@misc{
 title = {Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: Current status and recommendations},
 type = {misc},
 year = {2004},
 keywords = {risk assessment},
 pages = {1-39},
 publisher = {Ecological Society of America},
 id = {65196f43-0b67-3b85-b637-1c3a1f1db107},
 created = {2012-01-05T13:09:04.000Z},
 file_attached = {false},
 profile_id = {1a467167-0a41-3583-a6a3-034c31031332},
 group_id = {0e532975-1a47-38a4-ace8-4fe5968bcd72},
 last_modified = {2012-01-05T13:15:05.000Z},
 tags = {GMO Risk Assessment},
 read = {false},
 starred = {false},
 authored = {false},
 confirmed = {true},
 hidden = {false},
 source_type = {Report},
 abstract = {The Ecological Society of America has evaluated the ecological effects of current and future uses of field-released genetically engineered organisms (GEOs), as described in this position paper.  GEOs have the potential to play a positive role in sustainable agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, bioremediation, and environmental management, both in developed and developing countries.  However, deliberate or inadvertent releases of GEOs into the environment could have negative ecological impacts under some circumstances.  For example, fast-growing transgenic salmon that escape from aquaculture net-pens might jeopardize native fish populations.  Ecological knowledge about potential environmental effects of transgenic organisms is crucial for understanding and avoiding these types of risks.    We reaffirm that risk evaluations of GEOs should focus on the phenotype or product rather the process of genetic engineering (e.g., NRC 1987, 2000, 2002a; Tiedje et al. 1989), but we also recognize that some GEOs possess novel characteristics that require greater scrutiny than organisms produced by traditional techniques of plant and animal breeding.  Also, unlike commercialized crops or farm-raised fish, some GEOs are organisms for which there is little previous experience with breeding, release, and monitoring.  Future applications of genetic engineering extend far beyond traditional breeding, encompassing transgenic viruses, bacteria, algae, fungi, grasses, trees, insects, fish, shellfish and many other non-domesticated species that occur in both managed and unmanaged habitats.     The environmental benefits and risks associated with GEOs should be evaluated relative to appropriate baseline scenarios (e.g., transgenic versus conventional crops), with due consideration of the ecology of the organism receiving the trait, the trait itself, and the environment(s) into which the organism will be introduced.  Long-term ecological impacts of new types of GEOs may be difficult to predict or study prior to commercialization, and we strongly recommend a cautious approach to releasing such GEOs into the environment.  Engineered organisms that may pose some risk to the environment include cases where:   there is little prior experience with the trait and host combination; the GEO may proliferate and persist without human intervention; genetic exchange is possible between a transformed organism and non-domesticated organisms; or the trait confers an advantage to the GEO over native species in a given environment. An assessment of environmental risk is needed to minimize the likelihood of negative ecological effects such as:  creating new or more vigorous pests and pathogens; exacerbating the effects of existing pests through hybridization with related transgenic organisms; harm to non-target species, such as soil organisms, non-pest insects, birds, and other animals; disruptive effects on biotic communities; and irreparable loss or changes in species diversity or genetic diversity within species.  GEOs should be evaluated and used within the context of a scientifically based regulatory policy that encourages innovation without compromising sound environmental management.  The process by which this occurs should be open to public scrutiny and broad-based scientific debate.  In addition, current regulatory policies should be evaluated and modified over time to accommodate new applications of genetic engineering.  In light of these points, we offer the following recommendations regarding the development, evaluation, and use of GEOs in the environment.  Early planning in GEO development - GEOs should be designed to reduce unwanted environmental risks by incorporating specific genetic features, which might include sterility, reduced fitness, inducible rather than constitutive gene expression, and the absence of undesirable selectable markers.  Analyses of environmental benefits and risks - Rigorous, well-designed studies of the benefits and risks associated with GEOs are needed.   Ecologists, evolutionary biologists, and a wide range of other disciplinary specialists should become more actively involved in research aimed at quantifying benefits and risks posed by GEOs in the environment.  Because of the inherent complexity of ecological systems, this research should be carried out over a range of spatial and temporal scales.   We further recommend that the government and commercial sectors expand their support for environmental risk assessment (including environmental benefits) and risk management research.  Preventing the release of unwanted GEOs - Strict confinement of GEOs is often impossible after large-scale field releases have occurred.  Therefore, we recommend that large-scale or commercial release of GEOs be prevented if scientific knowledge about possible risks is inadequate or if existing knowledge suggests the potential for serious unwanted environmental (or human health) effects.  Monitoring of commercial GEOs - Well-designed monitoring will be crucial to identify, manage, and mitigate environmental risks when there are reasons to suspect possible problems.  In some cases, post-release monitoring may detect environmental risks that were not evident in small-scale, pre-commercial risk evaluations.  Because environmental monitoring is expensive, a clear system of adaptive management is needed so that monitoring data can be used effectively in environmental and regulatory decision-making.   Regulatory considerations - Science-based regulation should: (a) subject all transgenic organisms to a similar risk assessment framework, (b) recognize that many environmental risks are GEO- and site-specific, and therefore that risk analysis should be tailored to particular applications, and (c) incorporate a cautious approach to environmental risk analysis.  Multidisciplinary training – Ecologists, agricultural scientists, molecular biologists, and others need broader training to address the above recommendations.  We strongly encourage greater multidisciplinary training and collaborative, multidisciplinary research on the environmental risks and benefits of GEOs.  In summary, we urge scientifically-based assessment of the benefits and risks of GEOs that are proposed for release into the environment, and scientifically-based monitoring and management for environmental effects that may occur over large spatial scales and long time frames.  GEOs that are phenotypically similar to conventionally bred organisms raise few new environmental concerns, but many novel types of GEOs are being considered for future development.  These include baculoviruses that are engineered for more effective biological control, microorganisms that promote carbon storage, fast-growing fish, and fast-growing plants that tolerate cold, drought, or salinity. The Ecological Society of America is committed to providing scientific expertise for evaluating and predicting ecological benefits and risks posed by field-released transgenic organisms.},
 bibtype = {misc},
 author = {Snow, Allison A and Andow, David A and Gepts, P and Hallerman, E M and Power, A and Tiedje, J M and Wolfenbarger, L L}
}

{"_id":"yxhdeZ8HCmKejhC8o","bibbaseid":"snow-andow-gepts-hallerman-power-tiedje-wolfenbarger-geneticallyengineeredorganismsandtheenvironmentcurrentstatusandrecommendations-2004","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2015-08-05T17:19:27.929Z","title":"Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: Current status and recommendations","author_short":["Snow, A., A.","Andow, D., A.","Gepts, P.","Hallerman, E., M.","Power, A.","Tiedje, J., M.","Wolfenbarger, L., L."],"year":2004,"bibtype":"misc","biburl":null,"bibdata":{"title":"Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: Current status and recommendations","type":"misc","year":"2004","keywords":"risk assessment","pages":"1-39","publisher":"Ecological Society of America","id":"65196f43-0b67-3b85-b637-1c3a1f1db107","created":"2012-01-05T13:09:04.000Z","file_attached":false,"profile_id":"1a467167-0a41-3583-a6a3-034c31031332","group_id":"0e532975-1a47-38a4-ace8-4fe5968bcd72","last_modified":"2012-01-05T13:15:05.000Z","tags":"GMO Risk Assessment","read":false,"starred":false,"authored":false,"confirmed":"true","hidden":false,"source_type":"Report","abstract":"The Ecological Society of America has evaluated the ecological effects of current and future uses of field-released genetically engineered organisms (GEOs), as described in this position paper. GEOs have the potential to play a positive role in sustainable agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, bioremediation, and environmental management, both in developed and developing countries. However, deliberate or inadvertent releases of GEOs into the environment could have negative ecological impacts under some circumstances. For example, fast-growing transgenic salmon that escape from aquaculture net-pens might jeopardize native fish populations. Ecological knowledge about potential environmental effects of transgenic organisms is crucial for understanding and avoiding these types of risks. We reaffirm that risk evaluations of GEOs should focus on the phenotype or product rather the process of genetic engineering (e.g., NRC 1987, 2000, 2002a; Tiedje et al. 1989), but we also recognize that some GEOs possess novel characteristics that require greater scrutiny than organisms produced by traditional techniques of plant and animal breeding. Also, unlike commercialized crops or farm-raised fish, some GEOs are organisms for which there is little previous experience with breeding, release, and monitoring. Future applications of genetic engineering extend far beyond traditional breeding, encompassing transgenic viruses, bacteria, algae, fungi, grasses, trees, insects, fish, shellfish and many other non-domesticated species that occur in both managed and unmanaged habitats. The environmental benefits and risks associated with GEOs should be evaluated relative to appropriate baseline scenarios (e.g., transgenic versus conventional crops), with due consideration of the ecology of the organism receiving the trait, the trait itself, and the environment(s) into which the organism will be introduced. Long-term ecological impacts of new types of GEOs may be difficult to predict or study prior to commercialization, and we strongly recommend a cautious approach to releasing such GEOs into the environment. Engineered organisms that may pose some risk to the environment include cases where: there is little prior experience with the trait and host combination; the GEO may proliferate and persist without human intervention; genetic exchange is possible between a transformed organism and non-domesticated organisms; or the trait confers an advantage to the GEO over native species in a given environment. An assessment of environmental risk is needed to minimize the likelihood of negative ecological effects such as: creating new or more vigorous pests and pathogens; exacerbating the effects of existing pests through hybridization with related transgenic organisms; harm to non-target species, such as soil organisms, non-pest insects, birds, and other animals; disruptive effects on biotic communities; and irreparable loss or changes in species diversity or genetic diversity within species. GEOs should be evaluated and used within the context of a scientifically based regulatory policy that encourages innovation without compromising sound environmental management. The process by which this occurs should be open to public scrutiny and broad-based scientific debate. In addition, current regulatory policies should be evaluated and modified over time to accommodate new applications of genetic engineering. In light of these points, we offer the following recommendations regarding the development, evaluation, and use of GEOs in the environment. Early planning in GEO development - GEOs should be designed to reduce unwanted environmental risks by incorporating specific genetic features, which might include sterility, reduced fitness, inducible rather than constitutive gene expression, and the absence of undesirable selectable markers. Analyses of environmental benefits and risks - Rigorous, well-designed studies of the benefits and risks associated with GEOs are needed. Ecologists, evolutionary biologists, and a wide range of other disciplinary specialists should become more actively involved in research aimed at quantifying benefits and risks posed by GEOs in the environment. Because of the inherent complexity of ecological systems, this research should be carried out over a range of spatial and temporal scales. We further recommend that the government and commercial sectors expand their support for environmental risk assessment (including environmental benefits) and risk management research. Preventing the release of unwanted GEOs - Strict confinement of GEOs is often impossible after large-scale field releases have occurred. Therefore, we recommend that large-scale or commercial release of GEOs be prevented if scientific knowledge about possible risks is inadequate or if existing knowledge suggests the potential for serious unwanted environmental (or human health) effects. Monitoring of commercial GEOs - Well-designed monitoring will be crucial to identify, manage, and mitigate environmental risks when there are reasons to suspect possible problems. In some cases, post-release monitoring may detect environmental risks that were not evident in small-scale, pre-commercial risk evaluations. Because environmental monitoring is expensive, a clear system of adaptive management is needed so that monitoring data can be used effectively in environmental and regulatory decision-making. Regulatory considerations - Science-based regulation should: (a) subject all transgenic organisms to a similar risk assessment framework, (b) recognize that many environmental risks are GEO- and site-specific, and therefore that risk analysis should be tailored to particular applications, and (c) incorporate a cautious approach to environmental risk analysis. Multidisciplinary training – Ecologists, agricultural scientists, molecular biologists, and others need broader training to address the above recommendations. We strongly encourage greater multidisciplinary training and collaborative, multidisciplinary research on the environmental risks and benefits of GEOs. In summary, we urge scientifically-based assessment of the benefits and risks of GEOs that are proposed for release into the environment, and scientifically-based monitoring and management for environmental effects that may occur over large spatial scales and long time frames. GEOs that are phenotypically similar to conventionally bred organisms raise few new environmental concerns, but many novel types of GEOs are being considered for future development. These include baculoviruses that are engineered for more effective biological control, microorganisms that promote carbon storage, fast-growing fish, and fast-growing plants that tolerate cold, drought, or salinity. The Ecological Society of America is committed to providing scientific expertise for evaluating and predicting ecological benefits and risks posed by field-released transgenic organisms.","bibtype":"misc","author":"Snow, Allison A and Andow, David A and Gepts, P and Hallerman, E M and Power, A and Tiedje, J M and Wolfenbarger, L L","bibtex":"@misc{\n title = {Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: Current status and recommendations},\n type = {misc},\n year = {2004},\n keywords = {risk assessment},\n pages = {1-39},\n publisher = {Ecological Society of America},\n id = {65196f43-0b67-3b85-b637-1c3a1f1db107},\n created = {2012-01-05T13:09:04.000Z},\n file_attached = {false},\n profile_id = {1a467167-0a41-3583-a6a3-034c31031332},\n group_id = {0e532975-1a47-38a4-ace8-4fe5968bcd72},\n last_modified = {2012-01-05T13:15:05.000Z},\n tags = {GMO Risk Assessment},\n read = {false},\n starred = {false},\n authored = {false},\n confirmed = {true},\n hidden = {false},\n source_type = {Report},\n abstract = {The Ecological Society of America has evaluated the ecological effects of current and future uses of field-released genetically engineered organisms (GEOs), as described in this position paper. GEOs have the potential to play a positive role in sustainable agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, bioremediation, and environmental management, both in developed and developing countries. However, deliberate or inadvertent releases of GEOs into the environment could have negative ecological impacts under some circumstances. For example, fast-growing transgenic salmon that escape from aquaculture net-pens might jeopardize native fish populations. Ecological knowledge about potential environmental effects of transgenic organisms is crucial for understanding and avoiding these types of risks. We reaffirm that risk evaluations of GEOs should focus on the phenotype or product rather the process of genetic engineering (e.g., NRC 1987, 2000, 2002a; Tiedje et al. 1989), but we also recognize that some GEOs possess novel characteristics that require greater scrutiny than organisms produced by traditional techniques of plant and animal breeding. Also, unlike commercialized crops or farm-raised fish, some GEOs are organisms for which there is little previous experience with breeding, release, and monitoring. Future applications of genetic engineering extend far beyond traditional breeding, encompassing transgenic viruses, bacteria, algae, fungi, grasses, trees, insects, fish, shellfish and many other non-domesticated species that occur in both managed and unmanaged habitats. The environmental benefits and risks associated with GEOs should be evaluated relative to appropriate baseline scenarios (e.g., transgenic versus conventional crops), with due consideration of the ecology of the organism receiving the trait, the trait itself, and the environment(s) into which the organism will be introduced. Long-term ecological impacts of new types of GEOs may be difficult to predict or study prior to commercialization, and we strongly recommend a cautious approach to releasing such GEOs into the environment. Engineered organisms that may pose some risk to the environment include cases where: there is little prior experience with the trait and host combination; the GEO may proliferate and persist without human intervention; genetic exchange is possible between a transformed organism and non-domesticated organisms; or the trait confers an advantage to the GEO over native species in a given environment. An assessment of environmental risk is needed to minimize the likelihood of negative ecological effects such as: creating new or more vigorous pests and pathogens; exacerbating the effects of existing pests through hybridization with related transgenic organisms; harm to non-target species, such as soil organisms, non-pest insects, birds, and other animals; disruptive effects on biotic communities; and irreparable loss or changes in species diversity or genetic diversity within species. GEOs should be evaluated and used within the context of a scientifically based regulatory policy that encourages innovation without compromising sound environmental management. The process by which this occurs should be open to public scrutiny and broad-based scientific debate. In addition, current regulatory policies should be evaluated and modified over time to accommodate new applications of genetic engineering. In light of these points, we offer the following recommendations regarding the development, evaluation, and use of GEOs in the environment. Early planning in GEO development - GEOs should be designed to reduce unwanted environmental risks by incorporating specific genetic features, which might include sterility, reduced fitness, inducible rather than constitutive gene expression, and the absence of undesirable selectable markers. Analyses of environmental benefits and risks - Rigorous, well-designed studies of the benefits and risks associated with GEOs are needed. Ecologists, evolutionary biologists, and a wide range of other disciplinary specialists should become more actively involved in research aimed at quantifying benefits and risks posed by GEOs in the environment. Because of the inherent complexity of ecological systems, this research should be carried out over a range of spatial and temporal scales. We further recommend that the government and commercial sectors expand their support for environmental risk assessment (including environmental benefits) and risk management research. Preventing the release of unwanted GEOs - Strict confinement of GEOs is often impossible after large-scale field releases have occurred. Therefore, we recommend that large-scale or commercial release of GEOs be prevented if scientific knowledge about possible risks is inadequate or if existing knowledge suggests the potential for serious unwanted environmental (or human health) effects. Monitoring of commercial GEOs - Well-designed monitoring will be crucial to identify, manage, and mitigate environmental risks when there are reasons to suspect possible problems. In some cases, post-release monitoring may detect environmental risks that were not evident in small-scale, pre-commercial risk evaluations. Because environmental monitoring is expensive, a clear system of adaptive management is needed so that monitoring data can be used effectively in environmental and regulatory decision-making. Regulatory considerations - Science-based regulation should: (a) subject all transgenic organisms to a similar risk assessment framework, (b) recognize that many environmental risks are GEO- and site-specific, and therefore that risk analysis should be tailored to particular applications, and (c) incorporate a cautious approach to environmental risk analysis. Multidisciplinary training – Ecologists, agricultural scientists, molecular biologists, and others need broader training to address the above recommendations. We strongly encourage greater multidisciplinary training and collaborative, multidisciplinary research on the environmental risks and benefits of GEOs. In summary, we urge scientifically-based assessment of the benefits and risks of GEOs that are proposed for release into the environment, and scientifically-based monitoring and management for environmental effects that may occur over large spatial scales and long time frames. GEOs that are phenotypically similar to conventionally bred organisms raise few new environmental concerns, but many novel types of GEOs are being considered for future development. These include baculoviruses that are engineered for more effective biological control, microorganisms that promote carbon storage, fast-growing fish, and fast-growing plants that tolerate cold, drought, or salinity. The Ecological Society of America is committed to providing scientific expertise for evaluating and predicting ecological benefits and risks posed by field-released transgenic organisms.},\n bibtype = {misc},\n author = {Snow, Allison A and Andow, David A and Gepts, P and Hallerman, E M and Power, A and Tiedje, J M and Wolfenbarger, L L}\n}","author_short":["Snow, A., A.","Andow, D., A.","Gepts, P.","Hallerman, E., M.","Power, A.","Tiedje, J., M.","Wolfenbarger, L., L."],"bibbaseid":"snow-andow-gepts-hallerman-power-tiedje-wolfenbarger-geneticallyengineeredorganismsandtheenvironmentcurrentstatusandrecommendations-2004","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["risk assessment"],"downloads":0,"html":""},"search_terms":["genetically","engineered","organisms","environment","current","status","recommendations","snow","andow","gepts","hallerman","power","tiedje","wolfenbarger"],"keywords":["risk assessment"],"authorIDs":[]}