ADVERSE IMPACTS OF TRANSGENIC CROPS/FOODS :A COMPILATION OF SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES WITH ABSTRACTS11. Hoss S, Arndt M, Baumgarte S, Tebbe C.C, Nguyen H.T. and Jehle J.A.(2008) : Effects of transgenic corn and Cry1Ab protein on the nematode,Caenorhabditis elegans. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 70 (2) :334–340.The effects of the insecticidal Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) onthe nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans, were studied with soil from experimentalûelds cultivated with transgenic Bt corn (MON810) and with trypsinized Cry1Abprotein expressed in Escherichia coli. The content of Cry1Ab protein was abovethe detection limit of an ELISA test in only half of the soil samples obtained fromtransgenic plots, ranging from 0.19 to 1.31 ng g 1dry weight. In a laboratorybioassay, C. elegans was exposed to rhizosphere and bulk soil from ûelds withisogenic or transgenic corn or to solutions of Cry1Ab protein (0, 24, 41, 63, 118,and 200 mg l1) over a period of 96 h, with growth and reproduction serving as thetest parameters. Nematode reproduction and growth were signiûcantly reducedin rhizosphere and bulk soil of Bt corn compared with soil from isogenic corn andwere signiûcantly correlated with concentrations of the Cry1Ab protein in the soilsamples. Moreover, the toxicity of pure Cry1Ab protein to the reproduction andgrowth of C. elegans was concentration-dependent. As signiûcant inhibitionoccurred at relatively high concentrations of the Cry1Ab protein (41 mg l1), theeffects of the soil samples from Bt corn could not be assigned directly to thetoxicity of the Cry1Ab protein. The results demonstrate that bioassays with thenematode, C. elegans, provide a promising tool for monitoring the potential effectsof Bt toxins in aqueous medium and soils.12. Icoz I. & Stotzky G. (2008) : Fate and effects of insect-resistant Bt crops insoil ecosystems. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 40: 559–586.Recent applications of biotechnology, especially genetic engineering, haverevolutionized crop improvement and increased theavailability of valuable newtraits. A current example is the use of the insecticidal Cry proteins from thebacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), to improve crops, known as Bt crops, byreducing injury from various crop pests. The adoption of genetically modiûed(GM) cropshas increased dramatically in the last 11 years. However, theintroduction of GM plants into agricultural ecosystems has raised a numberofquestions, including the ecological impact of these plants on soil ecosystems.Crop residues are the primary source of carbon in soil, and root exudates governwhich organisms reside in the rhizosphere. Therefore, any change to the qualityof crop residues and rhizosphere inputs could modify the dynamics of thecomposition and activity of organisms in soil. Insect-resistant Bt crops have thepotential to change the microbial dynamics, biodiversity, and essential ecosystemfunctions in soil, because they usually produce insecticidal Cry proteins throughall parts of the plant. It is crucial that risk assessment studies on the commercialuse of Bt crops consider the impacts on organisms in soil. In general, few or notoxic effects of Cry proteins on woodlice, collembolans, mites, earthworms,nematodes, protozoa, and the activity of various enzymes in soil have been reported.Although some effects, ranging from no effect to minor and signiûcant effects, ofBt plants on microbial communities in soil have been reported, using both culturing(158)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACTSand molecular techniques, they were mostly the result of differences in geography,temperature, plant variety, and soil type and, in general, were transient and notrelated to the presence of the Cry proteins. The respiration (i.e., CO2 evolution) ofsoils cultivated with Bt maize or amended with biomass of Bt maize and other Btcrops was generally lower than from soils cultivated with or amended with biomassof the respective non-Bt isolines, which may have been a result of differences inchemical composition (e.g., the content of starch, soluble N,proteins,carbohydrates, lignin) between Bt plants and their near-isogenic counterparts.Laboratory and ûeld studies have shown differences in the persistence of the Cryproteins in soil, which appear to be the result primarily of differences in microbialactivity, which, in turn, is dependent on soil type (e.g., pH, clay mineral composition,other physicochemical characteristics), season (e.g., temperature, water tension),crop species (e.g., chemical composition, C:N ratio, plant part), crop managementpractices (e.g., till vs. no-till), and other environmental factors that vary with locationand climate zones. This review discusses the available data on the effects of Cryproteins on below-ground organisms, the fate of these proteins in soil, the techniquesand indicators that are available to study these aspects, and future directionshttp://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/agbio2011/Other%20Readings/Icoz_SoilBio_2008_Fate%20effects%20of%20Bt%20crops%20in%20soil.pdf13. Turrini A, Sbrana C and Giovannetti M (2008) : Experimental systems tomonitor the impact of transgenic corn on keystone soil microorganisms.Paper presented during 16th IFOAM World Congress, Modena, Italy, June16-20, 2008After the approval of the European Community Directive 2001/18 a debate beganin Europe about the coexistence of genetically modified organisms (GMO) andorganic or conventional agriculture. Risks and benefits of transgenic crop plantsshould be evaluated in space and time, that is, not only by assessing pollen flow,but also by considering soil persistence of transgenic products, such as Bt toxins,which can accumulate in the soil after absorption to clays or binding to humicacids, remaining active for a long time. Moreover, transgenic plants are oftenplowed under as crop residues, representing a potential hazard for nontargetsoil microorganisms, such as arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi. These keystonesoil organisms are a group of beneficial plant symbionts fundamental forsustainable and organic agriculture, given their important role in soil fertility, plantnutrition, and ecosystem functioning. In this study, we monitored the effects oftransgenic corn plants (Bt 11 and Bt 176) and their residues on AM fungal growthand root colonization ability in greenhouse experiments. Both transgenic plantsshowed decreased mycorrhizal colonization after eight to ten weeks of culture.Mycelial length of G. mosseae grown in soil containing Bt and non-Bt corn residueswas monitored for up to four months and did not show significant differencesamong lines. On the contrary, both Bt corn residues negatively affected mycorrhizalestablishment by indigenous endophytes. Mycorrhizal colonization was particularlyreduced in Bt 11-amended soil, four months after residues being plowed under.Further long-term studies in the field are necessary to evaluate the interactions ofGM plants with microbial communities fundamental for soil fertility and quality. In(159)
- Page 1 and 2:
ADVERSE IMPACTS OF TRANSGENIC CROPS
- Page 3 and 4:
ADVERSE IMPACTS OFTRANSGENIC CROPS/
- Page 5 and 6:
ABOUT THIS BOOKThis is what eminent
- Page 7 and 8:
FOREWORDThe debate around GMOs in o
- Page 9 and 10:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 11 and 12:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 13 and 14:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 15 and 16:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 17 and 18:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 19 and 20:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 21 and 22:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 23 and 24:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 25 and 26:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 27 and 28:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 29 and 30:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 31 and 32:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 33 and 34:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 35 and 36:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 37 and 38:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 39 and 40:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 41 and 42:
IMPRECISION & UNPREDICTABILITY OF S
- Page 43 and 44:
HEALTH IMPACTSBt TOXIN1. Mezzomo, B
- Page 45 and 46:
HEALTH IMPACTS : Bt TOXIN4. Vazquez
- Page 47 and 48:
HEALTH IMPACTS : Bt TOXIN8. Vazquez
- Page 49 and 50:
GLYPHOSATE & OTHER HERBICIDES1. M.
