Euphytica

, Volume 164, Issue 3, pp 853–880 | Cite as

An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops

  • Wendy Craig
  • Mark Tepfer
  • Giuliano Degrassi
  • Decio Ripandelli
Article

Abstract

The intentional introduction into the environment or market of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is nearly always governed by a framework of science-based risk assessment and risk management measures. This is usually implemented through the integration of hazard identification and characterisation of all of the elements of risk associated with a new GM crop or derived product. Typical categories of hazards arising from the introduction of transgenic crops include: possible unintended negative health effects in a susceptible subgroup of the consumer (target) population; the evolution of resistance in the targeted pest/pathogen populations when the transgene confers resistance to a pest or pathogen; non-target hazards associated directly or indirectly with the transgenic plant or transgene product outside the plant; and those associated with the integration and subsequent expression of the transgene in a different organism or species following gene flow. The consequences of likely exposure to these and other hazards are considered in this introduction to the main issues raised when evaluating the possible risks arising from the importation or cultivation of genetically modified crops.

Keywords

Biosafety GMO GM crops Risk assessment Review 

References

  1. Adamczyk JJ Jr, Sumerford DV (2001) Potential factors impacting season-long expression of Cry1Ac in 13 commercial varieties of Bollgard® cotton. J Insect Sci 1:13. http://www.insectscience.org/1.13. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  2. Alexander TW, Reuter T, Aulrich K, Sharma R, Okine EK, Dixon WT, McAllister TA (2007) A review of the detection and fate of novel plant molecules derived from biotechnology in livestock production. Anim Feed Sci Technol 133:31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alstad DN, Andow DA (1995) Managing the evolution of insect resistance to transgenic plants. Science 268:1894–1896PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andow DA, Zwahlen C (2006) Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecol Lett 9:196–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. APVMA (2003) Evaluation of the new active Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki delta-endotoxins as produced by the Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab genes and their controlling sequences in the new product Bollgard II Cotton Event 15985. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), June 2003. http://www.apvma.gov.au/publications/downloads/prsbollgard2.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  6. Arpaia S, Di Leo GM, Fiore MC, Schmidt JEU, Scardi M (2007) Composition of arthropod species assemblages in Bt-expressing and near isogenic eggplants in experimental fields. Environ Entomol 36(1):213–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ASEAN (2003) Guidelines on risk assessment of agriculture-related genetically modified organisms (GMOs). http://www.aseansec.org/6226.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  8. AUS OGTR (2005) Risk analysis framework for licence applications to the office of the gene technology regulator, 2nd edn. Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Australia (AUS OGTR). http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/public/raffinal2.2.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  9. Barton JE, Dracup M (2000) Genetically modified crops and the environment. Agron J 92:797–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett PM, Livesey CT, Nathwani D, Reeves DS, Saunders JR, Wise R (2004) An assessment of the risks associated with the use of antibiotic resistance genes in genetically modified plants: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 53:418–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernauer T (2005) Causes and consequences of international trade conflict over agricultural biotechnology. Int J Biotechnol 7(1–3):7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernstein JA, Bernstein IL, Bucchini L, Goldman LR, Hamilton RG, Lehrer S, Rubin C, Sampson HA (2003) Clinical and laboratory investigation of allergy to genetically modified foods. Environ Health Perspect 111:1114–1121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brinkmann N, Tebbe CC (2007) Leaf-feeding larvae of Manduca sexta (Insecta, Lepidoptera) drastically reduce copy numbers of aadA antibiotic resistance genes from transplastomic tobacco but maintain intact aadA genes in their feces. Environ Biosafety Res 6:121–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Butler SJ, Vickery JA, Norris K (2007) Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science 315:381–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CAC (2003a) Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants. CAC/Gl 45-2003. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland, p 13. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/biotech/en/codex_guidelines_plants.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  16. CAC (2003b) Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology. CAC/GL 44-2003. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland, p 4. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/biotech/en/codex_biotech_principles.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  17. Cantamutto M, Poverene M (2007) Genetically modified sunflower release: opportunities and risks. Field Crops Res 101:133–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CDC (2001) Investigation of human health effects associated with potential exposure to genetically modified corn: a report to the US Food and Drug Administration from Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, USA http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/pdfs/cry9creport.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  19. Cellini F, Chesson A, Colquhoun I, Constable A, Davies HV, Engel KH, Gatehouse AMR, Kärenlampi S, Kok EJ, Leguay J-J, Lehesranta S, Noteborn HPJM, Pedersen J, Smith M (2004) Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modi?ed crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1089–1125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. CFIA (2004) Decision Document DD2004-49. Determination of the Safety of Bayer CropScience’s Herbicide Tolerant LibertyLink® Cotton Event LLcotton25 (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Plant Products Directorate, Plant Biosafety Office, Decision Document DD2004-49. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dd/dd0449e.shtml. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  21. CFIA (2005) Directive 94-08 (Dir94-08). Assessment criteria for determining environmental safety of plants with novel traits. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Plant Products Directorate, Plant Biosafety Office. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dir/dir9408e.shtml. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  22. Chamberlain DE, Freeman SN, Vickery JA (2007) The effects of GMHT crops on bird abundance in arable fields in the UK. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chen LJ, Lee DS, Song ZP, Suh HS, Lu B-R (2004) Gene flow from cultivated rice (Oryza sativa) to its weedy and wild relatives. Ann Bot 93:67–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap J-P (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J 33:19–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. CRARM (1997) Risk assessment and risk management in regulatory decision-making. Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management (CRARM), Final Report, vol 2. http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1997/risk-rpt/volume2/pdf/v2epa.PDF. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  26. Crawley MJ, Brown SL, Hails RS, Kohn DD, Rees M (2001) Transgenic crops in natural habitats. Nature 409:682–683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dale PJ, Clarke B, Fontes EMG (2002) Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nat Biotechnol 20:567–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Daniell H, Kumar S, Dufourmantel N (2005) Breakthrough in chloroplast genetic engineering of agronomically important crops. Trends Biotechnol 23(5):238–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. De Cosa B, Moar W, Lee S-B, Miller M, Daniell H (2001) Overexpression of the Bt cry2Aa2 operon in chloroplasts leads to formation of insecticidal crystals. Nat Biotechnol 19:71–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. de Vries J, Heine M, Harms K, Wackernagel W (2003) Spread of recombinant DNA by roots and pollen of transgenic potato plants, identified by highly specific biomonitoring using natural transformation of an Acinetobacter sp. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(8):4455–4462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Doerfler W (2000) Foreign DNA in mammalian systems. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  32. Dove A (2001) Survey raises concerns about Bt resistance management. Nat Biotechnol 19:293–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dröge M, Pühler A, Selbitschka W (1998) Horizontal gene transfer as a biosafety issue: a natural phenomenon of public concern. J Biotechnol 64:75–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dunfield KE, Germida JJ (2004) Impact of genetically modified crops on soil- and plant-associated microbial communities. J Environ Qual 33:806–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. EFSA (2004) Guidance document of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed, (Question No. EFSA-Q-2003–005). European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA J 99:1–94. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Document/gmo_guidance_gm_plants_en,0.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  36. EFSA (2006) Opinion of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms on the post market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants. (Question No. EFSA-Q-2004-061). European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA J 319:1–27. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/gmo_op_ej319_pmem_en1,0.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  37. EFSA (2007) Statement of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms on the safe use of the nptII antibiotic resistance marker gene in genetically modified plants. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Union. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Statement/gmo_statement_nptII_,0.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  38. Ellstrand NC (2003) Current knowledge of gene flow in plants: implications for transgene flow. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Biol Sci 358(1434):1163–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ellstrand NC, Prentice HC, Hancock JF (1999) Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:539–563Google Scholar
  40. Ervin DE, Batie SS, Welsh R, Carpentier CL, Fern JI, Richman NJ, Schulz MA (2000) Transgenic crops: an environmental assessment. Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy at Winrock International. http://www.winrock.org/wallace/wallacecenter/documents/transgenic.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  41. European Parliament (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities L 106/1:0001-0039. http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_106/l_10620010417en00010038.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  42. FAO/WHO (2000) Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland, p 35. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/en/ec_june2000_en.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  43. FAO/WHO (2001) Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods: report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on allergenicity of foods derived from biotechnology, 22–25 January 2001. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/en/ec_jan2001.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  44. Faria CA, Wäckers FL, Pritchard J, Barrett DA, Turlings TCJ (2007) High susceptibility of Bt maize to aphids enhances the performance of parasitoids of lepidopteran pests. Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE 2(7):e600. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000600
  45. Ferry N, Mulligan EA, Majerus MEN, Gatehouse AMR (2007) Bitrophic and tritrophic effects of Bt Cry3A transgenic potato on beneficial, non-target, beetles. Transgenic Res 16(6): 795–812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Firbank L, Lonsdale M, Poppy G (2005) Reassessing the environmental risks of GM crops. Nat Biotechnol 23(12):1475–1476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Fitt GP, Mares CL, Llewellyn DJ (1994) Field evaluation and potential ecological impact of transgenic cottons (Gossypium hirsutum) in Australia. Biocontrol Sci Technol 4(4):535–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Flachowsky G, Aulrich K, Böhme H, Halle I (2007) Studies on feeds from genetically modified plants (GMP) – contributions to nutritional and safety assessment. Anim Feed Sci Technol 133:2–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Flint HJ, Mercer DK, Scott KP, Melville C, Glover LA (2002) Technical report of FSA project FSG01007 – survival of ingested DNA in the gut and the potential for genetic transformation of resident bacteria. Food Standards Agency, UK. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/rowett1.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  50. Gaugitsch H (2002) Experience with environmental issues in GM crop production and the likely future scenarios. Toxicol Lett 127:351–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. GM Science Review Panel (2003) GM science review. First report. An open review of the science relevant to GM crops and food based on interests and concerns of the public. Submitted to the UK Government on 21 July 2003. http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/pdf/gmsci-report1-full.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  52. Goldstein DA, Tinland B, Gilbertson LA, Staub JM, Bannon GA, Goodman RE, McCoy RL, Silvanovich A (2005) Human safety and genetically modified plants: a review of antibiotic resistance markers and future transformation selection technologies. J Appl Microbiol 99:7–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hall L, Topinka K, Huffman J, Davis L, Allen A (2000) Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Sci 48:688–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Haslberger AG (2003) Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects. Nat Biotechnol 21(7):739–741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Heinemann JA (2007) A typology of the effects of (trans)gene flow on the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Background Study Paper Number 35, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, June 2007Google Scholar
