Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants

  • Olivier Sanvido (a1), Franco Widmer (a1), Michael Winzeler (a1) and Franz Bigler (a1)

Abstract

Genetically modified plants (GMPs) may soon be cultivated commercially in several member countries of the European Union (EU). According to EU Directive 2001/18/EC, post-market monitoring (PMM) for commercial GMP cultivation must be implemented, in order to detect and prevent adverse effects on human health and the environment. However, no general PMM strategies for GMP cultivation have been established so far. We present a conceptual framework for the design of environmental PMM for GMP cultivation based on current EU legislation and common risk analysis procedures. We have established a comprehensive structure of the GMP approval process, consisting of pre-market risk assessment (PMRA) as well as PMM. Both programs can be distinguished conceptually due to principles inherent to risk analysis procedures. The design of PMM programs should take into account the knowledge gained during approval for commercialization of a specific GMP and the decisions made in the environmental risk assessments (ERAs). PMM is composed of case-specific monitoring (CSM) and general surveillance. CSM focuses on anticipated effects of a specific GMP. Selection of case-specific indicators for detection of ecological exposure and effects, as well as definition of effect sizes, are important for CSM. General surveillance is designed to detect unanticipated effects on general safeguard subjects, such as natural resources, which must not be adversely affected by human activities like GMP cultivation. We have identified clear conceptual differences between CSM and general surveillance, and propose to adopt separate frameworks when developing either of the two programs. Common to both programs is the need to put a value on possible ecological effects of GMP cultivation. The structure of PMM presented here will be of assistance to industry, researchers, and regulators, when assessing GMPs during commercialization.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
[1] ACRE (2004) Guidance on best practice in the design of post-market monitoring plans in submission to the advisory committee on releases to the environment. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, London, published at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/postmarket/acre_ postmarketmonitor-guidance.pdf
[2] Ammann K (2004) The role of science and discourse in the application of the precautionary approach (PA). In Fischer R, Schillberg S, eds, Molecular farming, plant-made pharmaceuticals and technical proteins. Vol. 1. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & co. KGaA Weinheim, pp 291–302
[3] Candolfi, MP, Brown, K, Grimm, C, Reber, B, Schmidli, H (2004) A faunistic approach to assess potential side-effects of genetically modified Bt-corn on non-target arthropods under field conditions. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 14: 129170
[4] CBD (2000) Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, published at: www.biodiv.org/ doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf
[5] 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: 1946
[6] Dale, PJ, Clarke, B, Fontes, EMG (2002) Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nat. Biotechnol. 20: 567574
[7] Dietl, W (1995) Wandel der Wiesenvegetation im Schweizer Mittelland. Z. Ökol. Natursch. 4: 239249
[8] Duelli, P (1997) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 62: 8191
[9] Duelli, P, Obrist, MK (1998) In search for the best correlates for local organismal biodiversity in cultivated areas. Biodiversity Conserv. 7: 297309
[10] Duelli, P, Obrist, MK (2003a) Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 98: 8798
[11] Duelli, P, Obrist, MK (2003b) Regional biodiversity in agricultural landscape: the contribution of seminatural habitat islands. Basic Appl. Ecol. 4: 129138
[12] European Commission (2000a) Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, published at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_ en.pdf
[13] European Commission (2000b) First report on the harmonisation of risk assessment procedures – Part 1 : The Report of the Scientific Steering Committee's Working Group on Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures in the Scientific Committees advising the European Commission in the area of human and environmental health. European Commission – Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Brussels, published at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out83_en.pdf
[14] European Commission (2002) Commission decision of 24 July 2002 establishing guidance notes supplementing Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Commission on the European Communities, Brussels
[15] European Community (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. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels
[16] European Council (2002) Council decision of 3 October 2002 establishing guidance notes supplementing Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. The Council of the European Union, Luxemburg
