Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32330131›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Results from ten years of post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified MON 810 maize in the European Union.

Lieselot Bertho, Kerstin Schmidt, Jörg Schmidtke, Ivo Brants, Rocío Fernández Cantón, Conchi Novillo, Graham Head

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Application of Nanotechnology in Plant Genetic Engineering.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Host plant resistance for fall armyworm management in maize: relevance, status and prospects in Africa and Asia.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lieselot BerthoMonsanto Company, Saint Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2146-8895
Kerstin SchmidtBioMath, Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany.
Jörg SchmidtkeBioMath, Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany.
Ivo BrantsMonsanto Company, Brussels, Belgium.
Rocío Fernández CantónMonsanto Company, Brussels, Belgium.
Conchi NovilloMonsanto Company, Madrid, Spain.
Graham HeadMonsanto Company, Saint Louis, Missouri, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In European regulations for the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMO), the objective of General Surveillance in Post-Market Environmental Monitoring is defined as the identification of the occurrence of adverse effects of the GMO or its use which were not anticipated in the environmental risk assessment (ERA). Accompanying the commercial cultivation in the EU of maize event MON 810, General Surveillance was implemented by Monsanto, the authorization holder, on a voluntary basis. We carried out a statistical analysis on the pooled results of ten years of farmer questionnaires, which were a part of this General Surveillance, amounting to 2,627 farmer fields in eight European countries in the period 2006-2015. This analysis did not reveal any unexpected adverse effects associated with the cultivation of MON 810. Results from farmer questionnaires confirmed that the cultivation of MON 810 resulted in a significant reduction in the use of pesticides, efficient protection against the target pests, and healthier, higher yielding crops compared to conventional maize. MON 810 also had reduced susceptibility to disease and pests when compared to conventional maize. Monitoring characteristics related to environment and wildlife revealed no significant differences between MON 810 and conventional maize. Literature searches, that were also conducted as part of General Surveillance, identified a comprehensive set of publications addressing environmental safety as well as food and feed safety aspects of MON 810. None of the publications indicated any adverse effect of MON 810 that was not anticipated in the initial ERA, nor did they lead to a change in the conclusions of the initial risk assessment that demonstrated the safety of MON 810. The development of resistance by the target pests (Ostrinia nubilalis, ECB and Sesamia nonagrioides, MCB) was the only potential adverse effect identified in the ERA of MON 810 cultivation in the EU. The extensive safety data package for MON 810, the robust weight of evidence demonstrating both its safety and benefits, and the history of safe use of MON 810 for 15 years in the EU, indicates that focussing the General Surveillance of MON 810 on literature searches and farmer complaint systems would be appropriately protective. This will allow the identification of potential adverse effect not anticipated in the initial ERA without the intensive effort and organizational challenges of farmer questionnaires.

Indexed as

AgricultureCrops, AgriculturalEnvironmental MonitoringEuropean UnionHumansPlant DiseasesPlants, Genetically ModifiedZea mays

Identifiers

PMID32330131
PMCPMC7182268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.