Cited by 90Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyAgricultural safety and regulations

Genetically modified crops and aquatic ecosystems: considerations for environmental risk assessment and non-target organism testing

Open access
Carstens, Keri, Anderson, Jennifer, Bachman, Pamela, De Schrijver, Adinda, Dively, Galen, Federici, Brian, Hamer, Mick, Gielkens, Marco +6 more·2012·Transgenic Research

Abstract

Environmental risk assessments (ERA) support regulatory decisions for the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops. The ERA for terrestrial agroecosystems is well-developed, whereas guidance for ERA of GM crops in aquatic ecosystems is not as well-defined. The purpose of this document is to demonstrate how comprehensive problem formulation can be used to develop a conceptual model and to identify potential exposure pathways, using Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize as a case study. Within problem formulation, the insecticidal trait, the crop, the receiving environment, and protection goals were characterized, and a conceptual model was developed to identify routes through which aquatic organisms may be exposed to insecticidal proteins in maize tissue. Following a tiered approach for exposure assessment, worst-case exposures were estimated using standardized models, and factors mitigating exposure were described. Based on exposure estimates, shredders were identified as the functional group most likely to be exposed to insecticidal proteins. However, even using worst-case assumptions, the exposure of shredders to Bt maize was low and studies supporting the current risk assessments were deemed adequate. Determining if early tier toxicity studies are necessary to inform the risk assessment for a specific GM crop should be done on a case by case basis, and should be guided by thorough problem formulation and exposure assessment. The processes used to develop the Bt maize case study are intended to serve as a model for performing risk assessments on future traits and crops.

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/s11248-011-9569-8

Cites

124 of 124 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?

  • Bt protein concentrations in aquatic systems are expected to be very low due to a huge dilution effect of running water.

    “Bt protein concentrations in aquatic systems, however, are expected to be very low due to a huge dilution effect of the running water (Carstens et al., 2012;Tank et al., 2010).”

    From Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control (2019) · cites this paper as Carstens et al., 2012

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

2 of the 126 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mayer PM Reynolds SK Jr Canfield TJ McCutchen MD Riparian buffer width, vegetative cover, and nitrogen removal effectiveness: a review of current science and regulations 2005 Cincinnati USEPA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carstens, K., Anderson, J., Bachman, P., De Schrijver, A., Dively, G., Federici, B., Hamer, M., Gielkens, M., Jensen, P., Lamp, W., Rauschen, S., Ridley, G., Romeis, J., & Waggoner, A.
Affiliations
  • Pioneer Hi-Bred (US)
  • Monsanto (United States) (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • Syngenta (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (NL)
  • RWTH Aachen University (DE)
  • Agroscope (CH)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
Corresponding author
Carstens, Keri
Venue
Transgenic Research
Published
2011-11-26
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
813-842
ISSN
  • 0962-8819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-9368
OpenAlex
W2035236210
Cited by
90
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
8.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Transgenic Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Australian Government
  • Attorney-General's Department, Australian Government
  • National Agricultural Statistics Service
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
Keywords
genetically modified crops, aquatic ecosystems, environmental risk assessment, non-target organisms, Bacillus thuringiensis, Bt maize, insecticidal proteins, problem formulation, conceptual model, exposure pathways, shredders, exposure assessment, tiered risk assessment, aquatic invertebrates
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacillus thuringiensis, Butterflies, Zea mays, Environment, Humans, Research Design, Risk Assessment, Plants, Genetically Modified, Hydrobiology

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