The emerging international regulatory framework for biotechnology

Debate about the potential risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the environment or human health spurred attention to biosafety. Biosafety is associated with the safe use of GMOs and, more generally, with the introduction of non-indigenous species into natural or managed ecosystems. Biosafety regulation--the policies and procedures adopted to ensure the environmentally safe application of modern biotechnology--has been extensively discussed at various national and international forums. Much of the discussion has focused on developing guidelines, appropriate legal frameworks and, at the international level, a legally binding international biosafety protocol--the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Protocol is one among various international instruments and treaties that regulate specific aspects relevant to agricultural biotechnology. The present article presents the main international instruments relevant to biosafety regulation, and their key provisions. While international agreements and standards provide important guidance, they leave significant room for interpretation, and flexibility for countries implementing them. Implementation of biosafety at the national level has proven to be a major challenge, particularly in developing countries, and consequently the actual functioning of the international regulatory framework for biotechnology is still in a state of flux.     

Debate on GMOs health risks after statistical findings in regulatory tests

We summarize the major points of international debate on health risk studies for the main commercialized edible GMOs. These GMOs are soy, maize and oilseed rape designed to contain new pesticide residues since they have been modified to be herbicide-tolerant (mostly to Roundup) or to produce mutated Bt toxins. The debated alimentary chronic risks may come from unpredictable insertional mutagenesis effects, metabolic effects, or from the new pesticide residues. The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies. Our previous analyses of regulatory raw data at these levels, taking the representative examples of three GM maize NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863 led us to conclude that hepatorenal toxicities were possible, and that longer testing was necessary. Our study was criticized by the company developing the GMOs in question and the regulatory bodies, mainly on the divergent biological interpretations of statistically significant biochemical and physiological effects. We present the scientific reasons for the crucially different biological interpretations and also highlight the shortcomings in the experimental protocols designed by the company. The debate implies an enormous responsibility towards public health and is essential due to nonexistent traceability or epidemiological studies in the GMO-producing countries.     

Clarifying the regulation of genome editing in Australia: situation for genetically modified organisms

Australia’s gene technology regulatory scheme (GT Scheme) regulates activities with genetically modified organisms (GMOs, organisms modified by gene technology), including environmental releases. The scope of regulation, i.e. what organisms are and are not regulated, is set by the Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act) and GT Regulations 2001 (GT Regulations). The GT Act gives broad, overarching definitions of ‘gene technology’ and ‘GMO’ but also provides for exclusions and inclusions in the GT Regulations. Whether organisms developed with genome editing techniques are, or should be, regulated under countries’ national GMO laws is the subject of debate globally. These issues are also under active consideration in Australia. A technical review of the GT Regulations was initiated in 2016 to clarify the regulatory status of genome editing. Proposed draft amendments are structured around whether the process involves introduction of a nucleic acid template. If agreed, amendments would exclude from regulation organisms produced using site directed nuclease (SDN) 1 techniques while organisms produced using oligonucleotide mutagenesis, SDN-2 or SDN-3 would continue to be regulated as GMOs. The review of the GT Regulations is still ongoing and no legislative changes have been made to the GT Regulations. A broader policy review of the GT Scheme was undertaken in 2017–2018 and as a result further work will be undertaken on the scope and definitions of the GT Act in light of ongoing developments.

     

EFSA’s scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence: looking back and ahead

