As long as certain minimum requirements for laboratory and field testing for GMOs are not met [6, 33], and validation of laboratory results in the field has not been done, LoCs should not be used as trigger values allowing risk conclusion from lower tier tests only.
In addition, since the publication of Pilling et al. [2], there have been two further published field studies which confirm the low-risk conclusions of Pilling et al. [2].
The progress in reaching comet Borrelly is described as are the plans for attempting to return science data from this high-risk conclusion to the extended mission.
According to our results, the conclusion of the EFSA GMO Panel [1, 4] "that the previous GMO Panel risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on maize MON810, Bt11 and 1507 for cultivation remain valid and applicable" is, therefore, not scientifically justified.
So, with two weeks to go, the panel has big issues to tackle or risk their conclusions being outdated before the framework is even agreed.
Risk assessment conclusions of the DF and EPM approaches are very different due to the early breakthrough, long term tailing, and lower attenuation due to degradation associated with fractured media.
Using the tools and techniques to unconventional reservoirs has the risk of conclusions that are irrelevant and random at best.
Since within and close to the Bt-maize field the estimates of mortality made by the GMO Panel [9 13] exceed those that would be derived assuming the Hofmann et al. [2] relationship, there was no need to revise the consequences for the previous EFSA risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations for Bt-maize for NT larvae within the field and its margins".
