition, toxicity, nutritional value, environmental impact, etc., a rigorous risk assessment is only required for genetically modified (GM) plants in the European Union. Whether this approach is science-based or not is discussed by the scientific community. In this chapter, implications for the regulatory oversight and risk assessment are addressed in more detail for GM plants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • ACRE (2007) Managing the footprint of agriculture: towards a comparative assessment of risks and benefits for novel agricultural systems. DEFRA, London. Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/fsewiderissues/pdf/acre-wi-final.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Akhond MAY, Machray GC (2009) Biotech crops: technologies, achievements and prospects. Euphytica 166:47–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andow DA, Hilbeck A (2004) Science-based risk assessment for non-target effects of transgenic crops. Bioscience 54:637–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andow DA, Zwahlen C (2006) Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecol Lett 9:196–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andow DA, Lövei GL, Arpaia S (2006) Ecological risk assessment for Bt crops. Nat Biotechnol 24:749–751

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch D, Gathmann A, Saeglitz C, Sinha A (2008) Field testing of transgenic plants. In: Stewart CN Jr (ed) Plant biotechnology and genetic principles, techniques, and applications. Wiley, London, pp 311–323

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenço T, Oliveira MM (2008) Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:3640–3645

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beckie HJ, Harker KN, Hall SI, Légère A, Sikkema PH, Clayton GW, Thomas AG, Leeson JY, Ségiun-Swartz G, Simard MJ (2006) A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Can J Plant Sci 86:1243–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, KJ, Van Deynze A, Gutterson N, Parrott W, Strauss SH (2005) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23:439–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapotin SM, Wolt JD (2007) Genetically modified crops for the bioeconomy: meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Res 16:675–688

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chassy B, Carter C, McGloughlin M, McHughen A, Parrott W, Preston C, Roush R, Shelton A, Strauss SH (2003) UK field-scale evaluations answer wrong questions. Nat Biotechnol 21:1429–143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Codex Alimentarius (2003) Codex principles and guidelines on foods derived from biotechnology. Joint FAO/WHO food standards programme. Codex Alimentarius Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • COGEM (2006) New techniques in plant biotechnology. COGEM Report CGM/061024-02. Available at http://www.cogem.net/ContentFiles/CGM061024-02%20new%20techniques%20in%20plantbiotechnology.pdf

  • COGEM (2008) Signalerende brief ‘cisgenese en voedselveiligheid'. Signalering CGM/081028-04. Available at http://www.cogem.net/ContentFiles/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20081028-4,%20brief%20bijeenkomst%20risico's%20tDNA%20borders%2028%20okt.pdf

  • Colbert T, Till BJ, Tompa R, Reynolds S, Steine MN, Yeung AT, McCallum CM, Comai L, Henikoff S (2001) High-throughput screening for induced point mutations. Plant Physiol 126:480–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap J-P (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II: overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J 33:19–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Craig W, Tepfer M, Degrassi G, Ripandelli D (2008) An overview of general features of risk assessment of genetically modified crops. Euphytica 164:853–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Schrijver A, Devos Y, Van den Bulcke M, Cadot P, De Loose M, Reheul D, Sneyers M (2007) Risk assessment of GM stacked events obtained from crosses between GM events. Trends Food Sci Technol 18:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeke T, Perry DJ, Scowcroft WR (2006) Adventitious presence of GMOs: scientific overview for Canadian grains. Can J Plant Sci 86:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke SO (2005) Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest Manage Sci 61:211–218

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton A, Romeis J, Bigler F (2003) Assessing the risks of insect resistant transgenic plants on entomophagous arthropods: Bt-maize expressing Cry1Ab as a case study. BioControl 48:611–636

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Off J EC L106:1–39

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2006a) Guidance document of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA J 99:1–100

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2006b) 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 374:1–115

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2007) Guidance document of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants containing stacked transformation events. EFSA J 512:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2008) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants – challenges and approaches. EFSA scientific colloquium series 8, June 2007. European Food Safety Authority, Brussels. Available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Event_Meeting/sci_coll_8_summary_report.pdf

  • EPA (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R095/002F, US EPA risk assessment forum. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460

  • FAO/WHO (2000) Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin. A joint FAO/WHO consultation on foods derived from biotechnology, Geneva, Switzerland, 29 May – 2 June 2000. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Alonso M, Jacobs E, Raybould A, Nickson TE, Sowig P, Willekens H, Van der Kouwe P, Layton R, Amijee F, Fuentes AM, Tencalla F (2006) A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 5:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gathmann A, Wirooks L, Hothhorn LA, Bartsch D, Schuphan I (2006) Impact of Bt-maize pollen (MON810) on lepidopteran larvae living on accompanying weeds. Mol Ecol 15:2677–2685

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Halpin C (2005) Gene stacking in transgenic plants - the challenge for 21st century plant biotechnology. Plant Biotechnol J 3:141–155

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hill RA (2005) Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 4:67–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill RA, Sendashonga C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ Biosaf Res 2:81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen E, Schouten HJ (2007) Cisgenesis strongly improves introgression breeding and induced translocation breeding of plants. Trends Biotechnol 25:219–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson KL, Raybould AF, Hudson MD, Poppy GM (2007) How does scientific risk assessment of GM crops fit within the wider risk analysis? Trends Plant Sci 12:1–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kok EJ, Keijer J, Kleter GA, Kuiper HA (2008) Comparative safety assessment of plant-derived foods. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 50:98–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lövei GL, Arpaia S (2005) The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies. Entomol Exp Appl 114:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald P, Yarrow S (2003) Regulation of Bt crops in Canada. J Invert Pathol 83:93–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marvier M (2002) Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecol Appl 12:1119–1124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCallum CM, Comai L, Greene EA, Henikoff S (2000a) Targeted induced local lessions in genomes (TILLING) for plant functional genomics. Plant Physiol 123:439–442

