Search

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the 2022 post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab‐expressing maize event MON 810. Overall, the 2022 PMEM report provides no evidence of adverse effects of maize MON 810 cultivation. It shows a high level of compliance with refuge requirements by Spanish and Portuguese farmers growing maize MON 810, but uncertainty remains on compliance in areas where the clustered surface of maize MON 810 farms exceeds 5 ha. There are no signs of practical resistance to Cry1Ab in the field in corn borer populations collected in north‐eastern Spain in 2022, although a decrease in Cry1Ab susceptibility in Mediterranean corn borer populations from this area cannot be excluded. Information retrieved through farmer questionnaires in Spain and from the scientific literature reveals no unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. Uncertainties remain on whether ‘very highly’ and ‘extremely’ sensitive non‐target lepidoptera are potentially exposed to harmful amounts of MON 810 pollen. EFSA notes that several recommendations made in the frame of the assessment of previous PMEM reports remain unaddressed and identified additional shortcomings in the 2022 PMEM report that require further consideration by the consent holder in future annual PMEM reports. Particularly, EFSA emphasises the urgent need to increase the sensitivity of the insect resistance monitoring strategy and implement mitigation measures to ensure that the exposure of non‐target lepidoptera to maize MON 810 pollen is reduced to levels of no concern.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the 2021 post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab‐expressing maize event MON 810. Evidence provided in the PMEM report shows that farmers growing maize MON 810 in Spain complied partially with refuge requirements, while full compliance was achieved in Portugal. Cry1Ab susceptibility tests performed on European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from north‐eastern Spain in 2021 indicated no symptoms of resistance evolution to maize MON 810. However, unexpected damage to maize MON 810 plants was observed in a field trial in the province of Girona (north‐eastern Spain), which may point to the presence of resistance alleles in this region. Information retrieved through farmer questionnaires and the scientific literature reveals no unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2021 PMEM report does not invalidate its previous conclusions on the safety of maize MON 810. The possible presence of Cry1Ab resistance alleles at frequencies leading to damage to maize MON 810 plants in Girona requires twofold actions: (1) increase monitoring efforts in this area; and (2) implement remedial measures to limit the suspected evolution and spread of resistance. As in previous years, EFSA identified shortcomings on resistance monitoring that need revision. In particular, full refuge compliance must be achieved in Spain. Moreover, the sensitivity of the monitoring plan must be increased, which can be achieved by replacing the current susceptibility assays by periodic F2 screens. EFSA also recommends the consent holder to revise the farmer questionnaires to account for the emergence of teosinte as a noxious agricultural weed in maize MON 810‐growing areas in Spain.

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.

Abstract Teosinte, wild maize relatives originating from Mexico and Central America, emerged as a noxious agricultural weed in France and Spain. In 2016, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a technical report that assessed the available scientific information on teosinte for its relevance for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) and risk management (RM) of genetically modified (GM) maize MON810, Bt11, 1507 and GA21 for cultivation. It was concluded that the impact of insect resistance and/or herbicide tolerance in GM teosinte hybrid progeny (potentially acquired through hybridisation between GM maize and teosinte) on target and non‐target organisms, the abiotic environment and biogeochemical cycles would be very low under EU conditions. Following a request of the European Commission, EFSA evaluated whether the ERA conclusions and RM recommendations of EFSA (2016) remain applicable, or require revision in light of new scientific evidence on teosinte that has become available since the publication of EFSA (2016). A protocol was developed to clarify the interpretation of the terms of reference of the mandate and make them operational. The assessment relied on evidence retrieved via an extensive literature search and from reports of the Competent Authorities of France and Spain, and on hearing expert testimonies. A limited collection of 18 publications of varying relevance and quality was retrieved and assessed. Based on this evidence, it is concluded that the ERA conclusions and RM recommendations of EFSA (2016) remain applicable, except those pertaining to the use of glyphosate‐based herbicides on maize GA21 which should be considered under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In infested agricultural areas (especially in regions where maize MON810 is widely grown), weed management measures implemented to monitor, control and/or eradicate teosinte must remain in place, as they will contribute to further reduce the low vertical gene flow potential between GM maize and EU teosinte.

