Appraisal of the human health related toxicological information available on dicyclopentadiene (DCPD) in view of assessing the substance's potential to cause endocrine disruption.

Dicyclopentadiene (DCPD) is an olefinic hydrocarbon which is manufactured and imported into the European Union (EU) at greater than 1000 tons per year. Concerns related to fetotoxic effects observed in reproductive toxicity studies at high doses led the REACH registrants to self-classify DCPD as a Category 2 reproductive toxicant under the EU CLP Regulation. DCPD was also reviewed in the European Union in the frame of an ongoing European Chemical Agency (ECHA) Community Rolling Action Plan (CoRAP) procedure and under the French National Strategy on Endocrine Disruptors (SNPE). To elucidate whether the developmental effects may be triggered by an endocrine mode of action, the Lower Olefins Sector Group (LOSG) of the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) formed an ad hoc expert team to review the available scientific information pertaining to the potential endocrine activity and adversity of DCPD. Existing experimental data was complemented with structure activity modelling using ECHA-recommended (Q)SAR tools. Overall, considering the available information from (Q)SAR, mechanistic in vitro and in vivo studies, no indication of endocrine-mediated adversity was found. Hence, the available evidence supports the conclusion that DCPD does not cause developmental toxicity via an endocrine mode of action. Further work is ongoing to support this conclusion.

Science, politics, and the GM debate in Europe.

Europe today stands at a crossroad, facing challenges but also opportunities. In its intent to make Europe a leading technology-based economy by 2010, the European Commission has identified biotechnology and genomics as fields for future growth, crucial for supporting the agricultural and food processing industry. Since first commercialization in 1996, GM crop areas have grown at double-digit rates, making this one of the most rapidly adopted technologies in agriculture. However, in contrast to other world areas and despite European Commission support, Europe has found itself 'bogged-down' in a polemic between opponents and supporters of plant biotechnology. As a result, planted areas have remained small. This stalemate is due to a lack of political leadership, especially at the Member State level, all the more surprising in light of European early development and competitive advantage with crop biotechnology. This situation proves once again that, for cutting-edge innovations, a solid science base alone is not sufficient. Acceptance or rejection of new technologies depends on interlinked political, economic, and societal factors that create a favorable or unfavorable situation at a given time. This article will look at GM crops in Europe and the role science and politics have played in the introduction of crop biotechnology.

A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms.

Representatives of the developers of modern agricultural biotechnology are proposing a tiered approach for conducting non-target organism risk assessment for genetically modified (GM) plants in Europe. The approach was developed by the Technical Advisory Group of the EuropaBio Plant Biotechnology Unit (http://www.europabio.org/TAG.htm) and complements other international activities to harmonize risk assessment. In the European Union (EU), the principles and methods to be followed in an environmental risk assessment for the placing on the market of GM plants are laid out in Annex II of Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs, Commission Decision 2002/623/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003. Additional information is provided in the European Food Safety Authority guidance document of 2004. However, risk assessment for effects to non-target organisms could benefit from further clarification and remains the subject of much discussion in Europe. The industry-wide approach developed by EuropaBio is based on the fundamental steps of risk evaluation, namely hazard and exposure assessment. It follows a structured scheme including assessment planning, product characterization and assessment of hazard/exposure (Tier 0), single high dose and dose response testing (Tier 1), refined hazard characterization and exposure assessment (Tier 2) and further refined risk assessment experiments (Tier 3). An additional tier (Tier 4) was included to reflect the fact that post-market activities such as monitoring are required under Directive 2001/18/EC. The approach is compatible with conditions of commercial release in the EU and around the world.

Herbicide risk assessment for non-target aquatic plants: sulfosulfuron--a case study.

Herbicides entering the aquatic environment by spray drift, run-off and leaching to field drains may cause adverse effects on non-target aquatic vegetation. The potential for such effects has typically been evaluated from tests with floating, monocotyledonous Lemna sp. However, concern has been expressed as to whether this species could be used to indicate potential effects on other vegetation types, particularly rooted, submerged, emergent or dicotyledonous species. In 1997, the Centre for Aquatic Plant Management undertook development of new tests based on the additional species, Glyceria maxima (Hartm) Holmb, Lagarosiphon major (Ridl) Moss and Myriophyllum spicatum L. The resulting methodology was used to assess the effects of the sulfonylurea herbicide, sulfosulfuron on these species. Data presented here demonstrate that exposure to initial sulfosulfuron concentrations of 3.33 microg litre(-1) for up to 21 days was tolerated by these species and that adverse effects were observed only when plants were exposed to initial concentrations of 3.33 and 10 microg litre(-1) for 70 days. As the occurrence of such high initial concentrations for long periods is unlikely in the aquatic environment, sulfosulfuron is not expected to have adverse effects on the growth of these species. This study has also demonstrated that G maxima, L major and M spicatum grown in small outdoor tanks can be used successfully to assess the effects of crop-protection products on non-target aquatic flora.