Search

Abstract EFSA was asked by the European Parliament to provide a scientific opinion on the analysis by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) of Annex I of the European Commission proposal for a regulation ‘on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs) and their food and feed, and amending regulation (EU) 2017/625’. The Panel on genetically modified organisms (GMO) assessed the opinion published by ANSES, which focuses on (i) the need to clarify the definitions and scope, (ii) the scientific basis for the equivalence criteria and (iii) the need to take potential risks from category 1 NGT plants into account. The EFSA GMO Panel considered the ANSES analysis and comments on various terms used in the criteria in Annex I of the European Commission proposal and discussed definitions based on previous EFSA GMO Panel opinions. The EFSA GMO Panel concluded that the available scientific literature shows that plants containing the types and numbers of genetic modifications used as criteria to identify category 1 NGT plants in the European Commission proposal do exist as the result of spontaneous mutations or random mutagenesis. Therefore, it is scientifically justified to consider category 1 NGT plants as equivalent to conventionally bred plants with respect to the similarity of genetic modifications and the similarity of potential risks. The EFSA GMO Panel did not identify any additional hazards and risks associated with the use of NGTs compared to conventional breeding techniques in its previous Opinions.

Abstract As part of the risk assessment (RA) requirements for genetically modified (GM) plants, according to Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 and the EFSA guidance on the RA of food and feed from GM plants (EFSA GMO Panel 2011), applicants need to perform a molecular characterisation of the DNA sequences inserted in the GM plant genome. This Technical Note to the applicants puts together requirements and recommendations for the quality assessment of the methodology, analysis and reporting when DNA sequencing is used for the molecular characterisation of GM plants. In particular, it applies to the use of Sanger sequencing and next‐generation sequencing for the characterisation of the inserted genetic material and its flanking regions at each insertion site, the determination of the copy number of all detectable inserts and the analysis of the genetic stability of the inserts. This updated document replaces the EFSA 2018 Technical Note and reflects the current knowledge in scientific‐technical methods for generating and verifying, in a standardised manner, DNA sequencing data in the context of RA of GM plants. It does not take into consideration the verification and validation of the detection method which remains under the remit of the Joint Research Centre (JRC).

Abstract Genetically modified maize DP202216 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate‐ammonium‐containing herbicides and to provide an opportunity for yield enhancement under field conditions. These properties were achieved by introducing the mo‐pat and zmm28 expression cassettes. 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 DP202216 and its comparator needs further assessment, except for the levels of stearic acid (C18:0), which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the PAT and ZMM28 proteins as expressed in maize DP202216, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize DP202216. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP202216 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as the comparator and non‐GM reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP202216 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP202216. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as its comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Genetically modified cotton COT102 was developed to confer resistance against several lepidopteran species. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the differences in the agronomic‐phenotypic and compositional characteristics between cotton COT102 and its non‐GM comparator needs further assessment, except for levels of acid detergent fibre, which do not raise safety or nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Vip3Aa19 and APH4 proteins as expressed in cotton COT102 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of cotton COT102. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from cotton COT102 does not represent a nutritional concern for humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton COT102 is as safe as the non‐GM comparator and non‐GM cotton varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable cotton COT102 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 COT102. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton COT102 is as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM cotton varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract The European Commission requested the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA GMO Panel) to assess new scientific information on maize MIR162, and to indicate whether the previous conclusions on the safety of maize MIR162 as a single event and as a part of stacked events remain valid. The new information is included in a European patent that reports a decrease in male fertility in some MIR162 inbred lines, pointing to a potential link between such decrease and the Vip3 protein expressed by maize MIR162. The EFSA GMO Panel evaluated the data provided by the patent owner and found scarce support for a causal link between Vip3 and decreased fertility. The general hypothesis of an association between event MIR162 and altered fertility could not be confirmed. The EFSA GMO Panel conducted the safety assessment based on the conservative assumption that such an association exists. The EFSA GMO Panel concluded that a decrease in male fertility would have no impact on the previous conclusions on maize MIR162 and stacked events containing MIR162.

