Search

Abstract Genetically modified maize MON 95275 was developed to confer protection to certain coleopteran species. These properties were achieved by introducing the mpp75Aa1.1, vpb4Da2 and DvSnf7 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses reveal similarity to known toxins, which was further assessed. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MON 95275 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Mpp75Aa1.1 and Vpb4Da2 proteins and the DvSnf7 dsRNA and derived siRNAs as expressed in maize MON 95275 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MON 95275. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 95275 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 95275 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 maize MON 95275 material 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 95275. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 95275 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 Genetically modified (GM) maize DP910521 was developed to confer resistance against certain lepidopteran insect pests as well as tolerance to glufosinate herbicide; these properties were achieved by introducing the mo‐pat, pmi and cry1B.34 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses did not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP910521 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment except for the levels of iron in grain, which do not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry1B.34, PAT and PMI proteins as expressed in maize DP910521. The GMO panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP910521. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP910521 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP910521 is as safe as its 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 maize DP910521 material 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 DP910521. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP910521 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 EFSA was requested by the European Commission (in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002) to provide a scientific opinion on the application of new developments in biotechnology (new genomic techniques, NGTs) to viable microorganisms and products of category 4 to be released into the environment or placed on the market as or in food and feed, and to non‐viable products of category 3 to be placed on the market as or in food and feed. A horizon scanning exercise identified a variety of products containing microorganisms obtained with NGTs (NGT‐Ms), falling within the remit of EFSA, that are expected to be placed on the (EU) market in the next 10 years. No novel potential hazards/risks from NGT‐Ms were identified as compared to those obtained by established genomic techniques (EGTs), or by conventional mutagenesis. Due to the higher efficiency, specificity and predictability of NGTs, the hazards related to the changes in the genome are likely to be less frequent in NGT‐Ms than those modified by EGTs and conventional mutagenesis. It is concluded that EFSA guidances are ‘partially applicable’, therefore on a case‐by‐case basis for specific NGT‐Ms, fewer requirements may be needed. Some of the EFSA guidances are ‘not sufficient’ and updates are recommended. Because possible hazards relate to genotypic and phenotypic changes introduced and not to the method used for the modification, it is recommended that any new guidance should take a consistent risk assessment approach for strains/products derived from or produced with microorganisms obtained with conventional mutagenesis, EGTs or NGTs.

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 Following the joint submission of dossier GMFF‐2022‐9170 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture B.V. and Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.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 and insect resistant genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations, 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, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, a search for additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. 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 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal dossier GMFF‐2022‐9170 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations.

Abstract Following the submission of dossier GMFF‐2022‐3670 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Corteva Agriscience Belgium BV and Bayer Agriculture BV, 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 and insect‐resistant genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603, 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 a search for additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal dossier GMFF‐2022‐3670 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603.

Abstract Genetically modified (GM) maize MON 94804 was developed to achieve a reduction in plant height by introducing the GA20ox_SUP suppression cassette. The molecular characterisation and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional differences identified between maize MON 94804 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for ear height, plant height and levels of carbohydrates in forage, which do not raise safety or nutritional concerns. The Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the GA20ox_SUP precursor‐miRNA and derived mature miRNA as expressed in maize MON 94804 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MON 94804. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 94804 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 94804 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 94804 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 94804. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 94804 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 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 Following the submission of dossier GMFF‐2022‐9450 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV, 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 protected genetically modified maize MON 810, for food and feed uses (including pollen), excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. 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 810 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in dossier GMFF‐2022‐9450 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 810.

Y RNAs (84–112 nt) are non-coding RNAs transcribed by RNA polymerase III and are characterized by a distinctive secondary structure. Human Y RNAs interact with the autoimmune proteins SSB and RO60 that together form a ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex termed RoRNP and Y RNAs also perform regulatory roles in DNA and RNA replication and stability, which has major implications for diseases including cancer. During cellular stress and apoptosis, Y RNAs are cleaved into 3’ and 5’ end fragments termed Y RNA-derived small RNAs (ysRNAs). Although some ysRNA functions in stress, apoptosis and cancer have been reported, their fundamental biogenesis has not been described. Here we report that 3’ end RNY5 cleavage is structure dependent. In high throughput mutagenesis experiments, cleavage occurred between the 2nd and 3rd nt above a double stranded stem comprising high GC content. We demonstrate that an internal loop above stem S3 is critical for producing 3’ end ysRNAs (31 nt) with mutants resulting in longer or no ysRNAs. We show a UGGGU sequence motif at position 22 of RNY5 is critical for producing 5’ end ysRNAs (22–25 nt). We show that intact RO60 is critical for ysRNA biogenesis. We conclude that ribonuclease L (RNASEL) contributes to Y RNA cleavage in mouse embryonic fibroblasts but is not the only endoribonuclease important in human cells.

