Advancing environmental risk assessment of regulated products under EFSA's remit

Regulatory framework for the assessment of the impacts of plant protection products on biodiversity: review of strengths and limits

The placing of plant protection products (PPPs) on the market in the European Union is governed by numerous regulations. These regulations are among the most stringent in the world, however they have been the subject of criticisms especially because of the decline in biodiversity. The objectives of this work were to review (1) the functioning and actors involved in the PPP framework processes, (2) the construction of the environmental risk assessment focused on biodiversity, and (3) the suggested ways to respond to the identified limits. Both literature from social sciences and ecotoxicology were examined. Despite the protective nature of the European regulation on PPPs, the very imperfect consideration of biodiversity in the evaluation process was underlined. The main limits are the multiplicity of applicable rules, the routinization of the evaluation procedures, the lack of consideration of social data, and the lack of independence of the evaluation. Strengths of the regulation are the decision to integrate a systemic approach in the evaluation of PPPs, the development of modeling tools, and the phytopharmacovigilance systems. The avenues for improvement concern the realism of the risk assessment (species used, cocktail effects…), a greater transparency and independence in the conduct of evaluations, and the opening of the evaluation and decision-making processes to actors such as beekeepers or NGOs. Truly interdisciplinary reflections crossing the functioning of the living world, its alteration by PPPs, and how these elements question the users of PPPs would allow to specify social actions, public policies, and their regulation to better protect biodiversity.

Hypothesis-based food, feed, and environmental safety assessment of GM crops: A case study using maize event DP-202216-6

Event DP-2Ø2216-6 (referred to as DP202216 maize) was genetically modified to increase and extend the expression of the introduced zmm28 gene relative to endogenous zmm28 gene expression, resulting in plants with enhanced grain yield potential. The zmm28 gene expresses the ZMM28 protein, a MADS-box transcription factor. The safety assessment of DP202216 maize included an assessment of the potential hazard of the ZMM28 protein, as well as an assessment of potential unintended effects of the genetic insertion on agronomics, composition, and nutrition. The history of safe use (HOSU) of the ZMM28 protein was evaluated and a bioinformatics approach was used to compare the deduced amino acid sequence of the ZMM28 protein to databases of known allergens and toxins. Based on HOSU and the bioinformatics assessment, the ZMM28 protein was determined to be unlikely to be either allergenic or toxic to humans. The composition of DP202216 maize forage and grain was comparable to non-modified forage and grain, with no unintended effects on nutrition or food and feed safety. Additionally, feeding studies with broiler chickens and rats demonstrated a low likelihood of unintentional alterations in nutrition and low potential for adverse effects. Furthermore, the agronomics observed for DP202216 maize and non-modified maize were comparable, indicating that the likelihood of increased weediness or invasiveness of DP202216 maize in the environment is low. This comprehensive review serves as a reference for regulatory agencies and decision-makers in countries where authorization of DP202216 maize will be pursued, and for others interested in food, feed, and environmental safety.

Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives

Advances in molecular and synthetic biology are enabling the engineering of gene drives in insects for disease vector/pest control. Engineered gene drives (that bias their own inheritance) can be designed either to suppress interbreeding target populations or modify them with a new genotype. Depending on the engineered gene drive system, theoretically, a genetic modification of interest could spread through target populations and persist indefinitely, or be restricted in its spread or persistence. While research on engineered gene drives and their applications in insects is advancing at a fast pace, it will take several years for technological developments to move to practical applications for deliberate release into the environment. Some gene drive modified insects (GDMIs) have been tested experimentally in the laboratory, but none has been assessed in small-scale confined field trials or in open release trials as yet. There is concern that the deliberate release of GDMIs in the environment may have possible irreversible and unintended consequences. As a proactive measure, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been requested by the European Commission to review whether its previously published guidelines for the risk assessment of genetically modified animals (EFSA, 2012 and 2013), including insects (GMIs), are adequate and sufficient for GDMIs, primarily disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, for deliberate release into the environment. Under this mandate, EFSA was not requested to develop risk assessment guidelines for GDMIs. In this Scientific Opinion, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) concludes that EFSA's guidelines are adequate, but insufficient for the molecular characterisation (MC), environmental risk assessment (ERA) and post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of GDMIs. While the MC,ERA and PMEM of GDMIs can build on the existing risk assessment framework for GMIs that do not contain engineered gene drives, there are specific areas where further guidance is needed for GDMIs.

Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Feed: Is There Any Difference From Food?

Food security is one of major concerns for the growing global population. Modern agricultural biotechnologies, such as genetic modification, are a possible solution through enabling an increase of production, more efficient use of natural resources, and reduced environmental impacts. However, new crop varieties with altered genetic materials may be subjected to safety assessments to fulfil the regulatory requirements, prior to marketing. The aim of the assessment is to evaluate the impact of products from the new crop variety on human, animal, and the environmental health. Although, many studies on the risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) food have been published, little consideration to GM feedstuff has been given, despite that between 70 to 90% of all GM crops and their biomass are used as animal feed. In addition, in some GM plants such as forages that are only used for animal feeds, the assessment of the genetic modification may be of relevance only to livestock feeding. In this article, the regulatory framework of GM crops intended for animal feed is reviewed using the available information on GM food as the baseline. Although, the majority of techniques used for the safety assessment of GM food can be used in GM feed, many plant parts used for livestock feeding are inedible to humans. Therefore, the concentration of novel proteins in different plant tissues and level of exposure to GM feedstuff in the diet of target animals should be considered. A further development of specific methodologies for the assessment of GM crops intended for animal consumption is required, in order to provide a more accurate and standardized assessment to the GM feed safety.

Is an ecosystem services-based approach developed for setting specific protection goals for plant protection products applicable to other chemicals?

Clearly defined protection goals specifying what to protect, where and when, are required for designing scientifically sound risk assessments and effective risk management of chemicals. Environmental protection goals specified in EU legislation are defined in general terms, resulting in uncertainty in how to achieve them. In 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a framework to identify more specific protection goals based on ecosystem services potentially affected by plant protection products. But how applicable is this framework to chemicals with different emission scenarios and receptor ecosystems? Four case studies used to address this question were: (i) oil refinery waste water exposure in estuarine environments; (ii) oil dispersant exposure in aquatic environments; (iii) down the drain chemicals exposure in a wide range of ecosystems (terrestrial and aquatic); (iv) persistent organic pollutant exposure in remote (pristine) Arctic environments. A four-step process was followed to identify ecosystems and services potentially impacted by chemical emissions and to define specific protection goals. Case studies demonstrated that, in principle, the ecosystem services concept and the EFSA framework can be applied to derive specific protection goals for a broad range of chemical exposure scenarios. By identifying key habitats and ecosystem services of concern, the approach offers the potential for greater spatial and temporal resolution, together with increased environmental relevance, in chemical risk assessments. With modifications including improved clarity on terminology/definitions and further development/refinement of the key concepts, we believe the principles of the EFSA framework could provide a methodical approach to the identification and prioritization of ecosystems, ecosystem services and the service providing units that are most at risk from chemical exposure.