Environmental Risk Assessment of GM Crops

Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Environmental Management (ICEM 2017) ISBN 978-93-86819-50-5

Environmental Risk Assessment of GM Crops Reddy,P.B1., and Bhawna Srivastava 1

Assoc. Professor. PG Department of Zoology, Government PG. College. Ratlam. M.P. [email protected] 2

Department of Zoology, DAV College, Kanpur _________________________________________________________________________ Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were first launched commercially in the 1990s. After two decades of creation, some scientific groups and individuals raised their concerns about possible adverse effects on human health and the environment. Concurrently, other groups are worried that the technology is not reaching to the society upto its potential to improve human health and the environment because of tough regulations and reduced public funding. Although the debate about these and other questions related to the GMOs of the first 20 years goes on, emerging genetic-engineering technologies are adding new difficulties to the conversation. This paper aimed to update earlier reports on environmental impacts connected with using agriculture biotechnology. It mainly focuses on the ecological impacts associated with changes in pesticide use and from the use of GM crops. Results reveal that the implementation of GM insect resistant and herbicide tolerant technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 618.7 million kg (−8.1%) and as a result, decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on these crops by18.6%. The technology has also helped significant reduction in fuel use, labour and tillage changes, ensuing in a noteworthy reduction in the release of greenhouse gas emissions which was equivalent to removing 11.9 million cars from the roads. This present research report identifies the possible uncertainties about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other impacts of GM crops and makes suggestions to fill gaps in safety assessments to increase regulatory clarity and to improve more innovations in GM technology. In conclusion, we support the science and there had been all the required tests to prove that GM crops are safe and a step towards food security. KEYWORDS: Biotech crops, Green house gases, food security, environmental impact, GMO. Introduction: To meet future food for ever growing population, herbal drugs, vaccines, and fiber without compromising ecological integrity is a primary challenge for scientists globally. With the decline of natural resources and escalating demands for food worldwide, an increase in agricultural productivity is a mandatory requirement to solve the problem of food security. Man has domesticated plants and animals since ancient times using artificial selection breeding techniques with desired traits (Driscoll, C.A., et al, 2009). Since ancient times human has selected native plants with desirable traits, cultivated and spread them as crops into new and different ecological environments. The succession of selective breeding, served as a precursor to the current concept of genetic alteration (Bednarik, R.G., 2015). However to create superior agricultural products by natural selection or selective breeding is very slow process. However, now it has become possible to avoid slow natural evolution with genetic engineering technology by introducing desired genes into plants and animals. The survival of such new genetically modified species is depending on its traits and adaptation to the new environment. More variation in genes leads to more individuals with positive traits to withstand harsh conditions. Further progressions in genetics allowed humans to modify the genes (DNA) of living organisms directly. Globally the use of transgenic crops has increased much rapidly during recent time. And at present they are grown for food in 31 countries and in 19 countries for feed (Reddy et al, 2013, Reddy, P.B. 2015, Aldemita, R.R et al, 2015, Reddy, P.B.2017). At present, farmers of various countries have widely adopted GM technology and it is growing day by day. The total area of land grown with GM crops increased by a factor of 100, from 17,000 square kilometers (4,200,000 acres) to 1,750,000 km2 (432 million acres) between 1996 and 2013 (James, C., 2015). In the US, 94% of the cultivated area of soybeans, 96% of cotton and 93% of corn were genetically modified varieties only (Key, S., et al, 2008). According to a report of International Service for the Acquisition (ISAAA) the present global Status of GM crops is approximately 185.1 million hectares (457.4 million acres) with an increase of 5.5 million hectares from the 179.7

887


million hectares planted in 2015 among which US was still a leader in GM crops (www.isaaa.org ). So, the genetic engineering technology is very much valuable to resolve global food security, malnutrition and climate change issues. A scientific environmental risk assessment (ERA) is conducted to evaluate for possible harmful effects of GMOs on human and animal health and the environment prior to commercialization. This detailed process has been described in a number of regulatory agencies worldwide like USDA-APHIS (CFR, 2008), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA, 1998), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA, 2012), and the European Union (EFSA, 2004). But, few researchers also believed that genetically engineered modifications may affect the genetic diversity of a population through crossbreeding or uncontrolled growth. Hence this subject has become the topic of interest today. The perceptive of this review article offers progressive awareness on the risk analysis and governance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), supporting effective and knowledgeable decision-making in developing countries. The major concerns mainly include mixing of GMOs and non-genetically modified products in the food supply (Devos, Y.,et al,2009), on the environment (Nap, J.P.,et al,2003, Gupta, R. and Singh, R.L., 2017) the strictness of the regulatory process, (Spök, A., et al,2008, Bernauer, T., 2016) and consolidation of control of the food supply in corporate companies that trade GMOs (Isaac, G.E. and Kerr, W.A., 2003). Many advocacy groups Greenpeace, still say risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and questioned the neutrality of rigid authorities. Methodology: The present research review is based on information from both national and international data base related to GMOs like ISAAA (www.isaaa.org),CERA(www.cera-gmc.org), the European database (www.euginius.eu) GMDD data base (Dong, W et al,2008) and GMO compass (www.gmo-compass.org). Individual searches were performed on various web-based and project databases containing information on environmental effects of GMOs. Information was also obtained from various blogs, press reports and articles addressing the GMOs in relation to environment. Results and Discussion: Public concerns: Results of our literature review clearly indicate public concerns that eating genetically modified food is harmful and risky (Bakshi, A., 2003, Bawa, A.S. and Anilakumar, K.R., 2013, Boccia, F. and Sarnacchiaro, P., 2015, Dinsmore, D.L., et al, 2017). The main activists in driving public perception of the harms of such food in the media include Jeffrey M. Smith, Dr. Oz, Oprah, and Bill Maher (Keith Kloor, (2012), organizations like Organic Consumers Association, Greenpeace Union of Concerned Scientists (www.gmfreeschools.org/). Various Muslim (Moosa, E.E., 2009) and Christian groups have raised concerns against GMO food. Few writers like Michael Pollan voiced concerns about GMO companies holding the intellectual property of the foods people depend on. The report of Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe project (PABE) found that the public is neither accepting nor rejecting GMOs (http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/). A 2009 review article concluded that antagonism to GMOs in Europe has been gradually decreasing (http://www.gmo-compass.org). Another poll of 2013 by The New York Times, demonstrated that 93% of Americans wanted labeling of GM food (Kopicki, A., 2013). Scientific publishing on the safety: Earlier to 2010, scientists cannot conduct research on commercial GM plants or seeds due to restrictive end-user agreements. Bur in 2009, the American Seed Trade Association approved to "allow public researchers larger freedom to study the effects of GM food crops."In, 1999, Nature published a first research paper on potential toxic effects of Bt maize on butterflies and environment (Rosi-Marshall, E., 2009) which produced a public chaos and demonstrations in many countries. However, several follow-up studies had concluded that ―Bt maize pollen are not toxic to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would come across in the fields. The major reasons for decline of monarchs are deforestation, parasitism, reduction the milkweed plants they depend on (https://geneticliteracyproject.org) or due to long distance migration (Gustafsson, K.M., et al, 2015). Nicolia A et al (2014) have reviewed 1,783 research papers published between 2002 and 2012 on genetically modified crops and food and not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops. Zdziarski et al (2014) examined published investigations of the histopathology of alimentary canal of rats that were fed with GM food. They recognized some complete errors in this area of the scientific literature. They also found lack of a unified approach and transparency in their methodology and results. Pollack, A (2016) examined over 1.000 studies over the previous 30 years, reviewed 700 written presentations submitted by involved bodies and heard 80 witnesses and concluded that GM foods are safe for human consumption and they could find no convincing evidence that they harm the neither environment nor wildlife. The official and

