Cited by 23Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchAgricultural safety and regulationsInsect Resistance and Genetics

Assessment of unanticipated unintended effects of genetically modified plants on non-target organisms: a controversy worthy of pursuit?

Open access
Devos, Y., Álvarez‐Alfageme, F., Gennaro, A., Mestdagh, S.·2016·Journal of Applied Entomology

Abstract

Abstract A typical risk hypothesis addressed during the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of genetically modified (GM) plants for cultivation is that the novel traits intentionally introduced into GM plants do not adversely affect non‐target organisms (NTOs). However, genetic modification may potentially also lead to unintended changes in the GM plant which could raise safety concerns. Therefore, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) advocates the characterization of ecological interactions between the GM plant and representative NTOs as part of the ERA of GM plants for cultivation in the European Union. Yet, this requirement is not unanimously accepted by stakeholders. Here, we present EFSA's approach to assess potential adverse effects on NTOs and summarize some of the stakeholders' views, mostly opposing EFSA's position on scientific grounds.

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 · 10.1111/jen.12248

Cites

70 of 70 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?

  • The data available do not support the proposal that in-planta studies are needed to fully assess Bt-plant effects on natural enemies.

    “Thus, the data available do not support the proposal by some scientists (Arpaia et al., 2017) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (EFSA, 2010) that in-planta studies are needed to fully assess the Bt-plant effects on natural enemies (see Devos et al., 2016 for detailed discussion).”

    From Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control (2019) · cites this paper as Devos et al., 2016

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Devos, Y., Álvarez‐Alfageme, F., Gennaro, A., & Mestdagh, S.
Affiliations
European Food Safety Authority (IT)
Corresponding author
Devos, Y.
Venue
Journal of Applied Entomology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06-23
Volume
140
Issue
1-2
Pages
1-10
ISSN
  • 0931-2048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-0418
OpenAlex
W1963020758
Cited by
23
References
70
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Applied Entomology (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Food Safety Authority
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
Keywords
transgenic plants, non-target organisms, unintended consequences, environmental risk assessment, EFSA, ecological interactions, biosafety

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