Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A semi-quantitative approach to GMO risk-benefit analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Transgenic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In many countries there are increasing calls for the benefits of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be considered as well as the risks, and for a risk-benefit analysis to form an integral part of GMO regulatory frameworks. This trend represents a shift away from the strict emphasis on risks, which is encapsulated in the Precautionary Principle that forms the basis for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and which is reflected in the national legislation of many countries. The introduction of risk-benefit analysis of GMOs would be facilitated if clear methodologies were available to support the analysis. Up to now, methodologies for risk-benefit analysis that would be applicable to the introduction of GMOs have not been well defined. This paper describes a relatively simple semi-quantitative methodology that could be easily applied as a decision support tool, giving particular consideration to the needs of regulators in developing countries where there are limited resources and experience. The application of the methodology is demonstrated using the release of an insect resistant maize variety in South Africa as a case study. The applicability of the method in the South African regulatory system is also discussed, as an example of what might be involved in introducing changes into an existing regulatory process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper, the following definitions have been applied:

    Hazard The potential of an organism to cause harm

    Harm The magnitude of the consequences of a negative effect, if it should occur

    Risk The combination of the magnitude of the consequences of a hazard, if it occurs (i.e. harm), and the likelihood that the consequences will occur

    Positive effect The potential of an organism to cause beneficial effects or reduce adverse effects, i.e. the opposite of hazard

    Potential benefit The magnitude of the consequences of a positive effect, if it should occur, i.e. the opposite of harm

    Benefit The combination of the magnitude of the consequences of a positive effect, if it occurs (i.e. potential benefit), and the likelihood that the consequences will occur, i.e. the opposite of risk.

  2. Bt11 information available from http://www.cera-gmc.org/?action=gm_crop_database&.

Abbreviations

GMO:

Genetically modified organism.

CPB:

Cartagena protocol on biosafety

UNCED:

United Nations conference on environment and development

PP:

Precautionary principle

Bt:

Bacillus thuringiensis

EFSA:

European food science authority

RIAM:

Rapid impact assessment matrix

EIA:

Environmental impact assessment

SEA:

Strategic environmental assessment

RBS:

Risk-benefit score

AS:

Agriculture score

FS:

Food score

ES:

Environment score

HS:

Health score

SS:

Socio-economic score

P:

Probability or likelihood

NEMBA:

National environmental management biodiversity act

References

  • Academy of Science of South Africa (2010) GMOs for African agriculture: challenges and opportunities. Workshop proceedings report. ISBN 978-0-9814159-7-0. http://www.assaf.org.za/?p=2305. Accessed 10 Aug 2010

  • Amin L, Jahi JM, Nor AR, Osman M, Mahadi NM (2007) Public acceptance of modern biotechnology. Asia Pac J Mol Biol Biotechnol 15(2):39–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Beech CJ, Nagaraju J, Vasan SS, Rose RI, Othman RY, Pillai V, Saraswathy TS (2009) Risk analysis of a hypothetical open field release of a self-limiting transgenic Aedes aegypti mosquito strain to combat dengue. Asia Pac J Mol Biol Biotechnol 17(3):99–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermúdez Muñoz S, Víquez Camacho M (2010) Valoración ambiental preliminary del riesgo-beneficio de la liberación de una semilla de arroz genéticamente modificada. Tecnol en Marcha 23(1):3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap P-J (2003) The release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J 33:19–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa-Font J, Mossialos E, Rudisill C (2009) Optimism and the perceptions of new risks. J Risk Res 12(1):27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig W, Tepfer M, Degrassi G, Ripandelli D (2008) An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Euphytica 164:853–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawe D, Unnevehr L (2007) Crop case study: GMO golden rice in Asia with enhanced vitamin A benefits for consumers. AgBioForum 10(3):154–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Drobnik J (2008) Time to relax GMO regulation in Europe. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 94:235–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2005) Opinion of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms on a request from the commission related to the notification (reference C/F/96/05.10) for the placing on the market of insect resistant genetically modified maize Bt11, for cultivation, feed and industrial processing, under Part C of directive 2001/18/EC from Syngenta Seeds. EFSA J 213:1-33. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/213.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2010

  • EFSA (2006) EFSA Colloquium 6: summary report on risk-benefit analysis for foods: methods and approaches 13–14 July 2006, p 20

  • EFSA Scientific Committee (2010) Guidance on human health risk-benefit assessment of food. EFSA J 8(7):1673 (41 pp). doi:10:2093/j.efsa.2010.1673. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu

    Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza-Esquivel AM, Arrieta-Espinoza G (2007) A multidisciplinary approach directed towards the commercial release of transgenic herbicide-tolerant rice in Costa Rica. Transgenic Res 16:541–555

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Falck-Zepeda JB (2009) Socio-economic considerations, article 26.1 of the Cartagena protocol on biosafety: what are the issues and what is at stake? AgBioForum 12(1):90–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannakas K, Yiannaka A (2008) Market and welfare effects of second-generation, consumer-oriented GM products. Am J Agr Econ 90:152–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Barbero M, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2006) Economic impact of dominant GM crops worldwide: a review. European Commission Joint Research Centre—Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Technical Report Series. EUR 2257 EN. ISBN 92-79-03879-6

