**4. Biotechnology vs insecticide**

The insects have been one of the major causes of damage to food production in [1] and, in world terms, the losses caused by pests and diseases are quite high. The same causing losses of the order of 38% in [26]. Withdrawals in Brazil indicate that pests can be liable for loss of 2.2 billion dollars for the main Brazilian crops in [27].

Control of harmful insects is done, most of the time, by agrochemicals and, on a much small‐ er scale, by the employment of biological insecticides. The indiscriminate use of pesticides in combating the causal agents causes, despite its efficiency, environmental problems severe, human health, reduces number of natural enemies, and provides an accelerated selection of resistant insects in [28]. In contrast, biopesticides, Bt based, used for over a century, retainers of features less impactful on the environment and less harmful to humans ever occupied a prominent place on the market for the sale of pesticides in [29].

From the Decade of 80, because of genetic advance, it became possible to develop a new pest control strategy, which consists of the genetically modified plants resistant to insects in [ and with effectiveness similar to conventional insecticides in [31, 32].

The first experiments with genetically modified (GM) plants were made in 1986, in the Unit‐ ed States and in France. The first variety marketed a vegetable species produced by genetic engineering was the "FlavrSavr Tomato ", developed by the American company Calgene and marketed from 1994.

Between 1987 and 2000 there were more than 11,000 field trials in 45 countries and cultures more frequently tested were corn, tomatoes, soybeans, canola, potatoes and cotton, and the genetic features introduced were herbicide tolerance, product quality, virus-resistance and resistance to insects in [33].


\* 17 biotech mega-countries growing 50,000 hectares, or more, of biotech crops.

\*\* Rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand

Source: in [34].

Since then more than 100 products were launched on the market and currently constitute

In some studies, this bacterium was considered inefficient in controlling *S. frugiperda*in [8, 9]. However, with the advances provided by new laboratory techniques and greater interest of

The Bt a soil bacteria present in various continents, Gram-positive, aerobic and family Bacil‐ laceae, when environmental conditions become adverse can sporulate to survive these con‐ ditions in [11]. Are found in every terrestrial environments and also in dead insects, plants and debris in [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. The methods to isolate this pathogen are power‐ ful and usually easy to perform in [20, 21, 22, 23]. The number of cells obtained from Bt var‐ ied between 102 and 104 colony-forming units (CFU) per gram of soil, while in plants this

Produces sporangia containing a endospore and crystalline inclusions of proteins that are re‐ sponsible for their action entomopathogenic, among which stands out the protein CRY. This crystal is composed of a protein polypeptide called endotoxin in [25]. When larval forms of insects feed on such proteins, initiates a series of reactions that culminate with the death of

The insects have been one of the major causes of damage to food production in [1] and, in world terms, the losses caused by pests and diseases are quite high. The same causing losses of the order of 38% in [26]. Withdrawals in Brazil indicate that pests can be liable for loss of

Control of harmful insects is done, most of the time, by agrochemicals and, on a much small‐ er scale, by the employment of biological insecticides. The indiscriminate use of pesticides in combating the causal agents causes, despite its efficiency, environmental problems severe, human health, reduces number of natural enemies, and provides an accelerated selection of resistant insects in [28]. In contrast, biopesticides, Bt based, used for over a century, retainers of features less impactful on the environment and less harmful to humans ever occupied a

From the Decade of 80, because of genetic advance, it became possible to develop a new pest control strategy, which consists of the genetically modified plants resistant to insects in

The first experiments with genetically modified (GM) plants were made in 1986, in the Unit‐ ed States and in France. The first variety marketed a vegetable species produced by genetic engineering was the "FlavrSavr Tomato ", developed by the American company Calgene

Between 1987 and 2000 there were more than 11,000 field trials in 45 countries and cultures more frequently tested were corn, tomatoes, soybeans, canola, potatoes and cotton, and the

more than 90% of gross revenues with biopesticides in [6, 7].

researchers' positive results were obtained in [10]

508 Insecticides - Development of Safer and More Effective Technologies

number varies between 0 and ufc 100 cm-2 in [24].

2.2 billion dollars for the main Brazilian crops in [27].

prominent place on the market for the sale of pesticides in [29].

[ and with effectiveness similar to conventional insecticides in [31, 32].

**4. Biotechnology vs insecticide**

and marketed from 1994.

the same.

**Table 1.** Global Area of Biotech Crops in 2011: by Country (Million Crops)\*\*.

These days, according to the annual report of 2011 on the use of transgenic crops, the nonprofit organization International Service for the acquisition of AgriBiotech Applications (ISAAA) observed an increase of 94 times in planted area of 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 160 million hectares in 2011 (Table 1), allowing biotech crops become more agricultural tech‐ nology adopted in the history of modern agriculture.

around 9.5, in the gut of insects, releasing protoxin of 130 kDa to Cry1 and Cry2 to 79kDa.. After this breakdown, the protoxinare activated by digestive enzymes, forming toxic fragments of 60-65 kDa. These monomers bind to receptors specific primary, locat‐ ed in the apical membrane of the microvillus membranes of the columnar cells of the in‐ testine of the larva. It is in this step that the affinity between the toxin and the receiver, for example, Cry1ae protein, lepdopteros is recognized as an important factor in deter‐ mining the spectrum insecticidal Cry proteins. Later, the monomers bind to secondary receivers, which are proteins ancoradorasglicosil-phosphatidyl-inisitol (API), as phos‐ phates and alkaline, to the lepidoptero*Heliothisvirences*. After this binding, the now oligô‐ merose inserts into the membrane, where there are receptors for API, and leads to the formation of pores in the cell membrane of the intestinal epithelium and therefore de‐ struction of microvilli membranes, hypertrophy of epithelial cells, vacuolization of cyto‐

Use of Biotechnology in the Control of Insects-Prague

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53302

511

In relation to the safety of the use of Bt corn plants as an example, several tests are conduct‐ ed to certify the safety of its use in the environment and in food and feed. Initially, the pro‐ tein *Cry* is tested in animal models, such as rats and mice, for the verification of the toxic potential. One of these tests, called acute toxicity consists in forced ingestion of a pure ani‐ mal protein by solution and on the observation of effects of this. The product only goes to

We can cite as an example the test performed with Safety, this protein in maize Herculex®. This protein was tested on mice to the level of 576 mg per kilogram of live weight and no side effect was observed. To be exhibited at similar level, a person weighing 70 kg would take almost 5 tons of raw corn grains. This without taking into consideration the aspect that the human digestive tract, not to have alkaline pH, would not be able to downgrade this

Other reviews include the potential to cause allergies as well as the corn grain consumption by other animals such as chicken and fish, and what is called substantial equivalence, which is comparing the nutritional profile of the genetically modified maize with conventional maize. The corn will only be released commercially and, therefore, will go to the market when, in these analyses, the nutritional content between the conventional and transgenic

In the analysis of environmental safety, non-target organisms, how insects from another or‐ der, class or species, natural enemies and beneficial insects like bees, for example, are ex‐ posed to proteins inserted or the pollen grains that express and are evaluated its effects.

If all tests present results within expected ranges and be proven that there is no risk of harm or damage to health and the environment, these damages are compiled and submitted to the competent authorities of the country where you intend to market the product for analysis

corn were exactly the same, except, of course, the presence of protein inserted.

plasm, cell lyses and intestinal paralysis/death of the insect in [11, 41].

the next steps of assessment if no effect is observed and diagnosed.

**6. The safety of the use of Btplants**

protein crystal.

The endless search for alternative methods of insect control-Prague has been held strongly by several research groups worldwide, due to the need of a more sustainable agriculture and more committed to environmental preservation in [35].

In this way, farmers have adopted this technology Bt targeting an increasing effective pro‐ duction to sustainable agriculture in [36]. The benefits of this technology are: reduction of environmental effects on toxins, safety in use, efficiency, conservation of natural enemies and reduction of fungal diseases.

The first advantage is the production of protein *Cry*, by plants-Bt, which is not affected by environmental factors such as atmospheric fallout, light incidence, and high temperatures in [37]. In addition, the homogeneity of the protein, in plant tissues, allows a more efficient use of insecticide effect than the application (spraying) of biopesticides, Bt, based on plants. The second advantage is the possibility of a higher level of security in relation to insecticide for‐ mulated because the proteins and does not accumulate in fatty tissues, are not toxic to hu‐ mans and pets. Tied to these characteristics, the protein Cry, has no activity by contact, being necessary, the ingestion of the toxin by the insect, to have the effect of insecticide. The third advantage is the *Heliothisvirescens*control significant and *Pectinophoragossypiella*, for ex‐ ample, in Bt cotton culture, between 95 and 99% efficiency in [38]. The fourth advantage is the preservation of natural enemies, therefore, secondary pests can become a problem if the population of beneficial insects is reduced by the use of chemical insecticides of low selectiv‐ ity. The fifth benefit, no less important, is the reduction of fungal diseases. The lesions caused by insects, in the organs of plants, fungi infection, create opportunities mainly in the genus *Fusarium e Aspergillus*in [39]. The primary importance of these fungi is the presence of micotoxins, particularly fumosinsandaflatoxins produced by them. The fumosins can be fa‐ tal to horses and pigs in [40]. And aflatoxinis extremely toxic to animals and humans in [39]. The dramatic reduction of insect attack, leads to reduction of insect attack, and consequent‐ ly, decreases the production of micotoxins.
