Advertisement

GeneRisk pp 269-294 | Cite as

International vergleichende Analyse und Bewertung der Konzepte zur GVO-Risikoanalyse

  • Hartmut MeyerEmail author
Chapter
  • 2.2k Downloads
Part of the Umweltnatur- & Umweltsozialwissenschaften book series (UMWELTNATUR)

Zusammenfassung

Im internationalen Zusammenhang werden Fragen des Umgangs mit GVO vielfältig diskutiert. Eine besondere Rolle spielt dabei die Wahrung der Entscheidungsfreiheit und Souveränität der Staaten, dieses Thema für ihr jeweiliges Territorium zu regeln. Einen wesentlichen Inhalt bildet die Entwicklung von Regeln und Normen für den Umgang mit dem Handel, der grenzüberschreitenden Verbringung von GVO und der biologischen Sicherheit. Standards hierzu formuliert das internationale Abkommen über Biologische Sicherheit (Cartagena-Protocol on Biosafety1). Dieses Abkommen wurde im Rahmen der Biodiversitätskonvention etabliert (Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); http://www.cbd.int). Beide Konventionen werden im Rahmen regelmäßiger Konferenzen weiter entwickelt. Seitens des GeneRisk-Projekts wurden Aspekte zur Ausarbeitung des systemischen Charakters von GVO-Risiken in einer Begleitveranstaltung zur letzten Tagung der Mitglieder des Cartagena Protokolls in Nagoya (Japan) in einer Begleitveranstaltung zur sozialen Nachhaltigkeit und biologischen Sicherheit präsentiert (Breckling 2010).

Zitierte Literatur

  1. Abaza H, Bisset R, Sadler B (2004) Environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment: towards an integrated approach. UN Environmental Program, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  2. Aheto DW (2009) Implication analysis for biotechnology regulation and management in Africa. Baseline studies for assessment of potential effects of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) cultivation in Ghanaian agriculture. Peter Lang, Basel, Frankfurt/MGoogle Scholar
  3. Aheto DW, Reuter H, Breckling B (2011) A modelling assessment of geneflow in smallholder agriculture in West Africa. Environ Sci Eur 23(9). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ 2190-4715-23-9
  4. Andow DA, Birch ANE, Dusi AN, Fontes EMG, Hilbeck A, Lang A, Lövei GL, Pires CSS, Sujii ER, Underwood E, Wheatley RE (2006) Non-target and biodiversity risk assessment for genetically modified (GM) crops. Proceedings of 9th international symposium on the biosafety of genetically modified organisms, Jeju Island, Korea, pp 68–73Google Scholar
  5. Andow DA, Hilbeck A (2004) Science-based risk assessment for nontarget effects of transgenic crops. BioScience 54:637–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andow DA, Hilbeck A, Nguyen VT (2008) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, Volume 4: Challenges and opportunities with Bt cotton in Vietnam. Cabi Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Andow DA, Zwahlen C (2006) Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecol Lett 9:196–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anonymus (2010) EU GMO proposals draw widespread criticism. EurActiv Network, Brussels, 14.07.2010Google Scholar
  9. Berg P, Baltimore D, Nathans D, Boyer HW, Roblin R, Cohen SN, Watson JD, Davis RW, Weissman S, Hogness DS, Zinder ND (1974) Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Proc Natl Acad Sci 71:2593–2594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breckling B (2010) Assessing Systemic Risks. Contribution to the Scientific Conference & Citizen Forum: Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety. Scientific Findings, Policy Responses and Public Participation – Social Sustainability and Biological Safety. Nagaoya/Japan, 7.-8.10.2010, http://www.ensser.org/activities/meetings/biosafety-conference-nagoya/; http://www.ensser.org/uploads/media/KN4-Breckling-EN.pdf; http://www.ensser.org/uploads/pics/KN4_Breckling.pdf
  11. Breckling B, Laue H, Pehlke H (2011a) Remote sensing as a data source to analyse regional implications of genetically modified plants in agriculture – Oilseed rape (Brassica napus) in Northern Germany. Ecological Indicators 11(4):942–950. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breckling B, Reuter H, Middelhoff U, Glemnitz M, Wurbs A, Schmidt G, Schröder W, Windhorst W (2011b) Risk indication of genetically modified organisms (GMO): modelling environmental exposure and dispersal across different scales. Ecological Indicators 11(4):936–941. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Briggs DJ (2008) A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks. Environ Health 7:61–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brush S, Chauvet M (2004) Assessment of social and cultural effects associated with transgenic maize production. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, QuebecGoogle Scholar
  15. Buckley R (2000) Strategic environmental assessment of policies and plans: legislation and implementation. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 18:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. CBD (2004) Decision VI/7. Identification, monitoring, indicators and assessments. Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity related issues into environmental-impact-assessment legislation or processes and in strategic impact assessment. Secretarial of the Convention on Biological Diversity, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  17. CBD (2006) CBD Technical Series No. 26 – Biodiversity in impact assessment. Background document to CBD Decision VIII/28: Voluntary guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment. Secretarial of the Convention on Biological Diversity, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  18. CEC (2004) Maize & Biodiversity. The effects of transgenic maize in Mexico – Key findings and recommendations. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, QuebecGoogle Scholar
  19. Chaker A, El-Fad K, Chamas L, Hatjian B (2006) A review of strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26:15–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chipman A (2010) Fears over Europe’s GM crop plan. Nature 466:542–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. COGEM (2009) Socio-economic aspects of GMOs. Building blocks for an EU sustainability assessment of genetically modified crops. Commissie Genetische Modificatie, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohen SN (1975) The manipulation of genes. Sci Am 233:25–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cohen SN (1977) Recombinant DNA: fact and fiction. Science 195:654–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Commandeur P, Joly PB, Levidow L, Tappeser B, Terragni F (1996) Public debate and regulation of biotechnology in Europe. Biotech Dev Monit 26:2–9Google Scholar
  25. Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA (2009) Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. de Greef W (2004) The Cartagena Protocol and the future of agbiotech. Nat Biotechnol 22:811–812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Deutscher Bundestag (1987) Chancen und Risiken der Gentechnologie. Deutscher Bundestag, BonnGoogle Scholar
  28. Devos, Y, Reheul D, Dewaele D, van Speybroeck, L (2006) The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union. Environ Biosaf Res 5:127–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. EFSA (2010a) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 8(11):1879 doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879Google Scholar
  30. EFSA (2010b) Scientific Opinion on the assessment of potential impacts of genetically modified plants on non-target organisms. EFSA J 8(11):1879 doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1877Google Scholar
  31. EPA (2001) Bt cotton confirmatory data and terms and conditions of the amendment. EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. European Commission (2010) New policy for genetically modified organisms (GMO) cultivation. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  33. 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):90–107Google Scholar
  34. Food and Drug Administration (1992) Statement of policy & guidance to industry: foods derived from new plant varieties. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MDGoogle Scholar
  35. Garcia-Alonso M, Jakobs E, Raybould A, Nickson TE, Sowig P, Willekens H, van der Kouwe P, Layton R, Amijee F, Fuentes AM (2006) A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 5:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402(Suppl):6761Google Scholar
  37. Glemnitz M, Wurbs A, Roth R (2011) Derivation of regional crop sequences as an indicator for potential GMO dispersal on large spatial scales. Ecological Indicators 11(4):964–973. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gnansounou E (2011) Assessing the sustainability of biofuels: a logic-based model. Energy 36: 2089–2096Google Scholar
  39. Goodell RS (1979) Public involvement in the DNA controversy: the case of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sci Technol Human Values 4:36–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goodland R (2005) Strategic environmental assessment and the World Bank group. Inter J Sustain Dev World Ecol 12:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gupta A (1999) Framing “biosafety” in an international context: the biosafety protocol negotiations. Harvard University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Helbing D (2009) Systemic risks in society and economics. Working Paper 09-12-044. Santa Fe Institute, Santa FeGoogle Scholar
  43. Herbig J (1978) Die Gen-Ingenieure. Hanser, München & WienGoogle Scholar
  44. Hilbeck A, Andow DA (2004) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, Volume 1: A case study of Bt maize in Kenya. Cabi Publishing, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hilbeck A, Andow DA, Fontes EMG (2006) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, Volume 2: Methodologies for assessing Bt cotton in Brazil. Cabi Publishing, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hilbeck A, Baumgartner M, Fried PM, Bigler F (1998a) Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environ Entymol 27:480–487Google Scholar
  47. Hilbeck, A, Meier MS, Raps A (2000) Review on non-target organisms and Bt plants. Report prepared for Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. EcoStrat GmbH, Ecological Technology Assessment & Environmental Consulting, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  48. Hilbeck A, Moar WJ, Pusztai-Carey M, Filippini A, Bigler F (1998b) Toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin to the predator Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environ Entymol 27:1255–1263Google Scholar
  49. Hill RA (2005) Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 4:67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hill RA, Sendashonga C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ Biosaf Res 2:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. IRGC (2008) An introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework. International Risk Governance Council, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  52. Jänsch S, Amorim MJ, Römbke J (2005) Identification of the ecological requirements of important terrestrial ecotoxicological test species. Environ Rev 13:51–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jay S (2010) Strategic environmental assessment for energy production. Energy Policy 38:3489–3497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Keller C, Koechlin F (1989) Basler Appell gegen Gentechnologie: Materialband Kongress vom 5./6. November 1988 in Basel. Rotpunktverlag, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  55. Kollek R, Tappeser B, Altner G (1986) Gentechnologie Chancen und Risiken Bd. 10. Die ungeklärten Gefahrenpotentiale der Gentechnologie: Dokumentation eines öffentlichen Fachsymposiums vom 7.-9. März 1986 in Heidelberg. J Schweitzer Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  56. Kvakkestad V, Gillund F, Kjølberg KA, Vatn A (2007) Scientists perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environ Values 16:79–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Levidow L, Carr S, Wiel D (2000) Genetically modified crops in the European Union: regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities. J Risk Res 3:189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Linacre NA, Gaskell J, Rosegrant MW, Falck-Zepeda J, Quemada H, Halsey M, Birner R (2006) Strategic environmental assessments for genetically modified organisms. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 24:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marvier M, McCreedy MC, Regetz J, Kaveira P (2007) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316:1475–1477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McMichael A (2008) Environmental change, climate and population health: a challenge for inter-disciplinary research. Environ Health Prev Med 13:183–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meyer H (2000) The Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Biotech Dev Monit 43:2–7Google Scholar
  63. Meyer H (2007) The precautionary principle and the Cartagena protocol on biosafety: development of a concept. In: Traavik T, Li Ching L (eds) Biosafety first – Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, pp 469–482Google Scholar
  64. Middelhoff U, Reiche EW, Windhorst W (2011a) An integrative methodology to predict dispersal of genetically modified genotypes in oilseed rape at landscape-level—A study for the region of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological Indicators 11(4):1000–1007. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Middelhoff U, Reuter H, Breckling B (2011b) GeneTraMP, a spatio-temporal model of the dispersal and persistence of transgenes in feral, volunteer and crop plants of oilseed rape and related species. Ecological Indicators 11(4):974–988. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Millstone E, Zwanenberg P van, Marris C, Levidow L, Torgersen H (2004) Science in trade disputes related to potential risks: comparative case studies. European Commission, SevilleGoogle Scholar
  67. Ming-Lone L, Yue-Hwa Y (2004) Development and implementation of strategic environmental assessment in Taiwan. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nelson KC, Banker MJ (2007) Problem formulation and options assessment handbook. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  69. Nickson TE (2008) Planning environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops: problem formulation for stress-tolerant crops. Plant Physiol 147:494–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. NRC (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  71. Obrycki J, Losey JE, Taylor OR, Jesse LCH (2001) Transgenic insecticidal corn: beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity. BioScience 51:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. OECD (2003) Emerging risks in the 21st century – An agenda for action. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  73. OECD (2006) Applying strategic environmental assessment. Good Practice guidance for development cooperation. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  74. OECD (2008) Strategic environmental assessment and ecosystem services. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  75. Office of Science and Technology Policy (1986) Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  76. Otsuka Y (2003) Socioeconomic considerations relevant to the sustainable development, use and control of genetically modified foods. Food Sci Tech 14:294–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pollack A (2011) U.S.D.A. ruling on Bluegrass stirs cries of lax regulation. The New York Times, 06.07.2011Google Scholar
  78. Raybould A (2006) Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ Biosaf Res 5:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Raybould A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci 173:589–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Reardon S (2011) EPA proposal would exempt some GMOs from registry. Science 322:652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Reuter H, Schmidt G, Schröder W, Middelhoff U, Pehlke H, Breckling B (2011) Regional distribution of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—Up-scaling the dispersal and persistence potential of herbicide resistant oilseed rape (Brassisca napus). Ecological Indicators 11(4):989–999. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rodgers J (1981) Asilomar revisited. Mosaic Jan/Feb 1981:19–25Google Scholar
  83. Römbke J, Jänsch S, Meier M, Hilbeck A, Teichmann H, Tappeser B (2009) General recommendations for soil ecotoxicological tests suitable for the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6:287–300Google Scholar
  84. Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MMC, Hartley SE, Hellmich RL, Huesing JE, Jepson PC, Layton R, Quemada H, Raybould A, Rose RI, Schiemann J, Sears MK, Shelton AM, Sweet J, Vaituzis Z, Wolt JD (2008) Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nat Biotechnol 26:203–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schmidt G, Schröder W (2011) Regionalisation of climate variability used for modelling the dispersal of genetically modified oil seed rape in Northern Germany. Ecological Indicators 11(4):951–963. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Singer M, Soll D (1973) Guidelines for DNA hybrid molecules. Science 181:1114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Slovic P (2001) The risk game. J Hazard Mater 89:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Snow AA, Andow DA, Gepts P, Hallerman EM, Power A, Tiedje JM (2005) Genetically modified organisms and the environment: current status and recommendations. Ecol Appl 15:377–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Snow AA, Moran-Palma P (1997) Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. BioScience 47:86–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stoeglehner G, Brown AL, Kørnøv LB (2009) SEA and planning: ‘ownership’ of strategic environmental assessment by the planners is the key to its effectiveness. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 27:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Suter GW (1993) Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  92. Therivel R, Wilson E, Thompson S, Heaney D, Pritchard D (1992) Strategic environmental assessment. Earthscan Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  93. Voosen P (2011) In major shift, USDA clears way for modified Bluegrass. The New York Times, 06.07.2011Google Scholar
  94. Watson JD (1977a) An imaginary monster. Bull At Sci 33:19–20Google Scholar
  95. Watson JD (1977b) Remarks on recombinant DNA. CoEvol Quart Summer:40–41Google Scholar
  96. Wright S (1994) Molecular politics. Developing American and British regulatory policy for genetic engineering, 1972–1982. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  97. Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10:445CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vereinigung Deutscher WissenschaftlerBraunschweigDeutschland

Personalised recommendations