  • Hill RA, Sendashonga C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: Lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ Biosafety Res 2:81–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Hu R, Rozelle S, Pray C (2006) Genetically modified Rice, yields and pesticides: Assessing farm-level productivity and health effects in China. Stanford University Working Paper. http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21625/GMrice_and_productivityl_25_Sept_2006_workingpaper.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2010

  • Ijas A, Kuitunen MT, Jalava K (2010) Developing the RIAM method (rapid impact assessment matrix) in the context of impact significance assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:82–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James C (2009) Global status of Biotech/GM Crops:2009. The first fourteen years: 2006–2009. ISAAA Brief 41

  • Kostandini G, Mills BF, Omamo SW, Wood S (2009) Ex ante analysis of the benefits of transgenic drought tolerance research on cereal crops in low-income countries. Agric Econ 40:477–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuiper HA, Davies HV (2010) The SAFE FOODS risk analysis framework suitable for GMOs? A case study. Food Control. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.02.011

  • Kuitunen M, Jalava K, Hirvonen K (2008) Testing the usability of the rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) method for comparison of EIA and SEA results. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28:312–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen L (2010) How green biotech turned white and blue. Nat Biotechnol 28(5):393–395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Le Curieux-Belfond O, Vandelac L, Caron J, Séralini G-É (2009) Factors to consider before production and commercialization of aquatic genetically modified organisms: the case of transgenic salmon. Environ Sci Policy 12:170–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linacre NA, Falck-Zepeda J, Komen J, MacLaren D (2006a) Risk assessment and management of genetically modified organisms under Australia’s gene technology act: considerations for regulatory development. Asian Biotechnol Dev Rev 8(3):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Linacre NA, Gaskell J, Rosegrant MW, Falck-Zepeda J, Quemada H, Halsey M, Birner R (2006b) Strategic environmental assessments for genetically modified organisms. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 24(1):35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris EJ (2008) The Cartagena protocol: implications for regional trade and technology development in Africa. Dev Policy Rev 26(1):29–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris EJ, Koch M (2002) Biosafety of genetically modified crops—an African perspective. AgBiotechNet, vol 4, December, ABN 102

  • Morris SH, Spillane C (2008) GM directive deficiencies in the European Union. EMBO Rep 9(6):500–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morris EJ, van Rensburg JBJ, Hoffmann JA, Lazarus P (2005) Good regulatory practices for developing countries: lessons learned in South Africa from an appeal under the GMO Act. ICABR Int Conf Agric Biotechnol. http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr2005/papers/Morris_Jane_paper.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2010

  • Palou A, Pico C, Keijer J (2009) Integration of risk and benefit analysis—the window of benefit as a new tool? Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 49:670–680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pastakia CMR, Jensen A (1998) The rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) for EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev 18:461–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim R (2009) The economics of genetically modified crops. Annu Rev Resour Econ 1:665–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronald PC, Adamchak RW (2008) Tomorrow’s table: organic farming, genetics and the future of food, p 226. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-530175-5

  • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity: text and annexes. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2010) Genetically Modified Organisms Act (1997) Regulations. South African Government Gazette 32966:5–13. 26 Feb 2010

  • South African Department of Environmental Affairs (2010) National Environmental Management Act (Act No 107 of 1998) Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. South African Government Gazette 33306:3–200

  • Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165:1232–1238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swart JAA, Jiang J, Ho P (2007–2008) Risk perceptions and GM crops: the case of China. Tailor Biotechnol 3(3):11–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennøy A, Kværner K, Gjerstad KI (2006) Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assess Project Appraisal 24(1):45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCED (1992) Rio declaration on environment and development. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm. Accessed 10 Aug 2010

  • Vlek C (2010) Judicious management of uncertain risks: I. Developments and criticisms of risk analysis and precautionary reasoning. J Risk Res 13(4):517–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warwick SI, Beckie HJ, Hall LM (2009) Gene flow, invasiveness and ecological impact of genetically modified crops. The year in evolutionary biology 2009. Ann NY Acad Sci 1168:72–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wingspread (1998) Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle. Rachel’s environment and health weekly 586, 2 pp. http://www.rachel.org/en/node/3850. Accessed 10 Aug 2010

  • Winter G (2008) Nature protection and the introduction into the environment of genetically modified organisms: risk analysis in EC multilevel governance. RECIEL 17(2):205–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavaleta N, Figueroa D, Rivera J, Sánchez J, Alfaro S, Lönnerdal B (2007) Efficacy of rice-based oral rehydration solution containing recombinant human lactoferrin and lysozyme in Peruvian children with acute diarrhea. J Pediatric Gastroenterol Nutr 44:258–264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank the following for their valuable comments and inputs into this paper: Dr E. Barros, Ms W. Janssen van Rijssen, Ms G. Christians, Ms C. Arendse, Ms W. Mandivenyi, Dr R. Westfall, Ms M. Koch. Ms M. Koch contributed the analysis of Ventria rice. I also wish to thank the reviewers of the original manuscript for their insightful contributions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. African Centre for Gene Technologies, PO Box 75011, Lynnwood Ridge, 0040, South Africa

    E. Jane Morris

Authors
  1. E. Jane Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Jane Morris.

Additional information

The African Centre for Gene Technologies is a joint initiative of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), University of Pretoria and University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morris, E.J. A semi-quantitative approach to GMO risk-benefit analysis. Transgenic Res 20, 1055–1071 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-010-9480-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-010-9480-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation