Topic 4: The role of regional networks in supporting knowledge sharing and interlaboratory comparisons
Ms. Melina Perez Urquiza,
Mexico#12823
Mexico#12823
il y a 9 moisil y a 9 mois
Dear Colleagues,
Welcome to the online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms.
My name is Melina Pérez Urquiza. I served for more than fifteen years at the National Metrology Center of Mexico (CENAM), where I had the honor of contributing to the establishment of the Mexican Laboratory Network for GMO Measurement and of leading the development and certification of calibrant and control reference materials for the determination of LMOs and GMOs. Currently I work as an independent consultant.
It is my privilege to moderate Topic 4: The role of regional networks in supporting knowledge sharing and interlaboratory comparisons.
Under this fourth topic, I would like to gain a clearer understanding of the role of regional networks in supporting knowledge sharing and the effectiveness of interlaboratory comparisons in enhancing the reliability of laboratory results. During the 2023 discussions of this Network, participants emphasized that national and regional laboratory networks provide valuable platforms for sharing expertise, harmonizing methods, exchanging reagents and samples, and strengthening collective capacity for LMO detection. These collaborations were considered important for addressing technical gaps, reducing costs, supporting accreditation efforts, and facilitating the adoption of improved methodologies.
In this context, I kindly ask you to consider the following points:
a) Can you share your experience participating in national or regional networks over the past two years?
b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?
c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?
d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?
e) Do you have any suggestions for improving the overall functioning of laboratory networks for the detection and identification of LMOs?
I look forward to your insights.
Melina Perez Urquiza
Welcome to the online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms.
My name is Melina Pérez Urquiza. I served for more than fifteen years at the National Metrology Center of Mexico (CENAM), where I had the honor of contributing to the establishment of the Mexican Laboratory Network for GMO Measurement and of leading the development and certification of calibrant and control reference materials for the determination of LMOs and GMOs. Currently I work as an independent consultant.
It is my privilege to moderate Topic 4: The role of regional networks in supporting knowledge sharing and interlaboratory comparisons.
Under this fourth topic, I would like to gain a clearer understanding of the role of regional networks in supporting knowledge sharing and the effectiveness of interlaboratory comparisons in enhancing the reliability of laboratory results. During the 2023 discussions of this Network, participants emphasized that national and regional laboratory networks provide valuable platforms for sharing expertise, harmonizing methods, exchanging reagents and samples, and strengthening collective capacity for LMO detection. These collaborations were considered important for addressing technical gaps, reducing costs, supporting accreditation efforts, and facilitating the adoption of improved methodologies.
In this context, I kindly ask you to consider the following points:
a) Can you share your experience participating in national or regional networks over the past two years?
b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?
c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?
d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?
e) Do you have any suggestions for improving the overall functioning of laboratory networks for the detection and identification of LMOs?
I look forward to your insights.
Melina Perez Urquiza
Dear colleagues,
My name is Maria da Glória Trindade, and I am an Agronomist specializing in Molecular Biology, Genetics, and Plant Breeding. I currently work as a Federal Inspector at the Federal Laboratory for Animal and Plant Health Inspection in Goiás (LFDA-GO), under the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of Brazil. Our laboratory focuses on the detection, identification, and quantification of authorized and unauthorized GMOs in Brazil using real-time PCR. We also perform food authentication through DNA barcoding, species identification for labeling purposes, and molecular phytosanitary diagnostics using Sanger sequencing and NGS-based metabarcoding of the 16S and ITS rRNA regions. In addition, we have experience with quality management systems based on ISO/IEC 17025:2017.
Since 2009, we have been involved in LMO analysis in agricultural products and have continually expanded our expertise. In Brazil, we have a national network of GMO laboratories, but over the past two years our interactions have been limited to virtual meetings, audits and information sharing on relevant topics within the country.
At the regional level, we have been active participants in the Latin America and Caribbean Network for GMO Laboratories (RLAC-OGM). Over the past two years, under Mexico’s coordination, we have taken part in several work sessions. In one of these sessions, we presented our advances in DNA extraction methods. This year’s work sessions also involved all laboratories sharing their experiences related to the scope of GMO analyses available, the main objectives of the analyses performed, recent capacity-building activities carried out last year, and the most relevant challenges currently faced.
A common concern among laboratories in the region is the difficulty in accessing proficiency testing programs, particularly after the discontinuation of the USDA-AMS-FGIS Corn and Soy Proficiency Program. In our view, laboratory networks are extremely valuable for developing and maintaining proficiency testing initiatives, and we previously had efforts underway that we hope to reactivate in the future. At present, we are not aware of any interlaboratory comparison programs available within our regional network.
We believe that funding opportunities would be highly beneficial in strengthening our network, whether by organizing in-person meetings or supporting proficiency testing activities, since these efforts require financial resources and our countries do not have dedicated funding mechanisms for these purposes.
My name is Maria da Glória Trindade, and I am an Agronomist specializing in Molecular Biology, Genetics, and Plant Breeding. I currently work as a Federal Inspector at the Federal Laboratory for Animal and Plant Health Inspection in Goiás (LFDA-GO), under the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of Brazil. Our laboratory focuses on the detection, identification, and quantification of authorized and unauthorized GMOs in Brazil using real-time PCR. We also perform food authentication through DNA barcoding, species identification for labeling purposes, and molecular phytosanitary diagnostics using Sanger sequencing and NGS-based metabarcoding of the 16S and ITS rRNA regions. In addition, we have experience with quality management systems based on ISO/IEC 17025:2017.
Since 2009, we have been involved in LMO analysis in agricultural products and have continually expanded our expertise. In Brazil, we have a national network of GMO laboratories, but over the past two years our interactions have been limited to virtual meetings, audits and information sharing on relevant topics within the country.
At the regional level, we have been active participants in the Latin America and Caribbean Network for GMO Laboratories (RLAC-OGM). Over the past two years, under Mexico’s coordination, we have taken part in several work sessions. In one of these sessions, we presented our advances in DNA extraction methods. This year’s work sessions also involved all laboratories sharing their experiences related to the scope of GMO analyses available, the main objectives of the analyses performed, recent capacity-building activities carried out last year, and the most relevant challenges currently faced.
A common concern among laboratories in the region is the difficulty in accessing proficiency testing programs, particularly after the discontinuation of the USDA-AMS-FGIS Corn and Soy Proficiency Program. In our view, laboratory networks are extremely valuable for developing and maintaining proficiency testing initiatives, and we previously had efforts underway that we hope to reactivate in the future. At present, we are not aware of any interlaboratory comparison programs available within our regional network.
We believe that funding opportunities would be highly beneficial in strengthening our network, whether by organizing in-person meetings or supporting proficiency testing activities, since these efforts require financial resources and our countries do not have dedicated funding mechanisms for these purposes.
The Southern African Network for GM Detection Laboratories (SANGL) comprises 24 laboratories in Southern Africa including Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Eswatini, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
It is a huge challenge to get funding for network activities outside of intra-country funded projects and so network activities tend to be project based.
The SANGL has been active in Southern Africa over the last few years but as part of regionally funded projects where we have used the opportunity of external funding to further expand the network.
The SANGL has initiated comparative testing between laboratories on a limited basis but these activities are restricted due to cost. However, the comparative testing that has been carried out has proven really useful in supporting laboratories in the network to become more proficient especially in countries where it is a challenge to access commercially available proficiency testing. Member laboratories experience similar problems and sharing of information and providing collective support has proven very useful. Unfortunately, there is little funding available to support regional networks outside of regional projects.
It is a huge challenge to get funding for network activities outside of intra-country funded projects and so network activities tend to be project based.
The SANGL has been active in Southern Africa over the last few years but as part of regionally funded projects where we have used the opportunity of external funding to further expand the network.
The SANGL has initiated comparative testing between laboratories on a limited basis but these activities are restricted due to cost. However, the comparative testing that has been carried out has proven really useful in supporting laboratories in the network to become more proficient especially in countries where it is a challenge to access commercially available proficiency testing. Member laboratories experience similar problems and sharing of information and providing collective support has proven very useful. Unfortunately, there is little funding available to support regional networks outside of regional projects.
A key challenge we face is the limited availability and high cost of proficiency testing (PT). Currently, there are only two international PT providers (FAPAS https://proficiencytesting.fapas.com and since 2025, LGC https://www.lgcstandards.com) that we aware of and both of which are expensive. The USDA-AMS-FGIS Corn and Soy Proficiency Program previously offered a free PT that greatly supported our external quality assurance efforts. However, this service was discontinued in 2024. At present, there are no routine interlaboratory comparison programs within our regional network (SANGL) due to the costs involved.
Thank you very much, Maria da Glória, for sharing the experience of LFDA-GO and the Brazilian GMO laboratory network. Your contribution highlights several important points related to our discussion:
Availability of reference materials: Commercial CRM do not always cover the full range of analyses performed in regional laboratories.
Limitations and costs: Access to certified materials and especially to proficiency testing programs remains limited. The discontinuation of the USDA-AMS Corn and Soy PT program created a significant gap, and no regional interlaboratory schemes are currently available.
In-house development: Although laboratories have strong technical capacity, developing and certifying their own materials is still challenging without coordinated efforts.
Alternatives: Strengthening regional networks is essential to reactivate collaborative initiatives, including interlaboratory comparisons, shared developments, and capacity-building activities. Funding opportunities would greatly support these efforts.
Thank you again for your valuable input and for highlighting both the strengths and common challenges faced across the region.
Availability of reference materials: Commercial CRM do not always cover the full range of analyses performed in regional laboratories.
Limitations and costs: Access to certified materials and especially to proficiency testing programs remains limited. The discontinuation of the USDA-AMS Corn and Soy PT program created a significant gap, and no regional interlaboratory schemes are currently available.
In-house development: Although laboratories have strong technical capacity, developing and certifying their own materials is still challenging without coordinated efforts.
Alternatives: Strengthening regional networks is essential to reactivate collaborative initiatives, including interlaboratory comparisons, shared developments, and capacity-building activities. Funding opportunities would greatly support these efforts.
