Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 56
Filter
1.
EFSA J ; 21(12): e8411, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38075629

ABSTRACT

Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the 2021 post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810. Evidence provided in the PMEM report shows that farmers growing maize MON 810 in Spain complied partially with refuge requirements, while full compliance was achieved in Portugal. Cry1Ab susceptibility tests performed on European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from north-eastern Spain in 2021 indicated no symptoms of resistance evolution to maize MON 810. However, unexpected damage to maize MON 810 plants was observed in a field trial in the province of Girona (north-eastern Spain), which may point to the presence of resistance alleles in this region. Information retrieved through farmer questionnaires and the scientific literature reveals no unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2021 PMEM report does not invalidate its previous conclusions on the safety of maize MON 810. The possible presence of Cry1Ab resistance alleles at frequencies leading to damage to maize MON 810 plants in Girona requires twofold actions: (1) increase monitoring efforts in this area; and (2) implement remedial measures to limit the suspected evolution and spread of resistance. As in previous years, EFSA identified shortcomings on resistance monitoring that need revision. In particular, full refuge compliance must be achieved in Spain. Moreover, the sensitivity of the monitoring plan must be increased, which can be achieved by replacing the current susceptibility assays by periodic F2 screens. EFSA also recommends the consent holder to revise the farmer questionnaires to account for the emergence of teosinte as a noxious agricultural weed in maize MON 810-growing areas in Spain.

2.
EFSA J ; 20(7): e07406, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35814921

ABSTRACT

Following a request from the European Commission; the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the 2020 post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810. Like previous years, there was full compliance with refuge requirement in Portugal and partial compliance with refuge requirements by Spanish farmers growing MON 810 varieties. European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from north-eastern Spain during the 2020 maize growing season and tested for Cry1Ab susceptibility show no symptoms of resistance to maize MON 810. The assessment of farmer questionnaires and relevant scientific publications does not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2020 PMEM report does not invalidate previous EFSA evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810. However, as in previous years, EFSA identifies shortcomings on resistance monitoring that need revision in future reports. In particular, the monitoring plan, as implemented in 2020, is not sufficiently sensitive to detect the recommended 3% resistance allele frequency. Consequently, EFSA strongly recommends the consent holder to achieve full compliance with refuge obligations in areas where adoption of maize MON 810 is high and increase the sensitivity of the monitoring plan by performing periodic F2-screens on corn borer populations from north-eastern Spain. EFSA recommends revising the farmer questionnaires when new characteristics of the receiving environment emerge which are relevant for the environmental risk assessment of MON 810 such as the emergence of teosinte. EFSA encourages the Competent authorities of concerned EU Member States, the consent holder and environmental networks to engage in a dialogue to develop a framework on how to best identify and report unexpected adverse effects from the cultivation of Bt maize varieties.

3.
EFSA J ; 20(4): e07228, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35386925

ABSTRACT

Teosinte, wild maize relatives originating from Mexico and Central America, emerged as a noxious agricultural weed in France and Spain. In 2016, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a technical report that assessed the available scientific information on teosinte for its relevance for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) and risk management (RM) of genetically modified (GM) maize MON810, Bt11, 1507 and GA21 for cultivation. It was concluded that the impact of insect resistance and/or herbicide tolerance in GM teosinte hybrid progeny (potentially acquired through hybridisation between GM maize and teosinte) on target and non-target organisms, the abiotic environment and biogeochemical cycles would be very low under EU conditions. Following a request of the European Commission, EFSA evaluated whether the ERA conclusions and RM recommendations of EFSA (2016) remain applicable, or require revision in light of new scientific evidence on teosinte that has become available since the publication of EFSA (2016). A protocol was developed to clarify the interpretation of the terms of reference of the mandate and make them operational. The assessment relied on evidence retrieved via an extensive literature search and from reports of the Competent Authorities of France and Spain, and on hearing expert testimonies. A limited collection of 18 publications of varying relevance and quality was retrieved and assessed. Based on this evidence, it is concluded that the ERA conclusions and RM recommendations of EFSA (2016) remain applicable, except those pertaining to the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on maize GA21 which should be considered under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In infested agricultural areas (especially in regions where maize MON810 is widely grown), weed management measures implemented to monitor, control and/or eradicate teosinte must remain in place, as they will contribute to further reduce the low vertical gene flow potential between GM maize and EU teosinte.

4.
Crit Rev Biotechnol ; 42(2): 201-219, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34154477

ABSTRACT

Since 1998, genetically engineered Bt maize varieties expressing the insecticidal Cry1Ab protein (i.e. event MON 810) have been grown in the European Union (EU), mainly in Spain. These varieties confer resistance against the European and Mediterranean corn borer (ECB and MCB), which are the major lepidopteran maize pests in the EU, particularly in Mediterranean areas. However, widespread, repeated and exclusive use of Bt maize is anticipated to increase the risk of Cry1Ab resistance to evolve in corn borer populations. To delay resistance evolution, typically, refuges of non-Bt maize are planted near or adjacent to, or within Bt maize fields. Moreover, changes in Cry1Ab susceptibility in field populations of corn borers and unexpected damage to maize MON 810, due to corn borers, are monitored on an annual basis. After two decades of Bt maize cultivation in Spain, neither resistant corn borer populations nor farmer complaints on unexpected field damage have been reported. However, whether the resistance monitoring strategy followed in Spain, currently based on discriminating concentration bioassays, is sufficiently sensitive to timely detect early warning signs of resistance in the field remains a point of contention. Moreover, the Cry1Ab resistance allele frequency to Bt maize, which has recently been estimated in MCB populations from north-eastern Spain, might exceed that recommended for successful resistance management. To ensure Bt maize durability in Spain, it is key that adequate resistance management approaches, including monitoring of resistance and farmer compliance with refuge requirements, continue to be implemented and are incorporated in integrated pest management schemes.


Subject(s)
Bacillus thuringiensis , Moths , Animals , Bacillus thuringiensis/genetics , Bacterial Proteins/genetics , Endotoxins/genetics , Hemolysin Proteins/genetics , Insecticide Resistance/genetics , Larva , Pest Control, Biological , Plants, Genetically Modified/genetics , Spain , Zea mays/genetics
5.
EFSA J ; 19(7): e06683, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34257731

ABSTRACT

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA assessed the 2019 post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810. Like previous years, there was full compliance with refuge requirement in Portugal and partial compliance with refuge requirements by Spanish farmers growing MON 810 varieties. European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from north-eastern Spain during the 2019 maize growing season and tested for Cry1Ab susceptibility show no symptoms of resistance to maize MON 810. The assessment of farmer questionnaires and relevant scientific publications does not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2019 PMEM report does not invalidate previous EFSA evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810. However, as in previous years, EFSA identifies shortcomings on resistance monitoring that need revision in future reports. In particular, the monitoring plan, as implemented in 2019, is not sufficiently sensitive to detect the recommended 3% resistance allele frequency. Consequently, EFSA strongly recommends the consent holder to achieve full compliance with refuge obligations in areas where adoption of maize MON 810 is high and increase the sensitivity of the monitoring plan by performing periodic F2 screens on corn borer populations from north-eastern Spain. EFSA recommends revising the farmer questionnaires when new characteristics of the receiving environment emerge which are relevant for the environmental risk assessment of MON 810 such as the emergence of teosinte. EFSA encourages the Competent authorities of concerned EU Member States, the consent holder and environmental networks to engage in a dialogue to develop a framework on how to best identify and report unexpected adverse effects from the cultivation of Bt maize varieties.