  56. Hellmich RL, Siegfried BD, Sears MK, Stanley-Horn DE, Daniels MJ, Mattila HR, Spencer T Bidne KG, Lewis LC (2001) Monarch larvae sensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis- purified proteins and pollen. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(21):11925–11930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Herouet C, Esdaile DJ, Mallyon BA, Debruyne E, Schulz A, Currier T, Hendrickx K, van der Klis RJ, Rouan D (2005) Safety evaluation of the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase proteins encoded by the pat and bar sequences that confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium herbicide in transgenic plants. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 41(2):134–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hill RA, Sendashonga C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ Biosafety Res 2:81–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. ILSI Task Force (2004) Nutritional and safety assessments of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology. Task Force of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) International Food Biotechnology Committee. Comprehensive Rev Food Sci Food Saf 3(2):35–104. http://www.members.ift.org/NR/rdonlyres/27BE106D-B616-4348-AE3A-091D0E536F40/0/crfsfsv3n2p00350104ms20040106.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  60. IPCS (1999) Microbial pest control agent Bacillus thuringiensis. Environmental Health Criteria; 217. International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS), World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland, p 109. http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/ehc/en/EHC217.PDF. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  61. Johnson KL, Raybould AF, Hudson MD, Poppy GH (2007) How does scientific risk assessment of GM crops fit within the wider risk analysis? Trends Plant Sci 12(1):1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Jonas DA, Elmadfa I, Engel K-H, Heller KJ, Kozianowski G, König A, Müller D, Narbonne JF, Wackernagel W, Kleiner J (2001) Safety considerations of DNA in food. Ann Nutr Metab 45:235–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kaeppler HF (2000) Food safety assessment of genetically modified crops. Agron J 92:793–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kapuscinski AR, Goodman RM, Hann SD, Jacobs LR, Pullins EE, Johnson CS, Kinsey JD, Krall RL, La Viña AGM, Mellon MG, Ruttan VW (2003) Making ‘safety first’ a reality for biotechnology products. Nat Biotechnol 21:599 – 601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AACM (2006) Prediction of the potential allergenicity of novel proteins, Chapter 10. In: Gilissen LJEJ, Wichers HJ, Savelkoul HFJ, Bogers RJ (eds) Allergy matters. New Approaches to Allergy Prevention and Management Series: Wageningen UR Frontis Series, vol 10, p 205. http://www.library.wur.nl/frontis/allergy_matters/10_kleter.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  66. Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AACM, Aarts HJM (2005) Health considerations regarding horizontal transfer of microbial transgenes present in genetically modified crops. J Biomed Biotechnol 4:326–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kok EJ, Kuiper HA (2003) Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops. Trends Biotechnol 21(10):439–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. König A, Cockburn A, Crevel RWR, Debruyne E, Grafstroem R, Hammerling U, Kimber I, Knudsen I, Kuiper HA, Peijnenburg AACM, Penninks AH, Poulsen M, Schauzu M, Wal JM (2004) Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1047–1088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kranthi KR, Naidu S, Dhawad CS, Tatwawadi A, Mate K, Patil E, Bharose AA, Behere GT, Wadaskar RM, Kranthi S (2005) Temporal and intra-plant variability of Cry1Ac expression in Bt-cotton and its influence on the survival of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera). Curr Sci 89(2):291–298Google Scholar
  70. Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteburn HPJM, Kok EJ (2001) Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. Plant J 27:503–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Latham JR, Wilson AK, Steinbrecher RA (2006) The mutational consequences of plant transformation. J Biomed Biotechnol 2006, Article ID 25376, 1–7 Cited 25 Jul 2006Google Scholar
  72. Lehrer SB (2000) Potential health risks of genetically modified organisms: how can allergens be assessed and minimized? In: Persley GJ, Lantin MM (eds) Agricultural biotechnology, the environment and the poor. Proceedings of an International Conference, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 21–22 October 1999. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Washington DC, USA, 235 pp. http://www.cgiar.org/biotech/rep0100/Lehrer.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  73. Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lu B-R (2003) Transgene containment by molecular means – is it possible and cost effective? Environ Biosafety Res 2:3–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Lu B-R, Snow AA (2005) Gene flow from genetically modified rice and its environmental consequences. BioScience 55(8):669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lu B-R, Song Z, Chen J (2003) Can transgenic rice cause ecological risks through transgene escape? Prog Nat Sci 13(1):17–24Google Scholar
  77. Mackenzie R, Glover D (2003) Harmonisation, diversity and uncertainty in international biosafety regulation. Democratising Biotechnology: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries Briefing Series. Briefing 6. Institute of Developing Studies, Brighton, UK. ISBN 1 85864 487 9Google Scholar