Thank you again for your valuable input and for highlighting both the strengths and common challenges faced across the region.
Thank you very much, Prof. Chris Viljoen, for sharing information on the Southern African Network for GM Detection Laboratories (SANGL). Your contribution provides important context for regional collaboration:
SANGL currently brings together 24 laboratories across Southern Africa, offering an important platform for cooperation.
Securing funding for network activities remains a major challenge, with most initiatives dependent on externally funded regional projects.
Comparative testing has been initiated on a limited basis and has proven highly valuable for strengthening laboratory proficiency, especially in countries with limited access to commercial PT schemes.
The experience of SANGL shows that information sharing and mutual support are crucial, although expansion is constrained by the lack of sustainable funding mechanisms.
Thank you once again for these insights and for highlighting both the strengths and difficulties of maintaining an active regional laboratory network.
SANGL currently brings together 24 laboratories across Southern Africa, offering an important platform for cooperation.
Securing funding for network activities remains a major challenge, with most initiatives dependent on externally funded regional projects.
Comparative testing has been initiated on a limited basis and has proven highly valuable for strengthening laboratory proficiency, especially in countries with limited access to commercial PT schemes.
The experience of SANGL shows that information sharing and mutual support are crucial, although expansion is constrained by the lack of sustainable funding mechanisms.
Thank you once again for these insights and for highlighting both the strengths and difficulties of maintaining an active regional laboratory network.
Thank you very much, Ms. Sandhya Sreenivasan Tantuan, for your contribution from South Africa. Your message highlights an important challenge shared by many laboratories in the region:
The limited availability and high cost of proficiency testing (PT) remain a significant barrier, with only two international providers currently accessible (FAPAS and, since 2025, LGC).
The discontinuation of the USDA-AMS-FGIS Corn and Soy PT Program in 2024 removed an essential free resource that had strongly supported external quality assurance efforts.
Due to financial constraints, the regional SANGL network is not able to offer routine interlaboratory comparison programs at this time.
Thank you again for clearly outlining these constraints, which are highly relevant to our discussion on strengthening quality assurance in GMO detection.
The limited availability and high cost of proficiency testing (PT) remain a significant barrier, with only two international providers currently accessible (FAPAS and, since 2025, LGC).
The discontinuation of the USDA-AMS-FGIS Corn and Soy PT Program in 2024 removed an essential free resource that had strongly supported external quality assurance efforts.
Due to financial constraints, the regional SANGL network is not able to offer routine interlaboratory comparison programs at this time.
Thank you again for clearly outlining these constraints, which are highly relevant to our discussion on strengthening quality assurance in GMO detection.
Dear Melina, this is our response to Topic 4, submitted on behalf of the CSIR-CRI team:
a) Can you share your experience participating in national or regional networks over the past two years?
Our laboratory has not participated in any national or regional networks focused on LMO detection over the last two years. This is our first time participating in this forum.
b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?
To the best of our knowledge, there is no active LMO detection network operating in the West African sub-region.
c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?
Yes, we have. Even though we are yet to participate in proficiency testing.
d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?
Not that we're aware of.
e) Suggestions for improving the functioning of laboratory networks for LMO detection and identification
1. Establishing and strengthening of Regional platforms
2. Call for more forums
3. Capacity building
4. Standardization of protocols
Thank you.
a) Can you share your experience participating in national or regional networks over the past two years?
Our laboratory has not participated in any national or regional networks focused on LMO detection over the last two years. This is our first time participating in this forum.
b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?
To the best of our knowledge, there is no active LMO detection network operating in the West African sub-region.
c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?
Yes, we have. Even though we are yet to participate in proficiency testing.
d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?
Not that we're aware of.
e) Suggestions for improving the functioning of laboratory networks for LMO detection and identification
1. Establishing and strengthening of Regional platforms
2. Call for more forums
3. Capacity building
4. Standardization of protocols
Thank you.
Dear Belinda,
Thank you very much for your contribution on behalf of the CSIR-CRI team. We appreciate your responses to the Topic 4 questions and your suggestions for strengthening regional platforms, increasing technical exchanges, building capacity, and promoting protocol standardization.
Thank you also for sharing the reference to your work.
Best regards,
Melina Pérez Urquiza
Thank you very much for your contribution on behalf of the CSIR-CRI team. We appreciate your responses to the Topic 4 questions and your suggestions for strengthening regional platforms, increasing technical exchanges, building capacity, and promoting protocol standardization.
Thank you also for sharing the reference to your work.
Best regards,
Melina Pérez Urquiza
Thank you very much, Maria da Glória, for sharing the experience of LFDA-GO and the Brazilian GMO laboratory network. Your contribution highlights several important points related to our discussion:
• Availability of reference materials: Commercial CRM do not always cover the full range of analyses performed in regional laboratories.
• Limitations and costs: Access to certified materials and especially to proficiency testing programs remains limited. The discontinuation of the USDA-AMS Corn and Soy PT program created a significant gap, and no regional interlaboratory schemes are currently available.
• In-house development: Although laboratories have strong technical capacity, developing and certifying their own materials is still challenging without coordinated efforts.
• Alternatives: Strengthening regional networks is essential to reactivate collaborative initiatives, including interlaboratory comparisons, shared developments, and capacity-building activities. Funding opportunities would greatly support these efforts.
Thank you again for your valuable input and for highlighting both the strengths and common challenges faced across the region.
• Availability of reference materials: Commercial CRM do not always cover the full range of analyses performed in regional laboratories.
• Limitations and costs: Access to certified materials and especially to proficiency testing programs remains limited. The discontinuation of the USDA-AMS Corn and Soy PT program created a significant gap, and no regional interlaboratory schemes are currently available.
• In-house development: Although laboratories have strong technical capacity, developing and certifying their own materials is still challenging without coordinated efforts.
• Alternatives: Strengthening regional networks is essential to reactivate collaborative initiatives, including interlaboratory comparisons, shared developments, and capacity-building activities. Funding opportunities would greatly support these efforts.
Thank you again for your valuable input and for highlighting both the strengths and common challenges faced across the region.
Dear Ms. Perez Urquiza,
Thank you for moderating this crucial topic and for sharing your esteemed expertise in reference materials and network development. The framework you have provided is exceptionally valuable for assessing the functionality and impact of our collaborative efforts.
Please find below my responses to your guiding questions, reflecting the context of my work in Iran.
a) Can you share your experience participating in national or regional networks over the past two years?
Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to participate in a formal, active regional network specifically dedicated to LMO detection over the past two years.
b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?
To the best of my knowledge, while there are scientific consortiums in Iran and the wider West Asia region, a dedicated and continuously active regional network for LMO detection laboratories, akin to the European ENGL model, is not currently operational. Collaborative activities tend to be project-based or bilateral rather than structured within a sustained network framework.
c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?
d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?
Based on my research, Iran's Institute of Standards and Industrial Research (ISIRI) and the National Genetic Engineering Committee do oversee some proficiency testing schemes. However, access to regular, affordable, and internationally harmonized interlaboratory comparison (ILC) programs specifically for a wide range of GMO/LMO targets remains a significant challenge for many laboratories in the region. The absence of a robust regional network directly impacts the availability and frequency of such critical proficiency testing opportunities.
e) Do you have any suggestions for improving the overall functioning of laboratory networks for the detection and identification of LMOs?
Absolutely. Building on the challenges identified by myself and other colleagues, I propose a multi-tiered strategy for enhancing network functionality:
Adopt a Phased, Hub-and-Spoke Model: Instead of aiming for full-capacity in all laboratories simultaneously, networks should identify and empower regional "Hub Laboratories" with specific technical strengths (e.g., one hub for dPCR validation, another for NGS bioinformatics). Other "Spoke Laboratories" could access these specialized services and training, creating a sustainable ecosystem of shared expertise.
Implement a Digital Collaboration Platform: A secure, centralized online portal is essential. This platform should go beyond document repository functions to include features for virtual proficiency testing (sharing digital dPCR or NGS data for analysis), collaborative SOP development using version control, and forums for real-time technical troubleshooting.
Establish a "Reagent & Reference Material Consortium": As highlighted in Topic 1, procurement is a primary barrier. A formal network should leverage the collective purchasing power of its members to negotiate directly with international manufacturers for bulk purchases of reagents and certified reference materials, ensuring cost-effectiveness and reliable supply chains for all members.
Focus on "Train-the-Trainer" Initiatives: Capacity building must be scalable. Networks should prioritize funding for intensive training fellowships for key personnel from member laboratories at designated Hub Labs. These individuals would then be responsible for disseminating knowledge and standardizing techniques within their own national contexts, creating a multiplier effect.
Develop Tiered ILC Programs: Interlaboratory comparisons should be designed to be inclusive. This means offering:
Tier 1: Low-cost, sample-based ILCs for core qPCR methods.
Tier 2: Data-based ILCs (e.g., analyzing shared NGS datasets) to build bioinformatics capacity.
Tier 3: Advanced ILCs for detecting and characterizing NGT products.
By moving from ad-hoc cooperation to a strategically managed ecosystem with clear value propositions—logistical support, specialized access, and tiered learning—we can build networks that are not just forums for discussion, but powerful engines for global capacity building.
I am keen to collaborate on developing these concepts further.
Sincerely,
Danial Kahrizi
Tarbiat Modares University
IRAN
Thank you for moderating this crucial topic and for sharing your esteemed expertise in reference materials and network development. The framework you have provided is exceptionally valuable for assessing the functionality and impact of our collaborative efforts.
Please find below my responses to your guiding questions, reflecting the context of my work in Iran.
a) Can you share your experience participating in national or regional networks over the past two years?
Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to participate in a formal, active regional network specifically dedicated to LMO detection over the past two years.
b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?
To the best of my knowledge, while there are scientific consortiums in Iran and the wider West Asia region, a dedicated and continuously active regional network for LMO detection laboratories, akin to the European ENGL model, is not currently operational. Collaborative activities tend to be project-based or bilateral rather than structured within a sustained network framework.
c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?
d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?
