Search

Following the submission of application EFSA–GMO–RX–018 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified cotton GHB614, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA–GMO–RX–018 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on cotton GHB614.

Cotton GHB811 was developed to confer tolerance to glyphosate and HPPD inhibitor herbicides. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between cotton GHB811 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for % lint, lint length and dihydrosterculic acid, which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 proteins as expressed in cotton GHB811 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of cotton GHB811. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from cotton GHB811 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton GHB811 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM cotton reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable cotton GHB811 seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of cotton GHB811. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton GHB811 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM cotton reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-017 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BVBA 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 × MON 810, 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, and updated bioinformatic analysis. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in maize MON 88017 × MON 810 considered for renewal are identical to the sequence of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-017 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 88017 × MON 810.

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 statement supplements and updates the GMO Panel guidance document on allergenicity of genetically modified (GM) plants published in 2017. In that guidance document, the GMO Panel considered that additional investigations on in vitro protein digestibility were needed before providing any additional recommendations in the form of guidance to applicants. Thus, an interim phase was proposed to assess the utility of an enhanced in vitro digestion test, as compared to the classical pepsin resistance test. Historically, resistance to degradation by pepsin using the classical pepsin resistance test has been considered as additional information, in a weight-of-evidence approach, for the assessment of allergenicity and toxicity of newly expressed proteins in GM plants. However, more recent evidence does not support this test as a good predictor of allergenic potential for hazard. Furthermore, there is a need for more reliable systems to predict the fate of the proteins in the gastrointestinal tract and how they interact with the relevant human cells. Nevertheless, the classical pepsin resistance test can still provide some information on the physicochemical properties of novel proteins relating to their stability under acidic conditions. But other methods can be used to obtain data on protein's structural and/or functional integrity. It is acknowledged that the classical pepsin resistance test is embedded into international guidelines, e.g. Codex Alimentarius and Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. For future development, a deeper understanding of protein digestion in the gastrointestinal tract could enable the framing of more robust strategies for the safety assessment of proteins. Given the high complexity of the digestion and absorption process of dietary proteins, it is needed to clarify and identify the aspects that could be relevant to assess potential risks of allergenicity and toxicity of proteins. To this end, a series of research questions to be addressed are also for

Mutations are changes in the genetic material that may be transmitted to subsequent generations. Mutations appear spontaneously in nature and are one of the underlying driving forces of evolution. In plants, in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis relies on the application of physical and chemical mutagens to increase the frequency of mutations thus accelerating the selection of varieties with important agronomic traits. The European Commission has requested EFSA to provide a more detailed description of in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis techniques and the types of mutations and mechanisms involved, to be able to conclude on whether in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis techniques are to be considered different techniques. To address the European Commission request, a literature search was conducted to collect information on the random mutagenesis techniques used in plants both in vivo and in vitro, on the type of mutations generated by such techniques and on the molecular mechanisms underlying formation of those mutations. The GMO Panel concludes that most physical and chemical mutagenesis techniques have been applied both in vivo and in vitro; the mutation process and the repair mechanisms act at cellular level and thus there is no difference between application of the mutagen in vivo or in vitro; and the type of mutations induced by a specific mutagen are expected to be the same, regardless of whether such mutagen is applied in vivo or in vitro. Indeed, the same mutation and the derived trait in a given plant species can be potentially obtained using both in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis and the resulting mutants would be indistinguishable. Therefore, the GMO Panel concludes that the distinction between plants obtained by in vitro or in vivo approaches is not justified.

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.

Maize NK603 × T25 × DAS-40278-9 (three-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single events: NK603, T25 and DAS-40278-9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the three single maize events and two of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the two subcombinations were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the three-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the three-event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in one of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the three-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the three-event stack maize. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the three-event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

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.

Soybean GMB151 was developed to confer tolerance to 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitor herbicides and resistance to nematodes. 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 soybean GMB151 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for palmitic acid and heptadecenoic acid in seeds and carbohydrate and crude protein in forage, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the HPPD-4 and Cry14Ab-1 proteins as expressed in soybean GMB151, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of soybean GMB151. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from soybean GMB151 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean GMB151 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM soybean reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable soybean GMB151 seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean GMB151. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean GMB151 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.

Maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 87411 × 59122 (six-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine six single events: MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, 1507, MON 87411 and 59122. The GMO Panel previously assessed the six single maize events and 17 of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the 17 subcombinations were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins and dsRNA 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 its non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties. 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 39 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 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 the non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-016 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta 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 Bt11, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the event in maize Bt11 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-016 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize Bt11.

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.

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.

The EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) previously assessed oilseed rape Ms8 × Rf3 × GT73 and its subcombinations Ms8 × GT73 and Rf3 × GT73 according to the scope as defined in the application EFSA¿GMO¿NL¿2009¿75, and was not in the position to complete the safety assessment of products rich in protein, such as rapeseed protein isolates or products of this nature in animal feeding. Following a mandate from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed a 28¿day toxicity study in mice with the glyphosate oxidoreductase (GOXv247) protein, provided to complement information related to application EFSA¿GMO¿NL¿2009¿75 for the placing on the market of oilseed rape Ms8 × Rf3 × GT73 and its subcombinations Ms8 × GT73 and Rf3 × GT73, for food and feed uses, import and processing, with the exception of isolated seed protein for food. The 28¿day toxicity study on Escherichia coli¿ produced GOXv247 protein did not show adverse effects in mice, at the gavage doses up to 1000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. Taking into account its previous assessment on EFSA¿GMO¿NL¿2009¿75 and the outcome of the 28¿day toxicity study in mice with the GOXv247 protein provided in this mandate, the GMO Panel, based on a weight of evidence approach, concludes that food and feed containing, consisting and produced from genetically modified oilseed rape Ms8 × Rf3 × GT73 and its sub combinations Ms8 × GT73 and Rf3 × GT73, are as safe as its conventional counterpart, according to the scope as defined in the application EFSA¿GMO¿NL¿2009¿75.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) to assess whether section 4 (hazard identification) and the conclusions of EFSA's Scientific opinion on the risk assessment of plants developed using zinc finger nuclease type 3 technique (ZFN‐3) and other site‐directed nucleases (SDN) with similar function are valid for plants developed via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 and oligonucleotide‐directed mutagenesis (ODM). In delivering this Opinion, the GMO Panel compared the hazards associated with plants produced via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 and ODM with those associated with plants obtained via both SDN‐3 and conventional breeding. Unlike for SDN‐3 methods, the application of SDN‐1, SDN‐2 and ODM approaches aims to modify genomic sequences in a way which can result in plants not containing any transgene, intragene or cisgene. Consequently, the GMO Panel concludes that those considerations which are specifically related to the presence of a transgene, intragene or cisgene included in section 4 and the conclusions of the Opinion on SDN‐3 are not relevant to plants obtained via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 or ODM as defined in this Opinion. Overall, the GMO Panel did not identify new hazards specifically linked to the genomic modification produced via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 or ODM as compared with both SDN‐3 and conventional breeding. Furthermore, the GMO Panel considers that the existing Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants and the Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants are sufficient but are only partially applicable to plants generated via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 or ODM. Indeed, those guidance documents’ requirements that are linked to the presence of exogenous DNA are not relevant for the risk assessment of plants developed via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 or ODM approaches if the genome of the final product does not contain exogenous DNA.

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, t

Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐002 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto Company, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA (GMO) 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 GT73. 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 GT73 considered for renewal of authorisation 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‐002 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape GT73.

The EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) previously assessed oilseed rape Ms8 × Rf3 × GT73 and its subcombinations Ms8 × GT73 and Rf3 × GT73 according to the scope as defined in the application EFSA-GMO-NL-2009-75, and was not in the position to complete the safety assessment of products rich in protein, such as rapeseed protein isolates or products of this nature in animal feeding. Following a mandate from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed a 28-day toxicity study in mice with the glyphosate oxidoreductase (GOXv247) protein, provided to complement information related to application EFSA-GMO-NL-2009-75 for the placing on the market of oilseed rape Ms8 × Rf3 × GT73 and its subcombinations Ms8 × GT73 and Rf3 × GT73, for food and feed uses, import and processing, with the exception of isolated seed protein for food. The 28-day toxicity study on Escherichia coli- produced GOXv247 protein did not show adverse effects in mice, at the gavage doses up to 1000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. Taking into account its previous assessment on EFSA-GMO-NL-2009-75 and the outcome of the 28-day toxicity study in mice with the GOXv247 protein provided in this mandate, the GMO Panel, based on a weight of evidence approach, concludes that food and feed containing, consisting and produced from genetically modified oilseed rape Ms8 × Rf3 × GT73 and its sub combinations Ms8 × GT73 and Rf3 × GT73, are as safe as its conventional counterpart, according to the scope as defined in the application EFSA-GMO-NL-2009-75.

The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) to assess whether section 4 (hazard identification) and the conclusions of EFSA's Scientific opinion on the risk assessment of plants developed using zinc finger nuclease type 3 technique (ZFN-3) and other site-directed nucleases (SDN) with similar function are valid for plants developed via SDN-1, SDN-2 and oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (ODM). In delivering this Opinion, the GMO Panel compared the hazards associated with plants produced via SDN-1, SDN-2 and ODM with those associated with plants obtained via both SDN-3 and conventional breeding. Unlike for SDN-3 methods, the application of SDN-1, SDN-2 and ODM approaches aims to modify genomic sequences in a way which can result in plants not containing any transgene, intragene or cisgene. Consequently, the GMO Panel concludes that those considerations which are specifically related to the presence of a transgene, intragene or cisgene included in section 4 and the conclusions of the Opinion on SDN-3 are not relevant to plants obtained via SDN-1, SDN-2 or ODM as defined in this Opinion. Overall, the GMO Panel did not identify new hazards specifically linked to the genomic modification produced via SDN-1, SDN-2 or ODM as compared with both SDN-3 and conventional breeding. Furthermore, the GMO Panel considers that the existing Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants and the Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants are sufficient but are only partially applicable to plants generated via SDN-1, SDN-2 or ODM. Indeed, those guidance documents' requirements that are linked to the presence of exogenous DNA are not relevant for the risk assessment of plants developed via SDN-1, SDN-2 or ODM approaches if the genome of the final product does not contain exogenous DNA.

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.

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, t

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.

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-002 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto Company, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA (GMO) 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 GT73. 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 GT73 considered for renewal of authorisation 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-002 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape GT73.