888


regulatory status of GM foods varies by country to country as few countries banning or restricting them, while others permitting them with extensively conflicting degrees of regulation. Allergenicity: Another prime concern of consumers is that consumption of GMO food might cause allergies (Bennett D .2006). A review of 2005 by Lehrer, S.B. et al, concluded that no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions. The supporters of GMOs claim that the amount of allergen or toxin in new plant variety is much smaller than from conventional breeding processes and it do not require any such tests. Genetic engineering has less impact on the expression of genomes or on protein and metabolite levels than conventional breeding or (non-directed) plant mutagenesis (Ricroch, A.E et al, 2011).Toxicologists also believes that "conventional food is also not risk-free and allergies can occur with many known and even new conventional foods (Bawa, A.S. and Anilakumar, K.R., 2013, Amani, B., 2015). Further, even genetic engineering can also be used to remove allergens from foods (Herman, E.M., 2003). Horizontal gene transfer (HGT): The impact of HGT from GMOs remains more controversial. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is the stable transfer of genes from one organism to another without reproduction or human interference. HGT has became a public issue in the 1970s through the natural spread of antibiotic resistance genes amongst pathogenic bacteria, and now with commercial production of genetically modified (GM) crops (Keese, P., 2008). But the occurrence of HGT from plants to other eukaryotes or prokaryotes is extremely low (Keese, P., 2008). Flachowsky, G et al, (2005) made a long term study to assess GMO's of the first generation. They carried out feeding and digestion experiments a variety of animals and found no significant differences in nutritional assessment between feeds from isogenic and transgenic plants of the first generation. Recombinant DNA from GMOs was not detected in any animal tissue or blood samples. In 2012, Zhang, L., et al reported that a specific microRNA from rice could be found at very little amounts in human and animal serum. However, Snow, J.W et al (2013), Witwer, K.W., et al (2013) and Tsatsakis, A.M., et al (2017) found no or insignificant transfer of plant microRNA into the any experimental organisms. One more concern is that the antibiotic resistance gene which commonly used as a marker in transgenic crops could be moved to harmful bacteria, creating resistant superbugs (Uzogara, S.G., 2000, Nelson, G.C., 2001, Dass, P., 2017). In 2004, a study involving human volunteers examined whether the transgene from GM soy would transfer to symbiotic bacteria that live in the human gut. In a study on humans, the transgene was detected in three peoples from a group of seven who had removed large intestines for medical reasons. But in volunteers with intact digestive system, the transgene did not survive (Netherwood, T., et al, 2004). In fact, the antibiotic resistance genes used in genetic engineering are also naturally found in many pathogens and antibiotics these genes present resistance to are not widely prescribed (Bakshi, A., 2003). Environment: GM crops can interact directly with organisms that feed on the crops and indirectly with other organisms through the food chain. The distribution of pollen from GMOs into the environment has raised the concerns on the environment. The possible effects include gene flow, pesticide resistance and greenhouse gas emissions. Impact on Non-target organisms The insect resistance in GM crops is mainly due the expression of the cry (crystal delta-endotoxins) and Vip (vegetative insecticidal proteins) genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) (Palma, L., et al, 2014). Antagonists argue that such endotoxins could have an effect on insects and other non targeted pests (Ibrahim, R.A. and Shawer, D.M., 2014). However, Kumar, S., et al (2008) found no harmful effects when applied Bt proteins as organic sprays as Cry proteins are selective and target only on Lepidoptera insects (Jisha, V.N., 2013). A meta-analysis by Wolfenbarger; L.L et al (2008) confirmed that the effects of pesticides were much higher than those of GM crops. A peer review of 2014 by Naranjo, S.E., also confirmed lack of direct impacts of Bt crops on non-target organisms. Various other research reports also clearly show that Bt crops are much better than the substitute use of chemical insecticides (Reddy, et al, 2013, Reddy, P.B.2015). A recent three year recent study of Héma, O.S., et al (2017) also could not find any adverse environmental impact of GM crops on the abundance of non target organisms compared to traditional insecticide sprays. Gene flow: It is the transfer of genetic material just like an endogenous gene from one population to another. GM opponents argue that genes from a GM crop may pass to another organism by the process of outcrossing and it can

889


occur in any fresh open pollinated crop variety. Consequently it can cross into adjoining plants of the same or closely related species through crop to crop, crop to-weedy, and crop to-wild and bring new traits (Lu, B.R. and Snow, A.A., 2005). Opponents argue that the transfer of genes from GMOs to native species could produce super weeds (Conner, A.J., et al,2003) that could spoil nearby traditional crops, or could interrupt the ecosystem (Buck E.H.,2011). Chilcutt and Tabashnik (2014) reported that pollen mediated gene flow from Bt maize caused low to moderate Bt toxin levels in kernels of non-Bt maize plants up to 31 m. Watrud LS, et al,(2004) acknowledged gene flow from creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) to within a relatives of the same genus (Agrostis) as well as in native grasses. The experiments of Lazebnik, J et al (2017) on transgenic potato on non-target aphids confirmed the gene flow to non-target aphids for the first generation only. But later on these effects were no longer evident in the second generation. In 2001, Quist, D. and Chapela, I.H. confirmed the presence of transgenic DNA in native maize grown in remote mountains in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nevertheless, their testimony has been defiled on methodological grounds and described it as a manipulated data and Nature journal denied to publish (Christou, Paul et al, 2002). Ortiz-García, S.,et al, (2005) conducted a large scale systematic survey of 870 maize plants in 125 fields and 18 localities in the state of Oaxaca during 2003 and 2004 and confirmed absence of gene flow in Oaxaca. A recent study by Hu, J et al (2017) confirmed that pollen and seed mediated gene flow from the Bt plants was significantly low under natural conditions. Conclusions: We conclude that the threats of GMOs to human health and environment are insignificant. The possible published harmful health effects of GM crops are very small and most of the concerns stated can also applied to traditional crops with equal strength. Then again, safety worries cannot be overlooked completely on the basis of current available information. The new gene technology must be inspected for promising benefits and risks to human health and the environment. We feel that there is no strong evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we maintain and recommend for further research and observation to provide practical evidence of safety and benefit. References: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12.

13.

890

Driscoll, C.A., Macdonald, D.W. and O'Brien, S.J., 2009. From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(Supplement 1), pp.9971-9978. Bednarik, R.G., 2015. Anthropology: Current and Future Developments: The First Mariners (Vol. 1). Bentham Science Publishers. Reddy, P.B.2015. Framing GM crops as a solution for global food security. Social Issues and Environmental Problems Vol.3, International Journal of Research – GRANTHAALAYAH,1-5. Reddy, P.B, R.K. Gujetiya and Piyush Bhatnagar.2013. GM Technology can Solve the World Food Crisis, Science Secure Journals, 2, 2, 36-40. Reddy, P.B.2017. Biodiversity and ecological Risk assessment for GM crops. Life Sciences International Research Journal Vol 4, Issue, 2, 45-50. Aldemita, R.R., Reaño, I.M.E., Solis, R.O. and Hautea, R.A., 2015. Trends in global approvals of biotech crops (1992–2014). GM crops & food, 6(3), pp.150-166. James, C., 2015. 20th anniversary (1996 to 2015) of the global commercialization of biotech crops and biotech crop highlights in 2015. ISAAA brief, 51. www.isaaa.org Key, S., Ma, J.K. and Drake, P.M., 2008. Genetically modified plants and human health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(6), pp.290-298. CFR (U.S. Code of Federal Regulations).2008. Introduction of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering which are plant pests or which there is reason to believe are plant pests. Title 7, Part 340. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Service).2012. Assessment criteria for determining environmental safety of plants with novel traits. CFIA, Ottawa. Directive 94-08, revised July 4, 2012. U.S. EPA. 2007. White paper on tier-based testing for the effects of proteinaceous insecticidal plantincorporated protectants in non-target arthropods for regulatory risk assessments. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Washington. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority).2004. Guidance document of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA J 99:1–94.


