Peer reviewed ASK-FORCE AF-8 Contribution Klaus Ammann, em. Prof. University of Bern, Switzerland
1. The Claim
Lovei, G. L., D. A. Andow and S. Arpaia (2009). “Transgenic Insecticidal Crops and Natural Enemies: A Detailed Review of Laboratory Studies.” Environmental Entomology 38: 293-306.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/envent/2009/00000038/00000002/art00001
“This review uses a data-driven, quantitative method to summarize the published, peer-reviewed literature about the impact of genetically modified (GM) plants on arthropod natural enemies in laboratory experiments. The method is similar to meta-analysis, and, in contrast to a simple author-vote counting method used by several earlier reviews, gives an objective, data-driven summary of existing knowledge about these effects. Significantly more non-neutral responses were observed than expected at random in 75% of the comparisons of natural enemy groups and response classes. These observations indicate that Cry toxins and proteinase inhibitors often have non-neutral effects on natural enemies. This synthesis identifies a continued bias toward studies on a few predator species, especially the green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea Stephens, which may be more sensitive to GM insecticidal plants (16.8% of the quantifed parameter responses were significantly negative) than predators in general (10.9% significantly negative effects without C. carnea). Parasitoids were more susceptible than predators to the effects of both Cry toxins and proteinase inhibitors, with fewer positive effects (18.0%, significant and non-significant positive effects combined) than negative ones (66.1%, significant and non-significant negative effects combined). GM plants can have a positive effect on natural enemies (4.8% of responses were significantly positive), although significant negative (21.2%) effects were more common. Although there are data on 48 natural enemy species, the database is still far from adequate to predict the effect of a Bt toxin or proteinase inhibitor on natural enemies”.
(Lovei et al., 2009).
2. Comments by Shelton et al.
Shelton, A., Naranjo, S., Romeis, J., Hellmich, R., Wolt, J., Federici, B., Albajes, R., Bigler, F., Burgess, E., Dively, G., Gatehouse, A., Malone, L., Roush, R., Sears, M., & Sehnal, F. (2009)
Setting the record straight: a rebuttal to an erroneous analysis on transgenic insecticidal crops and natural enemies. Transgenic Research, 18, 3, pp 317-322
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-009-9260-5 open access AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Bt/Shelton-Setting-Record-Straight-Lovei-2009.pdf
In a nearly unprecedented speed (Lovei et al., 2009) has been rebutted sharply by (Shelton et al., 2009), a worldwide consortium of specialists on research of non-target insects related to Bt crops: In an unusual straightforward text they criticize heavily the previous publication, and the author of this study agrees fully: it is time to recognize that such studies, even when published in peer reviewed journals, do not help to progress scientific risk assessment of GM crops, on the contrary, they hinder future developments by providing to highly questionable arguments a scientific aura. The pitfalls are not easy to see, due to the complexity of the matter (food webs of parasitoid insects and their prey over development and time). For lay persons, politicians and even regulators it is difficult to develop a critical view and to distinguish junk science from high quality papers.
“As scientists involved in risk assessment of transgenic insecticidal plants, we are greatly concerned about the publication by (Lovei et al., 2009) implying that insect-protected crops based on the Cry proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis may have substantial negative impacts on non-target organisms. We believe that (Lovei et al., 2009) use inappropriate and unsound methods for risk assessment that have led them to reach conclusions that are in conflict with those of several recent comprehensive reviews and metaanalyses (e.g., (Marvier et al., 2007; Naranjo, 2009; O’Callaghan et al., 2005; Romeis et al., 2006; Wolfenbarger et al., 2008). (Lovei et al., 2009) base their findings on an analysis of 55 laboratory studies of Cry proteins and 27 studies of proteinase inhibitors (PIs; including lectins) that were published through mid-2007 and conclude that these proteins ‘‘often have non-neutral effects on natural enemies’’. They further conclude that ‘‘parasitoids were more susceptible than predators to the effects of both (toxins)’’ and that ‘‘conclusions that Bt…gene products have no harm to natural enemies are currently over-generalized and premature’’. We are deeply concerned about the inappropriate methods used in their paper, the lack of ecological context, and the authors’ advocacy of how laboratory studies on non-target arthropods should be conducted and interpreted. Essentially, the authors have conducted a data-mining exercise without prior elaboration of a risk hypothesis framework (Romeis et al., 2008) that can provide context to their findings and interpretations. Therefore, we believe it is very important that readers consider the following points as they read (Lovei et al., 2009).”
for more text click: http://www.botanischergarten.ch/AF-8-Lovei/AF-8-Lovei-Non-Target-20090828-web.pdf
for feedback email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