Based on my research, Iran's Institute of Standards and Industrial Research (ISIRI) and the National Genetic Engineering Committee do oversee some proficiency testing schemes. However, access to regular, affordable, and internationally harmonized interlaboratory comparison (ILC) programs specifically for a wide range of GMO/LMO targets remains a significant challenge for many laboratories in the region. The absence of a robust regional network directly impacts the availability and frequency of such critical proficiency testing opportunities.
e) Do you have any suggestions for improving the overall functioning of laboratory networks for the detection and identification of LMOs?
Absolutely. Building on the challenges identified by myself and other colleagues, I propose a multi-tiered strategy for enhancing network functionality:
Adopt a Phased, Hub-and-Spoke Model: Instead of aiming for full-capacity in all laboratories simultaneously, networks should identify and empower regional "Hub Laboratories" with specific technical strengths (e.g., one hub for dPCR validation, another for NGS bioinformatics). Other "Spoke Laboratories" could access these specialized services and training, creating a sustainable ecosystem of shared expertise.
Implement a Digital Collaboration Platform: A secure, centralized online portal is essential. This platform should go beyond document repository functions to include features for virtual proficiency testing (sharing digital dPCR or NGS data for analysis), collaborative SOP development using version control, and forums for real-time technical troubleshooting.
Establish a "Reagent & Reference Material Consortium": As highlighted in Topic 1, procurement is a primary barrier. A formal network should leverage the collective purchasing power of its members to negotiate directly with international manufacturers for bulk purchases of reagents and certified reference materials, ensuring cost-effectiveness and reliable supply chains for all members.
Focus on "Train-the-Trainer" Initiatives: Capacity building must be scalable. Networks should prioritize funding for intensive training fellowships for key personnel from member laboratories at designated Hub Labs. These individuals would then be responsible for disseminating knowledge and standardizing techniques within their own national contexts, creating a multiplier effect.
Develop Tiered ILC Programs: Interlaboratory comparisons should be designed to be inclusive. This means offering:
Tier 1: Low-cost, sample-based ILCs for core qPCR methods.
Tier 2: Data-based ILCs (e.g., analyzing shared NGS datasets) to build bioinformatics capacity.
Tier 3: Advanced ILCs for detecting and characterizing NGT products.
By moving from ad-hoc cooperation to a strategically managed ecosystem with clear value propositions—logistical support, specialized access, and tiered learning—we can build networks that are not just forums for discussion, but powerful engines for global capacity building.
I am keen to collaborate on developing these concepts further.
Sincerely,
Danial Kahrizi
Tarbiat Modares University
IRAN
Dear Mr. Kahrizi,
Thank you for your detailed contribution to Topic 4. Your analysis of the current landscape in West Asia, as well as your thoughtful proposals regarding phased network development, digital collaboration, procurement strategies, and inclusive tiered interlaboratory comparisons, provide significant added value to our discussion. We truly appreciate the depth of your analysis and your willingness to further collaborate on these concepts.
Thank you for your detailed contribution to Topic 4. Your analysis of the current landscape in West Asia, as well as your thoughtful proposals regarding phased network development, digital collaboration, procurement strategies, and inclusive tiered interlaboratory comparisons, provide significant added value to our discussion. We truly appreciate the depth of your analysis and your willingness to further collaborate on these concepts.
Dear colleagues,
My name is Daniela Wahler. I work for the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) in the Unit Methods of Detection, GMO Finds, Biosafety Clearing-House, EUginius.
Thank you very much, Ms. Melina Perez Urquiza, for moderating this topic and bringing up some interesting questions. In my experience, networking of laboratories is highly beneficial. E.g. the BVL is home to the office of the long-standing § 28b GenTG Working Group. This group was founded on a legal mandate and consist of members of the competent national laboratories as well as representatives of the industry and academia. The § 28b Working Group develops, validates and publishes analytical methods for the detection and identification of LMO that are meant to be used in official control activities in Germany. The group meets regularly.
Within the last years, not only classical PCR methods were assessed but also new techniques are explored for their applicability to be used in the detection of LMO. To echo on Mr. Danial Kahrizi (#12883), it is of great help that the members thereby share the workload. Each member of the § 28b GenTG Working Group has specific expertise, equipment and capacities which are used to best serve the aims of the group.
At the European level, the European Network of GMO Laboratories (ENGL; https://gmo-crl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ENGLabs) serves the same goals.
Furthermore, as a means to support LMO detection laboratories in their work, the BVL (Germany) and the Wageningen Food Safety Research (WFSR, The Netherlands) collaborate on the EUginius database (http://www.euginius.eu). This database provides information on authorization status, reference materials and detection methods for LMO not just for the European community.
Kind regards,
Daniela
My name is Daniela Wahler. I work for the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) in the Unit Methods of Detection, GMO Finds, Biosafety Clearing-House, EUginius.
Thank you very much, Ms. Melina Perez Urquiza, for moderating this topic and bringing up some interesting questions. In my experience, networking of laboratories is highly beneficial. E.g. the BVL is home to the office of the long-standing § 28b GenTG Working Group. This group was founded on a legal mandate and consist of members of the competent national laboratories as well as representatives of the industry and academia. The § 28b Working Group develops, validates and publishes analytical methods for the detection and identification of LMO that are meant to be used in official control activities in Germany. The group meets regularly.
Within the last years, not only classical PCR methods were assessed but also new techniques are explored for their applicability to be used in the detection of LMO. To echo on Mr. Danial Kahrizi (#12883), it is of great help that the members thereby share the workload. Each member of the § 28b GenTG Working Group has specific expertise, equipment and capacities which are used to best serve the aims of the group.
At the European level, the European Network of GMO Laboratories (ENGL; https://gmo-crl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ENGLabs) serves the same goals.
Furthermore, as a means to support LMO detection laboratories in their work, the BVL (Germany) and the Wageningen Food Safety Research (WFSR, The Netherlands) collaborate on the EUginius database (http://www.euginius.eu). This database provides information on authorization status, reference materials and detection methods for LMO not just for the European community.
Kind regards,
Daniela
Dear Ms. Wahler,
I am grateful for your valuable contribution to Topic 4. Your overview of Germany’s long-standing § 28b GenTG Working Group and its collaborative model offers an excellent example of how structured networks can effectively support method development, validation, and knowledge sharing. The complementarity between national initiatives and the European Network of GMO Laboratories (ENGL) also demonstrates the benefits of coordinated efforts across levels.
We particularly appreciate your reference to the EUginius database and its role in providing accessible information on authorizations, reference materials, and detection methods, an important resource for laboratories worldwide.
Thank you once again for sharing these insights with the Network.
I am grateful for your valuable contribution to Topic 4. Your overview of Germany’s long-standing § 28b GenTG Working Group and its collaborative model offers an excellent example of how structured networks can effectively support method development, validation, and knowledge sharing. The complementarity between national initiatives and the European Network of GMO Laboratories (ENGL) also demonstrates the benefits of coordinated efforts across levels.
We particularly appreciate your reference to the EUginius database and its role in providing accessible information on authorizations, reference materials, and detection methods, an important resource for laboratories worldwide.
Thank you once again for sharing these insights with the Network.
Dear Ms. Perez Urquiza,
Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. I truly appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge our contribution, and I'm delighted to hear that our proposals were found valuable for the discussion.
The development of robust regional networks is a cause I am deeply passionate about, and I believe that through collaborative thinking and concrete action plans, we can make significant strides in strengthening our global LMO detection capabilities.
I remain fully committed to collaborating further to help refine and advance these concepts into practical initiatives. Please do not hesitate to reach out should there be any specific way you would like to proceed.
Thank you once again for your leadership in moderating this vital discussion.
Sincerely,
Danial Kahrizi
Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. I truly appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge our contribution, and I'm delighted to hear that our proposals were found valuable for the discussion.
The development of robust regional networks is a cause I am deeply passionate about, and I believe that through collaborative thinking and concrete action plans, we can make significant strides in strengthening our global LMO detection capabilities.
I remain fully committed to collaborating further to help refine and advance these concepts into practical initiatives. Please do not hesitate to reach out should there be any specific way you would like to proceed.
Thank you once again for your leadership in moderating this vital discussion.
Sincerely,
Danial Kahrizi
Dear Dr. Wahler,
Thank you so much for your kind mention and for highlighting the practical implementation of these collaborative principles in Germany's § 28b GenTG Working Group. It is truly encouraging to see that the model of shared expertise and distributed workload we discussed is not only theoretical but is already functioning successfully in a leading regulatory environment.
The structure of your working group—integrating national laboratories, industry, and academia under a legal mandate—is particularly impressive and serves as an exemplary model for what many of us aspire to establish in our own regions.
I have taken note of the EUginius database, which appears to be an invaluable resource. We will certainly explore how we can utilize this platform to enhance our own reference material and method tracking.
The success of both the German national network and the European ENGL demonstrates the powerful outcomes that can be achieved through structured collaboration. I am very keen to learn from your experience and would be grateful for any insights on the initial steps or key success factors in establishing such a sustainable network.
Once again, thank you for sharing this valuable perspective and for the acknowledgment.
Sincerely,
Danial Kahrizi
Thank you so much for your kind mention and for highlighting the practical implementation of these collaborative principles in Germany's § 28b GenTG Working Group. It is truly encouraging to see that the model of shared expertise and distributed workload we discussed is not only theoretical but is already functioning successfully in a leading regulatory environment.
The structure of your working group—integrating national laboratories, industry, and academia under a legal mandate—is particularly impressive and serves as an exemplary model for what many of us aspire to establish in our own regions.
I have taken note of the EUginius database, which appears to be an invaluable resource. We will certainly explore how we can utilize this platform to enhance our own reference material and method tracking.
The success of both the German national network and the European ENGL demonstrates the powerful outcomes that can be achieved through structured collaboration. I am very keen to learn from your experience and would be grateful for any insights on the initial steps or key success factors in establishing such a sustainable network.
Once again, thank you for sharing this valuable perspective and for the acknowledgment.
Sincerely,
Danial Kahrizi
Dear Dr. Perez Urquiza,
Thank you sincerely for your gracious and encouraging words. It is a great motivation to receive such positive feedback from a professional of your caliber, whose pioneering work in reference materials and laboratory networks I have long respected.
I am delighted that our analysis and proposals for West Asia resonated with you. The conceptual framework we presented—encompassing the phased "Hub-and-Spoke" model, digital collaboration platforms, and innovative procurement consortiums—was developed with a core belief: that the future of equitable biosafety lies in building intelligent, adaptive, and resource-efficient networks.
Your acknowledgment is particularly significant as it confirms a shared vision for transforming these concepts into a tangible, global action plan. The potential to move from discussion to implementation, perhaps through a pilot project or a dedicated working group, is an incredibly exciting prospect.
You have my full commitment and enthusiasm to advance this initiative. I am ready to contribute actively to any collaborative effort aimed at drafting a formal roadmap, defining technical specifications, or engaging with regional stakeholders to bring this vision to life.
Thank you once again for your inspiring leadership and for fostering a forum where substantive, solution-oriented dialogue can flourish.
With highest regards and in a spirit of collaboration,
Danial Kahrizi
Thank you sincerely for your gracious and encouraging words. It is a great motivation to receive such positive feedback from a professional of your caliber, whose pioneering work in reference materials and laboratory networks I have long respected.
I am delighted that our analysis and proposals for West Asia resonated with you. The conceptual framework we presented—encompassing the phased "Hub-and-Spoke" model, digital collaboration platforms, and innovative procurement consortiums—was developed with a core belief: that the future of equitable biosafety lies in building intelligent, adaptive, and resource-efficient networks.
Your acknowledgment is particularly significant as it confirms a shared vision for transforming these concepts into a tangible, global action plan. The potential to move from discussion to implementation, perhaps through a pilot project or a dedicated working group, is an incredibly exciting prospect.
You have my full commitment and enthusiasm to advance this initiative. I am ready to contribute actively to any collaborative effort aimed at drafting a formal roadmap, defining technical specifications, or engaging with regional stakeholders to bring this vision to life.
Thank you once again for your inspiring leadership and for fostering a forum where substantive, solution-oriented dialogue can flourish.
With highest regards and in a spirit of collaboration,
Danial Kahrizi
Thank you, Ms. Melina Perez Urquiza, for leading this discussion. Your experience in establishing the Mexican Laboratory Network for GMO Measurement is invaluable to this conversation.
To address your questions from the perspective of the NBMA GMO Detection and Analysis Laboratory (Nigeria):
a) Benefits of Networks: While many participants have benefited from regional networks through shared expertise and harmonized methods, the NBMA laboratory has not participated in any regional networks in the last two years.
b) Regional Network Status: To the best of my knowledge, regional networks have not been active in West Africa recently. There was an attempt to establish one in 2019, but it has unfortunately been inactive since then.
c) Utility of Networks: I agree with other participants that laboratory networks are useful for proficiency testing, exchanging knowledge/reagents, and addressing technical gaps. However, we are yet to benefit from these advantages.
d) Inter-laboratory Comparisons & National Initiative: Regarding inter-laboratory comparison programs within West Africa, they are currently not active.
As a result, to enhance result reliability, the NBMA decided to set up a National Network of Molecular Biology Laboratories.
• Composition: The other laboratories in this network were not originally focused on GMO/LMO detection but share similar mandates in regulating and safeguarding human health.
• Status: The first training took place in July/August 2025, and we are hoping to conduct more advanced training in the nearest future.
e) Suggestions for Improvement: To support emerging networks like ours, I suggest the following:
• Funding: Sharing knowledge on relevant sources of funding.
• Upskilling: Sharing information on upskilling opportunities available within this forum.
• Resources: Establishing communication channels to facilitate the bulk purchase of reagents, Proficiency Testing (PT) materials, and Certified Reference Materials (CRM) at cost-effective rates.
• Training: Establishing regular training and re-training schedules for network members.
To address your questions from the perspective of the NBMA GMO Detection and Analysis Laboratory (Nigeria):
a) Benefits of Networks: While many participants have benefited from regional networks through shared expertise and harmonized methods, the NBMA laboratory has not participated in any regional networks in the last two years.
b) Regional Network Status: To the best of my knowledge, regional networks have not been active in West Africa recently. There was an attempt to establish one in 2019, but it has unfortunately been inactive since then.
c) Utility of Networks: I agree with other participants that laboratory networks are useful for proficiency testing, exchanging knowledge/reagents, and addressing technical gaps. However, we are yet to benefit from these advantages.
d) Inter-laboratory Comparisons & National Initiative: Regarding inter-laboratory comparison programs within West Africa, they are currently not active.
As a result, to enhance result reliability, the NBMA decided to set up a National Network of Molecular Biology Laboratories.
• Composition: The other laboratories in this network were not originally focused on GMO/LMO detection but share similar mandates in regulating and safeguarding human health.
• Status: The first training took place in July/August 2025, and we are hoping to conduct more advanced training in the nearest future.
e) Suggestions for Improvement: To support emerging networks like ours, I suggest the following:
• Funding: Sharing knowledge on relevant sources of funding.
• Upskilling: Sharing information on upskilling opportunities available within this forum.
• Resources: Establishing communication channels to facilitate the bulk purchase of reagents, Proficiency Testing (PT) materials, and Certified Reference Materials (CRM) at cost-effective rates.
• Training: Establishing regular training and re-training schedules for network members.
Dear Ms. Urquiza, than you yet again for the opportunity to make a contribution on the network of Laboratories for the detection and identification of living modified organisms.
to answer your specific questions, a) it is a shame that our lab was not part of the discussions held in 2023. For this reason, our laboratory has not been involved in any laboratory networks for the past two years and b) we are not aware of the activities of the laboratory networks. And c) Of course laboratory networks would be greatly useful for both facilitating and conducting PTs, as this would help in accreditation efforts, knowledge sharing and validation of methods and techniques used in different laboratories. for d), if there are currently any interlaboratory comparisons in our region (Southern African Region), then we have not been involved. These inefficiencies could be due to the fact that National GMOs reference laboratory, our laboratory, is not directly involved in the GMOs/ LMOs regulation in the country, we rely on another institution, the National Biosafety Authority to do the regulation and we only test samples that come to us through them, similarly, ILCs organization efforts would come through them. For e) i would suggest that the network of laboratories is strengthened by conducting trainings and Interlaboratory Comparisons regularly or whenever new detection or identification techniques are developed to ensure uniformity and gap closure. Thank you.
to answer your specific questions, a) it is a shame that our lab was not part of the discussions held in 2023. For this reason, our laboratory has not been involved in any laboratory networks for the past two years and b) we are not aware of the activities of the laboratory networks. And c) Of course laboratory networks would be greatly useful for both facilitating and conducting PTs, as this would help in accreditation efforts, knowledge sharing and validation of methods and techniques used in different laboratories. for d), if there are currently any interlaboratory comparisons in our region (Southern African Region), then we have not been involved. These inefficiencies could be due to the fact that National GMOs reference laboratory, our laboratory, is not directly involved in the GMOs/ LMOs regulation in the country, we rely on another institution, the National Biosafety Authority to do the regulation and we only test samples that come to us through them, similarly, ILCs organization efforts would come through them. For e) i would suggest that the network of laboratories is strengthened by conducting trainings and Interlaboratory Comparisons regularly or whenever new detection or identification techniques are developed to ensure uniformity and gap closure. Thank you.
a) Can you share your experience participating in national or regional networks over the past two years?
Our laboratory has not participated in any national or regional networks regarding GMO/LMO detection for the last two years.
b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?
There is no active GMO/LMO detection network operating in our country.
c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?
As our laboratory is late to be organized well, we still did not have proficiency testing service.
d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?
No
e) Suggestions for improving the functioning of laboratory networks for LMO detection and identification
1. Establish strong regional networks
2. Promote experience-sharing opportunities
3. Promote hands-on capacity-building trainings on updated GMO/LMO detection methods
Our laboratory has not participated in any national or regional networks regarding GMO/LMO detection for the last two years.
b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?
There is no active GMO/LMO detection network operating in our country.
c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?
As our laboratory is late to be organized well, we still did not have proficiency testing service.
d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?
No
e) Suggestions for improving the functioning of laboratory networks for LMO detection and identification
1. Establish strong regional networks
2. Promote experience-sharing opportunities
3. Promote hands-on capacity-building trainings on updated GMO/LMO detection methods
Dear Mr. Genetu,
Thank you for your contribution to Topic 4. Your feedback is very valuable. Your suggestions—strengthening regional networks, enhancing experience-sharing, and promoting hands-on capacity-building on updated LMO/GMO detection methods—reinforce key needs identified across this discussion.
Thank you for your contribution to Topic 4. Your feedback is very valuable. Your suggestions—strengthening regional networks, enhancing experience-sharing, and promoting hands-on capacity-building on updated LMO/GMO detection methods—reinforce key needs identified across this discussion.
Dear Sr. Sunday Mulubwa,
Thank you for your contribution. We find your reflections valuable in this discussion and appreciate your emphasis on the significance of networks in proficiency testing, accreditation, and harmonization of methods. Your suggestion to strengthen the network through regular training and interlaboratory comparisons is well taken.
Thank you for your contribution. We find your reflections valuable in this discussion and appreciate your emphasis on the significance of networks in proficiency testing, accreditation, and harmonization of methods. Your suggestion to strengthen the network through regular training and interlaboratory comparisons is well taken.
Malawi in general and my laboratory in particular is a member of what used to be an active network (the Southern Africa Network for GM Detection Laboratories - SANGL) but has for the past few years gone dormant. Despite its current inactive state, I can share some of the experiences participating in that network.
The network provided a platform the development and implementation of regional projects aimed at tackling regional and country-specific challenges related to biosafety. One project that comes to my mind was the “Multi Country Project to Strengthen Institutional Capacities on LMO Testing in Support of National Decision Making” (MCP-ICLT)
The network (through the MCP-ICLT) enhanced regional and country-specific capacities with respect to human expertise in LMO detection and soft skills. I am proud to be a product of this initiative. One thing that was outstanding was the Training of Trainers approach that this network advocated; something also echoed by Mr. Danial Kahrizi.
In addition to human capacity development, the regional network enhanced infrastructure development through provision of essential pieces of equipment for GMO/LMO detection to participating laboratories. Worth noting was the centralized procurement approach that the project used to bypass some of the country-specific hurdles when it comes to procurement of equipment and lab supplies
The network played significant role in expanding individual professional networks and creating links to different resource persons with expertise in GMO detection that can be reached out to in need.
Like I said, the network has been dormant for some years now. This is likely due to the fact that it was driven by short-lived projects that may have had no network sustainability provisions beyond their lifespan.
The laboratory networks proved to be useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing. However, this worked for capacity building purposes and took place during an underlying project. We have had no proficiency testing after the project mainly due to cost implications associated with the exercise.
Currently my laboratory is not on an official interlaboratory comparison program. Nevertheless, because of the network created through the SANGL initiative via MCP-ICLT, special arrangements with others labs locally and from a SANGL country can be made for interlaboratory comparison.
Strengthening the laboratory network will have focus on establishing regional centres for GMO detection that would facilitate training and enhance access to laboratory supplies for institutional labs within the region. More importantly, there is need to establish funding mechanisms for the networks to remain active. As noted, some networks are driven by short-lived projects that do not guarantee sustainability of the networks when the projects phase out.
The network provided a platform the development and implementation of regional projects aimed at tackling regional and country-specific challenges related to biosafety. One project that comes to my mind was the “Multi Country Project to Strengthen Institutional Capacities on LMO Testing in Support of National Decision Making” (MCP-ICLT)
The network (through the MCP-ICLT) enhanced regional and country-specific capacities with respect to human expertise in LMO detection and soft skills. I am proud to be a product of this initiative. One thing that was outstanding was the Training of Trainers approach that this network advocated; something also echoed by Mr. Danial Kahrizi.
In addition to human capacity development, the regional network enhanced infrastructure development through provision of essential pieces of equipment for GMO/LMO detection to participating laboratories. Worth noting was the centralized procurement approach that the project used to bypass some of the country-specific hurdles when it comes to procurement of equipment and lab supplies
The network played significant role in expanding individual professional networks and creating links to different resource persons with expertise in GMO detection that can be reached out to in need.
Like I said, the network has been dormant for some years now. This is likely due to the fact that it was driven by short-lived projects that may have had no network sustainability provisions beyond their lifespan.
The laboratory networks proved to be useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing. However, this worked for capacity building purposes and took place during an underlying project. We have had no proficiency testing after the project mainly due to cost implications associated with the exercise.
Currently my laboratory is not on an official interlaboratory comparison program. Nevertheless, because of the network created through the SANGL initiative via MCP-ICLT, special arrangements with others labs locally and from a SANGL country can be made for interlaboratory comparison.
Strengthening the laboratory network will have focus on establishing regional centres for GMO detection that would facilitate training and enhance access to laboratory supplies for institutional labs within the region. More importantly, there is need to establish funding mechanisms for the networks to remain active. As noted, some networks are driven by short-lived projects that do not guarantee sustainability of the networks when the projects phase out.
Thank you very much, Mr. Atsumbe, for your detailed contribution and for sharing the perspective of the NBMA GMO Detection and Analysis Laboratory.
Your remarks highlight important regional challenges, particularly the inactivity of networks in West Africa and the absence of inter-laboratory comparison initiatives. We appreciate your proactive approach in establishing a National Network of Molecular Biology Laboratories to strengthen reliability and capacity despite these limitations. The recent training efforts and plans for more advanced sessions are commendable steps toward building national expertise.
Your suggestions regarding funding opportunities, upskilling, coordinated procurement of reagents and reference materials, and regular training schedules are very valuable. These points will certainly enrich our collective reflection on how laboratory networks can be reactivated and better supported at regional and international levels.
Thank you again for your constructive input and for your commitment to enhancing GMO/LMO detection capacity in Nigeria.
Your remarks highlight important regional challenges, particularly the inactivity of networks in West Africa and the absence of inter-laboratory comparison initiatives. We appreciate your proactive approach in establishing a National Network of Molecular Biology Laboratories to strengthen reliability and capacity despite these limitations. The recent training efforts and plans for more advanced sessions are commendable steps toward building national expertise.
Your suggestions regarding funding opportunities, upskilling, coordinated procurement of reagents and reference materials, and regular training schedules are very valuable. These points will certainly enrich our collective reflection on how laboratory networks can be reactivated and better supported at regional and international levels.
Thank you again for your constructive input and for your commitment to enhancing GMO/LMO detection capacity in Nigeria.
Dear Melina,
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important conversation on regional networks. My name is Alice Maredza. As a project manager with RAEIN‑Africa, I have followed the eye‑opening exchanges on activities, needs and challenges. The insights shared by colleagues resonate strongly with our own experience. Please accept this contribution, offered on behalf of RAEIN‑Africa, building on those discussions and sharing lessons from our long‑standing stewardship of the Southern African Network for GM Detection Laboratories (SANGL).
The Regional Agricultural and Environmental Innovations Network – Africa (RAEIN-Africa) is a regional non-profit organisation committed to strengthening the interface between science, technology, and innovation (STI), policy, and society. It emphasises inclusive stakeholder engagement, capacity building and knowledge management to build communities of practice that promote human well‑being and planetary health, while fostering sustainable livelihoods and conserving biodiversity.
Operating across multiple African countries, RAEIN-Africa supports governments and institutions in fulfilling obligations under multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol, and frameworks such as the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the African Union’s Agenda 2063.
As the long‑standing coordinator of the Southern African Network for GM Detection Laboratories (SANGL), RAEIN‑Africa connects laboratories, regulators and other stakeholders across the SADC region, enabling resource sharing, targeted capacity building and ongoing technical support to strengthen biosafety decision‑making and food‑safety standards.
SANGL was established in 2009 following a needs assessment that recognised the value of a regional network of GM detection laboratories in the SADC region. The network started with 17 laboratories from nine countries and now comprises 24 laboratories from 12 countries. This growth reflects the shared commitment to building regional capacity and harmonising approaches to GMO/LMO testing. Working with Prof Chris Viljoen of the University of the Free State, the SANGL strengthens inter‑country collaboration on GMO/LMO testing to support the CPB and associated protocols. It provides a coordinated platform for training, harmonisation of testing methods, collective procurement and sharing of resources, data and experience, thereby reducing operational costs, addressing technical and capacity gaps, supporting laboratory accreditation and facilitating the adoption of improved and standardised methodologies across participating countries.
Since 2009, RAEIN‑Africa has established and coordinated SANGL, mobilising resources, partnering with experts to deliver training and mentorship, and applying a training‑of‑trainers model so that inter‑country training cascades to national levels, strengthening capacity across the region. From 2009 to 2013, SANGL organised regional training workshops on GM detection and LMO identification, initiated comparative laboratory testing and began developing an online knowledge platform. These activities laid the foundation for mutual learning and harmonisation, but participation was mainly project‑based due to limited funding. Inter‑laboratory comparisons were highly valuable as most participating labs reported greater confidence in GM detection procedures.
The MCP ICLT Project – Institutional and Capacity Strengthening
Led by RAEIN-Africa and supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Multi-Country Project to Strengthen Institutional Capacities on LMO Testing (MCP ICLT) (2017 to 2022) supported infrastructure and quality management system (QMS) upgrades in laboratories across six countries: Angola, the DRC, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique, growing SANGL membership to 24 laboratories as new labs were integrated. The MCP-ICLT trained relevant biosafety chain actors in sampling, documentation and quality management, and coordinated inter-laboratory comparisons for method validation, comparability, and proficiency testing.
The SINBF Project – Continued support for capacity building
The Strengthening the Implementation of National Biosafety Frameworks (SINBF) project, also supported by UNEP and GEF, continues to build capacity and foster inter‑country collaboration on LMO detection in the DRC, Madagascar, and Namibia. This ongoing project supports partner countries in reviewing biosafety legal frameworks, operationalising national biosafety systems, and enhancing detection capacities. The SINBF also emphasises cross‑learning with other countries and the value of regional networks.
Challenges and lessons
• Sustainability: LMO testing in Southern Africa largely depends on donor support, so SANGL activities have been predominantly project‑driven, limiting participation by laboratories outside funded projects. Long‑term national commitment and innovative financing mechanisms are essential to sustain testing capacities and maintain an active network.
• Limited access to proficiency testing: High equipment and reagent costs and the lack of affordable proficiency testing programmes mean SANGL cannot organise regular inter‑laboratory comparisons, and many member laboratories cannot access proficiency testing, undermining accreditation efforts.
Plans for SANGL
• Broader scope: RAEIN‑Africa proposes revitalising SANGL into a multi‑thematic platform that integrates biosafety, food safety testing and ecosystem monitoring. Given that these themes share similar infrastructure, techniques and quality and data management systems, the natural overlap between GM detection and identification, food quality and safety standards, and biodiversity surveillance provides a foundation for expanding SANGL membership and strategic value. The expanded network will explore how existing infrastructure and expertise can also be used for molecular diagnostics, environmental DNA, mycotoxin and allergen testing and gene‑editing detection readiness.
• Unified priorities: The expanded SANGL aligns with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the One Health approach and Annex 7 of the African Continental Free Trade Area. It will serve as a technical backbone for implementing Target 17 (biosafety) of the GBF, ensure that intra‑African trade meets safety standards and advance Africa’s Agenda 2063 and the Sustainable Development Goals on health, responsible consumption and biodiversity. Harmonising methods and quality systems will also facilitate intra‑African trade and support the creation of a single market for safe, quality products.
• Collaboration and knowledge sharing: The revitalised network will connect service laboratories with regulatory agencies and include research institutions and private‑sector laboratories. The network will develop an online platform for e‑learning modules, SOP libraries, discussion forums, virtual mentoring and tools for organising inter‑laboratory comparisons, thereby reducing the need for costly in‑person programmes and expanding participation across the region.
