6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      How Governmental Regulation Can Help or Hinder the Integration of Bt Crops within IPM Programs

      chapter-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Regulatory risk assessments are an important part of the introduction of insect-resistant genetically modified (GM) crops (e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis [ Bt] crops) into the environment to ensure the safe use of such products. In doing so, the regulatory assessment process can be clearly beneficial to integrated pest management (IPM) programs. In general, the regulatory framework for insect-resistant GM crops includes an assessment of the following: effects of the insecticidal trait on non-target organisms, other potential adverse environmental impacts, evolution of resistance to target pests, and environmental and agronomic benefits of the insecticidal trait. Each country’s regulatory system is dependent on the overall environmental risk management goals, relevant and available risk information, scientific capacity, and the available financial resources. A number of regulatory activities can help to ensure that new products such as Bt crops fit well within IPM programs: (1) evaluation of the environmental safety of new products, and their ability to enhance IPM; (2) encouragement of the adoption of new technologies with improved environmental safety profiles; (3) adoption of an expedited regulatory review system; and (4) encouragement and appropriate oversight of sustainable use of such products. Governmental regulation of insect-resistant GM crops can also hinder IPM programs by creating significant barriers to the adoption of such technologies. Such barriers include: (1) absence of functioning regulatory systems in many developing countries; (2) meeting the obligations and understanding the various interpretations of international treaties, e.g., Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; (3) lack of public sector research to generate data supporting the safety of these crops; and (4) regulatory costs involved in the development and commercialization of novel products for small market sectors. Ways in which regulatory data requirements can be globally harmonized need to be considered to decrease the regulatory barriers for insect-resistant GM crops and comparable technologies. International organizations can play a key role in rationalizing regulatory systems; however, public sector research will also be needed to make sure that the risk assessment process is scientifically sound and transparent.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: integrating pest genetics and ecology.

          F. Gould (1998)
          This review examines potential impacts of transgenic cultivars on insect population dynamics and evolution. Experience with classically bred, insecticidal cultivars has demonstrated that a solid understanding of both the target insect's ecology and the cultivar's performance under varied field conditions will be essential for predicting area-wide effects of transgenic cultivars on pest and natural enemy dynamics. This experience has also demonstrated the evolutionary capacity of pests for adaptive response to insecticidal traits in crops. Biochemical and genetic studies of insect adaptation to the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins expressed by currently marketed transgenic cultivars indicate a high risk for rapid adaptation if these cultivars are misused. Theoretical and practical issues involved in implementing strategies to delay pest adaptation to insecticidal cultivars are reviewed. Emphasis is placed on examining the "high dose"/refuge strategy that has become the goal of industry and regulatory authorities.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods.

            An international initiative is developing a scientifically rigorous approach to evaluate the potential risks to nontarget arthropods (NTAs) posed by insect-resistant, genetically modified (IRGM) crops. It adapts the tiered approach to risk assessment that is used internationally within regulatory toxicology and environmental sciences. The approach focuses on the formulation and testing of clearly stated risk hypotheses, making maximum use of available data and using formal decision guidelines to progress between testing stages (or tiers). It is intended to provide guidance to regulatory agencies that are currently developing their own NTA risk assessment guidelines for IRGM crops and to help harmonize regulatory requirements between different countries and different regions of the world.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops: lessons from the laboratory and field.

              Transgenic crops that produce insecticidal toxins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) grew on >62 million ha worldwide from 1996 to 2002. Despite expectations that pests would rapidly evolve resistance to such Bt crops, increases in the frequency of resistance caused by exposure to Bt crops in the field have not yet been documented. In laboratory and greenhouse tests, however, at least seven resistant laboratory strains of three pests (Plutella xylostella [L.], Pectinophora gossypiella [Saunders], and Helicoverpa armigera [Hübner]) have completed development on Bt crops. In contrast, several other laboratory strains with 70- to 10,100-fold resistance to Bt toxins in diet did not survive on Bt crops. Monitoring of field populations in regions with high adoption of Bt crops has not yet detected increases in resistance frequency. Resistance monitoring examples include Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner) in the United States (6 yr), P. gossypiella in Arizona (5 yr), H. armigera in northern China (3 yr), and Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) in North Carolina (2 yr). Key factors delaying resistance to Bt crops are probably refuges of non-Bt host plants that enable survival of susceptible pests, low initial resistance allele frequencies, recessive inheritance of resistance to Bt crops, costs associated with resistance that reduce fitness of resistant individuals relative to susceptible individuals on non-Bt hosts ("fitness costs"), and disadvantages suffered by resistant strains on Bt hosts relative to their performance on non-Bt hosts ("incomplete resistance"). The relative importance of these factors varies among pest-Bt crop systems, and violations of key assumptions of the refuge strategy (low resistance allele frequency and recessive inheritance) may occur in some cases. The success of Bt crops exceeds expectations of many, but does not preclude resistance problems in the future.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                joerg.romeis@art.admin.ch
                ams5@cornell.edu
                George_Kennedy@ncsu.edu
                Matten.Sharlene@epamail.epa.gov
                Journal
                978-1-4020-8373-0
                10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0
                Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops within IPM Programs
                Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops within IPM Programs
                978-1-4020-8372-3
                978-1-4020-8373-0
                2008
                : 5
                : 27-39
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.417771.3, ISNI 000000044681910X, Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, ; Reckenholzstrasse 191, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland
                [2 ]GRID grid.5386.8, ISNI 000000041936877X, Department of Entomology, , Cornell University/NYSAES, ; Geneva, NY 14456 USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.40803.3f, ISNI 0000000121736074, Department of Entomology, , North Carolina State University, ; Raleigh, NC 27695-7630 USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.418698.a, ISNI 0000000121462763, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, , United States Environmental Protection Agency, ; Washington, DC, USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.418554.9, ISNI 0000000404668542, Monsanto Company, ; St. Louis, MO USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.253573.5, ISNI 0000000419368171, Department of Biology, , Calvin College, ; Grand Rapids, MI USA
                Article
                2
                10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0_2
                7120821
                40e1d3c4-6381-4113-9e77-c3c732c01f7e
                © Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Netherlands 2008

                integrate pest management,united states environmental protection agency,genetically modify crop,integrate pest management program,fall armyworm

                Comments

                Comment on this article