what is one of the risks genetic modification may pose to the environment?

Introduction

Regulatory chance-management of GM crops oft uses comparative risk cess to inform controlling. Decisions may include whether to allow cultivation or importation of a particular crop in the relevant jurisdiction, and whether whatsoever weather need to be placed on those uses if they are permitted. Comparative run a risk cess contextualizes the chance by comparing the risks posed by the cultivation of the GM crop with the risks posed by the cultivation of the not-GM counterpart. If the risk assessment indicates that cultivating a GM crop poses no greater environmental risk than cultivating the non-GM counterpart, and so it might be thought that cultivating the GM ingather poses no unacceptable risk. However, judging the acceptability of a adventure goes beyond the scientific comparison of relative risks. In order to brand this point, nosotros discuss definitions of adventure, opportunity and acceptability. We concentrate on environmental risk assessment and GM crops, but our discussion is pertinent to hazard assessment and decision-making more generally.

Defining Risk and Opportunity

Risk may be expressed as a combination of the likelihood and severity of harm that may arise from chancy properties of a proposed activeness. Environmental risk assessors often call back of run a risk in terms of the potential exposure to the run a risk that can cause a impairment, where potential exposure is the expression of likelihood. Seriousness of harm is related to the caste of take chances, but as well contains subjective elements (see beneath). Risk is normally hard to quantify precisely, and nearly risk assessments rely on qualitative assessments and good judgment. If severe harm is probable, risk is loftier; and if the most serious believable outcome is little and unlikely, then risk may be regarded every bit negligible. However, fifty-fifty a tiny probability of a harmful upshot may be regarded every bit high take a chance if the harmful issue is serious. A severe decline in the population size of an endangered or iconic species might be one such outcome. Risk may likewise be regarded as non-negligible if low severity events are predicted to occur frequently (e.thou., Slovic, 1999).

Like considerations apply to the opportunities that may ascend from an activity. Opportunity is high if very valuable benefits are probable to arise, such as shifts to more sustainable agricultural practices as accept been seen in Canada with the widespread adoption of GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) canola varieties. Employ of tillage by growers prior to seeding for weed command for canola appears to take been eliminated and the significant shift to minimum and cypher tillage systems has reduced soil erosion, resulted in higher carbon sequestration in product areas, reduced the demand for herbicide applications and created cyberspace economic benefits for growers (Gusta et al., 2011; Smythe et al., 2011). Opportunity is negligible if the near valuable benefit is unlikely and of low value, such as cultivation of a GM drought tolerant crop in an area where atmospheric precipitation is almost never yield limiting. Opportunity may still be regarded every bit loftier if beneficial effects are unlikely, merely would be hugely valuable if they arose. The reduction of a non-target outcome to a highly benign or iconic insect species that may just rarely co-occur with crop production could be considered as highly beneficial. This may occur if tillage of the GM crop reduces the spraying of pesticides, either directly through endogenous insect protection or indirectly past carrying a disease tolerance that reduces the need to spray for an insect vector of the disease. Pregnant opportunity may also accumulate from frequent events of relatively low value.

Judging the Acceptability of Risk

Judging the acceptability of risk requires a method to weigh the opportunities against the risks of the activity nether consideration (Sanvido et al., 2012). Under ethical decision-making, if a risk exceeds an acceptability threshold, and then the risk is unacceptable regardless of the size of the opportunity. Under utilitarian decision-making, the course of activity posing the highest cyberspace opportunity—the opportunity minus the chance—must be selected. It follows that even astringent risks may be acceptable provided the opportunities are high enough, and that an increase in chance many be adequate provided it is outweighed by increased opportunity.

In do, determining the acceptability of risk for the cultivation of a GM crop is made difficult by the need to balance complicated sector needs with a broader public skilful. The 1993 Canadian Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology (Industry Canada, 1998; Gabler, 2008), for example, attempts to articulate guiding principles for how decisions could be structured. The framework captures the idea that whatever regulatory decisions should enable innovation, but also protect the surround and the health and well-being of citizens. Governments often have competing internal interests where departments of environment may view the opportunities for cultivating GM crops differently from Departments of Agriculture who see the acceptable risks and benefits of agronomics with a more than commercial perspective.

Determining whether an activity poses adequate gamble requires several hard judgments. First, one must determine what would be regarded equally harmful effects of the activity and what would be regarded as beneficial effects. In addition, one must decide how to judge the severity of damage and the value of benefits. While science may exist used to limit the scope of discussions of harm and do good to plausible effects of the proposed action (Raybould, 2010a), the designation of an effect as harmful, beneficial or neither, and the severity and value ascribed respectively to harmful and benign effects of a particular size relies on non-scientific criteria. These criteria may be based on personal values, an organisation'due south objectives or public policy depending on who will make the determination. For brevity, hereafter we refer to these non-scientific criteria as "policy objectives."

The 2d difficult judgment is how one will counterbalance risk and opportunity. One must consider whether certain effects should be unacceptable regardless of the size of the opportunity or whether the largest net opportunity will e'er be the preferred choice. In improver, ane volition need a method for evaluating net opportunity when benefits and harms may be very dissimilar; how, for example, does one evaluate the net opportunity if growing a certain crop is expected to increase yield but reduce other ecosystem services (de Groot et al., 2010).

The above considerations show the importance of setting clear policy objectives in order to ensure that the scientific parts of risk cess answer questions that are useful for conclusion-makers rather than questions that scientists may find interesting (Hill and Sendashonga, 2003; Evans et al., 2006). In practise, fifty-fifty with policy direction, such as a policy objective on the conservation of biodiversity, take chances assessors rely on professional judgment when they weigh prove in what is often a qualitative process and brand a number of "micro policy judgments" while conducting the assessment. Indeed, the promotion of "science-based risk assessment" (= science-led in our terms) (e.chiliad., Andow and Hilbeck, 2004; Kuntz et al., 2013) could lead to the mistaken and pernicious idea that it is desirable to eliminate consideration of policy objectives and judgment from risk assessment. Such thinking is almost guaranteed to produce controversy and paralyze decision-making (eastward.chiliad., Raybould, 2010b). Instead, "policy-led risk assessment" ought to be the aim (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual models of science-led and policy-led risk assessment.

In this commodity, we explore the implications of a change of emphasis from science to policy on 2 aspects of comparative ecology chance assessment of GM crops that are of electric current interest: trouble formulation and the use of profiling data from various omics techniques. While we focus on regulatory decision-making nigh GM crops, our remarks are relevant to all crops with novel phenotypes, yet they are produced, and to other types of decision-making, such as choosing which products to develop (Macdonald, 2014).

Trouble Conception

Risk Hypotheses and Controlling Criteria

In essence, regulatory risk assessments should examination hypotheses that help risk managers to brand good decisions most whether to permit particular activities. Trouble formulation is the process by which these risk hypotheses, and plans to exam them, are devised. While we concentrate on environmental risk posed by the tillage of GM crops, our comments are relevant to any regulatory controlling that makes utilize of risk assessment.

In regulatory environmental hazard assessment, decision-making criteria should relate to the probability and severity of environmentally harmful effects arising from the proposed activity covered by the regulations. In the instance of GM crops, the proposed activity volition be cultivation of a specified GM crop in a particular place, perhaps with other stipulations such as whether certain crop-protection chemicals will be applied to the crop. The definition of what is harmful is a affair for the risk managers based on their interpretation of the policy objectives of the legislation that the regulations are designed to implement.

At their most conservative, the chance hypotheses will exist that no harmful effect volition result from the proposed activity. If these hypotheses are corroborated under rigorous testing using information from reputable sources, including data from laboratory or field tests, the hazard managers can exist confident that the proposed activity poses negligible hazard, and then use that determination in their decision-making. Less conservative risk hypotheses acknowledge the probability and contextualize the impact of any harmful consequence; that is, the hypotheses under test would be that the gamble does non exceed a threshold of acceptability. The threshold may exist set to be the aforementioned as the risk posed by similar activities, or higher take chances could be tolerated if the activity provides greater opportunities; for example, greater risk might be acceptable for cultivation of a GM crop that provides higher yield or improved quality than the crops it volition replace. Rigorous corroboration of the hypotheses would signal that the risks could be placed in the context of those from comparable activities, such as the cultivation of a not–GM ingather that has a similar trait, even though the risks may non be negligible. That conclusion would contribute to controlling.

Placing Risks in Context of Current Practice

In theory, regulations could specify that certain effects are harmful if they are acquired by the cultivation of GM crops only are not harmful if caused by other activities. All the same, such definitions of impairment would violate accepted standards of skillful regulatory exercise. The OECD (2014) describes 8 Principles of Regulation, and defining furnishings every bit harmful only if they are caused past GM crops would violate at least iii of them: Principle 2 that regulations must have a sound legal and empirical basis; Principle 4 that regulations must minimize market distortions; and Principle 7 that regulations should be consistent with other regulations and policies. Hence, definitions of adequate risk for GM crops should consider what is regarded as acceptable for other agronomical practices.

Many publications take concluded that conceivable harmful environmental effects from cultivating GM crops are of the same type equally those from growing non-GM crops (e.1000., Tiedje et al., 1989; NRC, 2002; Perry et al., 2004; Lemaux, 2009). Hence, a hypothesis that growing a certain GM crop will cause no harm, is actually a hypothesis that growing the GM ingather will crusade no greater damage than the current practice that cultivation of the GM ingather may replace. Similarly, a hypothesis that growing a sure GM crop will poses no unacceptable chance, is really a hypothesis that any increase in risk caused by growing the GM ingather will be acceptable, either considering the increase falls below a threshold of acceptability or because the additional opportunities created by growing the crop are worth the risk. As "no boosted harm" sets a higher standard than "no unacceptable increase in take a chance," testing a hypothesis of no additional damage may exist regarded every bit rigorous testing of a hypothesis of no unacceptable increment in run a risk provided other factors that determine acceptability of risk, such as the size of the opportunity, are unchanged.

A hypothesis that growing a GM ingather will cause no unacceptable increment in hazard is useful in a least iii respects. First, corroboration or falsification of this hypothesis is valuable to risk managers. Second, it shows that GM regulation follows the Principles of Regulation past not treating GM crops differently from other agricultural practices. Finally, information technology is useful to risk assessors, because if "unacceptable risk" is sufficiently operationalized, gamble assessors have clarity about the data they need in order to conduct the risk assessment, namely data that test the hypothesis of no unacceptable risk.

Consider a proposal to cultivate a new diversity of GMHT canola that is likely to supplant long-standing cultivation of a non-GM ("conventional") canola. Also, suppose that the furnishings of recommended herbicide applications to the GMHT canola fall under regulations covering GM crops and the effects of recommended herbicide application to the conventional canola are covered by pesticide regulations. A possible effect of switching from conventional canola to the GMHT canola is a modify in the abundance and species diverseness of weeds owing to variation in their sensitivity to the different herbicides used on these crops (eastward.g., Perry et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2007). In assessing the risks posed by cultivating the GMHT canola, the Principles of Regulation advise that information technology would exist unreasonable to compare the weed flora in the GMHT canola regime with the weed flora if no herbicides were used; the comparison ought to be with the conventional herbicide management.

Assessing Risks Rather Than Measuring Differences

Identifying a fair comparator is only a partial solution to the problem of formulating a useful risk hypothesis. Countless changes in the weed flora are theoretically possible when switching from conventional to GMHT weed management. Science-led hazard assessment (Figure ane) might approach this trouble by setting upward multiple field trials at many sites over many years to measure the change in the weed flora when GMHT replaces conventional direction; in effect, the hypothesis under test would be one of no difference betwixt the weed floras of conventional and GMHT canola.

Comparing weed variety and abundance betwixt conventional and GMHT canola will almost inevitably reveal numerous statistically significant differences (e.g., Heard et al., 2003a,b), with the number limited only by the size of the experiments, the sensitivity of the measuring techniques and the imaginations of the researchers in devising ways to categorize deviation. However, few or even none of these differences may have any relevance to regulatory policy objectives. Consequently, cataloging differences is at all-time an inefficient way to acquit risk assessment, because effort is wasted on measurements of no value for conclusion-making. At worst it is ineffective and potentially counterproductive because decisions are made advertizing hoc in response to statistical significance, which tin can easily be spurious when many variables are measured (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995; Leek et al., 2017), rather than subsequently serious consideration of what the objectives of agricultural and environmental policies ought to exist. We could call this behavior PARKing—Policymaking After the Results are Thousandnown—based on Kerr'south (1998) term HARKing for Hypothesizing After the Results are Grandnown.

Policy-led risk assessment would arroyo the problem by defining, at the very least, full general trends that would be regarded as harmful changes in the weed flora; harmful meaning detrimental to achieving policy objectives. One might define damage of cultivating the GMHT canola as an increment in the abundance of specific species of economically damaging weeds, or a decrease in abundance of specific species that may take aesthetic or nature-conservation value, compared with their abundance under conventional direction (due east.grand., Pimentel et al., 2001). Another option would be the incorporation of some controlling criteria into the definitions; thus, ane might define the threshold of unacceptable harm equally a 50% increase in the affluence of noxious weed Ten or as a 25% decrease in the abundance of endangered species Y.

