Sustainable Food Production

2013 Edition
| Editors: Paul Christou, Roxana Savin, Barry A. Costa-Pierce, Ignacy Misztal, C. Bruce A. Whitelaw

Transgenic Crops, Risk Assessment and Regulatory Framework in the European Union

  • Yann Devos
  • Wendy Craig
  • Joachim Schiemann
Reference work entry

Definition of the Subject

This contribution describes the risk assessment principles and the regulatory framework for transgenic (genetically modified (GM)) crops in the European Union (EU).

While the global cropping area of GM crops reached 148 million hectares in 2010, the total area cultivated with GM crops in the EU was less than 100,000 ha. Most GM crops are thus cultivated outside the EU, but might subsequently be imported and eventually further processed in the EU, mostly for animal feed purposes.

It is globally accepted that agro-food biotechnology could contribute to achieving the objectives (conservation of biological diversity , sustainable use of its components, fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources) laid down in the Convention on Biological Diversity, if developed and used with adequate safety measures for both the environment and human health. Generally, the safety measures are embedded in process- or...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.



The authors wish to thank Salvatore Arpaia, Detlef Bartsch, Adinda De Schrijver, Matty Demont, Achim Gathmann, Rosemary Hails, Jozsef Kiss, Antoine Messéan, Karin Nienstedt, Joe Perry, Dirk Reheul, Olivier Sanvido, and Jeremy Sweet for inspiring discussions that helped to develop this entry.