Abstract Genetically modified maize GA21 × T25 was developed by crossing to combine two single events: GA21 and T25. The GMO Panel previously assessed the two single maize events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in maize GA21 × T25 does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 × T25, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food and feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize GA21 × T25 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize GA21 × T25. Post‐market monitoring of food and feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 × T25 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM reference varieties tested, with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Genetically modified maize MON 87419 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba‐ and glufosinate‐based herbicides. These properties were achieved by introducing the dmo and pat expression cassettes. 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 MON 87419 and its conventional counterpart needed further assessment, except for the levels of arginine and protein in grains which did not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the dicamba mono‐oxygenase (DMO) and phosphinothricin N‐acetyltransferase (PAT) proteins as expressed in maize MON 87419. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 87419. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 87419 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87419 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non‐GM maize varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 87419 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 87419. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87419 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Maize MON 87429 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba, glufosinate, quizalofop and 2,4‐D 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 maize MON 87429 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of phytic acid in grains, which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the DMO, PAT, FT_T and CP4 EPSPS proteins as expressed in maize MON 87429. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 87429. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 87429 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87429 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 MON 87429 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 87429. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87429, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Genetically modified maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS‐40278‐9 was developed by crossing to combine four single events: DP4114, MON 89034, MON 87411 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and two of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed 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 four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. Therefore, no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable four‐event stack maize grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in eight 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 four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS‐40278‐9. 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 maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract EFSA was asked by the european Commission to develop criteria as advice for consideration for the risk assessment of plants produced by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA proposes in this statement six main criteria to assist the risk assessment of these plants. The first four criteria are related to the molecular characterisation of the genetic modification introduced in the recipient plant. The four criteria evaluate whether any exogenous DNA sequence(s) is/are present (Criterion 1), whether such sequence derives from the breeders' gene pool (Criterion 2), the type of integration (Criterion 3) and whether any endogenous plant gene is interrupted (Criterion 4). Depending on the evaluation of the above criteria, the product can be a genome edited plant where no exogenous DNA sequence is present, or a cisgenic or intragenic plant where the cisgenic and intragenic sequence are introduced by targeted insertion and no plant endogenous genes are interrupted. In these cases, two more criteria are assessed to evaluate the history of safe use (Criterion 5) and the structure and function of the new allele (Criterion 6). If cisgenic and intragenic sequence are introduced by random integration without interruption of an endogenous gene, or when no risk is identified when an endogenous gene is interrupted, the criteria 5 and 6 will also be assessed. Evaluating the history of safe use is an important part of the proportionate risk assessment of cisgenic, intragenic and genome‐edited plants since the newly introduced allele may already be present in nature. However, when the history of safe use cannot be sufficiently demonstrated, the function and structure of the introduced allele should be carefully assessed. Recommendations are also included on the aspects that need further elaboration for full applicability of the criteria proposed herein are also included.

Abstract In 2012, EFSA issued an opinion on plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis. With the development of New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) in the last decade, cisgenic and intragenic plants can now be obtained with the insertion of a desired sequence in a precise location of the genome. EFSA has been requested by European Commission to provide an updated scientific opinion on the safety and the risk assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis, in order to (i) identify potential risks, comparing them with those posed by plants obtained by conventional breeding and Established Genomic Techniques (EGTs) and (ii) to determine the applicability of current guidelines for the risk assessment of cisgenic and intragenic plants. The conclusions of the previous EFSA opinion were reviewed, taking into consideration the new guidelines and the recent literature. The GMO panel concludes that no new risks are identified in cisgenic and intragenic plants obtained with NGTs, as compared with those already considered for plants obtained with conventional breeding and EGTs. There are no new data since the publication of the 2012 EFSA opinion that would challenge the conclusions raised in that document. The conclusions of the EFSA 2012 Scientific Opinion remain valid. The EFSA GMO Panel reiterates from these conclusions that with respect to the source of DNA and the safety of the gene product, the hazards arising from the use of a related plant‐derived gene by cisgenesis are similar to those from conventional plant breeding, whereas additional hazards may arise for intragenic plants. Furthermore, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that cisgenesis and intragenesis make use of the same transformation techniques as transgenesis, and therefore, with respect to the alterations to the host genome, cisgenic, intragenic and transgenic plants obtained by random insertion do not cause different hazards. Compared to that, the use of NGTs reduces the risks associated with potential unintended modifications of the host genome. Thus, fewer requirements may be needed for the assessment of cisgenic and intragenic plants obtained through NGTs, due to site‐directed integration of the added genetic material. Moreover, the GMO panel concludes that the current guidelines are partially applicable and sufficient. On a case‐by‐case basis, a lesser amount of data might be needed for the risk assessment of cisgenic or intragenic plants obtained through NGTs.

