Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup.

Two -omics studies on genetically modified maize and Roundup-fed rats, recently published in the journal Scientific Reports, contain serious flaws in the experimental design, methodology and interpretation of results, which we point out here. The use of -omics technologies are of increasing importance in research, however we argue for a cautious approach to the potential application in food safety assessments as these exceptionally sensitive and complex methods require a thorough and detailed evaluation of the biological significance of obtained results. Arising from: Mesnage et al. Sci Rep 7:39328 (2017), Mesnage et al. Sci Rep 6:37855 (2016).

A Plea for the Renewal of the ISBR.

The recent meeting of the International Society for Biosafety Research (ISBR) focused on so-called genetically modified organisms. For decades, in most regulatory frameworks, recombinant DNA-modified organisms have been the wrong focus of unbalanced agri-food regulations. The ISBR should instead adopt a scientifically defensible and truly risk-based perspective, abandoning a misleading pseudo-category.

New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology.

In this review, current EU GMO regulations are subjected to a point-by point analysis to determine their suitability for agriculture in modern Europe. Our analysis concerns present GMO regulations as well as suggestions for possible new regulations for genome editing and New Breeding Techniques (for which no regulations presently exist). Firstly, the present GMO regulations stem from the early days of recombinant DNA and are not adapted to current scientific understanding on this subject. Scientific understanding of GMOs has changed and these regulations are now, not only unfit for their original purpose, but, the purpose itself is now no longer scientifically valid. Indeed, they defy scientific, economic, and even common, sense. A major EU regulatory preconception is that GM crops are basically different from their parent crops. Thus, the EU regulations are "process based" regulations that discriminate against GMOs simply because they are GMOs. However current scientific evidence shows a blending of classical crops and their GMO counterparts with no clear demarcation line between them. Canada has a "product based" approach and determines the safety of each new crop variety independently of the process used to obtain it. We advise that the EC re-writes it outdated regulations and moves toward such a product based approach. Secondly, over the last few years new genomic editing techniques (sometimes called New Breeding Techniques) have evolved. These techniques are basically mutagenesis techniques that can generate genomic diversity and have vast potential for crop improvement. They are not GMO based techniques (any more than mutagenesis is a GMO technique), since in many cases no new DNA is introduced. Thus they cannot simply be lumped together with GMOs (as many anti-GMO NGOs would prefer). The EU currently has no regulations to cover these new techniques. In this review, we make suggestions as to how these new gene edited crops may be regulated. The EU is at a turning point where the wrong decision could destroy European agricultural competitively for decades to come.

Snowbeds are more affected than other subalpine-alpine plant communities by climate change in the Swiss Alps.

While the upward shift of plant species has been observed on many alpine and nival summits, the reaction of the subalpine and lower alpine plant communities to the current warming and lower snow precipitation has been little investigated so far. To this aim, 63 old, exhaustive plant inventories, distributed along a subalpine-alpine elevation gradient of the Swiss Alps and covering different plant community types (acidic and calcareous grasslands; windy ridges; snowbeds), were revisited after 25-50 years. Old and recent inventories were compared in terms of species diversity with Simpson diversity and Bray-Curtis dissimilarity indices, and in terms of community composition with principal component analysis. Changes in ecological conditions were inferred from the ecological indicator values. The alpha-diversity increased in every plant community, likely because of the arrival of new species. As observed on mountain summits, the new species led to a homogenization of community compositions. The grasslands were quite stable in terms of species composition, whatever the bedrock type. Indeed, the newly arrived species were part of the typical species pool of the colonized community. In contrast, snowbed communities showed pronounced vegetation changes and a clear shift toward dryer conditions and shorter snow cover, evidenced by their colonization by species from surrounding grasslands. Longer growing seasons allow alpine grassland species, which are taller and hence more competitive, to colonize the snowbeds. This study showed that subalpine-alpine plant communities reacted differently to the ongoing climate changes. Lower snow/rain ratio and longer growing seasons seem to have a higher impact than warming, at least on plant communities dependent on long snow cover. Consequently, they are the most vulnerable to climate change and their persistence in the near future is seriously threatened. Subalpine and alpine grasslands are more stable, and, until now, they do not seem to be affected by a warmer climate.

Genomic misconception: a fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation.

The regulation of genetically engineered crops, in Europe and within the legislation of the Cartagena biosafety protocol is built on false premises: The claim was (and unfortunately still is) that there is a basic difference between conventional and transgenic crops, this despite the fact that this has been rejected on scientifically solid grounds since many years. This contribution collects some major arguments for a fresh look at regulation of transgenic crops, they are in their molecular processes of creation not basically different from conventional crops, which are based in their breeding methods on natural, sometimes enhanced mutation. But the fascination and euphoria of the discoveries in molecular biology and the new perspectives in plant breeding in the sixties and seventies led to the wrong focus on transgenic plants alone. In a collective framing process the initial biosafety debates focused on the novelty of the process of transgenesis. When early debates on the risk assessment merged into legislative decisions, this wrong focus on transgenesis alone seemed uncontested. The process-focused view was also fostered by a conglomerate of concerned scientists and biotechnology companies, both with a vested interest to at least tolerate the rise of the safety threshold to secure research money and to discourage competitors of all kinds. Policy minded people and opponent activists without deeper insight in the molecular science agreed to those efforts without much resistance. It is interesting to realize, that the focus on processes was uncontested by a majority of regulators, this despite of serious early warnings from important authorities in science, mainly of US origin. It is time to change the regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops toward a more science based process-agnostic legislation. Although this article concentrates on the critique of the process-oriented regulation, including some details about the history behind, there should be no misunderstanding that there are other important factors responsible for the failure of this kind of process-oriented regulation, most importantly: the predominance of politics in the decision making processes combined with the lack of serious scientific debates on regulatory matters within the European Union and also in the Cartagena system, the obscure and much too complex decision making structures within the EU, and the active, professional, negative and intimidating role of fundamental opposition against GM crops on all levels dealing with flawed science, often declared as better parallel science published by 'independent' scientists.

Why farming with high tech methods should integrate elements of organic agriculture.

In the previous article [Ammann, K. (2008) Feature: integrated farming: why organic farmers should use transgenic crops. New Biotechnol. 25, 101-107], in a plea for the introduction of transgenic crops into organic and integrated farming, it was announced that the complementary topic, namely that high tech farmers should integrate elements of organic agriculture, will be a follow up. Some selected arguments for such a view are summarised here. Basically, they comprise a differentiated view on agro-biodiversity outside the field of production; landscape management methods to enhance biodiversity levels. Both elements are compatible with basic ideas of organic farming. First, Precision Farming is given as one example of the many ways to support agricultural production through high technology, with the aim of reducing energy input, maintaining excellent soil conditions and enhancing yield. It is clear from this analysis that modern agriculture and certain elements of organic-integrated agriculture are compatible. There are sectors of high tech farming, such as the introduction of a better recycling scheme and also a better focus on socio-economic aspects, which need to be taken up seriously from organic-integrated farming, a system which puts a lot of emphasis on those elements and for which important research data are available. In the final part a new concept of dynamic sustainability is presented.

Integrated farming: why organic farmers should use transgenic crops.

The concept of organic farming is summarised and compared as an example to farming with biotechnology-derived crops. If done within an ecological concept, both methods can be seen as environmentally acceptable. Organic farming does not offer consistent arguments for the rejection of transgenic crops. Some arguments (from genomics to biodiversity) are discussed in order to demonstrate that the contrast between both farming systems is rated too high and that it is possible to overcome the divide. In this way the ground is prepared for a proposal on how to merge those otherwise incompatible agricultural management systems, a proposal that also will have to build on a new concept of sustainability. It will be dealt with in the second part of the article in the next issue of New Biotechnology.

Is biotechnology a victim of anti-science bias in scientific journals?

Primarily outside the scientific community, misapprehensions and misinformation about recombinant DNA-modified (also known as 'genetically modified', or 'GM') plants have generated significant 'pseudo-controversy' over their safety that has resulted in unscientific and excessive regulation (with attendant inflated development costs) and disappointing progress. But pseudo-controversy and sensational claims have originated within the scientific community as well, and even scholarly journals' treatment of the subject has been at times unscientific, one-sided and irresponsible. These shortcomings have helped to perpetuate 'The Big Lie' - that recombinant DNA technology applied to agriculture and food production is unproven, unsafe, untested, unregulated and unwanted. Those misconceptions, in turn, have given rise to unwarranted opposition and tortuous, distorted public policy.

Effects of biotechnology on biodiversity: herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GM crops.

Biodiversity is threatened by agriculture as a whole, and particularly also by traditional methods of agriculture. Knowledge-based agriculture, including GM crops, can reduce this threat in the future. The introduction of no-tillage practices, which are beneficial for soil fertility, has been encouraged by the rapid spread of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in the USA. The replacement of pesticides through Bt crops is advantageous for the non-target insect fauna in test-fields. The results of the British Farm Scale experiment are discussed. Biodiversity differences can mainly be referred to as differences in herbicide application management.

Lichen physiology and air pollution: II. Statistical analysis of the correlation between SO2 , NO2 , NO and O3 , and chlorophyll content, net photosynthesis, sulphate uptake and protein synthesis of Parmelia sulcata Taylor.

Samples of the lichen Parmelia sulcata Taylor were collected in the vicinity of 17 air pollution monitoring stations in the northern part of Switzerland and its bordering area. Net photosynthesis, dark respiration, and the content of [35 S]-sulphate and [35 S]-protein after cultivation with 35 SO4 2- , as well as the chlorophyll and protein contents were measured. Mean values of dark respiration and protein content were not significantly different in the plant material from the various locations. Most of the mean values of net photosynthesis differed less than the average standard deviation. The rates of sulphate uptake and protein synthesis were lowest and chlorophyll content was highest at the most polluted sites. The values differed by a factor of 3.5-7 between the various locations. Multiple regression analysis gave a linear correlation between the three physiological parameters [35 S]-sulphate, [35 S]-protein and chlorophyll content and a combination of the annual mean concentrations of the air pollutants NO, NO2 , SO2 and O3 . The highest multiple correlation coefficient (R2 ) was estimated for chlorophyll (0-84). Its linear correlation coefficient (r) with NO2 alone was 0.91, and with SO2 alone 0.85.