  1. 1.
    EC (2008) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – Interim Report 2008.
  2. 2.
    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 Eur Communities L106:1–39Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    EC (2004) Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. Off J Eur Communities L143:56–75Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Secretariat of the CBD (2000) Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity: text and annexes. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Montreal, Canada.
  5. 5.
    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 12:1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    James C (2010) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2010. Highlights of ISAAA briefs No 42, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chapotin SM, Wolt JD (2007) Genetically modified crops for the bioeconomy: meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Res 16:675–688PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herring RJ (2008) Opposition to transgenic technologies: ideology, interests and collective action frames. Nat Rev 9:458–463Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levidow L, Carr S, Wield D (2005) European Union regulation of agribiotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy. Sci Public Policy 32:261–276Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Devos Y, Reheul D, De Waele D, Van Speybroeck L (2006) The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union. Environ Biosaf Res 5:127–149Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Devos Y, Maeseele P, Reheul D, Van Speybroeck L, De Waele D (2008) Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: a (re)quest for Sense and Sensibility. J Agric Environ Ethics 21:29–61Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levidow L, Carr S (2007) GM crops on trial: technological development as a real world experiment. Futures 39:408–431Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lofstedt RE (2006) How can we make food risk communication better: where are we and where are we going? J Risk Res 9:869–890Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marks LA, Kalaitzandonakes N, Wilkins L, Zakharova L (2007) Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Underst Sci 16:183–203Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maeseele PA, Schuurman D (2008) Biotechnology and the popular press in Northern Belgium. Sci Commun 29:435–471Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX (1996) The social amplification and attenuation of risk. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 545:95–105Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winickoff D, Jasanoff S, Busch L, Grove-White R, Wynne B (2005) Adjudicating the GM food wars: science, risk, and democracy in world trade law. Yale J Int Law 30:81–123Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuiper HA, Davies HV (2010) The SAFE FOODS risk analysis framework suitable for GMOs? Food Control. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.02.011Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Corchero C, Fischler C, Hampel J, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Mejlgaard N, Revuelta G, Schreiner C, Stares S, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2006) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, Eurobarometer 64.3.
  20. 20.
    Christiansen T, Polak J (2009) Comitology between political decision-making and technocratic governance: regulating GMOs in the European Union. Eipascope Bull 1:5–11Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    EC (2010) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory.
  22. 22.
    EC (2010) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economics and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the freedom for Member States to decide on the cultivation of genetically modified crops.
  23. 23.
    EC (2010) Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops.
  24. 24.
    Chipman A (2010) Fears over Europe’s GM crop plan. Nature 466:542–543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ryffel GU (2010) Making the most of GM potatoes. Nat Biotechnol 28:318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Secretariat of the CBD (1992) Convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Montreal, Canada.
  27. 27.
    James C (2009) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2009. ISAAA Brief No. 41. ISAAA, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jaffe G (2004) Regulating transgenic crops: a comparative analysis of different regulatory processes. Transgenic Res 13:5–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    Secretariat of the IPPC (2005) Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 11. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
  31. 31.
    Mackenzie R, Burhenne-Guilmin F, La Vina AGM, Werksman JD (2003) An explanatory guide to the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. In cooperation with Ascencio A, Kinderlerer J, Kummer K, Tapper R. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
  32. 32.
    Breyer D, Herman P, Brandenburger A, Gheysen G, Remaut E, Soumillion P, Van Doorsselaere J, Custers R, Pauwels K, Sneyers M, Reheul D (2009) Commentary: Genetic modification through oligonucleotide-mediated mutagenesis. A GMO regulatory challenge? Environ Biosaf Res 8:57–64Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Macdonald P, Yarrow S (2003) Regulation of Bt crops in Canada. J Invertebr Pathol 83:93–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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
  35. 35.
    Smyth S, McHughen A (2008) Regulating innovative crops technologies in Canada: the case of regulation genetically modified crops. Plant Biotechnol J 6:213–225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    COGEM (2006) New techniques in plant biotechnology. COGEM Report CGM/061024-02.
  37. 37.
    Morris SH, Spillane C (2008) GM directive deficiencies in the European Union. EMBO Rep 9:500–504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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 105:3640–3645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kok EJ, Keijer J, Kleter GA, Kuiper HA (2008) Comparative safety assessment of plant-derived foods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 50:98–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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 23:439–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Morris SH (2007) EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: a case of the emperor’s new clothes? Trends Biotechnol 25:2–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jacobsen E, Schouten HJ (2007) Cisgenesis strongly improves introgression breeding and induced translocation breeding of plants. Trends Biotechnol 25:219–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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 12:397–403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    COGEM (2009) Novel plant breeding techniques – consequences of new genetic modification-based plant breeding techniques in comparison to conventional plant breeding, report 2009-02.
  45. 45.
    Foster M, Berry P, Hogan J (2003) Market access issues for GM products. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) eReport 03.13, Canberra, Australia.
  46. 46.
    Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HPJM, Kok EJ (2002) Substantial equivalence – an appropriate paradigm for the safety assessment of genetically modified food. Toxicology 181–182:427–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kok EJ, Kuiper HA (2003) Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops. Trends Biotechnol 21:439–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    König A, Cockburn A, Crevel RWR, Debruyne E, Grafstroem R, Hammerling U, Kimber I, Knudsen I, Kuiper HA, Peijnenburg AACM, Penninks AH, Poulsen M, Schauzu M, Wal JM (2004) Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1047–1088PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    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–S74Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    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 – agriculture, horticulture & forestry, Series: Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, vol 64. Springer, Berlin, pp 553–574Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Demeke T, Perry DJ, Scowcroft WR (2006) Adventitious presence of GMOs: scientific overview for Canadian grains. Can J Plant Sci 86:1–23Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lheureux K, Mestdagh S, Devos Y (2008) Collaboration between the EFSA GMO Panel and national EU competent authorities for the environmental risk assessment of GM crop cultivation applications. J Consum Prot Food Saf 3(S2):51Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    SCP (2001) Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants concerning the adventitious presence of GM seeds in conventional seeds.
  54. 54.
    Verhoog H, Matze M, Lammerts Van Bueren E, Baars T (2003) The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. J Agric Environ Ethics 16:29–49Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Altieri MA (2005) The myth of coexistence: why transgenic crops are not compatible with agroecologically based systems of production. Bull Sci Technol Soc 25:1–11Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    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
  57. 57.
    Schiemann J (2003) Co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. Environ Biosaf Res 2:213–217Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Devos Y, Demont M, Sanvido O (2008) Coexistence in the EU–return of the moratorium on GM crops? Nat Biotechnol 26:1223–1225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Devos Y, Demont M, Dillen K, Reheul D, Kaiser M, Sanvido O (2009) Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. Agron Sustain Dev 29:11–30Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    EC (2003) Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. Off J Eur Communities L189:36–47Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Friesen LF, Nelson AG, Van Acker RC (2003) Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically modified herbicide resistance traits. Agron J 95:1342–1347Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jørgensen T, Hauser TP, Jørgensen RB (2007) Adventitious presence of other varieties in oilseed rape (Brassica napus) from seed banks and certified seed. Seed Sci Res 17:115–125Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Devos Y, Reheul D, De Schrijver A (2005) The co-existence between transgenic and non-transgenic maize in the European Union: a focus on pollen flow and cross-fertilization. Environ Biosaf Res 4:71–87Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hüsken A, Dietz-Pfeilstetter A (2007) Pollen-mediated intraspecific gene flow from herbicide resistant oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Transgenic Res 16:557–569PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sanvido O, Widmer F, Winzeler M, Streit B, Szerencsits E, Bigler F (2008) Definition and feasibility of isolation distances for transgenic maize. Transgenic Res 17:317–355PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Devos Y, Reheul D, De Schrijver A, Cors F, Moens W (2004) Management of transgenic herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape in Europe: a case study on minimizing vertical gene flow. Environ Biosaf Res 3:135–148Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lutman PJW, Berry K, Payne RW, Simpson E, Sweet JB, Champion GT, May MJ, Wightman P, Walker K, Lainsbury M (2005) Persistence of seeds from crops of conventional and herbicide tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1909–1915Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Messéan A, Sausse C, Gasquez J, Darmency H (2007) Occurrence of genetically modified oilseed rape seeds in the harvests of subsequent conventional oilseed rape over time. Eur J Agron 27:115–122Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gruber S, Colbach N, Barbottin A, Pekrun C (2008) Post-harvest gene escape and approaches for minimizing it. CAB Rev Perspect Agric Vet Sci Nutr Nat Resour 3:1–17Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Jørgensen RB (2007) Oilseed rape: co-existence and gene flow from wild species. Adv Bot Res 45:451–464Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Knispel AL, McLachlan S, Van Acker R, Friesen LF (2008) Gene flow and multiple herbicide resistance in escaped canola populations. Weed Sci 56:72–80Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pivard S, Adamczyk K, Lecomte J, Lavigne C, Bouvier A, Deville A, Gouyon PH, Huet S (2008) Where do the feral oilseed rape populations come from? A large-scale study of their possible origin in a farmland area. J Appl Ecol 45:476–485Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Beckmann V, Soregaroli C, Wesseler J (2006) Coexistence rules and regulations in the European Union. Am J Agric Econ 88:1193–1199Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    EC (2006) Report on the implementation of national measures on the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, European Commission.
  75. 75.
    Koch BA (2007) Liability and compensation schemes for damage resulting from the presence of genetically modified organisms in non-GM crops.
  76. 76.
    Sundstrom F, Williams J, Van Deynze A, Bradford KJ (2002) Identity preservation of agricultural commodities. ANR Publication No. 8077, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Czarnak-Klos M, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2010) Best practice documents for coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. 1. Maize crop production. European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB) report.
  78. 78.
    Demont M, Devos Y (2008) Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives. Trends Biotechnol 26:353–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Demont M, Daems W, Dillen K, Mathijs E, Sausse C, Tollens E (2008) Regulating coexistence in Europe: Beware of the domino-effect! Ecol Econ 64:683–689Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Demont M, Dillen K, Daems W, Sausse C, Tollens E, Mathijs E (2009) On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations. Food Pol 34:508–518Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Demont M, Devos Y, Sanvido O (2010) Towards flexible coexistence regulations for GM crops in the EU. EuroChoices 9:18–24Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Demont M, Dillen K, Daems W, Sausse C, Tollens E, Mathijs E (2010) On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations: Reply. Food Pol 35:183–184Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Beckmann V, Soregaroli C, Wesseler J (2010) Ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability under uncertainty and irreversibility: governing the coexistence of GM crops. Econ 4,
  84. 84.
    Ramessar K, Capell T, Twyman RM, Christou P (2010) Going to ridiculous lengths: European coexistence regulations for GM crops. Nat Biotechnol 28:133–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Riesgo L, Areal FJ, Sanvido O, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2010) Distances needed to limit cross-fertilization between GM and conventional maize in Europe. Nat Biotechnol 28:780–782PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Craig W, Tepfer M (2007) Introduction to the safety/risk assessment of GM crops. J Agric Invest 5:36–42Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    EFSA (2006) 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
  88. 88.
    Hill RA (2005) Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 4:67–70Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    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 33:19–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Craig W, Tepfer M, Degrassi G, Ripandelli D (2008) An overview of general features of risk assessment of genetically modified crops. Euphytica 164:853–880Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hill RA, Sendashonga C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ Biosaf Res 2:81–88Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Wolt JD, Keese P, Raybould A, Fitzpatrick JW, Burachik M, Gray A, Olin SS, Schiemann J, Sears M, Wu F (2010) Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants. Transgenic Res 19:425–436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    EPA (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R095/002F, US EPA risk assessment forum. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
  94. 94.
