Transgenic Research

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 859–875 | Cite as

A Comparative Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered, Mutagenic, and Conventional Wheat Production Systems

Article

Abstract

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties produced using modern biotechnologies, such as genetic engineering and mutagenic techniques, have lagged behind other crop species, but are now being developed and, in the case of mutagenic wheat, commercially grown around the world. Because these wheat varieties have emerged recently, there is a unique opportunity to assess comparatively the potential environmental risks (human health, ecological, and livestock risks) associated with genetically engineered, mutagenic, and conventional wheat production systems. Replacement of traditional herbicides with glyphosate in a glyphosate-tolerant (genetically engineered) wheat system or imazamox in an imidazolinone-tolerant (mutagenic) wheat system may alter environmental risks associated with weed management. Additionally, because both systems rely on plants that express novel proteins, the proteins and plants themselves may impose risks. The purpose of our study was to examine comparatively the multiple aspects of risk associated with different wheat production systems in the US and Canada using the risk assessment paradigm. Specifically, we used tier 1 quantitative and qualitative risk assessment methods to compare specific environmental risks associated with the different wheat production systems. Both glyphosate and imazamox present lower human health and ecological risks than many other herbicides associated with conventional wheat production systems evaluated in this study. The differences in risks were most pronounced when comparing glyphosate and imazamox to herbicides currently with substantial market share. Current weight-of-evidence suggests that the transgenic CP4 EPSPS protein present in glyphosate-tolerant wheat poses negligible risk to humans, livestock, and wildlife. Risk for mutated AHAS protein in imidazolinone-tolerant wheat most likely would be low, but there are not sufficient effect and exposure data to adequately characterize risk. Environmental risks for herbicides were more amenable to quantitative assessments than for the transgenic CP4 EPSPS protein and the mutated AHAS protein.

Key words

biotechnology genetically engineered crops GMO herbicide exposure herbicide toxicity protein risk 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ash, J, Novak, C, Scheideler, S 2003The fate of genetically modified protein from Roundup Ready soybeans in laying hensJ Appl Poult Res12242245Google Scholar
  2. BASF (2003) Beyond Herbicide. Specimen label. NVA 2003–04-191-0049. Research Triangle Park, NC USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Center for Food Safety (2003) Petition Seeking an Environmental Impact Statement Concerning the Deregulation of Genetically Engineered Wheat Varieties & Petition Seeking the Listing of Genetically Engineered Wheat Varieties as Noxious Weeds. Citizen Petition before the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Health Inspection Service. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/li/WheatUSDApetFinalD7.pdfGoogle Scholar
  4. Canadian Food Inspection Agency [CFIA] (2003) Decision Document DD2003-44 Determination of the Safety of BASF’s Imazamox Tolerant (ClearfieldTM) Wheat AP602CL. Nepean, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  5. Canadian Food Inspection Agency [CFIA] (2004) Decision Document DD2004-47 Determination of the Safety of BASF’s Imazamox Tolerant (ClearfieldTM) Wheat AP205CL. Nepean, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, H, Kim, N, Park, M, Lim, S, Kim, S, Kim, J,  et al. 2002The 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase of glyphosate-tolerant soybean expressed in Escherichia coli shows no severe allergenicityMolecules and Cells152026Google Scholar
  7. Roos, A, Blair, A, Rusiecki, J, Hoppin, J, Svec, M, Dosemeci, M,  et al. 2005Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the agricultural health studyEnviron Health Persp1134954Google Scholar
  8. Donkin, S, Velez, J, Totten, A, Stanisiewski, E, Hartnell, G 2003Effects of feeding silage and grain from glyphosate-tolerant or insect-protected corn hybrids on feed intake, ruminal digestion, and milk production in dairy cattleJ␣Dairy Sci8617801788PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hammond B, Dudek B, Astwood J, Nemeth M, Sidhu R, Haught D, (2001) 13-week feeding study in rats fed grain from Roundup Ready corn®. Proc 2001 Soc Toxicol Annu Meet 411Google Scholar
  10. Hammond, B, Vicini, J, Hartnell, G, Naylor, M, Knight, C, Robinson, E,  et al. 1996The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish, and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate toleranceJ Nutr126717727PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harrison, L, Bailey, M, Naylor, M, Ream, J, Hammond, B, Nida, D,  et al. 1996The expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerant soybean, 5-enolypyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp. Strain CP4, is rapidly digested in␣vitro and is not toxic to acutely gavaged miceJ Nutr126728740PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Health Canada (2004a) Imidazolinone Tolerant ClearfieldTM Wheat AP205CL. Ottawa, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  13. Health Canada (2004b) Imidazolinone Tolerant ClearfieldTM Wheat AP602CL. Ottawa, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu, T, Metz, S, Chay, C, Zhou, HP, Biest, N, Chen, G,  et al. 2003Agrobacterium-mediated large-scale transformation of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) using glyphosate selectionPlant Cell Rep2110101019PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kan, C, Hartnell, G 2004Evaluation of broiler performance when fed roundup-ready wheat (event MON 71800), control, and commercial wheat varietiesPoultry Sci8313251333Google Scholar
  16. Lee T, Leach J, Ledesma B, Hammond B, NaylorM, Fuchs R et al. (2001) Safety assessment of MEPSPS protein in Roundup Ready corn plants. Proc Soc Toxicol Annu Meet: 411.Google Scholar
  17. Northern Plains Resource Council (2002) Why Plant What You Can’t Sell: Protecting Montana’s Valuable Wheat from Genetic Contamination. http://www.northernplains.orgGoogle Scholar
  18. National Research Council [NRC]1983Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the ProcessNational Academy PressWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. National Research Council [NRC]1996Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic SocietyNational Academy PressWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Peterson, R, Hulting, A 2004A comparative ecological risk assessment for herbicides used on spring wheat: the effect of glyphosate when used within a glyphosate-tolerant wheat systemWeed Sci52834844Google Scholar
  21. Pilacinski, W 2002Petition for determination of nonregulated status for Roundup Ready® wheat event MON 71800. 02-WT-093FMonsanto CompanySt. Louis, MO, USASubmitted to USDA December 18, 2002Google Scholar
  22. Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry [SETAC]1994Aquatic Dialogue Group: Pesticide Risk Assessment and MitigationSociety for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC Foundation for Environmental EducationPensacola, FL220Google Scholar
  23. Sidhu, R, Hammond, B, Fuchs, R, Mutz, J-N, Holden, L, George, B, Olson, T 2000Glyphosate-tolerant corn: the composition and feeding value of grain from glyphosate-tolerant corn is equivalent to that of conventional corn (Zea mays L.)J Agric Food Chem4823052312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Stanford, K, Aalhus, J, Dugan, M, Wallins, G, Sharma, R, McAllister, T 2003Effects of feeding transgenic canola on apparent digestibility, growth performance and carcass characteristics of lambsCan J Anim Sci83299305Google Scholar
  25. Taylor, M, Stanisiewski, E, Riordan, S, Nemeth, M, George, B, Hartnell, G 2004Comparison of broiler performance when feds diets containing Roundup Ready (Event RT73), nontransgenic control, or commercial canola mealPoultry Sci83456461Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]2003Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2002 Field Crops SummaryNational Agricultural Statistics ServiceWashington, DCAg Ch 1 (03)Google Scholar
  27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (1993) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Glyphosate. EPA 738-R-93-014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (1996) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Trifluralin. EPA 738-R-95-040. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (1998a) The Pesticide Handler Exposure Database PHED v. 1.1, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (1998b) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Bromoxynil. EPA 738-R-98-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (1999) ECOFRAM Terrestrial Draft Report. Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods. EPA/OPP/EFED. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (2001) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Triallate. EPA 738-R-00-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (2005a) 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) (CASRN 94-75-7). Last revised: May 5, 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (2005b) 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) (CASRN 94-74-6). Last revised: January 1, 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (1995a) Clopyralid; Pesticide Tolerance. December 13, 1995, Fed. Reg. 60(239):63956–63958. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (1995b) Triasulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances. July 18, 1995, Fed. Reg. 60(137):36729–36731. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (1996) Pesticide Tolerance for Tribenuron Methyl. April 3, 1996, Fed. Reg. 61(65):14637–14639. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (1998) Fenoxaprop-ethyl; Pesticide Tolerance. April 22, 1998, Fed. Reg. 63(77):19829–19837. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (1999) Dicamba (3,6-dichloro- o-anisic acid); Pesticide Tolerance. January 6, 1999, Fed. Reg. 64(31):759–769. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (2000a) Clodinafop-propargyl; Pesticide Tolerance. June 22, 2000, Fed. Reg. 65(121):38765–38774. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (2000b) Flucarbazone-sodium; Pesticide Tolerance. September 29, 2000, Fed. Reg. 65(190):58364–58375. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (2002) Metsulfuron-methyl; Pesticide Tolerance. August 7, 2002, Fed. Reg. 67(152):51088–51097. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (2003a) Imazamox; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance. February 14, 2003, Fed. Reg. 68(31):7428–7433. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (2003b) Tralkoxydim; Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerance. August 13, 2003, Fed. Reg. 68(156):48299–48302. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. U.S. Federal Register [USFR] (2004) Thifensulfuron methyl; Pesticide Tolerance. September 17, 2004, Fed. Reg. 69(180):55975–55982. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams, G, Kroes, R, Munro, I 2000Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humansReg Tox Pharm31117165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whitford, F, Kronenberg, J, Lunchick, C, Driver, J, Tomerlin, R, Wolt, J,  et al. 1999Pesticides and Human Health Risk Assessment: Policies, Processes, and ProceduresPPP-48. Purdue Pesticide Programs Purdue University Cooperative Extension ServiceWest Lafayette, IN, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolt, J, Peterson, R, Bystrak, , Meade, T 2003A screening level approach for non-target insect risk assessment: transgenic Btcorn pollen and the monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae)Environ Entomol32237246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolt, J, Peterson, R 2000Agricultural biotechnology and societal decision-making: the role of risk analysisAgBioForum3291298Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agricultural and Biological Risk AssessmentMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations