Extension of the spatially‐ and temporally‐explicit "briskaR‐NTL" model to assess potential adverse effects of Bt‐maize pollen on non‐target Lepidoptera at landscape level
In: EFSA supporting publications, Band 18, Heft 4
ISSN: 2397-8325
62 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: EFSA supporting publications, Band 18, Heft 4
ISSN: 2397-8325
In: EFSA journal, Band 19, Heft 4
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: Risk analysis: an international journal, Band 37, Heft 9, S. 1693-1705
ISSN: 1539-6924
AbstractAccording to E.U. regulations, the maximum allowable rate of adventitious transgene presence in non‐genetically modified (GM) crops is 0.9%. We compared four sampling methods for the detection of transgenic material in agricultural non‐GM maize fields: random sampling, stratified sampling, random sampling + ratio reweighting, random sampling + regression reweighting. Random sampling involves simply sampling maize grains from different locations selected at random from the field concerned. The stratified and reweighting sampling methods make use of an auxiliary variable corresponding to the output of a gene‐flow model (a zero‐inflated Poisson model) simulating cross‐pollination as a function of wind speed, wind direction, and distance to the closest GM maize field. With the stratified sampling method, an auxiliary variable is used to define several strata with contrasting transgene presence rates, and grains are then sampled at random from each stratum. With the two methods involving reweighting, grains are first sampled at random from various locations within the field, and the observations are then reweighted according to the auxiliary variable. Data collected from three maize fields were used to compare the four sampling methods, and the results were used to determine the extent to which transgene presence rate estimation was improved by the use of stratified and reweighting sampling methods. We found that transgene rate estimates were more accurate and that substantially smaller samples could be used with sampling strategies based on an auxiliary variable derived from a gene‐flow model.
Whether modern agriculture without conventional pesticides will be possible or not is a matter of debate. The debate is meaningful within the context of rising health and environmental awareness on one hand, and the global challenge of feeding a steadily growing human population on the other. Conventional pesticide use has come under pressure in many countries, and some European Union (EU) Member States have adopted policies for risk reduction following Directive 2009/128/EC, the sustainable use of pesticides. Highly diverse crop production systems across Europe, having varied geographic and climatic conditions, increase the complexity of European crop protection. The economic competitiveness of European agriculture is challenged by the current legislation, which banned the use of many previously authorized pesticides that are still available and applied in other parts of the world. This challenge could place EU agricultural production at a disadvantage, so EU farmers are seeking help from the research community to foster and support integrated pest management (IPM). Ensuring stable crop yields and quality while reducing the reliance on pesticides is a challenge facing the farming community is today. Considering this, we focus on several diverse situations in European agriculture in general and in European crop protection in particular. We emphasize that the marked biophysical and socio-economic differences across Europe have led to a situation where a meaningful reduction in pesticide use can hardly be achieved. Nevertheless, improvements and/or adoption of the knowledge and technologies of IPM can still achieve large gains in pesticide reduction. In this overview, the current pest problems and their integrated management are discussed in the context of specific geographic regions of Europe, with a particular emphasis on reduced pesticide use. We conclude that there are opportunities for reduction in many parts of Europe without significant losses in crop yields.
BASE
In: EFSA journal, Band 19, Heft 7
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 24, Heft 12, S. 11582-11600
ISSN: 1614-7499
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 30, Heft 1, S. 719-729
ISSN: 0264-8377
In: EFSA journal, Band 18, Heft 10
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: Risk analysis: an international journal, Band 39, Heft 1, S. 54-70
ISSN: 1539-6924
AbstractWe developed a simulation model for quantifying the spatio‐temporal distribution of contaminants (e.g., xenobiotics) and assessing the risk of exposed populations at the landscape level. The model is a spatio‐temporal exposure‐hazard model based on (i) tools of stochastic geometry (marked polygon and point processes) for structuring the landscape and describing the exposed individuals, (ii) a dispersal kernel describing the dissemination of contaminants from polygon sources, and (iii) an (eco)toxicological equation describing the toxicokinetics and dynamics of contaminants in affected individuals. The model was implemented in the briskaR package (biological risk assessment with R) of the R software. This article presents the model background, the use of the package in an illustrative example, namely, the effect of genetically modified maize pollen on nontarget Lepidoptera, and typical comparisons of landscape configurations that can be carried out with our model (different configurations lead to different mortality rates in the treated example). In real case studies, parameters and parametric functions encountered in the model will have to be precisely specified to obtain realistic measures of risk and impact and accurate comparisons of landscape configurations. Our modeling framework could be applied to study other risks related to agriculture, for instance, pathogen spread in crops or livestock, and could be adapted to cope with other hazards such as toxic emissions from industrial areas having health effects on surrounding populations. Moreover, the R package has the potential to help risk managers in running quantitative risk assessments and testing management strategies.
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 24, Heft 14, S. 13121-13135
ISSN: 1614-7499
In: EFSA journal, Band 22, Heft 8
ISSN: 1831-4732
Abstract
Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the 2022 post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab‐expressing maize event MON 810. Overall, the 2022 PMEM report provides no evidence of adverse effects of maize MON 810 cultivation. It shows a high level of compliance with refuge requirements by Spanish and Portuguese farmers growing maize MON 810, but uncertainty remains on compliance in areas where the clustered surface of maize MON 810 farms exceeds 5 ha. There are no signs of practical resistance to Cry1Ab in the field in corn borer populations collected in north‐eastern Spain in 2022, although a decrease in Cry1Ab susceptibility in Mediterranean corn borer populations from this area cannot be excluded. Information retrieved through farmer questionnaires in Spain and from the scientific literature reveals no unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. Uncertainties remain on whether 'very highly' and 'extremely' sensitive non‐target lepidoptera are potentially exposed to harmful amounts of MON 810 pollen. EFSA notes that several recommendations made in the frame of the assessment of previous PMEM reports remain unaddressed and identified additional shortcomings in the 2022 PMEM report that require further consideration by the consent holder in future annual PMEM reports. Particularly, EFSA emphasises the urgent need to increase the sensitivity of the insect resistance monitoring strategy and implement mitigation measures to ensure that the exposure of non‐target lepidoptera to maize MON 810 pollen is reduced to levels of no concern.
In: EFSA journal, Band 21, Heft 12
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: Ecotoxicology and environmental safety: EES ; official journal of the International Society of Ecotoxicology and Environmental safety, Band 207, S. 111215
ISSN: 1090-2414
In: EFSA journal, Band 16, Heft 5
ISSN: 1831-4732
In: EFSA journal, Band 20, Heft 7
ISSN: 1831-4732