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)

Assessment of genetically modified maize DP202216 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-159)

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.

Comparative safety assessment of genetically modified crops: focus on equivalence with reference varieties could contribute to more efficient and effective field trials

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.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87419 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2017-140)

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.

Three strategies of transgenic manipulation for crop improvement

Heterologous expression of exogenous genes, overexpression of endogenous genes, and suppressed expression of undesirable genes are the three strategies of transgenic manipulation for crop improvement. Up to 2020, most (227) of the singular transgenic events (265) of crops approved for commercial release worldwide have been developed by the first strategy. Thirty-eight of them have been transformed by synthetic sequences transcribing antisense or double-stranded RNAs and three by mutated copies for suppressed expression of undesirable genes (the third strategy). By the first and the third strategies, hundreds of transgenic events and thousands of varieties with significant improvement of resistance to herbicides and pesticides, as well as nutritional quality, have been developed and approved for commercial release. Their application has significantly decreased the use of synthetic pesticides and the cost of crop production and increased the yield of crops and the benefits to farmers. However, almost all the events overexpressing endogenous genes remain at the testing stage, except one for fertility restoration and another for pyramiding herbicide tolerance. The novel functions conferred by the heterologously expressing exogenous genes under the control of constitutive promoters are usually absent in the recipient crops themselves or perform in different pathways. However, the endogenous proteins encoded by the overexpressing endogenous genes are regulated in complex networks with functionally redundant and replaceable pathways and are difficult to confer the desirable phenotypes significantly. It is concluded that heterologous expression of exogenous genes and suppressed expression by RNA interference and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats-cas (CRISPR/Cas) of undesirable genes are superior to the overexpression of endogenous genes for transgenic improvement of crops.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MZIR098 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2017-142)

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.