Advertisement

Regulatory Oversight and Safety Assessment of Plants with Novel Traits

  • Yann Devos
  • Karine Lheureux
  • Joachim SchiemannEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry book series (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.

Keywords

European Union Genetically Modify European Food Safety Authority Environmental Risk Assessment Genetically Modify Food 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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
  2. Akhond MAY, Machray GC (2009) Biotech crops: technologies, achievements and prospects. Euphytica 166:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andow DA, Hilbeck A (2004) Science-based risk assessment for non-target effects of transgenic crops. Bioscience 54:637–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andow DA, Zwahlen C (2006) Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecol Lett 9:196–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andow DA, Lövei GL, Arpaia S (2006) Ecological risk assessment for Bt crops. Nat Biotechnol 24:749–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 105:3640–3645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 86:1243–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 23:439–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapotin SM, Wolt JD (2007) Genetically modified crops for the bioeconomy: meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Res 16:675–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 21:1429–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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 126:480–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 33:19–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craig W, Tepfer M, Degrassi G, Ripandelli D (2008) An overview of general features of risk assessment of genetically modified crops. Euphytica 164:853–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 18:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Demeke T, Perry DJ, Scowcroft WR (2006) Adventitious presence of GMOs: scientific overview for Canadian grains. Can J Plant Sci 86:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duke SO (2005) Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest Manage Sci 61:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 48:611–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 L106:1–39Google Scholar
  23. 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 99:1–100Google Scholar
  24. 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 374:1–115Google Scholar
  25. 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 512:1–5Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 5:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 15:2677–2685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Halpin C (2005) Gene stacking in transgenic plants - the challenge for 21st century plant biotechnology. Plant Biotechnol J 3:141–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hill RA (2005) Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 4:67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hill RA, Sendashonga C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ Biosaf Res 2:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacobsen E, Schouten HJ (2007) Cisgenesis strongly improves introgression breeding and induced translocation breeding of plants. Trends Biotechnol 25:219–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 12:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kok EJ, Keijer J, Kleter GA, Kuiper HA (2008) Comparative safety assessment of plant-derived foods. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 50:98–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lövei GL, Arpaia S (2005) The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies. Entomol Exp Appl 114:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macdonald P, Yarrow S (2003) Regulation of Bt crops in Canada. J Invert Pathol 83:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marvier M (2002) Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecol Appl 12:1119–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCallum CM, Comai L, Greene EA, Henikoff S (2000a) Targeted induced local lessions in genomes (TILLING) for plant functional genomics. Plant Physiol 123:439–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCallum CM, Comai L, Greene EA, Henikoff S (2000b) Targeted screening for induced mutations. Nat Biotechnol 18:455–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCammon SL (2006) The organization for economic cooperation and development: challenges for risk assessment. Environ Biosaf Res 5:239–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McHughen A (2007) Fatal flaws in agbiotech regulatory policies. Nat Biotechnol 25:725–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McHughen A, Smyth S (2008) US regulatory system for genetically modified [genetically modified organisms (GMO), rDNA or transgenic] crop cultivars. Plant Biotechnol J 6:2–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Moose SP, Mumm RH (2008) Molecular plant breeding as the foundation for 21st century crop improvement. Plant Physiol 147:969–977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morris SH (2007) EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: a case of the emperor's new clothes? Trends Biotechnol 25:2–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morris SH, Spillane C (2008) GM directive deficiencies in the European Union. EMBO Rep 9:500–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Myskja BK (2006) The moral difference between intragenic and transgenic modification of plants. J Agric Environ Ethics 19:225–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nickson TE (2008) Planning environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops: problem formulation for stress-tolerant crops. Plant Physiol 147:494–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. OECD (1993) Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology, concepts and principles. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  51. 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–S74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 152:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Raybould A (2006) Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ Biosaf Res 5:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raybould A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci 173:589–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 26:203–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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 12:397–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Russel W, Sparrow R (2008) The case for regulating intragenic GMOs. J Agric Environ Ethics 21:153–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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 4:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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 107:235–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.xGoogle Scholar
  61. 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 7:163–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schouten HJ, Krens FA, Jacobsen E (2006a) Do cisgenic plants warrant less stringent oversight? Nat Biotechnol 24:753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schouten HJ, Krens FA, Jacobsen E (2006b) Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants. EMBO Rep 7:750–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smyth S, McHughen A (2008) Regulating innovative crops technologies in Canada: the case of regulation genetically modified crops. Plant Biotechnol J 6:213–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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 11:579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Suter GW (2000) Generic assessment endpoints are needed for ecological risk assessment. Risk Anal 20:173–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tan SY, Evans RR, Dahmer ML, Singh BK, Shaner DL (2005) Imidazolinone-tolerant crops: history, current status and future. Pest Manage Sci 61:246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 7:35–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilkinson MJ, Sweet J, Poppy GM (2003) Risk assessment of GM plants: avoiding gridlock? Trends Plant Sci 8:208–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.11248-009-9321-9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yann Devos
    • 2
  • Karine Lheureux
    • 2
  • Joachim Schiemann
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Julius Kühn Institute (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated PlantsQuedlinburgGermany
  2. 2.European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), GMO UnitParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations