Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental change challenges decision-making during post-market environmental monitoring of transgenic crops

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Transgenic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability to decide what kind of environmental changes observed during post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified (GM) crops represent environmental harm is an essential part of most legal frameworks regulating the commercial release of GM crops into the environment. Among others, such decisions are necessary to initiate remedial measures or to sustain claims of redress linked to environmental liability. Given that consensus on criteria to evaluate ‘environmental harm’ has not yet been found, there are a number of challenges for risk managers when interpreting GM crop monitoring data for environmental decision-making. In the present paper, we argue that the challenges in decision-making have four main causes. The first three causes relate to scientific data collection and analysis, which have methodological limits. The forth cause concerns scientific data evaluation, which is controversial among the different stakeholders involved in the debate on potential impacts of GM crops on the environment. This results in controversy how the effects of GM crops should be valued and what constitutes environmental harm. This controversy may influence decision-making about triggering corrective actions by regulators. We analyse all four challenges and propose potential strategies for addressing them. We conclude that environmental monitoring has its limits in reducing uncertainties remaining from the environmental risk assessment prior to market approval. We argue that remaining uncertainties related to adverse environmental effects of GM crops would probably be assessed in a more efficient and rigorous way during pre-market risk assessment. Risk managers should acknowledge the limits of environmental monitoring programmes as a tool for decision-making.

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

References

  • ACRE (2002) The criteria used by ACRE to gauge harm when giving advice on the risks of releasing genetically modified organisms to the environment. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, London

    Google Scholar 

  • ACRE (2004) Guidance on best practice in the design of post-market monitoring plans in submission to the advisory committee on releases to the environment. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, London

    Google Scholar 

  • ACRE (2007) Managing the footprint of agriculture: towards a comparative assessment of risks and benefits for novel agricultural systems. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Aviron S, Sanvido O, Herzog F, Baudry J, Romeis J, Bigler F (2006) Monitoring effects of GM crops on butterflies: the use of multiscale approaches for general surveillance. J Consum Protect 1:85–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Aviron S, Nitsch H, Jeanneret P, Buholzer S, Luka H, Pfiffner L et al (2009a) Ecological cross compliance promotes farmland biodiversity in Switzerland. Front Ecol Environ 7:247–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aviron S, Sanvido O, Romeis J, Herzog F, Bigler F (2009b) Case-specific monitoring of butterflies to determine potential effects of transgenic Bt-maize in Switzerland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131:137–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey D, Herzog F (2004) Landscape monitoring. In: Wiersma BG (ed) Environmental monitoring. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 307–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch D, Bigler F, Castanera P, Gathmann A, Gielkens M, Hartley S et al. (2006) Concepts for general surveillance of genetically modified (GM) plants: the EFSA position. J Consum Protect 1:15–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartz R, Heink U, Kowarik I (2010) Proposed definition of environmental damage illustrated by the cases of genetically modified crops and invasive species. Conserv Biol 24:675–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baudry J, Burel F, Thenail C, Le Coeur D (2000) A holistic landscape ecological study of the interactions between farming activities and ecological patterns in Brittany, France. Landsc Urban Plann 50:119–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bockstaller C, Guichard L, Keichinger O, Girardin P, Galan MB, Gaillard G (2009) Comparison of methods to assess the sustainability of agricultural systems. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohan DA, Boffey CWH, Brooks DR, Clark SJ, Dewar AM, Firbank LG et al (2005) Effects on weed and invertebrate abundance and diversity of herbicide management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant winter-sown oilseed rape. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 272:463–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohanec M, Messean A, Scatasta S, Angevin F, Griffiths B, Krogh PH et al (2008) A qualitative multi-attribute model for economic and ecological assessment of genetically modified crops. Ecol Model 215:247–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks DR, Bohan DA, Champion GT, Haughton AJ, Hawes C, Heard MS et al (2003) Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops I. Soil-surface-active invertebrates. Philos T Roy Soc B 358:1847–1862

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bürgi M, Hersperger AM, Schneeberger N (2004) Driving forces of landscape change—current and new directions. Landsc Ecol 19:857–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calow P (1994) Ecotoxicology—what are we trying to protect. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:1549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter J, Felsot A, Goode T, Hammig M, Onstad D, Sankula S (2002) Comparative environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soybean, corn, and cotton crops. Council for Agricultural Science and technology, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2000) Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2006) Report of the open-ended ad hoc working group of legal and technical experts on liability and redress in the context of the Cartagena protocol on biosafety on the work of its second meeting. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/3/10. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

  • Cerdeira AL, Duke SO (2006) The current status and environmental impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops: a review. J Environ Qual 35:1633–1658

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain DE, Fuller RJ, Bunce RGH, Duckworth JC, Shrubb M (2000) Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. J Appl Ecol 37:771–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chassy B, Carter C, McGloughlin M, McHughen A, Parrott W, Preston C et al (2003) UK field-scale evaluations answer wrong questions. Nat Biotechnol 21:1429–1430

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • CSIRO (2003) Findings from the UK Farm Scale Evaluation of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops–an appraisal of their implications for Australia. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA (2005) Farm scale evaluations—managing GM crops with herbicides—effects on farmland wildlife. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Devos Y, Maeseele P, Reheul D, van Speybroeck L, De Waele D (2008) Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: a (re)quest for sense and sensibility. J Agr Environ Ethic 21:29–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewar AM, May MJ, Woiwod IP, Haylock LA, Champion GT, Garner BH et al (2003) A novel approach to the use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops for environmental benefit. Proc R Soc B 270:335–340

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF (2001) Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 268:25–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2005) Opinion of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms [GMO] related to the safeguard clause invoked by Hungary according to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC. EFSA J 228:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2006) Opinion of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms on the post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 319:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2010) Scientific opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for the environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA J 8:1821

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2004) Directive 2004/35/CE 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. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Strassburg

    Google Scholar 

  • European Community (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. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council (2002) Council decision of 3 October 2002 establishing guidance notes supplementing Annex VII 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. The Council of the European Union, Luxemburg

  • Ferguson CA, Carvalho L, Scott EM, Bowman AW, Kirika A (2008) Assessing ecological responses to environmental change using statistical models. J Appl Ecol 45:193–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Firbank LG, Forcella F (2000) Agriculture—genetically modified crops and farmland biodiversity. Science 289:1481–1482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Freckleton RP, Sutherland WJ, Watkinson AR (2003) Deciding the future of GM crops in Europe. Science 302:994–996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Groom G, Mucher CA, Ihse M, Wrbka T (2006) Remote sensing in landscape ecology: experiences and perspectives in a European context. Landsc Ecol 21:391–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hails RS (2000) Genetically modified plants—the debate continues. Trends Ecol Evol 15:14–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haughton AJ, Champion GT, Hawes C, Heard MS, Brooks DR, Bohan DA et al (2003) Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. II. Within-field epigeal and aerial arthropods. Philos T Roy Soc B 358:1863–1877

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holland JM (2004) The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe G (2004) Regulating transgenic crops: a comparative analysis of different regulatory processes. Transgen Res 13:5–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall EJP, Brown VK, Boatman ND, Lutman PJW, Squire GR, Ward LK (2003) The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Res 43:77–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May MJ, Champion GT, Dewar AM, Qi A, Pidgeon JD (2005) Management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet for spring and autumn environmental benefit. Proc R Soc B 272:111–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melo MA, Kido EA, Andrade P (2010) Post-market monitoring: legal framework in Brazil and first results. http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4528/version/1. Accessed 2 May 2011

  • Morris SH (2007) EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: a case of the emperor’s new clothes? Trends Biotechnol 25:2–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morris SH, Spillane C (2008) GM directive deficiencies in the European Union—the current framework for regulating GM crops in the EU weakens the precautionary principle as a policy tool. EMBO Rep 9:500–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2010) The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States. Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability. National Research Council, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1986) Recombinant DNA safety considerations. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry JN, Ter Braak CJF, Dixon PM, Duan JJ, Hails R, Huesken A et al (2009) Statistical aspects of environmental risk assessment of GM plants for effects on non-target organisms. Environ Biosafety Res 8:65–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perry JN, Devos Y, Arpaia S, Bartsch D, Gathmann A, Hails RS et al (2010) A mathematical model of exposure of nontarget Lepidoptera to Bt-maize pollen expressing Cry1Ab within Europe. Proc R Soc B 277:1417–1425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perry JN, Devos Y, Arpaia S, Bartsch D, Gathmann A, Hails RS et al (2011) The usefulness of a mathematical model of exposure for environmental risk assessment. Proc R Soc B 278:982–984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Phipps RH, Park JR (2002) Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. J Anim Feed Sci 11:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Powles SB (2008) Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learnt. Pest Manag Sci 64:360–365