Prior definition of decision-making criteria means that experiments can exist designed to rigorously test hazard hypotheses. 1 could envisage, for case, testing a hypothesis that the affluence of baneful weed X will not increment by more than than 50% past testing a hypothesis that it is at least every bit sensitive to the herbicide that volition be applied to the GMHT canola as it is to the herbicides applied to conventional canola. Such a targeted test of a policy-relevant hypothesis would be entail vastly more efficient and effective parameters for data drove than would untargeted comparisons of the weed floras of GMHT and conventional canola.

With best practices, risk assessors volition contextualize the risks for cultivating the GMHT canola and compare that with the harm from the cultivation of conventional canola. In the take a chance assessment, the risk assessor will consider that cultivation of a monoculture and the management of a crop in an agricultural production system reduces biodiversity and has an impact on the environment. The ingather constitute itself has a suite of traits that consequence in the product of compounds that create environmental effects and influence ecosystem services. In the comparative run a risk cess, the risk assessor volition evaluate the relative impacts of the ii phenotypes and evaluate whether the add-on of the new trait creates harms that exceed those already imposed by the cultivation of the existing crop. In this scenario, the evaluation does not insist the results of growing the 2 crops be identical, only that the probability or severity of a impairment is not increased.

Policy-led risk assessment can target take a chance management to brand interventions in gild to realize benefits and reduce harms. In testing the risk hypothesis that the endangered species Y will not decrease by more than 25%, testing may reveal that the species is more than sensitive to the GMHT herbicide than to the conventional canola herbicide. This finding could trigger a search for changes to management techniques that ensure weeds are all the same adequately controlled while minimizing exposure of species Y to the herbicide, maybe by altering the proposed timing, rate or method of its application (e.g., Thompson et al., 1991). In contrast, unfocussed risk assessment may reveal potential changes in the affluence of numerous species without any attempt to contextualize the hazard. Faced with such a finding, risk managers may simply pass up to corroborate the GMHT canola (Sanvido et al., 2011), thereby foregoing opportunities and not necessarily reducing adventure—although they may have reduced the probability of change.

In summary, problem formulation for comparative gamble cess of GM crops should consider two important elements. First, the comparison should be consistent with the Principles of Regulation. The furnishings of using the GM crop should be compared with agricultural practices that these uses will replace. Second, the selection of the hypotheses to be tested in the risk assessment should e'er be policy-led and informed past scientific discipline. Policy-led risk assessment volition guide risk assessors to develop hypotheses of known relevance to the final regulatory conclusion and suggest experiments that are required to amend conclusion-making rather than satisfying scientific curiosity. The combination of hypotheses based on prior agreement of controlling criteria and rigorous testing maximizes the chances that risk managers volition make decisions that fulfill agronomical and environmental policy objectives. Adventure advice will besides be improved. Scientific discipline-led hazard assessment, on the other hand, leads to PARKing: ad hoc determination-making based on whatever differences happen to accomplish statistical significance in comparisons of many variables. These decisions are unlikely to meet wider policy objectives. They are also probable to create controversy because decisions appear to be stock-still by selecting particular data rather than after a argue about what the objectives of policy ought to exist (e.k., Sarewitz, 2004).

Profiling in Risk Assessment

In the example above, we proposed that rigorous testing of targeted hypotheses is a more efficient and effective approach to risk assessment than are untargeted tests of null hypotheses of no difference betwixt a GM and a non-GM cropping system. The latter arroyo makes use of profiling—the characterization of a organization by describing a combination of many of its attributes.

Historic and Electric current Employ of Profiling in Chance Cess

Profiling of GM crops is used widely in risk assessment. Compositional analysis typically tests for statistically significant differences between the GM crop and a near-isogenic comparator diversity in the amounts of 60–80 nutrients and anti-nutrients (Herman and Price, 2013). Phenotypic characterization compares xxx or more aspects of germination, plant growth and development, morphology, reproduction, disease and pest damage, and attributes of grain or fiber quality depending on the crop (Horak et al., 2007). The aim of these studies is to place differences between the GM crop and its comparator that need further evaluation in order to characterize run a risk to human and animal health and to the surround from using the GM crop (Kuiper et al., 2001; Nap et al., 2003).

Although not routinely required for regulatory testing, profiling of GM crops can also be carried out at the molecular level, using transcriptomics, proteomics or metabolomics (Kuiper et al., 2003). The value of these methods, forth with characterization of the epigenome, for crop improvement has recently been discussed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS, 2016). Our purpose here is non to evaluate the technical feasibility of molecular profiling, but to talk over whether profiling approaches by and large are valuable in risk assessment of GM crops.

A claimed advantage of profiling methods is that they are unbiased (Kuiper et al., 2003). They make no assumptions about how the GM crop might differ from its non-GM analogue. In improver, unbiased approaches make no judgment about what differences might be of import in indicating that using the GM crop may pose greater risk than similar uses of the comparator. Hence, profiling approaches are science-led evaluations of potential differences with all the bug that entails (Figure 1).

In the early days of GM crop development, in that location was significant doubt well-nigh the extent to which transformation of plants could pb to unintended changes. Hence, compositional and phenotypic profiling of GM crops made sense equally methods to explore the extent of these changes: testing the hypothesis that transformation introduces no unintended changes was a useful tool for bones enquiry into the effects of transgenesis and also for adventure assessors struggling to characterize products of new engineering.

In hindsight, notwithstanding, there was always a need to ensure that these studies were placed in context when used to inform the risk cess. In practise, this has generally been the example when a GM ingather and its not-modified counterpart are compared. For case, as changes in the nutritional value of a crop could be harmful to human and animal health, the risk assessor determines whether the amounts of cardinal nutritional components are statistically different between the GM and not-GM comparator. If statistically meaning differences are identified, the assessor will ask whether the amounts in the GM crop fall into the normal range for that ingather. If they do, the differences will generally exist overlooked.

It is of import to recognize that comparing nutrients is policy-led risk cess considering protecting human and animal health is a policy objective. To keep the risk cess policy-led, however, it is of import that the substances tested really are determinates of health. If the near extreme conceivable modify in the amount of a substance would accept no material outcome on health, then that substance should be of no business organisation for policy-led hazard assessment, and comparing its concentration in the GM and non-GM crop should not be necessary to determine hazard.

Without prior definitions of of import changes, science-led profiling can encourage the idea that producing more data inevitably leads to better risk assessment. Statistically not-significant comparisons of thousands of substances may announced to exist a more convincing sit-in of negligible risk than is the lack of difference in a few key nutrients. However, unless it is possible to specify values of particular variables that would show a policy-led adventure hypothesis to be false, the data are of no relevance for cartoon conclusions about hazard. Finally, profiling may also understate the importance of policy in gamble assessment and decision-making. Information technology seems to promote the idea that if sufficient data are nerveless, uncertainty will be macerated and the "right" policy toward the use of GMOs volition become obvious.

Profiling Using Omics Methods

The introduction of molecular profiling methods into regulatory risk assessments would simply increase the pervasiveness of unfocussed information generation rather than policy-led attitudes to risk assessment. Additional data generation will often pose questions for which there are no ready answers leading to a continuing need to produce yet more information. The power to detect differences between a GM crop and its non-GM comparator is nigh limitless, creating endless opportunities for PARKing. Advocates of molecular profiling may argue that the methods could show that variation between GM and not-GM plants as a class is insignificant compared with variation among non-GM plants. Notwithstanding, this misses the signal. The purpose of regulatory risk assessment is not to make full general points about a technology or class of products, it is to evaluate whether the risks posed by a specific use of a specific production are adequate. Acceptability of risk is ultimately a policy determination, and anything that promotes policymaking equally an ad hoc response to possibly spurious statistically pregnant differences, rather than conscientious deliberation most delivering agreed societal objectives, should exist discouraged.

Finally, our betoken is non that omics methods can never accept value in regulatory hazard assessment. If measurements of specific transcripts, proteins or metabolites are a good exam of a hypothesis that a given use of a given GM crop does non pose an unacceptable increase in chance, and so the measurements may have value for regulatory decision-making. However, using the methods simply to create profiles will be a serious impediment to moving from science-led to policy-led risk assessment and decision-making.

Conclusions

Comparative risk assessment is a valuable method for making risk cess tractable, provided that it is policy-led rather than science-led. Ideally, policy-led comparative hazard assessment for a GM ingather would define furnishings that comprise unacceptable increases in risk from its use. The comparison would be with the adequate effects of a similar crop in a similar agronomical system that is likely to exist replaced past use of the GM crop.

Defining an unacceptable increase in take a chance enables the conception of testable hypotheses for gamble cess. At their most conservative, the hypotheses will be that certain effects are no more likely to occur, and if they do occur, are no more severe than those caused past apply of the crop that will be replaced. Simply information that test such hypotheses, that is, are able to show them to be fake, are useful for such policy-led risk assessment.

The alternative method of comparative risk cess dispenses with policy objectives and makes numerous tests of the zip hypothesis that the GM crop does non differ from the crop that it will replace. Such "science-led" risk assessment makes no judgment about the importance of the variables being measured. Proponents of this method of adventure assessment run across this unbiased nature of the risk assessment equally a force (e.g., Kuiper et al., 2003).

However, while lack of bias in testing a hypothesis is a virtue in gamble assessment, as in all basic and applied scientific discipline, lack of bias in selecting the hypotheses to exist tested is a grave weakness: we should be strongly biased toward hypotheses that help decision-making and realization of policy objectives. Without this bias, policy may be formulated in response to trivial differences, possibly influenced by ill-informed indignation that a GM crop, unsurprisingly, differs from a non-GM comparator in some respect. It is this very lack of bias that we believe makes science-led risk assessment vastly less effective than the policy-led alternative.

In advocating policy-led risk assessment, we do not underestimate the difficulties agreeing on policy objectives. Disagreement near what comprise beneficial or harmful effects of using certain GM crops is rife, even within organizations that develop and regulate them. Nonetheless, sooner or later policy objectives have to be prepare in guild to make controlling feasible and hence risk assessment efficient and effective. While defining these objectives may be controversial, such controversy is probable to be less than that produced by making policy ad hoc in response to perchance spurious statistically significant differences identified past untargeted profiling methods. Ultimately, decision-makers have to decide based on their individual or organizational policy objectives. This responsibility cannot be outsourced to statistical algorithms processing vast amounts of profiling data.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

During the writing of this paper AR was employed by Syngenta and PM was employed past the Canadian Food Inspection Bureau.

References

Andow, D., and Hilbeck, A. (2004). Science-based risk assessment for nontarget furnishings of transgenic crops. BioScience 54, 637–649. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0637:SRAFNE]ii.0.CO;2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the fake discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300.

Google Scholar

de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, Fifty., and Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and conclusion making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272. doi: ten.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Evans, J., Wood, G., and Miller, A. (2006). The risk assessment–policy gap: an instance from the UK contaminated land regime. Environ. Int. 32, 1066–1071. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.002

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Gusta, M., Smyth, Due south., Belcher, G., Phillips, P., and Castle, D. (2011). Economic benefits of genetically-modified herbicide-tolerant canola for producers. AgBioForum 14, 1–thirteen. Available online at: http://agbioforum.org/v14n1/v14n1a01-smyth.pdf

Google Scholar

Heard, M. South., Hawes, C., Champion, G. T., Clark, S. J., Firbank, L. G., Haughton, A. J., et al. (2003a). Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. I. Effects on affluence and diverseness. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 358, 1819–1832. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2003.1402

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heard, M. S., Hawes, C., Champion, G. T., Clark, S. J., Firbank, L. One thousand., Haughton, A. J., et al. (2003b). Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. II. Effects on individual species. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 358, 1833–1846. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2003.1401

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Herman, R. A., and Price, W. D. (2013). Unintended compositional changes in genetically modified (GM) crops: 20 years of inquiry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 11695–11701. doi: 10.1021/jf400135r

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Hill, R. A., and Sendashonga, C. (2003). General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2, 81–88. doi: 10.1051/ebr:2003004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Horak, Thou. J., Rosenabum, E. West., Woodrum, C. Fifty., Martens, A. B., Mery, R. F., Cothren, J. T., et al. (2007). Label of Roundup Fix flex cotton fiber, "Mon 88913", for use in ecological risk assessment: evaluation of seed formation, vegetative and reproductive growth, and ecological interactions. Crop Sci. 47, 268–277. doi: x.2135/cropsci2006.02.0063

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Industry Canada (1998). The 1998 Canadian Biotechnology Strategy: An Ongoing Renewal Procedure. Ottawa, ON: Industry Canada.

