Pollen-mediated gene flow in space is well documented and isolation distances are recommended to ensure genetic purity of Brassica napus seed crops. Isolation in time could also contribute to gene flow management but has been little investigated. We assessed the effects of asynchronous and synchronous flowering on intraspecific B. napus gene flow by seeding adjacent plots of transgenic spring canola cultivars, either resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate, over a 0–4 week interval and measuring outcrossing rates and seed-set. Outcrossing rates, evaluated in the center of the first adjacent row, were reduced to the lowest level in plots flowering first when the seeding interval > 2 weeks. Increasing the time gap increased outcrossing rates in plots flowering second up to a seeding interval of two weeks. Flowers that opened during the last week of the flowering period produced fewer seed (< 10% of total seed production) and a smaller fraction of outcrossed seed (–25%). Observed time gap effects were likely caused by extraneous pollen load during the receptivity of productive seed-setting early flowers. Clearly, manipulation of B. napus flowering development through staggered planting dates can contribute to gene flow management. The approach will need to be validated by additional site-years and increased isolation distances.

It is emerging that benefits of new innovations in agricultural biotechnology may not be realised without appropriate biosafety regulatory mechanisms. The Kenyan regulatory experiences related to regulation of genetically engineered (GE) agricultural activities are explored to provide some basis for defining the challenges involved in biosafety regulation. The various shortcomings in the way the Kenyan biosafety process has been implemented are consistent with the way regulatory systems have been evolving in Africa. The proposed adoption of a “smart regulation” provides the basis for a learning process through which subsequent biotechnology policy initiatives can be improved.

What happens when one nation cultivates a transgenic crop variety but neighboring nations do not? Using alfalfa as a case study, we argue that the potential for international transgene flow is substantial, and therefore, the need for international cooperation in regulatory decisions concerning transgenic crops is imperative. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa, L.) is the major forage crop in North America. Recently, genetically modified (GM) alfalfa received a moratorium on further cultivation in the US on the grounds that the approvals were based on inadequate environmental impact assessments. With their deep root system, symbiotic nitrogen fixation, prolific seed production and prolonged dormancy, alfalfa plants are capable of establishing self-perpetuating (feral) populations in unmanaged environments. Given what is known about alfalfa pollen dispersal, such feral populations could facilitate gene flow between GM and non-GM fields. The border between the US and Canada, particularly in farming areas, is very narrow (< 10 m wide). We surveyed along the US-Canada border and found both alfalfa fields and potentially feral alfalfa plants in the ditches along the border. Our survey results provide evidence of the possibility of cross-border transgene flow, suggesting a need for international co-operative risk assessment initiatives between the US and Canada. Such situations could occur for other crops, in other international border regions as well.

Bagavathiannan and Van Acker propose greater international cooperation and information sharing in risk assessment for biotechnology-derived crops because pollen- and seed-mediated gene flow across political boundaries may lead to the adventitious presence of unapproved transgenes at sites along the borders of neighboring countries. However, they fail to convince us that something is wrong with the current situation and provide no details of how it could be improved.

Regulations 1829/2003/CE and 1830/2003/CE have allowed the placing on the European market of GM products in food and feed chains, and have defined their rules of traceability and labeling. For some supply chains, like for soy and its derived products that are used in the production of feed, manufacturers have to face both non-GM and GM production, although there are no labeling requirements for animal products derived from animals fed with GMOs. This study presents the strategies of stakeholders involved in the feed production chain to maintain concurrent production of compound feed with GM and non-GM soy products, by dealing with the coexistence between those two crops. The stakeholders include importers, traders, soy processors, feed processors and retailers. The study shows that many tools are in place to ensure and maintain the current coexistence. However, a profound harmonization of procedures and methods at a European level should be encouraged.

The Symposium consisted of eight sessions of oral presentations as well as various workshops and poster sessions. This report reviews the presentations in the following sessions and discusses the main conclusions and issues arising from each session:

Session 1: Biosafety – experience and results

Session 2: Introgression, invasion and fitness

Session 3: Biotic and abiotic stress resistance

Session 4: GM animals

Session 5: Effects of GM crops on soil ecosystems

Session 7: Biocontainment methods

Session 8: Post market environmental monitoring

Abstracts of the presentations in these sessions are available at: http://www.isbgmo.info/assets_/isbgmo_symposium_handbook.pdf