14. Devos, Y., Demont, M., Dillen, K., Reheul, D., Kaiser, M. and Sanvido, O., 2009. Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 29(1), pp.11-30. 15. Nap, J.P., Metz, P.L., Escaler, M. and Conner, A.J., 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. The Plant Journal, 33(1), pp.1-18. 16. Gupta, R. and Singh, R.L., 2017. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and environment. In Principles and Applications of Environmental Biotechnology for a Sustainable Future (pp. 425-465). Springer Singapore. 17. Spök, A., Twyman, R.M., Fischer, R., Ma, J.K. and Sparrow, P.A., 2008. Evolution of a regulatory framework for pharmaceuticals derived from genetically modified plants. Trends in biotechnology, 26(9), pp.506-517. 18. Bernauer, T., 2016. Genes, trade, and regulation: The seeds of conflict in food biotechnology. Princeton University Press. 19. Isaac, G.E. and Kerr, W.A., 2003. Genetically modified organisms at the World Trade Organization: a harvest of trouble. J. World Trade, 37, p.1083. 20. www.cera-gmc.org 21. www.euginius.eu 22. Dong, W., Yang, L., Shen, K., Kim, B., Kleter, G.A., Marvin, H.J., Guo, R., Liang, W. and Zhang, D., 2008. GMDD: a database of GMO detection methods. BMC bioinformatics, 9(1), p.260. 23. www.gmo-compass.org 24. Bakshi, A., 2003. Potential adverse health effects of genetically modified crops. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 6(3), pp.211-225 25. Bawa, A.S. and Anilakumar, K.R., 2013. Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a review. Journal of food science and technology, 50(6), pp.1035-1046. 26. Boccia, F. and Sarnacchiaro, P., 2015. Genetically modified foods and consumer perspective. Recent patents on food, nutrition & agriculture, 7(1), pp.28-34. 27. Dinsmore, D.L., Zoellner, B.P., Parkinson, M.M., Rossi, A.M., Monk, M.J. and Vinnachi, J., 2017. The effects of different types of text and individual differences on view complexity about genetically modified organisms. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), pp.791-813. 28. Keith Kloor | October 19, 2012. Liberals Turn a Blind Eye to Crazy Talk on GMOs, discovermagazine.com. 29. www.gmfreeschools.org/ 30. Moosa, E.E., 2009. Genetically modified foods and Muslim ethics. State University of New York. 31. http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe 32. Kopicki, A., 2013. Strong support for labeling modified foods. New York Times, 27. 33. Rosi-Marshall, E., 2009.GM crops: Battlefield. Nature 461, 27-32 34. https://geneticliteracyproject.org 35. Gustafsson, K.M., Agrawal, A.A., Lewenstein, B.V. and Wolf, S.A., 2015. The monarch butterfly through time and space: the social construction of an icon. BioScience, 65(6), pp.612-622. 36. Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F. and Rosellini, D., 2014. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical reviews in biotechnology, 34(1), pp.77-88. 37. Zdziarski, I.M., Edwards, J.W., Carman, J.A. and Haynes, J.I., 2014. GM crops and the rat digestive tract: a critical review. Environment international, 73, pp.423-433. 38. Pollack A (2016-05-17). "Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Finds". The New York Times. 39. Bennett D .2006. "Our allergies, ourselves". Boston Globe. 40. Lehrer, S.B. and Bannon, G.A., 2005. Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: perception and reality. Allergy, 60(5), pp.559-564. 41. Ricroch, A.E., Bergé, J.B. and Kuntz, M., 2011. Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiology, 155(4), pp.1752-1761 42. Bawa, A.S. and Anilakumar, K.R., 2013. Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a review. Journal of food science and technology, 50(6), pp.1035-1046. 43. Amani, B., 2015. Consuming ―DNA as Chemicals‖ and Chemicals as Food. Our Chemical Selves: Gender, Toxics, and Environmental Health, p.142. 44. Herman, E.M., 2003. Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies. Journal of Experimental Botany, 54(386), pp.1317-1319.