• Sustainability mechanisms: Beyond donor funding, the expanded SANGL will be supported through membership contributions, collaborations with universities and research institutions and long-term resource mobilisation strategies. Additionally, the SANGL will explore resource sharing and pooled procurement strategies for laboratory supplies to promote sustainability among partner laboratories. Building on the success of the training‑of‑trainers approach, SANGL will adopt the hub‑and‑spoke model—identifying laboratories with specific technical strengths to serve as hubs for specialised methods. These hubs will mentor other laboratories through structured programmes, workshops and fellowship placements, fostering an ecosystem of shared expertise across the region.
SANGL demonstrates the importance of regional networks in capacity-building, knowledge sharing, and inter-laboratory comparisons. Our experiences show that networks promote collaboration, enhance proficiency, and harmonise approaches, but require ongoing funding and coordinated efforts to remain active.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important conversation on regional networks. My name is Alice Maredza. As a project manager with RAEIN‑Africa, I have followed the eye‑opening exchanges on activities, needs and challenges. The insights shared by colleagues resonate strongly with our own experience. Please accept this contribution, offered on behalf of RAEIN‑Africa, building on those discussions and sharing lessons from our long‑standing stewardship of the Southern African Network for GM Detection Laboratories (SANGL).
The Regional Agricultural and Environmental Innovations Network – Africa (RAEIN-Africa) is a regional non-profit organisation committed to strengthening the interface between science, technology, and innovation (STI), policy, and society. It emphasises inclusive stakeholder engagement, capacity building and knowledge management to build communities of practice that promote human well‑being and planetary health, while fostering sustainable livelihoods and conserving biodiversity.
Operating across multiple African countries, RAEIN-Africa supports governments and institutions in fulfilling obligations under multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol, and frameworks such as the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the African Union’s Agenda 2063.
As the long‑standing coordinator of the Southern African Network for GM Detection Laboratories (SANGL), RAEIN‑Africa connects laboratories, regulators and other stakeholders across the SADC region, enabling resource sharing, targeted capacity building and ongoing technical support to strengthen biosafety decision‑making and food‑safety standards.
SANGL was established in 2009 following a needs assessment that recognised the value of a regional network of GM detection laboratories in the SADC region. The network started with 17 laboratories from nine countries and now comprises 24 laboratories from 12 countries. This growth reflects the shared commitment to building regional capacity and harmonising approaches to GMO/LMO testing. Working with Prof Chris Viljoen of the University of the Free State, the SANGL strengthens inter‑country collaboration on GMO/LMO testing to support the CPB and associated protocols. It provides a coordinated platform for training, harmonisation of testing methods, collective procurement and sharing of resources, data and experience, thereby reducing operational costs, addressing technical and capacity gaps, supporting laboratory accreditation and facilitating the adoption of improved and standardised methodologies across participating countries.
Since 2009, RAEIN‑Africa has established and coordinated SANGL, mobilising resources, partnering with experts to deliver training and mentorship, and applying a training‑of‑trainers model so that inter‑country training cascades to national levels, strengthening capacity across the region. From 2009 to 2013, SANGL organised regional training workshops on GM detection and LMO identification, initiated comparative laboratory testing and began developing an online knowledge platform. These activities laid the foundation for mutual learning and harmonisation, but participation was mainly project‑based due to limited funding. Inter‑laboratory comparisons were highly valuable as most participating labs reported greater confidence in GM detection procedures.
The MCP ICLT Project – Institutional and Capacity Strengthening
Led by RAEIN-Africa and supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Multi-Country Project to Strengthen Institutional Capacities on LMO Testing (MCP ICLT) (2017 to 2022) supported infrastructure and quality management system (QMS) upgrades in laboratories across six countries: Angola, the DRC, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique, growing SANGL membership to 24 laboratories as new labs were integrated. The MCP-ICLT trained relevant biosafety chain actors in sampling, documentation and quality management, and coordinated inter-laboratory comparisons for method validation, comparability, and proficiency testing.
The SINBF Project – Continued support for capacity building
The Strengthening the Implementation of National Biosafety Frameworks (SINBF) project, also supported by UNEP and GEF, continues to build capacity and foster inter‑country collaboration on LMO detection in the DRC, Madagascar, and Namibia. This ongoing project supports partner countries in reviewing biosafety legal frameworks, operationalising national biosafety systems, and enhancing detection capacities. The SINBF also emphasises cross‑learning with other countries and the value of regional networks.
Challenges and lessons
• Sustainability: LMO testing in Southern Africa largely depends on donor support, so SANGL activities have been predominantly project‑driven, limiting participation by laboratories outside funded projects. Long‑term national commitment and innovative financing mechanisms are essential to sustain testing capacities and maintain an active network.
• Limited access to proficiency testing: High equipment and reagent costs and the lack of affordable proficiency testing programmes mean SANGL cannot organise regular inter‑laboratory comparisons, and many member laboratories cannot access proficiency testing, undermining accreditation efforts.
Plans for SANGL
• Broader scope: RAEIN‑Africa proposes revitalising SANGL into a multi‑thematic platform that integrates biosafety, food safety testing and ecosystem monitoring. Given that these themes share similar infrastructure, techniques and quality and data management systems, the natural overlap between GM detection and identification, food quality and safety standards, and biodiversity surveillance provides a foundation for expanding SANGL membership and strategic value. The expanded network will explore how existing infrastructure and expertise can also be used for molecular diagnostics, environmental DNA, mycotoxin and allergen testing and gene‑editing detection readiness.
• Unified priorities: The expanded SANGL aligns with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the One Health approach and Annex 7 of the African Continental Free Trade Area. It will serve as a technical backbone for implementing Target 17 (biosafety) of the GBF, ensure that intra‑African trade meets safety standards and advance Africa’s Agenda 2063 and the Sustainable Development Goals on health, responsible consumption and biodiversity. Harmonising methods and quality systems will also facilitate intra‑African trade and support the creation of a single market for safe, quality products.
• Collaboration and knowledge sharing: The revitalised network will connect service laboratories with regulatory agencies and include research institutions and private‑sector laboratories. The network will develop an online platform for e‑learning modules, SOP libraries, discussion forums, virtual mentoring and tools for organising inter‑laboratory comparisons, thereby reducing the need for costly in‑person programmes and expanding participation across the region.
• Sustainability mechanisms: Beyond donor funding, the expanded SANGL will be supported through membership contributions, collaborations with universities and research institutions and long-term resource mobilisation strategies. Additionally, the SANGL will explore resource sharing and pooled procurement strategies for laboratory supplies to promote sustainability among partner laboratories. Building on the success of the training‑of‑trainers approach, SANGL will adopt the hub‑and‑spoke model—identifying laboratories with specific technical strengths to serve as hubs for specialised methods. These hubs will mentor other laboratories through structured programmes, workshops and fellowship placements, fostering an ecosystem of shared expertise across the region.
SANGL demonstrates the importance of regional networks in capacity-building, knowledge sharing, and inter-laboratory comparisons. Our experiences show that networks promote collaboration, enhance proficiency, and harmonise approaches, but require ongoing funding and coordinated efforts to remain active.
Hello everyone,
I am Gretta Abou Sleymane from Lebanon. In the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa), we have established the MENA Network of GMOs Testing Laboratories (MENA NGL), which brings together numerous countries and laboratories involved in GMO/LMO detection and analysis. Over the years, the network has benefited from valuable support from the EURL and the CBD, enabling us to conduct several regional training courses and workshops aimed at strengthening technical capacities.
One of our major success stories was the organization of a regional proficiency test (PT), which we coordinated, and which saw strong participation from laboratories across the region. It represented a major milestone in promoting interlaboratory comparison, improving analytical performance, and building confidence in regional testing capabilities.
Unfortunately, network activities decreased significantly around 2019 due to the pandemic, financial crises affecting multiple countries, and, most critically, ongoing armed conflicts in several parts of the region. These challenges limited our ability to maintain regular communication, training opportunities, and collaborative exercises.
With hostilities now easing in most areas, we are hopeful that MENANGL’s activities can be revitalized. Re-engaging the network would greatly contribute to knowledge sharing, capacity building, and improved regional alignment in LMO/GMO detection.
Thank you
I am Gretta Abou Sleymane from Lebanon. In the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa), we have established the MENA Network of GMOs Testing Laboratories (MENA NGL), which brings together numerous countries and laboratories involved in GMO/LMO detection and analysis. Over the years, the network has benefited from valuable support from the EURL and the CBD, enabling us to conduct several regional training courses and workshops aimed at strengthening technical capacities.
One of our major success stories was the organization of a regional proficiency test (PT), which we coordinated, and which saw strong participation from laboratories across the region. It represented a major milestone in promoting interlaboratory comparison, improving analytical performance, and building confidence in regional testing capabilities.
Unfortunately, network activities decreased significantly around 2019 due to the pandemic, financial crises affecting multiple countries, and, most critically, ongoing armed conflicts in several parts of the region. These challenges limited our ability to maintain regular communication, training opportunities, and collaborative exercises.
With hostilities now easing in most areas, we are hopeful that MENANGL’s activities can be revitalized. Re-engaging the network would greatly contribute to knowledge sharing, capacity building, and improved regional alignment in LMO/GMO detection.
Thank you
Dear Andy,
Thank you very much for your contribution to Topic 4. I found your reflections particularly meaningful; your message reads as a genuine testimonial of SANGL’s work and the value the network has brought to laboratories in the region over the years.
The experiences you highlighted—the regional capacity building under MCP-ICLT, the Training-of-Trainers approach, the infrastructure support, expanded capacities at both institutional and personal levels, the professional networks formed, and the challenges around sustainability—resonate with the issues articulated in RAEIN-Africa’s submission. Your account brings these points to life in a way only someone directly involved can.
I especially appreciate the honesty and clarity with which you described both the achievements and the practical constraints. This kind of frank reflection strengthens the discussion and reminds us why efforts to revitalise SANGL, and to secure sustainable support mechanisms for regional networks, remain so important. RAEIN-Africa continues to encourage partners to sensitise governments and advocate for fiscal support.
Your thoughtful contribution adds practical value to the conversation and reinforces the collective experience many laboratories have shared.
Thank you very much for your contribution to Topic 4. I found your reflections particularly meaningful; your message reads as a genuine testimonial of SANGL’s work and the value the network has brought to laboratories in the region over the years.
The experiences you highlighted—the regional capacity building under MCP-ICLT, the Training-of-Trainers approach, the infrastructure support, expanded capacities at both institutional and personal levels, the professional networks formed, and the challenges around sustainability—resonate with the issues articulated in RAEIN-Africa’s submission. Your account brings these points to life in a way only someone directly involved can.
I especially appreciate the honesty and clarity with which you described both the achievements and the practical constraints. This kind of frank reflection strengthens the discussion and reminds us why efforts to revitalise SANGL, and to secure sustainable support mechanisms for regional networks, remain so important. RAEIN-Africa continues to encourage partners to sensitise governments and advocate for fiscal support.
Your thoughtful contribution adds practical value to the conversation and reinforces the collective experience many laboratories have shared.
Dear Chris,
Thank you again for your constructive input. Your reflection is invaluable, as you represent both the perspective of a SANGL member laboratory and an expert who has been closely involved in initiating and supporting the network over many years.
Your remarks clearly articulate the realities that SANGL member laboratories continue to face: the benefits of comparative testing, the value of shared resources (including expertise), and the persistent challenge of sustaining activities beyond project-based funding. These insights strongly reinforce many of the points highlighted in the RAEIN-Africa submission on the role of regional networks, particularly the importance of coordinated capacity building, pooled technical support, and the exploration of long-term financing mechanisms.
Your description of the impact of comparative testing, considering laboratories that cannot access commercial proficiency schemes, speaks directly to why SANGL was originally created and why its revitalisation is so vital. Your emphasis on the practical value of information sharing and collective problem-solving also echoes Andy's sentiment, underscoring how the network has fostered a community of practice that extends well beyond individual projects. Your contribution affirms the strategic direction we are taking to strengthen SANGL’s relevance, broaden its thematic scope, and secure more sustainable support for regional collaboration.
We truly appreciate your continued support.
Thank you again for your constructive input. Your reflection is invaluable, as you represent both the perspective of a SANGL member laboratory and an expert who has been closely involved in initiating and supporting the network over many years.
Your remarks clearly articulate the realities that SANGL member laboratories continue to face: the benefits of comparative testing, the value of shared resources (including expertise), and the persistent challenge of sustaining activities beyond project-based funding. These insights strongly reinforce many of the points highlighted in the RAEIN-Africa submission on the role of regional networks, particularly the importance of coordinated capacity building, pooled technical support, and the exploration of long-term financing mechanisms.
Your description of the impact of comparative testing, considering laboratories that cannot access commercial proficiency schemes, speaks directly to why SANGL was originally created and why its revitalisation is so vital. Your emphasis on the practical value of information sharing and collective problem-solving also echoes Andy's sentiment, underscoring how the network has fostered a community of practice that extends well beyond individual projects. Your contribution affirms the strategic direction we are taking to strengthen SANGL’s relevance, broaden its thematic scope, and secure more sustainable support for regional collaboration.
We truly appreciate your continued support.
Dear Dr. Maredza,
I appreciate your comprehensive contribution on behalf of RAEIN-Africa. Your detailed overview of SANGL’s evolution, achievements and ongoing initiatives significantly enriches our discussion on the value and future directions of regional networks.
The experience you describe—spanning more than a decade of coordinated capacity building, method harmonisation, resource sharing and inter-country collaboration—clearly illustrates the transformative impact that well-structured networks can have on strengthening biosafety systems. The progression from early project-based activities to integrated regional programmes, such as the MCP ICLT and the SINBF, demonstrates how sustained commitment, strategic partnerships and training-of-trainers models can multiply national and regional capabilities.
Your reflections on challenges—particularly sustainability and limited access to proficiency testing—are highly relevant to many regions and underscore the importance of innovative financing mechanisms, long-term national support and shared quality-assurance resources.
Equally valuable is the forward-looking vision for expanding SANGL into a multi-thematic platform that aligns with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the One Health approach and continental trade and development agendas. The proposed integration of food-safety testing, environmental monitoring and emerging molecular diagnostics highlights how regional networks can evolve to address converging scientific and policy needs while optimising infrastructure and expertise.
We particularly note the emphasis on:
• broadening stakeholder participation, including regulators and private-sector laboratories;
• strengthening digital knowledge-sharing mechanisms;
• adopting hub-and-spoke mentorship models; and
• exploring pooled procurement and sustainability strategies.
These elements offer a valuable model for other regions seeking to enhance their biosafety and analytical capacities through collaborative frameworks.
Your thoughtful and substantial contribution is greatly appreciated. It provides important lessons and strategic considerations that will help shape our collective understanding of how regional networks can remain effective, resilient and future-ready.
I appreciate your comprehensive contribution on behalf of RAEIN-Africa. Your detailed overview of SANGL’s evolution, achievements and ongoing initiatives significantly enriches our discussion on the value and future directions of regional networks.
The experience you describe—spanning more than a decade of coordinated capacity building, method harmonisation, resource sharing and inter-country collaboration—clearly illustrates the transformative impact that well-structured networks can have on strengthening biosafety systems. The progression from early project-based activities to integrated regional programmes, such as the MCP ICLT and the SINBF, demonstrates how sustained commitment, strategic partnerships and training-of-trainers models can multiply national and regional capabilities.
Your reflections on challenges—particularly sustainability and limited access to proficiency testing—are highly relevant to many regions and underscore the importance of innovative financing mechanisms, long-term national support and shared quality-assurance resources.
Equally valuable is the forward-looking vision for expanding SANGL into a multi-thematic platform that aligns with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the One Health approach and continental trade and development agendas. The proposed integration of food-safety testing, environmental monitoring and emerging molecular diagnostics highlights how regional networks can evolve to address converging scientific and policy needs while optimising infrastructure and expertise.
We particularly note the emphasis on:
• broadening stakeholder participation, including regulators and private-sector laboratories;
• strengthening digital knowledge-sharing mechanisms;
• adopting hub-and-spoke mentorship models; and
• exploring pooled procurement and sustainability strategies.
These elements offer a valuable model for other regions seeking to enhance their biosafety and analytical capacities through collaborative frameworks.
Your thoughtful and substantial contribution is greatly appreciated. It provides important lessons and strategic considerations that will help shape our collective understanding of how regional networks can remain effective, resilient and future-ready.
Dear Melina Pérez,
I am pleased to send you the responses from the INIA-Peru GMO Detection Laboratory.
a) We do not have a national network; we are the only official laboratory accredited for GMO analysis in Peru.
We participate in the Latin American and Caribbean Laboratory Network (RLAC-OGM), which is currently coordinated by Mexico.
b) The RLAC-OGM has held several sessions to share the experiences of laboratories on various topics of interest for GMO analysis. The last session was held in November of this year, where each laboratory shared information about its functions, capabilities, progress, etc.
c) All the information received from the RLAC laboratories is very important to us, as it has enabled us to improve our procedures and resolve some of the doubts and difficulties we had.
d) There are still no interlaboratory comparisons at the regional level.
In our case, the accreditation authority requires proficiency testing providers to have ISO 17043 accreditation, which makes proficiency testing very expensive for us.
e) Make laboratory networks visible, support their official recognition, and provide funding opportunities for the networks' presential activities.
Sincerely,
Yeny Aquino
I am pleased to send you the responses from the INIA-Peru GMO Detection Laboratory.
a) We do not have a national network; we are the only official laboratory accredited for GMO analysis in Peru.
We participate in the Latin American and Caribbean Laboratory Network (RLAC-OGM), which is currently coordinated by Mexico.
b) The RLAC-OGM has held several sessions to share the experiences of laboratories on various topics of interest for GMO analysis. The last session was held in November of this year, where each laboratory shared information about its functions, capabilities, progress, etc.
c) All the information received from the RLAC laboratories is very important to us, as it has enabled us to improve our procedures and resolve some of the doubts and difficulties we had.
d) There are still no interlaboratory comparisons at the regional level.
In our case, the accreditation authority requires proficiency testing providers to have ISO 17043 accreditation, which makes proficiency testing very expensive for us.
e) Make laboratory networks visible, support their official recognition, and provide funding opportunities for the networks' presential activities.
Sincerely,
Yeny Aquino
Dear Dr. Abou-Sleymane,
Thank you for sharing with the forum this important overview of the MENA Network of GMO Testing Laboratories. Your experience highlights both the significant achievements of MENANGL—such as the successful regional proficiency test and the strong collaboration fostered through EURL and CBD support—and the serious challenges that have affected continuity in recent years.
It is encouraging to hear that conditions are improving and that there is renewed potential to reactivate MENANGL’s activities. Revitalising this network would indeed strengthen knowledge exchange, technical alignment and coordinated biosafety efforts across the region.
Thank you again for your contribution and for highlighting both the successes achieved and the opportunities ahead.
Thank you for sharing with the forum this important overview of the MENA Network of GMO Testing Laboratories. Your experience highlights both the significant achievements of MENANGL—such as the successful regional proficiency test and the strong collaboration fostered through EURL and CBD support—and the serious challenges that have affected continuity in recent years.
It is encouraging to hear that conditions are improving and that there is renewed potential to reactivate MENANGL’s activities. Revitalising this network would indeed strengthen knowledge exchange, technical alignment and coordinated biosafety efforts across the region.
Thank you again for your contribution and for highlighting both the successes achieved and the opportunities ahead.
Dear Ms. Aquino,
Thank you for sharing INIA-Peru’s experience. Your contribution highlights the importance of the RLAC-OGM for exchanging knowledge and strengthening laboratory procedures, especially given that INIA-Peru is the country’s only accredited GMO testing laboratory.
