1
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Naegeli H, Moreno FJ, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Silvia F, Dumont AF, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Grammatikou P, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T, Xiftou K. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 95275 (application GMFF-2022-5890). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8886. [PMID: 39099613 PMCID: PMC11292213 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8886] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/06/2024] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize MON 95275 was developed to confer protection to certain coleopteran species. These properties were achieved by introducing the mpp75Aa1.1, vpb4Da2 and DvSnf7 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses reveal similarity to known toxins, which was further assessed. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MON 95275 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Mpp75Aa1.1 and Vpb4Da2 proteins and the DvSnf7 dsRNA and derived siRNAs as expressed in maize MON 95275 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MON 95275. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 95275 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 95275 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of maize MON 95275 material into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 95275. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 95275 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
2
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Naegeli H, Moreno FJ, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Dumont AF, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Grammatikou P, Goumperis T, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T, Xiftou K. Assessment of genetically modified maize DP910521 (application GMFF-2021-2473). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8887. [PMID: 39099615 PMCID: PMC11292214 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8887] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/06/2024] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified (GM) maize DP910521 was developed to confer resistance against certain lepidopteran insect pests as well as tolerance to glufosinate herbicide; these properties were achieved by introducing the mo-pat, pmi and cry1B.34 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses did not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP910521 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment except for the levels of iron in grain, which do not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry1B.34, PAT and PMI proteins as expressed in maize DP910521. The GMO panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP910521. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP910521 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP910521 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of maize DP910521 material into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP910521. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP910521 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
3
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Grammatikou P, Goumperis T, Jacchia S, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T, Xiftou K. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 94804 (application GMFF-2022-10651). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8714. [PMID: 38681741 PMCID: PMC11046408 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8714] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/01/2024] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified (GM) maize MON 94804 was developed to achieve a reduction in plant height by introducing the GA20ox_SUP suppression cassette. The molecular characterisation and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional differences identified between maize MON 94804 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for ear height, plant height and levels of carbohydrates in forage, which do not raise safety or nutritional concerns. The Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the GA20ox_SUP precursor-miRNA and derived mature miRNA as expressed in maize MON 94804 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MON 94804. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 94804 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 94804 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 94804 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 94804. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 94804 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
4
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, Camargo AM, De Sanctis G, Federici S, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Grammatikou P, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize DP202216 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-159). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8655. [PMID: 38510324 PMCID: PMC10952026 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8655] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize DP202216 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-containing herbicides and to provide an opportunity for yield enhancement under field conditions. These properties were achieved by introducing the mo-pat and zmm28 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP202216 and its comparator needs further assessment, except for the levels of stearic acid (C18:0), which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the PAT and ZMM28 proteins as expressed in maize DP202216, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize DP202216. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP202216 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as the comparator and non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP202216 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP202216. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as its comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
5
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, Camargo AM, De Sanctis G, Federici S, Fernández A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize DP23211 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-163). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8483. [PMID: 38239495 PMCID: PMC10794937 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize DP23211 was developed to confer control of certain coleopteran pests and tolerance to glufosinate-containing herbicide. These properties were achieved by introducing the pmi, mo-pat, ipd072Aa and DvSSJ1 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP23211 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for those in levels of histidine, phenylalanine, magnesium, phosphorus and folic acid in grain, which do not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD072Aa, PAT and PMI proteins and the DvSSJ1 dsRNA and derived siRNAs newly expressed in maize DP23211, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP23211. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP23211 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. Therefore, no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP23211 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP23211. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP23211 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
6
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogue F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, Camargo AM, De Sanctis G, Federici S, Fernandez Dumont A, Gennaro A, Gomez Ruiz JA, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize DP915635 for food and feed uses, under regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2020-172). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8490. [PMID: 38235311 PMCID: PMC10792476 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8490] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/19/2024] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize DP915635 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate herbicide and resistance to corn rootworm pests. These properties were achieved by introducing the ipd079Ea, mo-pat and pmi expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP915635 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of crude protein in forage, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD079Ea, PAT and PMI proteins expressed in maize DP915635. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP915635. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP915635 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP915635 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP915635 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP915635. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP915635 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
7
|
Kleter GA, van der Voet H, Engel J, van der Berg JP. Comparative safety assessment of genetically modified crops: focus on equivalence with reference varieties could contribute to more efficient and effective field trials. Transgenic Res 2023; 32:235-250. [PMID: 37213044 PMCID: PMC10409827 DOI: 10.1007/s11248-023-00344-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2022] [Accepted: 03/28/2023] [Indexed: 05/23/2023]
Abstract
The initial compositional analysis of plants plays an important role within the internationally harmonized comparative safety assessment approach for genetically modified plants. Current EFSA guidance prescribes two types of comparison, namely difference tests with regard to a conventional comparator or control, and equivalence tests with regard to a collection of commercial reference varieties. The experience gained so far shows that most of the statistically significant differences between the test and control can be discounted based on the fact that they are still within equivalence limits of reference varieties with a presumed history of safe use. Inclusion of a test variety and reference varieties into field trial design, and of the statistical equivalence test would already suffice for the purpose of finding relevant parameters that warrant further assessment, hence both the inclusion of a conventional counterpart and the performance of difference testing can be omitted. This would also allow for the inclusion of safety testing regimes into plant variety testing VCU (value for cultivation and use) or other, independent variety trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gijs A Kleter
- Wageningen Food Safety Research, Part of Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 230, 6700 AE, Wageningen, Netherlands.
| | - Hilko van der Voet
- Biometris, Wageningen Plant Research, Part of Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands
| | - Jasper Engel
- Biometris, Wageningen Plant Research, Part of Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands
| | - Jan-Pieter van der Berg
- Wageningen Food Safety Research, Part of Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 230, 6700 AE, Wageningen, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Naegeli H, Moreno FJ, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Fernández A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Kagli DM, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified cotton COT102 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2017-141). EFSA J 2023; 21:e08031. [PMID: 37377664 PMCID: PMC10291446 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified cotton COT102 was developed to confer resistance against several lepidopteran species. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the differences in the agronomic-phenotypic and compositional characteristics between cotton COT102 and its non-GM comparator needs further assessment, except for levels of acid detergent fibre, which do not raise safety or nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Vip3Aa19 and APH4 proteins as expressed in cotton COT102 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of cotton COT102. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from cotton COT102 does not represent a nutritional concern for humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton COT102 is as safe as the non-GM comparator and non-GM cotton varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable cotton COT102 seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of cotton COT102. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton COT102 is as safe as its non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM cotton varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
9
|
Mullins E, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Federici S, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 and 30 subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2018-149). EFSA J 2023; 21:e08011. [PMID: 37284025 PMCID: PMC10240405 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 was developed by crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, MON 89034, 5307 and GA21, the GMO Panel previously assessed the 6 single maize events and 27 out of the 56 possible subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombinations were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the six-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that six-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable six-event stack maize grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in 29 of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and covered by the scope of this application and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the six-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21. The GMO Panel concludes that six-event stack maize and the 30 subcombinations covered by the scope of the application are as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
10
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Serrano JJS, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Federici S, Fernandez Dumont A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Lanzoni A, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87419 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2017-140). EFSA J 2023; 21:e07730. [PMID: 36698492 PMCID: PMC9853084 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7730] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize MON 87419 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba- and glufosinate-based herbicides. These properties were achieved by introducing the dmo and pat expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MON 87419 and its conventional counterpart needed further assessment, except for the levels of arginine and protein in grains which did not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the dicamba mono-oxygenase (DMO) and phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase (PAT) proteins as expressed in maize MON 87419. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 87419. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 87419 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87419 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 87419 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 87419. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87419 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
11
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Serrano JJS, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Devos Y, Federici S, Fernandez Dumont A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lanzoni A, Lenzi P, Camargo AM, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified maize GA21 × T25 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2016-137). EFSA J 2023; 21:e07729. [PMID: 36721864 PMCID: PMC9880721 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7729] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize GA21 × T25 was developed by crossing to combine two single events: GA21 and T25. The GMO Panel previously assessed the two single maize events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in maize GA21 × T25 does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 × T25, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food and feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize GA21 × T25 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize GA21 × T25. Post-market monitoring of food and feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 × T25 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties tested, with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
12
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Naegeli H, Moreno FJ, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, Dumont AF, Federici S, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lanzoni A, Lenzi P, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T, Streissl F, De Sanctis G. Assessment of genetically modified maize DP4114 × MON 810 × MIR604 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2018‐150). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07134. [PMID: 35281656 PMCID: PMC8900121 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Maize DP4114 × MON 810 × MIR604 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: DP4114, MON 810, MIR604 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and one of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombination were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, is as safe as the comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in nine of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombination and the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
13
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Naegeli H, Moreno FJ, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Fernandez Dumont A, Federici S, Gennaro A, Gomez Ruiz JA, Kagkli DM, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize NK603 × T25 × DAS-40278-9 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-164). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06942. [PMID: 34938370 PMCID: PMC8666937 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6942] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Maize NK603 × T25 × DAS-40278-9 (three-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single events: NK603, T25 and DAS-40278-9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the three single maize events and two of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the two subcombinations were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the three-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the three-event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in one of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the three-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the three-event stack maize. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the three-event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
14
|
Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Fernandez A, Federici S, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified cotton GHB811 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-ES-2018-154). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06781. [PMID: 34429778 PMCID: PMC8365404 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6781] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Cotton GHB811 was developed to confer tolerance to glyphosate and HPPD inhibitor herbicides. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between cotton GHB811 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for % lint, lint length and dihydrosterculic acid, which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 proteins as expressed in cotton GHB811 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of cotton GHB811. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from cotton GHB811 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton GHB811 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM cotton reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable cotton GHB811 seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of cotton GHB811. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton GHB811 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM cotton reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
15
|
Naegeli H, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, Devos Y, Federici S, Dumont AF, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Lanzoni A. Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape 73496 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2012-109). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06610. [PMID: 34178155 PMCID: PMC8209597 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6610] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Oilseed rape 73496 was developed to confer tolerance to the herbicidal active substance glyphosate through the expression of the glyphosate acetyltransferase protein GAT4621. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses identify no issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences between oilseed rape 73496 and its conventional counterpart in the agronomic/phenotypic endpoints tested needs further assessment. Differences identified in seed composition of oilseed rape 73496 as compared to its conventional counterpart raise no safety and nutritional concerns in the context of the scope of this application. No safety concerns are identified regarding toxicity and allergenicity of the GAT4621 protein as expressed in oilseed rape 73496. No evidence is found that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of oilseed rape 73496. Based on the outcome of the comparative and nutritional assessments, the consumption of oilseed rape 73496 does not represent any nutritional concern, in the context of the scope of this application. The implementation of a post-market monitoring plan is recommended to confirm the predicted consumption data and to verify that the conditions of use are those considered during the pre-market risk assessment. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape 73496 seeds into the environment, oilseed rape 73496 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of oilseed rape 73496. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape 73496, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-genetically modified oilseed rape reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
16
|
Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Kagkli DM, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T, Streissl F, De Sanctis G. Assessment of genetically modified soybean GMB151 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2018-153). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06424. [PMID: 33897857 PMCID: PMC8054566 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Soybean GMB151 was developed to confer tolerance to 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitor herbicides and resistance to nematodes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between soybean GMB151 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for palmitic acid and heptadecenoic acid in seeds and carbohydrate and crude protein in forage, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the HPPD-4 and Cry14Ab-1 proteins as expressed in soybean GMB151, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of soybean GMB151. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from soybean GMB151 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean GMB151 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM soybean reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable soybean GMB151 seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean GMB151. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean GMB151 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
17
|
Naegeli H, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Devos Y, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2015-127). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06348. [PMID: 33488811 PMCID: PMC7805002 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 (four-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and six of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or the six subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as its non-GM comparator and the non-GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four-event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the four maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four-event stack maize. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
18
|
Naegeli H, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Kagkli DM, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 87411 × 59122 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2017-139). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06351. [PMID: 33505528 PMCID: PMC7814765 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6351] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 87411 × 59122 (six-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine six single events: MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, 1507, MON 87411 and 59122. The GMO Panel previously assessed the six single maize events and 17 of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the 17 subcombinations were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins and dsRNA in the six-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the six-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as its non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the six-event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the 39 maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the six-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the six-event stack maize. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the six-event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
19
|
Naegeli H, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Devos Y, Dumont AF, Federici S, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Scientific Opinion on application EFSA-GMO-NL-2016-132 for authorisation of genetically modified of insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant soybean DAS-81419-2 × DAS-44406-6 for food and feed uses, import and processing submitted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Dow Agrosciences LCC. EFSA J 2020; 18:e06302. [PMID: 33250936 PMCID: PMC7677967 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6302] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Soybean DAS-8419-2 × DAS-44406-6 was developed to provide protection against certain lepidopteran pests and tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and other related phenoxy herbicides, and glyphosate- and glufosinate ammonium-containing herbicides. The Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Panel previously assessed the two single soybean events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single soybean events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the two-event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. In the case of accidental release of viable DAS-8419-2 × DAS-44406-6 seeds into the environment, soybean DAS-8419-2 × DAS-44406-6 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean DAS-8419-2 × DAS-44406-6. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that soybean DAS-8419-2 × DAS-44406-6, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-genetically modified soybean reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
20
|
Naegeli H, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Devos Y, Dumont AF, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize MZIR098 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2017-142). EFSA J 2020; 18:e06171. [PMID: 32874344 PMCID: PMC7448020 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6171] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Maize MZIR098 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-containing herbicides and resistance to certain coleopteran pests. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MZIR098 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for neutral detergent fibre (NDF) in grains, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the eCry3.1Ab, mCry3A and PAT proteins as expressed in maize MZIR098, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MZIR098. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MZIR098 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZIR098 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MZIR098 grains into the environment, maize MZIR098 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZIR098. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MZIR098, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM maize reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
21
|
Naegeli H, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Devos Y, Fernandez‐Dumont A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K. Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape MS11 for food and feed uses, import and processing, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-BE-2016-138). EFSA J 2020; 18:e06112. [PMID: 37649511 PMCID: PMC10464701 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Oilseed rape MS11 has been developed to confer male sterility and tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-containing herbicides. Based on the information provided in the application and in line with the scope of application EFSA-GMO-BE-2016-138, the genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel concludes that the molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic characteristics tested between oilseed rape MS11 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. No conclusions can be drawn for the compositional analysis due to the lack of an appropriate compositional data set. No toxicological or allergenicity concerns are identified for the Barnase, Barstar and PAT/bar proteins expressed in oilseed rape MS11. Owing to the incompleteness of the compositional analysis, the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment of oilseed rape MS11 cannot be completed. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape MS11 seeds into the environment, oilseed rape MS11 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the scope of the application. Since oilseed rape MS11 is designed to be used only for the production of hybrid seed, it is not expected to be commercialised as a stand-alone product for food/feed uses. Thus, seeds harvested from oilseed rape MS11 are not expected to enter the food/feed chain, except accidentally. In this context, the GMO Panel notes that, oilseed rape MS11 would not pose risk to humans and animals, while the scale of environmental exposure will be substantially reduced compared to a stand-alone product.
