Guidance on the agronomic and phenotypic characterisation of genetically modified plants


Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms
EFSA Journal
EFSA Journal 2015;13(6):4128
Panel Members
Salvatore Arpaia, Andrew Nicholas Edmund Birch, Andrew Chesson, Patrick du Jardin, Achim Gathmann, Jürgen Gropp, Lieve Herman, Hilde-Gunn Hoen-Sorteberg, Huw Jones, Jozsef Kiss, Gijs Kleter, Martinus Lovik, Antoine Messéan, Hanspeter Naegeli, Kaare Magne Nielsen, Jaroslava Ovesna, Joe Perry, Nils Rostoks, Christoph Tebbe.

The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on the agronomic and phenotypic
characterisation of genetically modified plants, Salvatore Arpaia, Hans Christer Andersson, Paolo Bàrberi, Lammert
Bastiaans, Tom de Jong, Thomas Frenzel, Jürgen Gropp, Huw Jones, Antoine Messéan, Joe Perry, Angelo Porta Puglia and
Geoffrey Squire, and the hearing expert Jeremy Sweet, for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion, and EFSA staff,
Hermann Broll, Andrea Gennaro and Claudia Paoletti, for the support provided to this scientific opinion.

Guidance of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
On request from
Question Number
27 May 2015
Published in the EFSA Journal
24 June 2015
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

This document provides guidance for the agronomic and phenotypic characterisation of genetically modified (GM) plants and clarifies the EFSA GMO Panel’s view on how agronomic and phenotypic data support the risk assessment of GM plants. Specific recommendations are given on (1) the selection of sites and test materials; (2) the quality and design of field trials; (3) the selection of relevant agronomic and phenotypic endpoints; and (4) data analysis. The guidance proposes a comprehensive and harmonised approach for the agronomic and phenotypic characterisation of GM plants, which should ensure the best use of agronomic and phenotypic data for the comparative analysis of GM plants and derived food and feed products, and for their food and feed and environmental risk assessment.

comparative analysis, field trials design, invasiveness, persistence, receiving environments, representativeness, unintended effects