Transgenic Research

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

Feral genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape from seed import spills: are concerns scientifically justified?

  • Yann Devos
  • Rosemary S. Hails
  • Antoine Messéan
  • Joe N. Perry
  • Geoffrey R. Squire


One of the concerns surrounding the import (for food and feed uses or processing) of genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) oilseed rape is that, through seed spillage, the herbicide tolerance (HT) trait will escape into agricultural or semi-natural habitats, causing environmental or economic problems. Based on these concerns, three EU countries have invoked national safeguard clauses to ban the marketing of specific GMHT oilseed rape events on their territory. However, the scientific basis for the environmental and economic concerns posed by feral GMHT oilseed rape resulting from seed import spills is debatable. While oilseed rape has characteristics such as secondary dormancy and small seed size that enable it to persist and be redistributed in the landscape, the presence of ferals is not in itself an environmental or economic problem. Crucially, feral oilseed rape has not become invasive outside cultivated and ruderal habitats, and HT traits are not likely to result in increased invasiveness. Feral GMHT oilseed rape has the potential to introduce HT traits to volunteer weeds in agricultural fields, but would only be amplified if the herbicides to which HT volunteers are tolerant were used routinely in the field. However, this worst-case scenario is most unlikely, as seed import spills are mostly confined to port areas. Economic concerns revolve around the potential for feral GMHT oilseed rape to contribute to GM admixtures in non-GM crops. Since feral plants derived from cultivation (as distinct from import) occur at too low a frequency to affect the coexistence threshold of 0.9% in the EU, it can be concluded that feral GMHT plants resulting from seed import spills will have little relevance as a potential source of pollen or seed for GM admixture. This paper concludes that feral oilseed rape in Europe should not be routinely managed, and certainly not in semi-natural habitats, as the benefits of such action would not outweigh the negative effects of management.


Genetically modified oilseed rape Herbicide tolerance Seed spillage Ferality Persistence Invasiveness Coexistence Introgression 


  1. Aono M, Wakiyama S, Nagatsu M, Nakajima N, Tamaoki M, Kubo A, Saji H (2006) Detection of feral transgenic oilseed rape with multiple-herbicide resistance in Japan. Environ Biosafety Res 5:77–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagavathiannen MV, Van Acker RC (2008) Crop ferality: implications for novel trait confinement. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:1–6Google Scholar
  3. Baker J, Preston C (2008) Canola (Brassica napus L.) seedbank declines rapidly in farmer-managed fields in South Australia. Aust J Agric Res 59:780–784Google Scholar
  4. Bartsch D (2008) National safeguard clauses (Art. 23/RL 2001/18)—the role of EFSA and National Biosafety Committees. J Consum Prot Food Safety 3(S2):63Google Scholar
  5. Beckie HJ, Hall LM (2008) Simple to complex: modelling crop pollen-mediated gene flow. Plant Sci 175:615–628Google Scholar
  6. Beckie HJ, Warwick SI (2010) Persistence of an oilseed rape transgene in the environment. Crop Prot 29:509–512Google Scholar
  7. Beckie HJ, Warwick SI, Nair H, Séguin-Swartz G (2003) Gene flow in commercial fields of herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus). Ecol Appl 13:1276–1294Google Scholar
  8. Beckie HJ, Séguin-Swartz G, Nair H, Warwick SI, Johnson E (2004) Multiple herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus) can be controlled by alternative herbicides. Weed Sci 52:152–157Google Scholar
  9. Beckie HJ, Hall LM, Simard M-J, Leeson JY, Willenborg CJ (2010) A framework for postrelease environmental monitoring of second-generation crops with novel traits. Crop Sci 50:1587–1604Google Scholar
  10. Begg GS, Hockaday S, Mcnicol JW, Askew M, Squire GR (2006) Modelling the persistence of volunteer oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Ecol Model 198:195–207Google Scholar
  11. Berben G (2008) Y-a-t-il des colzas transgéniques dans l’environnement Wallon? CRAW-info 18:3Google Scholar
  12. Berben G (2009) L’environnement de la région Wallonne comprend du colza transgénique. CRAW-info 24:3Google Scholar
  13. Bond JM, Mogg RJ, Squire GR, Johnstone C (2004) Microsatellite amplification in Brassica napus cultivars: cultivar variability and relationship to a long-term feral population. Euphytica 139:173–178Google Scholar
  14. CERA (2011) GM crop database. ILSI Research Foundation, Washington DC,
  15. Charters YM, Robertson A, Squire GR (1999) Investigation of feral oilseed rape populations, genetically modified organisms research report (No. 12). Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
  16. Chèvre AM, Ammitzbøll H, Breckling B, Dietz-Pfeilstetter A, Eber F, Fargue A, Gomez-Campo C, Jenczewski E, Jørgensen R, Lavigne C, Meier M, den Nijs H, Pascher K, Seguin-Swartz G, Sweet J, Stewart N, Warwick S (2004) A review on interspecific gene flow from oilseed rape to wild relatives. In: den Nijs HCM, Bartsch D, Sweet J (eds) Introgression from genetically modified plants into wild relatives. CABI Publishing, New York, pp 235–251Google Scholar
  17. Chifflet R, Klein EK, Lavigne C, Le Féon V, Ricroch AE, Lecomte J, Vaissière BE (2011) Spatial scale of insect-mediated pollen dispersal in oilseed rape in an open agricultural landscape. J Appl Ecol. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01904.x
  18. Christiansen T, Polak J (2009) Comitology between political decision-making and technocratic governance: regulating GMOs in the European Union. Eipascope Bull 1:5–11Google Scholar
  19. Claessen D, Gilligan CA, Lutman PJW, van den Bosch F (2005a) Which traits promote persistence of feral GM crops? Part 1: implications of environmental stochasticity. Oikos 110:20–29Google Scholar
  20. Claessen D, Gilligan CA, van den Bosch F (2005b) Which traits promote persistence of feral GM crops? Part 2: implications of metapopulation structure. Oikos 110:30–42Google Scholar
  21. Cook SK, Wynn SC, Clarke JH (2010) How valuable is glyphosate to UK agriculture and the environment? Outlooks Pest Manag 21:280–284Google Scholar
  22. Crawley MJ, Brown SL (1995) Seed limitation and the dynamics of feral oilseed rape on the M25 motorway. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 259:49–54Google Scholar
  23. Crawley MJ, Brown SL (2004) Spatially structured population dynamics in feral oilseed rape. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 271:1909–1916Google Scholar
  24. Crawley MJ, Hails RS, Rees M, Kohn D, Buxton J (1993) Ecology of transgenic oilseed rape in natural habitats. Nature 363:620–623Google Scholar
  25. Crawley MJ, Brown SL, Hails RS, Kohn DD, Rees M (2001) Transgenic crops in natural habitats. Nature 409:682–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. D’Hertefeldt T, Jørgensen RB, Pettersson LB (2008) Long-term persistence of GM oilseed rape in the seedbank. Biol Lett 4:314–317PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Damgaard C, Kjaer C (2009) Competitive interactions and the effect of herbivory on Bt-Brassica napus, Brassica rapa and Lolium perenne. J Appl Ecol 46:1073–1079Google Scholar
  28. Damgaard C, Kjellsson G, Haldrup C (2007) Prediction of the combined effect of various GM contamination sources of seed: a case study of oilseed rape under Danish conditions. Acta Agr Scand B-S P 57:248–254Google Scholar
  29. Demeke T, Perry DJ, Scowcroft WR (2006) Adventitious presence of GMOs: scientific overview for Canadian grains. Can J Plant Sci 86:1–23Google Scholar
  30. Demont M, Devos Y (2008) Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives. Trends Biotechnol 26:353–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Devaux C, Lavigne C, Falentin-Guyomarc’h H, Vautrin S, Lecomte J, Klein EK (2005) High diversity of oilseed rape pollen clouds over an agro-ecosystem indicated long-distance dispersal. Mol Ecol 14:2269–2280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Devaux C, Lavigne C, Austerlitz F, Klein EK (2007) Modelling and estimating pollen movement in oilseed rape (Brassica napus) at the landscape scale using genetic markers. Mol Ecol 16:487–499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Devaux C, Klein EK, Lavigne C, Sausse C, Messéan A (2008) Environmental and landscape effects on cross-pollination rates observed at the long distance among French oilseed rape (Brassica napus) commercial fields. J Appl Ecol 45:803–812Google Scholar
  34. Deville A (2004) Suivi de terrain, expérimentations et modélisation: des approches complémentaires pour l’étude de l’impact des populations de colza hors-champ sur les flux de gènes au sein des agro-écosystèmes. PhD thesis, Université Paris XI, UFR Scientifique D’OrsayGoogle Scholar
  35. Devos Y, Demont M, Sanvido O (2008a) Coexistence in the EU–return of the moratorium on GM crops? Nature Biotechnol 26:1223–1225Google Scholar
