Search

Intensive arable cropping depletes soil organic carbon and earthworms, leading to loss of macropores, and impaired hydrological functioning, constraining crop yields and exacerbating impacts of droughts and floods that are increasing with climate change. Grass and legume mixes traditionally grown in arable rotations (leys), are widely considered to regenerate soil functions, but there is surprisingly limited evidence of their effects on soil properties, resilience to rainfall extremes, and crop yields. Using topsoil monoliths taken from four intensively cropped arable fields, 19 month-old grass-clover ley strips in these fields, and from 3 adjacent permanent grasslands, effects on soil properties, and wheat yield in response to four-weeks of flood, drought, or ambient rain, during the stem elongation period were evaluated. Compared to arable soil, leys increased earthworm numbers, infiltration rates, macropore flow and saturated hydraulic conductivity, and reduced compaction (bulk density) resulting in improved wheat yields by 42–95 % under flood and ambient conditions. The leys showed incomplete recovery compared to permanent grassland soil, with modest gains in soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, water-holding capacity, and grain yield under drought, that were not significantly different (P > 0.05) to the arable controls. Overall, grass-clover leys regenerate earthworm populations and reverse structural degradation of intensively cultivated arable soil, facilitating adoption of no-tillage cropping to break out of the cycle of tillage-driven soil degradation. The substantial improvements in hydrological functioning by leys will help to deliver reduced flood and water pollution risks, potentially justifying payments for these ecosystem services, especially as over longer periods, leys increase soil carbon sequestration.

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.

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.

International audience; 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-GMORX-009 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean A2704-12.

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., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6199/full

© 2020 European Food Safety Authority., 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.

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.

The sustainable intensification of agriculture involves providing sufficient food and other ecosystem services without going beyond the limits of the earth’s system. Here a project management approach is suggested to help guide agricultural policy to deliver these objectives. The first step is to agree measurable outcomes, integrating formal policy goals with the often much less formal and much more diverse goals of individual farmers. The second step is to assess current performance. Ideally, this will involve the use of farm-scale metrics that can feed into process models that address social and environmental domains as well as production issues that can be benchmarked and upscaled to landscape and country. Some policy goals can be delivered by supporting ad hoc interventions, while others require the redesign of the farming system. A pipeline of research, knowledge and capacity building is needed to ensure the continuous increase in farm performance. System models can help prioritise policy interventions. Formal optimization of land use is only appropriate if the policy goals are clear, and the constraints understood. In practice, the best approach may depend on the scale of action that is required, and on the amount of resource and infrastructure available to generate, implement and manage policy.

© 2020 European Food Safety Authority., 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.

© 2020 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.

Agriculture involves the redirection of wild ecosystems to the production of food. This trade-off between farming and biodiversity conservation is often discussed in terms of land sharing or land sparing and rewilding. However, this choice also reflects the perceptions of ideal landscapes, which are partly based on culture and memory.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background and aims The increasing input of anthropogenically-derived nitrogen (N) to ecosystems raises a crucial question: how do N inputs modify the soil microbial stability, and thus affect crop productivity? Methods Soils from an 8-year rice-wheat rotation experiment with increasing N-input rates were subjected to drying–rewetting (DW) cycles for investigating the resistance and resilience of soil functions, in terms of abundances of genes (potential functions) and activities of enzymes (quantifiable functions), to this stress, and particularly the contribution of resistance and resilience on crop production was evaluated. Results Although the DW cycles had a stronger effect compared to N fertilization level, the N input was also important in explaining the variation in the resistance and resilience of functional genes and the activities of enzymes involved in C, N and P cycling. Crop yields benefited from both of high resistance and high resilience of soil microbial functions, though the resistance and resilience of soil enzyme activities exhibited a stronger contribution to crop yields compared to the functional genes and the overall contribution strength was conditioned by N input levels. Conclusions In addition to the well-known direct contribution of N fertilization on crop yields, N input plays an indirect role on crop production via conditioning the resistance and resilience of soil functions in response to repeated DW cycles.

