ReviewFrontiers in plant science2015
The food and environmental safety of Bt crops.
Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
92 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 220 citations in OpenAlex.
- BioprospectingFrontiers in fungal biology · 2021Pooled it
- C-Terminal Regions of Insecticidal Cry Toxins Form Amyloid Fibrils Affecting Metabolism of Insect Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Cry1Ab toxicity against four species of the Diatraea sugarcane borer complex in Colombia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Engineering Plant-Associated Microorganisms for Bioremediation and Sustainable Agriculture.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Auto-crosslinking sporesilk fibers promote endospore and Cry toxin clustering.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Article
- Gut plasma membrane proteomes of adults and larvae of the European honey bee, Apis mellifera.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessment of genetically modified cotton T304-40 × GHB119 × COT102 (application EFSA-GMO-BE-2018-155).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Assessment of genetically modified cotton GHB614 × T304-40 × GHB119 × COT102 (application EFSA-GMO-ES-2017-147).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Safety assessment of membrane-associated protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase fromGM crops & food · 2025Article
- Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 94637 (application GMFF-2023-21116).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Ecological risk assessment for Cry1Da_7, Cry1B.3 and Vip3Cb1 proteins expressed in MON 89151 cotton: an insect-protected cotton with targeted activity against Lepidoptera.Transgenic research · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessment of genetically modified maize DAS1131 (application GMFF-2021-1530).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Risk assessment of homologous variants of biotech trait proteins using a bridging approach.GM crops & food · 2024Article
- New Insight on the Sublethal Effect of Bt-Cry1Ab inInsects · 2024Article
- Bacillus thuringiensis Cry5, Cry21, App6 and Xpp55 proteins to control Meloidogyne javanica and M. incognita.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14A family proteins as novel anthelmintics against gastrointestinal nematode parasites.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- Resistance to Cry14A family Bacillus thuringiensis crystal proteins in Caenornabditis elegans operates via the nhr-31 transcription factor and vacuolar-type ATPase pathway.PLoS pathogens · 2024Article
- Assessment of genetically modified maize DP910521 (application GMFF-2021-2473).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) microbial pesticides have a 50-year history of safety in agriculture. Cry proteins are among the active insecticidal ingredients in these pesticides, and genes coding for Cry proteins have been introduced into agricultural crops using modern biotechnology. The Cry gene sequences are often modified to enable effective expression in planta and several Cry proteins have been modified to increase biological activity against the target pest(s). Additionally, the domains of different but structurally conserved Cry proteins can be combined to produce chimeric proteins with enhanced insecticidal properties. Environmental studies are performed and include invertebrates, mammals, and avian species. Mammalian studies used to support the food and feed safety assessment are also used to support the wild mammal assessment. In addition to the NTO assessment, the environmental assessment includes a comparative assessment between the Bt crop and the appropriate conventional control that is genetically similar but lacks the introduced trait to address unintended effects. Specific phenotypic, agronomic, and ecological characteristics are measured in the Bt crop and the conventional control to evaluate whether the introduction of the insect resistance has resulted in any changes that might cause ecological harm in terms of altered weed characteristics, susceptibility to pests, or adverse environmental impact. Additionally, environmental interaction data are collected in field experiments for Bt crop to evaluate potential adverse effects. Further to the agronomic and phenotypic evaluation, potential movement of transgenes from a genetically modified crop plants into wild relatives is assessed for a new pest resistance gene in a new crop. This review summarizes the evidence for safety of crops containing Cry proteins for humans, livestock, and other non-target organisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.