  78. Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P (2007) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316:1475–1477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mercer KL, Andow DA, Wyse DL, Shaw RG (2007) Stress and domestication traits increase the relative fitness of crop–wild hybrids in sunflower. Ecol Lett 10: 383–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Messéan A, Angevin F, Gómez-Barbero M, Menrad K, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2006) New case studies on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops in European agriculture. Technical Report EUR 22102 EN, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain. http://www.jrc.es/publications/pub.cfm?id=1345. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  81. Miki B, McHugh S (2004) Selectable marker genes in transgenic plants: applications, alternatives and biosafety. J Biotechnol 107:193–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Millstone E, van Zwanenberg P (2003) Food and agricultural biotechnology policy: how much autonomy can developing countries exercise? Dev Policy Rev 21(5–6):655–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Netherwood T, Martín-Orúe SM, O’Donnell AG, Gockling S, Gilbert HJ, Mathers JC (2002) Transgenes in genetically modified soya survive passage through the human small bowel but are completely degraded in the colon. Technical report of FSA project G010008 – evaluating the risks associated with using GMOs in human foods. Food Standards Agency, UK. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/gmnewcastlereport.PDF. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  84. Netherwood T, Martín-Orúe SM, O’Donnell AG, Gockling S, Graham J, Mathers JC, Gilbert HJ (2004) Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Biotechnol 22(2):204–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Nielsen KM, van Elsas JD, Smalla K (2000) Transformation of Acinetobacter sp. strain BD413(pfg4dnptII) with transgenic plant DNA in soil microcosms and effects of kanamycin on selection of transformants. Appl Environ Microbiol 66(3):1237–1242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Nordgård K, Nguyen T, Midtvedt T, Benno Y, Traavik T, Nielsen KM (2007) Lack of detectable DNA uptake by bacterial gut isolates grown in vitro and by Acinetobacter baylyi colonizing rodents in vivo. Environ Biosafety Res 6:149–160 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. NRC (1993) Issues in risk assessment. National Research Council (NRC), National Academy Press, Washington, 356 pp. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2078.html. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  88. NRC (2002) Environmental effects of transgenic plants: the scope and adequacy of regulation. National Research Council (NRC), National Academy Press, Washington, 342 pp. http://www.fermat.nap.edu/catalog/10258.html. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  89. NRC (2004) Safety of genetically engineered foods: approaches to assessing unintended health effects. Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health, National Research Council (NRC), National Academy Press, Washington, 256 pp. http://www.fermat.nap.edu/catalog/10977.html. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  90. NZ ERMA (2000) Use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in genetically modified organisms. Read D, Environmental Risk Management Authority, New Zealand (NZ ERMA). http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/ER-GI-01-1.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  91. Oberhauser KS, Prysby MD, Mattila HR, Stanley-Horn DE, Sears MK, Dively GP, Olson E, Pleasants JM, Lam W-KF, Hellmich RL (2001) Temporal and spatial overlap between monarch larvae and corn pollen. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(21):11913–11918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. OECD (1993) Safety considerations for biotechnology: scale-up of crop plants. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, 43 pp. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/26/1958527.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  93. OECD (1996) Consensus document on general information concerning the biosafety of crop plants made virus resistant through coat protein gene-mediated protection. Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, Number 5, OCDE/GD(96)/162. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, 54 pp. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1996doc.nsf/LinkTo/ocde-gd(96)162. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  94. OECD (1999a) Consensus document on general information concerning the genes and their enzymes that confer tolerance to glyphosate herbicide. Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, Number 10, ENV/JM/MONO(99)9. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, 26 pp. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1999doc.nsf/LinkTo/env-jm-mono(99)9. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  95. OECD, (1999b) Consensus document on general information concerning the genes and their enzymes that confer tolerance to phosphinothricin herbicide. Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, Number 11, ENV/JM/MONO(99)13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, 26 pp. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1999doc.nsf/LinkTo/env-jm-mono(99)13. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  96. OECD (2000a) Report of the working group on harmonisation of regulatory oversight in biotechnology, C(2000)86/ADD2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, 65 pp. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2000doc.nsf/4f7adc214b91a685c12569fa005d0ee7/c125685b0057c558c12568ea003e344b/$FILE/10078081.PDF. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  97. OECD (2000b) Report of the task force for the safety of novel foods and feeds, May 2000. C(2000)86/ADD1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, 72 pp. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2000doc.nsf/4f7adc214b91a685c12569fa005d0ee7/c125685b0057c558c12568e2003323af/$FILE/10077438.PDF. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  98. OECD (2000c) Widening the debate on health and safety. The OECD Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods, 28 February–1 March 2000, Edinburgh, UK. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/30/2097312.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  99. OECD (2002) Module II: herbicide biochemistry, herbicide metabolism and the residues in glufosinate-ammonium (phosphinothricin)-tolerant transgenic plants. Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, Number 25, ENV/JM/MONO(2002)14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, 22 pp. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2002doc.nsf/LinkTo/env-jm-mono(2002)14. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  100. OECD (2007) Consensus document on safety information on transgenic plants expressing Bacillus Thuringiensis – derived insect control proteins. Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, Number 42. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, 109 pp. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2007doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00002DF6/$FILE/JT03230592.PDF. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  101. Petersen W, Umbeck P, Hokanson K, Halsey M (2005) Biosafety considerations for selectable and scorable markers in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) biotechnology. Environ Biosafety Res 4:89–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Philippines Dept of Agric (2006) Procedural guidelines and formats for Bt corn insect resistance management (IRM) monitoring for industry technology developers. Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of 2006, Department of Agriculture, Republic of the Philippines (Philippines Dept of Agric). http://www.da.gov.ph/agrilaws/mc/mc_01s2006.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  103. Pidgeon JD, May MJ, Perry JN, Poppy GM (2007) Mitigation of indirect environmental effects of GM crops. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274(1617):1475–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Pleasants JM, Hellmich RL, Dively GP, Sears MK, Stanley-Horn DE, Mattila HR, Foster JE, Clark P, Jones GD (2001) Corn pollen deposition on milkweeds in and near cornfields. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(21):11919–11924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Prescott VE, Hogan SP (2006) Genetically modified plants and food hypersensitivity diseases: usage and implications of experimental models for risk assessment. Pharmacol Ther 111:374–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Ramessar K, Peremarti A, Gómez-Galera S, Naqvi S, Moralejo M, Muñoz P, Capell T, Christou P (2007) Biosafety and risk assessment framework for selectable marker genes in transgenic crop plants: a case of the science not supporting the politics. Transgenic Res 16:261–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Ray JL, Andersen HK, Young S, Nielsen KM, O’Callaghan M (2007) An assessment of the potential of herbivorous insect gut bacteria to develop competence for natural transformation. Environ Biosafety Res 6:135–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Raybould A, Cooper I (2006) Tiered tests to assess the environmental risk of fitness changes in hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives: the example of virus resistant Brassica napus. Environ Biosafety Res 4(3):127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Rischer H, Oksman-Caldentey K-M (2006) Unintended effects in genetically modified crops: revealed by metabolomics? Trends Biotechnol 24(3):102–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Ritter J (2002) Long term monitoring of health effects related to genetically modified foods in Canada. Post market surveillance and the role of labeling. A report prepared at the request of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. http://www.cbac-cccb.ca/epic/internet/incbac-cccb.nsf/vwapj/LONG_TERM_MONITORING_OF_HEALTH_EFFECTS.pdf/$FILE/LONG_TERM_MONITORING_OF_HEALTH_EFFECTS.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  111. Rodrigo-Simón A, de Maagd RA, Avilla C, Bakker PL, Molthoff J, González-Zamora JE, Ferré J (2006) Lack of detrimental effects of Bacillus thuringiensis cry toxins on the insect predator Chrysoperla carnea: a toxicological, histopathological, and biochemical analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(2):1595–1603 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Rong J, Xia H, Zhu Y, Wang Y, Lu B-R (2004) Asymmetric gene flow between traditional and hybrid rice varieties (Oryza sativa) indicated by nuclear simple sequence repeats and implications for germplasm conservation. New Phytol 163:439–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Royal Society (2002) Genetically modified plants for food use and human health – an update. The Royal Society, London, UK. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=11319. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  114. Royal Society of Canada (2001) Elements of precaution: recommendations for the regulation of food biotechnology in Canada. An expert report on the future of food biotechnology prepared by the Royal Society of Canada. http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/expert_panels/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  115. Saji H, Nakajima N, Aono M, Tamaoki M, Kubo A, Wakiyama S, Hatase Y, Nagatsu M (2005) Monitoring the escape of transgenic oilseed rape around Japanese ports and roadsides. Environ Biosafety Res 4(4):217–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F (2007) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 107:235–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Schaub P, Al-Babili S, Drake R, Beyer P (2005) Why is Golden Rice golden (yellow) instead of red? Plant Physiol 138:441–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(21):11937–11942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Selgrade MK, Kimber I, Goldman L, Germolec DR (2003) Assessment of allergenic potential of genetically modified foods: an agenda for future research. Environ Health Perspect 111:1140–1141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. Sharma R, Alexander TW, John SJ, Forster RJ, McAllister TA (2004) Relative stability of transgene DNA fragments from GM rapeseed in mixed ruminal cultures. Br J Nutr 91:673–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Shewry PR, Baudo M, Lovegrove A, Powers S, Napier JA, Ward JL, Baker JM, Beale MH (2007) Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different? Trends Food Sci Technol 18:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Silvanovich A, Nemeth MA, Song P, Herman R, Tagliani L, Bannon GA (2006) The value of short amino acid sequence matches for prediction of protein allergenicity. Toxicol Sci 90(1):252–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Sivasupramaniam S, Head GP, English L, Li YJ, Vaughn TT (2007) A global approach to resistance monitoring. J Invertebr Pathol 95:224–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Smalla K, Borin S, Heuer H, Gebhard F, Van Elsas JD, Nielsen K (2000) Horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance genes from transgenic plants to bacteria: are there new data to fuel the debate? In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on the biosafety of genetically modified organisms, Saskatoon, Canada. July 2000, pp 146–154 http://www.isbr.info/symposia/docs/6th_international_symposium.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  125. Snow AA, Andow DA, Gepts P, Hallerman EM, Power A, Tiedje JM, Wolfenbarger LL (2005) Genetically modified organisms and the environment: current status and recommendations. Ecol Appl 15(2):377–404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Song ZP, Lu B-R, Zhu YG, Chen JK (2001) Pollen competition between cultivated and wild rice species (Oryza sativa and O. rufipogon). New Phytol 153:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Song ZP, Xu X, Wang B, Chen JK, Lu B-R (2003a) Genetic diversity in the northernmost Oryza rufipogon populations estimated by SSR markers. Theor Appl Genet 107:1492–1499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Song ZP, Lu B-R, Zhu YG, Chen JK (2003b) Gene flow from cultivated rice to the wild species Oryza rufipogon under experimental field conditions. New Phytol 157:657–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Song ZP, Lu B-R, Chen JK (2004) Pollen flow of cultivated rice measured under experimental conditions. Biodivers Conserv 13:579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Spök A, Hofer H, Lehner P, Valenta R, Stirn S, Gaugitsch H (2004) Risk Assessment of GMO Products in the European Union. Toxicity assessment, allergenicity assessment and substantial equivalence in practice and proposals for improvement and standardisation. http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/publikationen/BE253.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  131. Stanley-Horn DE, Dively GP, Hellmich RL, Mattila HR, Sears MK, Rose R, Jesse LCH, Losey JE, Obrycki JJ, Lewis L (2001) Assessing the impact of Cry1Ab-expressing corn pollen on monarch butterfly larvae in field studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(21):11931–11936PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Stewart CN Jr (2005) Monitoring the presence and expression of transgenes in living plants. Trends Plant Sci 10(8):390–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Stewart CN Jr, Richards HA, Halfhill MD (2000) Transgenic plants and biosafety: science, misconceptions and public perception. Biotechniques 29:832–843PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Torres JB, Ruberson JR (2007) Interactions of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin in genetically engineered cotton with predatory heteropterans. Transgenic Res (Online First). doi 10.1007/s11248-007-9109-8
  135. UK ACRE (2000) Horizontal gene transfer: genetically modified crops and soil bacteria. ACRE Annual Report No. 7: 2000. Annex H. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (UK ACRE), Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK Government. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ACRE/advice/advice08.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  136. UK ACRE (2001a) Guidance on best practice for the presentation and use of molecular data in submissions to the advisory committee on releases to the environment. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (UK ACRE), Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK Government. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ACRE/molecdata/pdf/ACRE_mdr_guidance.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  137. UK ACRE (2001b) Guidance on principles of best practice in the design of genetically modified plants. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (UK ACRE), Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK Government. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ACRE/bestprac/guidance/pdf/bestprac_plants_guidance.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  138. UK ACRE (2001c) Guidance on the assessment of the impact on wider biodiversity from proposed cultivation of GM crops. ACRE Sub-group on Wider Biodiversity Issues, Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, London, UK. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/biodiversity/guidance/pdf/assess-guide.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  139. UK ACRE (2002) The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment’s (ACRE’s) response to concerns raised in written representations and submissions associated with the CHARDON LL public hearing and to statements made at ACRE’s open hearing relating to the safety assessment of T25 GM maize conducted under Directive 90/220/EEC. ACRE, Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK Government. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ACRE/advice/pdf/ACRE_advice20.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  140. UK ACRE (2004a) Advice on scientific issues concerning the proposed regime for the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (UK ACRE), Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK Government. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ACRE/advice/pdf/ACRE_advice56.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  141. UK ACRE (2004b) Guidance on best practice in the design of post-market monitoring plans in submissions to the advisory committee on releases to the environment. ACRE Guidance Note 16. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (UK ACRE), Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK Government. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ACRE/postmarket/ACRE_postmarketmonitor-guidance.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  142. UK ACRE (2006) Guidance on assessing the environmental impact of genetically modified crops on the soil environment. ACRE Guidance Note 17. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (UK ACRE), Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK Government. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ACRE/soilecology/ACRE_soilecology_guidance.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  143. UK ACRE (2007) Managing the footprint of agriculture: towards a comparative assessment of risks and benefits for novel agricultural systems. Report of the ACRE Sub-Group on Wider Issues raised by the Farm-Scale Evaluations of Herbicide Tolerant GM Crops, Revised after public consultation. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (UK ACRE), Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK Government, 3 May 2007. http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/acre/fsewiderissues/pdf/acre-wi-final.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  144. USA APHIS (1996) Guide for preparing and submitting a petition for genetically engineered plants. United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USA APHIS), USA. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/usergen8.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  145. USA EPA (1995) Plant pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis CryIIIA delta-endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production; tolerance exemption. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, May 3, 1995. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1995/May/Day-03/pr-243.html. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  146. USA EPA (1996a) Bacillus thuringiensis CryIA(b) delta-endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production in all plants; exemption from requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 61(150):40340–40343, August 2, 1996, http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1996/August/Day-02/pr-838.html. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  147. USA EPA (1997a) Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki CryIA(c) and the genetic material necessary for its production in all plants; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on all raw agricultural commodities. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 62(70):17720–17722, April 11, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1997/April/Day-11/p9376.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  148. USA EPA (1997b) Coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus and the genetic material necessary for its production; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 62(163):44575–44579, August 22, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1997/August/Day-22/p22393.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  149. USA EPA (1997c) Coat protein of papaya ringspot virus and the genetic material necessary for its production; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, Federal Register 62(163):44572–44575, August 22, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1997/August/Day-22/p22395.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  150. USA EPA (1997d) Coat protein of potato virus Y and the genetic material necessary for its production; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 62(158):43653–43657, August 15, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1997/August/Day-15/p21690.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  151. USA EPA (1997e) Coat proteins of watermelon mosaic virus-2 and zucchini yellow mosaic virus and the genetic material necessary for its production; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 62(163):44579–44582, August 22, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1997/August/Day-22/p22394.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  152. USA EPA (1998a) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA. EPA/630/R095/002F, 171 pp. http://www.cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  153. USA EPA (1998b) Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies tolworthi Cry9C protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 63(69):17687–17690, April 10, 1998. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1998/April/Day-10/p9245.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  154. USA EPA (1999a) EPA and USDA position paper on insect resistance management in Bt Crops 5/27/99 (minor revisions 7/12/99). Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA. http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/epa_irm.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  155. USA EPA (1999b) Potato leaf roll virus resistance gene (also known as orf1/orf2 gene); exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 64(51):13078–13080, March 17, 1999. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1999/March/Day-17/p6176.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  156. USA EPA (2000) Potato leaf roll virus resistance gene (also known as orf1/orf2 gene) (006469) fact sheet. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, April 2000. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006469.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  157. USA EPA (2001a) Exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for Residues of Nucleic Acids that are Part of Plant-Incorporated Protectants (Formerly Plant-Pesticides). Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 174, Federal Register 66(139):37817–37830, July 19, 2001. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/nucleic_acid_residues.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  158. USA EPA (2001b) Biopesticides registration action document – Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-incorporated protectants, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  159. US EPA (2001c) Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies Cry1F protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (Plasmid Insert PHI 8999) in (004681) Corn Fact Sheet, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, July 2001. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006481.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  160. USA EPA (2002a) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production (plasmid insert PHP 17662) in Event DAS-59122–7 corn & Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (plasmid insert PHI8999) in Event TC1507 corn (006490, 006481) Fact sheet, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, January 2002. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006481-006490.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  161. USA EPA (2002b) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in cotton (006487) Fact Sheet, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, December 2002. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006487.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  162. USA EPA (2004a) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2; amended exemption from requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 69(62):16819–16823, March 31, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2004/March/Day-31/p7076.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007Google Scholar
  163. USA EPA (2004b) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 96(62):16809–16814, March 31, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2004/March/Day-31/p6930.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007Google Scholar
  164. USA EPA (2005a) Environmental risk assessment of plant incorporated protectant (PIP) inert ingredients. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting, 6–8 December 2005, Attachment III. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2005/december/pipinertenvironmentalriskassessment11-18-05.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  165. USA EPA (2005b). Scientific issues associated with the human health assessment of the Cry34Ab1 protein. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting, 1–2 March 2005, Position Paper. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2005/march/positionpaper.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  166. USA EPA (2005c) Biopesticide registration action document. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F Corn Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/tech_docs/brad_006481.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  167. USA EPA (2005d) Biopesticides registration action document. Bacillus thuringiensis var. aizawai cry1F and the genetic material (From the Insert of Plasmid pGMA281) necessary for its production in cotton and Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki cry1Ac and the genetic material (From the Insert of Plasmid pMYC3006) necessary for its production in cotton. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/tech_docs/brad_006512-006513.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  168. USA EPA (2005e) Bacillus thuringiensis modified Cry3A Protein (mCry3A) and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn; temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA. Federal Register 70(65):17323–17327, April 6, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2005/April/Day-06/p6499.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  169. USA EPA (2005f) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production in corn; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 70(182):55254–55260, September 21, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2005/September/Day-21/p18582.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  170. USA EPA (2005g) Bacillus thuringiensis VIP3A protein and the genetic material necessary for its production; temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 40 CFR Part 180, Federal Register 70(81):21962–21966, April 28, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2005/April/Day-28/p8530.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  171. USA EPA (2005h) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (Vector ZMIR13L) in Event MON863 Corn (006484) fact sheet, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, May 2005. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006484.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  172. USA EPA (2005i) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (Vector ZMIR13L) in event MON 863 Corn & Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn (006430, 006484) fact sheet, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, May 2005. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006430-006484.htm Cited 14 Dec 2007
  173. USA EPA (2005j) Bacillus thuringiensis var. aizawai strain PS811 Cry1F insecticidal crystal protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (plasmid insert PHP12537) in Event DAS-06275-8 corn (006491) fact sheet, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, August 2005. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006491.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  174. USA EPA (2005k) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production (plasmid insert PHP 17662) in Event DAS-59122-7 corn (006490) fact sheet, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, September 2005. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006490.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  175. USA EPA (2005l) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production (Plasmid Insert PHP 17662) in event DAS-59122-7 corn, Biopesticides Registration Action Document, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, October 2005. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/tech_docs/brad_006490.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  176. USA EPA (2005m) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (Vector ZMIR39) in Event MON 88017 corn (OECD Unique Identifier: MON-88Ø17-3) (006502) and Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn (006430) fact sheet, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, December 2005. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006430-006502.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  177. USA EPA (2006) Modified Cry3A protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (via elements of pZM26) in event MIR604 corn SYN-IR604-8 (006509) fact sheet, Environmental Protection Agency (USA EPA), Washington, DC, USA, October 2006. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006509.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  178. USA FDA (2001) Guidance for industry: use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in transgenic plants. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (USA FDA), Maryland, USA. September 4, 1998 (Effective June 18, 2001). http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-armg.html. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  179. USA FDA (2002) Evaluation of allergenicity of proteins introduced into bioengineered foods. Discussion paper. http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/ac/02/briefing/3886b1_Discussion%20Paper%20Allergenicity.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  180. USA IOM (2000) Dietary reference intakes. Applications in dietary assessments. A Report of the Subcommittee on Interpretation and Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes and the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine (IOM). Washington, DC, USA, 289 pp. http://www.fermat.nap.edu/catalog/9956.html. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  181. USA National Research Council (2004). Safety of genetically engineered foods: approaches to assessing unintended health effects. Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health, USA National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., USA. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309092094/html/. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  182. USA SOT (2002) Society of toxicology position paper on the safety of foods produced through biotechnology. Society of Toxicology (USA SOT), Virginia, USA. http://www.toxicology.org/ai/gm/GM_Food.doc. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  183. USDA, NRCS (2005) The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. Data compiled from various sources by Mark W. Skinner, National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. http://www.plants.usda.gov. Cited 25 Jul 2006
  184. UNEP (1995) International technical guidelines for safety in biotechnology. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Geneva, Switzerland, 31 pp. http://www.unep.ch/biosafety/development/devdocuments/Techguidelines.pdf. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  185. Van den Eede G, Aarts H, Buhk H-J, Corthier G, Flint HJ, Hammes W, Jacobsen B, Midvedt T, Van der Vossen J, von Wright A, Wackernagel W, Wilcks A (2004) The relevance of gene transfer to the safety of food and feed derived from GM plants. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1127–1156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Vandepoele K, Van de Peer Y (2005) Exploring the plant transcriptome through phylogenetic profiling. Plant Physiol 137:31–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Viitanen PV, Devine AL, Khan MS, Deuel DL, Van Dyk DE, Daniell H (2004) Metabolic engineering of the chloroplast genome using the Echerichia coli ubiC gene reveals that chorismate is a readily abundant plant precursor for p-hydroxybenzoic acid biosynthesis. Plant Physiol 136:4048–4060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Warwick SI, Légère A, Imard M-JS, James T (2007) Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population. Mol Ecol (OnlineEarly Articles). doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03567.x
  189. Widmer F, Seidler RJ, Donegan KK, Reed GL (1997) Quantification of transgenic plant marker gene persistence in the field. Mol Ecol 6:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Wilkinson MJ, Ford CS (2007) Estimating the potential for ecological harm from gene flow to crop wild relatives. Collection of Biosafety Reviews, ICGEB, Trieste, Italy, 3, pp 42–63. http://www.icgeb.org/biosafety/publications.htm. Cited 14 Dec 2007
  191. Wilkinson MJ, Davenport IJ, Charters YM, Jones AE, Allainguillaume J, Butler HT, Mason DC, Raybould AF (2000) A direct regional scale estimate of transgene movement from genetically modified oilseed rape to its wild progenitors. Mol Ecol 9:983–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Wilkinson MJ, Sweet J, Poppy GM (2003a) Risk assessment of GM plants: avoiding gridlock? Trends Plant Sci 8(5):208–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Wilkinson MJ, Elliott LJ, Allainguillaume J, Shaw MW, Norris C, Welters R, Alexander M, Sweet J, Mason DC (2003b) Hybridization between Brassica napus and B. rapa on a national scale in the United Kingdom. Science 302:457–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Wu K (2007) Monitoring and management strategy for Helicoverpa armigera resistance to Bt cotton in China. J Invertebr Pathol 95:220–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Zanger AR, McKenna D, Wraight CL, Carroll M, Ficarello P, Warner R, Berenbaum MR (2001) Effects of exposure to event 176 Bacillus thuringiensis corn pollen on monarch and black swallowtail caterpillars under field conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(21):11908–11912CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy Craig
    • 1
  • Mark Tepfer
    • 2
  • Giuliano Degrassi
    • 1
  • Decio Ripandelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Biosafety UnitInternational Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB)TriesteItaly
  2. 2.Plant Virology GroupICGEB Biosafety OutstationCa’ Tron di RoncadeItaly

Personalised recommendations