More than 60 GMO experts from national regulatory risk assessment bodies came together in November to discuss the best scientific approaches for evaluating the safety of GMOs at national and European level.
Today the findings from the meeting, including the fact that differences exist among member states with respect to the practical organisation of GMO risk assessment will be presented to an Advisory Forum.
Although he would not specify the final outcome of the process, Steve Pagani, head of EFSA's press office, told FoodNavigator.com: "We want to draw together the best scientific minds and look at the different methodologies available to see if there are other ways to do it."
While EFSA's guidelines remain voluntary, all member states showed that they refer to them, and there were no indications that national risk assessment documents differ from internationally accepted guidance.
Environmental risk assessment
A key issue that will be put to the forum is the environmental risk assessment of GM plants intended for cultivation in Europe, an area that remains a major concern amongst GM critics.
Several European GMO experts asked EFSA to develop further its guidance on environmental risk assessment, particularly concerning field trials, regional specificity and potential effects on non-target organisms.
The environmental working group of EFSA's GMO Panel said it will address these concerns in its ongoing work on refining assessment approaches.
In regards to regional specificity, it was suggested that a country could commission research in their own environments in order to provide information on specific interactions between GM crops and biota in their regions.
Meanwhile, on animal feeding trials, the majority of member state experts were satisfied with present EFSA risk assessment guidance, which requires a 90-day feeding trial study whenever evidence indicates significant differences in the GM plant that requires further investigation.
Different assessment procedures
Dr Harry Kuiper, chair of the EFSA GMO Panel, emphasised that risk assessment is done comprehensively based on all the available evidence, since there is no single test that can give a full risk analysis.
While the majority of member state experts agreed that statistics had an important role to play in GMO risk assessment, they thought biological relevance should drive the dynamics.
Therefore, EFSA concluded that more guidance is needed on defining threshold values for variation of test endpoints that are used in statistical analyses to assess biological. relevance
GM situation in Europe
Last year, over 110,000 hectares of biotech crops were harvested in seven EU member states, compared to 62,000 hectares in 2006. This represents a 77 per cent increase.
At the moment, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is maize, which was approved in 1998. It is not cultivated for human consumption but for animal feed.
The possible risks posed by the use of GM crops, particularly concerns of cross-contamination, have caused some countries to place bans on their cultivation.
Austria enforced a ban on the import and processing of Monsanto's MON810 and Bayer's T25 maize in June 1999, expressing concerns on safety.
The Commission has been debating whether to force the country to lift its restrictions since 2005, as Austria has never produced the necessary scientific evidence to contest the positive assessment of the products by Europe's food safety authorities.
France has also extended its temporary ban on the cultivation of MON810, applying the same EU measure by arguing the costs to health posed by GM crops.
Earlier this month, the European Commission was given yet more time to bring member states in compliance with trade obligations on GM crops.
