Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Releases in the United States likely will involve a two-step process. Releases
in the United States of transgenic arthropods were experimental and on a rel-
atively small scale, at least initially (
Boxes 14.1, 14.2
). Permanent releases of
GMAs in the United States have not been made. Nor is it clear which regula-
tory agency(ies) in the United States will regulate releases of transgenic arthro-
pods, such as mosquitoes, that vector human diseases. The “Coordinated
Framework” that regulates transgenic organisms has gaps, making regulation of
transgenic vectors of human diseases problematic (
Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology 2004
). Uniform regulations regarding appropriate facilities and
procedures for containing transgenic arthropods before their release into the
environment also are lacking. It is unknown what issues must be resolved before
permanent
releases of transgenic insects into the environment are possible (
Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology 2004
). Risk analyses will add a significant
cost in both time and resources to pest-management projects involving GMAs.
The issue is not
if
GMAs should be released, but when and how? The debate
over evaluation methods and risk issues should include a variety of viewpoints.
Much of the debate has been parallel to the debate on the risks of introducing
natural enemies for classical biological control programs into new environments
(
Ruesink et al. 1995
). Most introduced insect natural enemies have provided
large benefits, with only a few examples of potential or demonstrated harm to
the environment. Despite this, caution is warranted.
Ewell et al. (1999)
reported
the conclusions of a workshop on the risks of deliberate introductions of spe-
cies into new environments. The participants did not discriminate between the
potential risks of genetically modified organisms and unmodified organisms.
Ewell et al. (1999)
noted that assessing risks is complex and concluded,
“Benefits and costs of introductions [of new organisms] are unevenly
distributed among ecosystems, within and across regions, among sectors of
society, and across generations. Although an introduction may meet a desired
objective in one area, at one time, or for some sectors of society, unwanted
and unplanned effects may also occur. Introduced organisms can, therefore,
simultaneously have both beneficial and costly effects. Furthermore, the
relative magnitudes of costs and benefits vary both in space and over time.”
Ewell et al. (1999)
recommended developing a single framework for evaluat-
ing all types of introductions, noted there is a need for retrospective analyses of
past introductions, and the importance of having a holistic view of the invasion
process.
Ewell et al. (1999)
concluded,
“At the extremes, these views [of risks] range from a handful of advocates
of no introductions, or of such rigorous pre-introduction proof of benignness
that all introductions are effectively prohibited, to an equally small group
