Risk Assessment and
Risk Management Plan for
DIR 128
Limited and controlled release of wheat and barley
genetically modified for abiotic stress tolerance or
micronutrient uptake
Applicant: The University of Adelaide
August 2014
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Summary of the Risk Assessment and Risk
Management Plan
for
Licence Application DIR 128
Decision
The Gene Technology Regulator (the Regulator) has decided to issue a licence for this
application for a limited and controlled release of a genetically modified organism (GMO) into
the environment. A Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) for this
application was prepared by the Regulator in accordance with requirements of the Gene
Technology Act 2000 (the Act) and corresponding state and territory legislation, and finalised
following consultation with a wide range of experts, agencies and authorities, and the public.
The RARMP concludes that this field trial poses negligible risks to human health and safety
and the environment and that any risks posed by the dealings can be managed by imposing
conditions on the release.
The application
Application number
DIR 128
Applicant:
The University of Adelaide
Project Title:
Limited and controlled release of wheat and barley modified for abiotic
stress tolerance or micronutrient uptake
Parent organisms:
Introduced genes and
modified traits:
Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)

Thirty-three genes that are involved in salt tolerance, aluminium
tolerance, drought tolerance (water use efficiency), nitrogen use
efficiency, or micronutrient uptake.1

Two selectable marker genes from bacteria
Proposed release dates:
August 2014 – December 2019
Proposed locations:
Five sites, two in South Australia and three in Western Australia
Total of 2.5 hectares per season
Proposed release size:
Primary purpose:
To assess whether the introduction and expression of the specified group of
genes in plants affects yield potential under field conditions
Risk assessment
The risk assessment concludes that risks to the health and safety of people, or the environment,
from the proposed release are negligible.
The risk assessment process considers how the genetic modification and activities conducted
with the GMOs might lead to harm to people or the environment. Risks are characterised in
relation to both the seriousness and likelihood of harm, taking into account information in the
application (including proposed limits and controls), relevant previous approvals, current
scientific/technical knowledge, and advice received from a wide range of experts, agencies and
authorities consulted on the RARMP. Both the short and long term potential harms are
considered.
1
The identities of some of the genes have been declared as Confidential Commercial Information (CCI) under
section 185 of the Act.
Summary
I
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Credible pathways to potential harm that were considered included: unintended exposure to the
GM plant material; increased spread and persistence of the GM wheat and barley relative to
unmodified plants; and transfer of the introduced genetic material to non GM wheat or barley,
or other sexually compatible plants. Potential harms associated with these pathways included
toxicity to people and other animals, allergic reactions in people and environmental harms
associated with weediness.
The principal reasons for the conclusion of negligible risks are that the introduced genetic
modifications are unlikely to cause harm to human health or safety or to the environment, the
introduced genes are similar to those already existing in the environment, and furthermore, the
proposed limits and controls effectively contain the GMOs and their genetic material and
minimise exposure.
Risk management plan
The risk management plan concludes that risks posed by the proposed dealings can be managed
so as to protect people and the environment by imposing conditions on the release.
Risk management is used to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the
environment by controlling or mitigating risk. The risk management plan evaluates and treats
identified risks, evaluates controls and limits proposed by the applicant, and considers general
risk management measures. The risk management plan is given effect through licence
conditions.
As the level of risk is assessed as negligible, specific risk treatment is not required. However,
as this is a limited and controlled release, the licence includes limits on the size, locations and
duration of the release, as well as controls including containment provisions at the trial site;
prohibiting the use of GM plant materials in human food or animal feed; destroying GM plant
materials not required for further studies; transporting GM plant materials in accordance with
the Regulator’s guidelines; and conducting post-harvest monitoring at the trial sites to ensure
all GMOs are destroyed.
Summary
II
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Table of Contents
SUMMARY OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................. I
Decision ............................................................................................................................. I
The application .................................................................................................................... I
Risk assessment ................................................................................................................... I
Risk management plan ........................................................................................................ II
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................. 3
ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1
RISK ASSESSMENT CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 1
Section 1
Background .................................................................................................... 1
Section 2
Regulatory framework ..................................................................................... 1
Section 3
The proposed dealings ..................................................................................... 2
3.1
The proposed limits of the dealings (size, locations, duration and people) ............... 2
3.2
The proposed controls to restrict the spread and persistence of the GMOs and their
genetic material in the environment ........................................................................... 3
Section 4
The parent organisms....................................................................................... 4
Section 5
The GMOs, nature and effect of the genetic modification .................................... 4
5.1
Introduction to the GMOs .......................................................................................... 4
5.2
The introduced genes, encoded proteins and their associated effects ........................ 9
5.3
Toxicity/allergenicity associated with the introduced genes, their encoded proteins
and associated products ............................................................................................ 12
5.4
Characterisation of the GMOs ................................................................................. 13
Section 6
The receiving environment ............................................................................. 14
6.1
Relevant abiotic factors ............................................................................................ 14
6.2
Relevant agricultural practices ................................................................................. 14
6.3
Presence of related plants in the receiving environment.......................................... 15
6.4
Presence of similar genes and encoded proteins in the environment ....................... 16
Section 7
Relevant Australian and international approvals ............................................... 16
7.1
Australian approvals ................................................................................................ 16
7.2
International approvals of GM wheat and barley..................................................... 16
CHAPTER 2
RISK ASSESSMENT......................................................................................................... 17
Section 1
Introduction .................................................................................................. 17
Section 2
Risk Identification ......................................................................................... 18
2.1
Risk source ............................................................................................................... 18
2.2
Causal pathway ........................................................................................................ 19
Table of Contents
III
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
2.3
Potential harm .......................................................................................................... 20
2.4
Postulated risk scenarios .......................................................................................... 20
Section 3
Uncertainty................................................................................................... 35
Section 4
Risk evaluation ............................................................................................. 36
CHAPTER 3
RISK MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 38
Section 1
Background .................................................................................................. 38
Section 2
Risk treatment measures for identified risks ..................................................... 38
Section 3
General risk management ............................................................................... 38
3.1
Licence conditions to limit and control the release.................................................. 38
3.2
Other risk management considerations .................................................................... 42
Section 4
Issues to be addressed for future releases ......................................................... 44
Section 5
Conclusions of the RARMP ........................................................................... 44
REFERENCES 45
APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS FROM PRESCRIBED EXPERTS, AGENCIES
AND AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ................................................ 58
Table of Contents
IV
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Abbreviations
APVMA
CaMV
CCI
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Cauliflower mosaic virus
Confidential Commercial Information as declared under section 185 of the
Gene Technology Act 2000
DAFWA
DIR
FSANZ
GM
GMO
ha
hph
LGA
m
NGNE
NLRD
nptII
OGTR
PC2
PR
RARMP
Regulations
Regulator
TGA
the Act
Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia
Dealings involving Intentional Release
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Genetically modified
Genetically modified organism
Hectare
Hygromycin phosphotransferase
Local government area
Metres
New Genes for New Environments
Notifiable low risk dealings
neomycin phosphotransferase II
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Physical Containment level 2
Pathogenesis-related
Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Gene Technology Regulations 2001
Gene Technology Regulator
Therapeutic Goods Administration
The Gene Technology Act 2000
Abbreviations
V
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Chapter 1
Section 1
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Risk assessment context
Background
An application has been made under the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act) for Dealings
involving the Intentional Release (DIR) of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the
Australian environment.
The Act in conjunction with the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 (the Regulations), an
inter-governmental agreement and corresponding legislation that is being enacted in each State and
Territory, comprise Australia’s national regulatory system for gene technology. Its objective is to
protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment, by identifying risks posed by
or as a result of gene technology, and by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings
with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
This chapter describes the parameters within which potential risks to the health and safety of
people or the environment posed by the proposed release are assessed. The risk assessment context
is established within the regulatory framework and considers application-specific parameters
(Figure 1).
RISK ASSESSMENT CONTEXT
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
(including Gene Technology Act and Regulations)
RISK ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
OGTR OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
PROPOSED DEALINGS
Proposed activities involving the GMO
Proposed limits of the release
Proposed control measures
GMO
Introduced genes (genotype)
Novel traits (phenotype)
PREVIOUS RELEASES
PARENT ORGANISM
Origin and taxonomy
Cultivation and use
Biological characterisation
Ecology
RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
Environmental conditions
Agronomic practices
Presence of related species
Presence of similar genes
Figure 1 Summary of parameters used to establish the risk assessment context
Section 2
Regulatory framework
Sections 50, 50A and 51 of the Act outline the matters which the Gene Technology Regulator
(the Regulator) must take into account, and who must be consulted with, in preparing the Risk
Assessment and Risk Management Plans (RARMPs) that inform the decisions on licence
applications. In addition, the Regulations outline further matters the Regulator must consider when
preparing a RARMP. In accordance with section 50A of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act),
this application is considered to be a limited and controlled release application, as its principal
purpose is to enable the applicant to conduct experiments and the applicant has proposed limits on
the size, location and duration of the release, as well as controls to restrict the spread and
persistence of the GMOs and their genetic material in the environment. Therefore, the Gene
Technology Regulator (the Regulator) was not required to consult with prescribed experts, agencies
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
1
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
and authorities before preparation of the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP;
see section 50 of the Act).
Section 52 of the Act requires the Regulator to seek comment on the RARMP from the States
and Territories, the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, Commonwealth authorities
or agencies prescribed in the Regulations, the Minister for the Environment, relevant local
council(s), and the public. The advice from the prescribed experts, agencies and authorities and how
it was taken into account is summarised in Appendix A. Thirteen public submissions were received
and their considerations are summarised in Appendix B.
The Risk Analysis Framework (OGTR 2013) explains the Regulator’s approach to the
preparation of RARMPs in accordance with the legislative requirements. Additionally, there are a
number of operational policies and guidelines developed by the Office of the Gene Technology
Regulator (OGTR) that are relevant to DIR licences. These documents are available from the
OGTR website.
Any dealings conducted under a licence issued by the Regulator may also be subject to
regulation by other Australian government agencies that regulate GMOs or GM products, including
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines
Authority (APVMA), Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), National Industrial Chemicals
Notification and Assessment Scheme and Department of Agriculture. These dealings may also be
subject to the operation of State legislation declaring areas to be GM, GM free, or both, for
marketing purposes.
Section 3
The proposed dealings
The University of Adelaide proposes to release up to 1262 lines2 of genetically modified
(GM) wheat and barley into the environment under limited and controlled conditions.
The purpose of the trial is to evaluate the candidate genes for yield potential under field
conditions. In addition, the release will allow the applicant to produce sufficient grain for
subsequent replicated trials.
The dealings involved in the proposed intentional release include:
conducting experiments with the GMOs
breeding the GMOs
propagating the GMOs
growing or culturing the GMOs
transporting the GMOs
disposing of the GMOs
and the possession, supply or use of the GMOs for the purposes of, or in the course of, any of the
above. These dealings are detailed further below.
3.1 The proposed limits of the dealings (size, locations, duration and people)
The applicant proposes to grow GM wheat and barley plants between June 2014 and
December 2019.
The GMOs are proposed to be planted at five sites, two of which are in South Australia and
three in Western Australia. The South Australian sites are located in the LGAs of Marion and
Wakefield, and the Western Australian sites in the LGAs of Corrigin, Merredin, and Katanning. The
The term ‘line’ is used to denote plants derived from a single plant containing a specific genetic modification resulting
from a single transformation event.
2
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
2
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
latter two sites represent the New Genes for New Environment (NGNE) facilities operated by the
Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (DAFWA).
The collective area of the trial (over 5 sites) would be up to 2.5 hectares (ha) per growing
season.
The applicant proposes that only trained and authorised staff would be permitted to deal with
the GM wheat and barley. Any other visitors to the sites would be accompanied by an authorised
University of Adelaide representative and would not deal with the GMOs.
3.2 The proposed controls to restrict the spread and persistence of the GMOs and
their genetic material in the environment
The applicant has proposed a number of controls to restrict the spread and persistence of the
GM wheat and barley lines and the introduced genetic material in the environment, including:

locating the trial sites at least 200 m from other wheat and barley plants, unless such plants
represent those (GM or non-GM) planted at another location as part of this trial or those
approved for trial at the site under a separate DIR licence

surrounding each trial site with a fence, and controlling plant growth in a 10 m wide zone
outside the fence by mowing, herbicide treatment and/or weeding

surrounding each location (in the fenced trial site) by a 2 m wide buffer where plant growth
will be controlled by mowing, herbicide treatment and/or weeding

monitoring each location for volunteers, beginning two weeks prior to the expected start of
flowering and continuing on a fortnightly basis until flowering has finished

during flowering, inspecting a 190 m wide zone surrounding the 10 m wide zone for wheat and
barley (but see next point)

if there has been no cultivation or detection of wheat and barley in the 190 m wide zone in the
previous two years, reducing inspection of that area to the 50 m wide area directly surrounding
the 10 m wide zone

after harvest, monitoring locations for volunteers and related species at least once every 35
days for a period of two years; during this time period at least three irrigations will be
performed to encourage germination of volunteers

destroying volunteers and related species

cleaning equipment used in harvesting, and threshing on site or transporting the heads to
approved facilities for analysis or processing

storing seed remaining from analysis in an approved facility or destroying the seed by
autoclaving or any other method approved by the Regulator

destroying waste material derived from harvest, and any stubble, by ploughing back into the
soil, burning or burial

transporting and storing GM material in accordance with the Regulator’s Guidelines for the
Transport, Storage and Disposal of GMOs (2011)