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCallum CM, Comai L, Greene EA, Henikoff S (2000b) Targeted screening for induced mutations. Nat Biotechnol 18:455–457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCammon SL (2006) The organization for economic cooperation and development: challenges for risk assessment. Environ Biosaf Res 5:239–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHughen A (2007) Fatal flaws in agbiotech regulatory policies. Nat Biotechnol 25:725–727

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McHughen A, Smyth S (2008) US regulatory system for genetically modified [genetically modified organisms (GMO), rDNA or transgenic] crop cultivars. Plant Biotechnol J 6:2–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moose SP, Mumm RH (2008) Molecular plant breeding as the foundation for 21st century crop improvement. Plant Physiol 147:969–977

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morris SH (2007) EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: a case of the emperor's new clothes? Trends Biotechnol 25:2–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morris SH, Spillane C (2008) GM directive deficiencies in the European Union. EMBO Rep 9:500–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Myskja BK (2006) The moral difference between intragenic and transgenic modification of plants. J Agric Environ Ethics 19:225–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nickson TE (2008) Planning environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops: problem formulation for stress-tolerant crops. Plant Physiol 147:494–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1993) Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology, concepts and principles. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Paoletti C, Flamm E, Yan W, Meek S, Renckens S, Fellous M, Kuiper H (2008) GMO risk assessment around the world: some examples. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:S66–S74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qi A, Perry JN, Pidgeon JD, Haylock LA, Brooks DR (2008) Cost-efficacy in measuring farmland biodiversity – lessons from the farm scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Ann Appl Biol 152:93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raybould A (2006) Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ Biosaf Res 5:119–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raybould A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci 173:589–602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MMC, Hartley SE, Hellmich RL, Huesing JE, Jepson PC, Layton R, Quemada H, Raybould A, Rose RI, Schiemann J, Sears MK, Shelton AM, Sweet J, Vaituzis Z, Wolt JD (2008) Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nat Biotechnol 26:203–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rommens CM, Haring MA, Swords K, Davies HV, Belknap WR (2007) The intragenic approach as a new extension to traditional plant breeding. Trends Plant Sci 12:397–403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Russel W, Sparrow R (2008) The case for regulating intragenic GMOs. J Agric Environ Ethics 21:153–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Biosaf Res 4:13–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F (2007) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 107:235–278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F (2008) An approach for post-market monitoring of potential environmental effects of Bt-maize expressing Cry1Ab on natural enemies. J Appl Entomol. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0418.2008.01367.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt K, Wilhelm R, Schmidtke J, Beissner L, Mönkemeyer W, Böttinger P, Sweet J, Schiemann J (2008) Farm questionnaires for monitoring genetically modified crops: a case study using GM maize. Environ Biosaf Res 7:163–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schouten HJ, Krens FA, Jacobsen E (2006a) Do cisgenic plants warrant less stringent oversight? Nat Biotechnol 24:753

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schouten HJ, Krens FA, Jacobsen E (2006b) Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants. EMBO Rep 7:750–753

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth S, McHughen A (2008) Regulating innovative crops technologies in Canada: the case of regulation genetically modified crops. Plant Biotechnol J 6:213–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Storkey J, Bohan DA, Haughton AJ, Champion GT, Perry JN, Poppy GM, Woiwod IP (2008) Providing the evidence base for environmental risk assessments of novel farm management practices. Environ Sci Policy 11:579–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suter GW (2000) Generic assessment endpoints are needed for ecological risk assessment. Risk Anal 20:173–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tan SY, Evans RR, Dahmer ML, Singh BK, Shaner DL (2005) Imidazolinone-tolerant crops: history, current status and future. Pest Manage Sci 61:246–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Todd JH, Ramankutty P, Barraclough EI, Malone LA (2008) A screening method for prioritizing non-target invertebrates for improved biosafety testing of transgenic crops. Environ Biosaf Res 7:35–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson MJ, Sweet J, Poppy GM (2003) Risk assessment of GM plants: avoiding gridlock? Trends Plant Sci 8:208–212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolt JD, Keese P, Raybould A, Fitzpatrick JW, Burachik M, Gray A, Olin SS, Schiemann J, Sears M, Wu F (2009) Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants. Transgenic Res doi:10.1007/s.11248-009-9321-9

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Julius Kühn Institute (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Erwin-Baur-Strasse 27, 06484, Quedlinburg, Germany

    Joachim Schiemann

  2. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), GMO Unit, Parma, Italy

    Yann Devos & Karine Lheureux

Authors
  1. Yann Devos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karine Lheureux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joachim Schiemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joachim Schiemann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Botanisches Institut, Universität Kiel, Olshausenstr. 40, Kiel, 24118, Germany

    Frank Kempken

  2. Inst. Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenzüchtung, Universität Kiel, Olshausenstr. 40, Kiel, 24098, Germany

    Christian Jung

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Devos, Y., Lheureux, K., Schiemann, J. (2010). Regulatory Oversight and Safety Assessment of Plants with Novel Traits. In: Kempken, F., Jung, C. (eds) Genetic Modification of Plants. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, vol 64. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02391-0_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation