No abstract

Genetically modified (GM) maize MON810 expresses a Cry1Ab insecticidal protein, derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), toxic to lepidopteran target pests such as Ostrinia nubilalis. An environmental risk to non-target Lepidoptera from this GM crop is exposure to harmful amounts of Bt-containing pollen deposited on host plants in or near MON810 fields. An 11-parameter mathematical model analysed exposure of larvae of three non-target species: the butterflies Inachis io (L.), Vanessa atalanta (L.) and moth Plutella xylostella (L.), in 11 representative maize cultivation regions in four European countries. A mortality–dose relationship was integrated with a dose–distance relationship to estimate mortality both within the maize MON810 crop and within the field margin at varying distances from the crop edge. Mortality estimates were adjusted to allow for physical effects; the lack of temporal coincidence between the susceptible larval stage concerned and the period over which maize MON810 pollen is shed; and seven further parameters concerned with maize agronomy and host-plant ecology. Sublethal effects were estimated and allowance made for aggregated pollen deposition. Estimated environmental impact was low: in all regions, the calculated mortality rate for worst-case scenarios was less than one individual in every 1572 for the butterflies and one in 392 for the moth.

Systematic reviews and systematic maps represent powerful tools to identify, collect, evaluate and summarise primary research pertinent to a specific research question or topic in a highly standardised and reproducible manner. Even though they are seen as the "gold standard" when synthesising primary research, systematic reviews and maps are typically resource-intensive and complex activities. Thus, managing the conduct and reporting of such reviews can become a time consuming and challenging task. This paper introduces the open access online tool CADIMA, which was developed through a collaboration between the Julius Kühn-Institut and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, in order to increase the efficiency of the evidence synthesis process and facilitate reporting of all activities to maximise methodological rigour. Furthermore, we analyse how CADIMA compares with other available tools by providing a comprehensive summary of existing software designed for the purposes of systematic review management. We show that CADIMA is the only available open access tool that is designed to: (1) assist throughout the systematic review/map process; (2) be suited to reviews broader than medical sciences; (3) allow for offline data extraction; and, (4) support working as a review team.

SUMMARYSeveral new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) have been developed during the last decade, and make it possible to precisely perform genome modifications in plants. The major problem, other than technical aspects, is the vagueness of regulation concerning these new techniques. Since the definition of eight NPBTs by a European expert group in 2007, there has been an ongoing debate on whether the resulting plants and their products are covered by GMO legislation. Obviously, cover by GMO legislation would severely hamper the use of NPBT, because genetically modified plants must pass a costly and time-consuming GMO approval procedure in the EU. In this review, we compare some of the NPBTs defined by the EU expert group with classical breeding techniques and conventional transgenic plants. The list of NPBTs may be shortened (or extended) during the international discussion process initiated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. From the scientific point of view, it may be argued that plants developed by NPBTs are often indistinguishable from classically bred plants and are not expected to possess higher risks for health and the environment. In light of the debate on the future regulation of NPBTs and the accumulated evidence on the biosafety of genetically modified plants that have been commercialized and risk-assessed worldwide, it may be suggested that plants modified by crop genetic improvement technologies, including genetic modification, NPBTs or other future techniques, should be evaluated according to the new trait and the resulting end product rather than the technique used to create the new plant variety.

Novel plant genome editing techniques call for an updated legislation regulating the use of plants produced by genetic engineering or genome editing, especially in the European Union. Established more than 25 years ago and based on a clear distinction between transgenic and conventionally bred plants, the current EU Directives fail to accommodate the new continuum between genetic engineering and conventional breeding. Despite the fact that the Directive 2001/18/EC contains both process- and product-related terms, it is commonly interpreted as a strictly process-based legislation. In view of several new emerging techniques which are closer to the conventional breeding than common genetic engineering, we argue that it should be actually interpreted more in relation to the resulting product. A legal guidance on how to define plants produced by exploring novel genome editing techniques in relation to the decade-old legislation is urgently needed, as private companies and public researchers are waiting impatiently with products and projects in the pipeline. We here outline the process in the EU to develop a legislation that properly matches the scientific progress. As the process is facing several hurdles, we also compare with existing frameworks in other countries and discuss ideas for an alternative regulatory system.