restricting access to trial sites to authorised staff

not allowing GM plant material or products to be used for human food or animal feed.
Figure 2 shows the proposed site layout including some of these controls. These controls, and
the limits outlined above, have been taken into account in establishing the risk assessment context
(this Chapter), and their suitability for containing the proposed release is evaluated in Chapter 3,
Section 3.1.1.
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
3
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
190 m wide
Isolation zone
inspected for
wheat and
barley during
flowering of
GMOs
Fence
2 m wide buffer
Zone where the
growth of plants
is controlled
10 m wide
Monitoring
zone where
the growth of
plants is
controlled
Location
(planting area)
Figure 2 Proposed trial layout, including some of the controls (not drawn to scale)
Section 4
The parent organisms
The parent organisms are bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare
L.), both exotic to Australia. Commercial wheat cultivation occurs in the wheat belt from south
eastern Queensland through New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, southern South Australia and
southern Western Australia. Barley is cultivated in these same areas, although a small amount is
also grown in Tasmania.
The wheat cultivars used to generate the GM wheat lines are Bobwhite and Gladius, but some
genes have been backcrossed into the commercial cultivars EGA Bonnie Rock, EGA-Burke, IGW2971, Magenta, Frame and Drysdale. GM barley lines were generated in Golden Promise and
WI4330, but some genes were backcrossed into the commercial cultivars Flagship, Gairdner,
Commander.
Detailed information about the parent organisms are contained in the reference documents
The Biology of Triticum aestivum L. em Thell (bread wheat) (OGTR 2008b) and The Biology of
Hordeum vulgare L. (barley) (OGTR 2008a), which were produced to inform the risk assessment
process for licence applications involving GM wheat and barley plants. These documents are
available from the OGTR website.
Section 5
5.1
The GMOs, nature and effect of the genetic modification
Introduction to the GMOs
The applicant proposes to release up to 1262 lines of GM wheat and barley. The lines were
produced using either Agrobacterium tumefaciens or biolistics mediated plant transformation.
Information about these transformation methods can be found in the risk assessment reference
document Methods of plant genetic modification available from the Risk Assessment References
page on the OGTR website.
Each GM wheat and barley line has been transformed with a single gene from 33 genes of
interest. On the basis of the trait that they are expected to induce, the genes can be divided into five
groups: (i) drought tolerance; (ii) salt tolerance; (iii) aluminium tolerance; (iv) nitrogen use
efficiency; and (v) micronutrient uptake. The GMOs also contain selectable marker genes, these
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
4
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
being the neomycin phosphotransferase II (nptII) gene and/or the hygromycin phosphotransferase
(hptII) gene, both originating from E.coli.
A summary of these groups is presented in Table 1, with details provided in the following
sections.
Table 1 Summary of GM wheat and barley lines proposed for release.
GMO
class
Gene of interest#
Plant transformed
Approx no. of
lines
Drought tolerance
1
SIGNALLING PROTEIN 2
T. aestivum
18
2
TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 1
T. aestivum
72
3
TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 3
T. aestivum
54
4
TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 4
T. aestivum
54
5
TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 5
T. aestivum
54
6
TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 6
T. aestivum
54
H. vulgare
36
7
TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 7
T. aestivum
90
8
PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND METABOLISM GENE 3
T. aestivum
18
9
PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND METABOLISM GENE 4
T. aestivum
18
10
PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND METABOLISM GENE 5
T. aestivum
18
11
CELL SPECIFICATION, PROLIFERATION AND
DIVISION GENE 2
T. aestivum
36
12
CELL SPECIFICATION, PROLIFERATION AND
DIVISION GENE 3
T. aestivum
36
13
RNA METABOLISM PROCESSING GENE 1
H. vulgare
6
14
RNA METABOLISM PROCESSING GENE 2
H. vulgare
6
15
RNA METABOLISM PROCESSING GENE 3
T. aestivum
72
H. vulgare
72
T. aestivum
72
H. vulgare
72
H. vulgare
40
T. aestivum
20
16
RNA METABOLISM PROCESSING GENE 4
Salt tolerance
17
ScNHA1 (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
5
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
GMO
class
Gene of interest#
Plant transformed
Approx no. of
lines
18
PpENA1 (Physcomitrella patens)
H. vulgare
40
T. aestivum
20
H. vulgare
10
T. aestivum
5
T. aestivum
20
H. vulgare
20
T. aestivum
14
H. vulgare
12
19
20
AtAVP (A. thaliana)
AtCIPK16 (A. thaliana)
Aluminium tolerance
21
TaALMT1 (T. aestivum)
22
TaALMT1_minus_insert (T. aestivum)
H. vulgare
9
23
ION TRANSPORTER 5
T. aestivum
9
H. vulgare
9
T. aestivum
9
H. vulgare
9
T. aestivum
9
H. vulgare
9
T. aestivum
8
H. vulgare
6
24
25
26
ION TRANSPORTER 6
ION TRANSPORTER 7C
ScALMT1.M39.1_wt (Secale cereale)
27
ScALMT1.M39.1_plus insert (Secale cereale)
H. vulgare
6
28
HvAACT1 (H. vulgare)
T. aestivum
2
H. vulgare
4
Nitrogen use efficiency
29
TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 2
T. aestivum
20
30
TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 8
T. aestivum
12
31
Aminotransferase
T. aestivum
32
H. vulgare
32
T. aestivum
12
32
CELL SPECIFICATION, PROLIFERATION AND
DIVISION GENE 1
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
6
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
GMO
class
Gene of interest#
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Plant transformed
Approx no. of
lines
T. aestivum
6
Micronutrient uptake
33
OsNAS2 (Oryza sativa)
# The identities of some of these genes have been declared as CCI. The applicant has assigned an identifier to these
genes.
The vectors used for Agrobacterium mediated transformation are variants of a pMDC
backbone, while the vectors used for biolistic transformation include variants of a pMDC backbone
and those based on PHP. Promoters, genomic sequences, and terminators used in these vectors
come from Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Cauliflower mosaic virus, barley, maize, potato, rice,
sorghum, tobacco, durum wheat and bread wheat. They are listed in Tables 2, 3 and 4.
Table 2 Promoters used in constructs.
Name of promoter #
Name of gene that promoter derived from#
Source organism
CaMV35S
Viral promoter
Cauliflower mosaic virus
pAct
OsAct
O. sativa
pB4L
TdHDZipl-4
T. durum
pB7L
TdHDZipl-3
T. durum
pCor39
TdCor39
T. durum
pCor410b
TdCor410b
T. durum
pCor410H1(truncated)
TdCor410H1
T. durum
pCor410H2 (truncated)
TdCor410H2
T. durum
PROMOTER 1
GENE A
T. durum
pDHN8
HvDHN8
H. vulgare
PROMOTER 2
GENE B
T. durum
PROMOTER 3
GENE C
T. durum
PROMOTER 4
GENE D
T. durum
PROMOTER 5
GENE E
O. sativa
PROMOTER 6
GENE F
O. sativa
PROMOTER 7
GENE G
O. sativa
pOsAnt1
Aldehyde dehydrogenase se1
O. sativa
PROMOTER 8
GENE H
Z. mays
PROMOTER 9
GENE I
T. durum
pUbi
Polyubiquitin
Z. mays
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
7
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Name of promoter #
Name of gene that promoter derived from#
Source organism
PROMOTER 10
GENE J
T. durum
pWRKY71 (pJRCO189)
OsWRKY71
O. sativa
PROMOTER 11
GENE K
T. durum
PROMOTER 12
GENE L
Z. mays
# The identities of some of the promoters and the genes from which they originate have been declared as CCI. The
applicant has assigned an identifier to these promoters and genes.
Table 3 Genomic elements used in constructs.
Name of sequence#
Description#
Source organism#
Act intron (MOD1)
intron
O. sativa
APS
amplification promoting sequences
N. tabacum
Mini ALLSTOPS
Stop codon
-
STLS1 intron 2
intron
S. tuberosum
Ubi intron
intron
Z. mays
Ubi1 5’UTR
5’ untranslated region
Z. mays
UNTRANSLATED
SEQUENCE 1
GENE M
CCI
Ubi1 intron
intron
Z. mays
UNTRANSLATED
SEQUENCE 2
GENE N
CCI
# The identities of some of the genomic elements, the genes they come from and their source organisms have been
declared as CCI. The applicant has assigned an identifier to these genomic elements and genes.
Table 4 Terminators used in constructs.
Name of terminator#
Description#
Source organism#
35S ter
Viral terminator
Cauliflower mosaic virus
TERMINATOR
SEQUENCE 1
Terminator of the GENE A gene
T. durum
TERMINATOR
SEQUENCE 2
Terminator of the GENE B gene
T. durum
TERMINATOR
SEQUENCE 3
Terminator of the GENE O gene
CCI
TERMINATOR
SEQUENCE 4
Terminator of the GENE P gene
T. durum
Nos ter
Nopaline synthase gene terminator
A. tumefaciens
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
8
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Name of terminator#
Description#
Source organism#
OsUBI ter
Polyubiquitin gene terminator
O. sativa
TERMINATOR
SEQUENCE 5
Terminator of the GENE Q gene
CCI
TERMINATOR
SEQUENCE 6
Terminator of the GENE R gene
CCI
TERMINATOR
SEQUENCE 7
Terminator of the GENE S gene
CCI
TERMINATOR
SEQUENCE 8
Terminator of the GENE T gene
S. bicolor
TERMINATOR
SEQUENCE 9
Terminator of the GENE U gene
A. tumefaciens
# The identities of some of the terminators, the genes they come from and their source organisms have been declared as
CCI. The applicant has assigned an identifier to these terminators and genes.
5.2
The introduced genes, encoded proteins and their associated effects
Four of the traits, drought tolerance, salt tolerance, aluminium tolerance and nitrogen use
efficiency, can be grouped as abiotic stress tolerances. The natural mechanisms by which plants
deal with abiotic stresses can be classified as either avoidance or tolerance, the former referring to
those that obviously affect the morphology and/or physiology of a plant, and the latter to molecular
changes that may have no visual effects (Howles & Smith 2013). The availability of water is the
most important factor that limits crop yield globally (Castiglioni et al. 2008), but salinity and the
presence of aluminium in acid soils likewise both have large negative impacts upon agriculture
(Brunner & Sperisen 2013; Munns et al. 2012; Rengasamy 2010). Abiotic stress tolerances are
multigenic traits, involving the interaction of genes where the protein products constitute different
biochemical pathways. Further information on plant responses to abiotic stresses can be found in
the RARMP for DIR 102 (available at <http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/ir-1>).
Nitrogen use efficiency is an important factor in crop plant productivity, this forming the
impetus for research, both using conventional breeding and gene technology, to develop plants that
absorb and use this element more efficiently. It can be described as the product of two components:
uptake efficicency and utilisation efficiency (Witcombe et al. 2008). Increasing the efficiency of
nitrogen use would reduce the need for fertilisers in agriculture and the pollution that excess
nitrogen can cause in the environment. Further details of this trait are provided in the RARMP for
DIR 094 (available at <http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/ir-1>).
The other trait that the applicant is attempting to engineer into plants is increased uptake of the
micronutrient iron. Deficiencies in micronutrients affects more than 2 billion of the world’s
population, with iron deficiency being the most common (Tulchinsky 2010; WHO 2014).
Biofortification, the development of new crop varieties with increased levels of micronutrients, by
either conventional breeding practices or genetic modification, provides an extremely promising
approach to dealing with this problem (Nestel et al. 2006). In particular, it allows the staple food
supplies of countries to be used and new germplasm to be spread internationally.
5.2.1
Group 1 – Drought tolerance
The identities of all of the introduced genes linked to drought tolerance have been declared as
CCI. The confidential information was made available to the prescribed experts and agencies that
were consulted on the RARMP for this application.
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
9
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
In reference to their general function in the cell, these genes are involved in either signalling,
transcription, photosynthesis and metabolism, cell specification, proliferation and division, or RNA
metabolism. Some involve the expression of microRNAs in plants, thus down-regulating the
expression of genes by RNA interference (RNAi).
5.2.2
Group 2 – Salt tolerance
ScNHA1
Some GM wheat and barley lines will contain the ScNHA1 gene encoding a Na+, K+/H+
antiporter (NHA) derived from Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast)(Prior et al. 1996). The gene
belongs to the CPA2 (cation/proton antiporter) family of Na+/H+ antiporters in eukaryotes and
resides in the subfamily NHA, which includes animal, plant, fungal and bacterial members (Brett et
al. 2005).
Deletion of the ScNHA1 gene was found to increase the cytosolic pH of yeast cells suspended
in water and acidic buffers, confirming a role of the protein in both regulating the cytoplasmic
concentration of Na+/K+ and buffering the pH of cells (Sychrova et al. 1999). Other studies,
investigating the growth of wild-type yeast and strains mutant with respect of this gene in media
with varying concentrations of K+, have concluded that the protein can affect the main K+ influx
system in this organism (Banuelos et al. 2002; Banuelos et al. 1998).
PpENA1
Some GM wheat lines and barley lines will contain PpENA1, a gene encoding an ENA-type
(exitus natru) Na+ pumping ATPase derived from the moss Physcomitrella patens (Benito &
Rodriguez-Navarro 2003). Eukaryotes have two types of Na+-pump ATPases, the Na+/K+-ATPases
in animals and the ENA-type Na+-ATPases in fungi and mosses such as P. patens.
The PpENA1 protein has been shown to be able to complement a salt sensitive yeast strain
deficient in Na+ and K+, as well as to act more generally as a Na+ pump in yeast (Benito &
Rodriguez-Navarro 2003). Studies of the gene in the moss itself have demonstrated that its
transcription is dramatically up-regulated in response to NaCl, and knockout mutants of the gene
grow significantly slower than wild-type in media containing NaCl (Lunde et al. 2007).
AtAVP1
Some GM wheat lines and barley lines will contain the Arabidopsis gene AtAVP1, coding for
a vacuolar H+-pyrophosphatase (H+-PPase).
H+-PPase proteins are proton pumps that use the energy gained from the breakdown of
pyrophosphate to pump protons into the vacuoles of plant cells. This function of the proteins has
been exploited in research aimed at enhancing the drought and salt tolerance of plants, the theory
being that an increase in the activity of these proteins will generate a higher proton electrochemical
gradient, thus energising secondary transporters, especially the Na+/H+ antiporters (Gaxiola et al.
2012; Pasapula et al. 2011).
Overexpression of the AtAVP1 gene in Arabidopsis increased the tolerance of plants to both
drought and salt stress (Gaxiola et al. 2001), and similarly the overexpression of a homolog from
Thellungiella halophile in maize and cotton improved tolerance to drought in the former and
salinity and drought in the latter (Li et al. 2008; Lv et al. 2008; Lv et al. 2009). An unexpected
consequence of overexpressing these genes in plants was increased proliferation of roots and shoots.
Arabidopsis plants overexpressing AtAVP1 had enhanced leaf areas, root growth and dry weight
compared to those observed in wild-type plants, while a loss of function mutant had leaves and
roots of reduced size (Li et al. 2005). Overexpression of the Thellungiella halophile gene in cotton
was accompanied by increased dry shoot and root masses regardless of whether the plants were
grown in the presence or absence of salt (Lv et al. 2008). Another study has shown that maize plants
overexpressing the Thellungiella halophile gene were more tolerant to phosphate deficit stress than
wild-type plants, this being possibly due to their larger root systems (Pei et al. 2012).
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
10
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
AtCIPK16
Some GM wheat lines and barley lines will contain AtCIPK16, an Arabidopsis gene belonging
to a family of calcineurin B-like (CBL) interacting protein kinases (CIPKs) that play a role in
regulating plant cell responses to abiotic stress (Luan 2009). Calcium (Ca2+) serves as a second
messenger during abiotic stress signalling, its release being detected by a number of sensors,
including the CBL proteins. These latter proteins recruit the required CIPK to the cell membrane,
where the kinase activates transporters and proteins involved in the stress response (Batistic &
Kudla 2004; Luan 2009).
There are at least 25 AtCIPK genes in Arabidopsis thaliana, each CIPK interacting with one
or more members of the CBL family (Batistic & Kudla 2004). AtCIPK24 (also known as AtSOS2)
was detected in a search for genes linked to salt tolerance in Arabidopsis, the mutant sos2 being
hypersensitive to NaCl stress. Under salt stress, AtCBL4 (AtSOS3) recruits AtCIPK24 to the
plasma membrane, where it activates (via phosphorylation) the Na+/H+ antiporter AtSOS1 to
remove Na+ from the cell (Qiu et al. 2003; Qiu et al. 2002). Orthologs of CIPK24 have been
identified in many plant species (Martinez-Atienza et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2004; Yu et al. 2007).
Map-based cloning has been used to identify AtCIPK16 as a gene linked to Na+ exclusion in
Arabidopsis (Roy et al. 2013). Overexpression of the gene in Arabidopsis increased salt tolerance in
both hydroponic and soil cultures, while conversely, use of a microRNA to suppress its expression
in that plant resulted in elevated levels of Na+ in shoots grown in saline media. Overexpression of
the gene in barley was also associated with increased salinity tolerance.
5.2.3
Group 3 – Aluminium tolerance
TaALMT1, TaALMT1_minus_insert, ScALMT1.M39.1_wt, ScALMT1.M39.1_plus_insert
Some GM wheat lines and barley lines will contain one of seven genes coding for aluminium
activated malate transporters (ALMTs). These genes come from wheat and rye (Secale cereale),
some representing in vitro generated variants and mutations (single or double amino acid
substitutions) of wild-type sequences. The excretion of malate has been linked to aluminium
tolerance in plants, and the addition of malate to solutions containing aluminium can protect plants
from toxic levels of this metal by forming a stable harmless complex (Delhaize & Ryan 1995;
Delhaize et al. 1993). ALMTs are membrane localised proteins that facilitate the efflux of malate
into the apoplast of cells (Sasaki et al. 2004; Yamaguchi et al. 2005), their heterologous expression
in a range of organisms (including Xenopus laevis oocytes and the cells of various plants) being
associated with an aluminium tolerance phenotype (Delhaize et al. 2004; Sasaki et al. 2004;
Yamaguchi et al. 2005). In some cereals, such as rye, the number of ALTM1 genes at a certain
chromosomal loci can vary (Collins et al. 2008).
The identities of three of the introduced genes linked to aluminium tolerance have been
declared as CCI. The confidential information was made available to the prescribed experts and
agencies that were consulted on the RARMP for this application.
HvAACT1
Some GM wheat lines and barley lines will contain the barley gene HvAACT1 (HvMATE),
coding for a Multidrug and Toxic Compound Extrusion (MATE) protein. Members of the MATE
family of membrane transport proteins occur in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes. They are
associated with the transport of a variety of organic molecules, including cationic drugs and plant
secondary metabolites such as alkaloids (Omote et al. 2006). HvAACT1 is a citrate transporter
which, in the presence of aluminium, facilitates the efflux of citrate from cells, this organic acid (in
the manner of malate outlined above) chelating the metal and rendering it harmless.
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
11
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
5.2.4
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Group 4 – Nitrogen use efficiency
The identities of all of the introduced genes linked to nitrogen use efficiency have been
declared as CCI. The confidential information was made available to the prescribed experts and
agencies that were consulted on the RARMP for this application.
In reference to their general function in the cell, these genes are involved in either
transcription, primary metabolism, or cell proliferation and division.
5.2.5
Group 5 – Micronutrient uptake
OsNAS2
Some GM wheat lines will contain a rice nicotianamine synthase gene (OsNAS2), the aim
being to produce “biofortified” wheat (ie increasing the level of iron in wheat, thus being useful in
regions of the world where wheat is a staple crop and iron deficiency amongst people is a problem).
Nicotianamine, a chelator and long distance transporter of transition metals such as iron, is
biosynthesised by the trimerisation of S-adenosylmethionine, a reaction catalysed by the NAS
enzyme; a by-product of the reaction is S-methyl-5’-thioadenosine. The mugineic acid family of
phytosiderophores, molecules also involved in the acquistion of iron from the soil, are produced
from nicotianamine by the subsequent activity of other enzymes (Higuchi et al. 1999; von Wiren et
al. 2000). Amongst grasses, each species produces its own set of mugineic acids (Kim & Guerinot
2007).
The NAS gene family is largely plant specific, but examples of related genes are known from
fungi and archaea (Herbik et al. 1999; Trampczynska et al. 2013). NAS genes have been isolated, or
identified via bioinformatics in published genome sequences, from a number of plant species.
Among the cereals, these include barley (Herbik et al. 1999; Higuchi et al. 1999), maize (Zhou et al.
2013), and rice (Higuchi et al. 2001).
Overexpression of NAS genes in plants has been shown to increase the levels of both
nicotianamine and transition metals in cells. Overexpression of a barley NAS gene in both
Arabidopsis and tobacco resulted in plants that showed improved tolerance to nickel, as well as
accumulating large quantities of this metal in their shoots (Kim et al. 2005), while overexpression
of the same gene in rice showed increased levels of both iron and zinc in seeds (Masuda et al.
2009). The combined expression in rice of an Arabidopsis NAS gene and genes coding for a ferritin
and phytase led to a six-fold increase in the iron content of grain (Wirth et al. 2009). In another
study in rice, three rice NAS genes were independently overexpresseed, in each case leading to
increased levels of both iron and zinc (Johnson et al. 2011).
5.2.6
Selectable marker genes
The vectors used to transform plant tissue contain one or both of two selectable marker genes.
These are the neomycin phosphotransferase II (nptII) and hygromycin phosphotransferase (hpt)
genes, both from E.coli. The proteins these genes encode inactivate kanamycin (as well as a range
of structurally related antibiotics) and hygromycin B, respectively. More information on these
genes, and selectable marker genes in general, can be obtained from the OGTR document Marker
genes in GM plants, available on the OGTR website.
5.3
Toxicity/allergenicity associated with the introduced genes, their encoded
proteins and associated products
The introduced genes originate from a range of “higher” plants (Arabidopsis, barley, maize,
rice, rye, and wheat), the moss Physcomitrella patens and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast). Other
than Arabidopsis thaliana, all of the higher plants are widely consumed by people and animals, and
as such people and animals have a long history of exposure to the proteins from these respective
plants. P. patens is a common moss found around the peripheries of bodies of water, often exposed
in late summer and early autumn. Isolates are available from North America, Europe, Africa, Japan
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
12
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
and Australia (Prigge & Bezanilla 2010). There are no reports of this moss producing any toxic or
allergenic compounds, but it should be appreciated that it is not part of the human diet. S. cerevisiae
is a eukaryotic fungus that is commonly used in baking, brewing and wine making, as well as
occurring on fruit and vegetables. As such, it has a long history of use by humans. There are no
reports of any isolates of S. cerevisiae producing toxins that negatively affect the health of humans
or animals (USEPA 1997).
A comprehensive search of the scientific literature yielded no information to suggest that the
genes themselves, their protein products, or any associated products (except iron, see below) were
toxic or allergenic to people, or toxic to other organisms. This includes homologues isolated from
other species. However, no toxicity/allergenicity tests have been performed on any of the proteins.
The protein encoded by one of the genes associated with drought tolerance (declared CCI) has an
eight amino acid residue match with a known allergen. Matches of this length occur often when unrelated amino acid sequences are compared, and is unlikely to imply that the protein will have
allergenic properties (Goodman et al. 2008). Sequence homology searches may establish whether a
protein has an allergenic potential, the length of homology being a balance between detecting
meaningful information amongst false negative and false positive results (Codex Alimentarius
Commission 2003). Further information that has been declared CCI and is pertinent to this gene
was made available to the prescribed experts and agencies that were consulted on the RARMP for
this application.
Expression of the OsNAS2 gene in wheat is aimed at increasing the level of iron in that plant.
Wheat has approximately 30g/g of iron, biofortification targeting a content in this plant of 52g/g
(Bouis et al. 2011). Iron is absorbed through the digestive tract and transferred around the body by a
bloodstream protein called transferrin (Balmadrid & Bono 2009). This ion plays a number of roles
in the body, most prominently being part of the haem group in proteins such as haemoglobin,
cytochrome C and catalase. It is hence essential to the transport of oxygen to cells, oxidative
phosphorylation, and the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide, respectively. However, excessive
iron in the diet quickly leads to saturation of transferrin, resulting in free iron in the blood,
something which is directly toxic to organs (Balmadrid & Bono 2009).
Conditions such as thalassemia can be further complicated by iron overload, inducing
endocrine diseases, hepatic failure and even death. This may at least in apart be due to inhibition of
the expression of hepcidin, an iron regulating peptide (Nemeth 2010; Tanno et al. 2007). Other
genetic disorders also lead to excessive iron uptake. For example, hereditary haemochromatosis is
characterised by excessive absorption of iron, leading to symptoms such as lethargy, upper
abdominal discomfort and loss of libido (Barlow-Stewart et al. 2007).
5.4
Characterisation of the GMOs
5.4.1
Stability and molecular characterisation
All the genotypes of the GM plants are stable under glasshouse conditions. The copy number
of introduced genes range from one to three in individual GM lines, but the genomic locations are
not known for any of the introduced genes.
5.4.2
Phenotypic characterisation
Preliminary phenotypic characterisation of the plants in glasshouse conditions has
demonstrated that the introduced genes induce no major visible phenotypes or reduce viability.
However, some of the lines have shown delayed flowering, this sometimes occurring over a month
later than usually observed. Such delayed maturity may reduce yield in the field, with plants being
forced to endure greater exposure to hot and dry conditions.
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
13
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Section 6
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
The receiving environment
The receiving environment includes: any relevant biotic/abiotic properties of the geographic
regions where the release would occur; intended agricultural practices, including those that may be
altered in relation to normal practices; other relevant GMOs already released; and any particularly
vulnerable or susceptible entities that may be specifically affected by the proposed release (OGTR
2013).
The factors relevant to the growth, distribution and cultivation of commercial wheat and
barley can be found in The Biology of Triticum aestivum L. em Thell (Bread Wheat) (OGTR 2008b)
and The Biology of Hordeum vulgare L. (barley) (OGTR 2008a).
The proposed dealings involve two sites in South Australia and three sites in Western
Australia.
Site 1, “Glenthorne farm”, is located close to the University of Adelaide’s Waite Campus at
O’Halloran Hill. The site is fully fenced and access is managed by a designated laboratory manager.
Site 2, “Karawatha”, is part of a commercial farming operation located in a dryland
agricultural area in the Pinery region, approximately 70 km north of Adelaide. Access to the site
will be controlled by the owner.
Site 3 is a farm at Kunjin, near Corrigin, Western Australia. The site will be managed by a
private company that provides research services.
Sites 4 and 5 are in NGNE facilities, respectively located at Katanning and Merredin, and
operated by DAFWA.
6.1
Relevant abiotic factors
As noted above, the release is proposed to take place at five sites. Two of these (O-Halloran
Hill and Pinery) are located in South Australia, and three (Corrigin, Merredin and Katanning) are
located in Western Australia.
O-Halloran Hill is typical of rain-fed wheat production environments in South Australia,
while Pinery is located in a dryland agricultural area that is useful for the assessment of those
GM lines that are engineered to show increased drought tolerance.
Corrigin is located in a region of Western Australia that has saline soils and is
occasionally subjected to frosts. At present the level of salinity is such that the land is not
subject to broad acre cropping. However, these environmental factors make the land useful for
the trialling of plants with increased tolerances to salt and frost.
Katanning and Merredin are purpose built facilities, one (Katanning) representing the
high rainfall environment used for growing wheat in Western Australia, and the other
(Merredin), regions of that state where wheat is grown under low rainfall. The soil of
Katanning is largely alkaline and sodic, while that of Merredin is a mixture of yellow sands,
gravels, loamy earth and loamy duplex soils, but with also calcareous subsoils.
6.2
Relevant agricultural practices
It is not anticipated that the agronomic practices for the cultivation of the GM wheat and
barley by the applicant will be significantly different from conventional practices for these plants.
GM wheat and barley seeds would be planted in the trial sites in winter or early spring.
The proposed 2 m buffer zone and 10 m monitoring zone surrounding the trial site would be
either mowed, herbicide treated or weeded to maintain vegetation at a height of less than 10 cm.
The applicant proposes to harvest all GM wheat and barley at maturity by hand or by machine
(such as a custom Plot Harvester). Threshing of GM plants would occur on site, or heads
transported to approved facilities for analysis and processing.
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
14
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Seed that remains after harvest would be either stored in an approved facility for subsequent
use or destroyed.
Volunteers would be removed by hand or killed by herbicide application.
6.3
Presence of related plants in the receiving environment
The site of O’Halloran Hill is close to urban areas of Adelaide, the nearest commercial
production areas for either wheat or barley being approximately 50 km distant. However, the other
four sites are located in regions where cereals are grown as crops.
Barley and wheat are not known to hybridise with each other under natural conditions, but do
hybridise with a range of other plants present in the Australian environment. This is discussed in the
two OGTR documents, The Biology of Triticum aestivum L. em Thell (Bread Wheat) (OGTR
2008b) and The Biology of Hordeum vulgare L. (barley) (OGTR 2008a). A summary of the
information contained in these documents is presented below.
Wheat (Triticum aestivum) is sexually compatible with a number of species within the tribe
Triticeae that occur in Australia. Of particular importance are durum wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp.
Durum), rye (Secale cereale), and Triticale. Hybridisation with durum wheat occurs readily (Wang
et al. 2005), whereas that with rye (Dorofeev 1969; Leighty & Sando 1928; Meister 1921) and
Triticale (Ammar et al. 2004; Kavanagh et al. 2010) is rarer. It also readily hybridises with Aegilops
species, but although some specimens of this genus have been collected in Australia, presumably
originating from seed accidently introduced or straying from that brought in for breeding programs
(AVH 2012), no Aegilops species is considered to be naturalised.
Australasia possesses four native Triticeae genera – Australopyrum, Stenostachys,
Anthosachne (Elymus), and Connorochloa (Barkworth & Jacobs 2011) – as well as a number of
introduced species of Triticeae, such as Elytrigia repens (couch grass) and at least four Thinopyrum
species (Bell et al. 2010). Thinopyrum ponticum (tall wheatgrass) has been used as a saltland
pasture plant in Australia, and in some regions has come to be classified as a weed (Barrett-Lennard
2003; NYNRMP 2011). Although there has been no concerted investigation of natural hybridisation
of these native and introduced Triticeae species with wheat, based on experience of hybridising
wheat with most other members of the Triticeae, it is likely that it never occurs.
Barley is divided into three gene pools, the basis for this division being primarily the ability to
form interspecific hybrids, and the use of data arising from molecular and cytogenetic studies
(Zhang et al. 1999). The primary gene pool consists of Hordeum vulgare ssp vulgare (cultivated
barley) and H. vulgare ssp spontaneum (the progenitor of cultivated barley), which are fully
interfertile. H bulbosum constitutes the secondary pool, while the tertiary pool consists of
approximately 30 Hordeum species. Hybridisation of H. vulgare and H. bulbosum usually results in
the elimination of the genome of H. bulbosum and the formation of haploids of H. vulgare, but it
has proven possible to produce partially fertile hybrids that can be backcrossed to H. vulgare
(Pickering & Johnston 2005). Although hybrids can be formed between H. vulgare and members of
the tertiary gene pool, due to infertility these have not proven useful in the introgression of
germplasm into H. vulgare. However, at least in some cases, colchicine can be used to double
chromosome number and lead to the production of hybrid seeds (Islam et al. 2007).
H. bulbosum has been grown as a pasture and forage grass in Australia (Knupffer 2009), and
the tertiary pool species H. murinum ssp leporinum (barley grass), H. murinum ssp glaucum (blue
barley grass) and H. marinum (sea barley grass) are also widespread in Australian pastures and the
environment (Mallett & Orchard 2002; Smith 1968). However, the above described limitations on
hybridisation between H. vulgare and plants from the secondary and tertiary gene pools implies
there is negligible risk of gene transfer from the GM barley plants to these relatives. Hybridisation
between barley and other species is virtually unknown in nature.
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
15
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
As the two NGNE facilities are multi-user facilities, it is possible that other GM and non-GM
wheat and barley plants will be grown there in close proximity to those plants that are the subject of
this application. Currently, GM wheat and barley plants from DIRs 099 and 112 may be present.
Additionally, the other three proposed field trial sites currently have approval for GM wheat and
barley from DIR 102 to be grown.
6.4
Presence of similar genes and encoded proteins in the environment
All the introduced genes and other genetic elements are from plants and bacteria that are
widespread and prevalent in the environment (see Section 5). Most of them are commonly
consumed by people or people are naturally exposed to them.
The nptII and hph selectable marker genes are from E.coli, which is widespread in the
environment.
Although some of the regulatory sequences are derived from plant pathogens, they comprise
only small parts of the total genomes and cannot of themselves cause disease.
Section 7
Relevant Australian and international approvals
7.1
Australian approvals
7.1.1
Previous approval by the Regulator
Wheat and/or barley lines possessing some of the introduced genes have previously been
approved for limited and controlled release by the Regulator under licence DIR 102:
AtAVP1
ScNHA1
PpENA1
AtCIPK16
TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 6
Aminotransferase
Information on previous DIR licences can be found on the GMO record on the OGTR
website. There have been no reports of adverse effects on human health or the environment
resulting from any of these releases.
7.1.2
Approval by other government agencies
No other approvals relating to human health and safety and environment are currently required
from Australian government agencies for this GM wheat and barley trial. However, approvals may
be required under some State governments’ legislation unrelated to human health and safety and the
environment.
7.2 International approvals of GM wheat and barley
Field trials of different GM wheat and barley plants have been approved internationally,
including in the USA, Canada, Germany, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Spain,
Sweden and the United Kingdom. The traits that have been modified include: novel protein
production, disease resistance, insect resistance, altered grain properties and herbicide tolerance3.
3
< http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/status/relday.html>, <http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmp_browse.aspx> accessed
January 2014.
Chapter 1 – Risk assessment context
16
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Chapter 2
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Risk assessment
Section 1 Introduction
The risk assessment identifies and characterises risks to the health and safety of people or to
the environment from dealings with GMOs, posed by or as the result of gene technology (figure 3).
Risks are identified within the context established for the risk assessment (see Chapter 1), taking
into account current scientific and technical knowledge. A consideration of uncertainty, in particular
knowledge gaps, occurs throughout the risk assessment process.
RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS *
Postulation
of risk
scenarios
Risk
context
Identification of
substantive risks
Consequence
assessment
Substantive
Risks
Risk
scenarios
Risk
Evaluation
Likelihood
assessment
Negligible risks
RISK IDENTIFICATION
RISK CHARACTERISATION
* Risk assessment terms are defined in the Risk Analysis Framework 2013
Figure 3 The risk assessment process
Initially, risk identification considers a wide range of circumstances whereby the GMO, or the
introduced genetic material, could come into contact with people or the environment. Consideration
of these circumstances leads to postulating plausible causal or exposure pathways that may give rise
to harm for people or the environment from dealings with a GMO (risk scenarios) in the short and
long term.
Postulated risk scenarios are screened to identify substantive risks that warrant detailed
characterisation. A substantive risk is only identified for further assessment when a risk scenario is
considered to have some reasonable chance of causing harm. Pathways that do not lead to harm, or
could not plausibly occur, do not advance in the risk assessment process.
A number of risk identification techniques are used by the Regulator and staff of the OGTR,
including checklists, brainstorming, reported international experience and consultation (OGTR
2013). A weed risk assessment approach is used to identify traits that may contribute to risks from
GM plants, as this approach addresses the full range of potential adverse outcomes associated with
plants. In particular, novel traits that may increase the potential of the GMO to spread and persist in
the environment or increase the level of potential harm compared with the parental plant(s) are used
to postulate risk scenarios (Keese et al. 2013). In addition, risk scenarios postulated in previous
RARMPs prepared for licence applications of the same and similar GMOs are also considered.
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
17
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Substantive risks (i.e. those identified for further assessment) are characterised in terms of the
potential seriousness of harm (Consequence assessment) and the likelihood of harm (Likelihood
assessment). The level of risk is then estimated from a combination of the Consequence and
Likelihood assessments. Risk evaluation then combines the Consequence and Likelihood
assessments to determine level of risk and whether risk treatment measures are required. The
potential for interactions between risks is also considered.
Section 2 Risk Identification
Postulated risk scenarios are comprised of three components (Figure 4):
i.
The source of potential harm (risk source).
ii.
A plausible causal linkage to potential harm (causal pathway).
iii.
Potential harm to an object of value, people or the environment.
source of
potential harm
potential harm to
plausible causal linkage
(a novel GM trait)
an object of value
(people/environment)
Figure 4 Risk scenario
In addition, the following factors are taken into account when postulating relevant risk
scenarios:
the proposed dealings, which may be to conduct experiments, develop, produce, breed,
propagate, grow, import, transport or dispose of the GMOs, use the GMOs in the course of
manufacture of a thing that is not the GMO, and the possession, supply and use of the
GMOs in the course of any of these dealings
the proposed limits including the extent and scale of the proposed dealings
the proposed controls to limit the spread and persistence of the GMO
characteristics of the parent organism(s).
Additional information relevant to the risk assessment has been declared CCI. The CCI was
made available to the prescribed experts and agencies that were consulted on the RARMP for this
application.
2.1 Risk source
The source of potential harms can be intended novel GM traits associated with one or more
introduced genetic elements, or unintended effects/traits arising from the use of gene technology.
As discussed in Chapter 1, each of the GM wheat and barley lines has been modified by the
introduction of one of 33 genes for abiotic stress tolerance or micronutrient uptake. These
introduced genes are considered further as potential sources of risk.
In addition, the GM lines contain either or both of the nptII and hph selection marker genes
(see Chapter 1). However, these genes and their products have already been extensively
characterised and assessed as posing negligible risk to human or animal health or to the
environment by the Regulator as well as other regulatory agencies in Australia and overseas. As
these genes have not been found to pose substantive risks to either people or the environment, their
potential effects will not be further assessed for this application. More information on selectable
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
18
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
marker genes can be obtained from the OGTR document Marker genes in GM plants, available on
the OGTR website.
All of the introduced genes include regulatory sequences, which are derived from plants, a
plant virus (Cauliflower mosaic virus), and a common soil bacterium (Agrobacterium tumefaciens).
Regulatory elements performing the same functions are naturally present in plants, and the
introduced elements are expected to operate in similar ways to endogenous ones. There is no
evidence that regulatory sequences themselves have toxic or allergenic effects (EPA 1996).
Although the viral sequence is derived from a plant pathogen, it only constitutes a small part of the
genome and cannot itself cause disease. Hence, potential effects from the regulatory elements
themselves will not be considered further. However, regulatory sequences, especially the promoters,
control the levels of gene expression and hence the levels of the derived proteins in the GM plants.
The effects of these protein levels on, in particular, the toxicity and allergenicity of these plants (or
at least materials derived from them), will be discussed below.
The genetic modifications also have the potential to cause unintended effects in several ways
including altered expression of endogenous genes by random insertion of introduced DNA in the
genome, increased metabolic burden due to expression of the introduced proteins, novel traits
arising out of interactions with non-target proteins and secondary effects arising from altered
substrate or product levels in biochemical pathways. Unintended effects might result in adverse
outcomes such as toxicity or allergenicity.
However, the range of possible unintended effects produced by genetic modification is not
likely to be greater than that from accepted conventional breeding techniques (Bradford et al. 2005;
Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on
Human Health 2004; The GM Science Review Panel 2003). Conventional methods of plant
breeding may also induce unanticipated changes in plants (Haslberger 2003a), but new varieties
produced by such techniques have rarely had traits that are undesirable for human health, safety or
the environment (Hajjar & Hodgkin 2007)4. Therefore, unintended effects resulting from the
process of genetic modification will not be considered further.
2.2 Causal pathway
The following factors are taken into account when postulating plausible causal pathways to
potential harm:






routes of exposure to the GMOs, the introduced gene(s) and gene product(s)
potential effects of the introduced gene(s) and gene product(s) on the properties of the
organism
potential exposure to the introduced gene(s) and gene product(s) from other sources in the
environment
the environment at the site(s) of release
agronomic management practices for the GMOs
spread and persistence (invasiveness) of the GM plant, including
o establishment
o reproduction
o dispersal by natural means and by people


tolerance to abiotic conditions (eg climate, soil and rainfall patterns)
tolerance to biotic stressors (eg pest, pathogens and weeds)
4
More detail on potential for unintended effects as a result of the process of genetic modification can be found in the
document Methods of plant genetic modification available from the Risk Assessment References page on the OGTR
website.
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
19
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan




Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
tolerance to cultivation management practices
gene transfer to sexually compatible organism
gene transfer by horizontal gene transfer (HGT)
unauthorised activities.
Although all of these factors are taken into account, some have been considered in previous
RARMPs or are not expected to give rise to substantive risks.
The potential for horizontal gene transfer (HGT) and any possible adverse outcomes has been
reviewed in the literature (Keese 2008) as well as assessed in many previous RARMPs. HGT was
most recently considered in the RARMP for DIR 108. This and other RARMPs are available from
the GMO Record on the OGTR website or by contacting the OGTR. No risk greater than negligible
was identified due to the rarity of these events and because the wild-type gene sequences are
already present in the environment and available for transfer via demonstrated natural mechanisms.
Therefore, HGT will not be assessed further.
The potential for unauthorised activities to lead to an adverse outcome has been considered in
previous RARMPs. The Act provides for substantial penalties for non-compliance and unauthorised
dealings with GMOs. The Act also requires the Regulator to have regard to the suitability of the
applicant to hold a licence prior to the issuing of a licence. These legislative provisions are
considered sufficient to minimise risks from unauthorised activities, and no risk greater than
negligible was identified in previous RARMPs. Therefore, unauthorised activities will not be
considered further.
2.3 Potential harm
Potential harms from GM plants include:







harm to the health of people or desirable organisms, including toxicity/allergenicity
reduced establishment of desirable plants, including having an advantage in comparison to
related plants
reduced yield of desirable vegetation
reduced products or services from the land use
restricted movement of people, animals, vehicles, machinery and/or water
reduced quality of the biotic environment (eg providing food or shelter for pests or
pathogens) or abiotic environment (eg negative effects on fire regimes, nutrient levels, soil
salinity, soil stability or soil water table).
reduced biodiversity through harm to other organisms or ecosystems.
These harms are based on those used to assess risk from weeds (Standards Australia 2006).
Judgements of what is considered harm depend on the management objectives of the land where the
GM plant is expected to spread to and persist. A plant species may have different weed risk
potential in different land uses such as dryland cropping or nature conservation.
2.4 Postulated risk scenarios
Six risk scenarios were postulated and screened to identify substantive risk. These scenarios
are summarised in Table 5 and more detail of these scenarios is provided later in this Section.
Postulation of risk scenarios considers impacts of the GM wheat and barley or their products on
people undertaking the dealings, as well as impacts on people and the environment if the GM plants
or genetical material were to spread and/or persist.
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
20
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
In the context of the activities proposed by the applicant and considering both the short and
long term, none of the six risk scenarios gave rise to any substantive risks that could be greater than
negligible.
Table 5 Summary of risk scenarios from dealings with GM wheat and barley genetically modified for
abiotic stress tolerance or micronutrient uptake
Risk
Risk source
scenario
1
Introduced
abiotic stress
tolerance and
micronutrient
uptake genes
Causal pathway
Growing GM plants at the sites

Expression of genes in GM
plants

Exposure of people who
specifically deal with the GM
plant material or other
organisms that come into
contact with the GM plant
material in the trial sites
Potential harm Substantive
risk?
Allergic
No
reactions in
people or
toxicity in
people and
other organisms
2
Introduced
abiotic stress
tolerance and
micronutrient
uptake genes
Dispersal of GM seed outside
trial limits

Growth of GM plants

Expression of genes in GM
plants

Spread and persistence of
populations of GM plants
outside trial limits

Exposure of people or other
organisms to GM plant material
Allergic
reactions in
people or
toxicity in
people and
other
organisms, and
reduced
establishment
and yield of
desirable plants,
reduced
biodiversity
No
3
Introduced
abiotic stress
tolerance and
micronutrient
uptake genes
Allergic
reactions in
people or
toxicity in
people and
other organisms
No
4
Introduced
abiotic stress
tolerance and
micronutrient
uptake genes
Dispersal of GM pollen outside
trial limits

Vertical transfer of introduced
genes to other sexually
compatible plants, such as
commercial varieties of wheat
and barley

Expression of genes in plants

Exposure of people or other
organisms to GM plant material
Dispersal of GM pollen outside
trial limits

Vertical transfer of introduced
genes to other sexually
compatible plants, such as
commercial varieties of wheat
and barley

Expression of genes in plants
Reduced
establishment
and yield of
desirable plants,
reduced
biodiversity
No
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
Reason
 The limited scale, short
duration and other proposed
limits and controls minimise
exposure of people and other
organisms to the GM plant
material.
 Plant material from the GMOs
would not be used for human
food or animal feed.
 Most encoded proteins occur
naturally in the environment
and are not known to be toxic
or allergenic (the proteins have
a history of safe use).
 The limited scale, short
duration and other proposed
limits and controls minimise the
likelihood that GM plant
material would leave a trial site.
 Abiotic stress tolerance may
enable the GM plants to grow
in a wider range of
environments or perform better
under stress compared to nonGM wheat and barley.
However, it is unlikely that this
would lead to weediness or
greater harm to the
environment than that found
with non-GM plants of these
species.
 The limited scale, short
duration and other proposed
limits and controls minimise the
likelihood that GM plant
material would leave a trial site.
 Most encoded proteins occur
naturally in the environment
and are not known to be toxic
or allergenic to people or toxic
to other organisms (the
proteins have a history of safe
use).
 The limited scale, short
duration and other proposed
limits and controls minimise the
likelihood that GM plant
material would leave a trial site.
 Abiotic stress tolerance may
enable the GM plants to grow
in a wider range of
environments or perform better
under stress compared to non21
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Risk
scenario
Risk source
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Causal pathway
Potential harm Substantive
risk?
Reason

Spread and persistence of
populations of GM plants
outside a trial site
5
Introduced
abiotic stress
tolerance and
micronutrient
uptake genes
Dispersal of GM pollen within a
site

Hybidisation of GM plants of
this trial with GM plants
(including volunteers) of
another trial

Expression of genes in stacked
GM plants

Exposure of people or other
organisms to GM plant material
Allergic
reactions in
people or
toxicity in
people and
other organisms
No



6
2.4.1
Introduced
abiotic stress
tolerance and
micronutrient
uptake genes
Dispersal of GM pollen within a
site

Hybidisation of GM plants of
this trial with GM plants
(including volunteers) of
another trial

Dispersal of plants or viable
plant material containing
stacked genes outside a site

Expression of genes in stacked
GM plants

Spread and persistence of
populations of GM plants
outside a trial site
Reduced
establishment
and yield of
desirable plants,
reduced
biodiversity
No



GM wheat and barley.
However, it is unlikely that such
spread would cause greater
harm to the environment than
that found with non-GM plants
of these species.
The limited scale, short
duration and other proposed
limits and controls minimise
exposure of people and other
organisms to the GM plant
material.
Most encoded proteins occur
naturally in the environment
and are not known to be toxic
or allergenic to people or toxic
to other organisms (the
proteins have a history of safe
use).
The stacking of genes from
different GM plants is unlikely
to increase the toxicity or
allergenicity of plants.
The limited scale, short
duration and other proposed
limits and controls minimise the
likelihood that GM plant
material would leave a trial site.
GM plants that are produced by
such gene transfer may grow in
a wider range of environments
or perform better under stress
compared to non-GM wheat
and barley. However, it is
unlikely that such spread would
cause greater harm to the
environmental than that found
with the GM plants or non-GM
plants of these species.
The stacking of genes from
different GM plants is unlikely
to increase the weediness of
plants.
Risk scenario 1
Risk source
Introduced abiotic
stress tolerance
and micronutrient
uptake genes
Causal pathway
Growing GM plants at the sites
Expression of genes in GM plants


Exposure of people who specifically deal with the GM plant material or
other organisms that come into contact with the GM plant material in the
trial sites
Potential harm
Allergic reactions
in people or
toxicity in people
and other
organisms
Risk source
The source of potential harm for this postulated risk scenario is the introduced abiotic stress
tolerance and micronutrient uptake genes.
Causal pathway
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
22
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
The abiotic stress tolerance and micronutrient uptake genes are expressed in the plant tissues.
People who are involved in the breeding, cultivating, harvesting, transporting and processing of the
GM wheat and barley may be exposed to its products through contact (including inhalation of
pollen). This would be expected to mainly occur in the trial sites, but could also occur anywhere the
GM plant material was transported or used for experimental analysis. Organisms that may be
present in the trial sites, including birds, rodents and invertebrates, may be exposed to the GM plant
material.
The proposed limits and controls of the trial would minimise the likelihood that people or
other organisms would be exposed to GM plant material. Although people may directly handle the
GM plant material, it is not to be used as human food. Further, as the trial is limited to five sites
totalling a maximum of 2.5 ha, only a small number of people would deal with the GM plant
material and a small number of organisms are likely to be exposed to it. GM plant material is not to
be used as animal feed.
Fences surrounding each of the trial sites will exclude livestock and other large animals, while
rodent control measures will be used to reduce the number of these animals. The two NGNE
facilities are covered by bird netting.
The applicant has also proposed a series of measures, such as the monitoring and inspecting
of sites, together with the cleaning of equipment, the storing of seed and the disposal of waste
material that will together help reduce exposure of people to GM plant material in sites and the
adjacent areas.
Potential harm
People exposed to the proteins expressed from the introduced genes or their associated
products may show toxic or allergenic reactions, while organisms may show toxic reactions.
Proteins are not generally associated with toxic effects. As opposed to small molecular weight
chemicals (eg pesticides), proteins have a number of properties that limit their ability to produce
toxic effects upon ingestion, these including their likely digestion in the gastrointestinal tract and
difficulties they encounter in traversing plasma membranes (Hammond et al. 2013). However, a
small number of proteins have been shown to be toxic to humans and mammals, these originating
mainly from animals (eg snakes, scorpions) and bacteria (Henkel et al. 2010; Karalliedde 1995).
Lectins and protease inhibitors are plant proteins that have toxic properties, but for most people the
level of exposure and response to the majority of these compounds is such that they are often
classified as anti-nutrients (Delaney et al. 2008). The most well known plant proteins that are
definitely toxic to humans are those lectins that consist of a ribosome-inactivating peptide (RIP)
linked to a carbohydrate binding peptide, examples being ricin, abrin and modeccin (de Virgilio et
al. 2010; Stirpe 2005).
All known food allergens are proteins, those derived from plants coming chiefly from peanut,
tree nuts, wheat and soybean (Delaney et al. 2008; Herman & Ladics 2011). The structural and
functional properties of plant food allergens can be used to classify them into approximately 30
families, these then being grouped into a small number of superfamilies (Hauser et al. 2008;
Radauer & Breiteneder 2007; Salcedo et al. 2008). The major superfamiles are the prolamins,
cupins, pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins, profilins and protease inhibitors.
Chapter 1, Section 5.3 presents a review of the potential toxic and allergenic properties of the
proteins encoded by the introduced genes. It was concluded that none of the introduced proteins
were likely to be toxic to people or other organisms, or allergenic to people. In respect of the
general information on toxic and allergenic plant proteins outlined above, none of the introduced
plant proteins (including that from the moss Physcomitrella patens) can be classified as a lectin or
protease inhibitor (ie a likely toxin), or a prolamin, cupin, PR protein etc (ie a likely allergen).
Although some strains of the yeast S. cerevisiae can produce toxins that kill sensitive strains of this
organism (Schmitt & Breinig 2006), no strain is known to produce a toxin that is active against
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
23
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
humans or animals, and the introduced yeast protein is not related to any of the known yeast
allergens.
Non-GM wheat flour can produce allergic and other immune responses in susceptible
individuals on inhalation or ingestion. Several types of allergic and immune reactions to wheat
products have been recorded, with baker’s asthma and celiac disease being the best characterised.
Bakers asthma is a respiratory allergy to inhaled flour and dust from grain processing, which is one
of the most important occupational allergies in many countries (reviewed by Arts et al (2006) and
Tatham & Shewry (2008)). Celiac disease is an autoimmune (genetic) disorder that is triggered by
the consumption of gluten (Denham & Hill 2013; Hischenhuber et al. 2006). It is characterised by
the immune system attacking the small intestine and inhibiting the absorption of nutrients into the
body, likely leading to permanent tissue damage. These undesirable properties of cereals are not
expected to be altered by expression of the introduced genes in the GM wheat and barley lines
proposed for release.
For the evaluation of protein safety, the ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee
has collaborated with a group of experts to produce a two tiered method to assess the safety to
health of proteins (Delaney et al. 2008; Hammond et al. 2013). The first tier examines five issues:
(i) history of safe use of the protein; (ii) bioinformatics analysis; (iii) mode of action; (iv) in vitro
digestibility and stability; and (v) expression level and dietary intake. Only if potential safety issues
were identified in this evaluation would a second tier assessment be recommended, a prime
example of such an assessment being a dose toxicology study.
The introduced proteins were examined against the first tier criteria:
(i) History of safe use. All of the plant proteins come from plants that do not raise any
toxicological concerns and, other than Arabidopsis and P. patens, have a history of largely
safe use in human diets (the major exceptions being allergenic reactions in a minority of
people to some cereal proteins and nitrate in wheat being converted to toxic nitrites when
consumed in large amounts by ruminants). Yeast has been used in the human diet for
millennia, its allergenic properties well known and characterised. Six proteins
(TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR 7, TaALMT1_minus_insert, ION TRANSPORTER 5, ION
TRANSPORTER 6, ION TRANSPORTER 7C, and ScALMT1.M39.1_plus insert) contain
amino acid substitutions or insertions/deletions of sequence; although uncertainty exists in
regards to the effects such changes will have on the the toxicity and allergenicity of these
proteins, there is no reason to expect these changes will affect such properties.
(ii) Bioinformatic analysis. None of the introduced proteins are members of protein classes
that are known to have members with toxic or allergenic properties.
(iii) Mode of action. The functional categories of all but one of the genes
(PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND METABOLISM GENE 4 from Arabidopsis) are known . Other
than OsNAS2 (discussed below), the predicted roles of these proteins do not present any
noteworthy concern. The mutations in the above mentioned six proteins may affect their
activity, but not their biochemical functions.
(iv) In vitro digestibility and stability. No data.
(v) Expression level and dietary intake. No data.
Except for the six proteins with mutations and the one protein from Arabidopsis for which the
function is unknown, all the proteins successfully pass criteria (i), (ii) and (iii). However, as noted
above, for the six proteins with mutations, it is unlikely that their toxic or allergenic properties will
be any different than those of the corresponding wild-type proteins.
Issues relating to points (iv) and (v) may need to be addressed prior to a commercial release of
any of the GM wheat and barley lines.
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
24
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Introduction of the OsNAS2 gene is aimed at increasing the level of iron in wheat. As outlined
in Chapter 1, Section 5.6, while iron is an essential micronutrient, elevated levels of iron in a diet
can be toxic. The majority of iron poisonings that occur are due to excessive consumption of dietary
suppliments (eg multivitamin tablets) that contain iron (Balmadrid & Bono 2009). The
recommended adult daily allowance for iron in the United States is between 8-20 mg (CDC 2011),
but it is estimated that a typical resident of that country may consume 15 to 40 mg of iron per day
(Fine 2000). If 40 mg (the upper figure) is consumed by a 80 kg individual, this represents 0.5
mg/kg. Although the minimum toxic dose of iron is not known, it is suggested that a single
ingestion of 20-40 mg/kg will produce signs of mild toxicity, but only a level above 60 mg/kg will
lead to severe toxicity (Balmadrid & Bono 2009). The applicant is aiming to double the content of
iron in wheat at most, a level that in an average diet is unlikely to produce any symptoms of
toxicity.
Organisms exposed to the proteins expressed from the introduced genes or their associated
products may show toxic reactions. The information presented above regarding the potential
toxicity of the proteins to humans may well be applicable to other mammals; in the case of other
organisms, there is no direct information. However, it is likely that only a small number of
organisms will ever feed on the GM plant material. Moreover, as the genes are derived from yeast,
moss and a range of plants that are common in the environment, it is likely that most organisms that
may enter the trial sites and feed on the GM plants, have had prior exposure to these proteins or
their homologues in other plants.
Gene technology has the potential to cause unintended effects in several ways, including
altered expression of an endogenous gene by random insertion of an introduced DNA in the
genome, increased metabolic burden due to higher expression of the introduced protein, novel traits
arising out of interactions with non-target proteins and secondary effects arising from altered
substrate or product levels in biochemical pathways. Such an effect could lead to elevation of the
concentration of a normally benign wheat or barley compound to a level where it induces a toxic or
allergenic reaction if consumed in an average diet. It is also possible that an entirely novel
compound could be produced with such a reaction. In this context, it is important to note that
changes of this nature, such as the unexpected increase in the level of an endogenous toxin, can also
be induced in plants by conventional methods of plant breeding (Haslberger 2003b). As noted
above, the experience of conventional breeding is that the molecular constitution of a new variety
produced by such techniques has rarely been such that it has been considered undesirable for human
health. The implication is that the movement into wheat and barley of any of the genes that are the
subject of this application, none of which belong to any known class of toxins or allergens, is
unlikely to result in the production (directly or indirectly) of a novel toxin or allergen (Steiner et al.
2013; Weber et al. 2012). This includes the production of such a compound via the production of a
fusion protein.
Eight of the introduced genes code for transcription factors. Although the applicant hopes that
these genes will play a role in inducing either drought tolerance or nitrogen use efficiency, it is
possible that their expression could influence other biochemical processes, potentially leading to a
plant with toxic or allergenic properties.
In wheat and barley, the synthesis of endogenous allergens, such as gluten, is likely regulated
primarily at the transcriptional level. Activation and down-regulation of the expression of their
respective genes probably involves a number of different transcription factors binding to each other,
and either directly or indirectly to DNA promoter elements. Transcription factors that have been
associated with gluten genes include SPA (storage protein activator), a member of the Opaque2
(O2) class of basic leucine zipper (bZIP) factors (Albani et al. 1997; Ravel et al. 2009) and DOF
(DNA binding with one finger) proteins (Dong et al. 2007; Romeuf et al. 2010). Only one of the
transcription factors in this application belongs to any such class, but within that class it is not a
member of the same group as that protein associated with gluten biosynthesis. The identity of this
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
25
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
introduced gene has been declared as CCI. The confidential information was made available to the
prescribed experts and agencies that were consulted on the RARMP for this application.
The possibility of a harm to human health eventuating from expression of a transcription
factor can be reviewed against the above discussed experience of conventional breeding. Many of
the unknown genes that have been moved into plants by conventional breeding must code for
transcription factors, and the process of crop domestication provides a number of examples of new
phenotypes that have been specifically linked to genetic changes involving these proteins (Doebley
et al. 2006; Sang 2009), but none of these has been associated with the generation of a plant that has
induced one or more harms to human or animal health.
Conclusion: Risk scenario 1 is not identified as a substantive risk, due to the likely limited exposure
of humans to the expressed proteins, and the predicted lack of significant toxicity or allergenicity of
the introduced proteins to humans and other organisms. Therefore, this risk could not be greater
than negligible and does not warrant further detailed assessment.
2.4.2
Risk scenario 2
Risk source
Introduced abiotic
stress tolerance
and micronutrient
uptake genes
Causal pathway
Dispersal of GM seed outside trial limits

Growth of GM plants

Expression of genes in GM plants

Spread and persistence of populations of GM plants outside trial limits

Exposure of people or other organisms to GM plant material
Potential harm
Allergic reactions in
people or toxicity in
people and other
organisms, and
reduced
establishment and
yield of desirable
plants, reduced
biodiversity
Risk source
The source of potential harm for this postulated risk scenario is the introduced abiotic stress
tolerance and micronutrient genes.
Causal pathway
The abiotic stress tolerance and micronutrient genes are present in plant tissues. If seed was
dispersed outside any of the trial sites, this seed could germinate and give rise to plants expressing
the introduced genes. These plants could spread and persist in the environment outside the trial
limits and people and other organisms may be exposed to GM plant materials.
Dispersal of GM plant material outside the limits of any trial site could occur through the
activity of people (including the use of agricultural equipment), the activity of animals such as
rodents, herbivores and birds, or through extremes of weather such as flooding or high winds.
Wheat and barley lack seed dispersal characteristics such as stickiness, burrs and hooks, which can
contribute to seed dispersal via animal fur (Howe & Smallwood 1982). The intended introduced
traits of the GM plants, abiotic stress tolerance and micronutrient uptake, are not expected to alter
these characteristics of seeds.
Seed dispersal for wheat and barley through endozoochory (the ingestion and excretion of
viable seeds) has not been reported. Nevertheless, it cannot entirely be discounted that wheat and
barley seeds could be dispersed and germinate after passage through the digestive system of some
mammals or birds. For example, viable wheat seeds have been detected in cattle dung (Kaiser
1999). Seeds which survive chewing and digestion by animals are typically small and dormant
(Malo & Suárez 1995). Corellas were shown to excrete some viable wheat seeds, although the
proportion is extremely low (Woodgate et al. 2011).
Kangaroos, rabbits and rodents are known pests of wheat and barley crops, and cattle or sheep
may graze cereals. Each site will be fenced, limiting the possibility of seed dispersal by any large
animals such as cattle and sheep. Rabbits favour soft, green, lush grass (Myers & Poole 1963) and
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
26
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
select the most succulent and nutritious plants first (Croft et al. 2002). Although viable seeds from a
variety of plant species have been found in rabbit dung, viable wheat seeds were not among them
(Malo & Suárez 1995). Barley seeds were not recorded in this study. Other studies have shown that
generally very few viable seed are obtained from rabbit dung (Welch 1985; Wicklow & Zak 1983).
Rodents are opportunistic feeders and their diets include seeds and other plant material (Caughley et
al. 1998). They may not only eat and destroy seed at the seed source but also hoard seeds (AGRIFACTS 2002), which increases the possibility of seed dispersal. Similar to other licences issued for
field trial of GM plants including wheat and barley, the applicant is proposing a 10 m monitoring
zone around the GM planting area to be maintained in a manner that does not attract or harbour
rodents (such as keeping it bare or mown) and implementation of rodent control measures if rodents
are detected. Only a very limited amount of rodent activity has been observed at trial sites under
these other GM field trial licences. These standard measures minimise the potential for seed
dispersal by rodents.
Characteristics that influence the spread (dispersal of the plant or its genetic material) and
persistence (establishment, survival and reproduction) of a plant species determine the degree of its
invasiveness. These characteristics include the ability to establish in competition with other plants,
to tolerate standard weed management practices, to reproduce quickly, prolifically and asexually as
well as sexually, and to be dispersed over long distances by natural and/or human means.
Baseline information on the weediness of wheat and barley, including factors limiting the
spread and persistence of non-GM plants of these species, is given in The Biology of Triticum
aestivum L. em Thell (Bread Wheat) (OGTR 2008b) and The Biology of Hordeum vulgare L.
(barley) (OGTR 2008a). In summary, both wheat and barley have some characteristics of invasive
plants, such as being capable of wind-pollination (although wheat is predominantly self-pollinating)
and the ability to germinate or to produce seed in a range of environmental conditions. However,
these cereals lack most of the characteristics that are common to invasive plants, such as the ability
to produce a persisting seed bank, rapid growth to flowering, continuous seed production as long as
growing conditions permit, high seed output, high seed dispersal and long-distance seed dispersal
(Keeler 1989). In addition, both cereals have been bred to avoid seed shattering, and white wheat
cultivars have little seed dormancy (OGTR 2008a; OGTR 2008b).
The expected phenotypic differences between the GM wheat and barley and their non-GM
progenitors are either tolerance to an abiotic stress or increased uptake of iron. These introduced
traits are not expected to alter the reproductive or dispersal characteristics of the GM plants. In
reference to competitive ability, there is the potential for the GM plants to have an increased
distribution in the natural environment and agricultural settings, especially as it is hoped that the
introduction of the genes will make the GM plants more tolerant to conditions of abiotic stress.
Although the performance of the GM plants in the field is yet to be determined (which will act as an
indication of their performance in natural environments), abiotic stress tolerance per se cannot be
interpreted as a cue for the plants to increase their invasiveness. Due to the complexity of
environmental conditions, the traits are not expected to have a significant effect on the invasiveness
of the GM plants. However, there is uncertainty around how tolerance to abiotic stresses will impact
on the potential survivial of the GM plants outside of the agricultural setting, in particular what
level of improved tolerance will lead to a significant change to persistence.
The techniques of conventional breeding (eg selection of plants amongst available germplasm,
wide crosses, mutagenesis) have been used to produce varieties of wheat and barley that possess
various abiotic stress tolerances. The experience of conventional breeding is a useful backdrop
against which to view the potential invasiveness of the abiotic stress tolerant GM plants in this
application.
Crosses with wild relatives have been used to transfer useful genes to crop plants (Goodman et
al. 1987; Hajjar & Hodgkin 2007; Maxted & Kell 2009; Prescott-Allen & Prescott-Allen 1998).
Wheat is a crop where such transfer has been most fruitful. Wild relatives of wheat that have been
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
27
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
exploited as sources of genes include a whole range of Aegilops species (eg Ae. tauschii, Ae.
speltoides, Ae. squarrosa), Triticum species (eg T. turgidum subsp. dicoccoides and T.
monococcum) and Thinopyrum bessarabicum. Although the transfer of genes conferring disease and
pest resistance has been most common, a survey of published reports of the use of wild relatives in
breeding found that 13% concerned abiotic stress tolerance (Maxted & Kell 2009).
Mutagenesis has also been used to generate a number of varieties of cereals (and many other
crops) that have abiotic stress tolerances (Ahloowalia et al. 2004; Cheema et al. 1999; Tomlekova
2010)( http://mvgs.iaea.org/). With respect to its progenitor, the gamma radiation induced barley
variety Golden Promise has been shown to possess both enhanced drought and salt tolerances
(Forster 2001). Aluminium tolerant lines of barley have been identified amongst four varieties of
barley exposed to chemical mutagenesis (Nawrot et al. 2001).
Importantly, no abiotic stress tolerant wheat or barley plant that has been generated by any
form of conventional breeding has been demonstrated to have increased invasiveness, and the
introduced genes are not expected to increase the potential invasiveness of GM plants relative to
non-GM plants subjected to conventional breeding.
De-domestication, the evolutionary loss of traits gained under domestication, is frequently
found amongst the small number of known examples of the evolution of invasiveness amongst
existing crop plants, this being most obviously reflected in the acquisition of the ability to more
readily disperse seed or fruits (Ellstrand et al. 2010). The only known case of invasiveness in wheat
is in Tibet, where ‘semi-wild’ wheat (presumably the result of de-domestication) has shattering
heads (brittle rachis) and hulled seeds (toughened glumes preventing free threshing) (Ayal & Levy
2005). Both these traits are absent from domesticated wheat, underlining their importance in
marking the boundary between cultivated and weedy forms of this plant; shattering allows easy seed
dispersal in the wild, while the hull around grains protects the grain from abiotic and biotic stresses.
Although the de-domestication of barley has not been recorded, compared to its wild progenitor,
domesticated barley possesses a non-brittle rachis, with some modern varieties being hulled and
some hull-less, the latter being preferred for human food due to the ease to isolate grain (Azhaguvel
& Komatsuda 2007; Taketa et al. 2008).
However, there is no reason to believe that the introduction of the genes into wheat and barley
is likely to lead to a reversion of either the non-shattering or hull-less traits. The obvious rarity of
the natural loss of the non-shattering and hull-less traits in conventionally bred commercial wheat
and barley varieties indicate their genetic stability. Further, none of the introduced genes are
amongst those known to be associated with shattering or the toughness of the glumes (Sang 2009).
Genes that have been associated with abiotic stresses have frequently been shown to have
pleiotropic effects, a phenomenon that is likely due to most such genes playing important roles in
genetic regulation. Not only can a gene provide tolerance to multiple individual abiotic stress (eg
both cold and salinity), but can even impart both abiotic and biotic stress tolerances (Howles &
Smith 2013). However, as outlined above, although there is uncertainty about the abilities of the
GM plants to spread and persist, in the natural setting it is unlikely that these abilities are
significantly changed compared to the non-GM counterparts. If a plant acquires a particular biotic
stress tolerance (eg increased fungal resistance), then that would likely be regarded as a bonus in an
agricultural situation but may not provide an advantage in a natural setting such as a native reserve.
The proposed limits and controls of the trial would minimise the likelihood of spread and
persistence of the GM plants. The small size (up to 2.5 ha per year) will limit the potential for
dispersal of GM plant material and exposure to this material. Each of the proposed trial sites will be
surrounded by a fence and only approved staff with appropriate training will have access to these
sites, which will minimise potential for dispersal of seed by grazing livestock and people. This will
reduce inadvertent access by humans and prevent grazing livestock from entering any site, thus
minimising dispersal of GM plant material and exposure to this material. Dispersal of GM plant
material by authorised people entering the proposed trial site would be minimised by a standard
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
28
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
condition of DIR licences which requires the cleaning of all equipment used at the trial site,
including clothing. All GM plant material will be transported in accordance with the Regulator’s
transport guidelines, which will minimise the opportunity for its dispersal. Limits and controls are
further discussed in Chapter 3. Furthermore, extra conditions associated with growing the GM
plants in the NGNE facilities would also reduce the likelihood of plant material being mixed
between different GM trials conducted concurrently in these facilities and subsequently spread.
Potential harm
As discussed in Section 2.3 of this Chapter, all plants have the potential to lead to harm in
certain environments. Harms that may arise from a certain plant species in a particular environment
include adverse effects on the health of people, animals or the environment, reducing establishment,
yield and/or quality of desired plants, and restricting physical movement.
As discussed in risk scenario 1, the introduced gene products are not expected to be toxic or
allergenic to people, or toxic to other organisms. This would apply even if the GM wheat and barley
plants established beyond the trial limits.
However, GM wheat and barley plants established beyond the trial limits could potentially
impact the environment by reducing the establishment of desired plants. In turn, this could lead to
the fragmentation of the habitats of other plants, decreasing the probability of these plants (and the
animals that live amongst these plants) maintaining effective breeding populations. As such, there
may be a reduction in the biodiversity in regions where the GM plants grew. In reference to native
habitats, it must nevertheless be appreciated that there would have to be large numbers of GM
plants before the establishment of native plants was affected.
In particular, if GM wheat and barley lose the trait of non-shattering heads, they would be
expected to spread and persist to a greater degree than that of non-GM commercial varieties of these
species, their grain being naturally lost and less dependant on human intervention for dispersal.
Such GM plants would likely reduce the number of domesticated plants growing successfully to
maturity and setting seed in fields, hence reducing the yield of these cereals. This is an essential
facet of the problem with Ae. cylindrica in the United States, where the heads of this plant typically
shatter prior to wheat harvest, generating a seed bank in the soil that persistently gives rise to these
plants amongst the desired cereals (Colquhoun & Fandrich 2003; Yenish et al. 2009). In the case of
wheat, prior to late maturity, it could possibly be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between
shattering and non-shattering varieties.
The potential of these harms can be evaluated against the experience of conventional
breeding. No commercially released variety of wheat or barley that is the product of any form of
conventional breeding has been recorded to have negatively impacted the environment (or the
health of humans and/or animals), beyond that normally associated with these cereals, and
subsequently flagged as an environmental weed. In this context, it is especially relevant to
remember, as noted above, that a number of these conventional varieties have been bred for abiotic
stress tolerance, and none have been recorded as causing harms to the environment.
Therefore, the introduction into wheat and barley of any of the genes that are the subject of
this application is unlikely to result in the GM plants possessing a trait that leads them to being
classified as a weed (National Research Council 1989).
Conclusion: Risk scenario 2 is not identified as a substantive risk as none of the engineered traits
are associated with weediness, it is unlikely that any of the characteristics associated with weeds
will occur in the GM plants, and because of the limits and controls proposed for the field trial.
Therefore, this risk could not be greater than negligible and does not warrant further detailed
assessment.
2.4.3
Risk scenario 3
Risk source
Causal pathway
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
Potential harm
29
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Risk source
Introduced
abiotic stress
tolerance and
micronutrient
uptake genes
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Causal pathway
Dispersal of GM pollen outside trial limits

Vertical transfer of introduced genes to other sexually compatible plants,
such as commercial varieties of wheat and barley

Expression of genes in plants

Exposure of people or other organisms to GM plant material
Potential harm
Allergic reactions
in people or
toxicity in people
and other
organisms
Risk source
The source of potential harm for this postulated risk scenario is the introduced abiotic stress
tolerance and micronutrient genes.
Causal pathway
The abiotic stress tolerance and micronutrient genes are present in plant tissues. Pollen from
the GM plants could be transferred outside of a trial site (eg via wind) and fertilise sexually
compatible plants, whether they be non-GM wheat or barley, or plants from another species.
Alternatively, if seed was dispersed outside any of the trial sites, plants expressing the introduced
genes may grow and subsequently disperse pollen. Hybrid plants possessing the introduced genes
may form the basis for the spread of these genes in other varieties of wheat or barley, or other plant
sexually compatible species. People and other organisms could be exposed to the proteins expressed
from the introduced genes through contact with (including inhalation of pollen) or consumption of
GM plant material deriving from the plants to which the genes have been transferred.
Baseline information on vertical gene transfer associated with non-GM wheat and barley
plants can be found in The Biology of Triticum aestivum L. em Thell (Bread Wheat) (OGTR 2008b)
and The Biology of Hordeum vulgare L. (barley) (OGTR 2008a).
It should be noted that vertical gene flow per se is not considered an adverse outcome, but
may be a link in a chain of events that may lead to an adverse outcome.
The proposed limits and controls of the trial (discussed in risk scenarios 1 and 2) would
minimise the likelihood of the dispersal of pollen, seed and exposure to GM plant material.
Wheat plants and barley plants are predominantly self-pollinating and the chances of natural
hybridisation occurring with commercial crops or other sexually compatible plants are low and
decreases with distance to the GM plants. Outcrossing rates decline significantly over distance, with
most pollen falling within the first few metres. Rates are also influenced by the genotype of the
variety, and environmental conditions, such as wind direction and humidity.
Wheat is sexually compatible with many species within the genus Triticum, and in closely
related genera such as Aegilops, Secale (rye) and Elytrigia (Chapter 1, Section 6.3). Durum wheat
(other than bread wheat, the only Triticum species present in Australia) can cross with wheat,
although there are no reports of gene flow beyond 40 m (Matus-Cadiz et al. 2004). Hybrids between
wheat and Secale cereale are sterile, but treatment with colchicine doubles the chromosome number
and results in a fertile plant, the commercialised Triticale (Knupffer 2009). Natural hybridisation
between wheat and Triticale rarely occurs (Ammar et al. 2004; Kavanagh et al. 2010), at least partly
due to both species being largely self-fertilising (Acquaah 2007). Elytrigia repens does occur as an
introduced plant in Australia, but a review of possible means of pollen-mediated gene flow from
GM wheat to wild relatives in Europe concluded that there was a minimal possibility of gene flow
from wheat to Elytrigia spp. (Eastham & Sweet 2002). Species of Aegilops are not known in
Australia. Although specific data is lacking, it is likely that hybridisation of wheat and barley with
the four native Australasian Triticeae genera never occurs under natural conditions. Limitations on
hybridisation between H. vulgare and plants from the secondary and tertiary gene pools implies
there is negligible risk of gene transfer from the GM barley plants to these relatives (OGTR 2008a).
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
30
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
The applicant proposes to control related species within a 10 m monitoring zone around the
trial site and to prevent cultivation of other wheat, barley and sexual compatible plant species within
200 m of the trial site. Isolation from related species and other wheat and barley cultivation will
greatly restrict the potential for pollen flow and gene transfer. In addition, the applicant proposes to
perform post-harvest monitoring and to destroy any volunteer plants found at the site to ensure that
no GM wheat and barley remain that could then hybridise with sexually compatible plants.
Potential harm
People who are exposed to the proteins expressed from the introduced genes or their
associated products through contact or consumption of GM plant material may show toxic or
allergenic reactions, while organisms may show toxic reactions from consumption of GM plant
material.
In the rare event of vertical transfer of the introduced genetic material from the GM plants to
non-GM wheat and barley plants or sexually compatible species, the genetic material is expected to
behave in similar ways as in the GM wheat and barley. As discussed in risk scenario 1, the
introduced gene products are not expected to be toxic or allergenic to people, or toxic to other
organisms and there is no reason to expect the production of an associated compound with a toxic
or allergenic property.
The traits that have been engineered into the GM plants of this application could become, via
vertical gene transfer, combined with traits possessed by other non-GM commercially cultivated
wheat and barley plants. However, as discussed above (risk scenario 1), plants that are the product
of hybridisation between two varieties are unlikely to possess a level of toxicity or allergenicity
greater than that of either parent.
Conclusion: Risk scenario 3 is not identified as a substantive risk, due to the predicted lack of
toxicity or allergenicity of the introduced proteins to humans or other organisms, there being no
reasonable expectation that toxicity or allergenicity will be a problem in any plants that are the
products of the GM plants and other plants, and the nature of the limits and controls proposed for
the field trial to restrict gene flow. Therefore, this risk could not be greater than negligible and does
not warrant further detailed assessment.
2.4.4
Risk scenario 4
Risk source
Introduced
abiotic stress
tolerance and
micronutrient
uptake genes
Causal pathway
Dispersal of GM pollen outside trial limits

Vertical transfer of introduced genes to other sexually compatible plants,
such as commercial varieties of wheat and barley

Expression of genes in plants

Spread and persistence of populations of GM plants outside a trial site
Potential harm
Reduced
establishment and
yield of desirable
plants, reduced
biodiversity
Risk source
The source of potential harm for this postulated risk scenario is the introduced abiotic stress
tolerance and micronutrient genes.
Causal pathway
The abiotic stress tolerance and micronutrient genes are present in plant tissues including
pollen. Pollen from the GM plants could be transferred outside of a trial site (eg via wind) and
fertilise sexually compatible plants, whether they be non-GM wheat or barley, or plants from
another species. Alternatively, if seed was dispersed outside any of the trial sites, plants expressing
the introduced genes may grow and disperse pollen. Hybrid plants possessing the introduced genes
may form the basis for the spread of these genes in other (initially non-GM) varieties of wheat or
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
31
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
barley, or other plant species. These plants could persist in the environment, displacing other,
desirable plants.
The proposed limits and controls of the trial (discussed in risk scenarios 1 and 2) would
minimise the likelihood of the dispersal of pollen and seed. Vertical transfer was reviewed in risk
scenario 3. The proposed limits and controls of the trial would minimise the possibility that seed
would leave any trial site, or that pollination would occur to plants outside a trial site. Wheat and
barley are predominantly self-pollinating, but are capable of crossing with a number of plant species
that exist in Australia.
Potential harm
If the vertical transfer of the introduced genes from the GM plants causes the recipient species
to spread and persist in the environment to a degree greater than normally found amongst these
species, they may produce one or more harms. These potential harms were summarised in risk
scenario 2. In particular, the GM plants may act to reduce the establishment and yield of desired
plants and subsequently reduce biodiversity.
Risk scenario 2 summarises the reasons that the introduced genes are unlikely to make the GM
wheat and barley lines more weedy, particularly as they are not associated with the key weediness
traits of shattering heads and hulled seeds, although there is some uncertainty about whether the
traits could potentially improve the persistence of the GM plants outside of the agricultural
setting.These reasons are likely to be applicable to any plants to which the genes are transferred.
The traits that have been engineered into the GM plants of this application could become, via
vertical gene transfer, combined with traits possessed by other non-GM commercially cultivated
wheat and barley plants. However, as discussed above (risk scenario 2), plants that are the product
of hybridisation between two varieties are unlikely to possess a level of weediness greater than that
of either parent.
Conclusion: Risk scenario 4 is not identified as a substantive risk, as the introduced genes are
unlikely to lead to increased weediness in the GM plants themselves or any other plants to which
they are transfered, and because of the nature of the limits and controls proposed for the field trial.
Therefore, this risk could not be greater than negligible and does not warrant further detailed
assessment.
2.4.5
Risk scenario 5
Risk source
Introduced
abiotic stress
tolerance and
micronutrient
uptake genes
Causal pathway
Dispersal of GM pollen within a site

Hybridisation of GM plants of this trial with GM plants (including volunteers)
of another trial

Expression of genes in stacked GM plants

Exposure of people or other organisms to GM plant material
Potential harm
Allergic reactions
in people or
toxicity in people
and other
organisms
Risk source
The source of potential harm for this postulated risk scenario is the introduced abiotic stress
tolerance and micronutrient genes.
Causal pathway
The abiotic stress tolerance and micronutrient genes are present in plant tissues. The NGNE
facility is a multiuser facility, where at any one time, more than one licence holder may be
conducting trials of different GM plants. Pollen from the GM plants of one trial could inadvertently
fertilise other sexually compatible GM plants, including volunteers, inside a site. This pollen could
be the result of transfer by an agent (eg wind, insects) from one planting area to another, or derived
from volunteer plants from either trial. In early 2014, the only licence that is authorised to trial
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
32
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
sexually compatible GM plants in either of these facilities is DIR 112, a licence held by CSIRO for
the growth of GM wheat and barley with altered grain composition or nutrient utilisation efficiency
(abiotic stress tolerance) at Merredin. DIR 099, also held by the CSIRO, authorises the growth of
GM plants with the same traits as DIR 112 at Merredin, but the period for plantings has finished
and there has been no application for an extension of time. In the case of the non-NGNE sites, all
three sites have been previously used for field trials of GM plants under DIR 102, volunteers of
which could still arise and hybridise with the plants of this application. Currently, DIR 102
authorises the growth of GM wheat and barley at the three non-NGNE sites of this application until
December 2015. The traits of the DIR 102 plants are classified as abiotic stress tolerances and some
of the genes are identical to the genes in this application. As volunteer numbers from DIR 102 are
expected to be low, stacking between volunteers from DIR 102 and DIR 128 is less likely to occur
than stacking between GM plants from DIR 128. Even if unintentional stacking did occur, it would
still result in plants with abiotic stress tolerance.
People working with any trial could be exposed to the hybrid plants.
Vertical gene transfer associated with non-GM wheat and barley plants was discussed in risk
scenario 3. In summary, these two cereals are predominantly self-pollinating, but are capable of
crossing with a number of plant species that exist in Australia.
The applicant proposes to surround each planting area in any trial site by a 2 m wide buffer
zone where plant growth will be controlled by mowing, herbicide treatment and/or weeding.
Further, the applicant has requested permission to grow GM wheat and barley from different
licences next to each other providing they are separated by buffer zones of at least 4 m. The
RARMP for DIR 094 considered the possibility of hybidisation occurring over these distances, and
concluded that it would be minimal.
The licence for DIR 112 specifies that if the GM plants of that trial are grown in the Merredin
NGNE facility at the same time as sexually compatible GM and non-GM plants from another
licence, seed from any plants of DIR 112 must not be used for the development of commercial
cultivars. Such a measure would help minimise the likelihood that the genes of this application
would be spread to other plants and being inadvertently grown outside a trial site, leading to people
being inadvertently exposed to GM material.
The proposed limits and controls of the trial would minimise the possibility that seed would
leave any trial site. These are discussed under risk scenario 2. Therefore exposure would be
restricted to people working at the trial sites. All GM seed leaving trial sites will be transported in
accordance with the Regulator’s transport guidelines, which will minimise the opportunity for its
dispersal and exposure of other people.
Potential harm
People who are exposed to the proteins expressed from the introduced genes or their
associated products through contact or consumption of GM plant material may show toxic or
allergenic reactions, while organisms may show toxic reactions from consumption of GM plant
material.
As discussed in risk scenario 1, the introduced gene products of this application are not
expected to be toxic or allergenic to people, or toxic to other organisms and there is no reason to
expect the production of an associated compound with a toxic or allergenic property. The toxicity
and allergenicity associated with the introduced genes of other sexually compatible GM plants
growing in a NGNE facility would be the subject of the RARMP(s) associated with their licence(s).
According to the RARMPs for DIR 099, 102 and 112, there is no information to suggest that the
proteins encoded by the introduced genes of those applications are likely to be toxic to people or
other organisms, or allergenic to people. As discussed above (risk scenario 1), plants that are the
product of hybridisation between two GM varieties are unlikely to possess a level of toxicity or
allergenicity greater than that of either parent (ie the stacking of genes from different GM plants
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
33
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
will be unlikely to generate a plant with a higher level of toxicity or allergenicity than the individual
GM parents).
Conclusion: Risk scenario 5 is not identified as a substantive risk, due to the predicted lack of
significant toxicity or allergenicity of the introduced proteins to humans or other organisms, and the
nature of the limits and controls proposed for the field trial. Therefore, this risk could not be greater
than negligible and does not warrant further detailed assessment.
2.4.6
Risk scenario 6
Risk source
Introduced
abiotic stress
tolerance and
micronutrient
uptake genes
Causal pathway
Dispersal of GM pollen within a site

Hybridisation of GM plants of this trial with GM plants (including volunteers)
of another trial

Dispersal of plants or viable plant material containing stacked genes
outside a site

Expression of genes in stacked GM plants

Spread and persistence of populations of GM plants outside a trial site
Potential harm
Reduced
establishment and
yield of desirable
plants, reduced
biodiversity
Risk source
The source of potential harm for this postulated risk scenario is the introduced abiotic stress
tolerance and micronutrient genes.
Causal pathway
The abiotic stress tolerance and micronutrient genes are present in plant tissues. As discussed
in Risk Scenario 5, the NGNE facility is a multiuser facility, where at any one time, more than one
licence holder may be conducting trials of different GM plants. Pollen from the GM plants of one
trial could inadvertently fertilise other sexually compatible GM plants, including volunteers, inside
a site. GM wheat and barley plants with altered grain composition or nutrient utilisation efficiency
(abiotic stress tolerance) from DIR 112 and 099 may be present at Merredin. Additionally, the nonNGNE sites may have GM wheat and barley plants or volunteers with abiotic stress tolerances from
the DIR 102 field trial.
If hybridisation occurred between the GM plants of this application and those of DIR 112, 102
or 099, the progeny would have the traits of abiotic stress tolerance or micronutrient uptake stacked
with additional abiotic stress tolerances, altered grain composition or altered nutrient utilisation
efficiency.
If plant material, which unknowingly was the product of hybridisation between the GM plants
of this trial and other GM plants in any site, was purposely taken outside of a trial site, or was
inadvertently dispersed outside of a trial site, GM hybrid plants could arise from the germination of
seed. These plants then could spread and persist in the environment. However, it is unlikely that the
stacking of the traits of the GM plants of DIRs 099, 102 and 112 (altered grain composition and
abiotic stress tolerance) with those of this application (abiotic stress tolerance and micronutrient
uptake) will significantly influence the invasiveness of the plants, but this is an area of uncertainty.
As discussed above (scenario 2), the combination of such traits is not likely to produce a plant that
is more invasive than the individual parents but it is uncertain whether the persistence of these GM
plants outside of the agricultural setting may be improved.
Risk scenario 5 reviews the growing of GM plants from different trials adjacent to each other,
such as possibly may occur in the NGNE facilities, noting the applicant proposes using buffer zones
and structuring the licence similar to other licences that have concerned the growing of different
GM plants close to each other.
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
34
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
The proposed limits and controls of the trial would minimise the possibility that seed would
leave any trial site. These are discussed under risk scenario 2. All GM seed will be transported in
accordance with the Regulator’s transport guidelines, which will minimise the opportunity for its
dispersal.
Potential harm
If the vertical transfer of genes from the GM plants causes the recipient species to spread and
persist in the environment to a degree greater than normally found amongst these species, they may
produce one or more harms. These harms were summarised in risk scenario 2. In particular, the GM
plants may act to reduce the establishment and yield of desired plants and biodiversity.
As discussed in risk scenario 2, the introduced gene products of this application are unlikely to
cause the GM wheat and barley lines to have a greater impact on the environment than non-GM
wheat and barley, these reasons being applicable to any plants to which the genes are transferred.
The weediness associated with the introduced genes of other sexually compatible GM plants
growing in a NGNE facility or at the other field trial sites would be the subject of the RARMP(s)
associated with their licence(s). According to the RARMPs for DIR 099, 102 and 112, there is no
information to suggest that the proteins encoded by the introduced genes of those applications are
likely to induce weediness in GM wheat and barley. Based upon the above discussed experience of
conventional breeding (risk scenario 2), plants that are the product of hybridisation between two
varieties are unlikely to have a greater impact on the environment than that of either parent (ie the
stacking of genes from different GM plants will be unlikely to generate a plant more harmful than
the individual GM parents).
Conclusion: Risk scenario 6 is not identified as a substantive risk, as the introduced genes of this
application are unlikely to lead to increased weediness of GM wheat or barley, it is unlikely that the
stacking of genes from different GM trials will lead to a weedy plant, and because of the nature of
the limits and controls proposed for the field trial. Therefore, this risk could not be greater than
negligible and does not warrant further detailed assessment.
Section 3 Uncertainty
Uncertainty is an intrinsic part of risk analysis5. There can be uncertainty about identifying the
risk source, the causal linkage to harm, the type and degree of harm, the change of harm occurring
or the level of risk. In relation to risk management, there can be uncertainty about the effectiveness,
efficiency and practicality of controls.
Risk analysis can be considered as part of a first tier uncertainty analysis, namely a structured,
transparent process to analyse and address uncertainty when identifying, characterising and
evaluating risk. However, there is always some residual uncertainty that remains. If the residual
uncertainty is important and critical to decision making, then this residual uncertainty may be
subjected to further analysis (=second tier uncertainty analysis), such as building ‘worst case’
scenarios, or by using meta-analysis where results from several studies are combined.
There are several types of uncertainty in risk analysis (Bammer & Smithson 2008; Clark &
Brinkley 2001; Hayes 2004). These include:


uncertainty about facts:
–
knowledge – data gaps, errors, small sample size, use of surrogate data
–
variability – inherent fluctuations or differences over time, space or group, associated
with diversity and heterogeneity
uncertainty about ideas:
A more detailed discussion of uncertainty is contained in the Regulator’s Risk Analysis Framework available from the
Risk Assessment References page on the OGTR website or via Free call 1800 181 030.
5
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
35
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
–
description – expression of ideas with symbols, language or models can be subject to
vagueness, ambiguity, context dependence, indeterminacy or under-specificity
–
perception – processing and interpreting risk is shaped by our mental processes and
social/cultural circumstances, which vary between individuals and over time.
For DIR 128, uncertainty is noted particularly in relation to the characterisation of:
Potential increases in toxicity or allergenicity as a result of the genetic modifications
Potential for increased survival of the GMOs, including in land uses outside of agriculture
The effect of stacking of genes of this application with genes belonging to other sexually
compatible GM plants grown in the two NGNE facilities or at the other field trial sites.
Additional data, including information to address these uncertainties, may be required to
assess possible future applications for a larger scale trial, reduced containment conditions, or the
commercial release of these GM wheat or barley lines if they are selected for further development.
Chapter 3, Section 4, discusses information that may be required for future releases.
Section 4 Risk evaluation
Risk is evaluated against the objective of protecting the health and safety of people and the
environment to determine the level of concern and, subsequently, the need for controls to mitigate
or reduce risk. Risk evaluation may also aid consideration of whether the proposed dealings should
be authorised, need further assessment, or require collection of additional information.
Factors used to determine which risks need treatment may include:




risk criteria
level of risk
uncertainty associated with risk characterisation
interactions between substantive risks.
Six risk scenarios were postulated whereby the proposed dealings might give rise to harm to
people or the environment. The level of risk for each scenario was considered negligible in relation
to both seriousness and likelihood of harm, in the context of the control measures proposed by the
applicant, and considering both the short and long term. The principal reasons for these conclusions
are summarised in Table 5 and include:
limits on the size, location and duration of the release proposed by The University of Adelaide
controls proposed by The University of Adelaide to restrict the spread and persistence of the
GM wheat and barley plants and their genetic material
the genetic modifications are unlikely to give rise to adverse effects on human health and
safety or the environment
widespread presence of the same and similar genes, proteins and associated products in the
environment and lack of evidence of harm from them
limited ability and opportunity for the GM wheat and barley plants to transfer the introduced
genes to commercial wheat or barley crops or other sexually related species
none of the GM plant materials or products will enter human food or animal feed supply
chains.
The Risk Analysis Framework (OGTR 2013a), which guides the risk assessment and risk
management process, defines negligible risks as insubstantial with no present need to invoke actions
for their mitigation. Therefore, no controls are required to treat these negligible risks. Therefore, the
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
36
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Regulator considers that the dealings involved in this proposed release do not pose a significant risk
to either people or the environment.
Chapter 2 – Risk assessment
37
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Chapter 3
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Risk management
Section 1 Background
Risk management is used to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the
environment by controlling or mitigating risk. The risk management plan addresses risks
evaluated as requiring treatment, evaluates controls and limits proposed by the applicant, and
considers general risk management measures. The risk management plan informs the Regulator’s
decision-making process and is given effect through licence conditions.
Under section 56 of the Act, the Regulator must not issue a licence unless satisfied that any
risks posed by the dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence are able to be managed in a
way that protects the health and safety of people and the environment.
All licences are subject to three conditions prescribed in the Act. Section 63 of the Act
requires that each licence holder inform relevant people of their obligations under the licence. The
other statutory conditions allow the Regulator to maintain oversight of licensed dealings: section
64 requires the licence holder to provide access to premises to OGTR inspectors and section 65
requires the licence holder to report any information about risks or unintended effects of the
dealing to the Regulator on becoming aware of them. Matters related to the ongoing suitability of
the licence holder are also required to be reported to the Regulator.
The licence is also subject to any conditions imposed by the Regulator. Examples of the
matters to which conditions may relate are listed in section 62 of the Act. Licence conditions can
be imposed to limit and control the scope of the dealings. In addition, the Regulator has extensive
powers to monitor compliance with licence conditions under section 152 of the Act.
Section 2 Risk treatment measures for identified risks
The risk assessment of risk scenarios listed in Chapter 2 concluded that there are negligible
risks to people and the environment from the proposed field trial of GM wheat and barley. These
risk scenarios were considered in the context of the scale of the proposed release (Chapter 1,
Section 3.1), the proposed containment measures (Chapter 1, Section 3.2), and the receiving
environment (Chapter 1Section 6), and considering both the short and the long term. The Risk
Analysis Framework (OGTR 2013), which guides the risk assessment and risk management
process, defines negligible risks as insubstantial with no present need to invoke actions for their
mitigation. Therefore, there are no licence conditions to treat these negligible risks.
Section 3 General risk management
The limits and controls proposed in the application were important in establishing the
context for the risk assessment and in reaching the conclusion that the risks posed to people and
the environment are negligible. Therefore, to maintain the risk context, licence conditions have
been imposed to limit the release to the proposed size, locations and duration, and to restrict the
spread and persistence of the GMOs and their genetic material in the environment. The conditions
are detailed in the licence and summarised in this Chapter.
3.1 Licence conditions to limit and control the release
3.1.1
Consideration of limits and controls proposed by The University of Adelaide
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Chapter 1 provide details of the limits and controls proposed by The
University of Adelaide in their application. These are discussed in the risk scenarios postulated for
the proposed release in Chapter 2. Many of these proposed control measures are considered
Chapter 3 – Risk management
38
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
standard for GM crop trials and have been imposed by the Regulator in previous DIR licences.
The appropriateness of these controls is considered further below.
The duration of the field trial would be confined to six growing seasons. The trial would be
limited to five sites, with a collective area of 2.5 ha per season. The small size and duration of the
trial would limit the potential exposure of humans and other organisms to the GMOs (risk scenario
1).
Only authorised personnel with appropriate training would be permitted to deal with the
GMOs. This measure would limit the potential exposure of humans to the GMOs (risk scenario 1).
The applicant proposes to monitor for the presence of rodents by placing rodent baits inside
the fenced areas. Combined with the use of a monitoring zone (below), these measures should
both limit exposure of rodents to the GMOs (risk scenario 1) and minimise potential dispersal of
GMOs outside the trial sites by rodents (risk scenario 2). A licence condition requires that for the
period while GMOs are being grown, and until a trial site has been cleaned, measures must be
implemented to control rodents within a site.
Birds are known to cause damage to cereal crops mostly during germination in autumn, but
may feed on the crop at different times including during grain ripening (Temby & Marshall 2003).
An extensive search of the literature did not identify any reports of birds other than emus
transporting and dispersing wheat seed (eg through the digestive tract or taking panicles
containing viable seed) or seedlings from wheat crops. The white wheat varieties have a thin seed
coat (Hansen 1994) and are readily digested by birds (Yasar 2003). Therefore it is considered
appropriate that no measurements are proposed to be taken to prohibit the access of birds to the
trial site. However, in this respect it should be noted that both the NGNE facilities at Merredin and
Katanning are covered by bird netting.
Each trial site is to be surrouned by a fence. This will minimise the potential exposure of
livestock and other large animals to the GMOs (risk scenario 1) and the potential dispersal of the
GMOs by livestock and other large animals (risk scenario 2).
The applicant proposes to surround each trial site with a 2 m buffer zone and a 10 m
monitoring zone. It is a standard requirement of GM wheat and barley licences that the monitoring
zone is maintained in a manner that does not attract or harbour rodents, such as keeping the area
either free of vegetation or planted with vegetation mown to a height of less than 10 cm. This
would serve the following purposes:

