Applying ecosystem services for pre-market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors

Variation in the Chemical Sensitivity of Earthworms from Field Populations to Imidacloprid and Copper

The chemical risk of pesticides for nontarget soil macroorganisms has mainly been assessed using the compost earthworm Eisenia fetida. However, E. fetida does not occur in agroecosystems, and it is generally less sensitive than other earthworm species. Thus, the extrapolation of its response to pesticides to other earthworm species may lead to uncertainties in risk assessment. Because toxicity data for other earthworms are scarce, we assessed the chemical sensitivity of five species (Allolobophora chlorotica, Aporrectodea caliginosa, Aporrectodea longa, Aporrectodea rosea, and Lumbricus rubellus) from different habitats (forests, wetlands, and grasslands), as well as E. fetida, to imidacloprid and copper in single-species acute toxicity tests. In addition, we examined the relationship between earthworm traits (ecotype and weight), habitat characteristics (ecosystem type and soil pH), and chemical sensitivity. The lower limits of the hazardous concentration affecting 5% (HC5) of species were 178.99 and 0.32 mg active ingredient/kg dry weight for copper and imidacloprid, respectively. Some concentrations that have been measured in European agroecosystems for both pesticides were above the HC5s, indicating toxic risks for these organisms. Furthermore, soil pH from the sampling habitat played a significant role, with earthworms sampled from extremely acidic soils being less sensitive to copper than earthworms from neutral soils. In addition, endogeic earthworms were more sensitive to imidacloprid than epigeic earthworms. This may translate to changes in soil functions such as bioturbation, which is mainly carried out by endogeic earthworms. Our results suggest that risk assessment should include a wider range of earthworms covering different habitats and ecosystem functions to achieve a better protection of the biological functions carried out by these key soil organisms. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:939-947. © 2023 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Naegeli H, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Bonsall MB, Mumford J, Wimmer EA, Devos Y, Paraskevopoulos K, Firbank LG. Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives

Advances in molecular and synthetic biology are enabling the engineering of gene drives in insects for disease vector/pest control. Engineered gene drives (that bias their own inheritance) can be designed either to suppress interbreeding target populations or modify them with a new genotype. Depending on the engineered gene drive system, theoretically, a genetic modification of interest could spread through target populations and persist indefinitely, or be restricted in its spread or persistence. While research on engineered gene drives and their applications in insects is advancing at a fast pace, it will take several years for technological developments to move to practical applications for deliberate release into the environment. Some gene drive modified insects (GDMIs) have been tested experimentally in the laboratory, but none has been assessed in small-scale confined field trials or in open release trials as yet. There is concern that the deliberate release of GDMIs in the environment may have possible irreversible and unintended consequences. As a proactive measure, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been requested by the European Commission to review whether its previously published guidelines for the risk assessment of genetically modified animals (EFSA, 2012 and 2013), including insects (GMIs), are adequate and sufficient for GDMIs, primarily disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, for deliberate release into the environment. Under this mandate, EFSA was not requested to develop risk assessment guidelines for GDMIs. In this Scientific Opinion, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) concludes that EFSA's guidelines are adequate, but insufficient for the molecular characterisation (MC), environmental risk assessment (ERA) and post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of GDMIs. While the MC,ERA and PMEM of GDMIs can build on the existing risk assessment framework for GMIs that do not contain engineered gene drives, there are specific areas where further guidance is needed for GDMIs.

EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food, Society': concluding remarks

From 18-21 September 2018, EFSA hosted its third Scientific Conference on Science, Food and Society in Parma, Italy. This paper summarises the overall recommendations on future actions and research priorities of the conference and complements the earlier multi-authored papers in this issue. The conference started and closed with the plenary sessions 'where science meets society: putting risk assessment in context' and 'staying relevant in a changing world', respectively. In between, there were seven breakout sessions five of which aimed at advancing risk assessment science in the areas of human health, the environment, biological hazards, nutrition and managing evidence, and two of which were dedicated to the societal aspects of risk assessment: engaging with society and envisioning the expertise of the future. During the 4 days of the event, participants addressed the complex interplay between science, risk assessment, policy and society, and explored how to advance food safety risk assessment to address the challenges of a changing world and ensure preparedness. Acknowledging that good science alone is no longer sufficient to ensure fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments, EFSA must further build on its current five Strategic Objectives. To ensure that its risk assessments remain scientifically robust and sound, EFSA should strive for robust and fit-for-purpose risk assessments; consider food in the context of safety, nutrition and sustainability; and explore further how EFSA can work with other organisations to achieve the One Health/One Environment goals. In addition, EFSA should base scientific risk assessments on reliable science while capitalising on scientific advances; address scientific uncertainties; and fully publish the evidence and data used. In line with societal expectations, EFSA, in coordination with risk managers, should frame risk assessments through clear policy goals and problem formulation; be explicit about value judgements; communicate clearly and consistently and in coordination with risk assessors and risk managers; involve society; avoid conflicts of interest; and follow trustworthy processes.

Using problem formulation for fit-for-purpose pre-market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors

Pre-market/prospective environmental risk assessments (ERAs) contribute to risk analyses performed to facilitate decisions about the market introduction of regulated stressors. Robust ERAs begin with an explicit problem formulation, which involves among other steps: (1) formally devising plausible pathways to harm that describe how the deployment of a regulated stressor could be harmful; (2) formulating risk hypotheses about the likelihood and severity of such events; (3) identifying the information that will be useful to test the risk hypotheses; and (4) developing a plan to acquire new data for hypothesis testing should tests with existing information be insufficient for decision-making. Here, we apply problem formulation to the assessment of possible adverse effects of RNA interference-based insecticidal genetically modified (GM) plants, GM growth hormone coho salmon, gene drive-modified mosquitoes and classical biological weed control agents on non-target organisms in a prospective manner, and of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees in a retrospective manner. In addition, specific considerations for the problem formulation for the ERA of nanomaterials and for landscape-scale population-level ERAs are given. We argue that applying problem formulation to ERA maximises the usefulness of ERA studies for decision-making, through an iterative process, because: (1) harm is defined explicitly from the start; (2) the construction of risk hypotheses is guided by policy rather than an exhaustive attempt to address any possible differences; (3) existing information is used effectively; (4) new data are collected with a clear purpose; (5) risk is characterised against well-defined criteria of hypothesis corroboration or falsification; and (6) risk assessment conclusions can be communicated clearly. However, problem formulation is still often hindered by the absence of clear policy goals and decision-making criteria (e.g. definition of protection goals and what constitutes harm) that are needed to guide the interpretation of scientific information. We therefore advocate further dialogue between risk assessors and risk managers to clarify how ERAs can address policy goals and decision-making criteria. Ideally, this dialogue should take place for all classes of regulated stressors, as this can promote alignment and consistency on the desired level of protection and maximum tolerable impacts across regulated stressors.