What the French ban of Bt MON810 maize means for science-based risk assessment

Policy-Led Comparative Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops: Testing for Increased Risk Rather Than Profiling Phenotypes Leads to Predictable and Transparent Decision-Making

We describe two contrasting methods of comparative environmental risk assessment for genetically modified (GM) crops. Both are science-based, in the sense that they use science to help make decisions, but they differ in the relationship between science and policy. Policy-led comparative risk assessment begins by defining what would be regarded as unacceptable changes when the use a particular GM crop replaces an accepted use of another crop. Hypotheses that these changes will not occur are tested using existing or new data, and corroboration or falsification of the hypotheses is used to inform decision-making. Science-led comparative risk assessment, on the other hand, tends to test null hypotheses of no difference between a GM crop and a comparator. The variables that are compared may have little or no relevance to any previously stated policy objective and hence decision-making tends to be ad hoc in response to possibly spurious statistical significance. We argue that policy-led comparative risk assessment is the far more effective method. With this in mind, we caution that phenotypic profiling of GM crops, particularly with omics methods, is potentially detrimental to risk assessment.

Monitoring of Sesamia nonagrioides resistance to MON 810 maize in the European Union: lessons from a long-term harmonized plan

BACKGROUND

Use of MON 810 maize (Zea mays), which expresses the insecticidal protein Cry1Ab from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt maize), is a highly effective method to control Sesamia nonagrioides (Lefèbvre), a key maize pest in Mediterranean countries. Monitoring programs to assess the potential development of resistance of target pests to Bt maize are mandatory in the European Union (EU). Here we report the results of the S. nonagrioides resistance monitoring plan implemented for MON 810 maize in the EU between 2004 and 2015 and reassess the different components of this long-term harmonized plan.

RESULTS

No major shifts in the susceptibility of S. nonagrioides to the Cry1Ab protein have occurred over time. The reassessment of this long-term program has identified some practical and technical constraints, allowing us to provide specific recommendations for improvement: use reference strains instead of susceptibility baselines as comparators for field-collected populations; shift from dose-response bioassays to diagnostic concentrations; and focus monitoring on areas with high adoption rates, such as the Ebro basin in Spain.

CONCLUSION

There are no signs of field resistance of S. nonagrioides to the Cry1Ab protein of MON 810 maize. Specific recommendations for improvement are provided, based on the knowledge and experience accumulated through the implementation of this unique EU-wide harmonized plan. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry.

The ethical concerns about transgenic crops

It is generally accepted that transgenesis can improve our knowledge of natural processes, but also leads to agricultural, industrial or socio-economical changes which could affect human society at large and which may, consequently, require regulation. It is often stated that developing countries are most likely to benefit from plant biotechnology and are at the same time most likely to be affected by the deployment of such new technologies. Therefore, ethical questions related to such biotechnology probably also need to be addressed. We first illustrate how consequentialist and nonconsequentialist theories of ethics can be applied to the genetically modified organism debate, namely consequentialism, autonomy/consent ethics (i.e. self-determination of people regarding matters that may have an effect on these people) and virtue ethics (i.e. whether an action is in adequacy with ideal traits). We show that these approaches lead to highly conflicting views. We have then refocused on moral 'imperatives', such as freedom, justice and truth. Doing so does not resolve all conflicting views, but allows a gain in clarity in the sense that the ethical concerns are shifted from a technology (and its use) to the morality or amorality of various stakeholders of this debate.

Comparison of Allergenicity at Gly m 4 and Gly m Bd 30K of Soybean after Genetic Modification

Despite rapid growth of genetically modified (GM) crops, effective evaluations of genetic modification on allergenicity are still lacking. Gly m Bd 30K is cross-reactive with cow's milk protein casein, Gly m 4, and with birch pollen allergen Bet v 1. Here we compared the allergenicity between GM and non-GM soybeans with respect to the foci Gly m 4 and Gly m Bd 30K. Recombinant allergens of Gly m Bd 30K and Gly m 4 were generated and polyclonal antibodies raised to identify these two allergenic components in soybeans. GM soybean was first PCR-confirmed using 35S promoter. A total of 20 soybeans (half GM, half non-GM) obtained from a food market were used to assess their allergenicity based on IgE-binding and histamine release. The concentrations of Gly m Bd 30K and Gly m 4 in soybeans were then determined. Most soybean-allergic patients (9 of 10) showed IgE-positive reactions to the allergen of 30 kDa in molecular weight. That allergen turned out to be Glycine max Gly m Bd 30K based on LC-MS/MS analyses. Gly m Bd 30K is therefore the major allergen in the soybean. An increase in the transcription of both the Gly m 4 (stress-induced protein SAM22) and Gly m Bd 28K (soybean allergen precursor) was found after genetic modification. The protein concentrations of Gly m 4 and Gly m Bd 30K were not statistically significant different between non-GM and GM soybeans. There were also no statistical significances between them in the tests of IgE binding and histamine release. In conclusion, soybeans showed similar concentrations of Gly m Bd 30K and Gly m 4 regardless of genetic modification or absence thereof. The allergenicity of both Gly m Bd 30K and Gly m 4 was therefore not altered after genetic modification. Patients showing hypersensitivity to soybeans and who had pre-existing allergy to birch pollen and cow's milk casein might not further increase their allergic reactions following exposures to the GM soybeans.

New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology

In this review, current EU GMO regulations are subjected to a point-by point analysis to determine their suitability for agriculture in modern Europe. Our analysis concerns present GMO regulations as well as suggestions for possible new regulations for genome editing and New Breeding Techniques (for which no regulations presently exist). Firstly, the present GMO regulations stem from the early days of recombinant DNA and are not adapted to current scientific understanding on this subject. Scientific understanding of GMOs has changed and these regulations are now, not only unfit for their original purpose, but, the purpose itself is now no longer scientifically valid. Indeed, they defy scientific, economic, and even common, sense. A major EU regulatory preconception is that GM crops are basically different from their parent crops. Thus, the EU regulations are "process based" regulations that discriminate against GMOs simply because they are GMOs. However current scientific evidence shows a blending of classical crops and their GMO counterparts with no clear demarcation line between them. Canada has a "product based" approach and determines the safety of each new crop variety independently of the process used to obtain it. We advise that the EC re-writes it outdated regulations and moves toward such a product based approach.  Secondly, over the last few years new genomic editing techniques (sometimes called New Breeding Techniques) have evolved. These techniques are basically mutagenesis techniques that can generate genomic diversity and have vast potential for crop improvement. They are not GMO based techniques (any more than mutagenesis is a GMO technique), since in many cases no new DNA is introduced. Thus they cannot simply be lumped together with GMOs (as many anti-GMO NGOs would prefer). The EU currently has no regulations to cover these new techniques. In this review, we make suggestions as to how these new gene edited crops may be regulated. The EU is at a turning point where the wrong decision could destroy European agricultural competitively for decades to come.

Perspectives on genetically modified crops and food detection

Genetically modified (GM) crops are a major product of the global food industry. From 1996 to 2014, 357 GM crops were approved and the global value of the GM crop market reached 35% of the global commercial seed market in 2014. However, the rapid growth of the GM crop-based industry has also created controversies in many regions, including the European Union, Egypt, and Taiwan. The effective detection and regulation of GM crops/foods are necessary to reduce the impact of these controversies. In this review, the status of GM crops and the technology for their detection are discussed. As the primary gap in GM crop regulation exists in the application of detection technology to field regulation, efforts should be made to develop an integrated, standardized, and high-throughput GM crop detection system. We propose the development of an integrated GM crop detection system, to be used in combination with a standardized international database, a decision support system, high-throughput DNA analysis, and automated sample processing. By integrating these technologies, we hope that the proposed GM crop detection system will provide a method to facilitate comprehensive GM crop regulation.

