Search

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-014 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto Company 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 maize MON 88017, 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. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize MON 88017 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-014 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 88017., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-013 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 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 MIR604, 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. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize MIR604 considered for renewal is identical to the corrected sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-013 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MIR604., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 (four-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411. The genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and four of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the four 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 and dsRNA 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 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 not previously assessed 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. 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 tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-015 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BVBA, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) 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 MON 89034, 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. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize MON 89034 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-015 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to the application for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified (GM) maize 3272 (EFSA-GMO-UK-2006-34). The applicant conducted new agronomic, phenotypic and compositional analysis studies on maize 3272 and assessed the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein, addressing elements that remained inconclusive from previous EFSA opinion issued in 2013. The GMO Panel is of the opinion that the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics as well as forage and grain composition of maize 3272 do not give rise to food and feed safety, and nutritional concerns when compared to non-GM maize. Considering the scope of this application and the characteristics of the trait introduced in this GM maize, the effect of processing and potential safety implications of specific food or feed products remain to be further investigated. Regarding the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein and considering all possible food and feed uses of maize 3272, the Panel concludes that the information provided does not fully address the concerns previously raised by the Panel in 2013. Owing to the nature and the knowledge available on this protein family, it is still unclear whether under specific circumstances the alpha-amylase AMY797E has the capacity to sensitise certain individuals and to cause adverse effects. To further support the safety of specific products of maize 3272, the applicant provided thorough information relevant for the allergenicity assessment of dried distiller grains with solubles (DDGS), which is the main product of interest for importation into the EU. Having considered the information provided on this product, the Panel is of the opinion that under the specific conditions of use described by the applicant, DDGS produced from maize 3272 does not raise concerns when compared to DDGS from non-GM maize., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Maize MON 87427 ×MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 (five-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the five single maize events and eleven of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the 11 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 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 viable grains 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 not previously assessed and concludes that these 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. 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 reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 (four-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and four of the subcombinations did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the four 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 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 not previously assessed 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. 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 reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 (six-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21. The GMO Panel previously assessed the six single events and 22 of their combinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the maize single events or their 22 combinations 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 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 the six-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 six-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 34 maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to 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 the six-event stack maize. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the six-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., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-012 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience N.V., 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 context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified oilseed rape T45, 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 oilseed rape T45 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in the renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-012 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape T45., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-009 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience N.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 genetically modified soybean A2704-12, for food and feed uses, import and processing, 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. In addition, the applicant provided sequence data on the soybean A2704-12 event using material from a commercial variety currently on the market and intended to be marketed in the coming years. 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 the renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-009 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean A2704-12., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-011 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto Europe, 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 context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean 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 sequence of the event in soybean MON 89788 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-011 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 89788., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-010 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer, 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 context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified LLCotton25, for food and feed uses, import and processing, 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. In addition, the applicant provided sequence data on the LLCotton25 event using the material from a commercial variety that, according to the applicant, may be imported into the EU at the time of this renewal application. 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 the renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-010 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on LLCotton25., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

During plant growth and defense, cell cycle activity needs to be coordinated with cell wall integrity. Little is known about how this coordination is achieved. Here, we investigated coordination in Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings by studying the impact of cell wall damage (CWD, caused by cellulose biosynthesis inhibition) on cytokinin homeostasis, cell cycle gene expression and cell shape in root tips. CWD inhibited cell cycle gene expression and increased transition zone cell width in an osmosensitive manner. These results were correlated with CWD-induced, osmosensitive changes in cytokinin homeostasis. Expression of CYTOKININ OXIDASE/DEHYDROGENASE 2 and 3 ( CKX2 , CKX3 ), which encode cytokinin-degrading enzymes, was induced by CWD and reduced by osmoticum treatment. In nitrate reductase1 nitrate reductase2 ( nia1 nia2 ) seedlings, CKX2 and CKX3 transcript levels were not increased and cell cycle gene expression was not repressed by CWD. Moreover, established CWD-induced responses, such as jasmonic acid, salicylic acid and lignin production, were also absent, implying a central role of NIA1 / 2- mediated processes in regulation of CWD responses. These results suggest that CWD enhances cytokinin degradation rates through a NIA1/2-mediated process, leading to attenuation of cell cycle gene expression., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare no competing or financial interests., (© 2018. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd.)

Mutual interactions of the phytohormones, cytokinins and auxin determine root or shoot identity during postembryonic de novo organogenesis in plants. However, our understanding of the role of hormonal metabolism and perception during early stages of cell fate reprogramming is still elusive. Here we show that auxin activates root formation, whereas cytokinins mediate early loss of the root identity, primordia disorganisation and initiation of shoot development. Exogenous and endogenous cytokinins influence the initiation of newly formed organs, as well as the pace of organ development. The process of de novo shoot apical meristem establishment is accompanied by accumulation of endogenous cytokinins, differential regulation of genes for individual cytokinin receptors, strong activation of AHK4-mediated signalling and induction of the shoot-specific homeodomain regulator WUSCHEL. The last is associated with upregulation of isopentenyladenine-type cytokinins, revealing higher shoot-forming potential when compared with trans -zeatin. Moreover, AHK4-controlled cytokinin signalling negatively regulates the root stem cell organiser WUSCHEL RELATED HOMEOBOX 5 in the root quiescent centre. We propose an important role for endogenous cytokinin biosynthesis and AHK4-mediated cytokinin signalling in the control of de novo -induced organ identity., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare no competing or financial interests., (© 2018. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd.)