Abstract Oilseed rape MON 94100 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba herbicide. 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 oilseed rape MON 94100 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of carbohydrates, calcium and ADF in seeds, which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the dicamba mono‐oxygenase (DMO) protein as expressed in oilseed rape MON 94100. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of oilseed rape MON 94100. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from oilseed rape MON 94100 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape MON 94100 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non‐GM oilseed rape reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape MON 94100 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 oilseed rape MON 94100. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape MON 94100 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM oilseed rape reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Synthetic biology (SynBio) is an interdisciplinary field at the interface of molecular engineering and biology aiming to develop new biological systems and impart new functions to living cells, tissues and organisms. EFSA has been asked by the European Commission to evaluate SynBio developments in agri‐food with the aim of identifying the adequacy and sufficiency of existing guidelines for risk assessment and determine if updated guidance is needed. In this context, the GMO Panel has previously adopted an Opinion evaluating the SynBio developments in agri‐food/feed and the adequacy and sufficiency of existing guidelines for the molecular characterisation and environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants (GMPs) obtained through SynBio and reaching the market in the next decade. Complementing the above, in this Opinion, the GMO Panel evaluated the adequacy and sufficiency of existing guidelines for the food and feed risk assessment of GMPs obtained through SynBio. Using selected hypothetical case studies, the GMO Panel did not identify novel potential hazards and risks that could be posed by food and feed from GMPs obtained through current and near future SynBio approaches; considers that the existing guidelines are adequate and sufficient in some Synbio applications; in other cases, existing guidelines may be just adequate and hence need updating; areas needing updating include those related to the safety assessment of new proteins and the comparative analysis. The GMO Panel recommends that future guidance documents provide indications on how to integrate the knowledge available from the SynBio design and modelling in the food and feed risk assessment and encourages due consideration to be given to food and feed safety aspects throughout the SynBio design process as a way to facilitate the risk assessment of SynBio GMPs and reduce the amount of data required.

Abstract The GMO Panel has previously assessed genetically modified (GM) cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 and concluded that it is as safe as its conventional counterpart and other appropriate comparators with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of its intended uses. On 17 November 2020, the European Commission requested EFSA to evaluate new DNA sequence information and updated bioinformatics data for cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 and to indicate whether the conclusions of the GMO Panel on the previously assessed cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 remain valid. The new sequence data of DAS‐24236‐5 showed the change of one nucleotide that results in one amino acid substitution, in the newly expressed Cry1F (synpro_L620Q) compared to the sequence originally reported. The GMO Panel concludes that this amino acid substitution in the protein is a mutation. Nonetheless with the exception of the bioinformatics analysis, the studies performed for the risk assessment of Cry1F in cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 remain valid. In addition, the new sequencing data showed a change in one nucleotide in the 5′ flanking region of DAS‐21Ø23‐5 compared to the original sequence reported on the stack cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5. The bioinformatic analyses of the newly sequenced DAS‐21Ø23‐5 event in the stack DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 shows that the nucleotide difference is in the 5′ flanking region outside the ORFs that span the 5′ junction and is therefore not considered further in the safety assessment. Based on the information provided, the GMO Panel concludes that the corrected sequence does not give rise to any safety concerns, and therefore, the original risk assessment of cotton DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5 remains valid.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on genetically modified organisms (GMO Panel) has previously assessed genetically modified (GM) sugar beet H7‐1. This sugar beet was found to be as safe and nutritious as its conventional counterpart and commercial sugar beet varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of its intended uses. On 19 February 2021, European Commission requested EFSA to analyse new nucleic acid sequencing data and updated bioinformatics data for GM sugar beet H7‐1 and to indicate whether the previous conclusions of the GMO Panel on safety of GM sugar beet H7‐1 remain valid. The new sequencing data indicated seven nucleotide differences as compared to the sequence originally provided in applications EFSA‐GMO‐UK‐2004‐08 and EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐006: five nucleotides in the 5’ genomic flanking region and two nucleotides in the T‐DNA region of the insert. Two mismatches between the originally submitted H7‐1 event sequence and the plasmid sequence were confirmed by the newly obtained H7‐1 sequence. Based on the analysis of the provided data, EFSA considers that the newly reported sequence differences are most likely attributed to sequencing errors in the originally reported sugar beet H7‐1 event sequence. The new sequencing data and the bioinformatic analyses performed on the new sequence did not give rise to safety issues. Therefore, EFSA concludes that the original risk assessment of sugar beet H7‐1 remains valid.

