Suchergebnisse

AbstractMany developments in the bioeconomy depend on the use of genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs). GMMs are used in bioreactors to convert biomass into food, feed, and energy products. The recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union on gene editing technologies has affected the use of GMMs. A heated debate has started on whether and under what circumstances GMMs should be considered genetically modified organisms. This kind of decision is extremely relevant, as it will have a strong effect on the innovation of sustainable supply chains in the bioeconomy. The question has been raised as to whether the regulatory policies on GMMs can be justified from a sustainability perspective and, in particular, whether they do not endanger the European Green Deal, the flagship policy strategy of the new European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. This contribution will first provide an overview of GMMs and their importance for the development of the bioeconomy, followed by a theoretical framework for assessing investments in GMMs. The third part of the article includes a discussion of four scenarios for regulating GMMs in the future, derived from the EU legal environment. The potential implications of the scenarios are assessed by linking them with the benefits and costs of investments in GMMs, following a modified version of the model presented in Purnhagen and Wesseler (2019). The results show that reforms based on the current EU legal environment do not look very promising to further support the use of GMMs. This has important implications for reaching the objectives of the Green Deal, as more radical legal changes are needed for the success of the initiative.

This review, which has been prepared within the frame of the European Union (EU)-funded project MARLON,surveys the organisation and characteristics of specific livestock and feed production chains (conventional, organic, GM-free) within the EU, with an emphasis on controls, regulations, traceability, and common production practices. Furthermore, an overview of the origin of animal feed used in the EU as well as an examination of the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in feed is provided. From the data, it shows that livestock is traceable at the herd or individual level, depending on the species. Husbandry practices can vary widely ac-cording to geography and animal species, whilst controls and checks are in place for notifiable diseases and general health symptoms (such as mortality, disease, productive performance). For feeds, it would be possible only to make coarse estimates, at best, for the amount of GM feed ingredients that an animal is exposed to.Labeling requirements are apparently correctly followed. Provided that confounding factors are taken into ac-count, practices such as organic agriculture that explicitly involve the use of non-GM feeds could be used for comparison to those involving the use of GM feed.

This is the accepted manuscript of the paper "Surveying selected European feed and livestock production chains for features enabling the case-specific post-market monitoring of livestock for intake and potential health impacts of animal feeds derived from genetically modified crops", published as final paper in "Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 117, 2018, Pages 66-78 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.10.004". Abstract: This review, which has been prepared within the frame of the European Union (EU)-funded project MARLON, surveys the organisation and characteristics of specific livestock and feed production chains (conventional, organic, GM-free) within the EU, with an emphasis on controls, regulations, traceability, and common production practices. Furthermore, an overview of the origin of animal feed used in the EU as well as an examination of the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in feed is provided. From the data, it shows that livestock is traceable at the herd or individual level, depending on the species. Husbandry practices can vary widely according to geography and animal species, whilst controls and checks are in place for notifiable diseases and general health symptoms (such as mortality, disease, productive performance). For feeds, it would be possible only to make coarse estimates, at best, for the amount of GM feed ingredients that an animal is exposed to. Labeling requirements are apparently correctly followed. Provided that confounding factors are taken into account, practices such as organic agriculture that explicitly involve the use of non-GM feeds could be used for comparison to those involving the use of GM feed. ; This study was carried out as part of the MARLON project ("Monitoring of Animals for Feed-Related Risks in the Long Term") financially supported by the 7th Framework Program of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7), Grant Agreement no. 312031.

This review, which has been prepared within the frame of the European Union (EU)-funded project MARLON, surveys the organisation and characteristics of specific livestock and feed production chains (conventional, organic, GM-free) within the EU, with an emphasis on controls, regulations, traceability, and common production practices. Furthermore, an overview of the origin of animal feed used in the EU as well as an examination of the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in feed is provided. From the data, it shows that livestock is traceable at the herd or individual level, depending on the species. Husbandry practices can vary widely according to geography and animal species, whilst controls and checks are in place for notifiable diseases and general health symptoms (such as mortality, disease, productive performance). For feeds, it would be possible only to make coarse estimates, at best, for the amount of GM feed ingredients that an animal is exposed to. Labeling requirements are apparently correctly followed. Provided that confounding factors are taken into account, practices such as organic agriculture that explicitly involve the use of non-GM feeds could be used for comparison to those involving the use of GM feed. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion

Genetically modified (GM) carnation IFD-26407-2 was developed to express anthocyanins in the petals conferring a mauve colour to the flowers. The GM carnation is intended to be imported in the European Union as cut flower for ornamental use only. Based on the molecular characterisation data, the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA GMO Panel) confirms the stability of the newly introduced trait and the absence of disruption of known endogenous genes. Since anthocyanins are common pigments in many food plants, it is not expected that accidental intake of petals of carnation IFD-26407-2 would contribute substantially to the overall intake of anthocyanins from foods. Considering the ornamental use of cut flowers, and the limited exposure scenarios expected, the EFSA GMO Panel identified no reasons for any food safety concerns relating to carnation IFD-26407-2. The EFSA GMO Panel is also of the opinion that accidental release of GM carnations into the environment would not give rise to environmental safety concerns. The EFSA GMO Panel agrees with the methodology, including reporting intervals, proposed for post-market environmental monitoring. In response to the European Commission, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that, in the light of the ornamental use of carnation IFD-26407-2 cut flowers, there is no scientific reason to consider that the placing on the market of the GM carnation will cause any adverse effects on human health or the environment.

Following a request of the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated the concerns raised by Bulgaria and the accompanying documentation submitted under Article 34 of Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 in support of its request to prohibit the cultivation of the genetically modified maize MON 810 in the European Union. EFSA concludes that neither the arguments put forward by Bulgaria nor the documentation reveal new scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment, that would support the adoption of an emergency measure on the cultivation of maize MON 810 under Article 34 of Regulation (EC) 1829/2003. In the absence of new relevant scientific evidence, EFSA concludes that its previous risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on maize MON 810 and those of its GMO Panel remain valid and applicable.

Genetically modified (GM) carnation IFD-25958-3 was developed to express anthocyanins in the petals conferring a mauve colour to the flowers. The GM carnation is intended to be imported in the European Union as cut flower for ornamental use only. Based on the molecular characterisation data, the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA GMO Panel) confirms the stability of the newly introduced trait and the absence of disruption of known endogenous genes. Since anthocyanins are common pigments in many food plants, it is not expected that accidental intake of petals of carnation IFD-25958-3 would contribute substantially to the overall intake of anthocyanins from foods. Considering the ornamental use of cut flowers, and the limited exposure scenarios expected, the EFSA GMO Panel identified no reasons for any food safety concerns relating to carnation IFD-25958-3. The EFSA GMO Panel is also of the opinion that accidental release of GM carnations into the environment would not give rise to environmental safety concerns. The EFSA GMO Panel agrees with the methodology, including reporting intervals, proposed for post-market environmental monitoring. In response to the European Commission, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that, in the light of the ornamental use of carnation IFD-25958-3 cut flowers, there is no scientific reason to consider that the placing on the market of the GM carnation will cause any adverse effects on human health or the environment