Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2008;5:27–39. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0_2

How Governmental Regulation Can Help or Hinder the Integration of Bt Crops within IPM Programs

Sharlene R Matten 4,✉, Graham P Head 5, Hector D Quemada 6
Editors: Jörg Romeis1, Anthony M Shelton2, George G Kennedy3
PMCID: PMC7120821

Abstract

Regulatory risk assessments are an important part of the introduction of insect-resistant genetically modified (GM) crops (e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis [Bt] crops) into the environment to ensure the safe use of such products. In doing so, the regulatory assessment process can be clearly beneficial to integrated pest management (IPM) programs. In general, the regulatory framework for insect-resistant GM crops includes an assessment of the following: effects of the insecticidal trait on non-target organisms, other potential adverse environmental impacts, evolution of resistance to target pests, and environmental and agronomic benefits of the insecticidal trait. Each country’s regulatory system is dependent on the overall environmental risk management goals, relevant and available risk information, scientific capacity, and the available financial resources. A number of regulatory activities can help to ensure that new products such as Bt crops fit well within IPM programs: (1) evaluation of the environmental safety of new products, and their ability to enhance IPM; (2) encouragement of the adoption of new technologies with improved environmental safety profiles; (3) adoption of an expedited regulatory review system; and (4) encouragement and appropriate oversight of sustainable use of such products. Governmental regulation of insect-resistant GM crops can also hinder IPM programs by creating significant barriers to the adoption of such technologies. Such barriers include: (1) absence of functioning regulatory systems in many developing countries; (2) meeting the obligations and understanding the various interpretations of international treaties, e.g., Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; (3) lack of public sector research to generate data supporting the safety of these crops; and (4) regulatory costs involved in the development and commercialization of novel products for small market sectors. Ways in which regulatory data requirements can be globally harmonized need to be considered to decrease the regulatory barriers for insect-resistant GM crops and comparable technologies. International organizations can play a key role in rationalizing regulatory systems; however, public sector research will also be needed to make sure that the risk assessment process is scientifically sound and transparent.

Keywords: Integrate Pest Management, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Genetically Modify Crop, Integrate Pest Management Program, Fall Armyworm

Contributor Information

Jörg Romeis, Email: joerg.romeis@art.admin.ch.

Anthony M. Shelton, Email: ams5@cornell.edu

George G. Kennedy, Email: George_Kennedy@ncsu.edu

Sharlene R. Matten, Email: Matten.Sharlene@epamail.epa.gov

References

  1. Anonymous, 2003. Efficacy evaluation of plant protection products. PP1/123(2) Resistance Risk Analysis. EPPO Bulletin 33: 37–63.
  2. Bambawale O, Singh A, Sharma O, Bhosle B, Lavekar R, Dhandapani A, Kanwar V, Tanwar R, Rathod K, Patange N, Pawar V. Performance of Bt cotton (MECH-162) under Integrated Pest Management in farmers’ participatory field trial in Nanded district, Central India. Current Science. 2004;86:1628–1633. [Google Scholar]
  3. Berwald D, Matten S, Widawsky D. Economic analysis and regulating pesticide biotechnology at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In: Just RE, Alston JM, Zilberman D, editors. Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy. New York, USA: Springer; 2006. pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic and environmental effects in the first ten years of commercial use. AgBioForum. 2006;9:139–151. [Google Scholar]
  5. Carpenter, J., Felsot, A., Goode, T., Hammig, M., Onstad, D., and Sankula, S., 2002. Comparative environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soybean, corn, and cotton crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Ames, IA, USA. http://www.cast-science.org.
  6. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
  7. Cattaneo MG, Yafuso C, Schmidt C, Huang C, Rahman M, Olson C, Ellers-Kirk C, Orr BJ, Marsh SE, Antilla L, Dutilleul P, Carrière Y. Farm-scale evaluation of transgenic cotton impacts on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2006;103:7571–7576. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0508312103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. European Community (EC) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities L. 2001;106:1–39. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and Caswell, M., 2006. The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Economic Information Bulletin Number 11, April 2006. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publishers/eib11 (accessed 26 December 2007).
  10. Glaser JA, Matten SR. Sustainability of insect resistance management strategies for transgenic Bt corn. Biotechnology Advances. 2003;22:45–69. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2003.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gonsalves, D., Manshardt, R., and Yepes, M., 1996. Petition for Determination of Regulatory Status. Transgenic Papaya Lines 55–1 and 63–1 and Their Derivatives. USDA Petition 96–051-01p. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/96_05101p.pdf (accessed 1 December 2007).
  12. Gould F. Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: integrating pest genetics and ecology. Annual Review of Entomology. 1998;43:701–726. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gressel J, Hanafi A, Head G, Marasas W, Obilana AB, Ochanda J, Souissi T, Tzotzos G. Major heretofore intractable biotic constraints to African food security may be amenable to novel biotechnological solutions. Crop Protection. 2004;23:661–689. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2003.11.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Health Canada, 1999. Voluntary Pesticide Resistance-Management Labeling Based on Target Site/Mode of Action, DIR99–06. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/English/pdf/dir/dir9906-e.pdf (accessed 30 November 2007).
  15. James C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007. Ithaca, NY, USA: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  16. Johnson KL, Raybould AF, Hudson MD, Poppy GM. How does scientific risk assessment of GM crops fit within the wider risk analysis? Trends in Plant Sciences. 2007;12:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2006.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kalaitzandonakes N, Alston J, Bradford K. Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops. In: Just RE, Alston JM, Zilberman D, editors. Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy. New York, USA: Springer; 2006. pp. 37–57. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kalaitzandonakes N, Alston J, Bradford K. Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops. Nature Biotechnology. 2007;25:509–511. doi: 10.1038/nbt0507-509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kleter GA, Bhula R, Bodnaruk K, Carazo E, Felsot AS, Harris CA, Katayama A, Kuiper HA, Racke KD, Rubin B, Shevah Y, Stephenson GR, Tanaka K, Unsworth J, Wauchope RD, Wong SS. Altered pesticide use on transgenic crops and the associated general impact from an environmental perspective. Pest Management Science. 2007;63:1107–1115. doi: 10.1002/ps.1448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. MacDonald OC, Meakin I, Richardson DM. The role and impact of the regulator in resistance management. Proceedings of the 2003 BCPC International Congress–Crop Science and Technology. 2003;2:703–708. [Google Scholar]
  21. Matten, S.R., 2007. Review of Dow AgroScience’s (and Pioneer HiBred’s) Submission (dated 12 July 2007) Regarding Fall Armyworm Resistance to the Cry1F Protein Expressed in TC1507 Herculex® I Insect Protection Maize in Puerto Rico (EPA registrations 68467–2 and 29964–3). Memorandum from S.R. Matten, USEPA/OPP/BPPD to M. Mendelsohn, USEPA/OPP/BPPD, 24 August 2007.
  22. Matten SR, Reynolds AH. Current resistance management requirements for Bt cotton in the United States. Journal of New Seeds. 2003;5:137–178. doi: 10.1300/J153v05n02_04. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Matten SR, Hellmich RL, Reynolds AH. Current resistance management strategies for Bt corn in the United States. In: Koul O, Dhaliwal GS, editors. Transgenic Crop Production: Concepts and Strategies. New Delhi, India: Oxford/IBH Publishing; 2004. pp. 261–288. [Google Scholar]
  24. Naranjo S, Head G, Dively G. Field studies assessing arthropod nontarget effects in Bt transgenic crops: Introduction. Environmental Entomology. 2005;34:1178–1180. doi: 10.1603/0046-225X(2005)034[1178:FSAANE]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Obando-Rodriguez A, Garcia J, Garica J, Magana J, Garcia A. Bolligard gen. Cotton as an alternative for IPM in Delicias, Chihuahua, Mexico; Memphis, TN, USA: National Cotton Council of America; 1999. pp. 967–968. [Google Scholar]
  26. Raybould A. Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Science. 2007;173:589–602. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2007.09.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MMC, Hartley SE, Hellmich RL, Huesing JE, Jepson PC, Layton R, Quemada H, Raybould A, Rose RI, Schiemann J, Sears MK, Shelton AM, Sweet J, Vaituzis Z, Wolt JD. Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nature Biotechnology. 2008;26:203–208. doi: 10.1038/nbt1381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Rose, R.I., 2007. White Paper on Tier-Based Testing for the Effects of Proteinaceous Insecticidal Plant-Incorporated Protectants on Non-Target Arthropods for Regulatory Risk Assessments. USDA-APHIS and US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/NTO_White_Paper_1.pdf (accessed 1 December 2007).
  29. Sanvido O, Widmer F, Winzeler M, Bigler F. A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants. Environmental Biosafety Research. 2005;4:13–27. doi: 10.1051/ebr:2005008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F. Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: Ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Advances in Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology. 2007;107:235–278. doi: 10.1007/10_2007_048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Scorza, R., 2004. Application for Determination of Non-Regulatory Status for C5 (‘Honeysweet’) Plum (Prunus domestica L.) Resistant to Plum Pox Virus. USDA Petition 04–264-01p. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/04_26401p.pdf (accessed 1 December 2007).
  32. Shelton AM. Considerations on the use of transgenic crops for insect control. Journal of Developmental Studies. 2007;43:890–900. doi: 10.1080/00220380701384562. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Tabashnik BE, Carrière Y, Dennehy TJ, Morin S, Sisterson M, Roush RT, Shelton AM, Zhao J-Z. Insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops: lessons from the laboratory and field. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2003;96:1031–1038. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-96.4.1031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Thompson GD, Head G. Implications of regulating insect resistance management. American Entomologist. 2001;47:6–10. [Google Scholar]
  35. Thomson JA. The role of biotechnology for agricultural sustainability in Africa. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2008;363:905–913. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2001a. Biopesticides Registration Action Document: Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants (10/16/01), posted at http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad.htm (accessed 30 November 2007).
  37. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2001b. Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Pesticide Resistance Management Labeling (PR Notice 2001–5) posted at http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr2001–5.pdf (accessed 30 November 2007).
  38. Wu KM, Guo YY. The evolution of cotton pest management practices in China. Annual Review of Entomology. 2005;50:31–52. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops within IPM Programs are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES