Scientific Opinion updating the risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on the genetically modified insect resistant maize 1507

Assessing the effects of an acute exposure to worst-case concentration of Cry proteins on zebrafish using the embryotoxicity test and proteomics analysis

Cry1C, Cry1F and Cry1Ab are insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which are expressed in transgenic crops. Given the entry of these proteins into aquatic environments, it is relevant to evaluate their impacts on aquatic organisms. In this work, we sought to evaluate the effects of Cry1C, Cry1F and Cry1Ab on zebrafish embryos and larvae of a predicted worst-case scenario concentration of these proteins (set to 1.1 mg/L). For that, we coupled a traditional toxicity approach (the zebrafish embryotoxicity test and dosage of enzymatic biomarkers) to gel free proteomics analysis. At the concentration tested, these proteins did not cause adverse effects in the zebrafish early life stages, either by verifying phenotypic endpoints of toxicity or alterations in representative enzymatic biomarkers (catalase, glutathione-S-tranferase and lactate-dehydrogenase). At the molecular level, the Cry proteins tested lead to very small changes in the proteome of zebrafish larvae. In a global way, these proteins upregulated the expression of vitellogenins. Besides that, Cry1C e Cry1F deregulated heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoproteins (Hnrnpa0l and Hnrnpaba, respectively), implicated in mRNA processing and gene regulation. Overall, these data lead to the conclusion that Cry1C, Cry1F and Cry1Ab proteins, even at a very high concentration, have limited effects in the early stages of zebrafish life.

Assessment of genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2011-103)

Maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 (six-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21. The GMO Panel previously assessed the six single events and 22 of their combinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the maize single events or their 22 combinations that could lead 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 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 the six-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 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 34 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 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 its non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

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)

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.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × 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-2013-112)

Maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 (four-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 89034, 1507, NK603 and DAS-40278-9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and four of their subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the maize single events or their four subcombinations that could lead 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 indicates 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/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 for which no experimental data were provided, 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. No post-market monitoring for food/feed is necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-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.

Limits of Concern: suggestions for the operationalisation of a concept to determine the relevance of adverse effects in the ERA of GMOs

BACKGROUND

The European Food Safety Authority proposed a concept for the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants in the EU that is based on the definition of thresholds for the acceptability of potential adverse effects on the environment. This concept, called Limits of Concern (LoC), needs to be further refined to be implemented in the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms.

METHODS

We analyse and discuss how LoC can be defined for the environmental risk assessment for three different types of genetically modified plants. We outline protection goals relevant to the genetically modified plants in question and discuss existing concepts and suggestions for acceptability thresholds from the environmental risk assessment of different regulatory areas. We make specific recommendations for the setting and use of LoC for each type of genetically modified plant.

RESULTS

The LoC concept can be suitably applied for the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, if the different protection goals in agro-environments are specifically considered. Not only biodiversity protection goals but also agricultural protection goals need to be addressed. The different ecosystem services provided by weeds inside and outside agricultural fields have to be considered for genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Exposure-based LoCs are suggested based on knowledge about dose-effect relationships between maize pollen and non-target Lepidoptera for insect-resistant maize. Due to the long-term nature of biological processes such as spread and establishment, LoCs for genetically modified oilseed rape should be defined for the presence of the genetically modified plant or its genetically modified traits in relevant protection goals.

CONCLUSIONS

When setting LoCs, the focus should be on protection goals which are possibly affected. Potential overlaps of the LoC concept with the ecosystem service concept have to be clarified to harmonise protection levels in the agro-environment for different stressors. If additional impacts on agro-biodiversity resulting from the cultivation of genetically modified plants are to be avoided, then high protection levels and low thresholds for acceptable effects (i.e. LoC) should be set.

Evaluation of the potential exposure of butterflies to genetically modified maize pollen in protected areas in Italy

Environmental impacts of genetically modified crops are mandatorily assessed during their premarket phase. One of the areas of concern is the possible impact on nontarget organisms. Crops expressing Cry toxins might affect Lepidoptera larvae living outside cultivated fields, through pollen deposition on wild plants, which constitute their food source. While pollen toxicity varies among different events, possible exposure of nontarget species depends on the agro-environmental conditions. This study was conducted in two protected areas in Italy, characterized by different climatic conditions, where many Lepidoptera species thrive in proximity to maize cultivations. To estimate the possible exposure in absence of the actual stressor (e.g., Cry1-expressing maize plants), we conducted a two-year field survey of butterflies and weeds. Indicator species were selected-Aglais (Inachis) io in the Northern site and Vanessa cardui in the Southern site-and their phenology was investigated. Pollen dispersal from maize fields was measured by collection in Petri dishes. Duration and frequency of exposure was defined by the overlap between pollen emission and presence of larvae on host plants. Different risk scenarios are expected in the two regions: highest exposure is foreseen for A. io in the Northern site, while minimal exposure is estimated for V. cardui in the Southern site. In the latter case, locally grown maize cultivars flower in mid-summer in coincidence with an aestivation period for several butterfly species due to hot and dry conditions. Moreover, host plants of V. cardui are at the end of their life cycle thus limiting food availability.

Scientific opinion on an application for renewal of authorisation for continued marketing of maize 1507 and derived food and feed submitted under Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Pioneer Overseas Corporation and Dow AgroSciences LLC

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-001 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Pioneer Overseas Corporation and Dow Agrosciences LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (GMO Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the frame of a renewal of authorisation application of the insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified (GM) maize 1507. The data package received in the frame of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, an updated bioinformatics analysis and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed this data package for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the frame of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize 1507 considered for renewal is identical to the corrected sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that no new hazards or modified exposure and no new scientific uncertainties were identified for the application for renewal that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize 1507 (EFSA, 2005b, 2009).

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

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.