Insect Resistance Monitoring for Bt Maize Cultivation in the EU: Proposal from the Industry IRM Working Group

Alacalde, E.; Amijee, Firoz; Blache, G.; Bremer, C.; Fernandez, S.; Garcia-Alonso, Monica; Holt, K. E.; Legris, G.; Novillo, Concepción; Schlotter, P.; Storer, Nicholas P.; Tinland, Bruno

doi:10.1007/s00003-007-0236-1

Cited by 23 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with the applicants' EU working group on insect resistance management (as referred to by Alcalde et al (2007)), the applicant proposed to put in place risk mitigation measures to delay the possible resistance evolution in the target insect pests. According to the insect resistance management plan proposed by the applicant, farmers growing more than 5 ha of maize 59122 in the EU shall establish refuge areas with non-Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1-expressing maize, corresponding to at least 20 % of the area planted with maize 59122.…”

Section: Insect Resistance Management Plan Proposed By the Applicantmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the insect resistance management plan proposed by the applicant, farmers growing more than 5 ha of maize 59122 in the EU shall establish refuge areas with non-Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1-expressing maize, corresponding to at least 20 % of the area planted with maize 59122. The applicant's reasoning for implementing the refugia only on farms where the area of maize 59122 is greater than 5 ha is based on: (1) the high fragmentation of the European agricultural landscape; (2) the lack of economic feasibility for providing refugia on farms with less than 5 ha maize 59122; and (3) the negligible risk of evolution of resistance in areas with maize 59122 smaller than 5 ha (Alcalde et al, 2007).…”

Section: Insect Resistance Management Plan Proposed By the Applicantmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to maintaining an adequate level of refuge areas with non-Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1-expressing maize, the insect resistance management plan proposed by the applicant covers the following elements: (1) monitoring for resistance (Section 6.3.2, below); (2) the implementation of a comprehensive education (training) programme to aid farmers to understand the importance of adhering to insect resistance management requirements, which is key to the success of the high dose/refuge strategy (Section 6.3.2, below); and (3) remedial measures to respond to confirmed resistance (either to mitigate the further evolution of resistance (prevent its spread) or eradicate resistance (if detected timely)) (Glaser and Matten, 2003;Alcalde et al, 2007;MacIntosh, 2010;Head and Greenplace, 2012).…”

Section: Insect Resistance Management Plan Proposed By the Applicantmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Insect resistance management strategies are designed to minimise the selection pressure associated with Bt-crops, in order to prevent or at least delay resistance evolution in the target insect pests and to extend the durability of Bt-crops Alcalde et al, 2007;Andow, 2008;MacIntosh, 2010;Head and Greenplate, 2012). As currently implemented for several Bt-crops in several countries, the insect resistance management plan proposed by the applicant relies on the high dose/refuge strategy (Gould, 1998;Glaser and Matten, 2003;MacIntosh 2010).…”

Section: High Dose/refuge Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Scientific Opinion on an application from Pioneer Hi‐Bred International and Dow AgroSciences LLC (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2005‐23) for placing on the market of genetically modified maize 59122 for food and feed uses, import, processing and cultivation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

2013

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Scientific Opinion reports on a risk assessment on an application for placing on the market of genetically modified maize 59122 for import and processing for food and feed uses and cultivation. The EFSA GMO Panel considers that maize 59122 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on the environment, except for the possible evolution of resistance to the Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1 proteins in coleopteran target pests. The Panel recommends the implementation of appropriate and diversified insect resistance management strategies and case-specific monitoring to delay and monitor the possible evolution of resistance to Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1 in coleopteran target pests, respectively. In addition, the Panel recommends revision of the applicants' insect resistance management plan and the proposed post-market environmental monitoring plan. Although maize 59122 is tolerant to glufosinate-ammonium-based herbicides, the Panel did not assess the potential adverse effects associated with the use of such herbicides on maize 59122, as maize 59122 will not be marketed in the European Union as a herbicide-tolerant crop. This Scientific Opinion updates the previous Panel safety evaluation of the food and feed uses, and import and processing of maize 59122 and derived products. The Panel concludes that the information available for maize 59122 addresses the scientific comments raised by Member States and that maize 59122, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and commercial maize varieties with respect to potential adverse effects on human and animal health. If subjected to appropriate management measures, the cultivation of maize 59122 is unlikely to raise safety concerns for the environment.

show abstract

Section: Insect Resistance Management Plan Proposed By the Applicantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Insect Resistance Management Plan Proposed By the Applicantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Insect Resistance Management Plan Proposed By the Applicantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: High Dose/refuge Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scientific Opinion on an application from Pioneer Hi‐Bred International and Dow AgroSciences LLC (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2005‐23) for placing on the market of genetically modified maize 59122 for food and feed uses, import, processing and cultivation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

2013

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the positive EFSA assessment of the consent holders' monitoring reports, we can observe that, to date, the consent holders do not include non-GMO areas that are in practice delegated to the responsibility of the EU-MS (Alacalde et al, 2007;Lecoq et al, 2007;Monsanto Co., 2006Tinland, 2008;Tinland et al, 2007;Wandelt, 2007;Windels et al, 2009). Accordingly, several EU-MS have already, or are planning to, launched GS research projects and networks even in those EU-MS with bans on GMOs (Bartsch et al, 2009;Breckling and Reuter, 2006;de Jong, 2010;Gathmann, 2009;Gathmann and Bartsch, 2006;Pascher et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Soybean in the European Union, Status and Perspective

Bertheau¹,

Davison²

2011

Recent Trends for Enhancing the Diversity and Quality of Soybean Products

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Untitled

2011

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA GMO Panel) assessed the monitoring report for the 2009 cultivation season of maize MON810 provided by Monsanto Europe S.A. The EFSA GMO Panel assessed, in close collaboration with the EFSA Unit for Scientific Assessment Support, the methodology applied by the applicant for the Case-Specific Monitoring and General Surveillance of maize MON810 in 2009. Concerning the Case-Specific monitoring (CSM), the EFSA GMO Panel considered the plan for Insect-Resistant Management mainly based on the 'high dose/refuge strategy', monitoring of target pest resistance and education of farmers. Concerning General Surveillance (GS), the EFSA GMO Panel paid particular attention to the design and analysis of the farmer questionnaires. From the data submitted by the applicant in its 2009 MON810 report, the EFSA GMO Panel did not identify adverse effects on the environment, human and animal health due to maize MON810 cultivation during the 2009 growing season. The outcomes of the 2009 MON810 report do not invalidate the previous risk assessment conclusions on maize MON810. However, the EFSA GMO Panel notes a number of shortcomings in the methodology for CSM and GS. Hence, this scientific opinion gives specific recommendations for improvement of the strategy, methodology and reporting for the post-market environmental monitoring of maize MON810. The applicant should take into account the guidance on Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants as outlined in the recent scientific opinion of the EFSA GMO Panel. The recommendations of the EFSA GMO Panel in this opinion supplement the previous recommendations on PMEM of maize

show abstract

Insect Resistance Monitoring for Bt Maize Cultivation in the EU: Proposal from the Industry IRM Working Group

Cited by 23 publications

References 2 publications

Scientific Opinion on an application from Pioneer Hi‐Bred International and Dow AgroSciences LLC (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2005‐23) for placing on the market of genetically modified maize 59122 for food and feed uses, import, processing and cultivation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

Scientific Opinion on an application from Pioneer Hi‐Bred International and Dow AgroSciences LLC (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2005‐23) for placing on the market of genetically modified maize 59122 for food and feed uses, import, processing and cultivation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

Soybean in the European Union, Status and Perspective

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About