GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Links
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
  • Links
  • Donations
  • 2021
  • 2021a
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

2011 articles

Studies on GMO risk assessment

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 06 December 2011
Created: 06 December 2011
Last Updated: 22 October 2012
Twitter
––- Forwarded Message ––-
From: TWN Biosafety Info <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 12:14 AM

Title : Studies on GMO Risk Assessment
Date : 06 December 2011

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Dear Friends and colleagues,

RE: Studies on GMO Risk Assessment

We wish to highlight two recent scientific studies which critically scrutinize the practice and approach taken by the authorities in conducting risk assessments on GMOs in the European Union.

Recommendations are also put forward to improve the practice of assessing GMOs as well as to change regulations where necessary in order to require more comprehensive risk assessments to be carried out. 

Both studies can be downloaded for free at their respective links provided below.


Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister,
10400 Penang,
Malaysia
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Website: www.biosafety-info.net and www.twnside.org.sg
To subscribe to other TWN information lists: www.twnnews.net
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
Item 1 

Full document at: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/33

Scrutinizing the current practice of the environmental risk assessment of GM maize applications for cultivation in the EU

Marion Dolezel (1)*, Marianne Miklau1, Angelika Hilbeck (2), Mathias Otto (3), Michael Eckerstorfer (1), Andreas Heissenberger (1), Beatrix Tappeser (3) and Helmut Gaugitsch (1)

* Corresponding author: Marion Dolezel This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Author Affiliations

1 Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Spittelauer Laende 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria
2 Ecostrat GmbH, Hottingerstrasse 32, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland
3 Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Konstantinstrasse 110, 53179 Bonn, Germany

Environmental Sciences Europe 2011, 23:33 doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-33

Abstract

Purpose

The prevailing controversies on the potential environmental risks of genetically modified organisms [GMOs] still fuel ongoing discussions among European Union [EU] member states, risk assessors, applicants and scientists, even several years after the commercial introduction of GMOs. The disagreements mainly derive from the current risk assessment practice of GMOs and differences in the perceived environmental risks. Against this background, the aim of this study was to scrutinize the current practice of environmental risk assessment [ERA] of several GMO applications currently pending for authorisation in the EU.

Methods

We analysed the data presented for three assessment categories of the ERA of genetically modified [GM] maize applications for cultivation in the European Union: the agronomic evaluations and the assessments of the effects of GM maize on target organisms and of its potential adverse effects on non-target organisms.

Results

Major shortcomings causing considerable uncertainties related to the risk assessment were identified in all three categories. In addition, two principles of Directive 2001/18/EC are largely not fulfilled – the consideration of the receiving environment and the indirect effects, as mediated, e.g. by the application of the complementary herbicide in the case of herbicide-tolerant GM maize.

Conclusions

We conclude that the current practice of ERA does not comprehensively fulfill the scientific and legal requirements of Directive 2001/18/EC, and we propose improvements and needs for further guidance and development of standards. The recommendations address likewise applicants, risk assessors as well as decision makers.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

Item 2

Full document at: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/7

Systemic risks of genetically modified crops: the need for new approaches to risk assessment

Hartmut Meyer

Correspondence: Hartmut Meyer This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Author Affiliations

Federation of German Scientists (Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler, VDW), In den Steinäckern 13, Braunschweig, 38116, Germany

Environmental Sciences Europe 2011, 23:7 doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-7

Abstract
Purpose

Since more than 25 years, public dialogues, expert consultations and scientific publications have concluded that a comprehensive assessment of the implications of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production needs to include health, environmental, social and economical aspects, but only very few legal frameworks allow to assess the two latter aspects. This article aims to explain the divergence between societal debate and biosafety legislation and presents approaches to bring both together.

Main features

The article reviews the development of biosafety regulations in the USA and the EU, focussing on diverging concepts applied for assessing the risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Results

The dominant environmental risk assessment methodology has been developed to answer basic questions to enable expedient decision making. As a first step, methodologies that take into account complex environmental and landscape aspects should be applied. Expanding the scope of risk assessment, more holistic concepts have been developed, for example the Organisation for Econonomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) concept of systemic risks which includes socio-economic aspects. International bodies as the OECD, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the European Union (EU) have developed the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as an instrument that includes the additional aspects of risk assessment as demanded by many stakeholders. Interestingly, there had been no attempts yet to link the existing frameworks of GMO risk assessment and SEA.

Conclusions

It is recommended to adapt current models of SEA to assess the systemic risks of GMOs. It is also suggested to revise the EU GMO legislation to promote the inclusion of SEA elements.





Vienna, Austria
2 Ecostrat GmbH, Hottingerstrasse 32, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland
3 Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Konstantinstrasse 110, 53179 Bonn, Germany

Environmental Sciences Europe 2011, 23:33 doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-33


Abstract

Purpose

The prevailing controversies on the potential environmental risks of genetically modified organisms [GMOs] still fuel ongoing discussions among European Union [EU] member states, risk assessors, applicants and scientists, even several years after the commercial introduction of GMOs. The disagreements mainly derive from the current risk assessment practice of GMOs and differences in the perceived environmental risks. Against this background, the aim of this study was to scrutinize the current practice of environmental risk assessment [ERA] of several GMO applications currently pending for authorisation in the EU.

Methods

We analysed the data presented for three assessment categories of the ERA of genetically modified [GM] maize applications for cultivation in the European Union: the agronomic evaluations and the assessments of the effects of GM maize on target organisms and of its potential adverse effects on non-target organisms.

Results

Major shortcomings causing considerable uncertainties related to the risk assessment were identified in all three categories. In addition, two principles of Directive 2001/18/EC are largely not fulfilled – the consideration of the receiving environment and the indirect effects, as mediated, e.g. by the application of the complementary herbicide in the case of herbicide-tolerant GM maize.

Conclusions

We conclude that the current practice of ERA does not comprehensively fulfill the scientific and legal requirements of Directive 2001/18/EC, and we propose improvements and needs for further guidance and development of standards. The recommendations address likewise applicants, risk assessors as well as decision makers.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
  • Prev
  • Next

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design