Nitrogen contributes to plant defense responses by the regulation of plant primary metabolism during plant–pathogen interactions. Based on biochemical, physiological, bioinformatic and transcriptome approaches, we investigated how different nitrogen forms (ammonium vs. nitrate) regulate the physiological response of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum (FOC) infection. The metabolic profile revealed that nitrate-grown plants accumulated more organic acids, while ammonium-grown plants accumulated more amino acids; FOC infection significantly increased levels of both amino acids and organic acids in the roots of ammonium-grown plants. Transcriptome analysis showed that genes related to carbon metabolism were mostly up-regulated in plants grown with nitrate, whereas in ammonium-grown plants the up-regulated genes were mostly those that were related to primary nitrogen metabolism. Root FOC colonization and disease incidence were positively correlated with levels of root amino acids and negatively correlated with levels of root organic acids. In conclusion, organic acid metabolism and expression of related genes increased under nitrate, whereas ammonium increased the level of amino acids and expression of related genes; these altered levels of organic acids and amino acids resulted in different tolerances to FOC infection depending on the nitrogen forms supplied.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The scope of application EFSA-GMO-DE-2016-133 is for food and feed uses, import and processing ofgenetically modified (GM) maize MZHG0JG in the European Union. Maize MZHG0JG was developed toconfer tolerance to the herbicidal active substances glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium. Themolecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feedsafety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositionalcharacteristics tested between maize MZHG0JG and its conventional counterpart needs furtherassessment, except for early stand count (pre-thinning). The GMO Panel does not identify safetyconcerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the mEPSPS and PAT proteins as expressed inmaize MZHG0JG, andfinds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overallallergenicity of maize MZHG0JG. The nutritional impact of food/feed derived from maize MZHG0JG isexpected to be the same as that of food/feed derived from the conventional counterpart andcommercial non-GM maize reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZHG0JG isnutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize referencevarieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case ofaccidental release of viable maize MZHG0JG grains into the environment, maize MZHG0JG would notraise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reportingintervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZHG0JG. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considersthat maize MZHG0JG, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart andthe tested non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animalhealth and the environment.

A diverse range of response options was evaluated in terms of their utility for sustaining ecosystem services in the UK. Robustness of response options was investigated by applying a ‘stress-testing’ method which evaluated expected performance against combined scenarios of socioeconomic and climate change. Based upon stakeholder feedback, a reference scenario representing current trends in climate and socioeconomic drivers (‘business-as-usual’) was used as a dynamic baseline against which to compare results of other scenarios. The robustness of response options was evaluated by their utility in different environmental and social contexts as represented by the scenarios, and linked to their adaptability to adjust to changing conditions. Key findings demonstrate that adaptability becomes increasingly valuable as the magnitude and rate of future change diverges from current trends. Stress-testing also revealed that individual responses in isolation are unlikely to be robust meaning there are advantages from integrating cohesive combinations (bundles) of response options to maximise their individual strengths and compensate for weaknesses. This identifies a role for both top-down and bottom-up responses, including regulation, spatial targeting, incentives and partnership initiatives, and their use in combination through integrated assessment and planning consistent with the adoption of an Ecosystem Approach. Stress-testing approaches can have an important role in future-proofing policy appraisals but important knowledge gaps remain, especially for cultural and supporting ecosystem services. Finally, barriers and enablers to the implementation of more integrated long-term adaptive responses were identified drawing on the ‘4 Is’ (Institutions, Information, Incentives, Identity) conceptual framework. This highlighted the crucial but usually understated role of identity in promoting ownership and uptake of responses.

Delivering access to sufficient food, energy and water resources to ensure human wellbeing is a major concern for governments worldwide. However, it is crucial to account for the ‘nexus’ of interactions between these natural resources and the consequent implications for human wellbeing. The private sector has a critical role in driving positive change towards more sustainable nexus management and could reap considerable benefits from collaboration with researchers to devise solutions to some of the foremost sustainability challenges of today. Yet opportunities are missed because the private sector is rarely involved in the formulation of deliverable research priorities. We convened senior research scientists and influential business leaders to collaboratively identify the top forty questions that, if answered, would best help companies understand and manage their food-energy-water-environment nexus dependencies and impacts. Codification of the top order nexus themes highlighted research priorities around development of pragmatic yet credible tools that allow businesses to incorporate nexus interactions into their decision-making; demonstration of the business case for more sustainable nexus management; identification of the most effective levers for behaviour change; and understanding incentives or circumstances that allow individuals and businesses to take a leadership stance. Greater investment in the complex but productive relations between the private sector and research community will create deeper and more meaningful collaboration and cooperation., This work was supportedby the Economic and Social Research Council [Grant Number ES/L01632X/1] and is part of the Nexus Network Initiative. WJS is funded by Arcadia.