Advertisement

Field Trials with GM Trees: A Step-by-Step Approach

  • Debora C. M. GlandorfEmail author
  • Didier Breyer
Chapter
Part of the Forestry Sciences book series (FOSC, volume 82)

Abstract

Field trials are an important step in the experimental research with and commercial development of genetically modified (GM) plants, including GM trees . Field trials with GM plants in the European Union (EU) are subject to authorisation granted on the basis of an environmental risk assessment (ERA). Data requirement for the ERA varies depending on the purpose of the field trial and the level of knowledge on the GM plant and its environmental impact. In the Netherlands a step-by-step approach has been developed for the categorisation of field trials. Under this approach the confinement of GM plants in a field trial can be gradually decreased and the scale of the trial increased in a step-wise manner at the same time that knowledge on the GM plant and its environmental interactions increases. Very few other countries seem to apply a similar classification of field trials. We argue that a formal step-by-step approach may be a helpful tool to facilitate the approval process for field trials of GM plants and the collection of relevant data/material for the ERA without compromising the environmental safety, and that this approach is also applicable to field trials with GM trees.

Keywords

Field trials Genetically modified GM trees Environmental risk assessment Uncertainties 

References

  1. Aguilera J, Nielsen KM, Sweet J (2013) Risk assessment of GM trees in the EU: current regulatory framework and guidance. iForest 6:127–131Google Scholar
  2. CFIA (2014) Directive Dir2000-07: Conducting confined research field trials of plant with novel traits in Canada. Available online: www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel-traits/applicants/directive-dir2000-07/eng/1304474667559/1304474738697
  3. COGEM (2005) Advies indeling veldwerkzaamheden genetisch gemodificeerde planten CGM/050929-03. Available online: www.cogem.net
  4. COGEM (2008) Herziening advies indeling veldwerkzaamheden met genetisch gemodificeerde planten. CGM/081125-02. Available online: www.cogem.net
  5. COGEM (2010a) Kleinschalige veldproef met genetisch gemodificeerde populieren met een verminderd ligninegehalte. CGM/081205-01. Available online: www.cogem.net
  6. COGEM (2010b)Veldproef met genetisch gemodificeerde schurftresistente appelbomen. CGM/101214-01. Available online: www.cogem.net
  7. CPB (2012) Guidance on risk assessment of Living Modified Organisms. Available online: www.bch.cbd.int
  8. EC (2002) Commission Decision 2002/623/EC of 24 July 2002 establishing guidance notes supplementing Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official J Eur Commu L200:22–33Google Scholar
  9. EFSA (2008) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants—challenges and approaches. IN colloquium Es (Ed.) EFSA scientific colloquium—summary reportGoogle Scholar
  10. EFSA (2009) Guidance of the scientific committee on transparency in the scientific aspects of risk assesments carried out by EFSA. Part 2: general principles. EFSA J 1051:1–22Google Scholar
  11. EFSA (2010) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). EFSA J 8(11):1879–1990Google Scholar
  12. EU (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official J Eur Commun L106:1–38Google Scholar
  13. EU (2003) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Official J Eur Commun L 268:1–23Google Scholar
  14. Finstad K, Bonfils A-C, Shearer W, Macdonald P (2007) Trees with novel traits in Canada: regulations and related scientific issues. Tree Genet Genomes 3:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fladung M, Altosaar I, Bartsch D, Baucher M, Boscaleri F, Gallardo F, Häggman H, Hoenicka H, Nielsen K, Paffetti D, Séguin A, Stotzky G, Vettori C (2012) European discussion forum on transgenic tree biosafety. Nat Biotechnol 30:37–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Glandorf DCM (2014) Categorisation of field trials with GM plants in the Netherlands: applicable to field trials with GM forest trees? iForest 8:222–225 doi: 10.3832/ifor1311-008. Available online: www.sisef.it/iforest/contents/?id=ifor1311-008 Google Scholar
  17. Häggman H, Raybould A. Borem A, Fox T, Handley L, Hertzberg M, Lu M, MacDonald P, Oguchi T, Pasquali G, Pearson L, Peter G, Quemada H, Séquin A, Tattersall K, Ulian E, Walter C, McLean M (2013) Genetically engineered trees for plantation forests: key considerations for environmental risk assessment. Plant Biotechnol J:1–14Google Scholar
  18. Hoenicka H, Fladung M (2006) Biosafety in Populus spp. and other forest trees: from non-native species to taxa derived from traditional breeding and genetic engineering. Trees 20:131–144Google Scholar
  19. Lang A, Lauber E, Darvas B (2007) Early-tier tests insufficient for GMO risk assessment. Nat Biotechnol 25(1):35–36; Author reply 36–37Google Scholar
  20. OECD (2014) Safety assessment of transgenic organisms. OECD Consensus Documents. Available online: www.oecd.org/env/ehs/biotrack
  21. Romeis J, Meissle M, Bigler F (2006) Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biological control. Nat Biotechnol 24(1):63–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GMO OfficeNational Institute of Public Health and the EnvironmentBilthovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Scientific Institute of Public HealthBiosafety and Biotechnology UnitBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations