nach oben

Erschienen in:

2012 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

17. International vergleichende Analyse und Bewertung der Konzepte zur GVO-Risikoanalyse

verfasst von : Hartmut Meyer

Erschienen in: GeneRisk

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Zusammenfassung

Im internationalen Zusammenhang werden Fragen des Umgangs mit GVO vielfältig diskutiert. Eine besondere Rolle spielt dabei die Wahrung der Entscheidungsfreiheit und Souveränität der Staaten, dieses Thema für ihr jeweiliges Territorium zu regeln. Einen wesentlichen Inhalt bildet die Entwicklung von Regeln und Normen für den Umgang mit dem Handel, der grenzüberschreitenden Verbringung von GVO und der biologischen Sicherheit. Standards hierzu formuliert das internationale Abkommen über Biologische Sicherheit (Cartagena-Protocol on Biosafety¹). Dieses Abkommen wurde im Rahmen der Biodiversitätskonvention etabliert (Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); http://www.cbd.int). Beide Konventionen werden im Rahmen regelmäßiger Konferenzen weiter entwickelt. Seitens des GeneRisk-Projekts wurden Aspekte zur Ausarbeitung des systemischen Charakters von GVO-Risiken in einer Begleitveranstaltung zur letzten Tagung der Mitglieder des Cartagena Protokolls in Nagoya (Japan) in einer Begleitveranstaltung zur sozialen Nachhaltigkeit und biologischen Sicherheit präsentiert (Breckling 2010).

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Stakeholder-Interaktionen national: Der Runde Tisch Pflanzengenetik der Bundesministerien BMBF und BMVEL

Nächstes Kapitel Epilog: Gentechnik – Elemente eines Ausblicks

http://bch.cbd.int/protocol

ein Überblick über die GVO-Vorschriften der EU findet sich auf der Internetseite: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/gmo_nutshell_en.htm

Richtlinie 90/220/EWG des Rates vom 23. April 1990 über die absichtliche Freisetzung genetisch veränderter Organismen in die Umwelt http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0220:DE:HTML

der Text des CPB findet sich auf: http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/protocol.shtml

http://bch.cbd.int

http://www.unep.org/biosafety/

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Lists/Advanced%20Search/AllItems.aspx

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/99/st09/st09433-re01.en99.pdf

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/99/st09/st09433-ad01.en99.pdf

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/99/st09/st09433.en99.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmo_intro_en.htm

http://pubresreg.org/

http://www.sozial-oekologische-forschung.org/de/692.php

http://www.ifpri.org/book-637/node/5339

http://www.cec.org/maize

http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/weblink/DocView.aspx?id=50710%26;%26;dbid=0

http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/geneticresources/ECMinutes_180907.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/147_sanco_gmo_cultivation_en.pdf

weitere Informationen unter: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm

http://www.gmls.eu

Siehe Scientific Conference & Citizen Forum: Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety. Scientific Findings, Policy Responses and Public Participation – Social Sustainability and Biological Safety.

Nagaoya/Japan
- http://www.ensser.org/activities/meetings/biosafety-conference-nagoya/
Assessing Systemic Risks
- http://www.ensser.org/uploads/media/KN4-Breckling-EN.pdf
- http://www.ensser.org/uploads/pics/KN4_Breckling.pdf

Abaza H, Bisset R, Sadler B (2004) Environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment: towards an integrated approach. UN Environmental Program, Nairobi

Aheto DW (2009) Implication analysis for biotechnology regulation and management in Africa. Baseline studies for assessment of potential effects of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) cultivation in Ghanaian agriculture. Peter Lang, Basel, Frankfurt/M

Aheto DW, Reuter H, Breckling B (2011) A modelling assessment of geneflow in smallholder agriculture in West Africa. Environ Sci Eur 23(9). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ 2190-4715-23-9

Andow DA, Birch ANE, Dusi AN, Fontes EMG, Hilbeck A, Lang A, Lövei GL, Pires CSS, Sujii ER, Underwood E, Wheatley RE (2006) Non-target and biodiversity risk assessment for genetically modified (GM) crops. Proceedings of 9th international symposium on the biosafety of genetically modified organisms, Jeju Island, Korea, pp 68–73

Andow DA, Hilbeck A (2004) Science-based risk assessment for nontarget effects of transgenic crops. BioScience 54:637–649CrossRef

Andow DA, Hilbeck A, Nguyen VT (2008) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, Volume 4: Challenges and opportunities with Bt cotton in Vietnam. Cabi Publishing, Wallingford

Andow DA, Zwahlen C (2006) Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecol Lett 9:196–214PubMedCrossRef

Anonymus (2010) EU GMO proposals draw widespread criticism. EurActiv Network, Brussels, 14.07.2010

Berg P, Baltimore D, Nathans D, Boyer HW, Roblin R, Cohen SN, Watson JD, Davis RW, Weissman S, Hogness DS, Zinder ND (1974) Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Proc Natl Acad Sci 71:2593–2594CrossRef

Breckling B (2010) Assessing Systemic Risks. Contribution to the Scientific Conference & Citizen Forum: Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety. Scientific Findings, Policy Responses and Public Participation – Social Sustainability and Biological Safety. Nagaoya/Japan, 7.-8.10.2010, http://www.ensser.org/activities/meetings/biosafety-conference-nagoya/; http://www.ensser.org/uploads/media/KN4-Breckling-EN.pdf; http://www.ensser.org/uploads/pics/KN4_Breckling.pdf

Breckling B, Laue H, Pehlke H (2011a) Remote sensing as a data source to analyse regional implications of genetically modified plants in agriculture – Oilseed rape (Brassica napus) in Northern Germany. Ecological Indicators 11(4):942–950. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.003 CrossRef

Breckling B, Reuter H, Middelhoff U, Glemnitz M, Wurbs A, Schmidt G, Schröder W, Windhorst W (2011b) Risk indication of genetically modified organisms (GMO): modelling environmental exposure and dispersal across different scales. Ecological Indicators 11(4):936–941. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.002 CrossRef

Briggs DJ (2008) A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks. Environ Health 7:61–78PubMedCrossRef

Brush S, Chauvet M (2004) Assessment of social and cultural effects associated with transgenic maize production. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Quebec

Buckley R (2000) Strategic environmental assessment of policies and plans: legislation and implementation. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 18:209–215CrossRef

CBD (2004) Decision VI/7. Identification, monitoring, indicators and assessments. Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity related issues into environmental-impact-assessment legislation or processes and in strategic impact assessment. Secretarial of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

CBD (2006) CBD Technical Series No. 26 – Biodiversity in impact assessment. Background document to CBD Decision VIII/28: Voluntary guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment. Secretarial of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

CEC (2004) Maize & Biodiversity. The effects of transgenic maize in Mexico – Key findings and recommendations. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Quebec

Chaker A, El-Fad K, Chamas L, Hatjian B (2006) A review of strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26:15–56CrossRef

Chipman A (2010) Fears over Europe’s GM crop plan. Nature 466:542–543PubMedCrossRef

COGEM (2009) Socio-economic aspects of GMOs. Building blocks for an EU sustainability assessment of genetically modified crops. Commissie Genetische Modificatie, Bilthoven

Cohen SN (1975) The manipulation of genes. Sci Am 233:25–32PubMedCrossRef

Cohen SN (1977) Recombinant DNA: fact and fiction. Science 195:654–657PubMedCrossRef

Commandeur P, Joly PB, Levidow L, Tappeser B, Terragni F (1996) Public debate and regulation of biotechnology in Europe. Biotech Dev Monit 26:2–9

Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA (2009) Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. National Research Council, Washington, DC

de Greef W (2004) The Cartagena Protocol and the future of agbiotech. Nat Biotechnol 22:811–812PubMedCrossRef

Deutscher Bundestag (1987) Chancen und Risiken der Gentechnologie. Deutscher Bundestag, Bonn

Devos, Y, Reheul D, Dewaele D, van Speybroeck, L (2006) The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union. Environ Biosaf Res 5:127–149CrossRef

EFSA (2010a) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 8(11):1879 doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879

EFSA (2010b) Scientific Opinion on the assessment of potential impacts of genetically modified plants on non-target organisms. EFSA J 8(11):1879 doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1877

EPA (2001) Bt cotton confirmatory data and terms and conditions of the amendment. EPA, Washington, DC

European Commission (2010) New policy for genetically modified organisms (GMO) cultivation. European Commission, Brussels

Falck-Zepeda JB (2009) Socio-economic considerations, Article 26.1 of the Cartagena protocol on biosafety: What are the issues and what is at stake? AgBioForum 12(1):90–107

