Cultivation Of Genetically Modified Crops Research Articles

Farm questionnaires for monitoring genetically modified crops: a case study using GM maize

Monitoring is a statutory requirement for the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Community. Questionnaires for farmers to report on observations of effects linked with the cultivation of GM crops can form a useful part of a monitoring regime. A questionnaire for GM maize (Zea mays L.) was designed, with questions focusing on potential effects related to the GM maize grown, as well as on background information about cultivation methods and on individual field situations. In this paper we present the methodological approach of the monitoring regime, the structuring of the data, and the contents and structure of the questionnaire. The statistical requirements and background for an appropriate evaluation and interpretation of the data are described. Results of interviews made from 2001 to 2005 are also presented. It is envisaged that this approach will be developed for monitoring other cultivated GM plants and traits, and may be applicable in monitoring certain non-farmed environments.

GM directive deficiencies in the European Union

The European Union (EU) is currently not the most welcoming place for genetically modified (GM) crops. In 2001, the EU agreed on a directive to regulate the approval process for the cultivation and use of GM crops in the member states—but seven years later, no crop has been approved under the agreed legislation. In fact, the only commercial GM crop that has been approved for environmental release in the EU is an insect‐resistant maize variety developed by Monsanto (St Louis, MO, USA). Although it was approved before the EU's 2001 directive came into effect, various member states are still refusing to allow it to be grown. The regulatory reluctance of the EU to approve GM crops has brought it into conflict with the USA and others through a World Trade Organization (WTO; Geneva, Switzerland) trade dispute case in which the EU is accused of trade protectionism. The disagreement took another turn in November 2007 when Stavros Dimas, the European Commissioner for the Environment, announced that applications by Syngenta (Basel, Switzerland) and Pioneer Hi‐Bred International (Johnston, IA, USA), to grow two insect‐ and herbicide‐resistant transgenic strains of maize, should be rejected on the basis of environmental concerns. Yet, Dimas's decision disregarded earlier science‐based evaluations by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA; Parma, Italy), which found that both varieties would not have “an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment”. The EFSA's report was delivered to the European Commission in April 2005, and updated in November 2006. Although the Commission was required to make a decision within three months of receiving the EFSA's report, it took nearly a year until it finally issued a draft decision stating that neither crop should be approved for cultivation. The decision referred to 11 papers that cast doubt on the crops' environmental safety …

Challenges and perspectives in decision-making during post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified crops

Within the legal frameworks regulating post-market monitoring (PMM) of genetically modified (GM) crops, both notifier and regulatory authorities have to decide whether an observed environmental effect is relevant, i. e. whether the effect is considered to represent an environmental damage and therefore requires corrective action. Given that presently there is no consensus on applicable criteria to valuate ‘environmental damage’, notifier and regulatory authorities are facing a number of challenges when being confronted to environmental decision-making related to PMM of GM crops. In the present paper, we argue that these challenges mainly have two causes. First, there are methodological limits in data collection and analysis, which in turn challenge decisions whether the observed effects fulfil the proposed criteria for environmental damage. Second, scientific data is valued controversially due to differing value judgement on the environmental entities that should not be affected by the cultivation of GM crops. We analyse both challenges and propose potential perspectives how they could be addressed.

Definition and feasibility of isolation distances for transgenic maize cultivation

A major concern related to the adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops in agricultural systems is the possibility of unwanted GM inputs into non-GM crop production systems. Given the increasing commercial cultivation of GM crops in the European Union (EU), there is an urgent need to define measures to prevent mixing of GM with non-GM products during crop production. Cross-fertilization is one of the various mechanisms that could lead to GM-inputs into non-GM crop systems. Isolation distances between GM and non-GM fields are widely accepted to be an effective measure to reduce these inputs. However, the question of adequate isolation distances between GM and non-GM maize is still subject of controversy both amongst scientists and regulators. As several European countries have proposed largely differing isolation distances for maize ranging from 25 to 800 m, there is a need for scientific criteria when using cross-fertilization data of maize to define isolation distances between GM and non-GM maize. We have reviewed existing cross-fertilization studies in maize, established relevant criteria for the evaluation of these studies and applied these criteria to define science-based isolation distances. To keep GM-inputs in the final product well below the 0.9% threshold defined by the EU, isolation distances of 20 m for silage and 50 m for grain maize, respectively, are proposed. An evaluation using statistical data on maize acreage and an aerial photographs assessment of a typical agricultural landscape by means of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) showed that spatial resources would allow applying the defined isolation distances for the cultivation of GM maize in the majority of the cases under actual Swiss agricultural conditions. The here developed approach, using defined criteria to consider the agricultural context of maize cultivation, may be of assistance for the analysis of cross-fertilization data in other countries.

Data acquisition by farm questionnaires and linkage to other sources of data

Monitoring is a statutory requirement for the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the EC. Questionnaires for farmers to report observations of effects potentially linked with the cultivation of GM crops can form a useful part of a monitoring regime. A questionnaire on GM maize (traits: herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance) was designed with questions focusing on potential effects related to the GM maize grown, as well as on background information on the cultivation methods and on individual situations. The methodological approach, the structuring of the data and the structure of the questionnaire are presented. The statistical requirements and background for an appropriate evaluation and interpretation of the data as well as results of interviews made from 2001 to 2005 are presented in Schmidtke and Schmidt (2006) and Schmidt et al. (2006). It is envisaged that this approach will be developed for monitoring other cultivated GM plants and traits (Beisner et al., 2006) and may be applicable in certain non-farmed environments.

A framework for the design of general surveillance of genetically modified crops based on a concept for environmental post-market monitoring

A framework for the design of general surveillance during commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops according to current EU legislation 2001/18/EC is presented. The framework is based on a previously established concept for environmental post-market monitoring (PMM), which identified clear conceptual differences between case-specific monitoring (CSM) and general surveillance. While CSM focuses on anticipated effects of a specific GM crop, general surveillance is designed to detect unanticipated effects on the environment. Two separate frameworks are proposed for developing either of the two programmes. Considering its focus, general surveillance has to be based both on the subjects of environmental concern (safeguard subjects) that should not be adversely affected by GM crop cultivation and on the environmental quality that should be preserved therein. Unanticipated effects in the defined safeguard subjects may be detectable by using existing monitoring networks and by establishing appropriate reporting systems. Results from general surveillance can, however, not be linked to any specific attribute of GM crop cultivation, and causality to environmental damages will have to be determined via specific risk assessement studies. The proposed structure for general surveillance represents a pragmatic approach to a realistic and feasible PMM programme and will be of assistance to industry, researchers, and regulators when assessing GM crops during commercialisation.

GM crops in the United Kingdom: precaution as process

Although the United Kingdom (UK) has no explicit ban on genetically modified (GM) crops, by mid-2005 cultivation of GM crops has uncertain prospects. The UK has taken a ‘precautionary approach’ that has engaged policy actors in a participatory process going beyond usual regulatory procedures. It has involved a less formal procedure than that advocated by the European Commission’s guidelines on precaution. Attempts to accommodate diverse perspectives in a policy decision for GM crops have engaged policy actors in a learning process that raised broader questions concerning agriculture more generally. It has highlighted the need for flexible policy measures, particularly at the European level. However, this process may undermine, rather than help to achieve, the stated Government aim, which is to restore public confidence in science as the basis for policy making.

Hybridization between crops and wild plants in the age of genetic engineering:new risks or new paradigms?

The global debate about genetically modified (GM) crops remains heated and highly polarized. In 2003, almost 68 million hectares of such crops were grown worldwide by an estimated 7 million farmers in 18 countries, an area which continues to grow year by year at a double-digit rate (James, 2003). Most (73%) of the area was occupied by herbicidetolerant soybean, maize, canola, and cotton. Most of the rest was insect-resistant (Bt) maize and cotton, but the stacking of these traits and the cultivation of crops with other traits such as virus resistance has continued to increase. Eleven of the countries growing GM crops last year were in the developing world where farmers appear increasingly keen to adopt the technology. By contrast, Europe, with minor exception (a small acreage of Bt maize) continues to oppose both the commercial cultivation of GM crops and, as far as trade rules allow, their importation. European consumers demand labeling and segregation of the products of such crops, and, led by highly successful and well-trusted environmentalist nongovernment organizations, the public have consistently opposed their cultivation on the grounds of potential environmental damage. Recently the UK government, displaying what is arguably a bizarre sense of proportionality, has banned transgenic herbicide tolerant sugar beet and canola because management of the crop could exacerbate the decline in farmland biodiversity, especially farmland birds, whilst taking no action either to reduce the widespread growth of winter sown, as opposed to spring, crops (identified as a major factor in the decline of several of the bird species concerned), or to prevent the extensive conversion of pasture to year-on-year forage maize (which has a huge environmental impact). One aspect of this debate that has created considerable angst has been the problem of gene flow—specifically the ‘‘escape’’ of transgenes into surrounding populations of other crops or of related wild plants. Both the scientific challenges and the potential difficulties for accurate and sensible risk assessment of gene flow from GM crops were recognized very early (Colwell et al., 1985), and the possible spread of novel genes in the environment was highlighted as ‘‘an important uncertainty’’ in risk assessment in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1989 (RCEP, 1989). The likelihood of widespread genetic ‘‘pollution’’ and the spectre of ‘‘superweeds’’ created by gene flow has been a central plank in the anti-GM stance of several pressure groups (e.g., Greenpeace; Fronwald and Straus, 1998). A burgeoning scientific

