BVL Bundesamt fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit

Berlin, Germany

BVL Bundesamt fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit

Berlin, Germany
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Perry J.N.,Oaklands Barn | Barberi P.,Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies | Bartsch D.,BVL Bundesamt fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit | Birch A.N.E.,James Hutton Institute | And 10 more authors.
Environmental Sciences Europe | Year: 2017

We respond to the paper of Kruse-Plass et al. (Environ Sci Eur 29:12, 2017), published in this journal, regarding the risk to non-target lepidopteran larvae exposed to pollen from one or more of three Bt maize events (MON810, Bt11 and 1507). We emphasise that what is important for environmental risk assessment is not the number of pollen grains per se, but the degree of exposure of a NT lepidopteran larva to Bt protein contained in maize pollen. The main text of this response deals with general issues which Kruse-Plass et al. have failed to understand; more detailed refutations of each of their claims are given in Additional file 1. Valid environmental risk assessment requires direct measurement of pollen on leaves at varying distances outside a source field(s); such measurements reflect the potential exposure experienced by an individual larva on a host plant. There are no new data in the Kruse-Plass et al. paper, or indeed any data directly quantifying pollen on actual host-plant leaves outside a maize field; only data gathered within or at the edge of maize crops were reported. Values quoted by Kruse-Plass et al. for deposition on host plants outside the field were estimates only. We reiterate the severe methodological criticisms made by EFSA [Relevance of a new scientific publication (Hofmann et al. 2016) for previous environmental risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on the cultivation of Bt-maize events MON810, Bt11 and 1507. EFSA Supp Publ; EN-1070, 2016], which render this estimation procedure unreliable. Furthermore, criticisms of EFSA (EFSA J 2015(13):4127, 2015) and of EFSA [Relevance of a new scientific publication (Hofmann et al. 2016) for previous environmental risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on the cultivation of Bt-maize events MON810, Bt11 and 1507. EFSA Supp Publ; EN-1070, 2016] made by Kruse-Plass et al. are shown in Additional file 1 to be without foundation. We therefore consider that there is no valid evidence presented by Kruse-Plass et al. to justify their conclusions. © 2017, The Author(s).


Bartsch D.,BVL Bundesamt fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit
Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit | Year: 2014

This contribution considers the interaction between scientific knowledge, risk assessment, risk management, policy making and public perception. In the European Union (EU), genetically modified organism(s) (GMO) are regulated based on the process of production, not on the phenotype. The regulatory system is science-based and concentrates on the assessment of risks rather than benefits. Risk assessment for placing on the EU market is actually completed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in cooperation with competent authorities from 28 Member States. Research scientists involved need to know the limits and benefits of dealing with restricted data in the risk assessment process. Risk assessors should envisage the consequence of their outcome on risk management in the regulatory process. Conversely, risk managers need to understand the principles and limitations of risk assessment, and communicate clear and measurable protection goals that need to be considered by risk assessors. Policy making impacts in many ways on risk management processes in the EU. Decision making should take into account the best scientific knowledge and acknowledge the transparency for actions that is required by political stakeholders. Communication is important to address all concerns expressed by the public. It is recognised that scientific results cannot always be converted into simple guidelines or advice that non-scientists can easily understand or follow. However, there is no alternative to permanent pro-active and transparent risk communication. Public perception is often at odds with the scientific facts considered by professional risk assessment bodies like EFSA. It is thus a constant challenge to educate the public about scientific advancements and debunk myths spread by interest groups. © 2014 Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (BVL).

Loading BVL Bundesamt fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit collaborators
Loading BVL Bundesamt fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit collaborators