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and derived food and feed products are subject to a risk analysis and regulatory approval before they can enter the market in the European Union (EU). In this risk analysis process, the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which was created in 2002 in response to multiple food crises, is to independently assess and provide scientific advice to risk managers on any possible risks that the use of GMOs may pose to human and animal health and the environment. EFSA’s scientific advice is elaborated by its GMO Panel with the scientific support of several working groups and EFSA’s GMO Unit. This review presents EFSA’s scientific activities and highlights its achievements on the risk assessment of GMOs for the first 10 years of its existence. Since 2002, EFSA has issued 69 scientific opinions on genetically modified (GM) plant market registration applications, of which 62 for import and processing for food and feed uses, six for cultivation and one for the use of pollen (as or in food), and 19 scientific opinions on applications for marketing products made with GM microorganisms. Several guidelines for the risk assessment of GM plants, GM microorganisms and GM animals, as well as on specific issues such as post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) were elaborated. EFSA also provided scientific advice upon request of the European Commission on safeguard clause and emergency measures invoked by EU Member States, annual PMEM reports, the potential risks of new biotechnology-based plant breeding techniques, evaluations of previously assessed GMOs in the light of new scientific publications, and the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM plants. Future challenges relevant to the risk assessment of GMOs are discussed. EFSA’s risk assessments of GMO applications ensure that data are analysed and presented in a way that facilitates scientifically sound decisions that protect human and animal health and the environment.     

Review of invertebrate biological control agent regulation in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA: recommendations for a harmonized European system

Europe lags far behind Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA in terms of implementing regulatory procedures for the import and release of invertebrate biological control agents (IBCAs). A number of standards, documents and guidelines have been produced over recent years in an attempt to harmonize regulation of IBCA introduction into Europe. Despite these efforts, the number of member countries implementing any form of IBCA regulation remains low, with many industries, biological practitioners and regulators fearing that a regulatory system would render the process of approval for IBCA introduction into a country costly and time consuming. Europe’s priority is therefore to formulate a regulatory system that will be readily approved of and adopted by all member countries. In this paper we review the current regulatory processes operating in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. There is potential for Europe to benefit from the years of experience that these countries have in IBCA regulation. We therefore propose recommendations based on features of the regulatory processes in each of the four countries that work well and that could be adopted to generate a workable Europe‐wide regulatory system.     

Revisiting GMOs: Are There Differences in European Consumers’ Acceptance and Valuation for Cisgenically vs Transgenically Bred Rice?

Both cisgenesis and transgenesis are plant breeding techniques that can be used to introduce new genes into plant genomes. However, transgenesis uses gene(s) from a non-plant organism or from a donor plant that is sexually incompatible with the recipient plant while cisgenesis involves the introduction of gene(s) from a crossable—sexually compatible—plant. Traditional breeding techniques could possibly achieve the same results as those from cisgenesis, but would require a much larger timeframe. Cisgenesis allows plant breeders to enhance an existing cultivar more quickly and with little to no genetic drag. The current regulation in the European Union (EU) on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) treats cisgenic plants the same as transgenic plants and both are mandatorily labeled as GMOs. This study estimates European consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for rice labeled as GM, cisgenic, with environmental benefits (which cisgenesis could provide), or any combination of these three attributes. Data were collected from 3,002 participants through an online survey administered in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom in 2013. Censored regression models were used to model consumers’ WTP in each country. Model estimates highlight significant differences in WTP across countries. In all five countries, consumers are willing-to-pay a premium to avoid purchasing rice labeled as GM. In all countries except Spain, consumers have a significantly higher WTP to avoid consuming rice labeled as GM compared to rice labeled as cisgenic, suggesting that inserting genes from the plant’s own gene pool is more acceptable to consumers. Additionally, French consumers are willing-to-pay a premium for rice labeled as having environmental benefits compared to conventional rice. These findings suggest that not all GMOs are the same in consumers’ eyes and thus, from a consumer preference perspective, the differences between transgenic and cisgenic products are recommended to be reflected in GMO labeling and trade policies.     

转基因农作物检测技术及其应用与发展

常用的转基因检测方法可分为两个方向,一是以检测外源基因为目标,如多聚酶链式反应分析法(PCR),二是以检测外源蛋白为目标,如酶联免疫分析法(ELISA)。此外,近年来,随着世界各国对转基因生物安全问题的日益关注,还涌现出了一批新的检测方法,如微阵列分析法(microarray),色谱分析法(chroma-tography),表面等离子共振(surfaceplasmonresonance,SPR)生物传感器分析法以及近红外线光谱分析法(nearinfraredspectroscopy,NIR)等。将对各种转基因检测方法的原理、特点及研究现状做一个扼要介绍。     

The development and standardization of testing methods for genetically modified organisms and their derived products

As the worldwide commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) increases and consumers concern the safety of GMOs, many countries and regions are issuing labeling regulations on GMOs and their products. Analytical methods and their standardization for GM ingredients in foods and feed are essential for the implementation of labeling regulations. To date, the GMO testing methods are mainly based on the inserted DNA sequences and newly produced proteins in GMOs. This paper presents an overview of GMO testing methods as well as their standardization.     