You also note key challenges, including the lack of regional interlaboratory comparisons and the high cost of ISO 17043-accredited proficiency testing, which affects accreditation efforts. Your suggestion to increase the visibility, recognition and funding of regional laboratory networks is highly relevant.
Thank you for this valuable input.
Thank you for sharing INIA-Peru’s experience. Your contribution highlights the importance of the RLAC-OGM for exchanging knowledge and strengthening laboratory procedures, especially given that INIA-Peru is the country’s only accredited GMO testing laboratory.
You also note key challenges, including the lack of regional interlaboratory comparisons and the high cost of ISO 17043-accredited proficiency testing, which affects accreditation efforts. Your suggestion to increase the visibility, recognition and funding of regional laboratory networks is highly relevant.
Thank you for this valuable input.
My name is Raja CHALGHOUMI. I am an agronomist with a Ph.D. in Agronomic Sciences and Bioengineering, specializing in Animal Nutrition and intestinal microbial ecology. Currently, I serve as an Associate Professor in Animal Nutrition at the College of Agriculture, University of Carthage, Tunisia. Additionally, I am a certified professional in Biorisk Management and Biosecurity. I am a member of the Tunisian Biosafety Technical Commission, and a member of the AHTEG on Risk Assessment (2023-2024) and the AHTEG on Risk Assessment (2025). Below are my responses to the questions asked under topic 4.
a) Can you share your experience participating in national or regional networks over the past two years?
During the past two years, I have not been actively involved in the development and consolidation of the national official network of laboratories for the detection and quantification of LMOs. However, during the 2016–2018 period, I benefited from capacity-building activities: training in LMO detection, technical workshops, and the implementation of standardized laboratory procedures. I also contributed to the development and distribution of translated educational materials (guides in French and English) and was involved in initiatives to share documentation to make protocols, guides, and feedback accessible.
b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?
At the national level, yes — the Tunisian national network has carried out recent activities: continuous equipping laboratories (National Gene Bank), formalizing the official network between laboratories, and targeted training activities. Accreditation efforts and the planning of advanced trainings (risk assessment, sequencing, synthetic biology) are among the current priorities.
To my knowledge, at the regional level (Francophone Africa / Arab countries), no recent collaboration including bilateral/regional seminars and workshops has been carried out due to a lack of sustainable funding.
c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?
I think that networks are extremely useful for organizing or facilitating proficiency testing, indeed:
○ Harmonization of methodologies enables more reliable comparisons.
○ Exchange of reagents, control samples and reference protocols reduces costs and speeds proficiency testing implementation.
○ Regional platforms support the prerequisite training needed to obtain comparable results.
d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?
In the Tunisian context, a National Official Network was formalized among four laboratories, with agreements to cooperate on detection and quantification of LMOs, and an interlaboratory comparison program is implemented.
e) Do you have any suggestions for improving the overall functioning of laboratory networks for the detection and identification of LMOs?
My suggestions to improve the overall functioning of laboratory networks for LMO detection and identification are
1. Institutionalize and sustain proficiency programs by seting up a regular calendar (annual or semi‑annual) of intercomparisons for key techniques (qualitative/quantitative PCR, sequencing, DNA/RNA extraction), and secure sustainable funding (national contributions, regional grants, public‑private partnerships) to avoid exclusive dependence on short‑term projects.
2. Harmonize and disseminate reference methods by 1) developing and adopting regionally adapted SOPs for LMO detection and quantification methods, and 2) translating/adjusting protocols to local realities (available reagents, equipment constraints).
3. Pool material and human resources by creating platforms for exchanging reagents and reference samples (control sample banks) and implementing personnel exchange programs (internships, short missions) to transfer practical skills
4. Strengthen advanced technical capacity through continuous training on sequencing, bioinformatics, synthetic biology, and risk assessment.
5. Support accreditation and quality assurance by assisting to laboratories for implementing quality systems (documentation, calibration, traceability) and preparation for ISO 17025.
6. Information sharing by using the Biosafety Clearing‑House and regional portals to centralize SOPs, lists of competent laboratories and training materials.
7. Encouraging public‑private collaboration and university involvement by mobilizing universities for training and methodological research and promoting private sector roles (reagent suppliers, private labs) for expertise sharing and co‑funding.
a) Can you share your experience participating in national or regional networks over the past two years?
During the past two years, I have not been actively involved in the development and consolidation of the national official network of laboratories for the detection and quantification of LMOs. However, during the 2016–2018 period, I benefited from capacity-building activities: training in LMO detection, technical workshops, and the implementation of standardized laboratory procedures. I also contributed to the development and distribution of translated educational materials (guides in French and English) and was involved in initiatives to share documentation to make protocols, guides, and feedback accessible.
b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?
At the national level, yes — the Tunisian national network has carried out recent activities: continuous equipping laboratories (National Gene Bank), formalizing the official network between laboratories, and targeted training activities. Accreditation efforts and the planning of advanced trainings (risk assessment, sequencing, synthetic biology) are among the current priorities.
To my knowledge, at the regional level (Francophone Africa / Arab countries), no recent collaboration including bilateral/regional seminars and workshops has been carried out due to a lack of sustainable funding.
c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?
I think that networks are extremely useful for organizing or facilitating proficiency testing, indeed:
○ Harmonization of methodologies enables more reliable comparisons.
○ Exchange of reagents, control samples and reference protocols reduces costs and speeds proficiency testing implementation.
○ Regional platforms support the prerequisite training needed to obtain comparable results.
d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?
In the Tunisian context, a National Official Network was formalized among four laboratories, with agreements to cooperate on detection and quantification of LMOs, and an interlaboratory comparison program is implemented.
e) Do you have any suggestions for improving the overall functioning of laboratory networks for the detection and identification of LMOs?
My suggestions to improve the overall functioning of laboratory networks for LMO detection and identification are
1. Institutionalize and sustain proficiency programs by seting up a regular calendar (annual or semi‑annual) of intercomparisons for key techniques (qualitative/quantitative PCR, sequencing, DNA/RNA extraction), and secure sustainable funding (national contributions, regional grants, public‑private partnerships) to avoid exclusive dependence on short‑term projects.
2. Harmonize and disseminate reference methods by 1) developing and adopting regionally adapted SOPs for LMO detection and quantification methods, and 2) translating/adjusting protocols to local realities (available reagents, equipment constraints).
3. Pool material and human resources by creating platforms for exchanging reagents and reference samples (control sample banks) and implementing personnel exchange programs (internships, short missions) to transfer practical skills
4. Strengthen advanced technical capacity through continuous training on sequencing, bioinformatics, synthetic biology, and risk assessment.
5. Support accreditation and quality assurance by assisting to laboratories for implementing quality systems (documentation, calibration, traceability) and preparation for ISO 17025.
6. Information sharing by using the Biosafety Clearing‑House and regional portals to centralize SOPs, lists of competent laboratories and training materials.
7. Encouraging public‑private collaboration and university involvement by mobilizing universities for training and methodological research and promoting private sector roles (reagent suppliers, private labs) for expertise sharing and co‑funding.
Ms. Catherine Maina# Kenya
Dear Colleagues,
My name is Catherine Nyawira Maina from the National Biosafety Authority (Kenya). I have two inquiries regarding detection and quantification:
1. For those using Real-Time PCR for GMO quantification, could you kindly advise on available avenues, where one can access practical training on quantification?
2. Additionally, if anyone has experience with proficiency testing in GMO detection/quantification, I would appreciate guidance on how to initiate or participate in such programs.
Thank you for your insights.
Dear Colleagues,
My name is Catherine Nyawira Maina from the National Biosafety Authority (Kenya). I have two inquiries regarding detection and quantification:
1. For those using Real-Time PCR for GMO quantification, could you kindly advise on available avenues, where one can access practical training on quantification?
2. Additionally, if anyone has experience with proficiency testing in GMO detection/quantification, I would appreciate guidance on how to initiate or participate in such programs.
Thank you for your insights.
Regional networks are a great support for knowledge exchange. CNRIBA was fortunate to participate from the inception of the Latin American and Caribbean Network for the Detection of GMOs. Initially, we were provided with information and support to participate in the training sessions organized by the JRC and the BCH. This situation has changed in recent years, as we have unfortunately not received invitations to address topics related to knowledge exchange and participation.
Therefore, we identified making dissemination and participation more flexible, based on the expertise of each laboratory or institution, as an area of opportunity.
For the past two years, Mexico, through SENASICA/CNRIBA, coordinated the RLAC-OGM, organizing five online seminars focused on the main problems expressed by network members. One issue on which we all agreed is that certified reference materials should have a longer validity period, or that the institution generating these materials should include information on their use after the expiration date in the certificate.
Another challenge identified is the lack of resources for generating interlaboratory trials and accessing indexed information and in-person events that allow for greater interaction and collaboration.
Therefore, we identified making dissemination and participation more flexible, based on the expertise of each laboratory or institution, as an area of opportunity.
For the past two years, Mexico, through SENASICA/CNRIBA, coordinated the RLAC-OGM, organizing five online seminars focused on the main problems expressed by network members. One issue on which we all agreed is that certified reference materials should have a longer validity period, or that the institution generating these materials should include information on their use after the expiration date in the certificate.
Another challenge identified is the lack of resources for generating interlaboratory trials and accessing indexed information and in-person events that allow for greater interaction and collaboration.
Dear Participants,
Thank you very much for your invaluable contributions and active participation in the Online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms. Your thoughtful insights and shared experiences have greatly enriched the exchange.
The Secretariat will carefully review and analyse the information provided and will prepare a comprehensive synthesis to inform and support future work of the network.
The online forum is now closed for comments.
Kind regards,
The Secretariat
Thank you very much for your invaluable contributions and active participation in the Online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms. Your thoughtful insights and shared experiences have greatly enriched the exchange.
The Secretariat will carefully review and analyse the information provided and will prepare a comprehensive synthesis to inform and support future work of the network.
The online forum is now closed for comments.
Kind regards,
The Secretariat
