Conducting fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments

Applying knowledge and experience from potato (Solanum tuberosum) to update genetic stability data requirements in the risk assessment for vegetatively propagated biotech crops

Regulatory agencies require data on genetic stability as part of the safety assessment for biotech crops, even though the genetic stability of a plant is not necessarily an environmental, human or animal health safety concern. While sexual reproduction has the potential to introduce genomic variation in conventionally bred and biotech crops, vegetative propagation is genetically stable. In vegetatively propagated crops, meiosis does not occur thus limiting the number of homologous recombination events that could lead to chromosomal rearrangements in progeny plants. Genetic stability data is often, but should not be, an automatic requirement for the safety assessment of vegetatively propagated biotech crops. Genetic stability data from biotech potato events has demonstrated that vegetative propagation of potato tubers does not affect the stability of introduced DNA sequences or lead to loss of trait efficacy. The knowledge and experience gained from over 30 years of assessing the safety of biotech crops can be used by regulatory authorities to eliminate data requirements that do not address environmental, food or feed safety concerns. As a first step, regulators should consider removing requirements for genetic stability as part of the safety review for vegetatively propagated biotech crops.

Sustainable use of CRISPR/Cas in fish aquaculture: the biosafety perspective

Aquaculture is becoming the primary source of seafood for human diets, and farmed fish aquaculture is one of its fastest growing sectors. The industry currently faces several challenges including infectious and parasitic diseases, reduced viability, fertility reduction, slow growth, escapee fish and environmental pollution. The commercialization of the growth-enhanced AquAdvantage salmon and the CRISPR/Cas9-developed tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) proffers genetic engineering and genome editing tools, e.g. CRISPR/Cas, as potential solutions to these challenges. Future traits being developed in different fish species include disease resistance, sterility, and enhanced growth. Despite these notable advances, off-target effect and non-clarification of trait-related genes among other technical challenges hinder full realization of CRISPR/Cas potentials in fish breeding. In addition, current regulatory and risk assessment frameworks are not fit-for purpose regarding the challenges of CRISPR/Cas notwithstanding that public and regulatory acceptance are key to commercialization of products of the new technology. In this study, we discuss how CRISPR/Cas can be used to overcome some of these limitations focusing on diseases and environmental release in farmed fish aquaculture. We further present technical limitations, regulatory and risk assessment challenges of the use of CRISPR/Cas, and proffer research strategies that will provide much-needed data for regulatory decisions, risk assessments, increased public awareness and sustainable applications of CRISPR/Cas in fish aquaculture with emphasis on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) breeding.

Risk management recommendations for environmental releases of gene drive modified insects

The ability to engineer gene drives (genetic elements that bias their own inheritance) has sparked enthusiasm and concerns. Engineered gene drives could potentially be used to address long-standing challenges in the control of insect disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, or help to rescue endangered species. However, risk concerns and uncertainty associated with potential environmental release of gene drive modified insects (GDMIs) have led some stakeholders to call for a global moratorium on such releases or the application of other strict precautionary measures to mitigate perceived risk assessment and risk management challenges. Instead, we provide recommendations that may help to improve the relevance of risk assessment and risk management frameworks for environmental releases of GDMIs. These recommendations include: (1) developing additional and more practical risk assessment guidance to ensure appropriate levels of safety; (2) making policy goals and regulatory decision-making criteria operational for use in risk assessment so that what constitutes harm is clearly defined; (3) ensuring a more dynamic interplay between risk assessment and risk management to manage uncertainty through closely interlinked pre-release modelling and post-release monitoring; (4) considering potential risks against potential benefits, and comparing them with those of alternative actions to account for a wider (management) context; and (5) implementing a modular, phased approach to authorisations for incremental acceptance and management of risks and uncertainty. Along with providing stakeholder engagement opportunities in the risk analysis process, the recommendations proposed may enable risk managers to make choices that are more proportionate and adaptive to potential risks, uncertainty and benefits of GDMI applications, and socially robust.

Molecular characterization for food safety assessment of a genetically modified late blight resistant potato: an unusual case

Standard food safety assessments of genetically modified crops require a thorough molecular characterization of the novel DNA as inserted into the plant that is intended for commercialization, as well as a comparison of agronomic and nutritional characteristics of the genetically modified to the non-modified counterpart. These characterization data are used to identify any unintended changes in the inserted DNA or in the modified plant that would require assessment for safety in addition to the assessment of the intended modification. An unusual case of an unintended effect discovered from the molecular characterization of a genetically modified late blight resistant potato developed for growing in Bangladesh and Indonesia is presented here. Not only was a significant portion of the plasmid vector backbone DNA inserted into the plant along with the intended insertion of an R-gene for late blight resistance, but the inserted DNA was split into two separate fragments and inserted into two separate chromosomes. One fragment carries the R-gene and the other fragment carries the NPTII selectable marker gene and the plasmid backbone DNA. The implications of this for the food safety assessment of this late blight resistant potato are considered.

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.

