Search

Abstract Maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS‐40278‐9 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 89034, 1507, NK603 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and four of their subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the maize single events or their four subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicates that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food/feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the six maize subcombinations for which no experimental data were provided, and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. No post‐market monitoring for food/feed is necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS‐40278‐9 (five‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the 5 single maize events and 11 of their subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or their 11 subcombinations that could modify the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicates that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the five‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of the five‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the 14 maize subcombinations for which no experimental data were provided, and concludes that they are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the five‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the five‐event stack maize. No post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract The GMO Panel has previously assessed genetically modified (GM) soybean BPS‐CV127‐9. This soybean was found to be as safe and nutritious as its conventional counterpart and commercial soybean varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of its intended uses. On 16 February 2018, European Commission requested EFSA to analyse new nucleic acid sequencing data and updated bioinformatics data for GM soybean BPS‐CV127‐9 and to indicate whether the previous conclusions of the GMO Panel on safety of GM soybean BPS‐CV127‐9 remain valid. The new sequencing data indicated a two nucleotide difference in the unannotated Arabidopsis genomic DNA sequence downstream of the 3′ untranslated region of the ahasl (also referred to as csr1‐2) gene as compared to the sequencing data originally provided. One of these nucleotide differences reported in the new nucleic acid sequencing data from GM soybean event BPS‐CV127‐9 was shown to be already present in the original plant material used for the risk assessment. However, for the other nucleotide difference reported, no evidence could be provided to differentiate between a sequencing error and point‐mutation. With the exception of bioinformatics analyses, the studies performed for the risk assessment of the single event soybean BPS‐CV127‐9 remain valid. The new sequencing data and the bioinformatics analyses performed on the new sequence did not give rise to safety issues. Therefore, EFSA concludes that the original risk assessment of soybean BPS‐CV127‐9 remains valid.

Abstract The GMO Panel has previously assessed genetically modified (GM) carnation FLO‐40689‐6 and concluded that there is no scientific reason to consider that the import, distribution and retailing in the EU of carnation FLO‐40689‐6 cut flowers for ornamental use will cause any adverse effects on human health or the environment. On 27 October 2017, the European Commission requested EFSA to analyse new nucleic acid sequencing data and updated bioinformatics data for carnation FLO‐40689‐6 and to indicate whether the conclusions of the GMO Panel on the previously assessed GM carnation FLO‐40689‐6 remain valid. The new sequencing data indicated the correction of one nucleotide compared to the sequencing data originally provided. The new sequence was corrected by removal of one nucleotide from the polylinker region in locus 1. The removal of this base pair reported in the new nucleic acid sequencing data for carnation FLO‐40689‐6 has been already present in the original plant material used for the risk assessment. Thus, with the exception of bioinformatics analyses, the studies performed for the risk assessment of GM carnation FLO‐40689‐6 remain valid. The new sequencing data and the bioinformatic analyses performed on the new sequence, did not give rise to safety issues. Therefore, EFSA concludes that the original risk assessment of carnation FLO‐40689‐6 remains valid.

Abstract Maize MON 87411 was developed to confer resistance to corn rootworms (Diabrotica spp.) by the expression of a modified version of the Bacillus thuringiensis cry3Bb1 gene and a DvSnf7 dsRNA expression cassette, and tolerance to glyphosate‐containing herbicides by the expression of a CP4 5‐enolpyruvylshikimate‐3‐phosphate synthase (cp4 epsps) gene. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatics analyses did not identify issues requiring assessment for food and feed safety. No statistically significant differences in the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics tested between maize MON 87411 and its conventional counterpart were identified. The compositional analysis of maize MON 87411 did not identify differences that required further assessment except for palmitic acid levels in grains from not treated maize MON 87411. The GMO Panel did not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry3Bb1 and CP4 EPSPS proteins, as expressed in maize MON 87411 and found no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of maize MON 87411. The nutritional impact of maize MON 87411‐derived food and feed is expected to be the same as those derived from the conventional counterpart and non‐GM commercial reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87411, as described in this application, is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and the non‐GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 87411 grains into the environment, maize MON 87411 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 87411. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87411, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Maize MON 87403 was developed to increase ear biomass at early reproductive phase through the expression of a modified AtHB17 gene from Arabidopsis thaliana, encoding a plant transcription factor of the HD‐Zip II family. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses did not identify issues requiring assessment for food and feed safety. No statistically significant differences in the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics tested between maize MON 87403 and its conventional counterpart were identified. The compositional analysis of maize MON 87403 did not identify differences that require further assessment. The GMO Panel did not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the AtHB17∆113 protein, as expressed in maize MON 87403. The nutritional value of food and feed derived from maize MON 87403 is not expected to differ from that of food and feed derived from non‐genetically modified (GM) maize varieties. Based on the outcome of the studies considered in the comparative analysis and molecular characterisation, the GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87403 is as safe and nutritious as the conventional counterpart and the non‐GM maize reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 87403 grains into the environment, maize MON 87403 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 87403. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MON 87403, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Cotton MON 88701 was developed through Agrobacterium tumefaciens‐mediated transformation to express the dicamba mono‐oxygenase (DMO) protein, conferring tolerance to dicamba, and the phosphinothricin N‐acetyltransferase PAT protein, conferring tolerance to glufosinate ammonium‐based herbicides. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatics analyses did not identify issues requiring further assessment for food/feed safety. The agronomic and phenotypic characteristics tested revealed no relevant differences between cotton MON 88701 and its conventional counterpart. Since complete compositional results were reported for only three sites, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) is not in the position to complete the assessment of the compositional analysis. Moreover, as no 28‐day toxicity study in rodents on the MON 88701 DMO protein was provided, the GMO Panel is not in the position to complete the safety assessment of this protein in cotton MON 88701. Consequently, the GMO Panel cannot complete the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment of food/feed derived from cotton MON 88701. The safety assessment identified no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the PAT protein newly expressed in cotton MON 88701. Considering the routes of exposure and limited exposure levels, the GMO Panel concludes that cotton MON 88701 would not give rise to safety concerns in the event of accidental release of viable seeds into the environment. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of cotton MON 88701. In conclusion, in the absence of an appropriate comparative assessment and an appropriate assessment of the MON 88701 DMO protein, the GMO Panel is not in a position to complete its food/feed risk assessment of cotton MON 88701. The GMO Panel concludes that the cotton MON 88701 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on the environment in the context of the scope of the application.

Abstract Soybean DAS‐44406‐6 expresses 5‐enolpyruvyl‐shikimate‐3‐phosphate synthase (2mEPSPS), conferring tolerance to glyphosate‐based herbicides, aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase (AAD‐12), conferring tolerance to 2,4‐dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4‐D) and other related phenoxy herbicides, and phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT), conferring tolerance to glufosinate ammonium‐based herbicides. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatics analyses did not identify issues requiring assessment for food/feed safety. The agronomic and phenotypic characteristics revealed no relevant differences between soybean DAS‐44406‐6 and its conventional counterpart, except for pod count, seed count and yield. The compositional analysis identified no differences requiring further assessment, except for an increase (up to 31%) in lectin activity in soybean DAS‐44406‐6. Such increase is unlikely to raise additional concerns for food/feed safety and nutrition of soybean DAS‐44406‐6 as compared to its conventional counterpart and non‐GM reference varieties. There were no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the three newly expressed proteins, and no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of soybean DAS‐44406‐6. Soybean DAS‐44406‐6 is as nutritious as its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM soybean reference varieties tested. There are no indications of an increased likelihood of establishment and spread of occasional feral soybean DAS‐44406‐6 plants, unless exposed to the intended herbicides. The likelihood of environmental effects from the accidental release of viable seeds from soybean DAS‐44406‐6 into the environment is therefore very low. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean DAS‐44406‐6. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that the information available for soybean DAS‐44406‐6 addresses the scientific comments raised by Member States and that soybean DAS‐44406‐6, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and non‐GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of the scope of this application.

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

Abstract The European Commission mandated EFSA to review a new data package provided by the company Elanco, for the possible integration/non‐integration of the DNA plasmid vaccine CLYNAV into the genome of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and to indicate whether EFSA agrees with the conclusions drawn by Elanco. The vaccine is injected into fish to confer protection against pancreas disease caused by the salmonid alphavirus. The majority of the experimental data provided by the company was for muscle tissue close to the injection site and for gonadal tissue. EFSA considers that the long persistence of DNA plasmid in muscle tissue close to the injection site and the potential heritability of an integration event in gonad cells support the focus of the assessment on both these tissues. The experimental data did not provide scientifically robust evidence for a true integration event. The company overall concluded that the likelihood of integration is negligible, based on considerations in the context of the company's environmental risk assessment, but did not provide a quantitative value for the rate of integration linked to the term ‘negligible’. It is therefore not possible to evaluate this statement specifically with regard to integration rates. EFSA notes that knowledge about homologous and non‐homologous integration predicts that integration could occur with certain frequency. Therefore, EFSA has constructed worst‐case scenarios leading to upper estimates for possible integration rates of the DNA plasmid vaccine into the Atlantic salmon genome. EFSA concludes that, based on the worst‐case scenarios described here and taking into account additional factors decreasing the likelihood of integration, the actual integration rate is likely to be orders of magnitude lower than the upper estimated integration rate calculated in the context of the worst‐case scenarios. With the available evidence, the actual integration rate cannot be estimated with more precision.

Abstract Maize DAS‐40278‐9 was developed by direct Whiskers‐mediated transformation to express the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase‐1 (AAD‐1) protein, conferring tolerance to 2,4‐dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4‐D) and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) herbicides. The molecular characterisation of maize DAS‐40278‐9 did not raise safety issues. The agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics of maize DAS‐40278‐9 tested under field conditions revealed no differences between maize DAS‐40278‐9 and its non‐genetically modified (GM) comparator that would give rise to food and feed or environmental safety concerns. There were no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the newly expressed protein AAD‐1, and no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of maize DAS‐40278‐9. The nutritional characteristics of maize DAS‐40278‐9 are not expected to differ from those of non‐GM maize varieties and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. Maize DAS‐40278‐9 is as nutritious as its non‐GM comparator and other non‐GM commercial varieties. There are no indications of an increased likelihood of establishment and spread of occasional feral maize DAS‐40278‐9 plants, unless these plants are exposed to the intended herbicides. However, this will not result in different environmental impacts compared to conventional maize. Considering the scope of the application, interactions with the biotic and abiotic environment were not considered an issue. Risks associated with the unlikely but theoretically possible horizontal gene transfer from maize DAS‐40278‐9 to bacteria were not identified. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the scope of the application. In conclusion, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that the information available for maize DAS‐40278‐9 addresses the scientific comments raised by the Member States and that maize DAS‐40278‐9, as described in this application, is as safe as the non‐GM comparator and non‐GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of the scope of this application.