The competitiveness of two transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus ssp. napus) lines and their fertile transgenic hybrid was tested in field trials in Belgium and Denmark. The lines contained genes for male sterility, restoration of fertility and herbicide resistance. The competitiveness of the three transgenic lines was related to three non-transformed commercially-grown oilseed rape varieties: Drakkar, Topas and Line. As a reference of a more aggressive crucifer, white mustard (Sinapis alba) was also included in the experiment. The experimental design was a complete block design with two locations, monocultures and mixtures with barley (Hordeum vulgate), three plant densities, four harvest times and four blocks. The yield density relationship of the transgenic oilseed rape lines was not different from that of the non-transgenic varieties in either location. The first harvest times showed a vigorous biomass production of white mustard, which in turn produced a significant difference in the competitive ability between oilseed rape and white mustard. Later, this difference decreased, and in Belgium there was no difference at the last harvest time. Variations within populations may blur actual differences between lines and varieties, and it is argued that unless the experimental design covers a range of competitiveness for which it is possible to detect significant differences, test results reporting a lack of difference between transgenic and non-transgenic plants are of little value.

The European Union (EU) Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment requires that both Case-Specific Monitoring (CSM) and General Surveillance (GS) are considered as post-market implementing measures. Whereas CSM is directed to monitor potential adverse effects of GMOs or their use identified in the environmental risk assessment, GS aims to detect un-intended adverse effects of GMOs or their use on human and animal health or the environment. Guidance documents on the monitoring of genetically modified (GM) plants from the Commission and EFSA clarify that, as appropriate, GS can make use of established routine surveillance practices. Networks involved in routine surveillance offer recognised expertise in a particular domain and are designed to collect information on important environmental aspects over a large geographical area. However, as the suitability of existing monitoring networks to provide relevant data for monitoring impacts of GMOs is not known, plant biotechnology companies developed an approach to describe the processes and criteria that will be used for selecting and evaluating existing monitoring systems. In this paper, the availability of existing monitoring networks for this purpose is evaluated. By cataloguing the existing environmental monitoring networks in the EU, it can be concluded that they can only be used, in the context of GMO cultivation monitoring, as secondary tools to collect baseline information.

When biosafety for contained use is addressed in international fora and discussions, often the topic is limited to working with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in facilities such as laboratories, animal facilities, and greenhouses. However, the scope of biosafety in containment encompasses many other types of biological materials, such as human, animal and plant pathogens, nucleic acids, proteins, human samples, animals or plants, or by-products thereof, and overlaps often with the topic of biosecurity. This is also reflected in the regulations that apply for activities with biological materials in contained facilities. The common denominator of these regulations is the focus on protection of people and environment, while applying the key principles of risk assessment and risk management. This review provides an overview of regulatory frameworks for biosafety and biosecurity in containment around the globe, as well as points out overlap with other regulatory frameworks, such as the Nagoya Protocol, or Plant and Animal Health regulations.

The T‐DNA genes 1 and 2 of the Ti plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens are involved in the biosynthesis of IAA in transformed plant cells. Previously, it has been shown that gene 2 codes for an amidohydrolase able to convert IAM into IAA. We have isolated Nicotiana tabacum regenerates transformed with either gene 1 or genes 6a and 6b of the T‐DNA. The tobacco plants transformed with gene 1 contain 500–1000‐times more IAM as compared to plants transformed with genes 6a and 6b, and as compared to untransformed control plants. No drastic differences in endogenous IAA concentrations were observed between the three plant types analyzed.

No abstract