Cited by 80Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchInsect Resistance and GeneticsAgricultural safety and regulations

Is the German suspension of MON810 maize cultivation scientifically justified?

Open access
Ricroch, Agnès, Bergé, Jean Baptiste, Kuntz, Marcel·2010·Transgenic Research

Abstract

We examined the justifications invoked by the German government in April 2009 to suspend the cultivation of the genetically modified maize varieties containing the Bt insect-resistance trait MON810. We have carried out a critical examination of the alleged new data on a potential environmental impact of these varieties, namely two scientific papers describing laboratory force-feeding trials on ladybirds and daphnia, and previous data on Lepidoptera, aquatic and soil organisms. We demonstrate that the suspension is based on an incomplete list of references, ignores the widely admitted case-by-case approach, and confuses potential hazard and proven risk in the scientific procedure of risk assessment. Furthermore, we did not find any justification for this suspension in our extensive survey of the scientific literature regarding possible effects under natural field conditions on non-target animals. The vast majority of the 41 articles published in 2008 and 2009 indicate no impact on these organisms and only two articles indicate a minor effect, which is either inconsistent during the planting season or represents an indirect effect. Publications from 1996 to 2008 (376 publications) and recent meta-analyses do not allow to conclude on consistent effects either. The lower abundance of some insects concerns mainly specialized enemies of the target pest (an expected consequence of its control by Bt maize). On the contrary, Bt maize have generally a lower impact than insecticide treatment. The present review demonstrates that the available meta-knowledge on Cry1Ab expressing maize was ignored by the German government which instead used selected individual studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11248-009-9297-5

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is likely that those unexpected results are artifacts, probably resulting from problems in study design.

    “It is thus likely that those results are artifacts, probably resulting from problems in study design (EFSA, 2009;Rauschen, 2010;Ricroch et al., 2010;Romeis et al., 2013aRomeis et al., , 2014b)).”

    From Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control (2019) · cites this paper as Ricroch et al., 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Burel F, Allsopp N, Ricroch A, Baudry A (2009) Research programmes in ecology. In: Burel F (ed) Plurality of science for interdisciplinarity and policy making. Theoretical findings from analyses of sustainable development in agriculture. Bentham E-book, Paris (in press)
  2. Davies HTO, Nutley SM (2001) Evidence-based policy and practice: moving from rhetoric to reality. In: Proceedings of the third international Interdisciplinary Evidence-based Policies and Indicator Systems Conference, pp 86–95

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ricroch, A., Bergé, J. B., & Kuntz, M.
Affiliations
  • Université Paris-Sud (FR)
  • Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Kuntz, Marcel
Venue
Transgenic Research
Published
2009-06-23
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
1-12
ISSN
  • 0962-8819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-9368
OpenAlex
W2115900199
Cited by
80
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 19
FWCI
16.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Transgenic Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
Keywords
MON810 maize, Bt maize, genetically modified crops, risk assessment, non-target organisms, Daphnia, Lepidoptera, soil organisms, Cry1Ab, insecticide comparison, meta-analysis, scientific evidence review
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Animals, Animal Feed, Zea mays, Daphnia, Ecology, Expert Testimony, Germany, Lepidoptera, Pest Control, Biological, Risk Assessment, Plants, Genetically Modified, Government Regulation, Ecotoxicology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review