reduce rodent activity

facilitate detection of plants or related species that might hybridise with GM wheat or
barley

facilitate detection of GM plant material that has been dispersed during sowing or
harvesting.
The applicant proposes that the monitoring zone would be surrounded with a 190 m
isolation zone where no sexually compatible species will be grown. In addition, inspections are to
be conducted for related species in the planting area, monitoring zone and isolation zone, and any
found destroyed prior to flowering.
The potential for pollen movement and gene flow between GM wheat and other sexually
compatible species has been addressed at some length in DIR 100, DIR 102, DIR 111 and
DIR 112. On the basis of the evidence detailed there, including scientific literature on gene flow,
international containment measures for GM wheat trials, and the rules for producing basic and
certified seed, 200 m isolation is considered adequate to minimise gene flow from the GM wheat
Chapter 3 – Risk management
39
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
plants to other wheat plants or other sexually related species outside the release site. Therefore the
combination of a 10 m monitoring zone plus a 190 m isolation zone will mimimise gene flow to
other wheat or barley crops and related species (risk scenario 4).
However, at sites where there has been no cultivation or detection of wheat or barley
volunteers in the isolation zone for the previous 2 years, the applicant proposes that the inspection
area be reduced to 50 m. This is similar to conditions in licence DIR 102, which provide for the
Regulator to give approval for the reduced inspection area, and the appropriateness of a distance
of 50 m for inspection was discussed in the RARMP for DIR 102. However, the presence of
related species in the isolation zone is not solely dependent on past crops or volunteers, as seed
can be introduced inadvertently as contaminants in stock feed or seed for sowing. Therefore the
option for a reduced inspection area is not included in the licence.
The applicant proposes to plant at the same sites that DIR 102 GM wheat and barley
(modified for abiotic stress tolerance) have been grown. As discussed in Chapter 2, risks
associated with stacking of abiotic stress tolerance genes from DIR 128 and 102 were considered
negligible. It is considered that the containment measures, in particular the monitoring
requirements, would still minimise the chance of spread and persistence of any unintended stacked
GMOs (risk scenarios 5 and 6).
The two NGNE facilities are multi-user facilities. As there is hence the possibility that
separate trials of other sexually compatible GM plants (most obviously wheat and barley) will
concurrently take place in these facilities, it is important to consider the issues of vertical gene
transfer and mixing of seeds between plants of different trials. The applicant mentions that DIRs
092, 093, 094, which allow the growth of plants from these three different DIRs in close
proximity, requires a minimum of 4 m between plants grown under each licence (corresponding to
a 2 m buffer zone for each DIR). The licence for DIR 112 specifies that other GM plants under a
separate licence may be grown within the Merredin NGNE facility provided they are not grown in
the Location or Buffer Zone of DIR 112, the latter being 2 m wide. A minimum distance of 4 m
(which may include buffer zones) should separate the GM plants of this application and any other
sexually compatible GM plants that are grown in the NGNE facilities.
If any GM plants in this application are grown in one of the NGNE facilities at a time when
sexually compatible GM plants authorised by another licence are concurrently being grown, seed
from the GM plants of this application cannot be used in the future development of cultivars for
commercial release. These measures would minimise the likelihood of mixing between seed from
different trials (risk scenario 2) or vertical gene transfer (risk scenarios 5 and 6), and subsequent
spread of, or exposure to, this GM material.
The applicant has proposed a number of measures to minimise the persistence of any GM
wheat and barley plants and seeds in the seed bank at the release site after harvest of the trial.
These measures include post-harvest tillage to the depth of the original planting and irrigation to
promote germination of remaining seed. After harvest, locations would be monitored at least once
every 35 days for a period of 2 years and three irrigations applied. Volunteer plants that emerge
would be destroyed before flowering.
There is a difference in germination rates between buried grain and grain lying on the
surface; grains remaining on the surface, for example following shallow tillage after harvest, can
generally easily germinate and become established (Ogg & Parker 2000). Shallow tillage after
harvest, combined with irrigation, will germinate much of the seed lying on the surface (Ogg &
Parker 2000). However, deep cultivation in certain soil types can reduce seed viability but can also
encourage prolonged dormancy in seeds as a result of a cool, moist low oxygen environment (Ogg
& Parker 2000; Pickett 1989).
Chapter 3 – Risk management
40
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
It is therefore considered that under Australian conditions, a 2 year time period during which
tillage and a number of irrigations are performed, and monitoring conducted on a regular basis
with the failure to detect volunteers for a minimum of 6 months prior to the end of the time period,
would effectively manage survival and persistence of viable wheat and barley seeds in the soil. It
is appropriate the area receive at least 3 irrigations, at intervals of at least 28 days, with the last
required irrigation occurring at a time that would promote germination of volunteers within the
final volunteer-free period. A period of natural rainfall may be taken as irrigation only with the
agreement of the Regulator. Evidence (such as rainfall measurements, photos etc.) that the rainfall
has been sufficient to promote germination needs to be provided. Additionally, prior to the last
irrigation the area must be tilled. These treatments will ensure seeds are exposed to sufficient
moisture and placed at an appropriate depth for germination, as well as encouraging the microbial
decomposition of any residual seed. These measures will minimise the persistence of the GMOs in
the environment and are included as licence conditions.
In considering potential for spread and persistence of the GMOs, it is important to consider
the potential dispersal of grain during sowing and harvesting (mechanical dispersal). This is most
likely to result in dispersal of grain into the area immediately around the trial. The applicant has
proposed a buffer zone of 2 m around the area where the GMOs are planted, which would be
subject to the same post-harvest management as the GMO planting area. The licence requires that
a 2 m buffer zone and any other areas where GM material has been dispersed, including during
harvest or threshing, must be monitored to manage the possibility of mechanical dispersal of seed
from the trial location and its persistence after the trial. All equipment used in connection with
cultivating and harvesting the GMOs are required to be cleaned on site prior to removal.
The applicant has stated that any plant material taken off-site for experimental analysis will
be transported according to the Regulator’s Guidelines for the transport, storage and disposal of
GMOs. These are standard protocols for the handling of GMOs to minimise exposure of people
and other organisms to the GMOs (risk scenario 1), dispersal into the environment and gene
flow/transfer (risk scenarios 2, 3 and 4). This is included as a licence condition.
The applicant does not propose using any of the plant material for human or animal
consumption. FSANZ conducts mandatory premarket assessments of GM products in human
foods. As the GM wheat and barley has not been assessed by FSANZ, a condition in the licence
prohibits material from the trial from being used for human food or animal feed.
3.1.2
Summary of licence conditions to be implemented to limit and control the release
A number of licence conditions have been imposed to limit and control the release, based on
the above considerations. These include requirements to:
limit the release to a total area of up to 5 sites, two in South Australia (O-Halloran Hill and
Pinery) and three in Western Australia (Corrigin, Merredin and Katanning) between July
2014 and December 2019
limit the maximum area of any site to 0.5 ha, and thus collectively the area of the trial in
any season to 2.5 ha in total
surround the area where GMOs are grown with a 2 m buffer zone
implement measures to control rodents within the planting area
surround the trial site with a 10 m monitoring zone, maintained in a manner that does not
attract or harbour rodents, and in which related species must be prevented from flowering
surround the monitoring zone with a 190 m isolation zone, in which no other crops of
wheat or barley may be grown, and where growth of related species are controlled
Chapter 3 – Risk management
41
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
harvest the GM wheat and barley plant material separately from other crops
clean the areas and equipment after use
apply measures to promote germination of any wheat or barley seeds that may be present
in the soil after harvest, including irrigation and tillage
monitor for at least 24 months after harvest, and destroy any wheat or barley plants that
may grow, until no volunteers are detected for a continuous 6 month period
destroy all GM plant material not required for further analysis or future trials
transport and store GM material in accordance with the Regulator’s guidelines
not allow GM plant material to be used for human food or animal feed.
3.2
Other risk management considerations
All DIR licences issued by the Regulator contain a number of conditions that relate to
general risk management. These include conditions relating to:
applicant suitability
contingency plans
identification of the persons or classes of persons covered by the licence
reporting structures
a requirement that the applicant allows access to the trial sites and other places for the
purpose of monitoring or auditing.
3.2.1
Applicant suitability
In making a decision whether or not to issue a licence, the Regulator must have regard to the
suitability of the applicant to hold a licence. Under section 58 of the Act, matters that the
Regulator must take into account include:
any relevant convictions of the applicant (both individuals and the body corporate)
any revocation or suspension of a relevant licence or permit held by the applicant under a
law of the Commonwealth, a State or a foreign country
the capacity of the applicant to meet the conditions of the licence.
On the basis of information submitted by the applicant and records held by the OGTR, the
Regulator considers The University of Adelaide suitable to hold a licence.
The licence includes a requirement for the licence holder to inform the Regulator of any
circumstances that would affect their suitability.
In addition, any applicant organisation must have access to a properly constituted
Institutional Biosafety Committee and be an accredited organisation under the Act.
3.2.2
Contingency plan
The University of Adelaide is required to submit a contingency plan to the Regulator before
planting the GMOs. This plan would detail measures to be undertaken in the event of any
unintended presence of the GM wheat outside of the permitted areas.
The University of Adelaide is also required to provide a method to the Regulator for the
reliable detection of the presence of the GMOs or the introduced genetic materials in a recipient
Chapter 3 – Risk management
42
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
organism. This instrument is required before conducting any of the licenced dealings with the
GMOs.
3.2.3
Identification of the persons or classes of persons covered by the licence
The persons covered by the licence are the licence holder and employees, agents or
contractors of the licence holder and other persons who are, or have been, engaged or otherwise
authorised by the licence holder to undertake any activity in connection with the dealings
authorised by the licence. Prior to growing the GMOs, The University of Adelaide is also required
to provide a list of people and organisations who will be covered by the licence, or the function or
position where names are not known at the time.
3.2.4
Reporting requirements
The licence obliges the licence holder to immediately report any of the following to the
Regulator:
any additional information regarding risks to the health and safety of people or the
environment associated with the trial
any contraventions of the licence by persons covered by the licence
any unintended effects of the trial.
A number of written notices would also be required under the licence that would assist the
Regulator in designing and implementing a monitoring program for all licensed dealings. The
notices would include:
expected and actual dates of planting
details of areas planted to the GMOs
expected dates of flowering
expected and actual dates of harvest and cleaning after harvest
details of inspection activities.
3.2.5
Monitoring for Compliance
The Act stipulates, as a condition of every licence, that a person who is authorised by the
licence to deal with a GMO, and who is required to comply with a condition of the licence, must
allow inspectors and other persons authorised by the Regulator to enter premises where a dealing
is being undertaken for the purpose of monitoring or auditing the dealing. Post-release monitoring
continues until the Regulator is satisfied that all the GMOs resulting from the authorised dealings
have been removed from the release site.
If monitoring activities identify changes in the risks associated with the authorised dealings,
the Regulator may also vary licence conditions, or if necessary, suspend or cancel the licence.
In cases of non-compliance with licence conditions, the Regulator may instigate an
investigation to determine the nature and extent of non-compliance. The Act provides for criminal
sanctions of large fines and/or imprisonment for failing to abide by the legislation, conditions of
the licence or directions from the Regulator, especially where significant damage to health and
safety of people or the environment could result.
Chapter 3 – Risk management
43
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Section 4 Issues to be addressed for future releases
Additional information has been identified that may be required to assess an application for
a large scale or commercial release of these GM wheat or barley lines, or to justify a reduction in
containment conditions. This includes:
additional molecular and biochemical characterisation of the GM wheat and barley lines,
particularly with respect to production of potential toxins or allergens
additional phenotypic characterisation of the GM wheat and barley lines, particularly with
respect to traits that may contribute to weediness.
Section 5 Conclusions of the RARMP
The risk assessment concludes that this proposed limited and controlled release of GM
wheat and barley poses negligible risks to the health and safety of people or the environment as a
result of gene technology, and that these negligible risks do not require specific risk treatment
measures.
However, conditions have been imposed to limit the release to the proposed size, locations
and duration, and to restrict the spread and persistence of the GMOs and their genetic material in
the environment, as these were important considerations in establishing the context for assessing
the risks.
Chapter 3 – Risk management
44
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
References
Acquaah, G. (2007). Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding. Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
Massachusetts
AGRI-FACTS (2002). Mice and their control. Report No. Agdex 683, Alberta Agriculture, Food
and Rural Development, available online at
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex594
Ahloowalia, B.S., Maluszynski, M., Nichterlein, K. (2004). Global impact of mutation-derived
varieties. Euphytica 135: 187-204
Albani, D., Hammond-Kosack, M.C.U., Smith, C., Conlan, S., Colot, V., Holdsworth, M., Bevan,
M.W. (1997). The wheat transcriptional activator SPA: a seed-specific bZIP protein that
recognises the GCN4-like motif in the bifactorial endosperm box of prolamin genes. The Plant
Cell 9: 171-184
Ammar, K., Mergoum, M., Rajaram, S. (2004). The history and evolution of triticale. In: M
Mergoum, H Gomez-Macpherson, eds. Triticale improvement and production. FAO plant
production and protection paper No 179, FAO, Rome, Italy pp 1-9.
Arts, J.H.E., Mommers, C., de Heer, C. (2006). Dose-response relationships and threshold levels
in skin and respiratory allergy. Critical review in Toxicology 36: 219-251
AVH (2012). The Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria 2012, Australia's Virtual Herbarium
http://avh.chah.org.au [Accessed November 2012].
Ayal, S., Levy, A.A. (2005). Wheat domestication and dedomestication - what are the odds?
Chapter 11. In: J Gressel, ed. Crop Ferality and Volunteerism pp 167-173.
Azhaguvel, P., Komatsuda, T. (2007). A phylogenetic analysis based on nucleotide sequence of a
marker linked to the brittle rachis locus indicates a diphyletic origin of barley. Annals of Botany
100: 1009-1015
Balmadrid, C., Bono, M. (2009). Recognizing and managing iron toxicity. Emergency Medicine
41: 36-41
Banuelos, M.A., Ruiz, M.C., Jimenez, A., Souciet, J.L., Potier, S., Ramos, J. (2002). Role of the
Nha1 antiporter in regulating K(+) influx in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 19: 9-15
Banuelos, M.A., Sychrova, H., Bleykasten-Grosshans, C., Souciet, J.L., Potier, S. (1998). The
Nha1 antiporter of Saccharomyces cerevisiae mediates sodium and potassium efflux.
Microbiology 144 ( Pt 10): 2749-2758
Barkworth, M.E., Jacobs, S.W.L. (2011). The Triticeae (Gramineae) in Australasia. Telopea 13:
37-56
Barlow-Stewart, K., Emery, J., and Metcalfe, S. (2007). Genetics in Family Medicine: the
Australian Handbook for General Practitioners. Biotechnology Australia and NHMRC
Barrett-Lennard, E.G. (2003). Saltland Pastures in Australia: a Practical Guide. Land, Water &
Wool Sustainable Grazing on Saline Lands Sub-program
References
45
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Batistic, O., Kudla, J. (2004). Integration and channeling of calcium signaling through the CBL
calcium sensor/CIPK protein kinase network. Planta 219: 915-924
Bell, L.W., Wade, L.J., Ewing, M.A. (2010). Perennial wheat: a review of environmental and
agrnomic prospects for development in Australia. Crop and Pasture Science 61: 679-690
Benito, B., Rodriguez-Navarro, A. (2003). Molecular cloning and characterization of a sodiumpump ATPase of the moss Physcomitrella patens. Plant J 36: 382-389
Bouis, H.E., Hotz, C., McClafferty, B., Meenakshi, J.V., Pfeiffer, W.H. (2011). Biofortification: a
new tool to reduce micronutrient malnutrition. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 32: S31-S40
Bradford, K.J., van Deynze, A., Gutterson, N., Parrott, W., Strauss, S.H. (2005). Regulating
transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nature
Biotechnology 23: 439-444
Brett, C.L., Donowitz, M., Rao, R. (2005). Evolutionary origins of eukaryotic sodium/proton
exchangers. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 288: C223-C239
Brunner, I., Sperisen, C. (2013). Aluminum exclusion and aluminum tolerance in woody plants.
Frontiers in Plant Science 4: Article 172
Castiglioni, P., Warner, D., BensenR.J., Anstrom, D.C., Harrison, J., Stoecker, M., Abad, M.,
Kumar, G., Salvador, S., D'Ordine, R., Navarro, S., Back, S., Fernandes, M., Targolli, J.,
Dasgupta, S., Bonin, C., Luethy, M.H., Heard, J.E. (2008). Bacterial RNA chaperones confer
abiotic stress tolerance in plants and improved grain yield in maize under water-limited
conditions. Plant Physiol 147: 446-455
Caughley, J., Bomford, M., Parker, B., Sinclair, R., Griffiths, J., Kelly, D. (1998). Managing
Vertebrate Pests: Rodents. Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) and Grains Research and
Development Corporation (GRDC) Canberra.
CDC (2011). Iron and iron deficiency. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Cheema, A.A., Awan, M.A., Ali, Y. (1999). Niab-Irri-9; a new salt tolerant and high yielding rice
variety. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 2: 869-870
Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003). Report of the third session of the codex ad hoc
intergovernmental task force on foods derived from biotechnology (Alinorm 03/34), 25th session,
Rome, Italy. 30 June-5 July, 2003. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standard Programme.
Collins, N.C., Shirley, N.J., Saeed, M., Pallotta, M., Gustafson, J.P. (2008). An ALMT1 gene
cluster controlling aluminum tolerance at the Alt4 locus of rye (Secale cereale L.). Genetics 179:
669-682
Colquhoun, J., Fandrich, L. (2003). Jointed goatgrass: Aegilops cylindrica Host. Pacific
Northwest Extension Publication 256
Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on
Human Health, N.R.C. (2004). Unintended Effects from Breeding. Chapter 3. In: Safety of
Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. The National
Academies Press pp 39-71.
References
46
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Croft, J.D., Fleming, P.J.S., Van de Ven, R. (2002). The impact of rabbits on a grazing system in
eastern New South Wales. 1. Ground cover and pastures. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture 42: 909-916
de Virgilio, M., Lombardi, A., Caliandro, R., Fabbrini, M.S. (2010). Ribosome-inactivating
proteins: from plant defense to tumor attack. Toxin 2: 2699-2737
Delaney, B., Astwood, J.D., Cunny, H., Conn, R.E., Herouet-Guicheney, C., MacIntosh, S.,
Meyer, L.S., Privalle, L., Gao, Y., Mattsson, J., Levine, M., ILSI International Food
Biotechnology Committee Task Force on Protein Safety (2008). Evaluation of protein safety in the
context of agricultural biotechnology. Food and Chemical Toxicology 46: S71-S97
Delhaize, E., Ryan, P.R. (1995). Aluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants. Plant Physiology 107:
315-321
Delhaize, E., Ryan, P.R., Hebb, D.M., Yamamoto, Y., Sasaki, T., Matsumoto, H. (2004).
Engineering high-level aluminum tolerance in barley with the ALMT1 gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci U
S A 101: 15249-15254
Delhaize, E., Ryan, P.R., Randall, P.J. (1993). Aluminum tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) (II. Aluminum-stimulated excretion of malic acid from root apices). Plant Physiology 103:
695-702
Denham, J.M., Hill, I.D. (2013). Celiac disease and autoimmunity: review and controversies.
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports 13: 347-353
Doebley, J.F., Gaut, B.S., Smith, B.D. (2006). The molecular genetics of crop domestication. Cell
127: 1309-1321
Dong, G., Ni, Z., Yao, Y., Nie, X., Sun, Q. (2007). Wheat Dof transcription factor WPBF interacts
with TaQM and activates transcription of an alpha-gliadin gene during wheat seed development.
Plant Molecular Biology 63: 73-84
Dorofeev, V.F. (1969). Spontaneous hybridization in wheat populations of Transcaucasia.
Euphytica 18: 406-416
Eastham, K. and Sweet, J. (2002). Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The significance of
gene flow through pollen transfer. Report No. 28, European Environment Agency Copenhagen,
Denmark, available online at
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2002_28.
Ellstrand, N.C., Heredia, S.M., Leak-Garcia, J.A., Heraty, J.M., Burger, J.C., Yao, L., NohzadehMalakshah, S., Ridley, C.E. (2010). Crops gone wild: evolution of weeds and invasives from
domesticated ancestors. Evolutionary Applications 3: 494-504
EPA (1996). Plant pesticide inert ingredient CP4 Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-D and the genetic
