Reply to the EFSA (2016) on the relevance of recent publications (Hofmann et al. 2014, 2016) on environmental risk assessment and management of Bt-maize events (MON810, Bt11 and 1507).
In this commentary, we respond to a report of the EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA EFSA Supp Publ, 1) that criticises the outcomes of two studies published in this journal (Hofmann et al. Environ Sci Eur 26: 24, 2; Environ Sci Eur 28: 14, 3). Both publications relate to the environmental risk assessment and management of Bt-maize, including maize events MON810, Bt11 and maize 1507. The results of Hofmann et al. (Environ Sci Eur 26: 24, 2), using standardised pollen mass filter deposition measurements, indicated that the EFSA Panel model had underestimated pollen deposition and, hence, exposure of non-target organisms to Bt-maize pollen. The results implied a need for safety buffer distances in the kilometre range for protected nature reserve areas instead of the 20-30 m range recommended by the EFSA Panel. As a result, the EFSA Panel revised their model (EFSA EFSA J 13: 4127, 4), adopting the slope of the empirical data from Hofmann et al. The intercept, however, was substantially reduced to less than 1% at one point by introducing further assumptions based on the estimates of mainly panel members, citing possible 'uncertainty'. Hofmann et al. (Environ Sci Eur 28: 14, 3) published extensive empirical data regarding pollen deposition on leaves. These results were part of a larger 3-year study involving detailed measurements of pollen release, dispersal and deposition over the maize flowering period. The data collected in situ confirmed the previous predictions of Hofmann et al. (Environ Sci Eur 26: 24, 2). Mean levels and observed variability of pollen deposition on maize and four lepidopteran host plants exceeded the assumptions and disagreed with the conclusions of the EFSA Panel. The EFSA Panel reacted in a report (EFSA EFSA Supp Publ, 1) criticising the methods and outcomes of the two published studies of Hofmann et al. while reaffirming their original recommendations. We respond here point-by-point, showing that the critique is not justified. Based on our results onUrticaleaf pollen density, we confirm the need for specific environmental impact assessments for Bt-maize cultivation with respect to protected habitats within isolation buffer distances in the kilometre range.
TIEM Integrated Environmental Monitoring, Dortmund/Bremen, Germany.|Wölsauerhammer, Marktredwitz, Germany.
Maren
M
Kruse-Plass
TIEM Integrated Environmental Monitoring, Dortmund/Bremen, Germany.|Ökologiebüro, Bremen, Germany.
Frieder
F
Hofmann
TIEM Integrated Environmental Monitoring, Dortmund/Bremen, Germany.|Büro Kuhn, Bremen, Germany.
Ulrike
U
Kuhn
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Bonn, Germany.
Mathias
M
Otto
TIEM Integrated Environmental Monitoring, Dortmund/Bremen, Germany.|Sachverständigenbüro, Dortmund, Germany.
Ulrich
U
Schlechtriemen
Landscape Ecology and Environmental Systems Analysis, Institute of Geoecology, Technische Universität, Brunswick, Germany.|Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany.
Boris
B
Schröder
Agency for Environment, Health and Consumer Protection, Eberswalde, Brandenburg Germany.
Rudolf
R
Vögel
Institute of Statistics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Werner
W
Wosniok
Environmental risk assessment; Exposure; Genetically modified organisms; Host plants; Isolation buffer zones; Lepidoptera; Non-target organisms; Pollen deposition