Perspectives From the Science-Policy Interface in Animal Health and Welfare

The aim of this paper is to present scientific perspectives from the science-policy interface in animal health and welfare, with an emphasis on factors critical to scientific effectiveness. While there is broad acceptance of the value of scientific information to inform policy-making, interactions at the science-policy interface are not without difficulties. The literature highlights the need for scientists to build policy relevance to the research focus from the outset, to engage with policy-makers and other stakeholders throughout, to use platforms to facilitate science-policy dialogue, and to disseminate research findings appropriately. In the author's experience, there are a range of factors linked with effectiveness at the science-policy interface in animal health and welfare including a passion for public interest research, scientific independence, a commitment to scientific quality and openness, the opportunities afforded from partnership and collaboration, and an interest in strategic thinking and systems change. In an increasingly complex and rapidly changing world, an objective evidence base for policy decision-making is more important than ever. There is a need for particular attention to the value of collaboration between the natural and social sciences, a recognition among scientists and policy-makers that science is not value-free, the importance of effective communications, and the need to assess and communicate uncertainty. Further, there are particular challenges with science conducted in support of policy development for industry. It is hoped that this paper will stimulate and contribute to discussion and debate, both among scientists and between scientists and policy-makers, to increase scientific effectiveness at the science-policy interface in animal health and welfare.

Envisioning the expertise of the future

Envisioning the expertise of the future in the field of food safety is challenging, as society, science and the way we work and live are changing and advancing faster than ever before. Future challenges call for multiple and multidimensional responses, some of which were addressed at EFSA's Third Scientific Conference. The participants indicated that risk assessment bodies involved in food safety such as EFSA must recognise that data, methods and expertise (i.e. people) are the three basic elements underlying risk assessments. These elements need constant consideration and adaptation to ensure preparedness for the future. Moreover, it should be recognised that knowledge and expertise are distributed throughout society and are thus not limited to scientists. Aspects considered during the breakout session included: (1) increased complexity, (2) the crowd workforce, (3) citizen science, (4) stakeholder engagement, (5) talent pools and (7) entrepreneurship. To account for future challenges, behavioural, attitudinal and cultural changes must be implemented successfully. At a societal level, people are increasingly going hand in hand with robotics and artificial intelligence in sharing expertise and producing outcome. This needs consideration on ethics and values, both for organisations and individuals. At an organisational level, risk assessment bodies will have to tap into new talent pools and new solutions for a more fluid and ad hoc‐based workforce. Future risk assessment bodies will have to actively engage with stakeholders when performing their assessments. It is expected that the impacts of citizen science and involvement of the crowd will become part of risk assessment practices. Consequently, EFSA will have to continue to invest in massive, ongoing skills development programmes. At an individual level, potential recruits will need to be assessed against a whole new set of competencies and capabilities: technical competencies in data science, computational science and artificial intelligence, alongside a large set of soft skills.

Communicating to and engaging with the public in regulatory science

This paper presents selected highlights from the ‘Engaging with society’ session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference ‘Science, Food and Society’ (Parma, Italy, 18–21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post‐truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio‐economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.

Managing evidence in food safety and nutrition

Evidence (‘data’) is at the heart of EFSA's 2020 Strategy and is addressed in three of its operational objectives: (1) adopt an open data approach, (2) improve data interoperability to facilitate data exchange, and (3) migrate towards structured scientific data. As the generation and availability of data have increased exponentially in the last decade, potentially providing a much larger evidence base for risk assessments, it is envisaged that the acquisition and management of evidence to support future food safety risk assessments will be a dominant feature of EFSA's future strategy. During the breakout session on ‘Managing evidence’ of EFSA's third Scientific Conference ‘Science, Food, Society’, current challenges and future developments were discussed in evidence management applied to food safety risk assessment, accounting for the increased volume of evidence available as well as the increased IT capabilities to access and analyse it. This paper reports on presentations given and discussions held during the session, which were centred around the following three main topics: (1) (big) data availability and (big) data connection, (2) problem formulation and (3) evidence integration.

EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food, Society': concluding remarks

From 18-21 September 2018, EFSA hosted its third Scientific Conference on Science, Food and Society in Parma, Italy. This paper summarises the overall recommendations on future actions and research priorities of the conference and complements the earlier multi-authored papers in this issue. The conference started and closed with the plenary sessions 'where science meets society: putting risk assessment in context' and 'staying relevant in a changing world', respectively. In between, there were seven breakout sessions five of which aimed at advancing risk assessment science in the areas of human health, the environment, biological hazards, nutrition and managing evidence, and two of which were dedicated to the societal aspects of risk assessment: engaging with society and envisioning the expertise of the future. During the 4 days of the event, participants addressed the complex interplay between science, risk assessment, policy and society, and explored how to advance food safety risk assessment to address the challenges of a changing world and ensure preparedness. Acknowledging that good science alone is no longer sufficient to ensure fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments, EFSA must further build on its current five Strategic Objectives. To ensure that its risk assessments remain scientifically robust and sound, EFSA should strive for robust and fit-for-purpose risk assessments; consider food in the context of safety, nutrition and sustainability; and explore further how EFSA can work with other organisations to achieve the One Health/One Environment goals. In addition, EFSA should base scientific risk assessments on reliable science while capitalising on scientific advances; address scientific uncertainties; and fully publish the evidence and data used. In line with societal expectations, EFSA, in coordination with risk managers, should frame risk assessments through clear policy goals and problem formulation; be explicit about value judgements; communicate clearly and consistently and in coordination with risk assessors and risk managers; involve society; avoid conflicts of interest; and follow trustworthy processes.