Regulating insect resistance management: the case of non-Bt corn refuges in the US

Bourguet, Denis; Desquilbet, Marion; Lemarié, Stéphane

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.019

Cited by 64 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Resistance is defined as the occurrence of a phenotype of an individual of the target insect pest that can survive on the Bt-plant and produce viable offspring (Andow, 2008). Susceptibility of target insect pests to plant-produced Bt-proteins is viewed in some jurisdictions as a common good that should be preserved (Glaser and Matten, 2003;Bourguet et al, 2005;Gassmann and Hutchison, 2012) owing to the benefits of Bt-crops (Qaim, 2009;Carpenter, 2010;Hutchison et al, 2010;Areal et al, 2012;Lu et al, 2012;Wan et al, 2012;Haegele and Below, 2013;Shi et al, 2013) and the broader use of sprayable Bt-formulations. Resistance evolution in target insect pests is not considered a direct environmental harm, but the consequences of the establishment of resistant populations may lead to altered pest management practices.…”

Section: 23mentioning

confidence: 99%

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: 23mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…To prevent or at least reduce the rate of resistance development to Bt plants in target pest species, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has imposed rigorous regulatory requirements that mandate certain practices related to resistance management (1). One of the primary requirements for registration includes monitoring susceptibility of field populations of target pests to verify potential changes in susceptibility to Cry toxins (22).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison and Validation of Methods To Quantify Cry1Ab Toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis for Standardization of Insect Bioassays

Crespo

Spencer

Nekl

et al. 2008

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standardization of toxin preparations derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Berliner) used in laboratory bioassays is critical for accurately assessing possible changes in the susceptibility of field populations of target pests. Different methods were evaluated to quantify Cry1Ab, the toxin expressed by 80% of the commercially available transgenic maize that targets the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner). We compared three methods of quantification on three different toxin preparations from independent sources: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and densitometry (SDS-PAGE/densitometry), and the Bradford assay for total protein. The results were compared to those obtained by immunoblot analysis and with the results of toxin bioassays against susceptible laboratory colonies of O. nubilalis. The Bradford method resulted in statistically higher estimates than either ELISA or SDS-PAGE/densitometry but also provided the lowest coefficients of variation (CVs) for estimates of the Cry1Ab concentration (from 2.4 to 5.4%). The CV of estimates obtained by ELISA ranged from 12.8 to 26.5%, whereas the CV of estimates obtained by SDS-PAGE/densitometry ranged from 0.2 to 15.4%. We standardized toxin concentration by using SDS-PAGE/densitometry, which is the only method specific for the 65-kDa Cry1Ab protein and is not confounded by impurities detected by ELISA and Bradford assay for total protein. Bioassays with standardized Cry1Ab preparations based on SDS-PAGE/densitometry showed no significant differences in LC 50 values, although there were significant differences in growth inhibition for two of the three Cry1Ab preparations. However, the variation in larval weight caused by toxin source was only 4% of the total variation, and we conclude that standardization of Cry1Ab production and quantification by SDS-PAGE/densitometry may improve data consistency in monitoring efforts to identify changes in insect susceptibility to Cry1Ab.

show abstract

“…In the United States, such refuges are mandated tain the stock of susceptibility. In the United States, such refuges are mandated to be equal in size to at least 20 percent of the area devoted to insect-resistant to be equal in size to at least 20 percent of the area devoted to insect-resistant crop production (Bourguet, Desquilbet, and Lemarié 2005). In some cases, the crop production (Bourguet, Desquilbet, and Lemarié 2005).…”

Section: Environmental Benefi Ts and Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the United States, such refuges are mandated to be equal in size to at least 20 percent of the area devoted to insect-resistant to be equal in size to at least 20 percent of the area devoted to insect-resistant crop production (Bourguet, Desquilbet, and Lemarié 2005). In some cases, the crop production (Bourguet, Desquilbet, and Lemarié 2005). In some cases, the non-insect-resistant seed are intermingled with the transgenic seed to produce non-insect-resistant seed are intermingled with the transgenic seed to produce "refuge in a bag."…”

Section: Environmental Benefi Ts and Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops

Barrows

Sexton

Zilberman

2014

Journal of Economic Perspectives

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For millennia, humans have modified plant genes in order to develop crops best suited for food, fiber, feed, and energy production. The earliest efforts, far predating Gregor Mendel's 19th-century discoveries on trait inheritance, involved the selective breeding of plants with desirable characteristics, but the recombination of DNA in offspring was random. Consequently, plant breeding often took decades and frequently yielded crop varieties with unforeseen and undesirable properties. Today, conventional plant breeding remains inherently random and slow, constrained by the availability of desirable traits in closely related plant species. In contrast, agricultural biotechnology employs the modern tools of genetic engineering to reduce uncertainty and breeding time and to transfer traits from more distantly related plants.Arguments in support of and in opposition to the use of genetically engineered seeds have changed little since the technology emerged in the 1980s. On one side, critics express concerns that the technology imposes negative environmental effects and jeopardizes the health of those who consume the "frankenfoods." On the other side, supporters emphasize potential gains from boosting output and lowering food prices for consumers. They argue that such gains are achieved contemporaneous with the adoption of farming practices that lower agrochemical use and lessen soil

show abstract

Regulating insect resistance management: the case of non-Bt corn refuges in the US

Cited by 64 publications

References 36 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

Comparison and Validation of Methods To Quantify Cry1Ab Toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis for Standardization of Insect Bioassays

Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About