Abstract Maize DP4114 × MON 810 × MIR604 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: DP4114, MON 810, MIR604 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and one of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombination 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 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, is as safe as the comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties. 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 nine of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombination and the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Oilseed rape 73496 was developed to confer tolerance to the herbicidal active substance glyphosate through the expression of the glyphosate acetyltransferase protein GAT4621. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses identify no issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences between oilseed rape 73496 and its conventional counterpart in the agronomic/phenotypic endpoints tested needs further assessment. Differences identified in seed composition of oilseed rape 73496 as compared to its conventional counterpart raise no safety and nutritional concerns in the context of the scope of this application. No safety concerns are identified regarding toxicity and allergenicity of the GAT4621 protein as expressed in oilseed rape 73496. No evidence is found that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of oilseed rape 73496. Based on the outcome of the comparative and nutritional assessments, the consumption of oilseed rape 73496 does not represent any nutritional concern, in the context of the scope of this application. The implementation of a post‐market monitoring plan is recommended to confirm the predicted consumption data and to verify that the conditions of use are those considered during the pre‐market risk assessment. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape 73496 seeds into the environment, oilseed rape 73496 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of oilseed rape 73496. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape 73496, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non‐genetically modified oilseed rape reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract 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.

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

Abstract Maize 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.

Abstract Maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and six of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or the six subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the four maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

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

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

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

Abstract Oilseed rape MS11 has been developed to confer male sterility and tolerance to glufosinate‐ammonium‐containing herbicides. Based on the information provided in the application and in line with the scope of application EFSA‐GMO‐BE‐2016‐138, the genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel concludes that the molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic characteristics tested between oilseed rape MS11 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. No conclusions can be drawn for the compositional analysis due to the lack of an appropriate compositional data set. No toxicological or allergenicity concerns are identified for the Barnase, Barstar and PAT/bar proteins expressed in oilseed rape MS11. Owing to the incompleteness of the compositional analysis, the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment of oilseed rape MS11 cannot be completed. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape MS11 seeds into the environment, oilseed rape MS11 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the scope of the application. Since oilseed rape MS11 is designed to be used only for the production of hybrid seed, it is not expected to be commercialised as a stand‐alone product for food/feed uses. Thus, seeds harvested from oilseed rape MS11 are not expected to enter the food/feed chain, except accidentally. In this context, the GMO Panel notes that, oilseed rape MS11 would not pose risk to humans and animals, while the scale of environmental exposure will be substantially reduced compared to a stand‐alone product.

Genetically modified plants (GMPs) intended for market release can be designed to induce “gene silencing” through RNA interference (RNAi). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and other international risk assessment bodies/regulatory agencies have taken several actions to determine whether the existing risk assessment approaches for GMPs are appropriate for the risk assessment of RNAi-based GMPs or require complementary or alternative approaches. To our knowledge, at the international level, no dedicated guidelines have been developed for the risk assessment and regulation of RNAi-based GMPs, confirming that existing science-based risk assessment approaches for GMPs are generally considered suitable for RNAi-based GMPs. However, some specificities have been identified for the risk assessment of RNAi-based GMPs. Here, we report on some of these specificities as identified and addressed by the EFSA GMO Panel for the molecular characterisation, food/feed safety assessment and environmental risk assessment of RNAi-based GMPs, using the DvSnf7 dsRNA-expressing maize MON87411 as a case study.

