Experiences in Engaging the Public on Biotechnology Advances and Regulation.

Public input is often sought as part of the biosafety decision-making process. Information and communication about the advances in biotechnology are part of the first step to engagement. This step often relies on the developers and introducers of the particular innovation, for example, an industry-funded website has hosted various authorities to respond to questions from the public. Alternative approaches to providing information have evolved, as demonstrated in sub-Saharan Africa where non-governmental organizations and associations play this role in some countries and subregions. Often times, those in the public who choose to participate in engagement opportunities have opinions about the overall biosafety decision process. Case-by-case decisions are made within defined regulatory frameworks, however, and in general, regulatory consultation does not provide the opportunity for input to the overall decision-making process. The various objectives on both sides of engagement can make the experience challenging; there are no clear metrics for success. The situation is challenging because public input occurs within the context of the local legislative framework, regulatory requirements, and the peculiarities of the fairly recent biosafety frameworks, as well as of public opinion and individual values. Public engagement may be conducted voluntarily, or may be driven by legislation. What can be taken into account by the decision makers, and therefore what will be gathered and the timing of consultation, also may be legally defined. Several practical experiences suggest practices for effective engagement within the confines of regulatory mandates: (1) utilizing a range of resources to facilitate public education and opportunities for understanding complex technologies; (2) defining in advance the goal of seeking input; (3) identifying and communicating with the critical public groups from which input is needed; (4) using a clearly defined approach to gathering and assessing what will be used in making the biosafety decision; and (5) communicating using clear and simple language. These practices create a foundation for systematic methods to gather, acknowledge, respond to, and even incorporate public input. Applying such best practices will increase transparency and optimize the value of input from the public.

Building Better Environmental Risk Assessments.

Risk assessment is a reasoned, structured approach to address uncertainty based on scientific and technical evidence. It forms the foundation for regulatory decision-making, which is bound by legislative and policy requirements, as well as the need for making timely decisions using available resources. In order to be most useful, environmental risk assessments (ERAs) for genetically modified (GM) crops should provide consistent, reliable, and transparent results across all types of GM crops, traits, and environments. The assessments must also separate essential information from scientific or agronomic data of marginal relevance or value for evaluating risk and complete the assessment in a timely fashion. Challenges in conducting ERAs differ across regulatory systems - examples are presented from Canada, Malaysia, and Argentina. One challenge faced across the globe is the conduct of risk assessments with limited resources. This challenge can be overcome by clarifying risk concepts, placing greater emphasis on data critical to assess environmental risk (for example, phenotypic and plant performance data rather than molecular data), and adapting advances in risk analysis from other relevant disciplines.

Genetic basis and detection of unintended effects in genetically modified crop plants.

In January 2014, an international meeting sponsored by the International Life Sciences Institute/Health and Environmental Sciences Institute and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency titled "Genetic Basis of Unintended Effects in Modified Plants" was held in Ottawa, Canada, bringing together over 75 scientists from academia, government, and the agro-biotech industry. The objectives of the meeting were to explore current knowledge and identify areas requiring further study on unintended effects in plants and to discuss how this information can inform and improve genetically modified (GM) crop risk assessments. The meeting featured presentations on the molecular basis of plant genome variability in general, unintended changes at the molecular and phenotypic levels, and the development and use of hypothesis-driven evaluations of unintended effects in assessing conventional and GM crops. The development and role of emerging "omics" technologies in the assessment of unintended effects was also discussed. Several themes recurred in a number of talks; for example, a common observation was that no system for genetic modification, including conventional methods of plant breeding, is without unintended effects. Another common observation was that "unintended" does not necessarily mean "harmful". This paper summarizes key points from the information presented at the meeting to provide readers with current viewpoints on these topics.

Applying a weed risk assessment approach to GM crops.

Current approaches to environmental risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) plants are modelled on chemical risk assessment methods, which have a strong focus on toxicity. There are additional types of harms posed by plants that have been extensively studied by weed scientists and incorporated into weed risk assessment methods. Weed risk assessment uses robust, validated methods that are widely applied to regulatory decision-making about potentially problematic plants. They are designed to encompass a broad variety of plant forms and traits in different environments, and can provide reliable conclusions even with limited data. The knowledge and experience that underpin weed risk assessment can be harnessed for environmental risk assessment of GM plants. A case study illustrates the application of the Australian post-border weed risk assessment approach to a representative GM plant. This approach is a valuable tool to identify potential risks from GM plants.

The enigmatic genome of Chara australis virus.

Most of the genomic sequence of Chara australis virus (CAV), previously called Chara corallina virus, has been determined. It is a ssRNA molecule of 9065 nt with at least four ORFs. At its 5' end is an ORF encoding a protein of 227 kDa, distantly homologous to the multifunctional replicases of benyviruses and rubiviruses. Next is an ORF encoding a protein of 44 kDa, homologous to the helicases of pestiviruses. The third ORF encodes an unmatched protein of 38 kDa that is probably a movement protein. The fourth and 3'-terminal ORF encodes a protein of 17.7 kDa homologous to the coat proteins of tobamoviruses. The short methyltransferase region of the CAV replicase matches only the C-terminal motif of benyvirus methyltransferases. This and other clues indicate that approximately 11% and 2% of the 5' and 3' termini of the complete CAV genome, respectively, are missing from the sequence. The aligned amino acid sequences of the CAV proteins and their nearest homologues contain many gaps but relationships inferred from them were little affected by removal of these gaps. Sequence comparisons show that three of the CAV genes may have diverged from the most closely related genes of other viruses 250-450 million years ago, and the sister relationship between the genes of CAV and those of benyviruses and tobamoviruses, mirroring the ancient sister relationship between charophytes (i.e. the algal host of CAV) and embryophytes (i.e. the plant hosts of tobamoviruses and benyviruses), is congruent with this possibility.

Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants.

Problem formulation is the first step in environmental risk assessment (ERA) where policy goals, scope, assessment endpoints, and methodology are distilled to an explicitly stated problem and approach for analysis. The consistency and utility of ERAs for genetically modified (GM) plants can be improved through rigorous problem formulation (PF), producing an analysis plan that describes relevant exposure scenarios and the potential consequences of these scenarios. A properly executed PF assures the relevance of ERA outcomes for decision-making. Adopting a harmonized approach to problem formulation should bring about greater uniformity in the ERA process for GM plants among regulatory regimes globally. This paper is the product of an international expert group convened by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Research Foundation.

Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is the stable transfer of genetic material from one organism to another without reproduction or human intervention. Transfer occurs by the passage of donor genetic material across cellular boundaries, followed by heritable incorporation to the genome of the recipient organism. In addition to conjugation, transformation and transduction, other diverse mechanisms of DNA and RNA uptake occur in nature. The genome of almost every organism reveals the footprint of many ancient HGT events. Most commonly, HGT involves the transmission of genes on viruses or mobile genetic elements. HGT first became an issue of public concern in the 1970s through the natural spread of antibiotic resistance genes amongst pathogenic bacteria, and more recently with commercial production of genetically modified (GM) crops. However, the frequency of HGT from plants to other eukaryotes or prokaryotes is extremely low. The frequency of HGT to viruses is potentially greater, but is restricted by stringent selection pressures. In most cases the occurrence of HGT from GM crops to other organisms is expected to be lower than background rates. Therefore, HGT from GM plants poses negligible risks to human health or the environment.