转基因生物及其产品检测技术和标准化

随着转基因生物及其产品的大规模商业化以及消费者对其安全性的担心,很多国家和地区纷纷出台包括转基因产品标签制度在内的转基因生物安全管理的法律法规,为保障转基因产品标签制度的实施以及消费者知情权和选择权,转基因产品检测分析方法及其标准化研究受到人们广泛重视。目前,国内外常用的转基因产品检测方法主要包括针对转基因产品中的目的核酸DNA分子或者其编码的蛋白质分子,本文将对转基因生物及其产品检测方法及其标准化的进展及发展趋势做一概述。     

遗传修饰生物体(GMOs)生态风险的监测

遗传修饰生物体(GMOs)释放的生态学风险往往要在相当长的时期内才表现出来,因而必须对其进行长期监测。监测的内容和方法依对象的不同而有所不同。在短期和长期监测中,数学模型具有重要的作用。本文就监测的内容、原则和方法进行了全面的论述。     

Detecting un-authorized genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and derived materials

Genetically modified plants, in the following referred to as genetically modified organisms or GMOs, have been commercially grown for almost two decades. In 2010 approximately 10% of the total global crop acreage was planted with GMOs (James, 2011). More than 30 countries have been growing commercial GMOs, and many more have performed field trials. Although the majority of commercial GMOs both in terms of acreage and specific events belong to the four species: soybean, maize, cotton and rapeseed, there are another 20 + species where GMOs are commercialized or in the pipeline for commercialization. The number of GMOs cultivated in field trials or for commercial production has constantly increased during this time period. So have the number of species, the number of countries involved, the diversity of novel (added) genetic elements and the global trade. All of these factors contribute to the increasing complexity of detecting and correctly identifying GMO derived material. Many jurisdictions, including the European Union (EU), legally distinguish between authorized (and therefore legal) and un-authorized (and therefore illegal) GMOs. Information about the developments, field trials, authorizations, cultivation, trade and observations made in the official GMO control laboratories in different countries around the world is often limited, despite several attempts such as the OECD BioTrack for voluntary dissemination of data. This lack of information inevitably makes it challenging to detect and identify GMOs, especially the un-authorized GMOs. The present paper reviews the state of the art technologies and approaches in light of coverage, practicability, sensitivity and limitations. Emphasis is put on exemplifying practical detection of un-authorized GMOs. Although this paper has a European (EU) bias when examples are given, the contents have global relevance.     

Regulating biocontrol agents: a historical perspective and a critical examination comparing microbial and macrobial agents