Food and Drug Administration (1992) Statement of policy & guidance to industry: foods derived from new plant varieties. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD

Garcia-Alonso M, Jakobs E, Raybould A, Nickson TE, Sowig P, Willekens H, van der Kouwe P, Layton R, Amijee F, Fuentes AM (2006) A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 5:57–65CrossRef

Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402(Suppl):6761

Glemnitz M, Wurbs A, Roth R (2011) Derivation of regional crop sequences as an indicator for potential GMO dispersal on large spatial scales. Ecological Indicators 11(4):964–973. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.005CrossRef

Gnansounou E (2011) Assessing the sustainability of biofuels: a logic-based model. Energy 36: 2089–2096

Goodell RS (1979) Public involvement in the DNA controversy: the case of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sci Technol Human Values 4:36–43PubMedCrossRef

Goodland R (2005) Strategic environmental assessment and the World Bank group. Inter J Sustain Dev World Ecol 12:1–11CrossRef

Gupta A (1999) Framing “biosafety” in an international context: the biosafety protocol negotiations. Harvard University, Cambridge

Helbing D (2009) Systemic risks in society and economics. Working Paper 09-12-044. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe

Herbig J (1978) Die Gen-Ingenieure. Hanser, München & Wien

Hilbeck A, Andow DA (2004) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, Volume 1: A case study of Bt maize in Kenya. Cabi Publishing, WallingfordCrossRef

Hilbeck A, Andow DA, Fontes EMG (2006) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, Volume 2: Methodologies for assessing Bt cotton in Brazil. Cabi Publishing, WallingfordCrossRef

Hilbeck A, Baumgartner M, Fried PM, Bigler F (1998a) Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environ Entymol 27:480–487

Hilbeck, A, Meier MS, Raps A (2000) Review on non-target organisms and Bt plants. Report prepared for Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. EcoStrat GmbH, Ecological Technology Assessment & Environmental Consulting, Zurich

Hilbeck A, Moar WJ, Pusztai-Carey M, Filippini A, Bigler F (1998b) Toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin to the predator Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environ Entymol 27:1255–1263

Hill RA (2005) Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 4:67–70CrossRef

Hill RA, Sendashonga C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ Biosaf Res 2:81–88CrossRef

IRGC (2008) An introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva

Jänsch S, Amorim MJ, Römbke J (2005) Identification of the ecological requirements of important terrestrial ecotoxicological test species. Environ Rev 13:51–83CrossRef

Jay S (2010) Strategic environmental assessment for energy production. Energy Policy 38:3489–3497CrossRef

Keller C, Koechlin F (1989) Basler Appell gegen Gentechnologie: Materialband Kongress vom 5./6. November 1988 in Basel. Rotpunktverlag, Zürich

Kollek R, Tappeser B, Altner G (1986) Gentechnologie Chancen und Risiken Bd. 10. Die ungeklärten Gefahrenpotentiale der Gentechnologie: Dokumentation eines öffentlichen Fachsymposiums vom 7.-9. März 1986 in Heidelberg. J Schweitzer Verlag, München

Kvakkestad V, Gillund F, Kjølberg KA, Vatn A (2007) Scientists perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environ Values 16:79–104CrossRef

Levidow L, Carr S, Wiel D (2000) Genetically modified crops in the European Union: regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities. J Risk Res 3:189–208CrossRef

Linacre NA, Gaskell J, Rosegrant MW, Falck-Zepeda J, Quemada H, Halsey M, Birner R (2006) Strategic environmental assessments for genetically modified organisms. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 24:35–43CrossRef

Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214PubMedCrossRef

Marvier M, McCreedy MC, Regetz J, Kaveira P (2007) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316:1475–1477PubMedCrossRef

McMichael A (2008) Environmental change, climate and population health: a challenge for inter-disciplinary research. Environ Health Prev Med 13:183–186PubMedCrossRef

Meyer H (2000) The Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Biotech Dev Monit 43:2–7

Meyer H (2007) The precautionary principle and the Cartagena protocol on biosafety: development of a concept. In: Traavik T, Li Ching L (eds) Biosafety first – Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, pp 469–482

Middelhoff U, Reiche EW, Windhorst W (2011a) An integrative methodology to predict dispersal of genetically modified genotypes in oilseed rape at landscape-level—A study for the region of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological Indicators 11(4):1000–1007. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.008CrossRef

Middelhoff U, Reuter H, Breckling B (2011b) GeneTraMP, a spatio-temporal model of the dispersal and persistence of transgenes in feral, volunteer and crop plants of oilseed rape and related species. Ecological Indicators 11(4):974–988. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.006CrossRef

Millstone E, Zwanenberg P van, Marris C, Levidow L, Torgersen H (2004) Science in trade disputes related to potential risks: comparative case studies. European Commission, Seville

Ming-Lone L, Yue-Hwa Y (2004) Development and implementation of strategic environmental assessment in Taiwan. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24:337–350CrossRef

Nelson KC, Banker MJ (2007) Problem formulation and options assessment handbook. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Nickson TE (2008) Planning environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops: problem formulation for stress-tolerant crops. Plant Physiol 147:494–502PubMedCrossRef

NRC (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Obrycki J, Losey JE, Taylor OR, Jesse LCH (2001) Transgenic insecticidal corn: beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity. BioScience 51:353–361CrossRef

OECD (2003) Emerging risks in the 21st century – An agenda for action. OECD, Paris

OECD (2006) Applying strategic environmental assessment. Good Practice guidance for development cooperation. OECD, Paris

OECD (2008) Strategic environmental assessment and ecosystem services. OECD, Paris

Office of Science and Technology Policy (1986) Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC

Otsuka Y (2003) Socioeconomic considerations relevant to the sustainable development, use and control of genetically modified foods. Food Sci Tech 14:294–318CrossRef

Pollack A (2011) U.S.D.A. ruling on Bluegrass stirs cries of lax regulation. The New York Times, 06.07.2011

Raybould A (2006) Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ Biosaf Res 5:119–125CrossRef

Raybould A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci 173:589–602CrossRef

Reardon S (2011) EPA proposal would exempt some GMOs from registry. Science 322:652CrossRef

Reuter H, Schmidt G, Schröder W, Middelhoff U, Pehlke H, Breckling B (2011) Regional distribution of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—Up-scaling the dispersal and persistence potential of herbicide resistant oilseed rape (Brassisca napus). Ecological Indicators 11(4):989–999. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.007CrossRef

Rodgers J (1981) Asilomar revisited. Mosaic Jan/Feb 1981:19–25

Römbke J, Jänsch S, Meier M, Hilbeck A, Teichmann H, Tappeser B (2009) General recommendations for soil ecotoxicological tests suitable for the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6:287–300

Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MMC, Hartley SE, Hellmich RL, Huesing JE, Jepson PC, Layton R, Quemada H, Raybould A, Rose RI, Schiemann J, Sears MK, Shelton AM, Sweet J, Vaituzis Z, Wolt JD (2008) Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nat Biotechnol 26:203–208PubMedCrossRef

Schmidt G, Schröder W (2011) Regionalisation of climate variability used for modelling the dispersal of genetically modified oil seed rape in Northern Germany. Ecological Indicators 11(4):951–963. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.004 CrossRef

Singer M, Soll D (1973) Guidelines for DNA hybrid molecules. Science 181:1114PubMedCrossRef

Slovic P (2001) The risk game. J Hazard Mater 89:17–24CrossRef

Snow AA, Andow DA, Gepts P, Hallerman EM, Power A, Tiedje JM (2005) Genetically modified organisms and the environment: current status and recommendations. Ecol Appl 15:377–404CrossRef

Snow AA, Moran-Palma P (1997) Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. BioScience 47:86–96CrossRef

Stoeglehner G, Brown AL, Kørnøv LB (2009) SEA and planning: ‘ownership’ of strategic environmental assessment by the planners is the key to its effectiveness. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 27:111–120CrossRef

Suter GW (1993) Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton

Therivel R, Wilson E, Thompson S, Heaney D, Pritchard D (1992) Strategic environmental assessment. Earthscan Publishers, London

Voosen P (2011) In major shift, USDA clears way for modified Bluegrass. The New York Times, 06.07.2011

Watson JD (1977a) An imaginary monster. Bull At Sci 33:19–20

Watson JD (1977b) Remarks on recombinant DNA. CoEvol Quart Summer:40–41

Wright S (1994) Molecular politics. Developing American and British regulatory policy for genetic engineering, 1972–1982. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10:445CrossRef

Titel: International vergleichende Analyse und Bewertung der Konzepte zur GVO-Risikoanalyse
verfasst von: Hartmut Meyer
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch: GeneRisk
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-23432-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-642-23433-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23433-0_17