1 / 17

Dr. Michel Haas Federal Ministry of Health, Dep. II/B/15

International Conference Genetically Modified Crops and Food in Europe – 10. December 2010, Riga GM Policy in Austria Aspects of Health and Environmental Risk Assessment taking into account the Precautionary Principle. Dr. Michel Haas Federal Ministry of Health, Dep. II/B/15. Legal Basis.

carrie
Download Presentation

Dr. Michel Haas Federal Ministry of Health, Dep. II/B/15

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International ConferenceGenetically Modified Crops and Food in Europe – 10. December 2010, RigaGM Policy in AustriaAspects of Health and Environmental Risk Assessment taking into account the Precautionary Principle Dr. Michel Haas Federal Ministry of Health, Dep. II/B/15

  2. Legal Basis • Directive 2001/18/EC on deliberate release implemented by Austrian Law on Genetechnology • Regulation 1829/2003 on GM food and feed Competent authority: Ministry of Health (GMO, GM Food) One Fundamental Principle in the Law on Gentechnology is the Precautionary Principle Since 1997 AT very critical in regard of approval of GMOs, strict policy of precaution

  3. Austrian Bans on GMOs and main reasons 1997: BT- Maize 176 (Syngenta) • ARM gene with possible resistance against ampicillin • Possible unintended effects of BT Toxin on non target organisms • Possible resistance development in target pests 1999: Maize MON 810 • No assessment of indirect and long term effects of the BT – Toxin • Possible unintended effects on benign non target organisms • Possible resistance development in target pests

  4. 2000: Maize T 25 (herbicide resistant) • No integrated assessment of the combined effects of the GMO and the herbicide under realistic conditions 2004, 2006:EC fails to repeal the Austrian Bans 2006: Ban of oil seed rape GT 73 for import for all purposes • Toxicity not adequately assessed • Outcrossing and contamination of ruderal and conventional oil seed rape possible 2008: Bans on import of MON 810 and Maize T 25 for food and feed purposes lifted; Bans for import for cultivation are maintained

  5. 2008: Ban of oil seed rape Ms8xRf3 for similar reasons as for GT 73 Ban of maize MON 863 for import for all purposes • Tests on subchronic toxicity not state of the art • ARM Gene npt II problematic, possibility for transfer of antibiotic resistance against kanamycin, neomycin an other antibiotics not sufficiently assessed

  6. Scientific dialogue with EFSA December 2008: Meeting AT Experts with the GMO Panel of EFSA on Maize MON 810 and T 25 April 2009: Meeting AT Experts with EFSA on MON 863, oil seed rape Ms8xRf3 and GT 73 No agreement on these Meeting with EFSA on scientific level December 2008 (ENVI Council): Council Conclusions • Environmental risk assessment to be improved • Scientific expertise must be strengthened

  7. 27 April 2010: AT Ban on Amflora Potato • Potential for transfer of the ARM Gene npt II not adequately addressed by EFSA GMO Panel • Environmental effects not sufficiently assessed • No adequate monitoring plan • Poor data qualitiy of the dossier Austrian Agency on Health and Food Security (AGES) mandated to explore the background resistance levels in Austria and possible ways of transfer of the ARM Gene to bacteria in soil and the gut.

  8. Risk Assessment of GMOs in Austria - Federal Environmental Agency (UBA Wien) • Austrian Agency for Health and Food Security (AGES) Scrutinize GMO Dossiers of applicants within the harmonized Risk Assessment procedure (EFSA/ Member States)

  9. Issues to be considered • Molecular characterization (stability and expression of insert, possible fusion proteins, ARM Genes, etc.) • Agricultural parameters (assessment of feld trials) • Nutritional composition (compared with isogene varieties), check of antinutrients • Allergenicity • Toxicity (tox. tests, feeding studies etc.)

  10. Environmental Risk Assessment Assessment of possible long term effects on humans, animals and the environment • Effects of release on the receiving environment • Effects of possible gene transfer, outcrossing, spread of pollen etc. • Effects of interactions with other organisms GMO Unit of AGES elaborates combined assessment of the health and environmental risk aspects of the dossiers. Assessment is sent to EFSA by the Ministry of Health.

  11. GMO risk assessment (Molecular Characterization/Food and Feed): General Approach (AGES) Focus ofriskassessmentconcerning GMO dossiersaccordingtoregulation 1829/2003: 1. Data quality 2. Data presentation 3. Adherenceto EFSA GMO riskassessmentguidelines 4. Comparisonofconventionallyperformedexperimentswith experimental design appliedduring GMO riskassessment

  12. Major pointsofcriticismraisedby Austrian GMO riskassessors 1. EFSA GMO panelacceptsinsufficientdata (e.g. inadequate sample number, numberofgenerationsetc… tested) 2. EFSA GMO panelacceptsdatawhichcannotbeinterpreted (e.g. wrongand/or diffuse bandingpattern on Southern blots, brokengels, over/underexposedblotsetc…) 3. EFSA GMO panelacceptsinsensitivedetectionmethodswhichcannotprovidethenecessarysensitivitytoallowsoundconclusions (e.g. Southern blotswithsinglerestrictionenzymeasevidenceforgeneticstabilityofthetransgenicinsert)

  13. Conclusionsof Austrian Food/Feed GMO riskassessors Data of poor quality (incomplete or otherwise not interpretable) presented by the notifier do not provide a sound basis for an adequate risk assessment. Due toflawsmentionedabovethe final EFSA opinion on the respective GMO suffers from a certain degree of uncertainty, which is proportional to the quality of the presented GMO dossier. Low quality dossiers result in EFSA opinions containing a high degree of uncertainty.

  14. AT Position in the Regulatory Meetings So farmainlyapplicationsfor GMOs withagriculturaltraits (herbicideresistanceorinsectresistance) in particular diverse GMO Maizelines, but also Soja, Cotton andOilSeedRape, havebeenputtovote in theRegulatoryCommitteeofDirective 2001/18/EC or in SCFCAH and in therespective Meetings ofthe Environment andAgriculturalCouncils. As accordingtothe AT assessment in all thesecasesdataofriskassementreportsprovidedbythenotifyerslackedcompletenessandcould not resolvequestionsofscientificuncertainty AT votedagainst an approval (due totheprecautionaryprinciple)

  15. Role of the European Commission • So far no reactions in regard of the Austrian safeguard measures; bans are still in existence; • EC now working on Regulation for freedom for Member State to set up restrictions or bans for GMO Cultivation • AT wants reasons of environmental and health protection to be included • Socio-economic factors and reasons of public moral and public policy to be further explored.

  16. Future Aspects AT experts also involved in the elaboration of Guidelines for the risk assessment for GMO Food and Feed and for the assessment of environmental effects of genetically modified plants. Contributions for improvement have been put forward and already been taken into account by the EC in her work to put these guidelines on a regulatory basis. AT Ministry of Health will further critically scrutinize relevant application dossiers. Work on amending Directive 2001/18/EC will be proactively tackled further under the Hungarian Presideny.

  17. I thank you for your attention !

More Related