GM Crop Cultivation in Ireland: Ecological and Economic Considerations

Like many states in the European Union, Ireland has yet to fully commit itself to genetically modified (GM) crop technology. The general position of the Irish Government is 'positive but precautionary'. However, with the European-wide de-facto moratorium on commercial production of GM crops now ended, many strategically important decisions regarding the commercial deployment of such crops and their co-existence with conventional/organic crops need to be considered. To date, little research on the environmental impact of GM crops has been carried out in Ireland, and the provision of relevant local information lags far behind that available in other countries in the European Union. In this paper, we discuss much of the new ecological and economic data that have emerged since the moratorium on GM crops was introduced in 1998, assess the likely impacts of pest-oriented GM crops should they be introduced to Ireland and examine criteria for post-release monitoring. We also describe the likely commercial demand for these crops and the consequent priorities for ecological research. We argue that the impact of GM technology needs to be assessed in relation to the environmental impact of modern agriculture as a whole. Public unease in relation to this technology may be addressed if adequate resources are made available for independent Irish research on the issue.

GM Crop Cultivation in Ireland: Ecological and Economic Considerations

Like many states in the European Union, Ireland has yet to fully commit itself to genetically modified (GM) crop technology. The general position of the Irish Government is 'positive but precautionary'. However, with the European-wide de-facto moratorium on commercial production of GM crops now ended, many strategically important decisions regarding the commercial deployment of such crops and their co-existence with conventional/organic crops need to be considered. To date, little research on the environmental impact of GM crops has been carried out in Ireland, and the provision of relevant local information lags far behind that available in other countries in the European Union. In this paper, we discuss much of the new ecological and economic data that have emerged since the moratorium on GM crops was introduced in 1998, assess the likely impacts of pest-oriented GM crops should they be introduced to Ireland and examine criteria for post-release monitoring. We also describe the likely commercial demand for these crops and the consequent priorities for ecological research. We argue that the impact of GM technology needs to be assessed in relation to the environmental impact of modern agriculture as a whole. Public unease in relation to this technology may be addressed if adequate resources are made available for independent Irish research on the issue.

Herbicide‐resistant genetically modified crop: assessment and management of gene flow

Genetically modified (GM) crops have become a reality in our cropping system. The experiences with GM oilseed rape have shown that gene flow from a GM crop causes genetic contamination of non‐GM crops and natural flora. This review summarizes technically available methods for gene flow assessment and proposes possible management methods. Methods for direct monitoring of gene flow include direct bioassay of plants and detection of phenotypic and molecular genetic markers contained in GM crops. A recent green fluorescent protein (GFP) marker technique can be powerful in monitoring gene flow as GFP inserted into a plant can be observed macroscopically under UV light. Appropriate analysis of data from direct assessment may give more useful information to mitigate gene flow. Observation with direct method provides real‐time data and mathematical‐statistical approaches may enable the long‐term consequence to be predictable. Although an estimated gene flow is less than an acceptable level, gene flow must be maintained as low as possible with a systematic management. The management should be conducted stepwise; selection of gene flow‐proof GM crops in the stage of development, risk assessment and regulation in the registration stage, cultural management, produce handling/transportation and a long‐term monitoring in cropping stage. Promising methods for developing gene flow‐proof GM crops include conferring cleistogamy and chloroplast transformation to mitigate pollen flow, and breeding non‐ or minimum shedding cultivars to mitigate seed dispersal. We strongly suggest that very high expression of a transgene or stacking multiple transgenes in the chloroplast could disturb the function of normal physiology, hence decreased performance of the GM crop. Before the approval of GM crops, proposed GM crops must go through the risk assessment. If the estimated risk of a GM crop exceeds an acceptable level, approval must be suspended. Once a GM crop is allowed for commercial release, additional efforts must follow, such as a continued long‐term monitoring of the impact of GM crop cultivation, crop and herbicide rotations, GM crop‐suited cultural practices, ‘right‐time’ harvest, and all necessary gene flow‐preventive practices. Such a systematic management incorporating various methods for the stages of GM crop utilization will minimize the risk of gene flow.