material necessary for its production in all plants. Report No. 61, US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) available online at http://www.federalregister.gov
Fine, J.S. (2000). Iron poisoning. Current Problems in Pedriatrics 30: 71-90
References
47
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Forster, B.P. (2001). Mutation genetics of salt tolerance in barley: An assessment of Golden
Promise and other semi-dwarf mutants. Euphytica 120: 317-328
Gaxiola, R.A., Li, J., Undurraga, S., Dang, L.M., Allen, G.J., Alper, S.L., Fink, G.R. (2001).
Drought- and salt-tolerant plants result from overexpression of the AVP1 H+-pump. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 11444-11449
Gaxiola, R.A., Sanchez, C.A., Paez-Valencia, J., Ayre, B.G., Elser, J.J. (2012). Genetic
manipulation of a "vacuolar" H+-PPase: from salt tolerance to yield enhancement under
phosophorus-deficient soils. Plant Physiology 159: 3-11
Goodman, R.E., Vieths, S., Sampson, H.A., Hill, D., Ebisawa, M., Taylor, S.L., van Ree, R.
(2008). Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops - what makes sense? Nature
Biotechnology 26: 73-81
Goodman, R.M., Hauptli, H., Crossway, A., Knauf, V.C. (1987). Gene transfer in crop
improvement. Science 236: 48-54
Hajjar, R., Hodgkin, T. (2007). The use of wild relatives in crop improvement: a survey of
developments over the last 20 years. Euphytica 156: 1-13
Hammond, B., Kough, J., Herouet-Guicheney, C., Jez, J.M., ILSI International Food
Biotechnology Committe Task Force on the Use of Mammalian Toxicology Studies in the Safety
Assessment of GM Foods (2013). Toxicological evaluation of proteins introduced into food crops.
Critical review in Toxicology 43 (S2): 25-42
Hansen, W.R. (1994). Small grain production for Iowa - Winter. Report No. Pm-1498, Iowa State
University, University Extension
Haslberger, A.G. (2003a). Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended
effects. Nature Biotechnology 21: 739-741
Haslberger, A.G. (2003b). GM food: the risk-assessment of immune hypersensitivity reactions
covers more than allergenicity. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 1: 42-45
Hauser, M., Egger, M., Wallner, M., Wopfner, N., Schmidt, G., Ferreira, F. (2008). Molecular
properties of plant food allergens: a current classification into protein families. The Open
Immunology Journal 1: 1-12
Henkel, J.S., Baldwin, M.R., Barbieri, J.T. (2010). Toxins from bacteria. Experientia
Supplementum Volume 100: 1-29
Herbik, A., Koch, G., Mock, H.-P., Dushkov, D., Czihal, A., Thielmann, J., Stephan, U.W.,
Baumlein, H. (1999). Isolation, characterization and cDNA cloning of nicotianamine synthase
from barley. European Journal of Biochemistry 265: 231-239
Herman, R.A., Ladics, G.S. (2011). Endogenous allergen upregulation: transgenic vs. tradtionally
bred crops. Food and Chemical Toxicology 49: 2667-2669
Higuchi, K., Suzuki, K., Nakanishi, H., Yamaguchi, H., Nishizawa, Mori (1999). Cloning of
nicotianamine synthase genes, novel genes involved in the biosynthesis of phytosiderophores.
Plant Physiology 119: 471-479
References
48
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Higuchi, K., Watanabe, S., Takahashi, M., Kawasaki, S., Nakanishi, H., Nishizawa, N.K., Mori, S.
(2001). Nicotianamine synthase gene expression differs in barley and rice under Fe-deficient
conditions. The Plant Journal 25: 159-167
Hischenhuber, C., Crevel, R., Jarry, B., Maki, M., Moneret-Vautrin, D.A., Romano, A., Troncone,
R., Ward, R. (2006). Review article: safe amounts of gluten for patients with wheat allergy or
coeliac disease. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 23: 559-575
Howe, H.F., Smallwood, J. (1982). Ecology of Seed Dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 13: 201-228
Howles, P., Smith, J. (2013). Risk assessment of abiotic stress tolerant GM crops. Chapter 8. In: N
Tuteja, SS Gill, R Tuteja, eds. Improving Crop Productivity in Sustainable Agriculture. WileyBlackwell pp 163-181.
Islam, S., Malik, A.I., Islam, A.K., Colmer, T.D. (2007). Salt tolerance in a Hordeum marinumTriticum aestivum amphiploid, and its parents. Journal of Experimental Botany 58: 1219-1229
Johnson, A.A.T., Kyriacou, B., Callahan, D.L., Carruthers, L., Stangoulis, J., Lombi, E., Tester,
M. (2011). Constitutive overexpression of the OsNAS gene family reveals single-gene strategies
for effective iron- and zinc-biofortification of rice endosperm. PLoS ONE 6: e24476.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024476
Kaiser, A.G. (1999). Increasing the utilisation of grain when fed whole to ruminants. Australian
Journal of Agricultural Research 50: 737-756
Karalliedde, L. (1995). Animal toxins. British Journal of Anaesthesia 74: 319-327
Kavanagh, V.B., Hall, L.M., Hall, J.C. (2010). Potential hybridization of genetically engineered
Triticale with wild and weedy relatives in Canada. Crop Sci 50: 1128-1140
Keeler, K.H. (1989). Can genetically engineered crops become weeds? Bio/Technology 7: 11341139
Keese, P. (2008). Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer. Environmental Biosafety
Research 7: 123-149
Kim, S., Takahashi, M., Higuchi, K., Tsunoda, K., Nakanishi, H., Yoshimura, E., Mori, S.,
Nishizawa, N.K. (2005). Increased nicotianamine biosynthesis confers enhanced tolerance of high
levels of metals, in particular nickel, to plants. Plant and Cell Physiology 46: 1809-1818
Kim, S.A., Guerinot, M.L. (2007). Mining iron: Iron uptake and transport in plants. FEBS Letters
581: 2273-2280
Knupffer, H. (2009). Triticeae genetic resources in ex situ Genebank collections. In: C Feuillet,
GJ Muehlbauer, eds. Genetics and Genomics of the Triticeae. Springer, Dordrecht pp 31-80.
Leighty, C.E., Sando, W.J. (1928). Natural and artificial hybrids of a Chinese wheat and rye.
Journal of Heredity 19: 23-27
Li, B., Wei, A., Song, C., Li, N., Zhang, J. (2008). Heterologous expression of the TsVP gene
improves the drought resistance of maize. Plant Biotechnology Journal 6: 146-159
References
49
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Li, J., Yang, H., Peer, W.A., Richter, G., Blakeslee, J., Bandyopadhyay, A., Titapiwantakun, B.,
Undurraga, S., Khodakovskaya, M., Richards, E.L., Krizek, B., Murphy, A.S., Gilroy, S., Gaxiola,
R. (2005). Arabidopsis H+-PPase AVP1 regulates auxin-mediated organ development. Science
310: 121-125
Luan, S. (2009). The CBL-CIPK network in plant calcium signaling. Trends Plant Sci 14: 37-42
Lunde, C., Drew, D.P., Jacobs, A.K., Tester, M. (2007). Exclusion of Na+ via sodium ATPase
(PpENA1) ensures normal growth of Physcomitrella patens under moderate salt stress. Plant
Physiology 144: 1786-1796
Lv, S., Zhang, K., Gao, Q., Lian, L., Song, Y., Zhang, J. (2008). Overexpression of an H+-PPase
geen from Thellungiella halophila in cotton enhances salt tolerance and improves growth and
photosynthetic performance. Plant and Cell Physiology 49: 1150-1164
Lv, S.-L., Lian, L.-J., Tao, P.-L., Li, Z.-X., Zhang, K.-W., Zhang, J.-R. (2009). Overexpression of
Thellungiella halophila H+-PPase (TsVP) in cotton enhances drought stress resistance of plants.
Planta 229: 899-910
Mallett, K., Orchard, A.E. (2002). Flora of Australia Volume 43 Poaceae 1: Introduction and
Atlas. ABRS/CSIRO, Melbourne
Malo, J.E., Suárez, F. (1995). Herbivorous mammals as seed dispersers in a Mediterranean
dehesa. Oecologia 104: 246-255
Martinez-Atienza, J., Jiang, X., Garciadeblas, B., Mendoza, I., Zhu, J.K., Pardo, J.M., Quintero,
F.J. (2007). Conservation of the salt overly sensitive pathway in rice. Plant Physiol 143: 10011012
Masuda, H., Usuda, K., Kobayashi, T., Ishimaru, Y., Kakei, Y., Takahashi, M., Higuchi, K.,
Nakanishi, H., Mori, S., Nishizawa, N.K. (2009). Overexpression of the barley nicotianamine
synthase gene HvNAS1 increases iron and zinc concentrations in rice grains. Rice 2: 155-166
Matus-Cadiz, M.A., Hucl, P., Horak, M.J., Blomquist, L.K. (2004). Gene flow in wheat at the
field scale. Crop Science 44: 718-727
Maxted, N. and Kell, S.P. (2009). Establishment of a global network for the in situ conservation of
crop wild relatives: status and needs. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture, Rome, Italy
Meister, G.K. (1921). Natural hybridization of wheat and rye in Russia. Journal of Heredity 12:
467-470
Munns, R., James, R.A., Xu, B., Athman, A., Conn, S.J., Jordans, C., Byrt, C.S., Hare, R.A.,
Tyerman, S.D., Tester, M., Plett, D., Gilliham, M. (2012). Wheat grain yield on saline soils is
improved by an ancestral Na+ transporter gene. Nature Biotechnology 30: 360-366
Myers, K., Poole, W.E. (1963). A study of the biology of the wild rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus
(L.), in confined populations IV. Ther effects of rabbit grazing on sown pastures. The Journal of
Ecology 52: 435-451
References
50
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
National Research Council (1989). Field testing genetically modified organisms: framework for
decisions. Board on Biology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Academies Press,
Washington
Nawrot, M., Szarejko, I., Maluszynski, M. (2001). Barley mutants with increased tolerances to
aluminium toxicity. Euphytica 120: 345-356
Nemeth, E. (2010). Hepcidin in beta-thalassemia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
1202: 31-35
Nestel, P., Bouis, H.E., Meenakshi, J.V., Pfeiffer, W. (2006). Biofortification of staple food crops.
Journal of Nutrition 136: 1064-1067
NYNRMP (2011). Tall wheatgrass (Thinopyrum ponticum). Northern and Yorke National
Resource Management Plan, Government of South Australia
Ogg, A.G. and Parker, R. (2000). Control of volunteer crop plants. Report No. EB 1523,
Washington State University Cooperative Extension
OGTR (2008a). The biology of Hordeum vulgare L. (barley). Document prepared by the Office of
the Gene Technology Regulator, Canberra, Australia, available online at http://www.ogtr.gov.au/
OGTR (2008b). The biology of Triticum aestivum L. em Thell. (Bread Wheat). Document
prepared by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Canberra, Australia, available online at
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/
OGTR (2013). Risk Analysis Framework. Version 4, Document produced by the Australian
Government Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, available online from
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/
Omote, H., Hiasa, M., Matsumoto, T., Otsuka, M., Moriyama, Y. (2006). The MATE proteins as
fundamental transporters of metabolic and xenobiotic organic cations. Trends in Pharmacological
Sciences 27: 587-593
Pasapula, V., Shen, G., Kuppu, S., Paez-Valencia, J., Mendoza, M., Hou, P., Chen, J., Qiu, X.,
Zhu, L., Zhang, X., Auld, D., Blumwald, E., Zhang, H., Gaxiola, R., Payton, P. (2011). Expression
of an Arabidopsis vacuolar H+-pyrophosphatase gene (AVP1) in cotton improves drought- and
salt tolerance and increase fibre yield in the field conditions. Plant Biotechnology Journal 9: 8899
Pei, L., Wang, J., Li, K., Li, Y., Li, B., Gao, F., Yang, A. (2012). Overexpression of Thellungiella
halophila H+-pyrophosphatase gene improves low phosphate tolerance in maize. PLoS ONE 7:
e43501. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043501
Pickering, R., Johnston, P.A. (2005). Recent progress in barley improvement using wild species of
Hordeum. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 109: 344-349
Pickett, A.A. (1989). A review of seed dormancy in self-sown wheat and barley. Plant Varieties
and Seeds 2: 131-146
References
51
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Prescott-Allen, R., Prescott-Allen, C. (1998). Genes from the wild: using wild genetic resources
for food and raw materials. International Institute for Environment and Development, Earthscan
Publications Ltd, London
Prigge, M.J., Bezanilla, M. (2010). Evolutionary crossroads in developmental biology:
Physcomitrella patens. Development 137: 3535-3543
Prior, C., Potier, S., Souciet, J.-L., Sychrova, H. (1996). Characterization of the NHA1 gene
encoding a Na+/K+- antiporter of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEBS Letters 387: 89-93
Qiu, Q.S., Barkla, B.J., Vera-Estrella, R., Zhu, J.K., Schumaker, K.S. (2003). Na+/H+ exchange
activity in the plasma membrane of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 132: 1041-1052
Qiu, Q.S., Guo, Y., Dietrich, M.A., Schumaker, K.S., Zhu, J.K. (2002). Regulation of SOS1, a
plasma membrane Na+/H+ exchanger in Arabidopsis thaliana, by SOS2 and SOS3. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 99: 8436-8441
Radauer, C., Breiteneder, H. (2007). Evolutionary biology of plant food allergens. Journal of
Allergy and Clinical Immunology 120: 518-525
Ravel, C., Martre, P., Romeuf, I., Dardevet, M., El-Malki, R., Bordes, J., Duchateau, N., Brunel,
D., Balfourier, F., Charmet, G. (2009). Nuceotide polymorphism in the wheat transcriptional
activator Spa influences its pattern of expression and has pleiotropic effects on grain protein
composition, dough viscoelasticity, and grain hardness. Plant Physiology 151: 2133-2144
Rengasamy, P. (2010). Soil processes affecting crop production in salt-affected soils. Functional
Plant Biology 37: 613-620
Romeuf, I., Tessier, D., Dardevet, M., Branlard, G., Charmet, G., Ravel, C. (2010). wDBTF: an
integrated database resource for studying wheat transcription factor families. BMC Genomics 11:
185
Roy, S.J., Huang, W., Wang, X.J., Eyrard, A., Schmockel, S.M., Zafar, Z.U., Tester, M. (2013). A
novel protein kinase involved in Na(+) exclusion revealed from positional cloning. Plant Cell and
Environment 36: 553-568
Salcedo, G., Sanchez-Monge, R., Diaz-Perales, A., Pacios, L.F. (2008). Review. Plant food
allergens: peach non-specific lipid transfer protein Pru p 3 as a model. Spanish Journal of
Agricultural Research 6: 30-37
Sang, T. (2009). Genes and mutations underlying domestication transitions in grasses. Plant
Physiology 149: 63-70
Sasaki, T., Yamamoto, Y., Ezaki, B., Katsuhara, M., Ahn, S.J., Ryan, P.R., Delhaize, E.,
Matsumoto, H. (2004). A wheat gene encoding an aluminum-activated malate transporter. Plant
Journal 37: 645-653
Schmitt, M.J., Breinig, F. (2006). Yeast viral killer toxins: lethality and self-protection. Nature
Reviews: Microbiology 4: 212-221
References
52
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Smith, D.F. (1968). The growth of barley grass (Hordeum leporinum) in annual pasture. 1.
Germination and establishment in comparison with other annual pasture species. Australian
Journal of Experimental Agriculture 8: 478-483
Steiner, H.Y., Halpin, C., Jez, J.M., Kough, J., Parrott, W., Underhill, L., Weber, N., Hannah, L.C.
(2013). Evaluating the potential for adverse interactions within genetically engineered breeding
stacks. Plant Physiology 161: 1587-1594
Stirpe, F. (2005). Ribosome-inactivating proteins. Chapter 2. In: RG Wiley, DA Lappi, eds.
Molecular Neurosurgery with Targeted Toxins. Humana Press pp 9-29.
Sychrova, H., Ramirez, J., Pena, A. (1999). Involvement of Nha1 antiporter in regulation of
intracellular pH in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Microbiology Letters 171: 167-172
Taketa, S., Amano, S., Tsujino, Y., Sato, T., Saisho, D., Kakeda, K., Nomura, M., Suzuki, T.,
Matsumoto, T., Sato, K., Kanamori, H., Kawasaki, S., Takeda, K. (2008). Barley grain with
adhering hulls is controlled by an ERF family transcription factor gene regulating a lipid
biosynthesis pathway. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 4062-4067
Tanno, T., Bhanu, N.V., Oneal, P.A., Goh, S.-H., Staker, P., Lee, Y.T., Moroney, J.W., Reed,
C.H., Luban, N.L.C., Wang, R.-H., Eling, T.E., Childs, R., Ganz, T., Leitman, S.F., Fucharoen, S.,
Miller, J.L. (2007). High levels of GDF15 in thalassemia suppress expression of the iron
regulatory protein hepcidin. Nature Medicine 13: 1096-1101
Tatham, A.S., Shewry, P.R. (2008). Allergens to wheat and related cereals. Clinical and
Experimental Allergy 38: 1712-1726
Temby, I. and Marshall, D. (2003). Reducing cockatoo damage to crops. Report No. Landcare
Notes LC0009, State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment 2003, available
online at
http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nreninf.nsf/9e58661e880ba9e44a256c640023eb2e/5f4bd3e13487d
be4ca256e720024dccd/$FILE/LC0009.pdf
The GM Science Review Panel (2003). GM Science Review - First Report. Great Britain,
available on line at http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2003/07/21/gmscireport1-full.pdf
Tomlekova, N.B. (2010). Induced mutagenesis for crop improvement in Bulgaria. Plant Mutation
Reports 2: 4-27
Trampczynska, A., Bottcher, C., Clemens, S. (2013). The transition metal chelator nicotianamine
is synthesized by filamentous fungi. FEBS Letters 580: 3173-3178
Tulchinsky, T.H. (2010). Micronutrient deficiency conditions: global health issues. Public Health
Reviews 32: 243-255
USEPA (1997). Saccharamyces cerevisiae final risk assessment. Biotechnology program under the
toxic substances control act (TSCA)
von Wiren, N., Khodr, H., Hider, R.C. (2000). Hydroxylated phytosiderophore species possess an
enhanced chelate stability and affinity for Iron(III). Plant Physiology 124: 1149-1157
References
53
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Wang, H.Y., Liu, D.C., Yan, Z.H., Wei, Y.M., Zheng, Y.L. (2005). Cytological characteristics of
F2 hybrids between Triticum aestivum L. and T. durum Desf. with reference to wheat breeding. Journal Applied Genetics 46:
365-369
Wang, J., Wu, W., Zuo, K., Fei, J., Sun, X., Lin, J., Li, X., Tang, K. (2004). Isolation and
characterization of a serine/threonine protein kinase SOS2 gene from Brassica napus. Cell Mol
Biol Lett 9: 465-473
Weber, N., Halpin, C., Hannah, L.C., Jez, J.M., Kough, J., Parrott, W. (2012). Editor's choice:
crop genome plasticity and its relevance to food and feed safety of genetically engineered
breeding stacks. Plant Physiology 160: 1842-1853
Welch, D. (1985). Studies in the grazing of heather moorland in north-east Scotland. IV. Seed
dispersal and plant establishment in dung. The Journal of Applied Ecology 22: 461-472
WHO (2014). Micronutrient deficiencies: iron deficiency anaemia. Retrieved 16 January 2014
World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/ida/en
Wicklow, D.T., Zak, J.C. (1983). Viable grass seeds in herbivore dung from a semi-arid grassland.
Grass and Forage Science 38: 25-26
Wirth, J., Poletti, S., Aeschlimann, B., Yakandawala, N., Drosse, B., Osorio, S., Tohge, T., Fernie,
A.R., Gunther, D., Gruissem, W., Sautter, C. (2009). Rice endosperm iron biofortification by
targeted and synergistic action of nicotianamine synthase and ferritin. Plant Biotechnology
Journal 7: 631-644
Witcombe, J.R., Hollington, P.A., Howarth, C.J., Reader, S., Steele, K.A. (2008). Breeding for
abiotic stresses for sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:
703-716
Woodgate, J.L., Steadman, K.J., and Buchanan, K.L. (2011). A study of seed viability following
consumption by birds. Unpublished final report submitted to the OGTR.
Yamaguchi, M., Sasaki, T., Sivaguru, M., Yamamoto, Y., Osawa, H., Ahn, S.J., Matsumoto, H.
(2005). Evidence for the plasma membrane localization of Al-activated malate transporter
(ALMT1). Plant and Cell Physiology 46: 812-816
Yasar, S. (2003). Performance of broiler chickens on commercial diets mixed with whole or
ground wheat of different varieties. International Journal of Poultry Science 2: 62-70
Yenish, J.P., Ball, D.A., Schirman, R. (2009). Integrated management of jointed goatgrass in the
Pacific Northwest. Washington State University Extension
Yu, Y., Xia, X., Yin, W., Zhang, H. (2007). Comparative genomic analysis of CIPK gene family
in Arabidopsis and Populus. Plant Growth Regulation 52: 101-110
Zhang, L., Pickering, R., Murray, B. (1999). Direct measurement of recombination frequency in
interspecific hybrids between Hordeum vulgare and H. bulbosum using genomic in situ
hybridization. Heredity 83: 304-309
References
54
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Zhou, M.-L., Qi, L.-P., Pang, J.-F., Zhang, Q., Lei, Z., Tang, Y.-X., Zhu.X.M., Shao, J.-R., Wu,
Y.-M. (2013). Nicotianamine synthase gene family as central components in heavy metal and
phytohormone response in maize. Functional and Integrative Genomics 13: 229-239
References
55
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Appendix A Summary of submissions from prescribed
experts, agencies and authorities6
Advice received by the Regulator from prescribed experts, agencies and authorities on the
consultation RARMP is summarised below. All issues raised in submissions that related to risks to
the health and safety of people and the environment were considered in the context of the
currently available scientific evidence and were used in finalising the RARMP that formed the
basis of the Regulator’s decision to issue the licence.
Abbreviations: GM: Genetically Modified; RARMP: Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan.
Sub. Summary of issues raised
No:
Comment
1
Sees no problem with the application and
has no comments on the RARMP.
Noted
2
Notes that the licence prohibits the use of
material from the trials for human or animal
consumption. Has no further comments on
the licence application.
Noted.
3
Agrees with the overall conclusions of the
RARMP and the proposed limits and
controls.
Noted.
The Regulator should consider further
acknowledging uncertainty regarding
potential for the introduced genes for abiotic
stress tolerance and micronutrient uptake to
result in increased survival of the GMOs or
increases in toxicity or allergenicity, including
in the summary table [Table 5].
Additional text has been added to the risk scenarios
acknowledging uncertainty about the potential for improved
persistence of the GM plants outside of the agricultural
setting. Table 5 was not modified as this is a brief summary
of the scenarios.
This application involves a large number of
lines, and suggests the Regulator consider
the upper limits of what qualifies as a limited
and controlled release.
This issue was considered as part of requirements under
Section 50A of the Act, prior to preparation of a RARMP. The
Regulator will continue to consider the appropriateness of
limits and controls in determining if an application meets the
requirements of section 50A.
The Regulator should consider seeking
Chapter 3 lists additional information that may be required to
information on the results of the trial to inform assess future applications for larger scale trials, reduced
future applications for release of any of these containment measures or commercial release.
GM lines, with respect to the potential risks
to human health and the environment.
4
The Regulator should consider clarifying the
text in the RARMP regarding other
government approvals, as approval for trials
in South Australia would be required as part
of the South Australian moratorium.
The South Australian moratorium on GM crops does not
relate to protection of human health or the environment, and
is a matter for the SA government and not the Regulator.
Wording associated with the statement has been modified.
Commends Table 5 in the RARMP as a
useful device to summarise causal pathways
Noted.
Has no concerns regarding the potential for
harm to humans or the environment, and
accordingly has no objection to the granting
of the licence for DIR 128.
Noted.
6
Prescribed agencies include GTTAC, State and Territory Governments, relevant local governments, Australian
Government agencies and the Minister for the Environment.
Appendix A
56
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Sub. Summary of issues raised
No:
5
6
Comment
Given the biology and ecology of wheat and
barley, and the limited scale and duration of
the release, the environmental risks posed
by the trial are likely to be low and
manageable.
Noted.
Both wheat and barley have been listed as
minor weeds in Australia and California. The
traits (including any stacking) may have the
potential to enhance growth and survival of
the GM wheat and barley and sexually
compatible species in non-agricultural areas.
Therefore, the RARMP (in particular Risk
