1
|
Kallavus T, Kaasik R, Leemet T, Soots K, Soonvald L, Sulg S, Veromann E. Laboratory sprayer for dsRNA application: Design and bioassay validation. MethodsX 2024; 12:102734. [PMID: 38707218 PMCID: PMC11068844 DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2024.102734] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2023] [Accepted: 04/25/2024] [Indexed: 05/07/2024] Open
Abstract
The shortage of commercially available and reliable laboratory spraying equipment for testing different preparations can be a major obstacle to achieve field-comparable results in the laboratory conditions. RNA interference is natural biological process which, when used for plant protection, can be designed method combining sustainability and minimal environmental side effects. Spraying of dsRNA is a field-relevant method that should ensure consistency and repeatability if conducted in laboratory. We built a portable spray device for laboratory use and tested its suitability for dsRNA application. For that, we carried out bioassay on three plant species with different leaf surface textures. DsRNA were detected in all samples 3 days post-treatment indicating its suitability for dsRNA delivery. We built a portable spray device for laboratory use and tested its suitability for dsRNA application. For that, we carried out:•Bioassay on three plant species with different leaf surface textures. DsRNA were detected in all samples 3 days post-treatment indicating its suitability for dsRNA delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Triin Kallavus
- Chair of Plant Health, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu 51006, Estonia
- Department of Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent 9000, Belgium
| | - Riina Kaasik
- Chair of Plant Health, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu 51006, Estonia
| | - Tõnu Leemet
- Institute of Forestry and Engineering, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu 51006, Estonia
| | - Kaarel Soots
- Institute of Forestry and Engineering, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu 51006, Estonia
| | - Liina Soonvald
- Chair of Plant Health, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu 51006, Estonia
| | - Silva Sulg
- Chair of Plant Health, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu 51006, Estonia
| | - Eve Veromann
- Chair of Plant Health, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu 51006, Estonia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sulg S, Kovács G, Willow J, Kaasik R, Smagghe G, Lövei GL, Veromann E. Spatiotemporal distancing of crops reduces pest pressure while maintaining conservation biocontrol in oilseed rape. Pest Manag Sci 2024; 80:2250-2259. [PMID: 36715695 DOI: 10.1002/ps.7391] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Revised: 12/30/2022] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Agricultural landscapes provide resources for arthropod pests as well as their natural enemies. To develop integrated pest management (IPM) practices, it is important to understand how spatiotemporal location influences crop colonization and damage severity. We performed a 3-year (2016-2018) field experiment in winter oilseed rape (OSR, Brassica napus) fields in Estonia, where half of the fields were within 500 m of the location of the previous year's winter OSR field and half were outside this zone. We investigated how distance from the previous year's OSR crop influences the infestation and parasitism rates of two of its most important pests: the pollen beetle (Brassicogethes aeneus) and the cabbage seed weevil (Ceutorhynchus obstrictus). RESULTS When the distance from the previous year's OSR crop was >500 m, we recorded significantly reduced pest pressure by both B. aeneus and C. obstrictus in the study fields. Biocontrol of both pests, provided by parasitic wasps, was high in each study year and commonly not affected by distance. Mean parasitism rates of B. aeneus were >31%, occasionally reaching >70%; for C. obstrictus, mean parasitism was >46%, reaching up to 79%, thereby providing effective biocontrol for both pest species. CONCLUSION Spatiotemporal separation of OSR fields can reduce pest pressure without resulting in reduced parasitism of OSR pests. This supports a spatiotemporal field separation concept as an effective and sustainable technique for IPM in OSR. © 2023 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Silva Sulg
- Chair of Plant Health, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Gabriella Kovács
- Chair of Plant Health, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Jonathan Willow
- Chair of Plant Health, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
- Department of Plants and Crops, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Riina Kaasik
- Chair of Plant Health, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Guy Smagghe
- Department of Plants and Crops, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Gabor L Lövei
- Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Slagelse, Denmark
- ELKH-DE Anthropocene Ecology Research Group, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
- Department of Zoology & Ecology, Hungarian University of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Godollo, Hungary
| | - Eve Veromann
- Chair of Plant Health, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| |
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, Camargo AM, Goumperis T, Lenzi P, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (dossier GMFF-2022-9170). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8715. [PMID: 38686342 PMCID: PMC11056846 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8715] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Following the joint submission of dossier GMFF-2022-9170 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture B.V. and Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.V., the Panel on genetically modified organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide tolerant and insect resistant genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, a search for additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal dossier GMFF-2022-9170 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations.
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, Camargo AM, Goumperis T, Lenzi P, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application GMFF-2022-3670). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8716. [PMID: 38681739 PMCID: PMC11046403 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8716] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/01/2024] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of dossier GMFF-2022-3670 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Corteva Agriscience Belgium BV and Bayer Agriculture BV, the Panel on genetically modified organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and a search for additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal dossier GMFF-2022-3670 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603.
