Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Philippe Guerche.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikołaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Ebbesen Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Jean-Michel Wal; Philippe Eigenmann; Michelle Epstein; Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber; Frits Koning; Martinus Løvik; Clare Mills; Francisco Javier Moreno; Henk van Loveren; Regina Selb; Antonio Fernandez Dumont
Abstract This document provides supplementary guidance on specific topics for the allergenicity risk assessment of genetically modified plants. In particular, it supplements general recommendations outlined in previous EFSA GMO Panel guidelines and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. The topics addressed are non‐IgE‐mediated adverse immune reactions to foods, in vitro protein digestibility tests and endogenous allergenicity. New scientific and regulatory developments regarding these three topics are described in this document. Considerations on the practical implementation of those developments in the risk assessment of genetically modified plants are discussed and recommended, where appropriate.
EFSA Journal | 2018
Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikołaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph C. Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Jean-Michel Wal; Michele Ardizzone; Antonio Fernández‐Dumont; Andrea Gennaro; José Ángel Gómez Ruiz; Anna Lanzoni; Franco Maria Neri; Nikoletta Papadopoulou; Konstantinos Paraskevopoulos
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.
EFSA Journal | 2018
Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikołaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph C. Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Jean-Michel Wal; Hermann Broll; Andrea Gennaro; Franco Maria Neri; Konstantinos Paraskevopoulos
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.
EFSA Journal | 2018
Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikołaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph C. Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Jean-Michel Wal; Michele Ardizzone; Giacomo De Sanctis; Antonio Fernandez Dumont; Andrea Gennaro; José Ángel Gómez Ruiz; Anna Lanzoni; Franco Maria Neri; Nikoletta Papadopoulou; Konstantinos Paraskevopoulos; Matthew Ramon
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.
EFSA Journal | 2018
Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikołaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph C. Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Jean-Michel Wal; Fernando Álvarez; Michele Ardizzone; Konstantinos Paraskevopoulos; Hermann Broll; Yann Devos; Antonio Fernandez Dumont; José Ángel Gómez Ruiz; Anna Lanzoni; Franco Maria Neri; Irina Olaru; Nikoletta Papadopoulou
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.
EFSA Journal | 2018
Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikołaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph C. Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Michele Ardizzone; Silvia Federici; Antonio Fernandez Dumont; Andrea Gennaro; José Ángel Gómez Ruiz; Anna Lanzoni; Franco Maria Neri; Nikoletta Papadopoulou; Konstantinos Paraskevopoulos
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.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikołaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Ebbesen Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Jean-Michel Wal; Yann Devos; Antonio Fernandez Dumont; Anna Lanzoni; Claudia Paoletti; Konstantinos Paraskevopoulos; Elisabeth Waigmann
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.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikołaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Ebbesen Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Jean-Michel Wal; Konstantinos Paraskevopoulos
Abstract The EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) has previously assessed the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604 and GA21 as well as different stacked events corresponding to combinations of these events. These maize 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. In its assessment of the four‐event maize stack Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21, the GMO Panel also assessed all the subcombinations of these events not previously assessed, including some for which little or no experimental data were provided, including the two‐stack maize event Bt11 × MIR162 (application EFSA‐GMO‐DE‐2009‐66). On 8 November 2016, the European Commission received from Syngenta information on the subcombination Bt11 × MIR162. On 14 December 2016, the European Commission tasked EFSA to analyse these data and to indicate whether they have an impact on the previously issued opinion on the four‐event stack Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21 and its subcombinations. The GMO Panel used the appropriate principles described in its guidelines for the risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) plants to analyse the provided data. The levels of the newly expressed proteins Cry1Ab, PAT, Vip3Aa20 and PMI are similar between the two‐event stack Bt11 × MIR162 and the corresponding single events Bt11 and MIR162. Based on this analysis, there is no indication of an interaction between the events combined in maize Bt11 × MIR162 that would affect the levels of the newly expressed proteins. Thus, the GMO Panel considers that the new information for maize Bt11 × MIR162 does not alter the conclusions of the scientific opinion on application EFSA‐GMO‐DE‐2009‐66.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikołaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Ebbesen Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Jean-Michel Wal; Andrea Gennaro; Anna Lanzoni; Irina Olaru
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.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Hanspeter Naegeli; Andrew Nicholas Birch; Josep Casacuberta; Adinda De Schrijver; Mikołaj Antoni Gralak; Philippe Guerche; Huw Jones; Barbara Manachini; Antoine Messéan; Elsa Ebbesen Nielsen; Fabien Nogué; Christophe Robaglia; Nils Rostoks; Jeremy Sweet; Christoph Tebbe; Francesco Visioli; Jean-Michel Wal; Andrea Gennaro; Franco Maria Neri; Irina Olaru
Abstract In this opinion, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) assesses the two‐event stack soybean FG72 × A5547‐127 for food and feed uses, import and processing. The EFSA GMO Panel previously assessed the two single events combined to produce the two‐event stack soybean FG72 × A5547‐127 and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety, were identified. The molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional data on soybean FG72 × A5547‐127 did not give rise to safety concerns and no reason to expect interactions between the single events impacting on the food and feed safety of the two‐event stack soybean was identified. Although the EFSA GMO Panel cannot conclude on forage composition, soybean forage is not expected to be imported in a significant amount for use as feed. Considering the routes of exposure and limited exposure levels, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that soybean FG72 × A5547‐127 would not give rise to safety concerns in the event of accidental release of viable seeds into the environment. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean FG72 × A5547‐127. The EFSA GMO Panel concludes that soybean FG72 × A5547‐127 is as safe as the non‐genetically modified (GM) comparator and non‐GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.