[17] European Union (2003a) Regulation (EC) No. 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels
[18] European Union (2003b) Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels
[19] Fairweather, PG (1991) Statistical power and design requirements for environmental monitoring. Aus. J. Mar. Fresh. Res. 42: 555567
[20] FDA (2005) How to report problems with products regulated by FDA. US Food and Drug Administration. www.fda.gov/opacom/ backgrounders/problem.html
[21] FrSV (SR 814.911) Verordnung über den Umgang mit Organismen in der Umwelt (Freisetzungsverordnung). Systematische Sammlung des Bundesrechts, Bern
[22] GTG (SR 814.91) Bundesgesetz über die Gentechnik im Ausserhumanbereich (Gentechnikgesetz). Systematische Sammlung des Bundesrechts, Bern
[23] Hails, RS (2002) Assessing the risks associated with new agricultural practices. Nature 418: 685688
[24] Hellawell JM (1991) Development of a rationale for monitoring. In Goldsmith B, ed, Monitoring for Conservation and Ecology. Chapman and Hall London, pp 1–14
[25] Hill, RA, Sendashonga, C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: Lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2: 8188
[26] Hintermann U, Weber D, Zangger A, Schmill J (2002) Biodiversity Monitoring in Switzerland BDM – interim report. Environmental series. No. 342 Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape, Berne, published at: www.umwelt-schweiz.ch/buwal/shop/files/pdf/phpamJ0T6.pdf
[27] Hunsaker CT (1993) New concepts in environmental monitoring: the question of indicators. Sci. Tot. Environ. Supplement: 77–95
[28] Jaffe, G (2004) Regulating transgenic crops: a comparative analysis of different regulatory processes. Transgenic Res. 13: 519
[29] James C (2004) Preview: Global status of commercialized transgenic crops 2004. ISAAA Briefs No. 32, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY
[30] Jeanneret, P, Schüpbach, B, Luka, H (2003) Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 98: 311320
[31] Lang, A (2004) Monitoring the impact of Bt maize on butterflies in the field: estimation of required sample sizes. Environ. Biosafety Res. 3: 5566
[32] Levidow, L (2003) Precautionary risk assessment of Bt maize: what uncertainties? J. Invertebr. Pathol. 83: 113117
[33] Lindner B (2004) Economic issues for plant breeding – public funding and private ownership. Agribusiness Review 12: Paper 6
[34] Marvier, M (2002) Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecol. Appl. 12: 11191124
[35] MHRA (2005) Reporting adverse incidents. UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. www.medical-devices.gov.uk/mda/mdawebsitev2.nsf/webvwSectionsMDA/ Reporting+adverse+incidents?Open
[36] National Research Council (2002) Environmental effects of transgenic plants – the scope and adequacy of regulation. National Academy Press, Washington DC
[37] Noss, RF (1990) Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity – a Hierarchical Approach. Conserv. Biol. 4: 355364
[38] OECD (1997) Environmental Indicators for Agriculture, Volume 1: Concepts and Framework. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris
[39] Pearson DL (1995) Selecting indicator taxa for the quantitative assessment of biodiversity. In Hawksworth DL, ed, Biodiversity, Measurements and Estimation. Chapman and Hall London, pp 75–79
[40] Perry, JN, Rothery, P, Clark, SJ, Heard, MS, Hawes, C (2003) Design, analysis and statistical power of the Farm-Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. J. Appl. Ecol. 40: 1731
[41] Pretty, J (2001) The rapid emergence of genetic modification in world agriculture: contested risks and benefits. Environ. Conserv. 28: 248262
[42] Robinson, RA, Sutherland, WJ (2002) Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 39: 157176
[43] Schifferli, L (1999) Distribution and habitat use of bird species breeding on Swiss farmland in relation to agricultural intensification. Vogelwelt 120: 151161
[44] Schifferli, L (2001) Birds breeding in a changing farmland. Acta Ornith. 36: 3551
[45] Stork NE, Samways MJ (1995) Inventorying and Monitoring. In Heywood VH, Watson RT, eds, Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, pp 453–542
[46] Studer-Ehrensberger, K (1995) Geschichte und Naturschutz von artenreichen Kulturwiesen in der Schweiz: eine Zusammenschau. Bot. Helvet. 105: 316
[47] Swiss Web Flora (2004) Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, 2000. www.wsl.ch/land/products/webflora/welcome-de.ehtml
[48] Vos, P, Meelis, E, Ter Keurs, WJ (2000) A framework for the design of ecological monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and nature management. Environ. Monit. Assess. 61: 317344
[49] Wolfenbarger, LL, Phifer, P (2000) The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290: 20882093

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants

  • Olivier Sanvido (a1), Franco Widmer (a1), Michael Winzeler (a1) and Franz Bigler (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.