ENEA - Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development. Research Centre Trisaia, S.S. 106 Jonica, km 419.5, I-75026 Rotondella MT, Italy.
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2021 Jan 15;208:111676. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111676. Epub 2020 Nov 21.
The environmental risk assessment (ERA) for genetically modified plants (GMPs) is a prerequisite for commercial approval of these new varieties according to regulatory systems worldwide. The first country to regulate GM crops was the USA and the issue of possible environmental impacts was based on the principles used in risk assessment of pesticides. Two main pillars of this approach are the use of surrogate species for testing effects on non-target organisms using a tiered assessment with clear thresholds to indicate the need to move between tiers. The latest EFSA guidance document on ERA of Genetically Modified Organisms considers specifically the receiving environment in preparation of ERA for commercial cultivation of GMPs. According to existing guidelines in the EU, the receiving environment is defined by three mutually interacting components: the characteristics of the environmental stressor (i.e. the GM plant), the bio-geographical regions where the commercial release of the crop is expected and the agricultural systems therein. Difference in agronomic and ecological conditions (e.g. use of different varieties, vegetation of adjacent areas, non-target species assemblages, sensitivity of local species to the stressors) suggests that explicit considerations of the receiving environments are necessary. Results from field experiments indicate that differences in cultivation practices, e.g. the herbicide regime used on herbicide-tolerant GM crops, may induce direct and indirect effects on wild plant distribution and abundance, with consequent repercussions on food webs based on these plants. Moreover, ecological literature indicates that the concept of surrogate species has clear limitations if applied broadly to any ERA. Starting from case studies regarding GMPs, this paper discusses some ecological and agronomic characteristics of agro-ecosystems, which have implications in the elaboration of both hazard and exposure analyses during ERA. The species selection approach indicated in the EFSA Guidance Document and the consideration of the area(s) of the expected release of the new variety may provide the basis to an ecologically sound ERA for a range of environmental stressors. The quality of the data that become available for risk managers with this approach may support a more transparent and dependable ERA and risk management for GMPs as well as for other potential environmental stressors in agro-ecosystems.
转基因植物的环境风险评估(ERA)是根据世界范围内的监管体系对这些新品种进行商业批准的前提。第一个对转基因作物进行监管的国家是美国,而对可能产生的环境影响的问题则基于对农药风险评估所使用的原则。这种方法的两个主要支柱是使用替代物种来测试对非目标生物的影响,使用分层评估和明确的阈值来指示需要在不同层次之间移动。欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)关于转基因生物 ERA 的最新指导文件特别考虑了在准备商业种植转基因植物的 ERA 时的接受环境。根据欧盟现有的准则,接受环境由三个相互作用的部分定义:环境胁迫因子(即转基因植物)的特征、预计作物商业释放的生物地理区域以及其中的农业系统。农业和生态条件的差异(例如,使用不同的品种、邻近地区的植被、非目标物种组合、当地物种对胁迫因子的敏感性)表明,有必要对接受环境进行明确的考虑。田间试验的结果表明,耕作实践的差异,例如在耐除草剂的转基因作物上使用的除草剂方案,可能会对野生植物的分布和丰度产生直接和间接的影响,从而对以这些植物为基础的食物网产生影响。此外,生态文献表明,如果将替代物种的概念广泛应用于任何 ERA,就会有明显的局限性。本文从关于转基因植物的案例研究出发,讨论了农业生态系统的一些生态和农业特征,这些特征对 ERA 中的危害和暴露分析的制定具有影响。EFSA 指导文件中指出的物种选择方法和对新变种预期释放区域的考虑,可能为一系列环境胁迫因子提供了一个合理的生态 ERA 基础。采用这种方法获得的风险管理者可用的数据质量,可能会支持对转基因植物以及农业生态系统中的其他潜在环境胁迫因子进行更透明和更可靠的 ERA 和风险管理。