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)

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.