Can Systematic Reviews Inform GMO Risk Assessment and Risk Management?

Removal of toxic heavy metals using genetically engineered microbes: Molecular tools, risk assessment and management strategies

The direct release of industrial effluent into the water and other anthropogenic activities causes water pollution. Heavy metal ions are the primary contaminant in the industrial effluents which are exceptionally toxic at low concentrations, terribly disturb the endurance equilibrium of activities in the eco-system and be remarkably hazardous to human health. Different conventional treatment methodologies were utilized for the removal of toxic pollutants from the contaminated water which has several drawbacks such as cost-ineffective and lower efficiency. Recently, genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) stand-out for the removal of toxic heavy metals are viewed as an economically plausible and environmentally safe technique. GMMs are microorganisms whose genetic material has been changed utilizing genetic engineering techniques that exhibit enhanced removal efficiency in comparison with the other treatment methodologies. The present review comments the GMMs such as bacteria, algae and fungi and their potential for the removal of toxic heavy metals. This review provides current aspects of different advanced molecular tools which have been used to manipulate micro-organisms through genetic expression for the breakdown of metal compounds in polluted areas. The strategies, major limitations and challenges for genetic engineering of micro-organisms have been reviewed. The current review investigates the approaches working on utilizing genetically modified micro-organisms and effective removal techniques.

Does the growing of Bt maize change abundance or ecological function of non-target animals compared to the growing of non-GM maize? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hundreds of studies on environmental effects of genetically modified (GM) crops became available over the past 25 years. For maize producing insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), potential adverse effects on non-target organisms are a major area of concern and addressed in risk assessments. Reviews and meta-analyses have helped various stakeholders to address uncertainties regarding environmental impacts of the technology. Many field studies from Europe and other parts of the world have been published in the last decade, and those data are often not covered by previous meta-analyses. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to answer the question: "Does the growing of Bt maize change abundance or ecological function of non-target animals compared to the growing of non-GM maize?"

METHODS

Literature published until August 2019 was searched systematically in 12 bibliographic databases, 17 specialized webpages, and reference sections of 78 review articles. Defined eligibility criteria were applied to screen titles, abstracts, and full texts of the retrieved references. A custom-made database was developed with quantitative data on invertebrate abundance, activity density, or predation/parasitism rates. Eligible data that did not fit the quantitative database were captured in detailed tables and summarized narratively. For the first time, a critical appraisal scheme for field studies on non-targets in GM crops was developed to estimate the risk of bias (internal validity) and the suitability to answer the review question (external validity) of all primary data. Meta-analyses on different taxonomic levels, functional groups, and types of Bt maize were conducted. Untreated Bt maize was either compared with untreated non-Bt maize, or with insecticide-treated non-Bt maize. The influence of contributions by private sector product developers on reported effects was investigated.

REVIEW FINDINGS

The database on non-target effects of Bt maize field trials contains more than 7200 records from 233 experiments and 120 articles. Meta-analyses on different taxonomic levels revealed only few and often non-robust significant effect sizes when both Bt maize and non-Bt maize were untreated. Bt maize harboured fewer parasitoids (Braconidae, Tachinidae) of the European corn borer, the main target pest of Lepidoptera-active Bt maize, compared with non-Bt maize. Similarly, sap beetles (Nitidulidae), that are associated with Lepidoptera damage, were recorded less in Bt maize. In some analyses, a negative effect of Bt maize was observed for rove beetles (Staphylinidae) and hoverflies (Syrphidae) and a positive effect for ladybeetles (Coccinellidae), flower bugs (Anthocoridae), and lacewings (Neuroptera). However, those effects were not consistent for different analyses and often related to individual articles. When untreated Bt maize was compared with pyrethroid-treated non-Bt maize, more effect sizes were significant. In particular, populations of predators were reduced after pyrethroid treatment, while few data were available for other insecticides. Funnel plots showed no evidence for publication bias and the analyses of private sector contribution revealed no evidence for influence of vested interests. Conclusions about potential effects of Bt maize on vertebrates or on animals inhabiting off-crop habitats were not possible, because only few such studies fitting the format of direct Bt/non-Bt comparisons on plot or field level were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The current work largely confirmed previously published results. The effects of Bt maize on the community of non-target invertebrates inhabiting maize fields were small and mostly neutral, especially when compared with the effects of broad-spectrum pyrethroid insecticide treatments.

Including non-public data and studies in systematic reviews and systematic maps

Systematic reviews and maps should be based on the best available evidence, and reviewers should make all reasonable efforts to source and include potentially relevant studies. However, reviewers may not be able to consider all existing evidence, since some data and studies may not be publicly available. Including non-public studies in reviews provides a valuable opportunity to increase systematic review/map comprehensiveness, potentially mitigating negative impacts of publication bias. Studies may be non-public for many reasons: some may still be in the process of being published (publication can take a long time); some may not be published due to author/publisher restrictions; publication bias may make it difficult to publish non-significant or negative results. Here, we consider what forms these non-public studies may take and the implications of including them in systematic reviews and maps. Reviewers should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of including non-public studies, weighing risks of bias against benefits of increased comprehensiveness. As with all systematic reviews and maps, reviewers must be transparent about methods used to obtain data and avoid risks of bias in their synthesis. We make tentative suggestions for reviewers in situations where non-public data may be present in an evidence base.