891


45. Keese, P., 2008. Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer. Environmental Biosafety Research, 7(3), pp.123-149. 46. Flachowsky, G., Chesson, A. and Aulrich, K., 2005. Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 59(1), pp.1-40. 47. Zhang, L., Hou, D., Chen, X., Li, D., Zhu, L., Zhang, Y., Li, J., Bian, Z., Liang, X., Cai, X. and Yin, Y., 2012. Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA. Cell research, 22(1), p.107. 48. Snow, J.W., Hale, A.E., Isaacs, S.K., Baggish, A.L. and Chan, S.Y., 2013. Ineffective delivery of dietderived microRNAs to recipient animal organisms. RNA biology, 10(7), pp.1107-1116. 49. Witwer, K.W., McAlexander, M.A., Queen, S.E. and Adams, R.J., 2013. Real-time quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR for plant miRNAs in mammalian blood provide little evidence for general uptake of dietary miRNAs: limited evidence for general uptake of dietary plant xenomiRs. RNA biology, 10,(7), pp.1080-1086. 50. Tsatsakis, A.M., Nawaz, M.A., Kouretas, D., Balias, G., Savolainen, K., Tutelyan, V.A., Golokhvast, K.S., Lee, J.D., Yang, S.H. and Chung, G., 2017. Environmental impacts of genetically modified plants: A review. Environmental Research. 51. Uzogara, S.G., 2000. The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: A review. Biotechnology advances, 18(3), pp.179-206.Tsatsakis, A.M., Nawaz, M.A., Kouretas, D., Balias, G., Savolainen, K., Tutelyan, V.A., Golokhvast, K.S., Lee, J.D., Yang, S.H. and Chung, G., 2017. Environmental impacts of genetically modified plants: A review. Environmental Research. 52. Nelson, G.C., 2001. Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: economics and politics. Academic press. 53. Dass, P., 2017. Analyses of People's Perceptions Toward Risks in Genetically Modified Organisms (Doctoral dissertation, North Dakota State University). 54. Netherwood, T., Martín-Orúe, S.M., O'Donnell, A.G., Gockling, S., Graham, J., Mathers, J.C. and Gilbert, H.J., 2004. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nature biotechnology, 22(2), p.204. 55. Bakshi, A., 2003. Potential adverse health effects of genetically modified crops. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 6(3), pp.211-225. 56. Palma, L., Muñoz, D., Berry, C., Murillo, J. and Caballero, P., 2014. Bacillus thuringiensis toxins: an overview of their biocidal activity. Toxins, 6(12), pp.3296-3325. 57. Ibrahim, R.A. and Shawer, D.M., 2014. Transgenic Bt-Plants and the Future of Crop Protection (An Overview). International Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 3(1). 58. Kumar, S., Chandra, A. and Pandey, K.C., 2008. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) transgenic crop: an environment friendly insect-pest management strategy. J Environ Biol, 29(5), pp.641-653. 59. Jisha, V.N., Smitha, R.B. and Benjamin, S., 2013. An overview on the crystal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis. Advances in Microbiology, 3(05), p.462. 60. Wolfenbarger, L.L., Naranjo, S.E., Lundgren, J.G., Bitzer, R.J. and Watrud, L.S., 2008. Bt crop effects on functional guilds of non-target arthropods: a meta-analysis. PLoS One, 3(5), p.e.2118. 61. Naranjo, S.E., 2014. Effects of GM crops on non-target organisms. In Plant Biotechnology (pp. 129-142). Springer International Publishing. 62. Héma, O.S., Ouédraogo, I., Traoré, O., Zagré, B.K. and Ouattara, D., 2017. Assessment of the effects of transgenic Bt cotton Bollgard II on the abundance of nontarget arthropods in Burkina Faso. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 63. Lu, B.R. and Snow, A.A., 2005. Gene flow from genetically modified rice and its environmental consequences. AIBS Bulletin, 55(8), pp.669-678. 64. Conner, A.J., Glare, T.R. and Nap, J.P., 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. The Plant Journal, 33(1), pp.19-46. 65. Buck E.H .2011. "Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood: Environmental Concerns." (Congressional Research Service.

892


66. Chilcutt, C.F. and Tabashnik, B.E., 2004. Contamination of refuges by Bacillus thuringiensis toxin genes from transgenic maize. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(20), pp.7526-7529. 67. Watrud LS, Lee E.H, Fairbrother A, Burdick C, Reichman J.R, Bollman M, Storm M, King G, Van de Water P.K.2004. Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 101,(40): 14533–8. 68. Lazebnik, J., Arpaia, S., Baldacchino, F., Banzato, P., Moliterni, S., Vossen, J.H., van de Zande, E.M. and van Loon, J.J., 2017. Effects of a genetically modified potato on a non-target aphid are outweighed by cultivar differences. Journal of pest science, 90(3), pp.855-864. 69. Quist, D. and Chapela, I.H., 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature, 414(6863), p.541. 70. Christou, Paul, 2002. No Credible Scientific Evidence is Presented to Support Claims that Transgenic DNA was Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico". Transgenic Research 11, 2002. (1): 3–5). 71. Ortiz-García, S., Ezcurra, E., Schoel, B., Acevedo, F., Soberón, J. and Snow, A.A., 2005. Reply to Cleveland et al.’s ―Detecting (trans) gene flow to landraces in centers of crop origin: lessons from the case of maize in Mexico‖. Environmental Biosafety Research, 4(4), pp.209-215. 72. Hu, J., Zhang, J., Chen, X., Lv, J., Jia, H., Zhao, S. and Lu, M., 2017. An Empirical Assessment of Transgene Flow from a Bt Transgenic Poplar Plantation. PloS one, 12(1), p.e0170201.

893