6.
Data Brief ; 36: 107022, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33981815

ABSTRACT

The general purpose of the primary and secondary data available in this article is to support an integrated assessment of scenarios of crop-livestock integration at the territorial level i.e. of exchanges between arable and livestock farms. The data is a result of a research collaboration between the scientist from INRAE, agricultural advisers from Chamber of Agriculture of Pays de la Loire (CRAPL) and a collective of five arable and two livestock farmers located in the district of Pays de Pouzauges (Vendée department, western France). All participants formed part of the DiverIMPACTS project (https://www.diverimpacts.net/) that aims to achieve the full potential of diversification of cropping systems for improved productivity, delivery of ecosystem services and resource-efficient and sustainable value chains in Europe. The first dataset corresponds to the inputs of MAELIA (http://maelia-platform.inra.fr/), a spatial agent-based simulation platform that was used to support an iterative design and assessment of scenarios to redesign cropping systems. The second dataset corresponds to the outputs of MAELIA simulations and the associated indicators at the farm, group and territory level. The data comprise multiple shape and csv files characterizing the edaphic-climatic heterogeneity of the territory and cropping systems, farmers' crop management rules (IF-THEN rules) and general information about the farms (e.g. crops, agricultural equipment, average crop yields). Data is reported for the baseline situation and three exchange scenarios containing different innovative cropping systems co-designed by scientists, agricultural advisers and the farmers. The data presented here can be found in the Portail Data INRA repository (https://doi.org/10.15454/3ZTCF5) and were used in the research article "Fostering local crop-livestock integration via legume exchanges using an innovative integrated assessment and modelling approach: MAELIA" [1].

7.
EFSA J ; 19(4): e0190301, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33868493

ABSTRACT

This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6443/full.

8.
EFSA J ; 19(2): e06301, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33598046

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.

9.
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf ; 207: 111215, 2021 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32927159

ABSTRACT

Field cultivation of Genetically Modified (GM) Bt-plants has a potential environmental risk toward non-target Lepidoptera (NTLs) larvae through the consumption of Bt-maize pollen. The Bt-maize Cry protein targeting Lepidoptera species detrimental to the crop is also expressed in pollen which is dispersed by wind and can thus reach habitats of NTLs. To better assess the current ecological risk of Bt-maize at landscape scales, we developed a spatially-explicit exposure-hazard model considering (i) the dynamics of pollen dispersal obtained by convolving GM plants emission with a dispersal kernel and (ii) a toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) model accounting for the impact of toxin ingestion on individual lethal effects. We simulated the model using real landscape observations in Catalonia (Spain): GM-maize locations, flowering dates, rainfall time series and larvae emergence date of the European peacock butterfly Aglais io. While in average, the additional mortality appears to be negligible, we show significant additional mortality at sub-population level, with for instance a mortality higher than 40% within the 10m for the 10% most Bt-sensitive individuals. Also, using Pareto optimality we capture the best trade-off between isolation distance and additional mortality: up to 50 m are required to significantly buffer Bt-pollen impact on NTLs survival at the individual level. Our study clears up the narrow line between diverging conclusions: those claiming no risk by only looking at the average regional effect of Bt on NTLs survival and those pointing out a significant threaten when considering the variability of individuals mortality.


Subject(s)
Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins/toxicity , Butterflies/physiology , Endotoxins/toxicity , Hemolysin Proteins/toxicity , Plants, Genetically Modified/physiology , Zea mays/physiology , Animals , Bacillus thuringiensis/genetics , Bacterial Proteins/metabolism , Butterflies/drug effects , Butterflies/metabolism , Endotoxins/metabolism , Hemolysin Proteins/genetics , Larva/drug effects , Plants, Genetically Modified/metabolism , Pollen , Spain , Zea mays/genetics
10.
EFSA J ; 18(10): e06245, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33072192

ABSTRACT

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA assessed the 2018 post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810. Like previous years, there was partial compliance with refuge requirements by Spanish farmers growing MON 810 varieties. European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from north-eastern Spain during the 2018 maize growing season and tested for Cry1Ab susceptibility show no symptoms of resistance to maize MON 810. The assessment of farmer questionnaires and relevant scientific publications does not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. The report does not provide information about the use of existing networks involved in environmental monitoring. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2018 PMEM report does not invalidate previous EFSA evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810. However, as in previous years, EFSA identifies shortcomings on resistance monitoring that need revision in future reports. In particular, the monitoring plan, as implemented in 2018, is not sufficiently sensitive to detect the recommended 3% resistance allele frequency. Consequently, EFSA strongly recommends the consent holder to: (1) achieve full compliance with refuge obligations in areas where adoption of maize MON 810 is high; (2) increase the sensitivity of the monitoring plan and address previously mentioned limitations for resistance monitoring; and (3) perform an F2 screen on corn borer populations from north-eastern Spain. A fit-for-purpose farmer alert system may help to detect unexpected adverse effects associated with the cultivation of MON 810 varieties and be an alternative to the current farmer survey system. Moreover, relevant stakeholders should implement a methodological framework to enable making the best use of existing networks involved in environmental monitoring for the general surveillance of genetically modified plants.

11.
Risk Anal ; 39(1): 54-70, 2019 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29228505

ABSTRACT

We developed a simulation model for quantifying the spatio-temporal distribution of contaminants (e.g., xenobiotics) and assessing the risk of exposed populations at the landscape level. The model is a spatio-temporal exposure-hazard model based on (i) tools of stochastic geometry (marked polygon and point processes) for structuring the landscape and describing the exposed individuals, (ii) a dispersal kernel describing the dissemination of contaminants from polygon sources, and (iii) an (eco)toxicological equation describing the toxicokinetics and dynamics of contaminants in affected individuals. The model was implemented in the briskaR package (biological risk assessment with R) of the R software. This article presents the model background, the use of the package in an illustrative example, namely, the effect of genetically modified maize pollen on nontarget Lepidoptera, and typical comparisons of landscape configurations that can be carried out with our model (different configurations lead to different mortality rates in the treated example). In real case studies, parameters and parametric functions encountered in the model will have to be precisely specified to obtain realistic measures of risk and impact and accurate comparisons of landscape configurations. Our modeling framework could be applied to study other risks related to agriculture, for instance, pathogen spread in crops or livestock, and could be adapted to cope with other hazards such as toxic emissions from industrial areas having health effects on surrounding populations. Moreover, the R package has the potential to help risk managers in running quantitative risk assessments and testing management strategies.


Subject(s)
Ecology , Risk Assessment/methods , Xenobiotics/chemistry , Agriculture , Algorithms , Animals , Butterflies , Computer Simulation , Crops, Agricultural , Genetic Engineering , Humans , Livestock , Models, Biological , Organisms, Genetically Modified , Plant Diseases , Pollen , Proportional Hazards Models , Software , Toxicology , Zea mays/genetics
12.
EFSA J ; 16(2): e05163, 2018 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32625804

ABSTRACT

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-007 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto, 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 and insect-resistant genetically modified maize NK603 x MON810. 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 events in maize NK603 x MON810 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in the renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-007 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize NK603 x MON810.

13.
EFSA J ; 16(3): e05225, 2018 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32625854

ABSTRACT

Maize MON 87403 was developed to increase ear biomass at early reproductive phase through the expression of a modified AtHB17 gene from Arabidopsis thaliana, encoding a plant transcription factor of the HD-Zip II family. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic 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 87403 and its conventional counterpart were identified. The compositional analysis of maize MON 87403 did not identify differences that require further assessment. The GMO Panel did not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the AtHB17∆113 protein, as expressed in maize MON 87403. The nutritional value of food and feed derived from maize MON 87403 is not expected to differ from that of food and feed derived from non-genetically modified (GM) maize varieties. Based on the outcome of the studies considered in the comparative analysis and molecular characterisation, the GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87403 is as safe and nutritious as the conventional counterpart and the non-GM maize reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 87403 grains into the environment, maize MON 87403 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 87403. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MON 87403, 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.

14.
EFSA J ; 16(4): e05213, 2018 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32625862

ABSTRACT

The three-event stack cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985 was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single cotton events, GHB614, LLCotton25 and MON 15985. The EFSA GMO Panel previously assessed the three single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. Based on the molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics, the combination of the single events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three-event stack cotton did not give rise to food and feed safety or nutritional issues. Food and feed derived from cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985 are expected to have the same nutritional impact as those derived from the non-GM comparator. In the case of accidental release of viable GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985 cottonseeds into the environment, this three-event stack cotton would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985, as described in this application, is as safe as the non-GM comparator with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

15.
EFSA J ; 16(4): e05233, 2018 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32625871

ABSTRACT

The GMO Panel was previously not in the position to complete the food/feed safety assessment of maize 5307 due to an inadequate 28-day toxicity study necessary for an appropriate assessment of eCry3.1Ab protein. Following a mandate from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed a supplementary 28-day toxicity study in mice on the eCry3.1Ab protein (1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day) to complement its scientific opinion on application EFSA-GMO-DE-2011-95 for the placing on the market of the maize 5307 for food and feed uses, import and processing. The supplementary 28-day toxicity study did not show adverse effects. Taking into account the previous assessment and the new information, the GMO Panel concludes that maize 5307, as assessed in the scientific opinion on application EFSA-GMO-DE-2011-95 (EFSA GMO Panel, 2015) and in the supplementary toxicity study, is as safe and nutritious as its conventional counterpart in the scope of this application.

16.
EFSA J ; 16(5): e05280, 2018 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32625917

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.

17.
EFSA J ; 16(5): e05287, 2018 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32625921

ABSTRACT

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA assessed the annual post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report for the 2016 growing season of the Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810 provided by Monsanto Europe S.A. Partial compliance with refuge requirements was reported in Spain, as observed in previous years. EFSA reiterates the need to achieve full compliance in areas of high maize MON 810 adoption to delay resistance evolution, and therefore advocates increasing the level of compliance in such areas. Resistance monitoring data do not indicate a decrease in susceptibility to the Cry1Ab protein in the field corn borer populations tested in the 2016 season. However, EFSA identified some methodological and reporting limitations pertaining to resistance monitoring that need improvement in future PMEM reports. No complaints related to corn borer infestation of maize MON 810 were received via the farmer alert system during the 2016 cultivation season. EFSA encourages the consent holder to provide more information on this complementary resistance monitoring tool. The data on general surveillance do not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. EFSA reiterates its recommendations on the methodology and analysis of farmer questionnaires, and considers that future literature searches on maize MON 810 performed in the context of annual PMEM reports should follow the guidelines given in the 2017 EFSA explanatory note on literature searching. Moreover, EFSA encourages relevant stakeholders to implement a methodological framework that enables the use of existing networks in the broader context of environmental monitoring. EFSA concludes that no new evidence has been reported in the 2016 PMEM report that would invalidate previous EFSA evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810.

18.
EFSA J ; 16(6): e05310, 2018 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32625943

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.

19.
EFSA J ; 16(7): e05309, 2018 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32625956

ABSTRACT

In this opinion, the GMO Panel assessed the four-event stack maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 and three of its subcombinations, independently of their origin. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and seven of their combinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or the seven subcombinations leading to modification of the original conclusions were identified. Based on the molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics, the combination of the single events in the four-event stack maize did not give rise to food/feed safety issues. Based on the nutritional assessment of the compositional characteristics of maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21, foods and feeds derived from the genetically modified (GM) maize are expected to have the same nutritional impact as those derived from non-GM maize varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as its non-GM comparator in the context of the scope of this application. For the three subcombinations included in the scope, for which no experimental data were provided, the GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events and concluded that their combinations would not raise safety concerns. These maize subcombinations are therefore 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 Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 and its subcombinations. A minority opinion expressed by a GMO Panel member is appended to this opinion.

20.
EFSA J ; 16(7): e05345, 2018 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32625981

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. The European Commission has mandated EFSA to develop a technical note to the applicants on, and checking of, the quality of the methodology, analysis and reporting covering complete sequencing of the insert and flanking regions, insertion site analysis of the GM event, and generational stability and integrity. This Technical Note puts together requirements and recommendations for when DNA sequencing is part of the molecular characterisation of GM plants, in particular for the characterisation of the inserted genetic material at each insertion site and flanking regions, the determination of the copy number of all detectable inserts, and the analysis of the genetic stability of the inserts, when addressed by Sanger sequencing or NGS. This document 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. From 1 October 2018, this Technical Note will replace the JRC guideline of 2016 (updated April 2017) related to the verification and quality assessment of the sequencing of the insert(s) and flanking regions. It does not take into consideration the verification and validation of the detection method which remains under the remit of the JRC.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...