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, 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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
6
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
7
|
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, M. Camargo A, Goumperis T, Lenzi P, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 810 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (dossier GMFF-2022-9450). EFSA J 2024; 22:e8489. [PMID: 38250501 PMCID: PMC10797474 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2024] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of dossier GMFF-2022-9450 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect protected genetically modified maize MON 810, for food and feed uses (including pollen), excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize MON 810 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in dossier GMFF-2022-9450 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 810.
Collapse
|
8
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
9
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
10
|
Vilumets S, Kaasik R, Lof M, Kovács G, Holland J, Veromann E. Landscape complexity effects on Brassicogethes aeneus abundance and larval parasitism rate: a two-year field study. Sci Rep 2023; 13:22373. [PMID: 38104176 PMCID: PMC10725428 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-49690-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2023] [Accepted: 12/11/2023] [Indexed: 12/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Global biodiversity has suffered a decline primarily attributed to landscape simplification and intensified agricultural practices. Agricultural environments, characterized by homogeneity and frequent disturbances, are often suboptimal habitats for various insect species. While agricultural fields do favour pests, they generally fail to provide suitable habitats for natural enemies. The inclusion of diverse supporting habitats, such as semi-natural habitats, grassy and woody field margins etc. surrounding agricultural fields, play a crucial role in fostering effective biodiversity conservation. Moreover, determining the influence of different adjacent habitat types is essential in elucidating their influence on pest abundance and parasitism rates. Our two-year field study focused on assessing the abundance of Brassicogethes aeneus and its parasitism rate. The findings revealed that the adjacent habitat type did not significantly increase pest abundance and the parasitism rate of B. aeneus larvae consistently stayed over the threshold for effective biological control throughout the fields. This was attributed to the high proportion (35 and 38% in the 2 study years) of semi-natural habitats within most of the 1 km radius study areas. While our study did not identify any specific adjacent habitat type or habitat within a 1 km radius that directly impacted B. aeneus abundance, it emphasises the intricate interplay between the pests, parasitism and the surrounding environment because the interactive effect of distance from the crop edge and habitat type had a significant influence on B. aeneus infestation levels but not on parasitism. Decision tree analysis suggests that > 18% semi-natural habitat is needed to ensure sufficient levels of parasitism for effective biological control. A comprehensive understanding of habitats that influence not only B. aeneus but also other pests is critical for the successful implementation of IPM strategies and conservation initiatives within the agricultural sector.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Silva Vilumets
- Plant Health Chair, Estonian University of Life Science, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006, Tartu, Estonia.
| | - Riina Kaasik
- Plant Health Chair, Estonian University of Life Science, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Marjolein Lof
- Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University and Research, 6708PB, Wageningen, the Netherlands
| | - Gabriella Kovács
- Plant Health Chair, Estonian University of Life Science, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006, Tartu, Estonia
| | - John Holland
- Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, Fordingbridge, Hampshire, SP6 1EF, UK
| | - Eve Veromann
- Plant Health Chair, Estonian University of Life Science, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006, Tartu, Estonia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
12
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
13
|
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, Camargo AM, Fernandez A, Goumperis T, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-024). EFSA J 2023; 21:e07934. [PMID: 37122285 PMCID: PMC10131089 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7934] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-024 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide tolerant genetically modified oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-024 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3.
Collapse
|
14
|
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, Gennaro A, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N. Risk assessment of additional information on maize MIR162. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07935. [PMID: 37077301 PMCID: PMC10107383 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7935] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/21/2023] Open
Abstract
The European Commission requested the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA GMO Panel) to assess new scientific information on maize MIR162, and to indicate whether the previous conclusions on the safety of maize MIR162 as a single event and as a part of stacked events remain valid. The new information is included in a European patent that reports a decrease in male fertility in some MIR162 inbred lines, pointing to a potential link between such decrease and the Vip3 protein expressed by maize MIR162. The EFSA GMO Panel evaluated the data provided by the patent owner and found scarce support for a causal link between Vip3 and decreased fertility. The general hypothesis of an association between event MIR162 and altered fertility could not be confirmed. The EFSA GMO Panel conducted the safety assessment based on the conservative assumption that such an association exists. The EFSA GMO Panel concluded that a decrease in male fertility would have no impact on the previous conclusions on maize MIR162 and stacked events containing MIR162.
Collapse
|
15
|
Willow J, Silva AI, Taning CNT, Smagghe G, Veromann E. Towards dsRNA-integrated protection of medical Cannabis crops: considering human safety, recent- and developing RNAi methods, and research inroads. Pest Manag Sci 2023; 79:1267-1272. [PMID: 36514999 DOI: 10.1002/ps.7323] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2022] [Revised: 12/06/2022] [Accepted: 12/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
Owing to the expanding industry of medical Cannabis, we discuss recent milestones in RNA interference (RNAi)-based crop protection research and development that are transferable to medical Cannabis cultivation. Recent and prospective increases in pest pressure in both indoor and outdoor Cannabis production systems, and the need for effective nonchemical pest control technologies (particularly crucial in the context of cultivating plants for medical purposes), are discussed. We support the idea that developing RNAi tactics towards protection of medical Cannabis could play a major role in maximizing success in this continuously expanding industry. However, there remain critical knowledge gaps, especially with regard to RNA pesticide biosafety from a human toxicological viewpoint, as a result of the medical context of Cannabis product use. Furthermore, efforts are needed to optimize transformation and micropropagation of Cannabis plants, examine cutting edge RNAi techniques for various Cannabis-pest scenarios, and investigate the combined application of RNAi- and biological control tactics in medical Cannabis cultivation. © 2022 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Willow
- Chair of Plant Health, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Ana I Silva
- Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
- Neuroscience and Mental Health Research Institute, MRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Clauvis Nji Tizi Taning
- Department of Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Guy Smagghe
- Department of Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Eve Veromann
- Chair of Plant Health, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
17
|
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, Dumont AF, Ardizzone M. Animal dietary exposure in the risk assessment of feed derived from genetically modified plants. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07732. [PMID: 36698485 PMCID: PMC9850603 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7732] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
EFSA carries out the risk assessment of genetically modified plants for food and feed uses under Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. Exposure assessment - anticipated intake/extend of use shall be an essential element of the risk assessment of genetically modified feeds, as required by Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. Estimates of animal dietary exposure to newly expressed proteins should be determined to cover average consumption across all the different species, age, physiological and productive phases of farmed and companion animals, and identify and consider particular consumer groups with expected higher exposure. This statement is aimed at facilitating the reporting of the information that applicants need to provide on expected animal dietary exposure to newly expressed proteins and to increase harmonisation of the application dossiers to be assessed by the EFSA GMO Panel. Advice is provided on the selection of proper feed consumption and feed concentration data, and on the reporting of exposure's estimates. An overview of the different uncertainties that may be linked to the estimations is provided. This statement also explains how to access an Excel calculator which should be used in future applications as basis to provide a more consistent presentation of estimates of expected animal dietary exposure.
Collapse
|
18
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
19
|
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, Camargo AM, Goumperis T, Lewandowska A, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-022). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07684. [PMID: 36545567 PMCID: PMC9761338 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7684] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-022 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-022 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788.
Collapse
|
20
|
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, Camargo AM, Goumperis T, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-023). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07685. [PMID: 36545569 PMCID: PMC9761337 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-023 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean 40-3-2, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in soybean 40-3-2 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-023 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean 40-3-2.
Collapse
|
21
|
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, Camargo AM, Goumperis T, Lewandowska A, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87701 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-021). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07683. [PMID: 36545571 PMCID: PMC9761336 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7683] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-021 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant genetically modified soybean MON 87701, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the event in soybean MON 87701 considered for renewal is identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-021 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 87701.
Collapse
|
22
|
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, Martin Camargo A, De Sanctis G, Fernandez Dumont A, Gennaro A, Gómez Ruiz JÁ, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS‐40278‐9 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA GMO‐NL‐2020‐171). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07619. [PMCID: PMC9644921 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7619] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS‐40278‐9 was developed by crossing to combine four single events: DP4114, MON 89034, MON 87411 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and two of the 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 four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. Therefore, no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable four‐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 eight 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 four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS‐40278‐9. 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 the tested non‐GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
23
|
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, Camargo AM, de Sanctis G, Federici S, Dumont AF, Gennaro A, Ruiz JAG, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lanzoni A, Lewandowska A, Lenzi P, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Paraskevopoulos K, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified Maize MON 87429 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2019‐161). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07589. [DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7589] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
|
24
|
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, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Gomez Ruiz JA, Lenzi P, Martin Camargo A, Lewandowska A, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape GT73 for placing on the market of isolated seed protein for food under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐026/2). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07590. [PMID: 36349281 PMCID: PMC9634491 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7590] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified oilseed rape GT73 was developed to confer herbicide tolerance; this property was achieved by introducing the single insert containing one copy of goxv247 and the CP4 epsps expression cassettes. The scope of the application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐026/2 is for the modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the placing on the market of isolated seed protein from oilseed rape GT73 for food. Considering previous opinions on this event of the GMO Panel, the molecular characterisation data do not identify issues requiring additional food safety assessment. Based on previous assessments, no biologically relevant differences were identified in the compositional, agronomic and phenotypic characteristics of oilseed rape GT73 compared with its conventional counterpart, except for the newly expressed proteins. No new agronomic, phenotypic and compositional data in support of the comparative analysis were considered necessary in the context of this application. The GMO Panel did not identify indications of safety concern regarding toxicity, allergenicity or adjuvanticity related to the presence of the newly expressed proteins CP4 EPSPS and GOXv247 in oilseed rape GT73. Therefore, the GMO Panel concludes that in the context of this application, the consumption of oilseed rape GT73 does not represent any nutritional concern and is as safe as the conventional counterpart. No post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape GT73 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 oilseed rape GT73. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape GT73 is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. These conclusions also apply to the placing on the food market of isolated seed protein produced from oilseed rape GT73.