Ever since the inclusion of microbial biocontrol agents (MBCAs) within the regulatory frameworks initially designed for chemical pesticides, there has been awareness that these frameworks are not optimal for assessment and registration of new microbial biocontrol products. It is often claimed that the regulatory situation has contributed to a relatively slow uptake of microbial biocontrol in practice. In contrast to the MBCAs, non-indigenous invertebrate biocontrol agents (IBCAs) are regulated in many countries through quarantine and other biosecurity related legislation for prevention of introduction of alien organisms, whereas use of indigenous IBCAs are generally unregulated. In this study, we investigate what scientific support there is for performing evaluations of these two main groups of biocontrol agents (BCAs) within different frameworks. We compare potential risks of MBCAs and IBCAs, present a retrospective analysis of the development and implementation of the regulatory frameworks, and compare current requirements for MBCAs with those for other applications with microorganisms. One conclusion is that the ecological risks are of similar types between the two groups of BCAs, and that for both groups the environmental safety is most pertinently evaluated according to biological and ecological principles. The main difference between MBCAs and IBCAs with respect to human health is that the former may cause infectious disease. However, we found no evidence that this hazard is more serious for microorganisms for biocontrol than for microbes used in other types of applications, which generally have substantially lower regulatory demands than those for MBCAs. Several international initiatives have produced helpful guidelines and recommendations for simplified assessments and authorisations of BCAs. Still, we conclude that as long as MBCAs are evaluated within systems initially developed for chemicals, the risk for inappropriate emphasis of chemical hazards and therefore unnecessarily complicated assessments will be maintained. Therefore, this study supports the idea that development of new systems for the regulatory oversight of MBCAs, possibly a mutual framework covering all living BCAs, should be considered. Research issues that need to be further explored are to what extent utilisation of MBCAs actually results in increased exposure of non-targets to microorganisms, the biogeography and microbial ecology of representative MBCAs, and finally development of better methodology for determining potential human toxicity and pathogenicity of candidate MBCAs.     

Composting: a potentially safe process for disposal of genetically modified organisms

The widespread use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may result in the release of GMOs into the environment. The potential risks regarding their use and implementation of disposal methods, especially the possibility of novel genes from GMOs being transferred to natural organisms, need to be evaluated and better understood. There is an increasingly accepted public view that GMO products introduced into the environment should be degradable and should disappear after a limited period of time. Due to the risk of possible horizontal gene transfer, disposal methods for GMOs need to address destruction of both the organism and the genetic material. During the last two decades, we have developed a greater understanding of the biochemical, microbiological and molecular concepts of the composting process, such that maximum decomposition may be achieved in the shortest time with minimal negative impacts to the environment. The conditions created in a properly managed composting process environment may help in destroying GMOs and their genes, thereby reducing the risk of the spread of genetic material. When considering composting as a potential method for the disposal of GMOs, the establishment of controlled conditions providing an essentially homogenous environment appears to be an important requirement. An evaluation of composting as a safe option for disposal of GMOs is provided in this review.     

Cladistic analysis of distributions and endemism (CADE): using raw distributions of birds to unravel the biogeography of the South American aridlands

Aim To use published distributional and taxonomic information on Neotropical birds in a cladistic analysis of distributions and endemism (CADE) to generate a testable hypothesis of area‐relationships for the arid areas of endemism, particularly those of Central South America (the ‘arid diagonal’), and to clarify the different methodologies commonly associated with parsimony analysis of endemicity (PAE). Location South America. Methods Cladistic analysis of distributions and endemism. Results We obtain a tree where the relationships of most areas are resolved, and we find support for an exclusive clade of Central South American areas, with the Caatinga as sister to both the Chaco and Cerrado. Main conclusions There is a substantial amount of historical signal in avian distributions, when large numbers of taxa and multiple taxonomic levels are considered. Ecological noise and historical information are more easily distinguished in CADE analyses than they would be in PAE analyses. Based on our results we predict that among aridland birds, the Cerrado and Chaco species will be more closely related to each other than to Caatinga species.     

Making effective use of existing data for case‐by‐case risk assessments of genetically engineered crops

Many crops in developing countries suffer devastating attacks from insect pests. Expression of insecticidal proteins in genetically engineered (GE) crops is a potentially powerful means of controlling such pests. Potentially harmful effects of these crops on non‐target organisms (NTOs) is of major concern as many of those provide important ecological functions such as pest regulation. Consequently, the likelihood of adverse effects of insect‐resistant GE crops on NTOs is assessed case‐by‐case as part of environmental risk assessments that inform regulatory decision‐making. While risk assessments should be rigorous, it is vital that regulatory barriers do not unnecessarily restrict or prevent the application of genetic engineering to important crops in those countries. Efficient regulatory decision‐making should make effective use of published information on the biology and ecology of the crop in the country where approval is sought, along with regulatory data produced for GE insect‐resistant crops that have received regulatory approvals elsewhere. Just as the risks are assessed for each GE crop individually, the amount of new regulatory data required for a GE crop should vary between crops depending on the amount of existing data and the severity of the perceived risks: new data should be collected only if existing data do not corroborate identified risk hypotheses with sufficient certainty. In this paper, we illustrate how such an approach could work using risks to NTOs from insect‐resistant GE pigeonpea in India as an example.     

