TIBTEC-791; No of Pages 2
Update
FORUM: Science & Society
Ecological risk assessment for transgenic crops:
separating the seed from the chaff
Rod A. Herman
Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268
An ecological risk assessment for a transgenic crop is
required by regulatory agencies worldwide. In certain
regions, this includes evaluation of indirect effects of
improved pest and weed control on non-target organisms
that may use insect pests and weeds as a food source. Here,
I consider the merits of providing insects and weed seed as
food for a diversity of wildlife within crop fields.
Transgenic crops predominate where permitted by gov-
ernment regulation. Their rapid adoption in agricultural
production is unprecedented [1]. The first wave of input
traits provided pest control within crop plants or rendered
crops tolerant to more efficacious and ecologically friendly
herbicides [2]. However, onerous regulation uniquely
applied to transgenic plants, especially in the area of eco-
logical risk assessment, has almost prevented the use of this
technology in some regions (e.g. The European Union) [3].
Such assessments can include an evaluation of the indirect
effects of the improved pest–insect and weed control that are
afforded by transgenic cropping systems. Specifically, poten-
tial effects on species that feed on the weeds and pests that
are reduced in transgenic fields are considered in the eco-
logical risk assessment [4]. Here, I briefly discuss the mod-
ern agro-ecosystem, and the balance between maintaining
high productivity within crop fields and attempting to foster
species diversity within agricultural monocultures.
Much of our current civilization is associated with a
move from a hunter gatherer existence to an agrarian way
of life that began approximately 10,000 years ago. The
ability to concentrate food production into a limited area
reduced the amount of time that was required to gather
food from diverse unmanaged habitats. The time saved in
gathering food was then available for other activities that
allowed the development of civilizations and the concen-
tration of population centers [5]. This allowed humans to
separate the plants that they needed for food and fiber from
the ‘‘chaff’’ (i.e. unwanted material) of the other plants that
did not meet their needs. However, maintaining crops is
not as simple as planting the seeds of desirable plants in
concentrated areas. These crops must be protected from
unwanted plants that germinate within the field (weeds)
and compete with desirable plants for nutrients, and must
also be protected from herbivores and pathogens that
compete with people for the plant resources (e.g. insects
and diseases).
Many techniques – mechanical, cultural, biological, and
chemical – continue to be used to maintain crop pro-
ductivity. Transgenic plants are the most recent addition
to this tool kit. Transgenic crops most closely resemble the
Corresponding author: Herman, R.A. (raherman@dow.com).
selection of resistant varieties that has taken place over
the domestication and improvement of current crop plants
[1,6]. From the earliest times, humans saved seed from the
most robust and pest-resistant plants [5]. In more modern
times, plant breeders have sought out mutant crop plants
and wild relatives of crop plants that display pest-resist-
ance traits for use in breeding programs. Even more
recently, such techniques have been used to select
endogenous herbicide-tolerance traits [7]. In these cases,
many uncharacterized genes have been moved into com-
mercial varieties by traditional breeding to enhance pro-
duction. The most recent advancement in crop
improvement is the ability to move desirable genes from
unrelated species into crop plants, while leaving behind
associated genes with unknown or undesirable function.
These transgenic crops have been planted widely in those
regions that are permitted by government regulations.
An ecological risk assessment is required by regulators,
and attempts to assess the risk of cultivating a specific
transgenic crop on the environment. Two types of effects
can occur in the environment: direct and indirect. Trans-
genic crops can cause direct effects on a species (e.g.
toxicity) or indirect effects caused by elimination of a
resource on which a species depends. An example of a
direct effect is the dramatic reduction of a corn insect pest,
European corn borer larvae, Ostrinia nubilalis, within
fields of transgenic maize that expresses Cry1 proteins
derived from the microbe Bacillus thuringiensis. Control of
certain insect pests is the purpose of these transgenic
crops. An indirect effect would also occur on any species
that relies on these pests for food (e.g. birds and arthropod
predators and parasites) [2]. This is analogous to dramatic-
ally reducing mosquito populations in residential areas
through spraying insecticides and reduction of larval
habitat (e.g. disposing of old tires that hold water). Pre-
dictably, species that depend on mosquitoes as a food
source (e.g. birds and bats) will be affected. A similar
scenario occurs when weeds are controlled within a field
by chemical, biological or mechanical means. Species that
rely on these weeds for food are affected negatively, and
this impact is proportional to the effectiveness of the weed
control practice. It should be noted that the abundance of
species that depend on crop pests are themselves an arti-
fact of the habitat disturbance and concentration of a single
plant species intrinsically caused by agriculture. If crops
were not planted, insects and weeds on which some organ-
isms feed would typically have less suitable habitats.
An evaluation of ecological risk depends on some phi-
losophical underpinnings. Specifically, one needs to deter-
mine our expectations of an agricultural ecosystem. This is
1
TIBTEC-791; No of Pages 2
Update
especially true when considering indirect effects. Is it
beneficial to try to encourage species diversity within a
crop field at the expense of productivity? Is it reasonable to
provide habitat that encourages species diversity within a
monoculture designed to produce a single product for
human use? Collectively, is it better to encourage high
productivity on limited acreage at the expense of species
diversity within the field, or conversely, to sacrifice pro-
ductivity for in-field species diversity, while spreading
crops across more land?
A basic factor that allowed the development of human
civilizations was the ability to concentrate the production
of food and fiber on limited land. As mentioned above, this
separated the seed from the chaff that consisted of unde-
sirable plants. Further separation of the seed from the
chaff occurred as pest and weed control methods were
refined. Plant breeding also resulted in higher harvest
indices (i.e. more of the harvestable parts per hectare
and per plant), which reduced the chaff even further. A
basic question now exists: do we really want to advocate
adding chaff back into our crop fields in the name of species
diversity within these fields, or is it better to separate those
lands used for crop production from those used to enhance
wildlife diversity? If our goal is to provide weed seed and
insects for wildlife, is it better to do this within crop fields,
or is this best done on separate plots of land designed for
wildlife and encouraged by programs such as the Conser-
vation Reserve Program [8] administered by the United
States government? Taxpayer-funded conservation pro-
grams allow resources to be channeled to farmers who
are willing to convert cropland into prescribed habitat
specifically suited for those wildlife species that are valued
greatest by society. However, it is noteworthy that such
programs are in contrast with those that seek to beautify
the agricultural landscape or increase agricultural tourism
without explicit goals related to ecological benefit [9].
Trends in Biotechnology Vol.xxx No.x
So, how much chaff do we really want in our seed? It
seems like answering the related questions posed here
based on scientific principles, would help to separate the
seed from the chaff in the ecological risk assessment of
transgenic crops.
Acknowledgements
I thank Mark Krieger, Barry Schafer, Peter Scherer, Bruce Chassy,
Thomas Lyall, Kathryn Clayton, Nicholas Storer, Klaus Ammann, Mark
Miles, Wayne Parrott, Brad Shurdut, Jake Secor, and John Cuffe for
comments on a draft of this commentary.
Conflict of interest
R. A. Herman is employed by Dow AgroSciences LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, which develops transgenic
crops and produces insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides for agricultural
applications and residential pest control.
References
1 Morin, X.K. (2008) Genetically modified food crops: progress, pawns, and
possibilities. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 392, 333–340
2 Ammann, K. (2005) Effects of biotechnology on biodiversity: herbicide-
tolerant and insect-resistant GM crops. Trends Biotechnol. 23, 388–394
3 Johnson, K.L. et al. (2006) How does scientific risk assessment of GM
crops fit within the wider risk analysis? Trends Plant Sci. 12, 1–5
4 Raybould, A. (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for
assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci. 173,
589–602
5 Diamond, J. (2002) Evolution, consequences and future of plant and
animal domestication. Nature 418, 700–707
6 Bradford, K.J. et al. (2005) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons
from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 23,
439–444
7 Newhouse, K. et al. (1991) Mutations in corn (Zea mays L.) conferring
resistance to imidazolinone herbicides. Theory Appl. Genet. 83, 65–70
8 Ribaudo, M.O. et al. (2001) Environmental indices and the politics of the
Conservation Reserve Program. Ecol. Indicators 1, 11–20
9 Baylis, K. et al. (2008) Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United
States: a comparison. Ecol. Econ. 65, 753–764
0167-7799/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2010.01.005 Available online xxxxxx