We respond to the paper of Kruse-Plass et al. (Environ SciEur 29:12, 2017), published in this journal, regarding the riskto non-target lepidopteran larvae exposed to pollen from one or more of three Bt maize events (MON810, Bt11 and1507). We emphasise that what is important for environmental risk assessment is not the number of pollen grains perse, but the degree of exposure of a NT lepidopteran larva to Bt protein contained in maize pollen. The main text ofthis response deals with general issues which Kruse-Plass et al. have failed to understand; more detailed refutationsof each of their claims are given in Additional file 1. Valid environmental risk assessment requires direct measurementof pollen on leaves at varying distances outside a source field(s); such measurements reflect the potential exposureexperienced by an individual larva on a host plant. There are no new data in the Kruse-Plass et al. paper, or indeed anydata directly quantifying pollen on actual host-plant leaves outside a maize field; only data gathered within or at theedge of maize crops were reported. Values quoted by Kruse-Plass et al. for deposition on host plants outside the field were estimates only. We reiterate the severe methodological criticisms made by EFSA [Relevance of a new scientificpublication (Hofmann et al. 2016) for previous environmental risk assessment conclusions and risk managementrecommendations on the cultivation of Bt-maize events MON810, Bt11 and 1507. EFSA SuppPubl; EN-1070, 2016],which render this estimation procedure unreliable. Furthermore, criticisms of EFSA (EFSA J 2015(13):4127, 2015) andof EFSA [Relevance of a new scientific publication (Hofmann et al. 2016) for previous environmental risk assessmentconclusions and risk management recommendations on the cultivation of Bt-maize events MON810, Bt11 and 150EFSA SuppPubl; EN-1070, 2016] made by Kruse-Plass et al. are shown in Additional file 1 to be without foundation. Wetherefore consider that there is no valid evidence presented by Kruse-Plass et al. to justify their conclusions.
Response to Kruse-Plass et al. (2017) regarding the risk to non-target lepidopteran larvae exsposed to pollen from one or more of three Bt maize events ( MON810, Bt11 and 1507).
VERONESI, Fabio
2017
Abstract
We respond to the paper of Kruse-Plass et al. (Environ SciEur 29:12, 2017), published in this journal, regarding the riskto non-target lepidopteran larvae exposed to pollen from one or more of three Bt maize events (MON810, Bt11 and1507). We emphasise that what is important for environmental risk assessment is not the number of pollen grains perse, but the degree of exposure of a NT lepidopteran larva to Bt protein contained in maize pollen. The main text ofthis response deals with general issues which Kruse-Plass et al. have failed to understand; more detailed refutationsof each of their claims are given in Additional file 1. Valid environmental risk assessment requires direct measurementof pollen on leaves at varying distances outside a source field(s); such measurements reflect the potential exposureexperienced by an individual larva on a host plant. There are no new data in the Kruse-Plass et al. paper, or indeed anydata directly quantifying pollen on actual host-plant leaves outside a maize field; only data gathered within or at theedge of maize crops were reported. Values quoted by Kruse-Plass et al. for deposition on host plants outside the field were estimates only. We reiterate the severe methodological criticisms made by EFSA [Relevance of a new scientificpublication (Hofmann et al. 2016) for previous environmental risk assessment conclusions and risk managementrecommendations on the cultivation of Bt-maize events MON810, Bt11 and 1507. EFSA SuppPubl; EN-1070, 2016],which render this estimation procedure unreliable. Furthermore, criticisms of EFSA (EFSA J 2015(13):4127, 2015) andof EFSA [Relevance of a new scientific publication (Hofmann et al. 2016) for previous environmental risk assessmentconclusions and risk management recommendations on the cultivation of Bt-maize events MON810, Bt11 and 150EFSA SuppPubl; EN-1070, 2016] made by Kruse-Plass et al. are shown in Additional file 1 to be without foundation. Wetherefore consider that there is no valid evidence presented by Kruse-Plass et al. to justify their conclusions.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
