Anna Lanzoni

RNAi‐based GM plants: food for thought for risk assessors

RNA interference (RNAi) is an emerging technology that offers new opportunities for the generation of new traits in genetically modified (GM) plants. Potential risks associated with RNAi-based GM plants and issues specific to their risk assessment were discussed during an international scientific workshop (June 2014) organized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Selected key outcomes of the workshop are reported here.

Guidance on the assessment of the biological relevance of data in scientific assessments

Abstract EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document providing generic issues and criteria to consider biological relevance, particularly when deciding on whether an observed effect is of biological relevance, i.e. is adverse (or shows a beneficial health effect) or not. The guidance document provides a general framework for establishing the biological relevance of observations at various stages of the assessment. Biological relevance is considered at three main stages related to the process of dealing with evidence: Development of the assessment strategy. In this context, specification of agents, effects, subjects and conditions in relation to the assessment question(s): Collection and extraction of data; Appraisal and integration of the relevance of the agents, subjects, effects and conditions, i.e. reviewing dimensions of biological relevance for each data set. A decision tree is developed to assist in the collection, identification and appraisal of relevant data for a given specific assessment question to be answered.

Assessment of genetically modified cotton GHB614 × T304‐40 × GHB119 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2014‐122)

The three-event stack cotton GHB614 9 T304-40 9 GHB119 was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single events, GHB614, T304-40 and GHB119. The genetically modified organisms (GMO) Panel previously assessed the three single cotton events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single cotton 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 cotton events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three-event stack cotton did not give rise to food and feed safety concern. The GMO Panel considers that the three-event stack cotton GHB614 9 T304-40 9 GHB119 has the same nutritional impact as its comparator and the non-GM reference varieties tested. The GMO Panel concludes that the three-event stack cotton GHB614 9 T304-40 9 GHB119, as described in this application, is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as its comparator and the non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable GHB614 9 T304-40 9 GHB119 cottonseeds into the environment, this three-event stack 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 9 T304-40 9 GHB119 seeds. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton GHB614 9 T304-40 9 GHB119, as described in this application, 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.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87411 for food and feed uses, import and processing, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2015‐124)

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.

Assessment of genetically modified maize 4114 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2014‐123)

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.

Assessment of genetically modified maize Bt11 x MIR162 x 1507 x GA21 and three subcombinations independently of their origin, for food and feed uses under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐DE‐2010‐86)

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.

Guidance for the risk assessment of the presence at low level of genetically modified plant material in imported food and feed under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

Abstract This document provides guidance for the risk assessment under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the unintended, adventitious or technically unavoidable presence in food and feed of low level of genetically modified plant material intended for markets other than in the European Union. In this context, the presence at low level is defined to be maximum 0.9% of genetically modified plant material per ingredient. This guidance is intended to assist applicants by indicating which scientific requirements of Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 are considered necessary for the risk assessment of the presence at low levels of genetically modified plant material in food and feed.

Assessment of genetically modified maize 1507 × 59122 × MON810 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2011‐92)

Abstract In this opinion, the GMO Panel assessed the four‐event stack maize 1507 × 59122 × MON810 × NK603 and its ten subcombinations, independently of their origin. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events combined in this four‐event stack maize and five of their combinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or their previously assessed combinations leading to modification of the original conclusions were identified. Based on the molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics, the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize did not give rise to food and feed safety or nutritional issues. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize is as safe and as nutritious as its non‐GM comparator. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of maize 1507 × 59122 × MON810 × NK603 into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. For four of the subcombinations not previously assessed, protein expression data were provided and did not indicate an interaction affecting the levels of the newly expressed proteins in these subcombinations. The five subcombinations not previously assessed are expected to be as safe as the single maize events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The GMO Panel considers that post‐market monitoring of maize 1507 × 59122 ×MON810 × NK603 and its subcombinations is not necessary. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize 1507 × 59122 × MON810 ×NK603 and its subcombinations.