    Raybould A (2006) Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ Biosaf Res 5:119–125Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Raybould A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci 173:589–602Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Romeis J, Hellmich RL, Candolfi MP, Carstens K, De Schrijver A, Gatehouse AMR, Herman RA, Huesing JE, McLean MA, Raybould A, Shelton AM, Waggoner A (2010) Recommendations for the design of laboratory studies on non-target arthropods for risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. Transgenic Res. doi:10.1007/s11248-010-9446-xGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    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 5:57–65Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Horak MJ, Rosenbaum EW, Woodrum CL, Martens AB, Mery RF, Cothren JT, Burns JA, Nickson TE, Pester TA, Jiang C, Hart JL, Sammons B (2007) Characterization of roundup ready flex cotton, ‘MON 88913’, for use in ecological risk assessment: Evaluation of seed germination, vegetative and reproductive growth, and ecological interactions. Crop Sci 47:268–277Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Nickson TE (2008) Planning environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops: problem formulation for stress-tolerant crops. Plant Physiol 147:494–502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Garcia-Alonso M (2010) Current challenges in environmental risk assessment: The assessment of unintended effects of GM crops on non-target organisms. IOBC/wprs Bull 52:57–63Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Raybould A, Tuttle A, Shore S, Stone T (2010) Environmental risk assessment for transgenic crops producing output trait enzymes. Transgenic Res 19:595–609PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    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 26:203–208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Suter GW (2000) Generic assessment endpoints are needed for ecological risk assessment. Risk Anal 20:173–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F (2009) An approach for post-market monitoring of potential environmental effects of Bt-maize expressing Cry1Ab on natural enemies. J Appl Entomol 133:236–248Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Suter GW (2007) Ecological risk assessment, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 643Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Perry JN, ter Braak CJF, Dixon PM, Duan JJ, Hails RS, Huesken A, Lavielle A, Marvier M, Scardi M, Schmidt K, Tothmeresz B, Schaarschmidt F, van der Voet H (2009) Statistical aspects of environmental risk assessment of GM plants for effects on non-target organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 8:65–78Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    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 11:579–587Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    EFSA (2010) EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR); Scientific Opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA J 1821, 1-55.
  109. 109.
    Marvier M (2002) Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecol Appl 12:1119–1124Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Lövei GL, Arpaia S (2005) The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies. Entomol Exp Appl 114:1–14Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    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 152:93–101Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    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 15:2677–2685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    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 7:35–56Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Aviron S, Sanvido O, Romeis J, Herzog F, Bigler F (2009) Case-specific monitoring of butterflies to determine potential effects of transgenic Bt-maize in Switzerland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131:137–144Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Rauschen R, Schultheis E, Pagel-Wieder S, Schuphan I, Eber S (2009) Impact of Bt-corn MON88017 in comparison to three conventional lines on Trigonotylus caelestialium (Kirkaldy) (Heteroptera: Miridae) field densities. Transgenic Res 18:203–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Andow DA, Lövei GL, Arpaia S (2006) Ecological risk assessment for Bt crops. Nat Biotechnol 24:749–751PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Raybould A (2010) Reducing uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for transgenic crops. More ecological research or clearer environmental risk assessment? GM Crops 1:1–7Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    EFSA (2010) Scientific opinion of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms on statistical considerations for the safety evaluation of GMOs. EFSA J 1250:1–59Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    OECD (1993) Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology, concepts and principles. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. ISBN 92-64-13859-5Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Petersen W, Umbeck P, Hokanson K, Halsey M (2005) Biosafety considerations for selectable and scorable markers in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) biotechnology. Environ Biosaf Res 4:89–102Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Aumaitre A, Aulrich K, Chesson A, Flachowsky G, Piva G (2002) New feeds from genetically modified plants: substantial equivalence, nutritional equivalence, digestibility, and safety for animals and the food chain. Livest Prod Sci 74:223–238Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Andow DA, Zwahlen C (2006) Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecol Lett 9:196–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    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 4:13–27Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    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 7:163–179Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Wilhelm R, Sanvido O, Castanera P, Schmidt K, Schiemann J (2009) Monitoring the commercial cultivation of Bt maize in Europe – conclusions and recommendations for future monitoring practice. Environ Biosaf Res 8:219–225Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Sweet JB (2008) General surveillance of multiple transgenic events. J Verbr Lebensm 3:12Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Graef F, De Schrijver A, Murray A (2008) GMO monitoring data coordination and harmonisation at EU level – outcomes of the European Commission Working Group on Guidance Notes supplementing Annex VII of Directive 2001/18/EC. J Verbr Lebensm 3:17–20Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    ILSI Task Force (2004) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology. Task Force of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) International Food Biotechnology Committee. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 3:35–104Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    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 48:611–636Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Wilkinson MJ, Sweet J, Poppy GM (2003) Risk assessment of GM plants: avoiding gridlock? Trends Plant Sci 8:208–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    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 311–323Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    ACRE (2007) Managing the footprint of agriculture: towards a comparative assessment of risks and benefits for novel agricultural systems. DEFRA, London.
  133. 133.
    EFSA (2008) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants -- challenges and approaches. EFSA Scientific Colloquium Series 8, June 2007. European Food Safety Authority, Brussels.
  134. 134.
    Sanvido O, Romeis J, Gathmann A, Gielkens M, Raybould A, Bigler F (2011) Evaluating environmental risks of genetically modified crops – ecological harm criteria for regulatory decision-making. Environment & Science Policy, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GMO UnitEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA)ParmaItaly
  2. 2.Biosafety UnitInternational Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB)TriesteItaly
  3. 3.Julius Kühn Institute (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Biosafety of Genetically Modified PlantsQuedlinburgGermany