Nikoletta Papadopoulou

Assessment of the potential integration of the DNA plasmid vaccine CLYNAV into the salmon genome

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

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.

Risk assessment of new sequencing information for genetically modified soybean BPS‐CV127‐9

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

Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87751 for food and feed uses under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2014‐121)

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

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.

Risk assessment of new sequencing information on genetically modified soybean event 40‐3‐2

Abstract The GMO Panel has previously assessed genetically modified (GM) soybean 40‐3‐2 as a single event and as part of a two‐event stack, 305423 × 40‐3‐2. These soybean events were found to be as safe as their conventional counterparts and other appropriate comparators with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. On 4 April 2017, European Commission requested EFSA to analyse new nucleic acid sequencing and updated bioinformatics data for soybean event 40‐3‐2 and to indicate whether the conclusions of the GMO Panel on the previously assessed GM soybeans remain valid. The new sequencing data indicated that, the sequence of soybean event 40‐3‐2 as present in the stacked soybean 305423 × 40‐3‐2 contains an additional nucleotide in the 5′ flanking region of a 72 bp additional insert of CP4 EPSPS present in soybean 40‐3‐2. Re‐examination of the original sequencing data of the single soybean event 40‐3‐2 by the applicant, indicated that this additional nucleotide was already present in the original plant material used for the risk assessment of soybean event 40‐3‐2. Thus, with the exception of bioinformatics analyses, the studies performed for the risk assessment of the single event soybean 40‐3‐2 and the two‐event stack soybean 305423 × 40‐3‐2 remain valid. The updated bioinformatic analyses performed on the corrected sequence did not give rise to safety issues. Therefore, EFSA concludes, based on the information provided, that the original risk assessment of the soybean event 40‐3‐2 as a single and the stacked soybean 305423 × 40‐3‐2 remains valid.

Assessment of genetically modified maize GA21 for renewal of authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-005)

Abstract Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐005 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (GMO Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application of the herbicide‐tolerant genetically modified maize GA21. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatics analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize GA21 considered for renewal is identical to the corrected sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in the renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐005 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize GA21.