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 Genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 was developed by crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, MON 89034, 5307 and GA21, the GMO Panel previously assessed the 6 single maize events and 27 out of the 56 possible 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 six‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that six‐event stack maize, as described in this application, 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 six‐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 29 of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and covered by the scope of this application 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 maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21. The GMO Panel concludes that six‐event stack maize and the 30 subcombinations covered by the scope of the application are 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 Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐024 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA 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 MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐024 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3.

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.

Primary bone cancer (PBC) comprises several subtypes each underpinned by distinctive genetic drivers. This driver diversity produces novel morphological features and clinical behaviour that serendipitously makes PBC an excellent metastasis model. Here, we report that some transfer RNA-derived small RNAs termed tRNA fragments (tRFs) perform as a constitutive tumour suppressor mechanism by blunting a potential pro-metastatic protein-RNA interaction. This mechanism is reduced in PBC progression with a gradual loss of tRNAGlyTCC cleavage into 5′ end tRF-GlyTCC when comparing low-grade, intermediate-grade and high-grade patient tumours. We detected recurrent activation of miR-140 leading to upregulated RUNX2 expression in high-grade patient tumours. Both tRF-GlyTCC and RUNX2 share a sequence motif in their 3′ ends that matches the YBX1 recognition site known to stabilise pro-metastatic mRNAs. Investigating some aspects of this interaction network, gain- and loss-of-function experiments using small RNA mimics and antisense LNAs, respectively, showed that ectopic tRF-GlyTCC reduced RUNX2 expression and dispersed 3D micromass architecture in vitro. iCLIP sequencing revealed YBX1 physical binding to the 3′ UTR of RUNX2. The interaction between YBX1, tRF-GlyTCC and RUNX2 led to the development of the RUNX2 inhibitor CADD522 as a PBC treatment. CADD522 assessment in vitro revealed significant effects on PBC cell behaviour. In xenograft mouse models, CADD522 as a single agent without surgery significantly reduced tumour volume, increased overall and metastasis-free survival and reduced cancer-induced bone disease. Our results provide insight into PBC molecular abnormalities that have led to the identification of new targets and a new therapeutic.

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 EFSA carries out the risk assessment of genetically modified plants for food and feed uses under Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. Exposure assessment – anticipated intake/extend of use shall be an essential element of the risk assessment of genetically modified feeds, as required by Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. Estimates of animal dietary exposure to newly expressed proteins should be determined to cover average consumption across all the different species, age, physiological and productive phases of farmed and companion animals, and identify and consider particular consumer groups with expected higher exposure. This statement is aimed at facilitating the reporting of the information that applicants need to provide on expected animal dietary exposure to newly expressed proteins and to increase harmonisation of the application dossiers to be assessed by the EFSA GMO Panel. Advice is provided on the selection of proper feed consumption and feed concentration data, and on the reporting of exposure's estimates. An overview of the different uncertainties that may be linked to the estimations is provided. This statement also explains how to access an Excel calculator which should be used in future applications as basis to provide a more consistent presentation of estimates of expected animal dietary exposure.

Abstract Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐022 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience LP, 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 soybean MON 87701 × 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 sequences of the events in soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐022 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788.

Abstract Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐023 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, 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 40‐3‐2, 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 40‐3‐2 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‐023 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean 40‐3‐2.

Abstract Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐021 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience LP, 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 genetically modified soybean MON 87701, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the event in soybean MON 87701 considered for renewal is identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐021 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 87701.

Abstract Genetically modified maize MON 95379 was developed to confer insect protection against certain lepidopteran species. These properties were achieved by introducing the cry1B.868 and cry1Da_7 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 95379 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins as expressed in maize MON 95379. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 95379. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 95379 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. Therefore, no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 95379 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 95379. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 95379 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 Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐019 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Corteva Agriscience LLC represented by Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.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 insect resistant genetically modified cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐019 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23.

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 oilseed rape GT73 was developed to confer herbicide tolerance; this property was achieved by introducing the single insert containing one copy of goxv247 and the CP4 epsps expression cassettes. The scope of the application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐026/2 is for the modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the placing on the market of isolated seed protein from oilseed rape GT73 for food. Considering previous opinions on this event of the GMO Panel, the molecular characterisation data do not identify issues requiring additional food safety assessment. Based on previous assessments, no biologically relevant differences were identified in the compositional, agronomic and phenotypic characteristics of oilseed rape GT73 compared with its conventional counterpart, except for the newly expressed proteins. No new agronomic, phenotypic and compositional data in support of the comparative analysis were considered necessary in the context of this application. The GMO Panel did not identify indications of safety concern regarding toxicity, allergenicity or adjuvanticity related to the presence of the newly expressed proteins CP4 EPSPS and GOXv247 in oilseed rape GT73. Therefore, the GMO Panel concludes that in the context of this application, the consumption of oilseed rape GT73 does not represent any nutritional concern and is as safe as the conventional counterpart. No post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape GT73 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 GT73. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape GT73 is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. These conclusions also apply to the placing on the food market of isolated seed protein produced from oilseed rape GT73.