Collapse
|
25
|
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, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Gomez Ruiz JA, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Neri FM, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 95379 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2020‐170). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07588. [DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7588] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
|
26
|
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, Camargo AM, Goumperis T, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐019). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07587. [DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
|
27
|
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, Fernandez A, Gennaro A, Papadopoulou N, Raffaello T, Schoonjans R. Criteria for risk assessment of plants produced by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07618. [PMID: 36274984 PMCID: PMC9583736 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7618] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
EFSA was asked by the european Commission to develop criteria as advice for consideration for the risk assessment of plants produced by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA proposes in this statement six main criteria to assist the risk assessment of these plants. The first four criteria are related to the molecular characterisation of the genetic modification introduced in the recipient plant. The four criteria evaluate whether any exogenous DNA sequence(s) is/are present (Criterion 1), whether such sequence derives from the breeders' gene pool (Criterion 2), the type of integration (Criterion 3) and whether any endogenous plant gene is interrupted (Criterion 4). Depending on the evaluation of the above criteria, the product can be a genome edited plant where no exogenous DNA sequence is present, or a cisgenic or intragenic plant where the cisgenic and intragenic sequence are introduced by targeted insertion and no plant endogenous genes are interrupted. In these cases, two more criteria are assessed to evaluate the history of safe use (Criterion 5) and the structure and function of the new allele (Criterion 6). If cisgenic and intragenic sequence are introduced by random integration without interruption of an endogenous gene, or when no risk is identified when an endogenous gene is interrupted, the criteria 5 and 6 will also be assessed. Evaluating the history of safe use is an important part of the proportionate risk assessment of cisgenic, intragenic and genome‐edited plants since the newly introduced allele may already be present in nature. However, when the history of safe use cannot be sufficiently demonstrated, the function and structure of the introduced allele should be carefully assessed. Recommendations are also included on the aspects that need further elaboration for full applicability of the criteria proposed herein are also included. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7621/full
Collapse
|
28
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Serrano JJS, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Casacuberta J, Dumont AF, Gennaro A, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Guajardo IPM, Papadopoulou N, Rostoks N. Updated scientific opinion on plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07621. [PMID: 36274982 PMCID: PMC9583739 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
In 2012, EFSA issued an opinion on plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis. With the development of New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) in the last decade, cisgenic and intragenic plants can now be obtained with the insertion of a desired sequence in a precise location of the genome. EFSA has been requested by European Commission to provide an updated scientific opinion on the safety and the risk assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis, in order to (i) identify potential risks, comparing them with those posed by plants obtained by conventional breeding and Established Genomic Techniques (EGTs) and (ii) to determine the applicability of current guidelines for the risk assessment of cisgenic and intragenic plants. The conclusions of the previous EFSA opinion were reviewed, taking into consideration the new guidelines and the recent literature. The GMO panel concludes that no new risks are identified in cisgenic and intragenic plants obtained with NGTs, as compared with those already considered for plants obtained with conventional breeding and EGTs. There are no new data since the publication of the 2012 EFSA opinion that would challenge the conclusions raised in that document. The conclusions of the EFSA 2012 Scientific Opinion remain valid. The EFSA GMO Panel reiterates from these conclusions that with respect to the source of DNA and the safety of the gene product, the hazards arising from the use of a related plant‐derived gene by cisgenesis are similar to those from conventional plant breeding, whereas additional hazards may arise for intragenic plants. Furthermore, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that cisgenesis and intragenesis make use of the same transformation techniques as transgenesis, and therefore, with respect to the alterations to the host genome, cisgenic, intragenic and transgenic plants obtained by random insertion do not cause different hazards. Compared to that, the use of NGTs reduces the risks associated with potential unintended modifications of the host genome. Thus, fewer requirements may be needed for the assessment of cisgenic and intragenic plants obtained through NGTs, due to site‐directed integration of the added genetic material. Moreover, the GMO panel concludes that the current guidelines are partially applicable and sufficient. On a case‐by‐case basis, a lesser amount of data might be needed for the risk assessment of cisgenic or intragenic plants obtained through NGTs. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7618/full
Collapse
|
29
|
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, Camargo AM, Goumperis T, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape GT73 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-026/1). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07563. [PMID: 36237418 PMCID: PMC9536181 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7563] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐026/1 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for foods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from oilseed rape GT73 with the exception of isolated seed protein, and feed produced from this GM oilseed rape, excluding cultivation in the EU. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and a search for additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in oilseed rape GT73 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐026/1 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape GT73.
Collapse
|
30
|
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, Camargo AM, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified maize MIR162 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-025). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07562. [PMID: 36188067 PMCID: PMC9494202 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7562] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-025 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant genetically modified maize MIR162, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the EU. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-025 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MIR162.
Collapse
|
31
|
Zolotarjova V, Remmel T, Kännaste A, Kaasik R, Niinemets Ü, Veromann E. Pollen beetle offspring is more parasitized under moderate nitrogen fertilization of oilseed rape due to more attractive volatile signal. Sci Rep 2022; 12:14294. [PMID: 35995937 PMCID: PMC9395338 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18030-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 08/03/2022] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Biocontrol providing parasitoids can orientate according to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of their host's plants, the emission of which is potentially dependent on the availability of soil nitrogen (N). This paper aimed at finding the optimal N fertilization rate for oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) to favor parasitism of pollen beetles (Brassicogethes aeneus Fab. syn. Meligethes aeneus Fab.) in a controlled environment. Pollen beetles preferred to oviposit into buds of plants growing under higher N fertilization, whereas their parasitoids favored moderate N fertilization. As a part of induced defense, the proportion of volatile products of glucosinolate pathway in the total oilseed rape VOC emission blend was increased. Our results suggest that the natural biological control of pollen beetle herbivory is best supported by moderate N fertilization rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valentina Zolotarjova
- grid.16697.3f0000 0001 0671 1127Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Fr. R. Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| | - Triinu Remmel
- grid.16697.3f0000 0001 0671 1127Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Fr. R. Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| | - Astrid Kännaste
- grid.16697.3f0000 0001 0671 1127Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Fr. R. Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| | - Riina Kaasik
- grid.16697.3f0000 0001 0671 1127Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Fr. R. Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| | - Ülo Niinemets
- grid.16697.3f0000 0001 0671 1127Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Fr. R. Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| | - Eve Veromann
- grid.16697.3f0000 0001 0671 1127Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Fr. R. Kreutzwaldi 1, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Mullins E, Bresson JL, 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, Federici S, Gennaro A, Gomez Ruiz JA, Goumperis T, Kagkli DM, Lanzoni A, Lenzi P, Lewandowska A, Neri FM, Paraskevopoulos K, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 for food and feed uses, under regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2018-151). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07451. [PMID: 35978615 PMCID: PMC9373840 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7451] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS‐40278‐9 was developed by crossing to combine five single events: MON 89034, 1507, MIR162, NK603 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the five single maize events and 16 of the 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 the 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 five‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that five‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the non‐GM comparator and non‐GM maize varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable five‐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 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 subcombinations and the five‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS‐40278‐9. 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 maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
33
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Nogue F, Rostoks N, Sanchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Casacuberta J, Zurbriggen MD, Fernandez A, Gomez Ruiz JA, Gennaro A, Papadopoulou N, Lanzoni A, Naegeli H. Evaluation of existing guidelines for their adequacy for the food and feed risk assessment of genetically modified plants obtained through synthetic biology. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07410. [PMID: 35873722 PMCID: PMC9297787 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7410] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Synthetic biology (SynBio) is an interdisciplinary field at the interface of molecular engineering and biology aiming to develop new biological systems and impart new functions to living cells, tissues and organisms. EFSA has been asked by the European Commission to evaluate SynBio developments in agri-food with the aim of identifying the adequacy and sufficiency of existing guidelines for risk assessment and determine if updated guidance is needed. In this context, the GMO Panel has previously adopted an Opinion evaluating the SynBio developments in agri-food/feed and the adequacy and sufficiency of existing guidelines for the molecular characterisation and environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants (GMPs) obtained through SynBio and reaching the market in the next decade. Complementing the above, in this Opinion, the GMO Panel evaluated the adequacy and sufficiency of existing guidelines for the food and feed risk assessment of GMPs obtained through SynBio. Using selected hypothetical case studies, the GMO Panel did not identify novel potential hazards and risks that could be posed by food and feed from GMPs obtained through current and near future SynBio approaches; considers that the existing guidelines are adequate and sufficient in some Synbio applications; in other cases, existing guidelines may be just adequate and hence need updating; areas needing updating include those related to the safety assessment of new proteins and the comparative analysis. The GMO Panel recommends that future guidance documents provide indications on how to integrate the knowledge available from the SynBio design and modelling in the food and feed risk assessment and encourages due consideration to be given to food and feed safety aspects throughout the SynBio design process as a way to facilitate the risk assessment of SynBio GMPs and reduce the amount of data required.
Collapse
|
34
|
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, Goumperis T, Raffaello T. Risk assessment of a new bioinformatics evaluation of the insertion sites of genetically modified soybean event 40-3-2. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07412. [PMID: 35898294 PMCID: PMC9305392 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Genetically modified (GM) soybean 40‐3‐2 expresses a 5‐enolpyruvylshikimate‐3‐phosphate synthase protein from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS), which confers tolerance to glyphosate. This event was previously assessed by the GMO Panel as a single event and as part of a two‐event stack and was found to be as safe as its conventional counterparts and other appropriate comparators with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. On September 2021, the European Commission requested EFSA to evaluate a new bioinformatics study which revealed predicted genomic deletions at the insertion sites using the available soybean reference genome. Considering the variability of the soybean genome, with a number of structural variants such as presence/absence variants and copy number variants including genic regions, as well as the fact that a number of genes are present only in particular varieties, the GMO Panel concludes that comparing only to the reference genome does not allow to conclude that the transformation event resulted in gene loss. In support of this, the transcriptomic analysis did not show major differences in gene expression when comparing the soybean 40‐3‐2 with the most closely related conventional variety, indicating that the genetic redundancy may compensate for the potential gene loss. Moreover, the composition, phenotypic and agronomic analyses already assessed by the GMO Panel in previous opinions did not show differences between soybean 40‐3‐2 and its comparators suggesting that the potential gene loss may not have a significant phenotypic effect in soybean 40‐3‐2. For these reasons, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that the new information provided by the applicant on soybean 40‐3‐2 does not alter EFSA's previous conclusions.
Collapse
|
35
|
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 Dumont A, Gennaro A, Gomez Ruiz JA, Goumperis T, Lanzoni A, Lenzi P, Neri FM, Papadopoulou N, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape MON 94100 for food and feed uses, under regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2020-169). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07411. [PMID: 35898295 PMCID: PMC9305391 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7411] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Oilseed rape MON 94100 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba herbicide. 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 oilseed rape MON 94100 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of carbohydrates, calcium and ADF in seeds, which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the dicamba mono‐oxygenase (DMO) protein as expressed in oilseed rape MON 94100. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of oilseed rape MON 94100. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from oilseed rape MON 94100 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape MON 94100 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non‐GM oilseed rape reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape MON 94100 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 oilseed rape MON 94100. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape MON 94100 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM oilseed rape reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
Collapse
|
36
|
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, Fernandez A, Kagkli DM, Lewandowska A, Raffaello T, Streissl F. Assessment of genetically modified soybean A5547‐127 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐020). EFSA J 2022; 20:e07340. [PMID: 35765378 PMCID: PMC9207747 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7340] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐020 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide‐tolerant genetically modified soybean A5547‐127, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐020 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean A5547‐127.
Collapse
|
37
|
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, Fernandez Dumont A, Federici S, Kagkli DM, Lanzoni A, Papadopoulou N, Raffaello T. Assessment of new sequencing information for genetically modified cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07345. [PMID: 35784822 PMCID: PMC9234918 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7345] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
The GMO Panel has previously assessed genetically modified (GM) cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 and concluded that it is as safe as its conventional counterpart and other appropriate comparators with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of its intended uses. On 17 November 2020, the European Commission requested EFSA to evaluate new DNA sequence information and updated bioinformatics data for cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 and to indicate whether the conclusions of the GMO Panel on the previously assessed cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 remain valid. The new sequence data of DAS‐24236‐5 showed the change of one nucleotide that results in one amino acid substitution, in the newly expressed Cry1F (synpro_L620Q) compared to the sequence originally reported. The GMO Panel concludes that this amino acid substitution in the protein is a mutation. Nonetheless with the exception of the bioinformatics analysis, the studies performed for the risk assessment of Cry1F in cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 remain valid. In addition, the new sequencing data showed a change in one nucleotide in the 5′ flanking region of DAS‐21Ø23‐5 compared to the original sequence reported on the stack cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5. The bioinformatic analyses of the newly sequenced DAS‐21Ø23‐5 event in the stack DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 shows that the nucleotide difference is in the 5′ flanking region outside the ORFs that span the 5′ junction and is therefore not considered further in the safety assessment. Based on the information provided, the GMO Panel concludes that the corrected sequence does not give rise to any safety concerns, and therefore, the original risk assessment of cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 remains valid.
Collapse
|
38
|
Willow J, Soonvald L, Sulg S, Kaasik R, Silva AI, Taning CNT, Christiaens O, Smagghe G, Veromann E. Author Correction: RNAi efficacy is enhanced by chronic dsRNA feeding in pollen beetle. Commun Biol 2022; 5:427. [PMID: 35505081 PMCID: PMC9065065 DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-03403-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Willow
- Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia. .,Department of Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - Liina Soonvald
- Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Silva Sulg
- Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Riina Kaasik
- Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Ana Isabel Silva
- School of Mental Health and Neuroscience, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Clauvis Nji Tizi Taning
- Department of Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Olivier Christiaens
- Department of Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Guy Smagghe
- Department of Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Eve Veromann
- Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia.
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Willow J, Veromann E. Integrating RNAi Technology in Smallholder Farming: Accelerating Sustainable Development Goals. Front Sustain Food Syst 2022. [DOI: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.868922] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Approximately 84% of farms globally are <2 hectares; these and other smallholder farms collectively produce over one third of humanity's food. However, smallholder farms, particularly in developing countries, encounter difficulties in both production and profits due to their vulnerabilities. Sustainable intensification—increasing crop yield without significantly greater resource use—must be globally adopted in smallholder farming to achieve various Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) endorsed by the United Nations (UN). While traditional techniques for conservation agriculture must be maintained and further promoted, new technologies will undoubtedly play a major role in achieving high yields in a sustainable and environmentally safe manner. RNA interference (RNAi) technology, particularly the use of transgenic RNAi cultivars and/or sprayable double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) pesticides, could accelerate progress in reaching these goals due to dsRNA's nucleotide sequence-specific mode of action against eukaryotic and viral pests. This sequence-specificity allows silencing of specific genetic targets in focal pest species of interest, potentially resulting in negligible effects on non-target organisms inhabiting the agroecosystem. It is our perspective that recent progress in RNAi technology, together with the UN's endorsement of SDGs that promote support in- and for developing countries, should facilitate an integrated approach to sustainable intensification of smallholder farms, whereby RNAi technology is used in combination with traditional techniques for sustainable intensification. However, the development of such approaches in developing countries will require developed countries to adhere to currently-defined socioeconomic SDGs.
Collapse
|
40
|
Willow J, Cook SM, Veromann E, Smagghe G. Uniting RNAi Technology and Conservation Biocontrol to Promote Global Food Security and Agrobiodiversity. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2022; 10:871651. [PMID: 35547161 PMCID: PMC9081497 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.871651] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2022] [Accepted: 04/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Habitat loss and fragmentation, and the effects of pesticides, contribute to biodiversity losses and unsustainable food production. Given the United Nation’s (UN’s) declaration of this decade as the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, we advocate combining conservation biocontrol-enhancing practices with the use of RNA interference (RNAi) pesticide technology, the latter demonstrating remarkable target-specificity via double-stranded (ds)RNA’s sequence-specific mode of action. This specificity makes dsRNA a biosafe candidate for integration into the global conservation initiative. Our interdisciplinary perspective conforms to the UN’s declaration, and is facilitated by the Earth BioGenome Project, an effort valuable to RNAi development given its utility in providing whole-genome sequences, allowing identification of genetic targets in crop pests, and potentially relevant sequences in non-target organisms. Interdisciplinary studies bringing together biocontrol-enhancing techniques and RNAi are needed, and should be examined for various crop‒pest systems to address this global problem.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Willow
- Chair of Plant Health, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
- Laboratory of Agrozoology, Department of Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
- *Correspondence: Jonathan Willow,
| | - Samantha M. Cook
- Biointeractions and Crop Protection Department, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, United Kingdom
| | - Eve Veromann
- Chair of Plant Health, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Guy Smagghe
- Laboratory of Agrozoology, Department of Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
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, Gennaro A, Neri FM. Statement complementing the EFSA Scientific Opinion on the 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 2022; 20:e07190. [PMID: 35311007 PMCID: PMC8914582 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7190] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
In a previous scientific opinion on application EFSA‐GMO‐BE‐2016‐138, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) could not conclude on the comparative analysis and on the food/feed safety assessment of genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape (OSR) MS11 because of the lack of an appropriate compositional data set. Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to OSR MS11 to complement the original scientific opinion. The GMO Panel concluded that the information submitted (on the composition of the two‐event stack MS11 × RF3) could not be used for the assessment of the composition of OSR MS11 and requested the applicant to perform a complementary set of field trials to generate additional data. The applicant did not perform the requested field trials and did not provide any new experimental data on the composition of OSR MS11. Hence, the GMO Panel is still not in the position to conclude on either the compositional analysis or the toxicological, allergenicity or nutritional assessment of OSR MS11. Therefore, the previous conclusions of the GMO Panel still hold.
Collapse
|
42
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
43
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, George Firbank L, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Fernandez Dumont A, Moreno FJ. Scientific Opinion on development needs for the allergenicity and protein safety assessment of food and feed products derived from biotechnology. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07044. [PMID: 35106091 PMCID: PMC8787593 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
This Scientific Opinion addresses the formulation of specific development needs, including research requirements for allergenicity assessment and protein safety, in general, which is urgently needed in a world that demands more sustainable food systems. Current allergenicity risk assessment strategies are based on the principles and guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius for the safety assessment of foods derived from 'modern' biotechnology initially published in 2003. The core approach for the safety assessment is based on a 'weight-of-evidence' approach because no single piece of information or experimental method provides sufficient evidence to predict allergenicity. Although the Codex Alimentarius and EFSA guidance documents successfully addressed allergenicity assessments of single/stacked event GM applications, experience gained and new developments in the field call for a modernisation of some key elements of the risk assessment. These should include the consideration of clinical relevance, route of exposure and potential threshold values of food allergens, the update of in silico tools used with more targeted databases and better integration and standardisation of test materials and in vitro/in vivo protocols. Furthermore, more complex future products will likely challenge the overall practical implementation of current guidelines, which were mainly targeted to assess a few newly expressed proteins. Therefore, it is timely to review and clarify the main purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment and the vital role it plays in protecting consumers' health. A roadmap to (re)define the allergenicity safety objectives and risk assessment needs will be required to inform a series of key questions for risk assessors and risk managers such as 'what is the purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment?' or 'what level of confidence is necessary for the predictions?'.
Collapse
|
44
|
Abstract
Many herbivorous beetles (Order Coleoptera) contribute to serious losses in crop yields and forest trees, and plant biotechnology solutions are being developed with the hope of limiting these losses. Due to the unprecedented target-specificity of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), and its utility in inducing RNA interference (RNAi) when consumed by target pest species, dsRNA-based plant biotechnology approaches represent the cutting edge of current pesticide research and development. We review dietary RNAi studies in coleopterans and discuss prospects and future directions regarding RNAi-based management of coleopteran plant pests. Herein, we also provide a balanced overview of existing studies in order to provide an accurate re-assessment of dietary RNAi sensitivity in coleopterans, despite the limitations to the existing body of scientific literature. We further discuss impediments to our understanding of RNAi sensitivity in this important insect order and identify critical future directions for research in this area, with an emphasis on using plant biotechnology approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Willow
- Chair of Plant Health, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
- Department of Plants and Crops, Laboratory of Agrozoology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Eve Veromann
- Chair of Plant Health, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
46
|
Mullins E, Bresson J, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Casacuberta J, Lenzi P, Munoz Guajardo I, Raffaello T, Rostoks N. In vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis techniques in plants. EFSA J 2021; 19:e06611. [PMID: 34804231 PMCID: PMC8585642 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6611] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Mutations are changes in the genetic material that may be transmitted to subsequent generations. Mutations appear spontaneously in nature and are one of the underlying driving forces of evolution. In plants, in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis relies on the application of physical and chemical mutagens to increase the frequency of mutations thus accelerating the selection of varieties with important agronomic traits. The European Commission has requested EFSA to provide a more detailed description of in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis techniques and the types of mutations and mechanisms involved, to be able to conclude on whether in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis techniques are to be considered different techniques. To address the European Commission request, a literature search was conducted to collect information on the random mutagenesis techniques used in plants both in vivo and in vitro, on the type of mutations generated by such techniques and on the molecular mechanisms underlying formation of those mutations. The GMO Panel concludes that most physical and chemical mutagenesis techniques have been applied both in vivo and in vitro; the mutation process and the repair mechanisms act at cellular level and thus there is no difference between application of the mutagen in vivo or in vitro; and the type of mutations induced by a specific mutagen are expected to be the same, regardless of whether such mutagen is applied in vivo or in vitro. Indeed, the same mutation and the derived trait in a given plant species can be potentially obtained using both in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis and the resulting mutants would be indistinguishable. Therefore, the GMO Panel concludes that the distinction between plants obtained by in vitro or in vivo approaches is not justified.
Collapse
|
47
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
48
|
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, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified cotton GHB614 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-018). EFSA J 2021; 19:e06671. [PMID: 34257729 PMCID: PMC8262139 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-018 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified cotton GHB614, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-018 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on cotton GHB614.
Collapse
|
49
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [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
|
50
|
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, Frenzel T, Gómez Ruiz JÁ. Statement complementing the EFSA Scientific Opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-NL-2010-85) for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87769 × MON 89788. EFSA J 2021; 19:e06589. [PMID: 34012490 PMCID: PMC8114199 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6589] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
The European Commission mandated EFSA to complement its original scientific opinion on soybean MON 87769 × MON 89788 (EFSA-GMO-NL-2010-85) considering additional information on the human nutritional assessment of refined bleached deodorised oil produced from the two-event stack soybean (RBD GM-oil). The assessment was mainly based on a replacement scenario with a list of target foods where RBD GM-oil is intended to be added. Intake estimations for several fatty acids present in the RBD GM-oil, in particular γ-linolenic acid (GLA), stearidonic acid (SDA) and linoleic acid (LA) were based on the consumption of the corresponding foods that are likely to be displaced. The assessment of LA considered the established adequate intake of 4% of total energy intake (E%) and that LA deficiency has not been observed with intakes > 1 E%. The assessment of GLA and SDA was conducted using maximum doses without adverse effects from intervention human studies as reference (4.2 grams/day for SDA and 2.8 grams/day for GLA) since no tolerable upper intake levels are set for these fatty acids. The decrease observed in the levels of LA in RBD GM-oil as compared to oil from conventional soybean does not represent a nutritional concern as intakes were in all cases above 1 E%. For GLA, all intake estimations were below the reference dose indicating no safety concern. SDA intake estimations do not pose any safety concerns based on the overly conservative nature of the estimates, the absence of toxicological hazards and the rapid metabolism of SDA in humans. The GMO Panel concluded that the consumption of soybean MON 87769 × MON 89788 and their derived products, in particular its RBD oil, does not represent a nutritional concern in humans. A post-market monitoring plan is recommended to confirm the predicted consumption and the application of conditions of uses considered during the pre-market risk assessment.
Collapse
|