  36. Devos Y, Maeseele P, Reheul D, Van Speybroeck L, De Waele D (2008b) Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: a (re)quest for Sense and Sensibility. J Agr Environ Ethic 21:29–61Google Scholar
  37. Devos Y, De Schrijver A, Reheul D (2009a) Quantifying the introgressive hybridisation propensity between transgenic oilseed rape and its wild/weedy relatives. Environ Monit Assess 149:303–322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Devos Y, Demont M, Dillen K, Reheul D, Kaiser M, Sanvido O (2009b) Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:11–30Google Scholar
  39. Dietz-Pfeilstetter A, Zwerger P (2009) In-field frequencies and characteristics of oilseed rape with double herbicide resistance. Environ Biosafety Res 8:101–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Dietz-Pfeilstetter A, Metge K, Schönfeld J, Zwerger P (2006) Assessment of transgene spread from oilseed rape by population dynamic and molecular analyses of feral oilseed rape. J Plant Dis Protect XX:39–47Google Scholar
  41. Eastham K, Sweet J (2002) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): the significance of gene flow through pollen transfer. European Environment Agency,
  42. EC (2003a) Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. Off J Eur Comm L189:36–47Google Scholar
  43. EC (2003b) Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Off J Eur Comm L268:1–23Google Scholar
  44. EC (2004) Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. Off J Eur Comm L143:56–75Google Scholar
  45. EC (2005) Commission Recommendation of 16 August 2005 concerning measures to be taken by the consent holder to prevent any damage to health and the environment in the event of the accidental spillage of an oilseed rape (Brassica napus L., GT73 line–MON-00073-7) genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Off J Eur Comm L228:19–20Google Scholar
  46. EC (2010) Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops,
  47. EFSA (2004a) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on a request from the Commission related to the notification (Reference C/NL/98/11) for the placing on the market of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape GT73, for import and processing, under Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC from Monsanto. EFSA J 29:1–19,
  48. EFSA (2004b) Opinion of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms on a request from the Commission related to the Greek invoke of Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC. EFSA J 79:1–8,
  49. EFSA (2005) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on a request from the Commission related to the application (Reference C/BE/96/01) for the placing on the market of glufosinate-tolerant hybrid oilseed rape Ms8 × Rf3, derived from genetically modified parental lines (Ms8, Rf3), for import and processing for feed and industrial uses, under Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC from Bayer CropScience. EFSA J 281:1–23,
  50. EFSA (2006) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms related to genetically modified crops (Bt176 maize, MON810 maize, T25 maize, Topas 19/2 oilseed rape and Ms1xRf1 oilseed rape) subject to safeguard clauses invoked according to Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC. EFSA J 338:1-15,
  51. EFSA (2008) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on an application (Reference EFSA-GMO-UK-2005-25) for the placing on the market of glufosinate-tolerant oilseed rape T45 for food and feed uses, import and processing and renewal of the authorization of oilseed rapt T45 as existing products, both under Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience. EFSA J 635:1–22,
  52. EFSA (2009a) Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on a request from the European Commission related to the safeguard clause invoked by Austria on oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8×RF3 according to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC. EFSA J 1153:1–16,
  53. EFSA (2009b) Scientific opinion of the panel on genetically modified organisms on a request from the European Commission related to the safeguard clause invoked by Austria on oilseed rape GT73 according to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC. EFSA J 1151:1–16,
  54. EFSA (2010) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 1879:1–111, Google Scholar
  55. Elling B, Neuffer B, Bleeker W (2009) Sources of genetic diversity in feral oilseed rape (Brassica napus) populations. Basic App Ecol 10:544–553Google Scholar
