1
|
Otto M, Papastefanou P, Fahse L. Pressure from insect-resistant maize on protected butterflies and moths. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2024; 38:e14222. [PMID: 37990833 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14222] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Revised: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/21/2023] [Indexed: 11/23/2023]
Abstract
Intensification in agriculture affects many insect species, including butterflies. Insect-resistant crops, such as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) maize, which produces a toxin active against Lepidoptera, are an alternative to insecticide sprays. Genetically modified crops are regulated in most countries and require an environmental risk assessment. In the European Union, such assessments include the use of simulation models to predict the effects on nontarget Lepidoptera (NTL). To support the assessment of protected NTL, we extended an individual-based, stochastic, spatially explicit mathematical model (LepiX) to include a wider range of exposure scenarios, a species-sensitivity distribution, and an option for repeated exposure of individuals. We applied the model to transgenic maize DAS-1507, which expresses a high concentration of Bt toxin in pollen that may be consumed by NTL larvae on their host plants nearby. Even in the most conservative scenario without repeated exposure, mortality estimates for highly sensitive species ranged from 41% to 6% at distances of 10-1000 m from the nearest maize field. Repeated exposure can cause additional mortality and thus is relevant for the overall risk assessment. Uncertainties in both exposure and ecotoxicity estimates strongly influenced the predicted mortalities. Care should be taken to include these uncertainties in the model scenarios used for decision-making. In accordance with other modeling results, our simulations demonstrated that mean mortality may not be safe for protected species. With its high pollen expression, DAS-1507 maize may pose risks to sensitive and protected butterfly and moth species that may be difficult to manage. High expression of Bt toxin in pollen is unnecessary for controlling target pests. Consequently, we suggest that Bt maize with high pollen expression not be cultivated in regions where protected butterflies are to be conserved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mathias Otto
- Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Bonn, Germany
| | - Phillip Papastefanou
- TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany
| | - Lorenz Fahse
- Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau, Renamed Rhineland-Palatinate Technical University Kaiserlautern, Landau, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, M. Camargo A, Goumperis T, Lenzi P, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 810 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (dossier GMFF-2022-9450). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8489. [PMID: 38250501 PMCID: PMC10797474 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2024] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of dossier GMFF-2022-9450 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect protected genetically modified maize MON 810, for food and feed uses (including pollen), excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize MON 810 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in dossier GMFF-2022-9450 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 810.
Collapse
|
3
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Naegeli H, Moreno FJ, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, Dumont AF, Federici S, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lanzoni A, Lenzi P, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T, Streissl F, De Sanctis G. Assessment of genetically modified maize DP4114 × MON 810 × MIR604 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2018‐150). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07134. [PMID: 35281656 PMCID: PMC8900121 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Maize DP4114 × MON 810 × MIR604 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: DP4114, MON 810, MIR604 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and one of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombination were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, is as safe as the comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in nine of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombination and the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
4
|
Álvarez F, Messéan A, Streissl F. Assessment of the 2019 post-market environmental monitoring report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in the EU. EFSA J 2021; 19:e06683. [PMID: 34257731 PMCID: PMC8261683 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6683] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA assessed the 2019 post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810. Like previous years, there was full compliance with refuge requirement in Portugal and partial compliance with refuge requirements by Spanish farmers growing MON 810 varieties. European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from north-eastern Spain during the 2019 maize growing season and tested for Cry1Ab susceptibility show no symptoms of resistance to maize MON 810. The assessment of farmer questionnaires and relevant scientific publications does not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2019 PMEM report does not invalidate previous EFSA evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810. However, as in previous years, EFSA identifies shortcomings on resistance monitoring that need revision in future reports. In particular, the monitoring plan, as implemented in 2019, is not sufficiently sensitive to detect the recommended 3% resistance allele frequency. Consequently, EFSA strongly recommends the consent holder to achieve full compliance with refuge obligations in areas where adoption of maize MON 810 is high and increase the sensitivity of the monitoring plan by performing periodic F2 screens on corn borer populations from north-eastern Spain. EFSA recommends revising the farmer questionnaires when new characteristics of the receiving environment emerge which are relevant for the environmental risk assessment of MON 810 such as the emergence of teosinte. EFSA encourages the Competent authorities of concerned EU Member States, the consent holder and environmental networks to engage in a dialogue to develop a framework on how to best identify and report unexpected adverse effects from the cultivation of Bt maize varieties.
Collapse
|
5
|
Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Devos Y, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2015-127). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06348. [PMID: 33488811 PMCID: PMC7805002 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and six of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or the six subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the four maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
6
|
Naegeli H, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 88017 × MON 810 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-017). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06375. [PMID: 33537065 PMCID: PMC7844672 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6375] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-017 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BVBA the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified maize MON 88017 × MON 810, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, and updated bioinformatic analysis. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in maize MON 88017 × MON 810 considered for renewal are identical to the sequence of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-017 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 88017 × MON 810.
Collapse
|
7
|
Álvarez F, Georgiadis M, Messéan A, Streissl F. Assessment of the 2018 post-market environmental monitoring report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in the EU. EFSA J 2020; 18:e06245. [PMID: 33072192 PMCID: PMC7549383 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6245] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA assessed the 2018 post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810. Like previous years, there was partial compliance with refuge requirements by Spanish farmers growing MON 810 varieties. European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from north-eastern Spain during the 2018 maize growing season and tested for Cry1Ab susceptibility show no symptoms of resistance to maize MON 810. The assessment of farmer questionnaires and relevant scientific publications does not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. The report does not provide information about the use of existing networks involved in environmental monitoring. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2018 PMEM report does not invalidate previous EFSA evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810. However, as in previous years, EFSA identifies shortcomings on resistance monitoring that need revision in future reports. In particular, the monitoring plan, as implemented in 2018, is not sufficiently sensitive to detect the recommended 3% resistance allele frequency. Consequently, EFSA strongly recommends the consent holder to: (1) achieve full compliance with refuge obligations in areas where adoption of maize MON 810 is high; (2) increase the sensitivity of the monitoring plan and address previously mentioned limitations for resistance monitoring; and (3) perform an F2 screen on corn borer populations from north-eastern Spain. A fit-for-purpose farmer alert system may help to detect unexpected adverse effects associated with the cultivation of MON 810 varieties and be an alternative to the current farmer survey system. Moreover, relevant stakeholders should implement a methodological framework to enable making the best use of existing networks involved in environmental monitoring for the general surveillance of genetically modified plants.
Collapse
|
8
|
Kruse-Plass M, Hofmann F, Kuhn U, Otto M, Schlechtriemen U, Schröder B, Vögel R, Wosniok W. Reply to the EFSA (2016) on the relevance of recent publications (Hofmann et al. 2014, 2016) on environmental risk assessment and management of Bt-maize events (MON810, Bt11 and 1507). ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EUROPE 2017; 29:12. [PMID: 28331779 PMCID: PMC5340831 DOI: 10.1186/s12302-017-0106-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2016] [Accepted: 02/10/2017] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
In this commentary, we respond to a report of the EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA EFSA Supp Publ, 1) that criticises the outcomes of two studies published in this journal (Hofmann et al. Environ Sci Eur 26: 24, 2; Environ Sci Eur 28: 14, 3). Both publications relate to the environmental risk assessment and management of Bt-maize, including maize events MON810, Bt11 and maize 1507. The results of Hofmann et al. (Environ Sci Eur 26: 24, 2), using standardised pollen mass filter deposition measurements, indicated that the EFSA Panel model had underestimated pollen deposition and, hence, exposure of non-target organisms to Bt-maize pollen. The results implied a need for safety buffer distances in the kilometre range for protected nature reserve areas instead of the 20-30 m range recommended by the EFSA Panel. As a result, the EFSA Panel revised their model (EFSA EFSA J 13: 4127, 4), adopting the slope of the empirical data from Hofmann et al. The intercept, however, was substantially reduced to less than 1% at one point by introducing further assumptions based on the estimates of mainly panel members, citing possible 'uncertainty'. Hofmann et al. (Environ Sci Eur 28: 14, 3) published extensive empirical data regarding pollen deposition on leaves. These results were part of a larger 3-year study involving detailed measurements of pollen release, dispersal and deposition over the maize flowering period. The data collected in situ confirmed the previous predictions of Hofmann et al. (Environ Sci Eur 26: 24, 2). Mean levels and observed variability of pollen deposition on maize and four lepidopteran host plants exceeded the assumptions and disagreed with the conclusions of the EFSA Panel. The EFSA Panel reacted in a report (EFSA EFSA Supp Publ, 1) criticising the methods and outcomes of the two published studies of Hofmann et al. while reaffirming their original recommendations. We respond here point-by-point, showing that the critique is not justified. Based on our results on Urtica leaf pollen density, we confirm the need for specific environmental impact assessments for Bt-maize cultivation with respect to protected habitats within isolation buffer distances in the kilometre range.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maren Kruse-Plass
- TIEM Integrated Environmental Monitoring, Dortmund/Bremen, Germany
- Wölsauerhammer, Marktredwitz, Germany
| | - Frieder Hofmann
- TIEM Integrated Environmental Monitoring, Dortmund/Bremen, Germany
- Ökologiebüro, Bremen, Germany
| | - Ulrike Kuhn
- TIEM Integrated Environmental Monitoring, Dortmund/Bremen, Germany
- Büro Kuhn, Bremen, Germany
| | - Mathias Otto
- Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Bonn, Germany
| | - Ulrich Schlechtriemen
- TIEM Integrated Environmental Monitoring, Dortmund/Bremen, Germany
- Sachverständigenbüro, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Boris Schröder
- Landscape Ecology and Environmental Systems Analysis, Institute of Geoecology, Technische Universität, Brunswick, Germany
- Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany
| | - Rudolf Vögel
- Agency for Environment, Health and Consumer Protection, Eberswalde, Brandenburg Germany
| | - Werner Wosniok
- Institute of Statistics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Annual post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in 2014 from Monsanto Europe S.A. EFSA J 2016. [DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
|