Risk assessment of conventional crop plants in analogy to transgenic plants

  • Helge Torgersen
  • Gerhard Soja
  • Ines Janssen
  • Helmut Gaugitsch
Research Articles

Abstract

The risk assessment of genetically-modified plants pursuant to Annex II B of EU Directive 94/15/EC assumes that it is possible to infer the environmental impacts of a crop plant from its characteristics, so most of Annex II should also be applicable to conventional plants. To test this, we surveyed reports on the ecological impacts of the cultivation of non-transgenic crop plants with novel or improved traits and, in three cases, investigated whether Annex II B would have been adequate to indicate the effects. Such an assessment appears to be feasible only if the time frame on which it is based is short, so that long-term effects cannot be assessed. Secondly, the plant must be genetically homogenous which is not always granted, e.g. with forest-trees. Thirdly, the cultivation area must be defined. Differences in the behaviour of foreign plants between their original and cultivation habitats may be ecologically relevant and should be assessed. In the (few) cases where direct inference of the observed effects was possible from inherent traits, these effects often correlated with poor adaptation to local environmental conditions. The ecological impacts of traits that had been introduced in order to overcome poor adaptation may differ widely according to the way in which the traits are exploited. In practice, the effects of agricultural measures are more important than the effects of gene transfer and invasiveness, although the latter currently play a major role in risk assessment. In the light of these deliberations, a modification of Annex II B of EU Directive 94/15/EC is suggested.

Keywords

Conventional crop plants, risk assessment, EU Directive 94/15/EC environmental risk assessment, conventional plants, EU Directive 94/15/EC EU Directive 94/15/EC, risk assessment, conventional crop plants gene transfer, EU Directive 94/15/EC transgenic plants, risk assessment, EU Directive 94/15/EC 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Miller, H. I. (1995): Concepts of Risk Assessment: The “Process versus Product” Controversy Put to the Rest. In: Biotechnology (vol. 12): Legal, Economic and Ethical Dimensions.D. Brauer (ed.) (2nd ed.) Verlag Chemie, Weinheim. FRGGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    OECD (1992): Safety Considerations for Biotechnology. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Off. J. EU L 103/20 (1994): Directive 94/15/EC from 15. April 1994 for the “First Adaptation of the Directive 90/220/EWG on the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms Into the Environment to Technical Progress”Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Janssen, I.;Geissler, S.;Müller, W. (1995): Analyse ökologischer Auswirkungen von land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Nutzpflanzen und eingeführten standortfremden Pflanzen als Basis für die Risikoabschätzung gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen. Austrian Ecology Institute, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Soja, G.;Soja, A.-M. (1995): Analyse ökologischer Auswirkungen von land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Nutzpflanzen und eingeführten standortfremden Pflanzen als Basis für die Risikoabschätzung gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen. Seibersdorf Report OEFZS-A-3419 and 3467, Austrian Research Centre SeibersdorfGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Geburek, T. (1995): Charakteristika der Baumart Fichte (Picea abies (L.) karst.). Eine Zusammenschau von Eigenschaften einer Baumart, welche für die Erstellung eines Kriterienkatalogs zur Risikoabschätzung genetisch manipulierter, langlebiger höherer Pflanzen dienlich sein könnte. Expertise for the Institute for Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Torgersen, H.; Soja, G.; Janssen, I.; Gaugitsch, H. (1997): Ecological Impacts of Traditional Crop Plants A Basis for the Assessment of Transgenic Plants?”, BioSafety Vol. 3, Paper 1 (BY97002), February 1997 Online Journal, URL http://www.bdt.org.br/bioline/byGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Torgersen, H. (1996): Ecological Impacts of Traditional Crop Plants - A Basis for the Assessment of Transgenic Plants? Monograph No.75, Federal Environment Agency, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Sukopp, U.;Sukopp, H. (1994): Ecological long-time effects of the growing wild of crop plants. WZB papers FS II, 94–304. Science Centre Berlin for Social Science Research, Berlin, FRGGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    The Biosafety Results of Field Tests of Genetically Modified Plants and Microorganisms. Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium (November 1994, Monterey, CA). The University of California, Oakland, CA, 1994Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Mikkelsen.T. R.;Andersen, B.;Joergensen.R. B. (1996): The Risk of Crop Transgene Spread. Nature 380, 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1993): Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. OTA-F-565, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Goy, P. A.;Duesing, J. H. (1996): Assessing the Environmental Impact of Gene Transfer to Wild Relatives. Bio/Technology 14, 39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kareiva, P.;Morris W.;Jacobi, C.M. (1994): Studying and Managing the Risk of Cross-Fertilization between Transgenic Crops and Wild Relatives. Molecular Ecology 3, 15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Sweet, J.B.; Shepperson, R. (1997): Monitoring Commercial Releases of Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape”, Proceedings of the X. Colloque International sur la Biologie des Mauvaises Herbes, Dijon, September 1996Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helge Torgersen
    • 1
  • Gerhard Soja
    • 2
  • Ines Janssen
    • 3
  • Helmut Gaugitsch
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Technology AssessmentAustrian Academy of SciencesViennaAustria
  2. 2.Agricultural Research and Biotechnology, Department of Life SciencesAustrian Research Centre SeibersdorfSeibersdorfAustria
  3. 3.Austrian Ecology InstituteViennaAustria
  4. 4.Federal Environment AgencyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations