IMPACTS OF TRANSGENIC Bt CROPS ON NON-TARGET ANIMAL SPECIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Recent advances in molecular biology and genetics have led to the creation of exciting new opportunities in the field of agriculture. Some of the first and most widely-used genetically-engineered crops have been modified to express insecticidal crystalline (Cry) proteins derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). These so-called Bt crops are protected from the feeding of various groups of herbivorous pest insects. In 1995 and 1996, varieties of potato, cotton and com expressing various Bt proteins were approved for commercial use in the United States. In Bt potato, the Cry3Aa protein provides protection against damage from the Colorado potato beetle. In Bt cotton and Bt com, the proteins expressed (CrylAc in cotton and CrylAb or CrylF in com) confer protection against a number of lepidopteran herbivores. The Bt cotton and Bt com products, in particular, are widely used (James, 2001). Bt cotton has since been registered for commercial use in Argentina, Australia, China, Columbia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa. Bt com has a similar potential; in 2001, about 20 million acres of Bt com were planted in the United States, almost 40% of com acres in Argentina are occupied with Bt com, and smaller amounts were planted commercially in Canada, Spain, and South Africa. A critical part of the introduction of such products is to ensure their environmental safety. In this chapter, weshall describe the safety assessment process used to evaluate the potential impact of Bt crops on non-target species, and we review the laboratory and field research that has been conducted in this area (see also Shelton et al., 2002 for a broader review of the impacts of Bt crops).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".