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 Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐026/1 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for foods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from oilseed rape GT73 with the exception of isolated seed protein, and feed produced from this GM oilseed rape, excluding cultivation in 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 a search for additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in oilseed rape GT73 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐026/1 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape GT73.

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 Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐025 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, 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 genetically modified maize MIR162, 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. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐025 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MIR162.

Abstract Genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS‐40278‐9 was developed by crossing to combine five single events: MON 89034, 1507, MIR162, NK603 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the five single maize events and 16 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 the 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 five‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that five‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the non‐GM comparator and non‐GM maize varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable five‐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 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 subcombinations and the five‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS‐40278‐9. 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 maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

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 Genetically modified (GM) soybean 40‐3‐2 expresses a 5‐enolpyruvylshikimate‐3‐phosphate synthase protein from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS), which confers tolerance to glyphosate. This event was previously assessed by the GMO Panel as a single event and as part of a two‐event stack and was found to be as safe as its conventional counterparts and other appropriate comparators with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. On September 2021, the European Commission requested EFSA to evaluate a new bioinformatics study which revealed predicted genomic deletions at the insertion sites using the available soybean reference genome. Considering the variability of the soybean genome, with a number of structural variants such as presence/absence variants and copy number variants including genic regions, as well as the fact that a number of genes are present only in particular varieties, the GMO Panel concludes that comparing only to the reference genome does not allow to conclude that the transformation event resulted in gene loss. In support of this, the transcriptomic analysis did not show major differences in gene expression when comparing the soybean 40‐3‐2 with the most closely related conventional variety, indicating that the genetic redundancy may compensate for the potential gene loss. Moreover, the composition, phenotypic and agronomic analyses already assessed by the GMO Panel in previous opinions did not show differences between soybean 40‐3‐2 and its comparators suggesting that the potential gene loss may not have a significant phenotypic effect in soybean 40‐3‐2. For these reasons, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that the new information provided by the applicant on soybean 40‐3‐2 does not alter EFSA's previous conclusions.

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 Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐020 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the EFSA 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 A5547‐127, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐020 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean A5547‐127.

Abstract MicroRNAs have been shown to play a role in cartilage development, homeostasis and breakdown during osteoarthritis. We previously identified miR-3085 in humans as a chondrocyte-selective microRNA, however it could not be detected by Northern blot. The aim of the current study was to prove that miR-3085 is a microRNA and to investigate the function of miR-3085 in signaling pathways relevant to cartilage homeostasis and osteoarthritis. Here, we confirm that miR-3085 is a microRNA and not another class of small RNA using (1) a pre-miR hairpin maturation assay, (2) expression levels in a Dicer null cell line, and (3) Ago2 pulldown. MicroRNA-3085-3p is expressed more highly in micromass than monolayer cultured chondrocytes. Transfection of miR-3085-3p into chondrocytes decreases expression of COL2A1 and ACAN, both of which are validated as direct targets of miR-3085-3p. Interleukin-1 induces the expression of miR-3085-3p, at least in part via NFκB. In a feed-forward mechanism, miR-3085-3p then potentiates NFκB signaling. However, at early time points after transfection, its action appears to be inhibitory. MyD88 has been shown to be a direct target of miR-3085-3p and may be responsible for the early inhibition of NFκB signaling. However, at later time points, MyD88 knockdown remains inhibitory and so other functions of miR-3085-3p are clearly dominant. TGFβ1 also induces the expression of miR-3085-3p, but in this instance, it exerts a feedback inhibition on signaling with SMAD3 and SMAD4 shown to be direct targets. This in vitro analysis shows that miR-3085-3p functions in chondrocytes to induce IL-1-signaling, reduce TGFβ1 signaling, and inhibit expression of matrix genes. These data suggest that miR-3085-3p has a role in chondrocyte function and could contribute to the process of osteoarthritis.

Abstract In a previous scientific opinion on application EFSA‐GMO‐BE‐2016‐138, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) could not conclude on the comparative analysis and on the food/feed safety assessment of genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape (OSR) MS11 because of the lack of an appropriate compositional data set. Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to OSR MS11 to complement the original scientific opinion. The GMO Panel concluded that the information submitted (on the composition of the two‐event stack MS11 × RF3) could not be used for the assessment of the composition of OSR MS11 and requested the applicant to perform a complementary set of field trials to generate additional data. The applicant did not perform the requested field trials and did not provide any new experimental data on the composition of OSR MS11. Hence, the GMO Panel is still not in the position to conclude on either the compositional analysis or the toxicological, allergenicity or nutritional assessment of OSR MS11. Therefore, the previous conclusions of the GMO Panel still hold.

