Literature DB >> 31184249

Using problem formulation to clarify the meaning of weight of evidence and biological relevance in environmental risk assessments for genetically modified crops.

Alan Raybould1, Karen Holt2, Ian Kimber3.   

Abstract

Weight of evidence and biological relevance are important concepts for risk assessment and decision-making over the use of GM crops; however, their meanings are not well defined. We use problem formulation to clarify the definition of these concepts and thereby identify data that are relevant for risk assessment. Problem formulation defines criteria for the acceptability of risk and devises rigorous tests of the hypothesis that the criteria are met. Corroboration or falsification of such hypotheses characterize risk and enable predictable and transparent decisions about whether certain risks from using a particular GM crop are acceptable. Decisions based on a weight of evidence approach use a synthesis of several lines of evidence, whereas a "definitive" approach to risk assessment enables some decisions to be based on the results of a single test. Data are biologically relevant for risk assessment only if they test a hypothesis that is useful for decision-making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biological relevance; decision-making; hypothesis testing; risk assessment; weight of evidence

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31184249      PMCID: PMC6615591          DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2019.1621615

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  GM Crops Food        ISSN: 2164-5698            Impact factor:   3.074


  33 in total

Review 1.  Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment.

Authors:  Gerald T Ankley; Richard S Bennett; Russell J Erickson; Dale J Hoff; Michael W Hornung; Rodney D Johnson; David R Mount; John W Nichols; Christine L Russom; Patricia K Schmieder; Jose A Serrrano; Joseph E Tietge; Daniel L Villeneuve
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.742

Review 2.  General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment.

Authors:  Ryan A Hill; Cyrie Sendashonga
Journal:  Environ Biosafety Res       Date:  2003 Apr-Jun

Review 3.  The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law.

Authors:  Sheldon Krimsky
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 4.  Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods.

Authors:  Douglas L Weed
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.000

5.  The risk assessment-policy gap: an example from the UK contaminated land regime.

Authors:  Jens Evans; Graham Wood; Anne Miller
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2006-08-08       Impact factor: 9.621

6.  A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms.

Authors:  Monica Garcia-Alonso; Erik Jacobs; Alan Raybould; Thomas E Nickson; Peter Sowig; Hilde Willekens; Pier Van der Kouwe; Raymond Layton; Firoz Amijee; Angel M Fuentes; Francesca Tencalla
Journal:  Environ Biosafety Res       Date:  2007-03-01

7.  Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods.

Authors:  Jörg Romeis; Detlef Bartsch; Franz Bigler; Marco P Candolfi; Marco M C Gielkens; Susan E Hartley; Richard L Hellmich; Joseph E Huesing; Paul C Jepson; Raymond Layton; Hector Quemada; Alan Raybould; Robyn I Rose; Joachim Schiemann; Mark K Sears; Anthony M Shelton; Jeremy Sweet; Zigfridas Vaituzis; Jeffrey D Wolt
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 54.908

8.  History of safe use as applied to the safety assessment of novel foods and foods derived from genetically modified organisms.

Authors:  A Constable; D Jonas; A Cockburn; A Davi; G Edwards; P Hepburn; C Herouet-Guicheney; M Knowles; B Moseley; R Oberdörfer; F Samuels
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  2007-06-21       Impact factor: 6.023

9.  Statistical aspects of environmental risk assessment of GM plants for effects on non-target organisms.

Authors:  Joe N Perry; Cajo J F Ter Braak; Philip M Dixon; Jian J Duan; Rosie S Hails; Alexandra Huesken; Marc Lavielle; Michelle Marvier; Michele Scardi; Kerstin Schmidt; Bela Tothmeresz; Frank Schaarschmidt; Hilko van der Voet
Journal:  Environ Biosafety Res       Date:  2009-10-16

10.  Growth, productivity, and competitiveness of introgressed weedy Brassica rapa hybrids selected for the presence of Bt cry1Ac and gfp transgenes.

Authors:  Matthew D Halfhill; Jamie P Sutherland; Hong Seok Moon; Guy M Poppy; Suzanne I Warwick; Arthur K Weissinger; Thomas W Rufty; Paul L Raymer; C Neal Stewart
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.185

View more
  3 in total

1.  Systematic identification of plausible pathways to potential harm via problem formulation for investigational releases of a population suppression gene drive to control the human malaria vector Anopheles gambiae in West Africa.

Authors:  John B Connolly; John D Mumford; Silke Fuchs; Geoff Turner; Camilla Beech; Ace R North; Austin Burt
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.979

2.  Larval mosquito management and risk to aquatic ecosystems: A comparative approach including current tactics and gene-drive Anopheles techniques.

Authors:  Robert K D Peterson; Marni G Rolston
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 3.145

3.  Improving the politics of biotechnological innovations in food security and other sustainable development goals.

Authors:  Alan Raybould
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 2.788

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.