Public Submissions on the Uganda National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill, 2012 Reveal Potential Way Forward for Uganda Legislators to Pass the Bill

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity is an internationally binding instrument addressing issues of biosafety. Biosafety refers to the need to protect human health and the environment from the possible adverse effects of the products of modern biotechnology. Accordingly, all countries to the convention are required to put in place regulatory mechanisms to enhance the safety of biotechnology in the context of the Convention’s overall goal of reducing all potential threats to biological diversity, while taking into account the risks to human health. Therefore, each country party to the convention has its own procedures to enact laws to guide the safe use of biotechnology. In Uganda, the process involves the drafting of the bill by the first parliamentary counsel, approval by cabinet, first reading at the parliament, committal to the responsible parliamentary sessional committee, tabling of the bill for public hearing, consultations, and final approval. In Uganda, the Committee on Science and Technology is responsible for the Biosafety Bill. In March 2013, the Committee tabled the bill for public hearing and submissions from public institutions. There were comments supporting the passage of the Bill and comments in objection. The reasons for objection are mainly due to precaution, speculation, lack of knowledge about biotechnology and biosafety, and alleged influence from biosafety entrepreneurs. This article reviews these public views, revealing controversy and possible consensus to pass the bill.

Public Acceptance of Plant Biotechnology and GM Crops

A wide gap exists between the rapid acceptance of genetically modified (GM) crops for cultivation by farmers in many countries and in the global markets for food and feed, and the often-limited acceptance by consumers. This review contrasts the advances of practical applications of agricultural biotechnology with the divergent paths-also affecting the development of virus resistant transgenic crops-of political and regulatory frameworks for GM crops and food in different parts of the world. These have also shaped the different opinions of consumers. Important factors influencing consumer's attitudes are the perception of risks and benefits, knowledge and trust, and personal values. Recent political and societal developments show a hardening of the negative environment for agricultural biotechnology in Europe, a growing discussion-including calls for labeling of GM food-in the USA, and a careful development in China towards a possible authorization of GM rice that takes the societal discussions into account. New breeding techniques address some consumers' concerns with transgenic crops, but it is not clear yet how consumers' attitudes towards them will develop. Discussions about agriculture would be more productive, if they would focus less on technologies, but on common aims and underlying values.

The GMO case in France: politics, lawlessness and postmodernism

The GMO debacle in France is analyzed in the light of the balance of forces around this controversy, the changes in position of governments and the opponents' strategic use of intimidation. These factors have caused insurmountable difficulties for scientific experimentations and assessment of the technology, as well as for farmers attempting to grow GM maize in this country. The change from a "modern" to a "postmodern" framing of official public debates and scientific institutions has not appeased confrontations concerning GMOs.

EFSA's scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence: looking back and ahead

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and derived food and feed products are subject to a risk analysis and regulatory approval before they can enter the market in the European Union (EU). In this risk analysis process, the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which was created in 2002 in response to multiple food crises, is to independently assess and provide scientific advice to risk managers on any possible risks that the use of GMOs may pose to human and animal health and the environment. EFSA's scientific advice is elaborated by its GMO Panel with the scientific support of several working groups and EFSA's GMO Unit. This review presents EFSA's scientific activities and highlights its achievements on the risk assessment of GMOs for the first 10 years of its existence. Since 2002, EFSA has issued 69 scientific opinions on genetically modified (GM) plant market registration applications, of which 62 for import and processing for food and feed uses, six for cultivation and one for the use of pollen (as or in food), and 19 scientific opinions on applications for marketing products made with GM microorganisms. Several guidelines for the risk assessment of GM plants, GM microorganisms and GM animals, as well as on specific issues such as post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) were elaborated. EFSA also provided scientific advice upon request of the European Commission on safeguard clause and emergency measures invoked by EU Member States, annual PMEM reports, the potential risks of new biotechnology-based plant breeding techniques, evaluations of previously assessed GMOs in the light of new scientific publications, and the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM plants. Future challenges relevant to the risk assessment of GMOs are discussed. EFSA's risk assessments of GMO applications ensure that data are analysed and presented in a way that facilitates scientifically sound decisions that protect human and animal health and the environment.