Dirigent (DIR) proteins were found to mediate regio- and stereoselectivity of bimolecular phenoxy radical coupling during lignan biosynthesis. Here we summarize the current knowledge of the importance of DIR proteins in lignan and lignin biosynthesis and highlight their possible importance in plant development. We focus on the still rather enigmatic Arabidopsis DIR gene family, discussing the few members with known functional importance. We comment on recent discoveries describing the detailed structure of two DIR proteins with implications in the mechanism of DIR-mediated catalysis. Further, we summarize the ample evidence for stress-induced dirigent gene expression, suggesting the role of DIRs in adaptive responses. In the second part of our work, we present a preliminary bioinformatics-based characterization of the AtDIR family. The phylogenetic analysis of AtDIRs complemented by comparison with DIR proteins of mostly known function from other species allowed us to suggest possible roles for several members of this family and identify interesting AtDIR targets for further study. Finally, based on the available metadata and our in silico analysis of AtDIR promoters, we hypothesize about the existence of specific transcriptional controls for individual AtDIR genes and implicate them in various stress responses, hormonal regulations, and developmental processes., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In plants, the multistep phosphorelay (MSP) pathway mediates a range of regulatory processes, including those activated by cytokinins. The cross talk between cytokinin response and light has been known for a long time. However, the molecular mechanism underlying the interaction between light and cytokinin signaling remains elusive. In the screen for upstream regulators we identified a LONG PALE HYPOCOTYL ( LPH ) gene whose activity is indispensable for spatiotemporally correct expression of CYTOKININ INDEPENDENT1 ( CKI1 ), encoding the constitutively active sensor His kinase that activates MSP signaling. lph is a new allele of HEME OXYGENASE1 ( HY1 ) that encodes the key protein in the biosynthesis of phytochromobilin, a cofactor of photoconvertible phytochromes. Our analysis confirmed the light-dependent regulation of the CKI1 expression pattern. We show that CKI1 expression is under the control of phytochrome A (phyA), functioning as a dual (both positive and negative) regulator of CKI1 expression, presumably via the phyA-regulated transcription factors (TF) PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR3 and CIRCADIAN CLOCK ASSOCIATED1. Changes in CKI1 expression observed in lph / hy1 - 7 and phy mutants correlate with misregulation of MSP signaling, changed cytokinin sensitivity, and developmental aberrations that were previously shown to be associated with cytokinin and/or CKI1 action. Besides that, we demonstrate a novel role of phyA-dependent CKI1 expression in the hypocotyl elongation and hook development during skotomorphogenesis. Based on these results, we propose that the light-dependent regulation of CKI1 provides a plausible mechanistic link underlying the well-known interaction between light- and cytokinin-controlled plant development., (© 2017 American Society of Plant Biologists. All Rights Reserved.)

Redirection of intercellular auxin fluxes via relocalization of the PIN-FORMED 3 (PIN3) and PIN7 auxin efflux carriers has been suggested to be necessary for the root gravitropic response. Cytokinins have also been proposed to play a role in controlling root gravitropism, but conclusive evidence is lacking. We present a detailed study of the dynamics of root bending early after gravistimulation, which revealed a delayed gravitropic response in transgenic lines with depleted endogenous cytokinins (Pro35S:AtCKX) and cytokinin signaling mutants. Pro35S:AtCKX lines, as well as a cytokinin receptor mutant ahk3, showed aberrations in the auxin response distribution in columella cells consistent with defects in the auxin transport machinery. Using in vivo real-time imaging of PIN3-GFP and PIN7-GFP in AtCKX3 overexpression and ahk3 backgrounds, we observed wild-type-like relocalization of PIN proteins in the columella early after gravistimulation, with gravity-induced relocalization of PIN7 faster than that of PIN3. Nonetheless, the cellular distribution of PIN3 and PIN7 and expression of PIN7 and the auxin influx carrier AUX1 was affected in AtCKX overexpression lines. Based on the retained cytokinin sensitivity in pin3 pin4 pin7 mutant, we propose the AUX1-mediated auxin transport rather than columella-located PIN proteins as a target of endogenous cytokinins in the control of root gravitropism., (© 2016 The Authors. New Phytologist © 2016 New Phytologist Trust.)

Histidine-containing phosphotransfer proteins from Arabidopsis thaliana (AHP1-5) act as intermediates between sensor histidine kinases and response regulators in a signalling system called multi-step phosphorelay (MSP). AHP proteins mediate and potentially integrate various MSP-based signalling pathways (e.g. cytokinin or osmosensing). However, structural information about AHP proteins and their importance in MSP signalling is still lacking. To obtain a deeper insight into the structural basis of AHP-mediated signal transduction, the three-dimensional structure of AHP2 was determined. The AHP2 coding sequence was cloned into pRSET B expression vector, enabling production of AHP2 fused to an N-terminal His tag. AHP2 was expressed in soluble form in Escherichia coli strain BL21 (DE3) pLysS and then purified to homogeneity using metal chelate affinity chromatography and anion-exchange chromatography under reducing conditions. Successful crystallization in a buffer which was optimized for thermal stability yielded crystals that diffracted to 2.5 Å resolution.