Informace o publikaci
A critical evaluation of EFSA’s environmental risk assessment of genetically modifed maize MON810 for honeybees and earthworms
| Autoři | |
|---|---|
| Rok publikování | 2019 |
| Druh | Článek v odborném periodiku |
| Časopis / Zdroj | Environmental Sciences Europe |
| Fakulta / Pracoviště MU | |
| Citace | |
| www | článek - open access |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-019-0238-5 |
| Klíčová slova | EFSA; GMO; Bt maize; MON810; Environmental risk assessment; Non-target organisms; Honeybees; Earthworms; Science for policy; Extended peer review |
| Popis | Background In the European Union (EU), genetically modified (GM) crops are permitted for cultivation only after a thorough risk assessment and a decision by the European Commission (EC). The central scientific body assessing food-related risks is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It aims to provide high-quality scientific advice for EU decision-makers. However, both the way EFSA performs risk assessment and the independence of its panel members have been subjected to consistent criticism. In this paper, I examine part of the environmental risk assessment in the Scientific Opinion issued by the EFSA GMO Panel, specifically, the impacts of GM maize MON810 on honeybees and earthworms. The evaluated EFSA document forms the scientific basis of the pending EC Draft implementing decision to renew the authorisation for the lawful cultivation of MON810. I assess the reliability of scientific information cited in the Opinion, the use of this information by EFSA, and the safety conclusions drawn in a form of an extended peer review. Results My research indicates that the scientific studies cited in the EFSA Opinion in the sections concerning the possible impacts of GM maize on honeybees and earthworms stem predominantly from reliable sources in terms of authorship, financial support, and status of the study. However, the reliability of the studies varies significantly concerning the ecological relevance of the experiments. Moreover, the body of referenced evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions on risk. Relevantly, several types of shortcomings in the use of scientific information in the risk assessment were identified as prevalent, namely: EFSA omits relevant available studies, selectively cites information, misquotes studies, fails to acknowledge uncertainties, fails to call for further research where needed, and fails to critically interpret studies and their findings. Conclusions Overall, the findings indicate that the reliability of scientific information and particularly its use by the EFSA GMO Panel produces low-quality scientific advice, which is inconsistent with the Authority Mission Statement. My research would support the call by the European Parliament and NGOs on the EC to withdraw its Draft implementing decision intended to renew the authorisation of MON810 cultivation. |