- Page 51 and 52:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 53 and 54:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 55 and 56:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 57 and 58:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 59 and 60:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 61 and 62:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 63 and 64:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 65 and 66:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 67 and 68:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 69 and 70:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 71 and 72:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 73 and 74:
HEALTH IMPACTS : GLYPHOSATE & OTHER
- Page 75 and 76:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 77 and 78:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 79 and 80:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 81 and 82:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 83 and 84:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 85 and 86:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 87 and 88:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 89 and 90:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 91 and 92:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 93 and 94:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 95 and 96:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 97 and 98:
GENETIC ENGINEERING & HEALTH IMPACT
- Page 99 and 100:
CHANGES IN NUTRITIONAL COMPOSITION1
- Page 101 and 102:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS1. Niels Holst
- Page 103 and 104:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSsignificantly
- Page 105 and 106:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSrelevant conce
- Page 107 and 108:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSconsumption of
- Page 109 and 110:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS14. Obrist L.B
- Page 111 and 112:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSavailable that
- Page 113 and 114:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS19. Harwood J.
- Page 115 and 116: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS[Roundup] and
- Page 117 and 118: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS26. Saxena D a
- Page 119 and 120: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSoccur on A. sy
- Page 121 and 122: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSuntreated clea
- Page 123 and 124: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SUPER WEEDS
- Page 125 and 126: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SUPER WEEDS
- Page 127 and 128: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SUPER WEEDS
- Page 129 and 130: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SUPER WEEDS
- Page 131 and 132: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SUPER WEEDS
- Page 133 and 134: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : PEST DYNAMI
- Page 135 and 136: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : PEST DYNAMI
- Page 137 and 138: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : PEST DYNAMI
- Page 139 and 140: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : PEST DYNAMI
- Page 141 and 142: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : PEST DYNAMI
- Page 143 and 144: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : PEST DYNAMI
- Page 145 and 146: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : PEST DYNAMI
- Page 147 and 148: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : PEST DYNAMI
- Page 149 and 150: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : PEST DYNAMI
- Page 151 and 152: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : AGRI-CHEMIC
- Page 153 and 154: BIODIVERSITY1. Krista B. Oke, Peter
- Page 155 and 156: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : BIODIVERSIT
- Page 157 and 158: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : BIODIVERSIT
- Page 159 and 160: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : BIODIVERSIT
- Page 161 and 162: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 163 and 164: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 165: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 169 and 170: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 171 and 172: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 173 and 174: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 175 and 176: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 177 and 178: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 179 and 180: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 181 and 182: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 183 and 184: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 185 and 186: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS : SOIL IMPACT
- Page 187 and 188: HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER1. Spisak S
- Page 189 and 190: HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER5. Douville
- Page 191 and 192: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 193 and 194: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 195 and 196: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 197 and 198: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 199 and 200: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 201 and 202: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 203 and 204: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 205 and 206: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 207 and 208: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 209 and 210: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 211 and 212: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 213 and 214: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 215 and 216: GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 217 and 218:
GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 219 and 220:
GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 221 and 222:
GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 223 and 224:
GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 225 and 226:
GENE FLOW, CONTAMINATION & FIELD TR
- Page 227 and 228:
YIELD MYTHS WITH GM CROPSpromoted a
- Page 229 and 230:
YIELD MYTHS WITH GM CROPSSuch prior
- Page 231 and 232:
YIELD MYTHS WITH GM CROPS11. US Dep
- Page 233 and 234:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 235 and 236:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 237 and 238:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 239 and 240:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 241 and 242:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 243 and 244:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 245 and 246:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 247 and 248:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 249 and 250:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 251 and 252:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 253 and 254:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 255 and 256:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 257 and 258:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 259 and 260:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 261 and 262:
OTHER RELATED PAPERS(Regulation, Et
- Page 263 and 264:
SOME UNPUBLISHED BUT IMPORTANT PAPE
- Page 265 and 266:
SOME UNPUBLISHED BUT IMPORTANT PAPE