Scientific Opinion on an application (EFSA-GMO-NL-2009-70) for the placing on the market of genetically modified drought tolerant maize MON 87460 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto

Complex plant responses to drought and heat stress under climate change

Global climate change is predicted to result in increased yield losses of agricultural crops caused by environmental conditions. In particular, heat and drought stress are major factors that negatively affect plant development and reproduction, and previous studies have revealed how these stresses induce plant responses at physiological and molecular levels. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge concerning how drought, heat, and combinations of these stress conditions affect the status of plants, including crops, by affecting factors such as stomatal conductance, photosynthetic activity, cellular oxidative conditions, metabolomic profiles, and molecular signaling mechanisms. We further discuss stress-responsive regulatory factors such as transcription factors and signaling factors, which play critical roles in adaptation to both drought and heat stress conditions and potentially function as 'hubs' in drought and/or heat stress responses. Additionally, we present recent findings based on forward genetic approaches that reveal natural variations in agricultural crops that play critical roles in agricultural traits under drought and/or heat conditions. Finally, we provide an overview of the application of decades of study results to actual agricultural fields as a strategy to increase drought and/or heat stress tolerance. This review summarizes our current understanding of plant responses to drought, heat, and combinations of these stress conditions.

Improving abiotic stress tolerance of forage grasses - prospects of using genome editing

Due to an increase in the consumption of food, feed, and fuel and to meet global food security needs for the rapidly growing human population, there is a necessity to obtain high-yielding crops that can adapt to future climate changes. Currently, the main feed source used for ruminant livestock production is forage grasses. In temperate climate zones, perennial grasses grown for feed are widely distributed and tend to suffer under unfavorable environmental conditions. Genome editing has been shown to be an effective tool for the development of abiotic stress-resistant plants. The highly versatile CRISPR-Cas system enables increasingly complex modifications in genomes while maintaining precision and low off-target frequency mutations. In this review, we provide an overview of forage grass species that have been subjected to genome editing. We offer a perspective view on the generation of plants resilient to abiotic stresses. Due to the broad factors contributing to these stresses the review focuses on drought, salt, heat, and cold stresses. The application of new genomic techniques (e.g., CRISPR-Cas) allows addressing several challenges caused by climate change and abiotic stresses for developing forage grass cultivars with improved adaptation to the future climatic conditions. Genome editing will contribute towards developing safe and sustainable food systems.

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)

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.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2016-134)

Maize MON 87427 ×MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 (five‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the five single maize events and eleven of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the 11 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 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 viable grains 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 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 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. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not 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.

Food additive safety

Food is a very common source of toxicant exposure to humans. An unknown number of naturally occurring contaminants find their way into food. The most ominous are products of mold growth called mycotoxins, which include the carcinogenic aflatoxins. On the other hand, more than 2500 chemical substances are added to foods to modify or impart flavor, color, stability, and texture, to fortify or enrich nutritive value, or to reduce cost. In addition, an estimated 12,000 substances are used in such a way that they may unintentionally enter the food supply. The term “food additive” is a regulatory term that encompasses any functional substance that is normally neither consumed as a food itself, but is intentionally added to food (usually in small quantities) to augment its processing or to improve aroma, color, consistency, taste, texture, or shelf life. Additives are not considered “nutritional” even if they possess nutritive value. The purpose of the present review is to give an overview of the approaches to, and procedures involved in ensuring the safety of the US food supply in the context of food additives, with particular reference to the existing and emerging scientific and regulatory landscape and consumer perceptions.