Abstract Soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (four‐event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87751, MON 87701, MON 87708 and MON 89788. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events have been identified that would lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological and allergenicity assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack soybean, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four‐event stack soybean into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack soybean. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack soybean is as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547‐127 (three‐event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single events: MON 87708, MON 89788 and A5547‐127. The GMO Panel previously assessed the three single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the three‐event stack soybean, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. The nutritional impact of food/feed derived from the three‐event stack soybean is expected to be the same as that of food/feed derived from the conventional counterpart and non‐GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the three‐event stack soybean into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the three‐event stack soybean. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the three‐event stack soybean is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract 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.

The essay examines the accounts of personal experiences of those Americans who came into contact with the Berbers along the North African coast in the decades after the proclamation of American independence. The national anxieties and personal reflections arising from the encounter by Americans with a religiously and culturally complex, distant society on the southern Mediterranean shore are explored. Most American captivity narratives reveal a complex relation to the construction of American identity, where the Orient becomes a zone of contact in which themes related to selfhood and nationhood are constantly negotiated and reconstructed.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The scope of application EFSA‐GMO‐DE‐2016‐133 is for food and feed uses, import and processing of genetically modified (GM) maize MZHG0JG in the European Union. Maize MZHG0JG was developed to confer tolerance to the herbicidal active substances glyphosate and glufosinate‐ammonium. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MZHG0JG and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for early stand count (pre‐thinning). The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the mEPSPS and PAT proteins as expressed in maize MZHG0JG, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MZHG0JG. The nutritional impact of food/feed derived from maize MZHG0JG is expected to be the same as that of food/feed derived from the conventional counterpart and commercial non‐GM maize reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZHG0JG is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and non‐GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MZHG0JG grains into the environment, maize MZHG0JG would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZHG0JG. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MZHG0JG, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract The GMO Panel has previously assessed genetically modified (GM) soybean BPS‐CV127‐9. This soybean was found to be as safe and nutritious as its conventional counterpart and commercial soybean varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of its intended uses. On 16 February 2018, European Commission requested EFSA to analyse new nucleic acid sequencing data and updated bioinformatics data for GM soybean BPS‐CV127‐9 and to indicate whether the previous conclusions of the GMO Panel on safety of GM soybean BPS‐CV127‐9 remain valid. The new sequencing data indicated a two nucleotide difference in the unannotated Arabidopsis genomic DNA sequence downstream of the 3′ untranslated region of the ahasl (also referred to as csr1‐2) gene as compared to the sequencing data originally provided. One of these nucleotide differences reported in the new nucleic acid sequencing data from GM soybean event BPS‐CV127‐9 was shown to be already present in the original plant material used for the risk assessment. However, for the other nucleotide difference reported, no evidence could be provided to differentiate between a sequencing error and point‐mutation. With the exception of bioinformatics analyses, the studies performed for the risk assessment of the single event soybean BPS‐CV127‐9 remain valid. The new sequencing data and the bioinformatics analyses performed on the new sequence did not give rise to safety issues. Therefore, EFSA concludes that the original risk assessment of soybean BPS‐CV127‐9 remains valid.

Abstract The GMO Panel has previously assessed genetically modified (GM) carnation FLO‐40689‐6 and concluded that there is no scientific reason to consider that the import, distribution and retailing in the EU of carnation FLO‐40689‐6 cut flowers for ornamental use will cause any adverse effects on human health or the environment. On 27 October 2017, the European Commission requested EFSA to analyse new nucleic acid sequencing data and updated bioinformatics data for carnation FLO‐40689‐6 and to indicate whether the conclusions of the GMO Panel on the previously assessed GM carnation FLO‐40689‐6 remain valid. The new sequencing data indicated the correction of one nucleotide compared to the sequencing data originally provided. The new sequence was corrected by removal of one nucleotide from the polylinker region in locus 1. The removal of this base pair reported in the new nucleic acid sequencing data for carnation FLO‐40689‐6 has been already present in the original plant material used for the risk assessment. Thus, with the exception of bioinformatics analyses, the studies performed for the risk assessment of GM carnation FLO‐40689‐6 remain valid. The new sequencing data and the bioinformatic analyses performed on the new sequence, did not give rise to safety issues. Therefore, EFSA concludes that the original risk assessment of carnation FLO‐40689‐6 remains valid.

Abstract Soybean MON 87751 was developed through Agrobacterium tumefaciens‐mediated transformation to provide protection certain specific lepidopteran pests by the expression of the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses did not identify issues requiring assessment for food and feed safety. None of the compositional, agronomic and phenotypic differences identified between soybean MON 87751 and the conventional counterpart required further assessment. The GMO Panel did not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins as expressed in soybean MON 87751, and found no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of soybean MON 87751. The nutritional impact of soybean MON 87751‐derived food and feed is expected to be the same as those derived from the conventional counterpart and non‐GM commercial reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean MON 87751, as described in this application, is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and the non‐GM soybean reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food and feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable soybean MON 87751 seeds into the environment, soybean MON 87751 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean MON 87751. In conclusion, soybean MON 87751, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Maize MON 87411 was developed to confer resistance to corn rootworms (Diabrotica spp.) by the expression of a modified version of the Bacillus thuringiensis cry3Bb1 gene and a DvSnf7 dsRNA expression cassette, and tolerance to glyphosate‐containing herbicides by the expression of a CP4 5‐enolpyruvylshikimate‐3‐phosphate synthase (cp4 epsps) gene. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatics analyses did not identify issues requiring assessment for food and feed safety. No statistically significant differences in the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics tested between maize MON 87411 and its conventional counterpart were identified. The compositional analysis of maize MON 87411 did not identify differences that required further assessment except for palmitic acid levels in grains from not treated maize MON 87411. The GMO Panel did not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry3Bb1 and CP4 EPSPS proteins, as expressed in maize MON 87411 and found no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of maize MON 87411. The nutritional impact of maize MON 87411‐derived food and feed is expected to be the same as those derived from the conventional counterpart and non‐GM commercial reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87411, as described in this application, is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and the 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 MON 87411 grains into the environment, maize MON 87411 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 87411. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87411, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Maize 4114 was developed through Agrobacterium tumefaciens‐mediated transformation to provide protection against certain lepidopteran and coleopteran pests by expression of the Cry1F, Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, and tolerance to the herbicidal active ingredient glufosinate‐ammonium by expression of the PAT protein derived from Streptomyces viridochromogenes. The molecular characterisation data did not identify issues requiring assessment for food/feed safety. None of the compositional, agronomic and phenotypic differences identified between maize 4114 and the non‐genetically modified (GM) comparator(s) required further assessment. There were no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the newly expressed proteins Cry1F, Cry34Ab1, Cry35Ab1 and PAT, and no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of maize 4114. The nutritional value of food/feed derived from maize 4114 is not expected to differ from that derived from non‐GM maize varieties and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize 4114 grains into the environment, maize 4114 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize 4114. The genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel concludes that maize 4114 is as safe as the non‐GM comparator(s) and non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of the scope of this application.

Abstract Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐005 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, 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 of the herbicide‐tolerant genetically modified maize GA21. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatics 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 GA21 considered for renewal is identical to the corrected sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in the renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐005 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize GA21.

