Search

Abstract Austria notified the European Commission of its new scientific elements justifying the prolongation for three additional years of the implementation of a national safeguard measure prohibiting the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 863 in Austria. Subsequently, the European Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess the new scientific information supporting the prolongation of the prohibition. Having considered the information provided by Austria and all relevant scientific publications, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) concluded that the new scientific elements submitted by the Austrian Authorities do not lead EFSA to reconsider the conclusions in its opinions on maize MON 863.

Hungary notified to the European Commission its scientific arguments justifying the implementation of a national safeguard measure prohibiting the placing on the market of GM potato EH92-527-1 for cultivation purposes in Hungary, after which the European Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess the scientific information supporting the prohibition. Having considered the information package provided by Hungary and all relevant scientific publications, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) concluded that (i) no new data specific to the safety of the nptII gene have been provided; (ii) the therapeutic relevance of kanamycin and neomycin was already addressed in the previous EFSA opinion on antibiotic resistance marker genes and kanamycin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis results largely from chromosomal mutations and not from the transfer of aminoglycoside resistance genes such as nptII; (iii) the knowledge gaps and uncertainties highlighted in the Hungarian document have already been considered in the previous EFSA opinion on antibiotic resistance marker genes, and no new information on the safety of nptII gene as present in the GM potato EH92-527-1 has been identified in the scientific literature that would cause the GMO Panel to change its previous conclusions. Therefore, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that no grounds exist to date that would lead to reconsideration of its opinion on GM potato EH92-527-1.

Austria notified the European Commission of its new scientific elements justifying the prolongation for three additional years of the implementation of a national safeguard measure prohibiting the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 863 in Austria. Subsequently, the European Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess the new scientific information supporting the prolongation of the prohibition. Having considered the information provided by Austria and all relevant scientific publications, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) concluded that the new scientific elements submitted by the Austrian Authorities do not lead EFSA to reconsider the conclusions in its opinions on maize MON 863. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Luxembourg notified to the European Commission its scientific arguments justifying the implementation of a national safeguard measure prohibiting the placing on the market of GM potato EH92-527-1 for cultivation purposes in Luxembourg, after which the European Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess the scientific information supporting the prohibition. Having considered the information package provided by Luxembourg and all relevant scientific publications, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) concluded that: (i) no new data specific to the safety of the nptII gene have been provided; (ii) although bacterial DNA release and development of competence are expected to occur more efficiently in biofilms, the link between resistance in biofilms and cultivation/processing of GM potato EH92-527-1 was not established by Luxembourg, and the main barriers, limiting the transformation frequency of bacterial cells with transgenic plant DNA, remain; (iii) the risk posed by the formation of mosaic structures of aminoglycoside phosphotransferase genes could not be assessed without data documenting the existence of such structures among the existing gene variants, and such data were not provided; (iv) the knowledge gaps and uncertainties highlighted in the Luxembourgeois document and the therapeutic relevance of kanamycin and neomycin have already been considered in the previous EFSA opinion on antibiotic resistance marker genes, and no new information on the safety of nptII gene as present in the GM potato EH92-527-1 has been identified in the scientific literature that would cause the GMO Panel to change its previous conclusions. Therefore, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that no grounds exist to date that would lead to reconsideration of its opinion on GM potato EH92-527-1.