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.

This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6443/full

Abstract Synthetic Biology (SynBio) is an interdisciplinary field at the interface of engineering and biology aiming to develop new biological systems and impart new functions to living cells. EFSA has been asked by the European Commission to evaluate SynBio developments in agri‐food with the aim of identifying the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment and determine if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this opinion covers the molecular characterisation and environmental risk assessment of such genetically modified plants obtained through SynBio, meant to be for cultivation or food and feed purposes. The previous work on SynBio by the non‐food scientific Committees (2014, 2015) was used and complemented with the output of a horizon scanning exercise, which was commissioned by the EFSA to identify the most realistic and forthcoming SynBio cases of relevance to this remit. The horizon scan did not identify other sectors/advances in addition to the six SynBio categories previously identified by the non‐food scientific committees of the European Commission. The exercise did show that plant SynBio products reaching the market in the near future (next decade) are likely to apply SynBio approaches to their development using existing genetic modification and genome editing technologies. In addition, three hypothetical SynBio case studies were selected by the working group of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), to further support the scoping exercise of this Scientific Opinion. Using the selected cases, the GMO Panel concludes that the requirements of the EU regulatory framework and existing EFSA guidelines are adequate for the risk assessment of SynBio products to be developed in the next 10 years, although specific requirements may not apply to all products. The GMO Panel acknowledges that as SynBio developments evolve, a need may exist to adjust the guidelines to ensure they are adequate and sufficient.

Abstract Maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and six of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or the six subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the 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, as described in this application, is as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds 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 four 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 the four‐event stack maize. 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 the non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Soybean DAS–8419–2 × DAS–44406–6 was developed to provide protection against certain lepidopteran pests and tolerance to 2,4–dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and other related phenoxy herbicides, and glyphosate‐ and glufosinate ammonium‐containing herbicides. The Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Panel previously assessed the two single soybean events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single soybean events, leading 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 indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the two‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. In the case of accidental release of viable DAS–8419–2 × DAS–44406–6 seeds into the environment, soybean DAS–8419–2 × DAS–44406–6 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean DAS–8419–2 × DAS–44406–6. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that soybean DAS–8419–2 × DAS–44406–6, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non‐genetically modified soybean reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Advances in molecular and synthetic biology are enabling the engineering of gene drives in insects for disease vector/pest control. Engineered gene drives (that bias their own inheritance) can be designed either to suppress interbreeding target populations or modify them with a new genotype. Depending on the engineered gene drive system, theoretically, a genetic modification of interest could spread through target populations and persist indefinitely, or be restricted in its spread or persistence. While research on engineered gene drives and their applications in insects is advancing at a fast pace, it will take several years for technological developments to move to practical applications for deliberate release into the environment. Some gene drive modified insects (GDMIs) have been tested experimentally in the laboratory, but none has been assessed in small‐scale confined field trials or in open release trials as yet. There is concern that the deliberate release of GDMIs in the environment may have possible irreversible and unintended consequences. As a proactive measure, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been requested by the European Commission to review whether its previously published guidelines for the risk assessment of genetically modified animals (EFSA, 2012 and 2013), including insects (GMIs), are adequate and sufficient for GDMIs, primarily disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, for deliberate release into the environment. Under this mandate, EFSA was not requested to develop risk assessment guidelines for GDMIs. In this Scientific Opinion, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) concludes that EFSA's guidelines are adequate, but insufficient for the molecular characterisation (MC), environmental risk assessment (ERA) and post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of GDMIs. While the MC,ERA and PMEM of GDMIs can build on the existing risk assessment framework for GMIs that do not contain engineered gene drives, there are specific areas where further guidance is needed for GDMIs.

Abstract Maize MZIR098 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate‐ammonium‐containing herbicides and resistance to certain coleopteran pests. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MZIR098 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for neutral detergent fibre (NDF) in grains, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the eCry3.1Ab, mCry3A and PAT proteins as expressed in maize MZIR098, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MZIR098. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MZIR098 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZIR098 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non‐GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MZIR098 grains into the environment, maize MZIR098 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZIR098. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MZIR098, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM maize reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (three‐event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single soybean events: MON 87705, MON 87708 and MON 89788. This combination is intended to alter the fatty acid profile in the seed (in particular increasing the levels of oleic acid) and tolerance to glyphosate‐based and dicamba herbicides. The Genetically Modified Organisms Panel previously assessed the three single soybean events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single soybean events, leading 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 indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. In the case of accidental release of viable three‐event stack soybean seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and the reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788. Considering the altered fatty acid profile of the three‐event stack soybean, a proposal for post‐market monitoring needs to be provided by the applicant. The GMO Panel notes that in the context of this application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2015‐126 the applicant did not provide a 90‐day study on MON 87705 soybean in line with the applicable legal requirements. Therefore, the GMO Panel is not in the position to finalise the risk assessment of soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 under the current regulatory frame.

Abstract Oilseed rape MS11 has been developed to confer male sterility and tolerance to glufosinate‐ammonium‐containing herbicides. Based on the information provided in the application and in line with the scope of application EFSA‐GMO‐BE‐2016‐138, the genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel concludes that 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 characteristics tested between oilseed rape MS11 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. No conclusions can be drawn for the compositional analysis due to the lack of an appropriate compositional data set. No toxicological or allergenicity concerns are identified for the Barnase, Barstar and PAT/bar proteins expressed in oilseed rape MS11. Owing to the incompleteness of the compositional analysis, the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment of oilseed rape MS11 cannot be completed. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape MS11 seeds into the environment, oilseed rape MS11 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the scope of the application. Since oilseed rape MS11 is designed to be used only for the production of hybrid seed, it is not expected to be commercialised as a stand‐alone product for food/feed uses. Thus, seeds harvested from oilseed rape MS11 are not expected to enter the food/feed chain, except accidentally. In this context, the GMO Panel notes that, oilseed rape MS11 would not pose risk to humans and animals, while the scale of environmental exposure will be substantially reduced compared to a stand‐alone product.

Abstract The scope of application EFSA‐GMO‐DE‐2012‐111 is for food and feed uses, import and processing of genetically modified (GM) soybean SYHT0H2 in the European Union. Soybean SYHT0H2 was developed to confer tolerance to the herbicidal active substances mesotrione and other p‐hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)‐inhibiting herbicides and glufosinate ammonium. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues except for sequence similarity of AvHPPD‐03 to bacterial haemolysins that was considered in food/feed safety assessment. The outcome of the comparative analysis (agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics) did not need further assessment except for the changes in seed levels of α‐tocopherol and γ‐tocopherol that were assessed for food and feed relevance. The GMO Panel does not identify toxicological and allergenicity concerns for the AvHPPD‐03 and PAT proteins expressed in soybean SYHT0H2 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of soybean SYHT0H2. The nutritional impact of food/feed from soybean SYHT0H2 is expected to be the same as that of food/feed from the conventional counterpart and commercial non‐GM soybean reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean SYHT0H2 is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM soybean reference varieties, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable soybean SYHT0H2 grains into the environment, soybean SYHT0H2 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean SYHT0H2. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that soybean SYHT0H2, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (four‐event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87751, MON 87701, MON 87708 and MON 89788. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events have been identified that would 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 and allergenicity assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack soybean, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four‐event stack soybean 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 the four‐event stack soybean. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack soybean is as safe as the 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 interplay between science, risk assessment and risk management has always been complex, and even more so in a world increasingly characterised by rapid technical innovation, new modes of communication, suspicion about authorities and experts, and demands for people to have a say in decisions that are made on their behalf. In this challenging era where scientific advice on food safety has never been in greater demand, risk managers should effectively navigate the interplay between facts and values and be able to rely on robust and fit‐for‐purpose risk assessments to aid them. The fact that societal resistance is often encountered when scientific advice on food safety operates at a distance from social values and fails to actively engage with citizens, has led to increasing emphasis on the need to advance forms of risk assessment that are more contextual, and socially sound and accountable. EFSA's third Scientific Conference explored how risk assessments could be constructed to most usefully meet society's needs and thus connect science with society, while remaining scientifically robust. Contributors to the conference highlighted the need to: (1) frame risk assessments by clear policy goals and decision‐making criteria; (2) begin risk assessments with an explicit problem formulation to identify relevant information; (3) make use of reliable risk assessment studies; (4) be explicit about value judgements; (5) address and communicate scientific uncertainty; (6) follow trustworthy processes; (7) publish the evidence and data, and report the way in which they are used in a transparent manner; (8) ensure effective communication throughout the risk analysis process; (9) involve society, as appropriate; and (10) weigh risks and benefits on request. Implementation of these recommendations would contribute to increased credibility and trustworthiness of food safety risk assessments.

Abstract Pre‐market/prospective environmental risk assessments (ERAs) contribute to risk analyses performed to facilitate decisions about the market introduction of regulated stressors. Robust ERAs begin with an explicit problem formulation, which involves among other steps: (1) formally devising plausible pathways to harm that describe how the deployment of a regulated stressor could be harmful; (2) formulating risk hypotheses about the likelihood and severity of such events; (3) identifying the information that will be useful to test the risk hypotheses; and (4) developing a plan to acquire new data for hypothesis testing should tests with existing information be insufficient for decision‐making. Here, we apply problem formulation to the assessment of possible adverse effects of RNA interference‐based insecticidal genetically modified (GM) plants, GM growth hormone coho salmon, gene drive‐modified mosquitoes and classical biological weed control agents on non‐target organisms in a prospective manner, and of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees in a retrospective manner. In addition, specific considerations for the problem formulation for the ERA of nanomaterials and for landscape‐scale population‐level ERAs are given. We argue that applying problem formulation to ERA maximises the usefulness of ERA studies for decision‐making, through an iterative process, because: (1) harm is defined explicitly from the start; (2) the construction of risk hypotheses is guided by policy rather than an exhaustive attempt to address any possible differences; (3) existing information is used effectively; (4) new data are collected with a clear purpose; (5) risk is characterised against well‐defined criteria of hypothesis corroboration or falsification; and (6) risk assessment conclusions can be communicated clearly. However, problem formulation is still often hindered by the absence of clear policy goals and decision‐making criteria (e.g. definition of protection goals and what constitutes harm) that are needed to guide the interpretation of scientific information. We therefore advocate further dialogue between risk assessors and risk managers to clarify how ERAs can address policy goals and decision‐making criteria. Ideally, this dialogue should take place for all classes of regulated stressors, as this can promote alignment and consistency on the desired level of protection and maximum tolerable impacts across regulated stressors.

Abstract From 18–21 September 2018, EFSA hosted its third Scientific Conference on Science, Food and Society in Parma, Italy. This paper summarises the overall recommendations on future actions and research priorities of the conference and complements the earlier multi‐authored papers in this issue. The conference started and closed with the plenary sessions ‘where science meets society: putting risk assessment in context’ and ‘staying relevant in a changing world’, respectively. In between, there were seven breakout sessions five of which aimed at advancing risk assessment science in the areas of human health, the environment, biological hazards, nutrition and managing evidence, and two of which were dedicated to the societal aspects of risk assessment: engaging with society and envisioning the expertise of the future. During the 4 days of the event, participants addressed the complex interplay between science, risk assessment, policy and society, and explored how to advance food safety risk assessment to address the challenges of a changing world and ensure preparedness. Acknowledging that good science alone is no longer sufficient to ensure fit‐for‐purpose food safety risk assessments, EFSA must further build on its current five Strategic Objectives. To ensure that its risk assessments remain scientifically robust and sound, EFSA should strive for robust and fit‐for‐purpose risk assessments; consider food in the context of safety, nutrition and sustainability; and explore further how EFSA can work with other organisations to achieve the One Health/One Environment goals. In addition, EFSA should base scientific risk assessments on reliable science while capitalising on scientific advances; address scientific uncertainties; and fully publish the evidence and data used. In line with societal expectations, EFSA, in coordination with risk managers, should frame risk assessments through clear policy goals and problem formulation; be explicit about value judgements; communicate clearly and consistently and in coordination with risk assessors and risk managers; involve society; avoid conflicts of interest; and follow trustworthy processes.

Abstract Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. Investigating the environment through an ES framework has gained wide acceptance in the international scientific community and is applied by policymakers to protect biodiversity and safeguard the sustainability of ecosystems. This approach can enhance the ecological and societal relevance of pre‐market/prospective environmental risk assessments (ERAs) of regulated stressors by: (1) informing the derivation of operational protection goals; (2) enabling the integration of environmental and human health risk assessments; (3) facilitating horizontal integration of policies and regulations; (4) leading to more comprehensive and consistent environmental protection; (5) articulating the utility of, and trade‐offs involved in, environmental decisions; and (6) enhancing the transparency of risk assessment results and the decisions based upon them. Realisation of these advantages will require challenges that impede acceptance of an ES approach to be overcome. Particularly, there is concern that, if biodiversity only matters to the extent that it benefits humans, the intrinsic value of nature is ignored. Moreover, our understanding of linkages among ecological components and the processes that ultimately deliver ES is incomplete, valuing ES is complex, and there is no standard ES lexicon and limited familiarity with the approach. To help overcome these challenges, we encourage: (1) further research to establish biodiversity–ES relationships; (2) the development of approaches that (i) quantitatively translate responses to chemical stressors by organisms and groups of organisms to ES delivery across different spatial and temporal scales, (ii) measure cultural ES and ease their integration into ES valuations, and (iii) appropriately value changes in ES delivery so that trade‐offs among different management options can be assessed; (3) the establishment of a standard ES lexicon; and (4) building capacity in ES science and how to apply ES to ERAs. These development needs should not prevent movement towards implementation of an ES approach in ERAs, as the advantages we perceive of using this approach render it more than worthwhile to tackle those challenges. Society and the environment stand to benefit from this shift in how we conduct the ERA of regulated stressors.

Abstract Soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547‐127 (three‐event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single events: MON 87708, MON 89788 and A5547‐127. The GMO Panel previously assessed the three single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events, leading 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 indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the three‐event stack soybean, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. The nutritional impact of food/feed derived from the three‐event stack soybean is expected to be the same as that of food/feed derived from the conventional counterpart and non‐GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the three‐event stack soybean 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 the three‐event stack soybean. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the three‐event stack soybean 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.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA assessed the 2017 post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab‐expressing maize event MON 810. Like previous years, partial compliance with refuge requirements is reported for Spain. European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from North‐eastern Spain during the 2017 maize growing season and tested for Cry1Ab susceptibility show no symptoms of resistance to maize MON 810. No complaints about unexpected field damage caused by corn borers were received through the farmer complaint system. The assessment of farmer questionnaires and relevant scientific publications does not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. No information about the use of existing networks involved in environmental monitoring is provided. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2017 PMEM report does not invalidate previous EFSA and GMO Panel evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810. As in previous years, EFSA identifies methodological and reporting shortcomings pertaining to resistance monitoring that need revision in future PMEM reports. In particular, the monitoring plan, as implemented in 2017, is not sufficiently sensitive to detect the recommended 3% resistance allele frequency. Consequently, EFSA strongly recommends the consent holder to: (1) achieve full compliance with refuge requirements in areas where maize MON 810 adoption is high (i.e. North‐eastern Spain); (2) increase the sensitivity of the resistance monitoring plan and address previously mentioned methodological, analytical and/or reporting limitations for resistance monitoring and farmer questionnaires; and (3) perform a F2‐screen on European and Mediterranean corn borer populations from North‐eastern Spain. Moreover, relevant stakeholders should implement a methodological framework to enable making best use of existing networks involved in environmental monitoring for the general surveillance of genetically modified plants.

