↓ Skip to main content

Response to Kruse-Plass et al. (2017) regarding the risk to non-target lepidopteran larvae exposed to pollen from one or more of three Bt maize events (MON810, Bt11 and 1507)

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Sciences Europe, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Response to Kruse-Plass et al. (2017) regarding the risk to non-target lepidopteran larvae exposed to pollen from one or more of three Bt maize events (MON810, Bt11 and 1507)
Published in
Environmental Sciences Europe, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12302-017-0119-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joe N. Perry, Paolo Barberi, Detlef Bartsch, A. N. E. Birch, Achim Gathmann, Jozsef Kiss, Barbara Manachini, Marco Nuti, Stefan Rauschen, Joachim Schiemann, Mechthild Schuppener, Jeremy Sweet, Christoph C. Tebbe, Fabio Veronesi

Abstract

We respond to the paper of Kruse-Plass et al. (Environ Sci Eur 29:12, 2017), published in this journal, regarding the risk to non-target lepidopteran larvae exposed to pollen from one or more of three Bt maize events (MON810, Bt11 and 1507). We emphasise that what is important for environmental risk assessment is not the number of pollen grains per se, but the degree of exposure of a NT lepidopteran larva to Bt protein contained in maize pollen. The main text of this response deals with general issues which Kruse-Plass et al. have failed to understand; more detailed refutations of each of their claims are given in Additional file 1. Valid environmental risk assessment requires direct measurement of pollen on leaves at varying distances outside a source field(s); such measurements reflect the potential exposure experienced by an individual larva on a host plant. There are no new data in the Kruse-Plass et al. paper, or indeed any data directly quantifying pollen on actual host-plant leaves outside a maize field; only data gathered within or at the edge of maize crops were reported. Values quoted by Kruse-Plass et al. for deposition on host plants outside the field were estimates only. We reiterate the severe methodological criticisms made by EFSA [Relevance of a new scientific publication (Hofmann et al. 2016) for previous environmental risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on the cultivation of Bt-maize events MON810, Bt11 and 1507. EFSA Supp Publ; EN-1070, 2016], which render this estimation procedure unreliable. Furthermore, criticisms of EFSA (EFSA J 2015(13):4127, 2015) and of EFSA [Relevance of a new scientific publication (Hofmann et al. 2016) for previous environmental risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on the cultivation of Bt-maize events MON810, Bt11 and 1507. EFSA Supp Publ; EN-1070, 2016] made by Kruse-Plass et al. are shown in Additional file 1 to be without foundation. We therefore consider that there is no valid evidence presented by Kruse-Plass et al. to justify their conclusions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Student > Master 2 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 44%
Environmental Science 2 22%
Chemistry 2 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,892,691
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Sciences Europe
#441
of 586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,209
of 310,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Sciences Europe
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.