Appropriate analytical methods are necessary to assess nontarget effects of insecticidal proteins in GM crops through meta-analysis (Response to Andow et al. 2009)

Anthony M. Shelton, Steven E. Naranjo, Jrg Romeis, Richard L. Hellmich, Jeffrey D. Wolt, Brian A. Federici, Ramon Albajes, Franz Bigler, Elisabeth P.J. Burgess, Galen P. Dively, Angharad M.R. Gatehouse, Louise A. Malone, Richard Roush, Mark Sears, Frantisek Sehnal, Natalie Ferry, Howard A. Bell

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We strongly restate our criticisms of the report by Lövei et al. (2009). (1) They failed to account for the critical importance of well-described prey/host-quality mediated effects in the studies included in their analyses. Studies that failed to delineate toxicity of Bt proteins from poor prey quality should have either been eliminated from the analysis or coded so that heterogeneity analysis could have been conducted to reveal true treatment effects. (2) They included multiple nonindependent measures of various life history and behavioral traits in their analyses. (3) They used a distribution approach that negates much of the power of a meta-analysis and the subsequent inferences possible. (4) They lumped together proteins that have entirely different modes of action and host ranges into a single category (i.e., proteinase inhibitors, lectins) (5) They failed to provide any ecological context for their assessments and they disregarded actual field studies that have shown the lack of harm to natural enemies in environments in which Bt plants have been grown. To reiterate, the suggestion by Andow et al. that we have fundamental criticisms of meta-analysis is a red herring that diverts attention away from the real debate over the merits of different meta-analytic approaches. Our criticism is directed to the meta-analysis by Lövei et al. (2009) and not to all meta-analyses per se. Additionally, the seven findings added to the end of Andow et al. (2009) with the phrase that that they were not disputed by Shelton et al. (2009) works counter to a full and objective debate in the scientific literature. Our initial rebuttal (Shelton et al. 2009) was limited by page length, as is this letter. Because we did not address each of these issues does not mean we agree with them or find them without fault.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1533-1538
Number of pages6
JournalEnvironmental Entomology
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2009

Fingerprint

insecticidal proteins
meta-analysis
analytical methods
analytical method
crop
protein
host quality
host range
natural enemy
herring
proteinase inhibitors
lectins
natural enemies
inhibitor
mechanism of action
life history
proteins
toxicity
genetically modified plants
effect

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology
  • Insect Science

Cite this

Shelton, Anthony M. ; Naranjo, Steven E. ; Romeis, Jrg ; Hellmich, Richard L. ; Wolt, Jeffrey D. ; Federici, Brian A. ; Albajes, Ramon ; Bigler, Franz ; Burgess, Elisabeth P.J. ; Dively, Galen P. ; Gatehouse, Angharad M.R. ; Malone, Louise A. ; Roush, Richard ; Sears, Mark ; Sehnal, Frantisek ; Ferry, Natalie ; Bell, Howard A. / Appropriate analytical methods are necessary to assess nontarget effects of insecticidal proteins in GM crops through meta-analysis (Response to Andow et al. 2009). In: Environmental Entomology. 2009 ; Vol. 38, No. 6. pp. 1533-1538.
@article{f668a7b13b9348af8053eb2fe028c0c4,
title = "Appropriate analytical methods are necessary to assess nontarget effects of insecticidal proteins in GM crops through meta-analysis (Response to Andow et al. 2009)",
abstract = "We strongly restate our criticisms of the report by L{\"o}vei et al. (2009). (1) They failed to account for the critical importance of well-described prey/host-quality mediated effects in the studies included in their analyses. Studies that failed to delineate toxicity of Bt proteins from poor prey quality should have either been eliminated from the analysis or coded so that heterogeneity analysis could have been conducted to reveal true treatment effects. (2) They included multiple nonindependent measures of various life history and behavioral traits in their analyses. (3) They used a distribution approach that negates much of the power of a meta-analysis and the subsequent inferences possible. (4) They lumped together proteins that have entirely different modes of action and host ranges into a single category (i.e., proteinase inhibitors, lectins) (5) They failed to provide any ecological context for their assessments and they disregarded actual field studies that have shown the lack of harm to natural enemies in environments in which Bt plants have been grown. To reiterate, the suggestion by Andow et al. that we have fundamental criticisms of meta-analysis is a red herring that diverts attention away from the real debate over the merits of different meta-analytic approaches. Our criticism is directed to the meta-analysis by L{\"o}vei et al. (2009) and not to all meta-analyses per se. Additionally, the seven findings added to the end of Andow et al. (2009) with the phrase that that they were not disputed by Shelton et al. (2009) works counter to a full and objective debate in the scientific literature. Our initial rebuttal (Shelton et al. 2009) was limited by page length, as is this letter. Because we did not address each of these issues does not mean we agree with them or find them without fault.",
author = "Shelton, {Anthony M.} and Naranjo, {Steven E.} and Jrg Romeis and Hellmich, {Richard L.} and Wolt, {Jeffrey D.} and Federici, {Brian A.} and Ramon Albajes and Franz Bigler and Burgess, {Elisabeth P.J.} and Dively, {Galen P.} and Gatehouse, {Angharad M.R.} and Malone, {Louise A.} and Richard Roush and Mark Sears and Frantisek Sehnal and Natalie Ferry and Bell, {Howard A.}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1603/022.038.0603",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "1533--1538",
journal = "Environmental Entomology",
issn = "0046-225X",
publisher = "Entomological Society of America",
number = "6",

}

Shelton, AM, Naranjo, SE, Romeis, J, Hellmich, RL, Wolt, JD, Federici, BA, Albajes, R, Bigler, F, Burgess, EPJ, Dively, GP, Gatehouse, AMR, Malone, LA, Roush, R, Sears, M, Sehnal, F, Ferry, N & Bell, HA 2009, 'Appropriate analytical methods are necessary to assess nontarget effects of insecticidal proteins in GM crops through meta-analysis (Response to Andow et al. 2009)', Environmental Entomology, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1533-1538. https://doi.org/10.1603/022.038.0603

Appropriate analytical methods are necessary to assess nontarget effects of insecticidal proteins in GM crops through meta-analysis (Response to Andow et al. 2009). / Shelton, Anthony M.; Naranjo, Steven E.; Romeis, Jrg; Hellmich, Richard L.; Wolt, Jeffrey D.; Federici, Brian A.; Albajes, Ramon; Bigler, Franz; Burgess, Elisabeth P.J.; Dively, Galen P.; Gatehouse, Angharad M.R.; Malone, Louise A.; Roush, Richard; Sears, Mark; Sehnal, Frantisek; Ferry, Natalie; Bell, Howard A.

In: Environmental Entomology, Vol. 38, No. 6, 01.12.2009, p. 1533-1538.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Appropriate analytical methods are necessary to assess nontarget effects of insecticidal proteins in GM crops through meta-analysis (Response to Andow et al. 2009)

AU - Shelton, Anthony M.

AU - Naranjo, Steven E.

AU - Romeis, Jrg

AU - Hellmich, Richard L.

AU - Wolt, Jeffrey D.

AU - Federici, Brian A.

AU - Albajes, Ramon

AU - Bigler, Franz

AU - Burgess, Elisabeth P.J.

AU - Dively, Galen P.

AU - Gatehouse, Angharad M.R.

AU - Malone, Louise A.

AU - Roush, Richard

AU - Sears, Mark

AU - Sehnal, Frantisek

AU - Ferry, Natalie

AU - Bell, Howard A.

PY - 2009/12/1

Y1 - 2009/12/1

N2 - We strongly restate our criticisms of the report by Lövei et al. (2009). (1) They failed to account for the critical importance of well-described prey/host-quality mediated effects in the studies included in their analyses. Studies that failed to delineate toxicity of Bt proteins from poor prey quality should have either been eliminated from the analysis or coded so that heterogeneity analysis could have been conducted to reveal true treatment effects. (2) They included multiple nonindependent measures of various life history and behavioral traits in their analyses. (3) They used a distribution approach that negates much of the power of a meta-analysis and the subsequent inferences possible. (4) They lumped together proteins that have entirely different modes of action and host ranges into a single category (i.e., proteinase inhibitors, lectins) (5) They failed to provide any ecological context for their assessments and they disregarded actual field studies that have shown the lack of harm to natural enemies in environments in which Bt plants have been grown. To reiterate, the suggestion by Andow et al. that we have fundamental criticisms of meta-analysis is a red herring that diverts attention away from the real debate over the merits of different meta-analytic approaches. Our criticism is directed to the meta-analysis by Lövei et al. (2009) and not to all meta-analyses per se. Additionally, the seven findings added to the end of Andow et al. (2009) with the phrase that that they were not disputed by Shelton et al. (2009) works counter to a full and objective debate in the scientific literature. Our initial rebuttal (Shelton et al. 2009) was limited by page length, as is this letter. Because we did not address each of these issues does not mean we agree with them or find them without fault.

AB - We strongly restate our criticisms of the report by Lövei et al. (2009). (1) They failed to account for the critical importance of well-described prey/host-quality mediated effects in the studies included in their analyses. Studies that failed to delineate toxicity of Bt proteins from poor prey quality should have either been eliminated from the analysis or coded so that heterogeneity analysis could have been conducted to reveal true treatment effects. (2) They included multiple nonindependent measures of various life history and behavioral traits in their analyses. (3) They used a distribution approach that negates much of the power of a meta-analysis and the subsequent inferences possible. (4) They lumped together proteins that have entirely different modes of action and host ranges into a single category (i.e., proteinase inhibitors, lectins) (5) They failed to provide any ecological context for their assessments and they disregarded actual field studies that have shown the lack of harm to natural enemies in environments in which Bt plants have been grown. To reiterate, the suggestion by Andow et al. that we have fundamental criticisms of meta-analysis is a red herring that diverts attention away from the real debate over the merits of different meta-analytic approaches. Our criticism is directed to the meta-analysis by Lövei et al. (2009) and not to all meta-analyses per se. Additionally, the seven findings added to the end of Andow et al. (2009) with the phrase that that they were not disputed by Shelton et al. (2009) works counter to a full and objective debate in the scientific literature. Our initial rebuttal (Shelton et al. 2009) was limited by page length, as is this letter. Because we did not address each of these issues does not mean we agree with them or find them without fault.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=71749116669&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=71749116669&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1603/022.038.0603

DO - 10.1603/022.038.0603

M3 - Review article

C2 - 20021746

AN - SCOPUS:71749116669

VL - 38

SP - 1533

EP - 1538

JO - Environmental Entomology

JF - Environmental Entomology

SN - 0046-225X

IS - 6

ER -