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Raybould A (2006) Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessment of genetically modified crops. Environ Biosafety Res 5:119–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raybould A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci 173:589–602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Raybould A, Caron-Lormier G, Bohan DA (in press) Derivation and interpretation of hazard quotients to assess ecological risks from the cultivation of insect-resistant transgenic crops. J Agric Food Chem. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf1042079

  • Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ (2002) Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J Appl Ecol 39:157–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romeis J, Meissle M, Bigler F (2006) Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biological control. Nat Biotechnol 24:63–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens M, Hartley SE et al (2008) Nontarget arthropod risk assessment of insect-resistant GM crops. Nat Biotechnol 26:203–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Romeis J, Hellmich RL, Candolfi MP, Carstens KDS A, Gatehouse AMR, Herman RA et al (2011) Recommendations for the design of laboratory studies on non-target arthropods for risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. Transgen Res 20:1–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society (2003) GM crops, modern agriculture and the environment. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanvido O, Widmer F, Winzeler M, Bigler F (2005) A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants. Environ Biosafety Res 4:13–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F (2007) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Adv Biochem Engin/Biotechnol 107:235–278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F (2009) An approach for post-market monitoring of potential environmental effects of Bt-maize expressing Cry1ab on natural enemies. J Appl Entomol 133:236–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt K, Wilhelm R, Schmidtke J, Beissner L, Mönkemeyer W, Böttinger P et al (2008) Farm questionnaires for monitoring genetically modified crops. A case study using GM maize. Environ Biosafety Res 7:163–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SRU (2004) Environmental report 2004: ensuring environmental protection capacity. German Advisory Council on the Environment

  • Steffan-Dewenter I, Munzenberg U, Burger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suter GW (2000) Generic assessment endpoints are needed for ecological risk assessment. Risk Anal 20:173–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suter GW, Rodier DJ, Schwenk S, Troyer ME, Tyler PL, Urban DJ et al (2004) The US Environmental Protection Agency’s generic ecological assessment endpoints. Human Ecol Risk Assess 10:967–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan SY, Evans RR, Dahmer ML, Singh BK, Shaner DL (2005) Imidazolinone-tolerant crops: history, current status and future. Pest Manag Sci 61:246–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher MB (1991) Scientific requirements of a monitoring programme. In: Goldsmith B (ed) Monitoring for conservation and ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 15–32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vos P, Meelis E, Ter Keurs WJ (2000) A framework for the design of ecological monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and nature management. Environ Monit Assess 61:317–344

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz E (2009) Battlefield. Nature 461:27–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm R, Schiemann J (2006) Does the baseline concept provide appropriate tools for decision making? J Consum Protect 1:75–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfenbarger LL, Naranjo SE, Lundgren JG, Bitzer RJ, Watrud LS (2008) Bt crop effects on functional guilds of non-target arthropods: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 3:e2118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woodburn AT (2000) Glyphosate: production, pricing and use worldwide. Pest Manag Sci 56:309–312

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation within the National Research Programme 59 “Benefits and risks of the deliberate release of genetically modified plants” (Grant No. 405940-115586/1). The authors would like to thank Alan Raybould and Yann Devos for valuable comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Reckenholzstr. 191, 8046, Zürich, Switzerland

    Olivier Sanvido, Jörg Romeis & Franz Bigler

Authors
  1. Olivier Sanvido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jörg Romeis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Franz Bigler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Sanvido.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sanvido, O., Romeis, J. & Bigler, F. Environmental change challenges decision-making during post-market environmental monitoring of transgenic crops. Transgenic Res 20, 1191–1201 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-011-9524-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-011-9524-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation