Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops

  • Alan Raybould (a1)

Abstract

Environmental risk assessments can provide high confidence of minimal risk by testing theories, “risk hypotheses”, that predict the likelihood of unacceptable harmful events. The creation of risk hypotheses and a plan to test them is called problem formulation. Effective problem formulation seeks to maximize the possibility of detecting effects that indicate potential risk; if such effects are not detected, minimal risk is indicated with high confidence. Two important implications are that artificial test conditions can increase confidence, whereas prescriptive data requirements can reduce confidence (increase uncertainty) if they constrain problem formulation. Poor problem formulation can increase environmental risk because it leads to the collection of superfluous data that may delay or prevent the introduction of environmentally beneficial products.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
[1] Cross, FB (1996) Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Wash. L. Law Rev. 53: 851925
[2] Estruch, JJ, Warren, GW, Mullins, MA, Nye, GJ, Craig, JA, Koziel, MG (1996) Vip3A, a novel Bacillus thuringiensis vegetative insecticidal protein with a wide spectrum of activities against lepidopteran insects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93: 53895394
[3] European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (2003) Environmental risk assessment scheme for plant protection products. EPPO Bull. 33: 133-114
[4] Garcia-Alonso, M, Jacobs, E, Raybould, A, Nickson, TE, Sowig, P, Willekens, H, van der Kouwe, P, Layton, R, Amijee, F, Fuentes, AM, Tencalla, F (2006) A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms. Environ. Biosafety Res. 5: 57-65
[5] Giles, J (2003) Biosafety trials darken outlook for transgenic crops in Europe. Nature 425: 751
[6] Gray, AJ (2004) Ecology and government policies: the GM crop debate. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 1-10
[7] Green, RE, Cornell, SJ, Scharlemann, JPW, Balmford, A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307: 550-555
[8] Groot, AT, Dicke, M (2001) Insect-resistant transgenic plants in a multi-trophic context. Plant J. 31: 387-406
[9] Hill, RA, Sendashonga, C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: Lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2: 81-88
[10] James, C (2003) Global review of commercialized transgenic crops. Curr. Sci. 84: 303-309
[11] Johnson, KL, Raybould, AF, Hudson, MD, Poppy, GM (2007) How does scientific risk assessment of GM crops fit within the wider risk analysis? Trends Plant Sci. 12: 1-5
[12] Kuiper, HA, Kleter, GA, Noteborn, HP, Kok, EJ (2002) Substantial equivalence – an appropriate paradigm for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods? Toxicology 181-182: 427-431
[13] Magee B (1985) Popper. Fontana Press, London
[14] Mendelsohn, M, Kough, J, Vaituzis, Z, Matthews, K (2003) Are Bt crops safe? Nature Biotech. 21: 1003-1009
[15] Miller HI, Conko G (2004) The Frankenfood Myth. Praeger, Westport, CT
[16] Naranjo, SE, Head, G, Dively, GP (2005) Field studies assessing arthropod nontarget effects in Bt transgenic crops: introduction. Environ. Entomol. 34: 1178-1180
[17] Okubara, PA, Blechl, AE, McCormick, SP, Alexander, NJ, Dill-Macky, R, Hohn, TM (2002) Engineering deoxynivalenol metabolism in wheat through the expression of a fungal trichothecene acetyltransferase gene. Theor. Appl. Genet. 106: 74-83
[18] Patton, DE (1998) Environmental risk assessment: tasks and obligations. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 4: 657-670
[19] Peters RH (1991) A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
[20] Popper KR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London
[21] Power, M, Adams, SM (1997) Perspectives of the scientific community on the status of ecological risk assessment. Environ. Manag. 21: 803-830
[22] Raybould, AF (2004) A decade of gene flow research: improved risk assessments or missed opportunities? Aspect Appl. Biol. 74: 27-33
[23] Raybould, AF, Cooper, JI (2005) 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: 125-140
[24] Raybould AF, Wilkinson MJ (2005) Assessing the environmental risks of gene flow from genetically modified crops to wild relatives. In Poppy GM, Wilkinson MJ, eds, Gene Flow from GM Plants. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 169-185
[25] Romeis, J, Meissle, M, Bigler, F (2006) Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biological control. Nature Biotech. 24: 63-71
[26] Schnepf, E, Crickmore, N, Van Rie, J, Lereclus, D, Baum, J, Feitelson, J, Ziegler, DR, Dean, DH (1998) Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62: 775806
[27] 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: 11937-11942
[28] Squire GR, Brooks DR, Bohan DA, Champion GT, Daniels RE, Haughton AJ, Hawes C, Heard MS, Hill MO, May MJ, Osborne JL, Perry JN, Roy DB, Woiwood IP, Firbank LG (2003) On the rationale and interpretation of the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond B 358: 1779-1799
[29] Stern PC, Fineberg HV, eds (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
[30] Suter, GW (1990) Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments. Environ. Manage. 14: 9-23
[31] Touart, LW, Maciorowski, AF (1997) Information needs for pesticide registration in the United States. Ecol. Appl. 7: 1086-1093
[32] US Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Fed. Regist. 63: 26846-26924
[33] US Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Regulations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act for Plant-Incorporated Protectants (formerly Plant-Pesticides) Fed. Regist. 66: 37772-37817
[34] Wolt, JD, Peterson, RKD (2000) Agricultural biotechnology and societal decision-making: the role of risk analysis. AbBioForum 3: 39-46
[35] Wu, F, Miller, DJ, Casman, EA (2004) The economic impact of Bt corn resulting from mycotoxins reduction. J. Toxicol. Toxin Rev. 23: 397-424

Keywords

Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops

  • Alan Raybould (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed