Ecological Risk Assessment and Regulation for Genetically-Modified Ornamental Plants

By the end of the 1980s, a broad consensus had developed that there were potential environmental risks of transgenic plants requiring assessment and that this assessment must be done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the transgene, recipient organism, intended environment of release, and the frequency and scale of the intended introduction. Since 1990, there have been gradual but substantial changes in the environmental risk assessment process. In this review, we focus on changes in the assessment of risks associated with non-target species and biodiversity, gene flow, and the evolution of resistance. Non-target risk assessment now focuses on risks of transgenic plants to the intended local environment of release. Measurements of gene flow indicate that it occurs at higher rates than believed in the early 1990s, mathematical theory is beginning to clarify expectations of risks associated with gene flow, and management methods are being developed to reduce gene flow and possibly mitigate its effects. Insect pest resistance risks are now managed using a high-dose/refuge or a refuge-only strategy, and the present research focuses on monitoring for resistance and encouraging compliance to requirements. We synthesize previous models for tiering risk assessment and propose a general model for tiering. Future transgenic crops are likely to pose greater challenges for risk assessment, and meeting these challenges will be crucial in developing a scientifically coherent risk assessment framework. Scientific understanding of the factors affecting environmental risk is still nascent, and environmental scientists need to help improve environmental risk assessment.

Glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine]-resistant crops (GRCs), canola (Brassica napus L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), maize (Zea mays L.), and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] have been commercialized and grown extensively in the Western Hemisphere and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere. Glyphosate-resistant cotton and soybean have become dominant in those countries where their planting is permitted. Effects of glyphosate on contamination of soil, water, and air are minimal, compared to some of the herbicides that they replace. No risks have been found with food or feed safety or nutritional value in products from currently available GRCs. Glyphosate-resistant crops have promoted the adoption of reduced- or no-tillage agriculture in the USA and Argentina, providing a substantial environmental benefit. Weed species in GRC fields have shifted to those that can more successfully withstand glyphosate and to those that avoid the time of its application. Three weed species have evolved resistance to glyphosate in GRCs. Glyphosate-resistant crops have greater potential to become problems as volunteer crops than do conventional crops. Glyphosate resistance transgenes have been found in fields of canola that are supposed to be non-transgenic. Under some circumstances, the largest risk of GRCs may be transgene flow (introgression) from GRCs to related species that might become problems in natural ecosystems. Glyphosate resistance transgenes themselves are highly unlikely to be a risk in wild plant populations, but when linked to transgenes that may impart fitness benefits outside of agriculture (e.g., insect resistance), natural ecosystems could be affected. The development and use of failsafe introgression barriers in crops with such linked genes is needed.