Biotech news from South Africa (SA)

South Africa: An introduction Biotech in South Africa South Africa National Biotech Audit 2007 Biotech facts and figures in SA GMOs in South Africa The SA Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Blue Gene for Africa initiative to catalyze research activities CSIR research highlights Biopad: Biotechnology Partnership for Africa's Development Global biotech lab in Cape Town Wellcome Trust institutional research capacity strengthening in Africa Cancer on the rise in Africa South African firm wins Global Business Council Award Japan-Africa summit on African science and technology BTJ paper watch: South Africa     

Data analytic methods for matched case-control studies

The recent introduction of complex multivariate statistical models in matched case-control studies is a mixed blessing. Their use can lead to a better understanding of the way in which many variables contribute to the risk of disease. On the other hand, these powerful methods can obscure salient features in the data that might have been detected by other, less sophisticated methods. This shortcoming is due to a lack of support methodology for the routine use of these models. Satisfactory computation of estimated relative risks and their standard errors is not sufficient justification for the fitted model. Goodness of fit must be examined if inferences are to be trusted. This paper is concerned with the analysis of matched case-control studies with logistic models. Analogies of these models to linear regression models are emphasized. In particular, basic concepts such as analysis of variance, multiple correlation coefficient, one-degree-of-freedom tests, and residual analysis are discussed. The fairly new field of regression diagnostics is also introduced. All procedures are illustrated on a study of bladder cancer in males.     

Current risk assessment approaches for environmental and food and feed safety assessment

Foundational activities at the international level underlie current risk and safety assessment approaches for genetically engineered/modified organisms (GEOs/GMOs). Early risk assessment considerations beginning with the OECD ‘Blue Book’ established risk/safety assessment as the characterization of the organism and its environmental release; establishment and persistence in the environment; and human and ecological effects, analyzed in principle through existing methods. Important in this context was recognition that GEOs/GMOs as a class did not represent new risks relative to products of traditional plant breeding and that any incremental risk would need to be established on a stepwise case-by-case comparative basis with existing crops and derived-foods as the baseline. Accordingly, concepts of familiarity and substantial equivalence were advanced by OECD and WHO as ways to establish a risk analysis baseline for determining whether and to what extent risk/safety assessment was needed. Regulatory implementations of this paradigm have skewed to increasingly complex portfolios of studies rather than adhering to analysis which is formulated to fit the risk/safety questions relevant to a given case. Plants produced through genome editing technology will benefit from risk analysis that implements sound problem formulation to guide the need for and nature of risk/safety assessments.

     

基因组编辑产品的安全管理

基因组编辑技术是指利用特异性核酸酶的定点剪切活性与细胞内源DNA损伤修复活性,在基因组水平上对目的核酸序列或单个核苷酸进行定点修饰的基因工程技术,该技术可以对生物体基因组进行精确敲除、插入、单碱基突变或置换等编辑。目前,基因组编辑技术具有精确性、高效性及易操作性,应用范围日益扩大。文中简要概述了3种主要的基因组编辑技术工具及基因组编辑类型,介绍了美国、欧盟等国家和地区对基因组编辑产品的监管体制。同时,基于我国对转基因产品的安全管理原则与体系,初步提出了基因组编辑产品的安全管理思路。根据中间材料或产品中是否含有外源编辑酶蛋白基因成分对基因组编辑产品进行分类管理,含有外源编辑酶的材料应按现有转基因安全管理办法进行管理;中间材料或产品中不含有Cas9等编辑酶的材料应根据被编辑位点的特征进行具体分类管理。