  56. Ellstrand NC (2003) Dangerous liaisons? When cultivated plants mate with their wild relatives. In: Scheiner S (ed) Synthesis in ecology and evolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 1–244Google Scholar
  57. FitzJohn RG, Armstrong TT, Newstrom-Lloyd LE, Wilton AD, Cochrane M (2007) Hybridisation within Brassica and allied genera: evaluation of potential for transgene escape. Euphytica 158:209–230Google Scholar
  58. Fredshavn JR, Poulsen G, Huybrechts I, Rüdelsheim P (1995) Competitiveness of transgenic oilseed rape. Transgenic Res 4:142–148Google Scholar
  59. Friesen LF, Nelson AG, Van Acker RC (2003) Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically modified herbicide resistance traits. Agron J 95:1342–1347Google Scholar
  60. Funk T, Wenzel G, Schwarz G (2006) Outcrossing frequencies and distribution of transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) in the nearest neighbourhood. Eur J Agron 24:26–34Google Scholar
  61. Garnier A, Lecomte J (2006) Using spatial and stage-structured invasion model to assess the spread of feral population of transgenic oilseed rape. Ecol Mod 194:141–149Google Scholar
  62. Garnier A, Deville A, Lecomte J (2006) Stochastic modelling of feral plant populations with seed immigration and road verge management. Ecol Mod 197:373–382Google Scholar
  63. Garnier A, Pivard S, Lecomte J (2008) Measuring and modelling anthropogenic secondary seed dispersal along road verges for feral oilseed rape. Basic Appl Ecol 9:533–541Google Scholar
  64. Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, Fischler C, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Hampel J, Mejlgaard N, Quintanilha A, Rammer A, Revuelta G, Stares S, Torgersen H, Wager W (2011) The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnol 29:113–114Google Scholar
  65. Gressel J (2005) The challenges of ferality. In: Gressel J (ed) Crop ferality and volunteerism. Taylor & Francis Publishing Group, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  66. Gruber S, Claupein W (2007) Fecundity of volunteer oilseed rape and estimation of potential gene dispersal by a practice-related model. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119:401–408Google Scholar
  67. Gruber S, Pekrun C, Claupein W (2004) Seed persistence of oilseed rape (Brassica napus): variation in transgenic and conventionally bred cultivars. J Agric Sci 142:29–40Google Scholar
  68. Gruber S, Colbach N, Barbottin A, Pekrun C (2008) Post-harvest gene escape and approaches for minimizing it. CAB Rev: Perspect Agric Vet Sci Nut Nat Resour 3:1–17Google Scholar
  69. Gruber S, Bühler A, Möhring J, Claupein W (2010) Sleepers in the soil–vertical distribution by tillage and long-term survival of oilseed rape seeds compared with plastic pellets. Eur J Agron 33:81–88Google Scholar
  70. Gulden RH, Shirtliffe SJ, Thomas AG (2003a) Harvest losses of canola (Brassica napus) cause large seed bank inputs. Weed Sci 51:83–86Google Scholar
  71. Gulden RH, Shirtliffe SJ, Thomas AG (2003b) Secondary seed dormancy prolongs persistence of volunteer canola in western Canada. Weed Sci 51:904–913Google Scholar
  72. Gulden RH, Thomas AG, Shirtliffe SJ (2004a) Relative contribution of genotypes, seed size and environment to secondary dormancy potential in Canadian spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Weed Res 44:97–106Google Scholar
  73. Gulden RH, Thomas AG, Shirtliffe SJ (2004b) Secondary dormancy, temperature, and burial depth regulate seedbank dynamics in canola. Weed Sci 52:382–388Google Scholar
  74. Hails RS (2000) Genetically modified plants–the debate continues. Trends Ecol Evol 15:14–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Hails RS, Morley K (2005) Genes invading new populations: a risk assessment perspective. Trends Ecol Evol 20:245–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Hails RS, Rees M, Kohn DD, Crawley MJ (1997) Burial and seed survival in Brassica napus subsp. oleifera and Sinapsis arvensis including a comparison of transgenic and non-transgenic lines of the crop. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 264:1–7Google Scholar
  77. Hails RS, Bullock JM, Morley K, Lamb C, Bell P, Horsnell R, Hodgson DJ, Thomas J (2006) Predicting fitness changes in transgenic plants: testing a novel approach with pathogen resistant Brassicas. IOBC/WPRS Bull 29:63–70Google Scholar
  78. Hall L, Topinka K, Huffman J, Davis L, Good A (2000) Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Sci 48:688–694Google Scholar
  79. Hansen LB, Siegismund HR, Jørgensen RB (2001) Introgression between oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) and its weedy relative B. rapa L. in a natural population. Genet Resour Crop Evol 48:621–627Google Scholar
  80. Hansen LB, Siegismund HR, Jørgensen RB (2003) Progressive introgression between Brassica napus (oilseed rape) and B. rapa. Heredity 91:276–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Heenan PB, FitzJohn RG, Dawson MI (2004) Diversity of Brassica (Brassicaceae) species naturalised in Canterbury, New Zealand. N Z J Bot 42:815–832Google Scholar
  82. Heyn FW (1977) Analysis of unreduced gametes in the Brassiceae by crosses between species and ploidy levels. Z Pflanzenzüchtg 78:13–30Google Scholar
  83. Hobson R, Bruce D (2002) Seed loss when cutting a standing crop of oilseed rape with tow types of combine harvester header. Biosyst Eng 81:281–286Google Scholar
  84. Hüsken A, Dietz-Pfeilstetter A (2007) Pollen-mediated intraspecific gene flow from herbicide resistant oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Transgenic Res 16:557–569PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. James C (2010) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2010. Highlights of ISAAA briefs No 42, Ithaca, New York,
  86. Jenczewski E, Ronfort J, Chèvre AM (2003) Crop-to-wild gene flow, introgression and possible fitness effects of transgenes. Environ Biosafety Res 2:9–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Jørgensen RB (2007) Oilseed rape: Co-existence and gene flow from wild species. Adv Bot Res 45:451–464Google Scholar
  88. Jørgensen T, Hauser TP, Jørgensen RB (2007) Adventitious presence of other varieties in oilseed rape (Brassica napus) from seed banks and certified seed. Seed Sci Res 17:115–125Google Scholar
  89. Jørgensen RB, Hauser T, D’Hertefeldt T, Andersen NS, Hooftman D (2009) The variability of processes involved in transgene dispersal–case studies from Brassica and related genera. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16:389–395Google Scholar
  90. Kareiva P, Parker IM, Pascual M (1996) Can we use experiments and models in predicting the invasiveness of genetically engineered organisms? Ecology 77:1670–1675Google Scholar
  91. Kawata M, Murakami K, Ishikawa T (2009) Dispersal and persistence of genetically modified oilseed rape around Japanese harbors. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16:120–126Google Scholar
  92. Kerlan MC, Chèvre AM, Eber F (1993) Interspecific hybrids between a transgenic rapeseed (Brassica napus) and related species: cytological characterization and detection of the transgene. Genome 36:1099–1106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Knispel AL, McLachlan SM (2009) Landscape-scale distribution and persistence of genetically modified oilseed rape (Brassica napus) in Manitoba, Canada. Environ Sci Pollut Res 17:13–25Google Scholar
  94. Knispel AL, McLachlan SM, Van Acker RC, Friesen LF (2008) Gene flow and multiple herbicide resistance in escaped canola populations. Weed Sci 56:72–80Google Scholar
  95. Lecomte J, Bagger Jørgensen R, Bartkowiak-Broda I, Devaux C, Dietz-Pfeilstetter A, Gruber S, Hüsken A, Kuhlmann M, Lutman P, Rakousky S, Sausse C, Squire G, Sweet J, Aheto DW (2007) Gene flow in oilseed rape: what do the datasets of the SIGMEA EU Project tell us for coexistence? In: Stein A, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (eds) Books of abstracts of the third International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM-based Agricultural Supply Chains, European Commission, pp 49–52Google Scholar
  96. Lecoq E, Holt K, Janssens J, Legris G, Pleysier A, Tinland B, Wandelt C (2007) General surveillance: roles and responsibilities the industry view. J Consum Prot Food Safety 2(S1):25–28Google Scholar
  97. Levidow L, Carr S (2007) GM crops on trial: technological development as a real world experiment. Futures 39:408–431Google Scholar
  98. Londo JP, Bautista NS, Sagers CL, Lee EH, Watrud LS (2010) Glyphosate drift promotes changes in fitness and transgene gene flow in canola (Brassica napus) and hybrids. Ann Bot 106:957–965PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. López-Granados F, Lutman PJW (1998) Effect of environmental conditions on the dormancy and germination of volunteer oilseed rape seed (Brassica napus). Weed Sci 46:419–423Google Scholar
  100. Luijten SH, de Jong TJ (2010) A baseline study of the distribution and morphology of Brassica napus L. and Brassica rapa L. in the Netherlands. COGEM report: CGM 2010-03,
  101. Lutman PJW, Freeman SE, Pekrun C (2003) The long-term persistence of seeds of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) in arable fields. J Agric Sci 141:231–240Google Scholar
  102. Lutman P, Freeman S, Pekrun C (2004) The long-term persistence of seeds of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) in arable fields. J Agric Sci 141:231–240Google Scholar
  103. Lutman PJW, Berry K, Payne RW, Simpson E, Sweet JB, Champion GT, May MJ, Wightman P, Walker K, Lainsbury M (2005) Persistence of seeds from crops of conventional and herbicide tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 272:1909–1915Google Scholar
  104. Lutman PJW, Sweet J, Berry K, Law J, Payne R, Simpson E, Walker K, Wightman P (2008) Weed control in conventional and herbicide tolerant winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus) grown in rotations with winter cereals in the UK. Weed Res 48:408–419Google Scholar
  105. Marshall B, Dunlop G, Ramsay G, Squire GR (2000) Temperature-dependent germination traits in oilseed rape associated with 5’-anchored simple sequence repeat PCR polymorphisms. J Exp Bot 51:2075–2084PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Mbongolo Mbella G, Vandermassen E, Van Geel D, Sneyers M, Broeders S, Roosens S (2010) Federal public service of health, food chain safety and environment/contract FP-2010-1: report from the GMOlaboratory of the Scientific Institute of Public HealthGoogle Scholar
  107. Menzel G (2006) Verbreitungsdynamik und Auskreuzungspotential von Brassica napus L. (Raps) im Großraum Bremen. GCA-Verlag, Waabs, ISBN 3-89863-213-XGoogle Scholar
  108. Messéan A, Sausse C, Gasquez J, Darmency H (2007) Occurrence of genetically modified oilseed rape seeds in the harvest of subsequent conventional oilseed rape over time. Eur J Agron 27:115–122Google Scholar
  109. Messéan A, Squire GR, Perry JN, Angevin F, Gómez-Barbero M, Townend D, Sausse C, Breckling B, Langrell S, Džeroski S, Sweet JB (2009) Sustainable introduction of GM crops into European agriculture: a summary report of the FP6 SIGMEA research project. OCL-OL Corps Gras Li 16:37–51Google Scholar
  110. Middelhoff U, Reiche E-W, Windhorst W (2011) An integrative methodology to predict dispersal of genetically modified genotypes in oilseed rape at landscape-level–A study for the region of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. Ecol Indicat 11:1000–1007Google Scholar
  111. Momoh EJJ, Zhou WJ, Kristiansson B (2002) Variation in the development of secondary dormancy in oilseed rape genotypes under conditions of stress. Weed Res 42:446–455Google Scholar
  112. Monsanto (2010) The agronomic benefits of glyphosate in Europe—review of the benefits of glyphosate per market use. (Report provided by Ivo Brants)Google Scholar
  113. Morgan C, Bruce D, Child R, Ladbrooke Z, Arthur A (1998) Genetic variation for pod shatter resistance among lines of oilseed rape developed from synthetic B. napus. Field Crops Res 58:153–165Google Scholar
  114. Nishizawa T, Nakajima N, Aono M, Tamaoki M, Kubo A, Saji H (2009) Monitoring the occurrence of genetically modified oilseed rape growing along a Japanese roadside: 3-year observations. Environ Biosafety Res 8:33–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Nishizawa T, Tamaoki M, Aono M, Kubo A, Saji H, Nakajima N (2010) Rapeseed species and environmental concerns related to loss of seeds of genetically modified oilseed rape in Japan. GM Crops 1:1–14Google Scholar
  116. Norris C, Sweet J (2002) Monitoring large scale releases of genetically modified crops (EPG1/5/84) incorporating report on project EPG 1/5/30: monitoring releases of genetically modified crop plants. DEFRA report, EPG 1/5/84,
  117. Norris C, Sweet J, Parker J, Law J (2004) Implications for hybridization and introgression between oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and wild turnip (B. rapa) from an agricultural perspective. In: den Nijs HCM, Bartsch D, Sweet J (eds) Introgression from Genetically Modified Plants into Wild Relatives. CABI publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp 107–123Google Scholar
  118. Pascher K, Narendja F, Rau D (2006) Feral oilseed rape—Investigations on its potential for hybridisation. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums fuer Gesundheit und Frauen, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2006,
  119. Pascher K, Macalka S, Rau D, Gollmann G, Reiner H, Glössl J, Grabherr G (2010) Molecular differentiation of commercial varieties and feral populations of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). BMC Evol Biol 10:63Google Scholar
  120. Peltzer DA, Ferriss S, FitzJohn RG (2008) Predicting weed distribution at the landscape scale: using naturalized Brassica as a model system. J Appl Ecol 45:467–475Google Scholar
  121. Pessel FD, Lecomte J, Emeriau V, Krouti M, Messéan A, Gouyon PH (2001) Persistence of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) outside of cultivated fields. Theor Appl Genet 102:841–846Google Scholar
  122. Pivard S, Adamczyk K, Lecomte J, Lavigne C, Bouvier A, Deville A, Gouyon PH, Huet S (2008a) Where do the feral oilseed rape populations come from? A large-scale study of their possible origin in a farmland area. J Appl Ecol 45:476–485Google Scholar
  123. Pivard S, Demšar D, Lecomte J, Debeljak M, Džeroski S (2008b) Characterizing the presence of oilseed rape feral populations on field margins using machine learning. Ecol Mod 212:147–154Google Scholar
  124. Price JS, Hobson RN, Neale MA, Bruce DM (1996) Seed losses in commercial harvesting of oilseed rape. J Agric Eng Res 65:183–191Google Scholar
  125. Ramessar K, Capell T, Twyman RM, Christou P (2010) Going to ridiculous lengths–European coexistence regulations for GM crops. Nature Biotechnol 28:133–136Google Scholar
  126. Ramsay G, Thompson C, Squire G (2003) Quantifying landscape-scale gene flow in oilseed rape. DEFRA report RG0216,
  127. Raybould A, Cooper C (2005) Tiered tests to assess the environmental risk assessment of fitness changes in hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives: the example of virus resistant Brassica napus. Environ Biosafety Res 4:127–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Reuter H, Menzel G, Pehlke H, Breckling B (2008) Hazard mitigation or mitigation hazard? Would genetically modified dwarfed oilseed rape (Brassica napus) increase feral survival? Environ Sci Poll Res 15:529–535Google Scholar
  129. Rieger MA, Lamond M, Preston C, Powles SB, Roush RT (2002) Pollen-mediated movement of herbicide resistance between commercial canola fields. Science 296:2386–2388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Sabalza M, Miralpeix B, Twyman RM, Capell T, Christou P (2011) EU legitimizes GM crop exclusion zones. Nature Biotechnol 29:315–317Google Scholar
  131. Saji H, Nakajima N, Aono M, Tamaoki M, Kubo A, Wakiyama S, Hatase Y, Nagatsu M (2005) Monitoring the escape of transgenic oilseed rape around Japanese ports and roadsides. Environ Biosafety Res 4:217–222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. Schafer MG, Ross AX, Londo JP, Burdick CA, Lee EH, Travers SE, Van de Water PK, Sagers CL (2010) Evidence for the establishment and persistence of genetically modified canola populations in the US,
  133. Scheffler JA, Dale PJ (1994) Opportunities for gene transfer from transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus) to related species. Transgenic Res 3:263–278Google Scholar
  134. SIGMEA (2010) Sustainable introduction of GMO into the European agriculture. Deliverable: field/feral/volunteer/wild relative demography, Work package 2 (T2.2),
  135. Simard MJ, Légère A, Pageau D, Lajeunnesse J, Warwick S (2002) The frequency and persistence of canola (Brassica napus) volunteers in Québec cropping systems. Weed Technol 16:433–439Google Scholar
  136. Simard MJ, Légère A, Séguin-Swartz G, Nair H, Warwick S (2005) Fitness of double vs. single herbicide-resistant canola. Weed Sci 53:489–498Google Scholar
  137. Snow AA, Andersen B, Jørgensen RB (1999) Costs of transgenic herbicide resistance introgressed from Brassica napus into weedy B. rapa. Mol Ecol 8:605–615Google Scholar
  138. Squire GR (1999) Temperature and heterogeneity of emergence time in oilseed rape. Ann Appl Biol 135:439–447Google Scholar
  139. Squire GR, Breckling B, Dietz-Pfeilstetter A, Jørgensen RB, Lecomte J, Pivard S, Reuter H, Young MW (2011) Status of feral oilseed rape in Europe: its minor role as a GM impurity and its potential as a reservoir of transgene persistence. Environ Sci Pollut Res 18:111–115Google Scholar
  140. Stein AJ, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2010) International trade and the global pipeline of new GM crops. Nature Biotechnol 28:23–25Google Scholar
  141. Sutherland JP, Justinova L, Poppy GM (2006) The responses of crop–wild Brassica hybrids to simulated herbivory and interspecific competition: implications for transgene introgression. Environ Biosafety Res 5:15–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. Sweet J, Simpson E, Law J, Lutman P, Berry K, Payne R, Champion G, May M, Walker K, Wightman P, Lainsbury M (2004) Botanical and Rotational Implications of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerance (BRIGHT) HGCA Project Report 353, 265. HGCA London, UKGoogle Scholar
  143. Tamis WLM, de Jong TJ (2010) Transport chains and seed spillage of potential GM crops with wild relatives in the Netherlands. COGEM report: CGM 2010-02,
  144. Thomas D, Breve M, Raymer P (1991) Influence of timing and method of harvest on rapeseed yield. J Prod Agric 4:266–272Google Scholar
  145. Verordnung (2006) Verbot des Inverkehrbringens von gentechnisch verändertem Raps aus der Ölrapslinie GT73 in Österreich. Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Osterreich 13 April: 157Google Scholar
  146. Verordnung (2008) Verbot des Inverkehrbringens von gentechnisch verändertem Raps aus den Ölrapslinien MS8, RF3 and MS8xRF3 in Österreich. Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Osterreich 9 July: 246Google Scholar
  147. von der Lippe M, Kowarik I (2007a) Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver of plant invasions. Conserv Biol 21:986–996Google Scholar
  148. von der Lippe M, Kowarik I (2007b) Crop seed spillage along roads: a factor of uncertainty in the containment of GMO. Ecography 30:483–490Google Scholar
  149. Waltz E (2009) Battlefield. Nature 461:27–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. Warwick SI, Beckie HJ, Small E (1999) Transgenic crops: new weed problems for Canada? Phytoprotection 80:71–84Google Scholar
  151. Warwick SI, Simard MJ, Légère A, Beckie HJ, Braun L, Zhu B, Mason P, Séguin-Swartz G, Stewart CN Jr (2003) Hybridization between transgenic Brassica napus L. and its wild relatives: B. rapa L., Raphanus raphanistrum L., Sinapis arvensis L., and Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O.E. Schulz. Theor Appl Genet 107:528–539PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. Warwick S, Beckie HJ, Simard MJ, Légère A, Nair H, Séguin-Swartz G (2004) Environmental and agronomic consequences of herbicide-resistant (HR) canola in Canada. In: den Nijs HCM, Bartsch D, Sweet J (eds) Introgression from genetically modified plants into wild relatives. CABI publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp 323–337Google Scholar
  153. Warwick SI, Légère A, Simard M-J, James T (2008) Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population. Mol Ecol 17:1387–1395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. Warwick SI, Beckie HJ, Hall LM (2009) Gene flow, invasiveness, and ecological impact of genetically modified crops. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1168:72–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. Wichmann MC, Alexander MJ, Soons MB, Galsworthy S, Dunne L, Gould R, Fairfax C, Niggemann M, Hails RS, Bullock JM (2009) Human-mediated dispersal of seeds over long distances. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:523–532Google Scholar
  156. Wilkinson MJ, Ford CS (2007) Estimating the potential for ecological harm from gene flow to crop wild relatives. Collect Biosafety Rev 3:42–63Google Scholar
  157. Wilkinson MJ, Tepfer M (2009) Fitness and beyond: preparing for the arrival of GM crops with ecologically important novel characters. Environ Biosafety Res 8:1–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. Wilkinson MJ, Timmons AM, Charters Y, Dubbels S, Robertson A, Wilson N, Scott S, O’Brien E, Lawson HM (1995) Problems of risk assessment with genetically modified oilseed rape. In: Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference Weeds 3:1035–1044Google Scholar
  159. Wilkinson MJ, Sweet J, Poppy GM (2003) Risk assessment of GM plants: avoiding gridlock? Trends Plant Sci 8:208–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. Windels P, Alcalde E, Lecoq E, Legris G, Pleysier A, Tinland B, Wandelt C (2008) General surveillance for import and processing: the EuropaBio approach. J Consum Prot Food Safety 3(S2):14–16Google Scholar
  161. Yoshimura Y, Beckie HJ, Matsuo K (2006) Transgenic oilseed rape along transportation routes and port of Vancouver in western Canada. Environ Biosafety Res 5:67–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. Zwaenepoel A, Roovers P, Hermy M (2006) Motor vehicles as vectors of plant species from road verges in a suburban environment. Basic Appl Ecol 7:83–93Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yann Devos
    • 1
  • Rosemary S. Hails
    • 2
  • Antoine Messéan
    • 3
  • Joe N. Perry
    • 4
  • Geoffrey R. Squire
    • 5
  1. 1.European Food Safety AuthorityGMO UnitParmaItaly
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyOxfordUK
  3. 3.INRA, Unité Eco-InnovThiveral-GrignonFrance
  4. 4.Oaklands BarnNorfolkUK
  5. 5.The James Hutton InstituteDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations