Presentation 1: Issues and challenges in monitoring GM crop-specific traits. D. Bartsch
Presentation 2: Farm-scale evaluation of GMHT plants in the United Kingdom. L. Firbank
Presentation 3: Regulatory aspects for monitoring GM crops in New Zealand. F. François
Detlef Bartsch discussed the impact of monitoring GM crops on the environment. GM crop environmental risk assessment in the European Union (EU) identifies areas of uncertainty, including the potential for large-scale and long-term cumulative impacts that should be addressed by monitoring. The types of variables to be monitored must be identified with the procedures to measure them and an appropriate time period for measurement. Monitoring designs must be within logistic limits. Monitoring can also be linked with conservation goals, e.g., via the EU Directive on environmental liability. Damage in this context can include effects on aquatic and terrestrial protected areas and natural habitats, with reference to a baseline or conservation status, ecosystem services that are offered, and the capacity to recover. Damage is not considered to have taken place if impacts consist of fluctuations within normal variability, effects of natural events or normal management, short-term effects, or improvements in condition. Agro-ecosystems may already be included in national environmental monitoring programmes, and surveillance systems may already exist. Having a legal definition of damage may help to focus the monitoring effort and make it more cost-effective.
Leslie Firbank discussed the farm-scale evaluations (FSEs) of spring-grown GM crops in the United Kingdom (UK). They constituted a very large experimental regime, and were not designed as monitoring studies. Biodiversity impacts of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) sugar beet, maize, spring oilseed rape and winter oilseed rape were evaluated in separate experiments, each with 60–70 replicates that represented UK farming environments. Herbicide regimes in GMHT sugar beet and spring oilseed rape reduced weed numbers more than conventional crops, with effects on invertebrates. Currently, these two crops are not allowed to be grown in the EU. Weed numbers were higher in GMHT maize and commercial growing was allowed. The requirements for ongoing monitoring should be based on an understanding of what is an unacceptable impact on biodiversity. The same results in a different part of the world may give different policy responses if the conservation goals differ or if the balance between environmental, social and economic goals differs.
Fleur François provided a regulatory perspective on approaches and challenges in conducting risk assessment and monitoring in New Zealand, which has regulated GMOs since the late 1980s. Over 50 GMO field tests have been conducted but no GMOs have been released. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 requires consideration of the sustainability of native and valued introduced flora and fauna, intrinsic value of ecosystems, public health, Maori (indigenous people) culture and traditions, economic costs and benefits and international obligations. Applications to release GM crops are declined if they fail to meet minimum standards relating to environmental impact. Monitoring may be required for conditional release approvals, if technically feasible and cost-effective. Post-release monitoring of GM crops is not considered a substitute for adequate pre-release risk assessment.