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 This Scientific Opinion addresses the formulation of specific development needs, including research requirements for allergenicity assessment and protein safety, in general, which is urgently needed in a world that demands more sustainable food systems. Current allergenicity risk assessment strategies are based on the principles and guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius for the safety assessment of foods derived from ‘modern’ biotechnology initially published in 2003. The core approach for the safety assessment is based on a ‘weight‐of‐evidence’ approach because no single piece of information or experimental method provides sufficient evidence to predict allergenicity. Although the Codex Alimentarius and EFSA guidance documents successfully addressed allergenicity assessments of single/stacked event GM applications, experience gained and new developments in the field call for a modernisation of some key elements of the risk assessment. These should include the consideration of clinical relevance, route of exposure and potential threshold values of food allergens, the update of in silico tools used with more targeted databases and better integration and standardisation of test materials and in vitro/in vivo protocols. Furthermore, more complex future products will likely challenge the overall practical implementation of current guidelines, which were mainly targeted to assess a few newly expressed proteins. Therefore, it is timely to review and clarify the main purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment and the vital role it plays in protecting consumers' health. A roadmap to (re)define the allergenicity safety objectives and risk assessment needs will be required to inform a series of key questions for risk assessors and risk managers such as ‘what is the purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment?’ or ‘what level of confidence is necessary for the predictions?’.

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

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

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

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 The European Commission mandated EFSA to complement its original scientific opinion on soybean MON 87769 × MON 89788 (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2010‐85) considering additional information on the human nutritional assessment of refined bleached deodorised oil produced from the two‐event stack soybean (RBD GM‐oil). The assessment was mainly based on a replacement scenario with a list of target foods where RBD GM‐oil is intended to be added. Intake estimations for several fatty acids present in the RBD GM‐oil, in particular γ‐linolenic acid (GLA), stearidonic acid (SDA) and linoleic acid (LA) were based on the consumption of the corresponding foods that are likely to be displaced. The assessment of LA considered the established adequate intake of 4% of total energy intake (E%) and that LA deficiency has not been observed with intakes > 1 E%. The assessment of GLA and SDA was conducted using maximum doses without adverse effects from intervention human studies as reference (4.2 grams/day for SDA and 2.8 grams/day for GLA) since no tolerable upper intake levels are set for these fatty acids. The decrease observed in the levels of LA in RBD GM‐oil as compared to oil from conventional soybean does not represent a nutritional concern as intakes were in all cases above 1 E%. For GLA, all intake estimations were below the reference dose indicating no safety concern. SDA intake estimations do not pose any safety concerns based on the overly conservative nature of the estimates, the absence of toxicological hazards and the rapid metabolism of SDA in humans. The GMO Panel concluded that the consumption of soybean MON 87769 × MON 89788 and their derived products, in particular its RBD oil, does not represent a nutritional concern in humans. A post‐market monitoring plan is recommended to confirm the predicted consumption and the application of conditions of uses considered during the pre‐market risk assessment.

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.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) affects 6 million people worldwide with no available treatment. Despite research advances, the inherent poor regeneration potential of the central nervous system remains a major hurdle. Small RNAs (sRNAs) 19–33 nucleotides in length are a set of non-coding RNA molecules that regulate gene expression and have emerged as key players in regulating cellular events occurring after SCI. Here we profiled a class of sRNA known as microRNAs (miRNAs) following SCI in the cortex where the cell bodies of corticospinal motor neurons are located. We identified miR-7b-3p as a candidate target given its significant upregulation after SCI in vivo and we screened by miRWalk PTM the genes predicted to be targets of miR-7b-3p (among which we identified Wipf2, a gene regulating neurite extension). Moreover, 16 genes, involved in neural regeneration and potential miR-7b-3p targets, were found to be downregulated in the cortex following SCI. We also analysed miR-7b-3p function during cortical neuron development in vitro: we observed that the overexpression of miR-7b-3p was important (1) to maintain neurons in a more immature and, likely, plastic neuronal developmental phase and (2) to contrast the apoptotic pathway; however, in normal conditions it did not affect the Wipf2 expression. On the contrary, the overexpression of miR-7b-3p upon in vitro oxidative stress condition (mimicking the SCI environment) significantly reduced the expression level of Wipf2, as observed in vivo, confirming it as a direct miR-7b-3p target. Overall, these data suggest a dual role of miR-7b-3p: (i) the induction of a more plastic neuronal condition/phase, possibly at the expense of the axon growth, (ii) the neuroprotective role exerted through the inhibition of the apoptotic cascade. Increasing the miR-7b-3p levels in case of SCI could reactivate in adult neurons silenced developmental programmes, supporting at the same time the survival of the axotomised neurons.

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.