Scientific Standards and the Regulation of Genetically Modified Insects

Reeves, R. Guy; Denton, Jai A.; Santucci, Fiammetta; Bryk, Jarosław; Reed, Floyd A.

doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001502

Cited by 72 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While tTA toxicity may be highly effective, it is not species-specific nor is its precise mode of action known (8). Thus, it is impossible to fully evaluate or anticipate all potential programmatic or environmental risks related to the field-release of this type of transgenic insect (18); in particular, are the various issues related to potential survival of transgenic individuals due to resistance to tTA toxicity, genetic breakdown of the toxic effect or other inefficiencies of the system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy for enhanced transgenic strain development for embryonic conditional lethality in Anastrepha suspensa

Schetelig

Handler

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here the first reproductive sterility system for the tephritid fruit fly pest, Anastrepha suspensa, is presented, based on lethality primarily limited to embryos heterozygous for a conditional lethal transgene combination. This tetracycline (Tet)-suppressible system uses a driver construct having the promoter from the newly isolated embryo-specific A. suspensa serendipity α gene linked to the Tet-transactivator. This was used to drive expression of a phosphomutated variant of the pro-apoptotic cell death gene, hid, from A. ludens, that was isolated, based on its identity to A. suspensa hid. The Alhid Ala2 variant was shown to have the highest cell death activity in an in vitro A. suspensa cell death assay compared to the orthologous genes Ashid, Dmhid, and the variant Dmhid Ala5 . These cell death assays also allowed a determination of the most-efficient driver-effector cassette combinations for use in A. suspensa transformants, resulting in two hybrid strains exhibiting 100% lethality. One strain was 96% lethal in embryos in the absence of tetracycline, with none surviving past the first larval instar, which is critical for pests that are most damaging in late-larval stages. We demonstrate that the isolation and in vitro validation of species-specific promoters and lethal effector genes can greatly improve the efficiency of creating high-performance conditional lethality strains that may be extended to other insect pest species.apoptosis | insect pest management | sterile insect technique

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy for enhanced transgenic strain development for embryonic conditional lethality in Anastrepha suspensa

Schetelig

Handler

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there are currently no field data that establish circumstances where GM-SIT approaches are superior to conventional SIT approaches. This is despite publicly funded agricultural field trials of GM pink bollworm occurring in isolated locations in the Arizona desert between 2005 and 2010 [13], a three-year open field trial approved for New York (NY) State in 2014 using diamondback moths (see below), and in Morocco a reported "pilot commercial field trial" for medfly [14,15].…”

Section: What Is the Gm Sterile Insect Technique (Gm-sit) And Why Is mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction over some novel proteins in food that possess biopesticidal properties, it is also conceivable that GM insects expressing novel biopesticidal proteins may be considered to fall under its remit [21]. Of the three government agencies it is only the USDA that has so far made clear efforts to prospectively regulate GM insects, evidenced by their having considered permit applications for open field releases since 2005 (Supplementary file 2 in [13]). Given the complexity of the regulatory framework in the USA (explained in Section 2.5 in [18]) and the absence of clear regulatory statements relating to the use of GM insects in agriculture by the EPA or FDA, it is beyond the scope of this article to consider all the many potential future outcomes.…”

Section: The Experience Of Gm-sit In the Usamentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass Releases of Genetically Modified Insects in Area-Wide Pest Control Programs and Their Impact on Organic Farmers

Reeves

Phillipson

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The mass release of irradiated insects to reduce the size of agricultural pest populations of the same species has a more than 50-year record of success. Using these techniques, insect pests can be suppressed without necessarily dispersing chemical insecticides into the environment. Ongoing release programs include the suppression of medfly at numerous locations around the globe (e.g., California, Chile and Israel) and the pink bollworm eradication program across the southern USA and northern Mexico. These, and other successful area-wide programs, encompass a large number of diverse organic farms without incident. More recently, mass release techniques have been proposed that involve the release of genetically modified insects. Given that the intentional use of genetically modified organisms by farmers will in many jurisdictions preclude organic certification, this prohibits the deliberate use of this technology by organic farmers. However, mass releases of flying insects are not generally conducted by individual farmers but are done on a regional basis, often without the explicit consent of all situated farms (frequently under the auspices of government agencies or growers' collectives). Consequently, there exists the realistic prospect of organic farms becoming involved in genetically modified insect releases as part of area-wide programs or experiments. Herein, we describe genetically modified insects engineered for mass release and examine their potential impacts on organic farmers, both intended and unintended. This is done both generally and also focusing on a hypothetical organic farm located near an approved experimental release of genetically modified (GM) diamondback moths in New York State (USA).

show abstract

“…Although animal experimentation for biodiversity conservation purposes can be allowed (the decision is at the discretion of the public authorities), in the majority of legislative systems the intentional release of genetically modified animals is strictly regulated, if not unconditionally banned (see Reeves et al 2012). However, the question of what a release means is problematic: does it mean setting an animal free outside the laboratory or outdoors but within a confined area or, as broadly as possible, unlocking all physical barriers that might hinder free movement?…”

Section: Three Phases Of De-extinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

De-extinct species as wildlife

Oksanen

Vuorisalo

2017

FJHAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of wildlife embodies two sources of controversy regarding de-extinct animals. First, the multifaceted dependence of these animals on humans; and second, the property rights to de-extinct animals. Both provide reasons for not counting them as wildlife. A subsequent question is, however, whether we should maintain this divide or allow the boundaries to blur. If we aim to maintain it, we end up trying to stop a process that is evolving rapidly and difficult to curb by legal means. If we relinquish these boundaries, we give up customary cultural models and related cultural practices. In biology, the divide between domestic and wild species is usually considered arbitrary and the degree of synanthropy (degree of association with humans) to present a continuum. Still, wildlife is normally defined through the notion of domestication: those animals that are not domesticated are wildlife. Deextinction turns the setting upside down: the de-extinct animals would normally be classified as domesticated, since they are generated by human action and could be owned as private property, but the problem is that they are not intended as domestic -de-extinct animals are ultimately created to be wildlife. Thus the concept of wildlife calls for refinement so as to allow their inclusion. We present a classification of animal species based both on their degree of synanthropy and the complex ownership issues. It appears that de-extinct species would probably initially represent species with a low synanthropy index but a high need for human care, but might later evolve into "real" wildlife in the strict sense of the term.

show abstract

Scientific Standards and the Regulation of Genetically Modified Insects

Cited by 72 publications

References 42 publications

Strategy for enhanced transgenic strain development for embryonic conditional lethality in Anastrepha suspensa

Strategy for enhanced transgenic strain development for embryonic conditional lethality in Anastrepha suspensa

Mass Releases of Genetically Modified Insects in Area-Wide Pest Control Programs and Their Impact on Organic Farmers

De-extinct species as wildlife

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About