Collapse
|
22
|
Naegeli H, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Dumont A, Devos Y, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2015-126). EFSA J 2020; 18:e06111. [PMID: 37649527 PMCID: PMC10464710 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (three-event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single soybean events: MON 87705, MON 87708 and MON 89788. This combination is intended to alter the fatty acid profile in the seed (in particular increasing the levels of oleic acid) and tolerance to glyphosate-based and dicamba herbicides. The Genetically Modified Organisms Panel previously assessed the three single soybean events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single soybean events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three-event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. In the case of accidental release of viable three-event stack soybean seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and the reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788. Considering the altered fatty acid profile of the three-event stack soybean, a proposal for post-market monitoring needs to be provided by the applicant. The GMO Panel notes that in the context of this application EFSA-GMO-NL-2015-126 the applicant did not provide a 90-day study on MON 87705 soybean in line with the applicable legal requirements. Therefore, the GMO Panel is not in the position to finalise the risk assessment of soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 under the current regulatory frame.
Collapse
|
23
|
Naegeli H, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, Dumont AF, Devos Y, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Paraskevopoulos K. Assessment of genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 for food and feed uses, import and processing, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2012-111). EFSA J 2020; 18:e05946. [PMID: 32626498 PMCID: PMC7008876 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5946] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
The scope of application EFSA-GMO-DE-2012-111 is for food and feed uses, import and processing of genetically modified (GM) soybean SYHT0H2 in the European Union. Soybean SYHT0H2 was developed to confer tolerance to the herbicidal active substances mesotrione and other p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting herbicides and glufosinate ammonium. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues except for sequence similarity of AvHPPD-03 to bacterial haemolysins that was considered in food/feed safety assessment. The outcome of the comparative analysis (agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics) did not need further assessment except for the changes in seed levels of α-tocopherol and γ-tocopherol that were assessed for food and feed relevance. The GMO Panel does not identify toxicological and allergenicity concerns for the AvHPPD-03 and PAT proteins expressed in soybean SYHT0H2 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of soybean SYHT0H2. The nutritional impact of food/feed from soybean SYHT0H2 is expected to be the same as that of food/feed from the conventional counterpart and commercial non-GM soybean reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean SYHT0H2 is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM soybean reference varieties, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable soybean SYHT0H2 grains into the environment, soybean SYHT0H2 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean SYHT0H2. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that soybean SYHT0H2, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
24
|
Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, Lanzoni A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, De Sanctis G, Fernández Dumont A, Gennaro A, Neri FM. Statement complementing the EFSA Scientific Opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-UK-2006-34) for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified maize 3272. EFSA J 2019; 17:e05844. [PMID: 32626151 PMCID: PMC7008843 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5844] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to the application for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified (GM) maize 3272 (EFSA-GMO-UK-2006-34). The applicant conducted new agronomic, phenotypic and compositional analysis studies on maize 3272 and assessed the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein, addressing elements that remained inconclusive from previous EFSA opinion issued in 2013. The GMO Panel is of the opinion that the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics as well as forage and grain composition of maize 3272 do not give rise to food and feed safety, and nutritional concerns when compared to non-GM maize. Considering the scope of this application and the characteristics of the trait introduced in this GM maize, the effect of processing and potential safety implications of specific food or feed products remain to be further investigated. Regarding the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein and considering all possible food and feed uses of maize 3272, the Panel concludes that the information provided does not fully address the concerns previously raised by the Panel in 2013. Owing to the nature and the knowledge available on this protein family, it is still unclear whether under specific circumstances the alpha-amylase AMY797E has the capacity to sensitise certain individuals and to cause adverse effects. To further support the safety of specific products of maize 3272, the applicant provided thorough information relevant for the allergenicity assessment of dried distiller grains with solubles (DDGS), which is the main product of interest for importation into the EU. Having considered the information provided on this product, the Panel is of the opinion that under the specific conditions of use described by the applicant, DDGS produced from maize 3272 does not raise concerns when compared to DDGS from non-GM maize.
Collapse
|
25
|
Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Devos Y, Dumont AF, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2016-128). EFSA J 2019; 17:e05847. [PMID: 32626154 PMCID: PMC7008788 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5847] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (four-event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87751, MON 87701, MON 87708 and MON 89788. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events have been identified that would lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological and allergenicity assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four-event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack soybean, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the non-GM comparator and the non-GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four-event stack soybean into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four-event stack soybean. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack soybean is as safe as the non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
26
|
Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, De Sanctis G, Fernandez Dumont A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2017-144). EFSA J 2019; 17:e05848. [PMID: 32626155 PMCID: PMC7008898 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5848] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 (four-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411. The genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and four of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the four subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins and dsRNA in the four-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non-GM comparator and the non-GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four-event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the six maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four-event stack maize. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non-GM comparator and tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
27
|
Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Ardizzone M, Fernandez Dumont A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Lanzoni A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Ramon M. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and subcombinations independently of their origin for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2013-113). EFSA J 2019; 17:e05521. [PMID: 32665790 PMCID: PMC7339631 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5521] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 (five-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the 5 single maize events and 11 of their subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or their 11 subcombinations that could modify the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicates that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the five-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the five-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non-GM comparator and the non-GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of the five-event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the 14 maize subcombinations for which no experimental data were provided, and concludes that they are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the five-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the five-event stack maize. No post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the five-event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
28
|
Aguilera J, Aguilera‐Gomez M, Barrucci F, Cocconcelli PS, Davies H, Denslow N, Lou Dorne J, Grohmann L, Herman L, Hogstrand C, Kass GEN, Kille P, Kleter G, Nogué F, Plant NJ, Ramon M, Schoonjans R, Waigmann E, Wright MC. EFSA Scientific Colloquium 24 – 'omics in risk assessment: state of the art and next steps. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018. [DOI: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.en-1512] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Lutz Grohmann
- Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Fabien Nogué
- French National Institute for Agricultural Research INRA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Devos Y, Ardizzone M, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, De Sanctis G, Dumont AF, Gennaro A, Gomez Ruiz JA, Paraskevopoulos K. Assessment of genetically modified maize MZHG0JG for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2016-133). EFSA J 2018; 16:e05469. [PMID: 32625751 PMCID: PMC7009398 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5469] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
The scope of application EFSA-GMO-DE-2016-133 is for food and feed uses, import and processing of genetically modified (GM) maize MZHG0JG in the European Union. Maize MZHG0JG was developed to confer tolerance to the herbicidal active substances glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MZHG0JG and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for early stand count (pre-thinning). The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the mEPSPS and PAT proteins as expressed in maize MZHG0JG, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MZHG0JG. The nutritional impact of food/feed derived from maize MZHG0JG is expected to be the same as that of food/feed derived from the conventional counterpart and commercial non-GM maize reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZHG0JG is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MZHG0JG grains into the environment, maize MZHG0JG would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZHG0JG. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MZHG0JG, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
30
|
Paoletti C, Favilla S, Leo A, Neri FM, Broll H, Fernandez A. Variability of Crops' Compositional Characteristics: What Do Experimental Data Show? JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY 2018; 66:9507-9515. [PMID: 30032599 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b01871] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
Common pillar across the risk assessment strategies implemented worldwide for genetically modified plants is the comparison of their compositional profile to that of conventional counterparts deemed safe. If differences are observed, those that cannot be attributed to natural variation are further evaluated for their safety relevance. This principle is clear, but its implementation is challenging. Here we first discuss the difficulties of estimating natural variation of crop-specific compositional end-points and the various attempts made, together with their advantages and limitations. Second we present the empirical distribution curves of compositional end-points for two crops bearing a large commercial interest worldwide, maize and soybean. These curves provide novel information on end-point specific variability relevant for further progressing in the risk assessment process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudia Paoletti
- European Food Safety Authority - EFSA , Via Carlo Magno 1A , 43126 Parma , Italy
| | | | | | - Franco M Neri
- European Food Safety Authority - EFSA , Via Carlo Magno 1A , 43126 Parma , Italy
| | - Hermann Broll
- European Food Safety Authority - EFSA , Via Carlo Magno 1A , 43126 Parma , Italy
| | - Antonio Fernandez
- European Food Safety Authority - EFSA , Via Carlo Magno 1A , 43126 Parma , Italy
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Herman RA, Fast BJ, Mathesius C, Delaney B. Isoline use in crop composition studies with genetically modified crops under EFSA guidance - Short communication. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2018; 95:204-206. [PMID: 29596977 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.03.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2018] [Revised: 03/20/2018] [Accepted: 03/21/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) oversees the safety evaluation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union. EFSA requires inclusion of commercial non-GM reference lines and a non-GM isoline in crop composition studies with GM crops. Reference lines are used to construct equivalence limits for each compositional analyte. Results for the GM line are compared with these equivalence limits to assess compositional equivalence between the GM crop and the non-GM crop. If compositional equivalence cannot be concluded from this comparison, then results for the non-GM isoline can be used to determine if this finding is likely the result of the background non-GM genetics of the GM crop. If this latter comparison is not sufficient to assess the compositional safety of the GM crop, then a biological-relevance assessment for the analytes in question can be completed taking into account the greater body of knowledge of composition for the crop and diets. Thus, the isoline is a useful comparator but not required to assess the compositional safety of the GM crop, and therefore, unavoidable genotype differences between the isoline and GM line should not be grounds for rejection of compositional studies where the biological relevance of potential non-equivalence is addressed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rod A Herman
- Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268, United States.
| | - Brandon J Fast
- Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268, United States
| | - Carey Mathesius
- DuPont Pioneer, 8325 NW 62nd Avenue, Johnston, IA 50131, United States
| | - Bryan Delaney
- DuPont Pioneer, 7100 NW 62nd Avenue, Johnston, IA 50131, United States
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
van der Voet H. Safety Assessments and Multiplicity Adjustment: Comments on a Recent Paper. JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY 2018; 66:2194-2195. [PMID: 29455520 PMCID: PMC5843949 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03686] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2017] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
|
33
|
van der Voet H, Goedhart PW, Schmidt K. Equivalence testing using existing reference data: An example with genetically modified and conventional crops in animal feeding studies. Food Chem Toxicol 2017; 109:472-485. [PMID: 28958869 DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.09.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2017] [Revised: 09/19/2017] [Accepted: 09/23/2017] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
An equivalence testing method is described to assess the safety of regulated products using relevant data obtained in historical studies with assumedly safe reference products. The method is illustrated using data from a series of animal feeding studies with genetically modified and reference maize varieties. Several criteria for quantifying equivalence are discussed, and study-corrected distribution-wise equivalence is selected as being appropriate for the example case study. An equivalence test is proposed based on a high probability of declaring equivalence in a simplified situation, where there is no between-group variation, where the historical and current studies have the same residual variance, and where the current study is assumed to have a sample size as set by a regulator. The method makes use of generalized fiducial inference methods to integrate uncertainties from both the historical and the current data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hilko van der Voet
- Wageningen University & Research, Biometris, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Paul W Goedhart
- Wageningen University & Research, Biometris, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Kerstin Schmidt
- BioMath GmbH, Friedrich-Barnewitz-Str. 8, 18119 Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Comparative statistical component analysis of transgenic, cyanophycin-producing potatoes in greenhouse and field trials. Transgenic Res 2017; 26:529-539. [DOI: 10.1007/s11248-017-0022-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2016] [Accepted: 05/04/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
35
|
Naegeli H, Birch AN, Casacuberta J, De Schrijver A, Gralak MA, Guerche P, Jones H, Manachini B, Messéan A, Nielsen EE, Nogué F, Robaglia C, Rostoks N, Sweet J, Tebbe C, Visioli F, Wal JM, Gennaro A, Neri FM, Olaru I. Scientific opinion on application EFSA-GMO-NL-2013-120 for authorisation of genetically modified soybean FG72 × A5547-127 for food and feed uses, import and processing submitted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Bayer CropScience LP and M.S. Technologies LLC. EFSA J 2017; 15:e04744. [PMID: 32625455 PMCID: PMC7010049 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
In this opinion, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) assesses the two‐event stack soybean FG72 × A5547‐127 for food and feed uses, import and processing. The EFSA GMO Panel previously assessed the two single events combined to produce the two‐event stack soybean FG72 × A5547‐127 and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety, were identified. The molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional data on soybean FG72 × A5547‐127 did not give rise to safety concerns and no reason to expect interactions between the single events impacting on the food and feed safety of the two‐event stack soybean was identified. Although the EFSA GMO Panel cannot conclude on forage composition, soybean forage is not expected to be imported in a significant amount for use as feed. Considering the routes of exposure and limited exposure levels, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that soybean FG72 × A5547‐127 would not give rise to safety concerns in the event of accidental release of viable seeds into the environment. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean FG72 × A5547‐127. The EFSA GMO Panel concludes that soybean FG72 × A5547‐127 is as safe as the non‐genetically modified (GM) comparator and non‐GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
36
|
Naegeli H, Birch AN, Casacuberta J, De Schrijver A, Gralak MA, Jones H, Manachini B, Messéan A, Nielsen EE, Nogué F, Robaglia C, Rostoks N, Sweet J, Tebbe C, Visioli F, Wal JM, Poeting A, Álvarez F, Broll H, Ramon M. Scientific opinion on an application by Monsanto (EFSA-GMO-NL-2013-114) for the placing on the market of a herbicide-tolerant genetically modified cotton MON 88701 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. EFSA J 2017; 15:e04746. [PMID: 32625448 PMCID: PMC7010045 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Cotton MON 88701 was developed through Agrobacterium tumefaciens‐mediated transformation to express the dicamba mono‐oxygenase (DMO) protein, conferring tolerance to dicamba, and the phosphinothricin N‐acetyltransferase PAT protein, conferring tolerance to glufosinate ammonium‐based herbicides. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatics analyses did not identify issues requiring further assessment for food/feed safety. The agronomic and phenotypic characteristics tested revealed no relevant differences between cotton MON 88701 and its conventional counterpart. Since complete compositional results were reported for only three sites, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) is not in the position to complete the assessment of the compositional analysis. Moreover, as no 28‐day toxicity study in rodents on the MON 88701 DMO protein was provided, the GMO Panel is not in the position to complete the safety assessment of this protein in cotton MON 88701. Consequently, the GMO Panel cannot complete the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment of food/feed derived from cotton MON 88701. The safety assessment identified no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the PAT protein newly expressed in cotton MON 88701. Considering the routes of exposure and limited exposure levels, the GMO Panel concludes that cotton MON 88701 would not give rise to safety concerns in the event of accidental release of viable seeds into the environment. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of cotton MON 88701. In conclusion, in the absence of an appropriate comparative assessment and an appropriate assessment of the MON 88701 DMO protein, the GMO Panel is not in a position to complete its food/feed risk assessment of cotton MON 88701. The GMO Panel concludes that the cotton MON 88701 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on the environment in the context of the scope of the application.
Collapse
|
37
|
Naegeli H, Birch AN, Casacuberta J, De Schrijver A, Gralak MA, Jones H, Manachini B, Messéan A, Nielsen EE, Nogué F, Robaglia C, Rostoks N, Sweet J, Tebbe C, Visioli F, Wal JM, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, Liu Y, Neri FM, Ramon M. Scientific opinion on an application by Dow AgroSciences LLC (EFSA-GMO-NL-2012-106) for the placing on the market of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant soybean DAS-44406-6 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. EFSA J 2017; 15:e04738. [PMID: 32625444 PMCID: PMC7009884 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Soybean DAS-44406-6 expresses 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthase (2mEPSPS), conferring tolerance to glyphosate-based herbicides, aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase (AAD-12), conferring tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and other related phenoxy herbicides, and phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT), conferring tolerance to glufosinate ammonium-based herbicides. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatics analyses did not identify issues requiring assessment for food/feed safety. The agronomic and phenotypic characteristics revealed no relevant differences between soybean DAS-44406-6 and its conventional counterpart, except for pod count, seed count and yield. The compositional analysis identified no differences requiring further assessment, except for an increase (up to 31%) in lectin activity in soybean DAS-44406-6. Such increase is unlikely to raise additional concerns for food/feed safety and nutrition of soybean DAS-44406-6 as compared to its conventional counterpart and non-GM reference varieties. There were no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the three newly expressed proteins, and no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of soybean DAS-44406-6. Soybean DAS-44406-6 is as nutritious as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM soybean reference varieties tested. There are no indications of an increased likelihood of establishment and spread of occasional feral soybean DAS-44406-6 plants, unless exposed to the intended herbicides. The likelihood of environmental effects from the accidental release of viable seeds from soybean DAS-44406-6 into the environment is therefore very low. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean DAS-44406-6. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that the information available for soybean DAS-44406-6 addresses the scientific comments raised by Member States and that soybean DAS-44406-6, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and non-GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of the scope of this application.
Collapse
|
38
|
Naegeli H, Birch AN, Casacuberta J, De Schrijver A, Gralak MA, Jones H, Manachini B, Messéan A, Nielsen EE, Nogué F, Robaglia C, Rostoks N, Sweet J, Tebbe C, Visioli F, Wal JM, Ardizzone M, Devos Y, Gomes A, Liu Y, Neri FM, Olaru I. Scientific Opinion on an application by Dow AgroSciences LLC (EFSA-GMO-NL-2011-91) for the placing on the market of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant soybean DAS-68416-4 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. EFSA J 2017; 15:e04719. [PMID: 32625430 PMCID: PMC7010147 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4719] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Soybean DAS-68416-4 was developed by Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation to express the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-12 (AAD-12) protein, conferring tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and other related phenoxy herbicides, and the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) protein, conferring tolerance to glufosinate ammonium-based herbicides. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatics analyses did not identify issues requiring further assessment for food/feed safety. The agronomic and phenotypic characteristics tested revealed no relevant differences between soybean DAS-68416-4 and its conventional counterpart, except for 'days to 50% flowering'. The compositional analysis identified no differences requiring further assessment, except for an increase (up to 36%) in lectin activity in soybean DAS-68416-4. Such increase is unlikely to raise additional concerns for food/feed safety and nutrition for soybean DAS-68416-4 as compared to its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties. There were no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the two newly expressed proteins, and no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of soybean DAS-68416-4. Soybean DAS-68416-4 is as nutritious as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties. There are no indications of an increased likelihood of establishment and spread of occasional feral soybean DAS-68416-4 plants, unless these are exposed to the intended herbicides. The likelihood of environmental effects resulting from the accidental release of viable seeds from soybean DAS-68416-4 into the environment is therefore very low. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean DAS-68416-4. The GMO Panel concludes that the information available addresses the scientific comments of the Member States and that soybean DAS-68416-4, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of the scope of this application.
Collapse
|
39
|
Naegeli H, Birch AN, Casacuberta J, De Schrijver A, Gralak MA, Guerche P, Jones H, Manachini B, Messéan A, Nielsen EE, Nogué F, Robaglia C, Rostoks N, Sweet J, Tebbe C, Visioli F, Wal J, Divéki Z, Fernández‐Dumont A, Gennaro A, Lanzoni A, Maria Neri F, Paraskevopoulos K. Scientific Opinion on an application by Dow AgroSciences (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2013‐116) for placing on the market of genetically modified insect‐resistant soybean DAS‐81419‐2 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. EFSA J 2016. [DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4642] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
|
40
|
Naegeli H, Birch AN, Casacuberta J, De Schrijver A, Gralak MA, Guerche P, Jones H, Manachini B, Messéan A, Nielsen EE, Nogué F, Robaglia C, Rostoks N, Sweet J, Tebbe C, Visioli F, Wal J, Álvarez F, Ardizzone M, Fernández Dumont A, Liu Y, Neri FM, Ramon M. Scientific Opinion on an application by DOW AgroSciences LLC (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2010‐89) for placing on the market the genetically modified herbicide‐tolerant maize DAS‐40278‐9 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. EFSA J 2016. [DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4633] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
|
41
|
Scientific Opinion on an application by Bayer CropScience and Monsanto (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2009‐75) for placing on the market of genetically modified glufosinate‐ammonium‐ and glyphosate‐tolerant oilseed rape MS8 × RF3 × GT73 and subcombinations, which have not been authorised previously (i.e. MS8 × GT73 and RF3 × GT73) independently of their origin, for food and feed uses, import and processing, with the exception of isolated seed protein for food, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. EFSA J 2016. [DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4466] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
|
42
|
Devos Y, Aguilera J, Diveki Z, Gomes A, Liu Y, Paoletti C, du Jardin P, Herman L, Perry JN, Waigmann E. EFSA's scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence: looking back and ahead. Transgenic Res 2013; 23:1-25. [PMID: 23963741 DOI: 10.1007/s11248-013-9741-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2013] [Accepted: 08/14/2013] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and derived food and feed products are subject to a risk analysis and regulatory approval before they can enter the market in the European Union (EU). In this risk analysis process, the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which was created in 2002 in response to multiple food crises, is to independently assess and provide scientific advice to risk managers on any possible risks that the use of GMOs may pose to human and animal health and the environment. EFSA's scientific advice is elaborated by its GMO Panel with the scientific support of several working groups and EFSA's GMO Unit. This review presents EFSA's scientific activities and highlights its achievements on the risk assessment of GMOs for the first 10 years of its existence. Since 2002, EFSA has issued 69 scientific opinions on genetically modified (GM) plant market registration applications, of which 62 for import and processing for food and feed uses, six for cultivation and one for the use of pollen (as or in food), and 19 scientific opinions on applications for marketing products made with GM microorganisms. Several guidelines for the risk assessment of GM plants, GM microorganisms and GM animals, as well as on specific issues such as post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) were elaborated. EFSA also provided scientific advice upon request of the European Commission on safeguard clause and emergency measures invoked by EU Member States, annual PMEM reports, the potential risks of new biotechnology-based plant breeding techniques, evaluations of previously assessed GMOs in the light of new scientific publications, and the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM plants. Future challenges relevant to the risk assessment of GMOs are discussed. EFSA's risk assessments of GMO applications ensure that data are analysed and presented in a way that facilitates scientifically sound decisions that protect human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yann Devos
- GMO Unit, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Via Carlo Magno 1, 43126, Parma, Italy,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Pons E, Peris JE, Peña L. Field performance of transgenic citrus trees: assessment of the long-term expression of uidA and nptII transgenes and its impact on relevant agronomic and phenotypic characteristics. BMC Biotechnol 2012; 12:41. [PMID: 22794278 PMCID: PMC3462728 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6750-12-41] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2012] [Accepted: 06/19/2012] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The future of genetic transformation as a tool for the improvement of fruit trees depends on the development of proper systems for the assessment of unintended effects in field-grown GM lines. In this study, we used eight transgenic lines of two different citrus types (sweet orange and citrange) transformed with the marker genes β-glucuronidase (uidA) and neomycin phosphotransferase II (nptII) as model systems to study for the first time in citrus the long-term stability of transgene expression and whether transgene-derived pleiotropic effects occur with regard to the morphology, development and fruit quality of orchard-grown GM citrus trees. RESULTS The stability of the integration and expression of the transgenes was confirmed in 7-year-old, orchard-grown transgenic lines by Southern blot analysis and enzymatic assays (GUS and ELISA NPTII), respectively. Little seasonal variation was detected in the expression levels between plants of the same transgenic line in different organs and over the 3 years of analysis, confirming the absence of rearrangements and/or silencing of the transgenes after transferring the plants to field conditions. Comparisons between the GM citrus lines with their non-GM counterparts across the study years showed that the expression of these transgenes did not cause alterations of the main phenotypic and agronomic plant and fruit characteristics. However, when comparisons were performed between diploid and tetraploid transgenic citrange trees and/or between juvenile and mature transgenic sweet orange trees, significant and consistent differences were detected, indicating that factors other than their transgenic nature induced a much higher phenotypic variability. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate that transgene expression in GM citrus remains stable during long-term agricultural cultivation, without causing unexpected effects on crop characteristics. This study also shows that the transgenic citrus trees expressing the selectable marker genes that are most commonly used in citrus transformation were substantially equivalent to the non-transformed controls with regard to their overall agronomic performance, as based on the use of robust and powerful assessment techniques. Therefore, future studies of the possible pleiotropic effects induced by the integration and expression of transgenes in field-grown GM citrus may focus on the newly inserted trait(s) of biotechnological interest.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elsa Pons
- Centro de Protección Vegetal y Biotecnología, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA), 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain
| | - Josep E Peris
- Centro de Protección Vegetal y Biotecnología, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA), 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain
| | - Leandro Peña
- Centro de Protección Vegetal y Biotecnología, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA), 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food Chem Toxicol 2012; 50:1134-48. [PMID: 22155268 DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 110] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2011] [Revised: 11/23/2011] [Accepted: 11/24/2011] [Indexed: 10/14/2022]
|
45
|
Guidance on conducting repeated-dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rodents on whole food/feed. EFSA J 2011. [DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 108] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
|