Abstract The European Commission mandated EFSA to review a new data package provided by the company Elanco, for the possible integration/non‐integration of the DNA plasmid vaccine CLYNAV into the genome of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and to indicate whether EFSA agrees with the conclusions drawn by Elanco. The vaccine is injected into fish to confer protection against pancreas disease caused by the salmonid alphavirus. The majority of the experimental data provided by the company was for muscle tissue close to the injection site and for gonadal tissue. EFSA considers that the long persistence of DNA plasmid in muscle tissue close to the injection site and the potential heritability of an integration event in gonad cells support the focus of the assessment on both these tissues. The experimental data did not provide scientifically robust evidence for a true integration event. The company overall concluded that the likelihood of integration is negligible, based on considerations in the context of the company's environmental risk assessment, but did not provide a quantitative value for the rate of integration linked to the term ‘negligible’. It is therefore not possible to evaluate this statement specifically with regard to integration rates. EFSA notes that knowledge about homologous and non‐homologous integration predicts that integration could occur with certain frequency. Therefore, EFSA has constructed worst‐case scenarios leading to upper estimates for possible integration rates of the DNA plasmid vaccine into the Atlantic salmon genome. EFSA concludes that, based on the worst‐case scenarios described here and taking into account additional factors decreasing the likelihood of integration, the actual integration rate is likely to be orders of magnitude lower than the upper estimated integration rate calculated in the context of the worst‐case scenarios. With the available evidence, the actual integration rate cannot be estimated with more precision.

Background. Natural killer (NK) and natural killer T (NKT) cells contribute to the innate host defense but their role in bacterial sepsis remains controversial. Methods. C57BL/6 mice were infected intratracheally with 5 × 105 cfu of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Animals were divided into sham group (Sham); pretreated with isotype control antibody (CON) group; pretreated with anti-asialo GM1 antibody (NKd) group; and pretreated with anti-CD1d monoclonal antibody (NKTd) group before bacterial challenge. Serum and tissue samples were analyzed for bacterial load, cytokine levels, splenocyte apoptosis rates, and cell characteristics by flow cytometry. Splenocyte miRNA expression was also analyzed and survival was assessed. Results. NK cell depletion prolonged survival. Upon inhibition of NKT cell activation, spleen NK (CD3−/NK1.1+) cells increased compared to all other groups. Inhibition of NKT cell activation led to higher bacterial loads and increased levels of serum and splenocyte IFN-γ. Splenocyte miRNA analysis showed that miR-200c and miR-29a were downregulated, while miR-125a-5p was upregulated, in anti-CD1d treated animals. These changes were moderate after NK cell depletion. Conclusions. NK cells appear to contribute to mortality in pneumococcal pneumonia. Inhibition of NKT cell activation resulted in an increase in spleen NK (CD3−/NK1.1+) cells and a higher IFN-γ production, while altering splenocyte miRNA expression.

Listeria monocytogenes is a gram-positive facultative intracellular pathogen, causing serious illness in immunocompromised individuals and pregnant women. Upon detection by macrophages, which are key players of the innate immune response against infection, L. monocytogenes induces specific host cell responses which need to be tightly controlled at transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels. Here, we ask whether and how host miRNAs, which represent an important mechanism of post-transcriptional regulation in a wide array of biological processes, are altered by a model pathogen upon live infection of murine bone marrow derived macrophages. We first report that L. monocytogenes subverts the host genome-wide miRNA profile of macrophages in vitro. Specifically, we show that miR-155, miR-146a, miR-125a-3p/5p and miR-149 were amongst the most significantly regulated miRNAs in infected macrophages. Strikingly, these miRNAs were highly upregulated upon infection with the Listeriolysin-deficient L. monocytogenes mutant Δhly, that cannot escape from the phagosome thus representing a vacuolar-contained infection. The vacuolar miRNA response was significantly reduced in macrophages deficient for MyD88. In addition, miR-146a and miR-125a-3p/5p were regulated at transcriptional levels upon infection, and miR-125a-3p/5p were found to be TLR2 responsive. Furthermore, miR-155 transactivation in infection was regulated by NF-κB p65, while miR-146a and miR-125a-3p/5p expression was unaffected in p65-deficient primary macrophages upon L. monocytogenes infection. Our results demonstrate that L. monocytogenes promotes significant changes in the miRNA expression profile in macrophages, and reveal a vacuolar-dependent miRNA signature, listeriolysin-independent and MyD88-dependent. These miRNAs are predicted to target immune genes and are therefore most likely involved in regulation of the macrophage innate immune response against infection at post-transcriptional levels.