Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using ... - EASAC

of pesticides will result in a smaller number of active
chemical ingredients. This will lead to greater difficulty
in the delivery of effective, robust, pest and disease
control for farmers who are reliant on chemical-based
programmes to return economic yields. The EU has
been at the forefront of the basic research on plant
defence mechanisms that could support development of
alternative genetic-based approaches to crop protection.
1.4 Assessing impact of new technologies
Much effort has been devoted to analysing the
productivity and environmental and socio-economic
impacts of the first generation of GM crops. This analysis
has included assessment of yield, ease and predictability
of crop management, applied herbicide use and resultant
soil conditions, use of pesticides, crop mycotoxin
contamination, farmer income and farmer health (Qaim,
2009; National Research Council, 2010; Brookes and
Barfoot, 2012; James, 2012; Mannion and Morse, 2012;
ISAAA, 2013). The peer-reviewed results from some of
the socio-economic and environmental assessments will
be discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters of
the present report. In aggregate, the conclusion from the
scientific literature is that there is no validated evidence
to associate the first generation of GM crops, that have
been cultivated for more than 15 years worldwide (and
commercialisation was dependent on more than 20 years
of prior art in plant sciences), with higher risks to the
environment or for food and feed safety compared with
conventional varieties of the same crop (DG Research,
2010a; Fagerstrom et al., 2012).
Statements about the adverse impacts of GM crops
have too often been based on contested science,
(exemplified by the recent controversy associated with
the experimental assessment of GM maize NK603
(Academies nationales, 2012). 1 Some controversies
have also confounded trait-specific effects and GM
crop-related issues. Deploying herbicide-resistant
varieties, for example, may have indirect beneficial or
detrimental environmental effects irrespective of whether
such varieties have been produced by GM technology
or not (see Box 2 for further discussion). Any new tool
or technology can cause unintended effects if used
unwisely by adopting poor agronomic practice and it is
vital to share lessons learned from the implementation
of innovation. For the future, it is important not to
generalise about the safety of conferred traits based on
the technology used. Each new product must be assessed
according to consistent risk assessment principles that
examine the trait rather than the means by which the
trait was conferred (see Chapter 4). It is also essential to
ensure that benefit–risk is evaluated rather than focusing
exclusively on risk (Box 2 and Chapter 4). In addition, the
risk of not adopting any particular innovation should be
assessed.
It is equally important to appreciate that there are other
established techniques now emerging from advances
in biotechnology for use in programmes of crop
improvement. Collectively, all of the methodologies
covered in the present report may be regarded as crop
genetic improvement technologies. The mix of new tools
coming within range is expanding rapidly and significant
impact can be anticipated (Box 3).
For several of these New Breeding Techniques, the
commercialised crop will be free of genes foreign to the
species, which raises issues for detection and regulation
as it will not be possible to discern the methodology by
which the genetic improvements were achieved. The
challenges for EU regulation of these New Breeding
Techniques will be discussed later in Chapter 4.
1.5 Previous work by national academies of
science in the EU
Prospects for the use of molecular biosciences in general,
genetic modification in particular, and their contribution
to agricultural innovation have been discussed previously
by many of the constituent academies of EASAC. Their
publications have documented where there is excellent
relevant science to be nurtured and used. The academies
have also highlighted where there are problems caused by
the failure to take account of the accumulating scientific
evidence in modernising and streamlining regulatory
approaches to benefit–risk assessment. Concerns have
repeatedly been raised that EU regulatory policy is not
coherently supporting a strategy for the bioeconomy;
some of the recent EASAC-academy publications are
listed in Appendix 2.
Although no single technology can be regarded as a
panacea (EGE, 2008; Bennett and Jennings, 2013), this
1
This particular controversy relates to research published on GM maize NK603 where the study authors (Seralini et al., 2012)
claimed a strong tumorigenic and toxic effect in rats. However, analysis of this research by the French academies, by EFSA (2012a)
and the European Society of Toxicological Pathology (2013) raised many concerns about the initial publication in terms of its unclear
objectives, inadequate disclosure of detail on study design, conduct and analysis, and small group sizes used. EFSA concluded
that the study was of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessment. Criticisms of the original research publication, its
methodology and reporting procedures have also been made by several other advisory bodies, for example the Federal Institute for
Risk Assessment in Germany (2012) and the Italian Federation of Life Sciences (Federazione Italiana Scienze della Vita, 2013), and
have been discussed in the scientific literature (see, for example, Butler, 2012). A comprehensive review of the literature on animal
research, including long-term and multigenerational studies (Snell et al., 2012) had previously concluded that no such adverse
effects were demonstrable. Recently, EFSA has made public its data and documents relating to the initial authorisation of GM maize
NK 203 (Butler, 2013).
EASAC Planting the future | June 2013 | 5