Kuiper, H. A., Kleter, Grand. A., Noteborn, H. P., and Kok, E. J. (2001). Assessment of the food safety bug related to genetically modified foods. Institute J. 27, 503–528. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313X.2001.01119.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kuiper, H. A., Kok, E. J., and Engel, K.-H. (2003). Exploitation of molecular profiling techniques for GM food safety assessment. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 14, 238–243. doi: ten.1016/S0958-1669(03)00021-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kuntz, Thou., Davison, J., and Ricroch, A. Due east. (2013). What the French ban of Bt MON810 maize means for science-based risk cess. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 498–500. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2613

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leek, J., McShane, B. B., Gelman, A., Colquhoun, D., Nuijten, M. B., and Goodman, S. N. (2017). Five means to fix statistics. Nature 551, 557–559. doi: ten.1038/d41586-017-07522-z

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lemaux, P. Yard. (2009). Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist's analysis of the issues (part 2). Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 60, 511–559. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092013

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Macdonald, P. (2014). Genetically modified organisms regulatory challenges and science: a Canadian perspective. J. Verbraucher Lebensmittelsicherheit 9(Suppl. 1), S59–S64. doi: 10.1007/s00003-014-0893-9

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Nap, J. P., Metz, P. L., Escaler, Chiliad., and Conner, A. J. (2003). The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Office I. Overview of current condition and regulations. Plant J. 33, 1–18. doi: 10.1046/j.0960-7412.2003.01602.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

NAS (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC (National Research Council) (2002). Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants. Washington, DC: National Academy Printing.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Evolution) (2014). The Governance of Regulators, OECD All-time Practise Principles for Regulatory Policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Perry, J. Due north., Firbank, L. One thousand., Champion, 1000. T., Clark, S. J., Heard, M. S., May, 1000. J., et al. (2004). Ban on triazine herbicides likely to reduce but not negate the relative benefits of GMHT maize cropping. Nature 428, 313–316. doi: 10.1038/nature02374

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pimentel, D., McNair, South., Janecka, J., Wightman, J., Simmonds, C., O'Connell, C., et al. (2001). Economic and ecology threats of alien found, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 84, 1–20. doi: x.1016/S0167-8809(00)00178-10

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Raybould, A. (2010a). The bucket and the searchlight: formulating and testing take a chance hypotheses nearly the weediness and invasiveness potential of transgenic crops. Environ. Biosafety Res. 9, 123–133. doi: x.1051/ebr/2011101

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Raybould, A. (2010b). Reducing doubt in regulatory decision-making for transgenic crops: more than ecological research or clearer environmental take a chance assessment? GM Crops 1, 25–31. doi: 10.4161/gmcr.1.ane.9776

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sanvido, O., Romeis, J., and Bigler, F. (2011). Ecology change challenges decision-making during post-market ecology monitoring of transgenic crops. Transgenic Res. xx, 1191–1201. doi: 10.1007/s11248-011-9524-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Sanvido, O., Romeis, J., Gathmann, A., Gielkens, K., Raybould, A., and Bigler, F. (2012). Evaluating environmental risks of genetically modified crops – ecological impairment criteria for regulatory decision-making. Environ. Sci. Policy nine, 82–91. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes ecology controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Policy 7, 385–403. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Smythe, S. J., Gusta, M., Belcher, Thou., Phillips, P., and Castle, D. (2011). Environmental impacts from herbicide tolerant canola production in Western Canada. Agric. Syst. 104, 403–410 doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2011.01.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thompson, J. F., Stafford, J. Five., and Miller, P. C. H. (1991). Potential for automatic weed detection and selective herbicide awarding. Crop Protection 10, 254–259. doi: 10.1016/0261-2194(91)90002-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tiedje, J. Chiliad., Colwell, R. K., Grossman, Y. Fifty., Hodson, R. E., Lenski, R. East., Mack, R. N., et al. (1989). The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms: ecological considerations and recommendations. Environmental 70, 298–315. doi: x.2307/1937535

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Wilson, R. One thousand., Miller, S. D., Westra, P., Kniss, A. R., Stahlman, P. W., Wicks, G. W., et al. (2007). Glyphosate-induced weed shifts in glyphosate-resistant corn or a rotation of glyphosate-resistant corn, sugarbeet, and leap wheat. Weed Technol. 21, 900–909. doi: 10.1614/WT-06-199.1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

mahometloverrien.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2018.00043/full

Share this post