Scenarios 2, 4 and 6) could be improved by
including more detailed discussion about
this.
Additional text has been added to these risk scenarios to
describe the uncertainty about whether the GM traits may
increase the potential for persistence outside an agricultural
setting.
New sexually compatible species may be
introduced into Australia in the future (eg
perennial wheat). Even though there are only
low rates of out-crossing, hybridisation
between these new species and the GM
plants may lead to weediness.
Risk scenarios 3 and 4 consider outcrossing to sexually
compatible plants currently in the areas around the trial sites.
There were no substantive risks identified, mainly due to the
controls being proposed and the short duration of the trial. If
new sexually compatible plants were introduced into Australia
and were identified near the sites while the GMOs are
growing, the licence conditions would minimise gene flow to
these new species.
Recommends more guidance on future data
requirements, especially in regards to traits
that may lead to weediness. Suggests the
collection of a variety of data, including
growths rates, plant morphology, seed
dormancy and germination, disease
resistance, head shattering, seed dispersal,
seed longevity, and comparison with existing
elite cultivars.
Chapter 3 lists additional information that may be required to
assess future applications for larger scale trials, reduced
containment measures or commercial release.
Applicants/licence holders liaise with the OGTR about
collection of appropriate data, and the DIR application forms
provide guidance on the information required. Nevertheless,
the applicant will be provided with these suggestions for data
collection.
Supports the conclusion that DIR 128 poses
negligible risks of harm to human health and
the environment assuming that the below
ambiguities are considered and rectified.
Noted.
Paragraph 13 on page 3 of the RARMP
states that visitors to the sites would be
accompanied by authorised University of
Adelaide staff. However, the licence allows
any person to access a site as long as these
persons are aware of the licence conditions.
Text in paragraph 13 has been modified to indicate that this
is what the applicant proposes. However, the licence does
not restrict access to sites but requires the licence holder to
inform people of licence conditions prior to allowing them to
conduct dealings with the GMOs.
Paragraphs 59 and 60 of the RARMP
mentions the locality Kunjin for one site but
the locality is not mentioned for the other two
sites.
The text of the RARMP has been amended to more clearly
define the locations of the trial sites. Once GMOs are planted
at a site, GPS coordinates will be posted on OGTR’s website.
Paragraph 204 of the RARMP states that GM Paragraph 204 (now paragraph 209 in the final RARMP) has
plant material must be destroyed if grown
been modified to indicate that seed must not be used for
near other sexually compatible GM plants but future development.
the licence (condition 25) only states that the
GM seed must not be used for future
development. Suggest both statements refer
to either plant material or seed.
Appendix A
57
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Appendix B Summary of submissions from the public
The Regulator received 13 submissions from the public on the consultation RARMP. The issues
raised in these submissions are summarised in the table below. All issues raised in the submissions
that related to risks to the health and safety of people and the environment were considered in the
context of currently available scientific evidence in finalising the RARMP that formed the basis of
the Regulator’s decision to issue the licence.
Issues raised: AT: Alternative technology; C: containment, E: Environment; EC: Economic issues; GT:
gene transfer; F: food; FL: food labelling; H: Health; L: liability; LC: Licence condition; M: Marketing; P:
Pesticides; R: Research; RA: Risk analysis; S: Segregation.
Other abbreviations: Act: the Gene Technology Act 2000; APVMA: Australian Pesticides and Veterinary
Medicines Authority; FSANZ: Food Standards Australia New Zealand; GM: Genetically modified; GMO:
Genetically modified organism.
Sub.
No:
Issue
1
GT
When a similar "Trial" of GE Canola was undertaken, the
researchers seemed to have no knowledge of "The Birds
And The Bees". Cross-pollination occurred with
10,000Acres of normal canola.
GM crop field trials (‘limited and controlled releases’)
licenced by the Regulator are subject to strict
conditions to restrict the spread and persistence of
the GMOs and their genetic material in the
environment. Conditions imposed on this field trial
include measures to minimise pollen transfer to nonGM wheat and barley crops by isolating the field trial
by 200m from sexually compatible species. These
measures have been effective in previous GM wheat
and barley trials.
H
We have no idea about how ingestion of such abnormal
proteins may induce aberrant immune responses, possibly
inducing CJD-like human disease. What precautions are in
place?
All the introduced genes are derived from plants and
bacteria that are widespread and prevalent in the
environment. Most of them are commonly consumed
by people or people are naturally exposed to them.
None of the introduced proteins are members of
protein classes that are known to have members with
toxic or allergenic properties. No GM material from
the trial will enter the human food supply or be used
for animal feed.
E, M,
RA
The public does not want GMO crops or food grown in SA
and hence that is why there is a moratorium in SA.
However, the trials will go ahead due to corporate
agribusiness pressure being applied to our governments
and regulators, who are supposed to be there to protect
people’s health and the environment. OGTR appears to be
‘a rubber stamp’, doing no independent testing of its own.
Other countries have banned GMOs. We do not want our
natural biodiversity contaminated with GM organisms.
States have the ability to introduce moratoria on
growing GM crops for marketing and trade purposes,
not for health and safety reasons. The Regulator is
required to assess GMO applications in accordance
with the Act, the object of which is to the protect the
health and safety of people and the environment.
Comprehensive RARMPs include a thorough and
critical assessment of data supplied by the applicant,
together with a review of other relevant national and
international scientific literature. The RARMP
concluded that risks to human health and safety of
people, and to the environment, from this limited and
controlled release of GM wheat and barley are
negligible. Nevertheless, strict conditions have been
imposed to restrict the spread and persistence of the
GMOs and their genetic material in the environment.
2
AT
Appendix B
Summary of issues raised
Comment
GM wheat and barley are not needed as there are excellent These matters do not relate to risks to human health
traditional varieties from which seed can be saved. If there
and safety and the environment and are outside the
was better food distribution, instead of mega profits for giant scope of assessments conducted by the Regulator.
agribusiness then gene technology would not be needed.
58
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Sub.
No:
Issue
3
GT
Concerned about wind mediated dispersal of GM pollen to
any nearby wheat and barley crops and whether this could
end up being a legal minefield for both the University and
the federal government.
Licence conditions impose strict controls that
minimise the potential for pollen transfer to non-GM
wheat and barley crops due to wind by requiring an
isolation distance of at least 200 metres. These
measures have been effective in previous GM wheat
and barley trials.
4
E, R
Objects to trials for yield before trials for ecological impact
are exhaustively pursued.
The RARMP concluded that risks to human health
and safety of people, and to the environment, from
this limited and controlled release of GM wheat and
barley are negligible. Data relating to ecological
impacts would be required for a future application for
a commercial release of any of these GMOs.
Relevant data may be collected during this field trial.
5
GT
Controls should include not planting in area where organic
wheat or barley is the surrounding crop even if outside
200m buffer zone.
Wheat and barley plants are predominately selfpollinating and most pollen falls within the first few
metres. Review of the literature indicates that
isolating the GM wheat and barley by at least 200m
will effectively minimise the likelihood of pollen
transfer to any nearby wheat and barley crops,
including organic crops. These measures have been
effective in previous GM wheat and barley trials.
6
F, AT,
EC
Wants food to stay free from GMO. Other means of farming
produce food just as nutritious. Wants open air trials and
commercial cultivation banned and research on sustainable
farming systems supported. GM crops are not accepted
worldwide and countries buy Australian wheat because it is
GM free.
These matters do relate to risk to human health and
safety and the environment and are outside the
scope of assessments conducted by the Regulator.
Marketing and trade issues are the responsibility of
States and industry.
Because so many crops are wind-pollinated, it is almost
impossible to keep areas GM free.
Licence conditions impose strict controls that
minimise the potential for pollen transfer via wind to
sexual compatible plants by requiring an isolation
distance of at least 200 metres.
EC, AT
Australian governments must create a secure future for
Australian wheat by adopting and implementing policies to:
ban open air GM wheat field trials; reject commercial
cultivation of GM wheat; and support research on
sustainable farming systems.
Alternative agricultural practices and marketing and
trade issues are outside the scope of assessments
conducted by the Regulator. Marketing and trade
issues are the responsibility of States and industry.
C, S
The GM wheat trials and commercialisation may
contaminate conventional and organic wheat. This could
occur at any point from seed to spoon via cross-pollination,
misreading of labels, mistakes in handling, illegal planting,
poor machinery cleaning, spillages and ineffective
segregation.
The application is for a limited and controlled release
(field trial). Strict licence conditions have been
imposed to minimise spread and persistence of the
GM wheat and barley. These include conditions to
isolate trial sites from other wheat and barley crops,
cleaning of equipment used with GM plant materials,
secure transport and storage of GM plant materials,
and post-harvest monitoring at trial sites to ensure all
GM plants are destroyed.
GT
7
Appendix B
Summary of issues raised
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Comment
59
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Sub.
No:
Issue
EC
8
Summary of issues raised
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Comment
A GrainGrowers’ report [What the World Wants From
Marketing and trade issues are outside the scope of
Australian Wheat, 2011] states that wheat importers in SE
assessments conducted by the Regulator. These
Asia, north Asia, Middle East and Europe (which accounts
issues are the responsibility of States and industry.
to about 80% of exported Australian wheat) will not buy GM
wheat now or in the foreseeable future. The report also
states the domestic and feed millers do not believe
Australian consumers would accept GM wheat.
International food companies also reject foods with GM. GM
commercialisation poses an unacceptable risk to the
industry.
-
Wants DIR 128 open air trial of GM wheat and barley in WA
(and SA) rejected.
R, H, F
GM wheat is not grown anywhere in the world, and we in
Australia do not want to be used for risky experimentation.
GM products should be tested for safety and health impacts
by an independent panel of experts before being put on the
market. Findings should be made public.
The Regulator uses information provided by
applicants as well as published scientific literature to
assess GMO applications. The detailed RARMPs are
publicly available on the OGTR website. This trial has
limits on scale and duration, and has strict controls to
minimise spread and persistence of the GM wheat
and barley. The RARMP concluded that this trial
poses negligible risks to the health and safety of
people and the environment. Further information
related to the potential for toxicity, allergenicity or
weediness has been identified that may be required
to assess an application for larger scale trials or
commercial release of any of these GMOs. If any of
the GMOs were proposed to be used in human food,
FSANZ would conduct a pre-market safety
assessment, which would also be subject to public
consultation and made available on their website.
EC
There is a ban on the commercial growing of GM crops in
WA and SA and this needs to be respected.
States have the ability to introduce moratoria on
growing GM crops for marketing and trade purposes,
not for health and safety reasons. The Regulator is
required to assess GMO applications in accordance
with the Act, the object of which is to protect the
health and safety of people and the environment.
People dealing with GMOs must comply with State
requirements as well as conditions imposed by the
Regulator.
FL
Consumers need the right to be able to choose GM free
food. The current labelling laws are full of loopholes making
it impossible to eat GM free, unless eating organic.
Labelling of GM foods is the responsibility of FSANZ.
P
GM crops are increasingly found to need more (not less)
chemicals to grow. This has severe negative impacts on soil
and water, our environment, human health and animal
health.
Glyphosate resistant crops lead to glyphosate resistant
weeds.
The regulation of agricultural chemicals, including
herbicide resistance management, in Australia is the
responsibility of APVMA. The APVMA will not register
a chemical product unless satisfied that its approved
use would not be likely to have an effect that is
harmful to people or the environment.
Appendix B
60
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Sub.
No:
9
10
Issue
Summary of issues raised
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Comment
S
Evidence from around the world shows there is a high risk
that GM crops will contaminate conventional and organic
varieties.
Cites recent case from WA Supreme Court (Marsh vs
Baxter) case, and suspended imports due to unapproved
GM wheat in Oregon, USA.
Marketing and trade issues, including matters relating
to segregation and coexistence of different farming
systems, are the responsibility of the States and
industry, not the Regulator.
Note that the Marsh vs Baxter case, in which an
organic farmer claimed damages from a neighbouring
GM grower for loss of organic certification, related to
commercially approved GM canola, not to GM
material from any limited and controlled release
authorised by the Regulator.
The current application is a limited and controlled
release (field trial) of GM wheat and barley. Strict
licence conditions have been imposed to restrict and
spread and persistence of the GMOs. There has
been no documented loss of containment from any
field trial authorised by the Regulator.
EC
Raises similar issues as submission number 7 in relation to
the GrainGrowers’ report.
See response to submission 7.
S, EC
Raises the same issues regarding the GrainGrowers report
as in submission 7, and regarding GM crops contaminating
conventional and organic varieties as in submission 8.
See relevant elements of responses to submissions 7
and 8.
C, S, EC Wants DIR 128 open air trial of GM wheat and barley
rejected.
The ban on the commercial growing of GM crops in WA and
SA needs to be respected. No one gains anything from the
GM crops, except for the GMO producing companies.
Concerned about the damage to organic wheat suppliers
due to the possibility of contamination from GM crops. As
there are only a handful of organic grain suppliers in WA, it
is imperative that these trials are aborted as our industry
cannot afford to lose any more suppliers as per the Steve
Marsh case.
M, L
Appendix B
Raises the same issues regarding the, GrianGrowers’
report as submission 7.
Marketing and trade issues, including matters relating
to segregation and coexistence of different farming
systems, are the responsibility of the States and
industry, not the Regulator. States have the ability to
introduce moratoria on growing GM crops for
marketing and trade purposes. People dealing with
GMOs must comply with State requirements as well
as conditions imposed by the Regulator.
As noted in response to submission 8, the Marsh vs
Baxter case related to commercially approved GM
canola, not to GM material from any limited and
controlled release authorised by the Regulator.
The current application is a limited and controlled
release (field trial) of GM wheat and barley. Strict
licence conditions have been imposed to restrict and
spread and persistence of the GMOs.
See responses to submission 7.
61
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Sub.
No:
Issue
Summary of issues raised
RA, E, H GM products should be tested for safety and health impacts
by an independent panel of experts before being put on the
market. Findings should be made public.
11
-
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Comment
The Regulator uses information provided by
applicants as well as published scientific literature to
assess GMO applications. The detailed RARMPs are
publicly available on the OGTR website. This trial has
limits on scale and duration, and has strict controls to
minimise spread and persistence of the GM wheat
and barley. The RARMP concluded that this trial
poses negligible risks to the health and safety of
people and the environment. Further information
related to the potential for toxicity, allergenicity or
weediness has been identified that may be required
to assess an application for larger scale trials or
commercial release of any of these GMOs. If any of
the GMOs were proposed to be used in human food,
FSANZ would conduct a pre-market safety
assessment, which would also be subject to public
consultation and made available on their website.
Objects to the approval of DIR 128 GM wheat and barley
trial.
C, S
There have been documented examples of so-called ‘trials’
of GM crops contaminating the environment. Cites 3
examples: unapproved GM wheat in Oregon, USA (2013),
GM rice in US (2006) and GM canola Topas 19/2 in
Australia (2005).
Strict licence conditions have been imposed to
restrict the spread and persistence of the GMOs in
the environment, including isolation from sexually
compatible species, and cleaning and post-harvest
monitoring of trial sites. Similar conditions have been
effective for other GM wheat and barley trials
conducted in Australia.
EC
GM wheat and barley is not grown commercially anywhere
in the world. Market rejection of GM wheat and barley
means that no country wants to import it. Wheat is
Australia’s most important agricultural commodity. Two
thirds of our wheat is exported. Australia’s clean paddocks
are being used for a GM experiment for which there is no
market.
Marketing and trade issues are outside the scope of
assessments conducted by the Regulator. These
issues are the responsibility of States and industry.
RA
Given the past record of the OGTR in approving GM "trials",
we have no expectation that the precautionary principle will
prevail or that you will take our arguments into
consideration.
As required by the Gene Technology Act, the
Regulator has prepared a comprehensive RARMP,
including a thorough and critical assessment of data
supplied by the applicant, together with a review of
other relevant national and international scientific
literature. The risk assessment process, outlined in
the OGTRs Risk Analysis Framework (April 2013. All
comments received on the consultation RARMP that
were relevant to health and safety of people and the
environment were taken into consideration in
finalising the RARMP and making a decision on
issuing a licence. Information on how submissions
have been considered is presented in the appendix.
Strict licence conditions have been imposed on this
field trial to restrict the spread and persistence of the
GMOs and their genetic material in the environment.
Appendix B
62
DIR 128 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Sub.
No:
12
13
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Issue
Summary of issues raised
H, E
The health and safety of people or the environment are not
served by approval of experimental GM wheat and barley
constructs into the open paddocks of Australia.
The RARMP concluded that this limited and
controlled field trial poses negligible risks to the
health and safety of people and the environment.
Strict licence conditions have been imposed on this
field trial to restrict the spread and persistence of the
GMOs and their genetic material in the environment.
S, EC
There are many unresolved issues of liability and
unacceptable risks associated with GM contamination
worldwide. Current laws and regulations, surveillance and
monitoring are inadequate to deal with segregation
demands of different markets and public concerns over
health and environmental safety. Cites Marsh vs Baxter
case in WA. Calls for a freeze of new approvals of GM
crops, including open-air trials until thorough testing.
Marketing and trade issues, including matters relating
to segregation and coexistence of different farming
systems, are the responsibility of the States and
industry, not the Regulator. The RARMP concluded
that this limited and controlled field trial poses
negligible risks to the health and safety of people and
the environment.
C
Who is responsible to the control and cleanup of the spread
and spill of GM seed and crops as the GM industry is
turning their backs on these problems? Escapes for GM
trials have occurred and attempts to eradicate the resulting
GM weeds post-trial is likely to continue for many years.
Cites 2013 examples: unapproved GM wheat in Oregon,
China intercepting and destroying shipments of GM corn
and seed that attempted to bypass Chinese environmental
and food safety tests, GM canola failing to germinate in WA
and harm to pigs fed GM soy and GM corn. Also mentions
trial sites in Tasmania that still have GM canola weeds after
10 years.
As this application is for a limited and controlled
release (field trial), strict licence conditions have been
imposed to restrict the spread and persistence of the
GMOs and their genetic material in the environment.
These include conditions to isolate trial sites from
other wheat and barley crops, cleaning of equipment
used with GM plant materials, secure transport and
storage of GM plant materials, and post-harvest
monitoring at trial sites to ensure all GM plants are
destroyed. Similar conditions have been effective for
other GM wheat and barley trials conducted in
Australia.
M
The world has already rejected GM wheat from earlier
attempts in the US and Canada in 2004 to commercialise it.
People do not want to eat GM wheat & barley and
Australia’s established markets must not be placed at
avoidable risk.
Marketing and trade issues are outside the scope of
assessments conducted by the Regulator. These
issues are the responsibility of States and industry.
S, AT
Objects to the GM wheat and barley trials taking place in
WA. Despite buffer zones around GM canola, even their
property has been affected. Believes that GM is not the
solution and that farming for children’s future and health is
of great priority.
The RARMP concluded that this limited and
controlled field trial poses negligible risks to the
health and safety of people and the environment.
Strict licence conditions have been imposed to
restrict the spread and persistence of the GMOs and
their genetic material in the environment.
Marketing and trade issues, including matters relating
to segregation and coexistence of different farming
systems, are the responsibility of the States and
industry. They are not the responsibility of the
Regulator.
Appendix B
Comment
63