Abstract The scope of application EFSA‐GMO‐DE‐2016‐133 is for food and feed uses, import and processing of genetically modified (GM) maize MZHG0JG in the European Union. Maize MZHG0JG was developed to confer tolerance to the herbicidal active substances glyphosate and glufosinate‐ammonium. 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 MZHG0JG and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for early stand count (pre‐thinning). The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the mEPSPS and PAT proteins as expressed in maize MZHG0JG, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MZHG0JG. The nutritional impact of food/feed derived from maize MZHG0JG is expected to be the same as that of food/feed derived from the conventional counterpart and commercial non‐GM maize reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZHG0JG is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and non‐GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MZHG0JG grains into the environment, maize MZHG0JG would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZHG0JG. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MZHG0JG, 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 4114 was developed through Agrobacterium tumefaciens‐mediated transformation to provide protection against certain lepidopteran and coleopteran pests by expression of the Cry1F, Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, and tolerance to the herbicidal active ingredient glufosinate‐ammonium by expression of the PAT protein derived from Streptomyces viridochromogenes. The molecular characterisation data did not identify issues requiring assessment for food/feed safety. None of the compositional, agronomic and phenotypic differences identified between maize 4114 and the non‐genetically modified (GM) comparator(s) required further assessment. There were no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the newly expressed proteins Cry1F, Cry34Ab1, Cry35Ab1 and PAT, and no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of maize 4114. The nutritional value of food/feed derived from maize 4114 is not expected to differ from that derived from non‐GM maize varieties and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize 4114 grains into the environment, maize 4114 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize 4114. The genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel concludes that maize 4114 is as safe as the non‐GM comparator(s) and non‐GM 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 a request from the European Commission, EFSA assessed the annual post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report for the 2016 growing season of the Cry1Ab‐expressing maize event MON 810 provided by Monsanto Europe S.A. Partial compliance with refuge requirements was reported in Spain, as observed in previous years. EFSA reiterates the need to achieve full compliance in areas of high maize MON 810 adoption to delay resistance evolution, and therefore advocates increasing the level of compliance in such areas. Resistance monitoring data do not indicate a decrease in susceptibility to the Cry1Ab protein in the field corn borer populations tested in the 2016 season. However, EFSA identified some methodological and reporting limitations pertaining to resistance monitoring that need improvement in future PMEM reports. No complaints related to corn borer infestation of maize MON 810 were received via the farmer alert system during the 2016 cultivation season. EFSA encourages the consent holder to provide more information on this complementary resistance monitoring tool. The data on general surveillance do not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. EFSA reiterates its recommendations on the methodology and analysis of farmer questionnaires, and considers that future literature searches on maize MON 810 performed in the context of annual PMEM reports should follow the guidelines given in the 2017 EFSA explanatory note on literature searching. Moreover, EFSA encourages relevant stakeholders to implement a methodological framework that enables the use of existing networks in the broader context of environmental monitoring. EFSA concludes that no new evidence has been reported in the 2016 PMEM report that would invalidate previous EFSA evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810.

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 Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (GMO Panel) assessed the annual post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report for the 2015 growing season of the Cry1Ab‐expressing maize event MON 810 provided by Monsanto Europe S.A. The GMO Panel concludes that the insect resistance monitoring data submitted to EFSA do not indicate a decrease in susceptibility of field Iberian populations of corn borers to the Cry1Ab protein during the 2015 season. However, since the methodology for insect resistance monitoring remained unchanged compared to previous PMEM reports, the GMO Panel reiterates its previous recommendations on resistance monitoring to provide sufficient detection sensitivity. Although the farmer alert system to report complaints about product performance could complement the information obtained from the laboratory bioassays, the GMO Panel is currently not in a position to appraise its usefulness, and therefore encourages the consent holder to provide more information on this complementary resistance monitoring tool. The data on general surveillance (GS) do not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. The GMO Panel reiterates its previous recommendations on the analysis of farmer questionnaires, and advises the consent holder to provide more detailed information on the conducting and reporting of the literature search in future annual PMEM reports. Moreover, the GMO Panel encourages relevant parties to continue developing a methodological framework to use existing networks in the broader context of environmental monitoring. The GMO Panel concludes that the case‐specific monitoring (CSM) and GS activities of maize MON 810 as carried out by the consent holder do not provide evidence that would invalidate previous GMO Panel evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810.

Abstract In this opinion, the GMO Panel assessed the three‐event stack oilseed rape (OSR) MON 88302 × MS8 × RF3 and its three subcombinations, independently of their origin. The GMO Panel has previously assessed the single events combined to produce this three‐event stack OSR and did not identify safety concerns; no new information that would modify the original conclusions was identified. The combination of the single OSR events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three‐event stack OSR does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutrition issues – based on the molecular, agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics. In the case of accidental release of viable OSR MON 88302 × MS8 × RF3 seeds into the environment, the three‐event stack OSR would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel therefore concluded that the three‐event stack OSR is as safe and as nutritious as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM reference varieties in the context of the scope of this application. Since no new safety concerns were identified for the previously assessed two‐event stack OSR MS8 × RF3, the GMO Panel considered that its previous conclusions on this subcombination remain valid. For the two subcombinations MON 88302 × MS8 and MON 88302 × RF3 for which no experimental data were provided, the GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events, and concluded that their different combinations would not raise safety concerns. These two subcombinations are therefore expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed OSR MS8 × RF3, and OSR MON 88302 × MS8 × RF3. Since the post‐market environmental monitoring plan for the three‐event stack OSR does not include any provisions for two subcombinations not previously assessed, the GMO Panel recommended the applicant to revise the plan accordingly.

Abstract Soybean DAS‐68416‐4 was developed by Agrobacterium tumefaciens‐mediated transformation to express the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase‐12 (AAD‐12) protein, conferring tolerance to 2,4‐dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4‐D) and other related phenoxy herbicides, and the phosphinothricin 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 soybean DAS‐68416‐4 and its conventional counterpart, except for ‘days to 50% flowering’. The compositional analysis identified no differences requiring further assessment, except for an increase (up to 36%) in lectin activity in soybean DAS‐68416‐4. Such increase is unlikely to raise additional concerns for food/feed safety and nutrition for soybean DAS‐68416‐4 as compared to its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM reference varieties. There were no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the two newly expressed proteins, and no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of soybean DAS‐68416‐4. Soybean DAS‐68416‐4 is as nutritious as its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM reference varieties. There are no indications of an increased likelihood of establishment and spread of occasional feral soybean DAS‐68416‐4 plants, unless these are exposed to the intended herbicides. The likelihood of environmental effects resulting from the accidental release of viable seeds from soybean DAS‐68416‐4 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‐68416‐4. The GMO Panel concludes that the information available addresses the scientific comments of the Member States and that soybean DAS‐68416‐4, as described in this application, 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 in the context of the scope of this application.

Abstract The pre‐market environmental risk assessment (ERA) of regulated products such as genetically modified organisms, plant protection products and feed additives is an important process to safeguard the desired level of protection of the environment and biodiversity. ERA evaluates the potential adverse effects on the environment of certain actions, and is an important analytical scientific tool to support regulatory decision‐making. Significant advances have been made in the field in recent years. Potential avenues to the further advancement of ERA of regulated products under EFSA's remit were discussed during the breakout session ‘Advancing environmental risk assessment’ held at the EFSA 2nd Scientific Conference ‘Shaping the Future of Food Safety, Together’ (Milan, Italy, 14–16 October 2015). The value of ERA and its relevance to decision‐making can be increased by: (1) using the ecosystem services approach to make protection goals operational; (2) relying on problem formulation to enhance the relevance of ERA studies; (3) complying with quality standards to warrant the reliability of ERA studies; (4) making ERA more contextual by accounting for multiple stressors and environmental benefits; and (5) acknowledging the strengths and limitations of post‐market environmental monitoring as a tool to resolve scientific uncertainties.