Commodity: |
Soyabean / Soybeans |
Traits: |
Glyphosate tolerance,Lepidoptera resistance |
Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
28/06/2012 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food and feed |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
Biosafety Clearing House (BCH)
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Please see the EU relevant links below. |
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
Event specific real-time quantitative PCR based method for genetically modified soybean MON-877Ø1-2 x MON-89788-1. - Validated by the Community reference laboratory established under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Please see the EU relevant links below. |
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
Opinion of the European Food Safety Authority
Method for Detection
Reference Material
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
6/27/2022 |
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): European Union
Contact person name: Alexandre Huchelmann
Website:
Physical full address: European Commission B232 04/106 1047 Brussels
Phone number: 3222954092
Fax number:
Country introduction: The process for authorising a new GMO is based on the EU regulation on GM food and feed (1829/2003). An application for authorising food or feed consisting of or made from a GMO must be submitted to the national authorities. The national authority then sends the application to the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) for a risk assessment. EFSA then makes the application summary available to the public. No matter where in the EU the company applies, EFSA assesses the risks the GMO presents for the environment, human health and animal safety. If the application covers cultivation, EFSA delegates the environmental risk assessment to an EU country which sends EFSA its risk assessment report. After performing the risk assessment, EFSA submits its scientific opinion to the European Commission and to EU countries. The opinion is made available to the public, except for certain confidential aspects. Once EFSA publishes its risk assessment, the public has 30 days to comment on the Commission website for applications under Reg. 1829/2003, and on the Joint Research Centre website on the assessment report of the "lead" EU country for applications under Directive 2001/18. Within 3 months of receiving EFSA's opinion, the Commission grants or refuses the authorisation in a proposal. If it differs from EFSA’s opinion, it must explain why. National representatives approve the Commission’s proposal by qualified majority in: (1) The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health if the application was submitted under Reg. 1829/2003; (2) The Regulatory Committee under Directive 2001/18/EC if the application was submitted under Dir. 2001/18. The proposal is adopted if the Committee agrees with it. If there is no opinion, the Commission may summon an Appeal Committee where EU countries can adopt or reject the proposal. If the Appeal Committee makes no decision, the Commission may adopt its proposal. Authorisations are valid for 10 years (renewable).
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto Argentina S.A.I.C. |
Summary of application: |
The stacked event MON87701xMON89788 on soybean confers resistant to certain lepidopteran insects and tolerance to herbicides which active principle is glyphosate. The parental events, MON87701 and MON89788, were stacked by conventional crossing (sexual). The stacked event has the cry1Ac gene from the MON87701 event and the cp4 epsps gene from the MON89788 event. The transgenes are inherited in independent form, since they presents mendelian segregation. Moreover, the applicant proved the gene stability and the effective levels of the expressed proteins. The protein Cry1Ac confers resistance to certain lepidopteran insects and the protein CP4 EPSPS has similar structure and is functionally identical to the endogenous EPSPS enzyme of the plants, but with a reduced affinity to glyphosate. After comparison of 64 analytes measured in grain and forage, in the compositional analysis study, it's concluded that soybean with the stacked event MON87701xMON89788 is equivalent to the commercial soybean and parental lines. The proteins of new expression don't have similarity with allergenic or toxic proteins and have rapid degradation in SGF (simulated gastric fluids). Taking into account the assessment of genetic stability, molecular characterization, products and levels of expression, compositional analyses and morphoagronomic studies, no metabolic interaction is expected that might impact on the food safety when single events are stacked in a conventional way. The MON87701xMON89788 event is substantial and nutritionally equivalent to its non transgenic counterpart. |
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
01/08/2012 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food and feed |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Please see decision document weblinks |
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
Principles for the Assessment of Food and Feed derived from GMO in Argentina - Resolution Nº 412
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Ministerio de Agroindustria
Contact person name: Andrés Maggi
Website:
Physical full address: Paseo Colón Avenue 367, 3° floor, City of Buenos Aires
Phone number: 54 11 5222 5986
Fax number:
Country introduction: In Argentina, the food and feed risk assessment process of transformation events, as the result of modern biotechnology, is carried out by the National Service for Agrifood Health and Quality (Senasa). The General Office of Biotechnology, is the area responsible for carrying out this task. It has an specific professional team and the advise of a Technical Advisory Committee composed of experts from several scientific disciplines representing different sectors involved in the production, industrialization, consumption, research and development of genetically modified organisms.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: Stacked events with all single events approved, are assessed as a new event, but with much less requirements, always on a case-by-case basis.
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: National Service for Agrifood Health and Quality (Senasa)
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/senasa
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/senasa/programas-sanitarios/biotecnologia
Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto do Brasil Ltda. |
Summary of application: |
Commercial release of soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy resulting from crossing, through classical genetic improvement, of genetically modified parental of insect-resistant MON 87701 soy and glyphosate-tolerant MON 89788 soy for the purpose of releasing into the environment, marketing, consumption and any other activity related to this soybean and progenies derived thereto. |
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
20/08/2010 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food and feed |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
Center for Environmental Risk Assessment
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Event MON 87701 has gene cry1Ac coming from Bacillus thuringiensis and event MON 89788 has gene cp4 epsps coming from Agrobacterium sp. These are distinct events, which are expressed in different cell organelles. MON 87701 soy was produced using the transformation methodology mediated by Agrobacterium sp. using plasmid PV-GMIR9, a binary vector. T-DNA I contains gene cry1Ac expression cassette and T-DNA II contains gene cp4 epsps expression cassette, used as a selection marker only. Following identification of the modified plants with cry1Ac, T-DNA II was segregated by classical improvement, issuing plants that contained gene cry1Ac expression cassette and were named MON 87701 soy. Parental soy MON 89788 has the cp4 epsps gene, which grants tolerance to herbicide glyphosate and was introduced in the soy through a transformation system by Agrobacterium tumefaciens in soy meristems. The event differs from event GTS 40-3-2 by having a different FMV (figwort mosaic virus promoter). Results of field experiments conducted in Brazil for phenotypic and agronomic characterization and ecologic interactions of MON 87701 x MON 8978 soy, as well as its parental samples, enabled a conclusion that they are substantially equivalent and that have no greater potential to change into pest plants and fail to cause significant environmental impact when compared to conventional soy. The soy was assessed for its agronomic and phenotypic characteristics, seed vigor and germination, pollen morphology and viability, symbiotic interactions in field and laboratory, ecological interactions in field and voluntary plants. There was no evidence of significant differences for assessment on abiotic stress response, damages caused by diseases and by insects, except for the fact that the expressed characteristic for controlling lepidopterans was effective. Data indicate that MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy fails to cause significant environmental impact and to pose higher risk as a plant pest when compared to conventional soy. Assessment of effects on non-target organisms considered familiarity of CRY proteins mode of action and CRY1AC protein level of expression in soy, environment destination of such protein, feeding tests with representative non-target organisms using CRY1AC protein or soy tissues containing it. Non-target organisms tested included mammals, birds, soil decomposers and beneficial insects. The results support a conclusion that it is unlikely that soy MON 87701 x MON 89788 may cause adverse effects on non-target organisms or species threatened under the usual agricultural practices in soy cultivation. Alimentary safety was assessed through contents of grain and fodder, study of oral acute toxicity in mice, composition of amino acid sequences in CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS proteins by bioinformatics, study of simulated digestion in gastric bowel fluid, studies concerning the link to human IgE and nutritional analysis to assess performance in broiler chicken. Additional studies conducted include the history of safe use and exposure to proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS and to genetically modified cultures that express such proteins, knowledge of the security offered by donor organisms and genetic elements included in the expression cassettes of such genes, and knowledge of the protein mode of action. Results of compositional analyses in grains cultivated in Brazil indicated that MON 87701 and MON 89788 parental soy, as well as MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy, are equivalent in terms of nutrient and antinutrient composition to conventional soy and to commercial references, with data composition intervals that are in line with the literature and international databanks. The study conducted with chicken evidenced that there were no biologically relevant differences in the parameters assessed between birds fed with a diet based on MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy and those fed with control and reference diets. Birds performed equally, regarding carcass yield and meat composition, despite of the diet fed to them. Bioinformatics analysis showed that proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS fail to share any structural similarity with known toxins or biologically active proteins harmful to human or animal health. Acute oral toxicity studies with mice fail to indicate any toxic effect. Proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS represent a share of 0.012% and 0.04%, respectively, of total grain composition. The data pooled together enable a conclusion that it is highly unlikely that such proteins may cause any toxic effect to humans and animals. Regarding allergenic potential, the proteins are not originated from allergenic sources, do not share any structural and immunological sequence with known allergens, are rapidly digested in gastric and bowel fluids and are a very small portion of proteins that are present in the intercrossed parental soy. Besides the data supplied by the company, CTNBio examined the independent scientific literature to assess safety and occurrence of any unexpected effect stemming from the crossing between the events.
TECHNICAL OPINION
I. GMO Identification
GMO designation: MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy
Applicant: Monsanto do Brasil Ltda.
Species: Glycine max (L.) Merr.
Inserted characteristics: Tolerance to herbicide and resistance to insects.
Method of insertion: MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy, rated as Risk Class I, was produced though classical genetic improvement, through crossing parental genetically modified soy resistant to insects, MON 87701 and soy tolerant to glyphosate MON 89788. Event MON 87701 has gene cry1Ac, originated in Bacillus thuringiensis and event MON 89788 has gene cp4 epsps, coming from Agrobacterium sp. MON 87701 soy was produced by transformation methodology mediated by Agrobacterium sp. using plasmid PV-GMIR9, a binary vector. T-DNA I contains the expression cassette of gene cry1Ac and T-DNA II contains the expression cassette of gene cp4 epsps, used only as a selection marker. After identifying the plants modified by gene cry1Ac, T DNA II was segregated by classical improvement, generating plants that possessed expression cassette of gene cry1Ac and were named MON 87701 soy. Parental soy MON 89788 has gene cp4 epsps, which grants tolerance to glyphosate and was introduced through transformation system by Agrobacterium tumefaciens in soy meristems. This differs from event GTS-40-3-2 by exhibiting a different promoter, the FMV (figwort mosaic virus promoter).
Prospective use: Free registration, use, essays, tests, sowing, transport, storage, marketing, consumption, release into the environment and discarding, and any other activities related to such soy and its progenies.
II. General Information
Insect-resistant soy MON 87701 was developed by introducing gene cry1Ac in the genome of meristematic cells of A5547 soy mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens, using the transformation vector PV-GMIR9. The target of this transformation was reducing the use of insecticides to control lepidopteran pests in tropical and subtropical regions, primarily against attacks by Anticarsia gemmatalis, the velvetbean caterpillar and by Pseudoplusia includes, the looper moth, as primary targets, and by Crocidosema aporema, the bean shoot moth, as secondary, through important in South American farms, target.
A second generation of glyphosate tolerant soy was named MON 89788, in addition to the CTNBio approved event GTS 40-3-2. The new event offers a variant for expressing gene cp4 epsps through the use of figwort mosaic virus promoter, the FMV promoter. In a way different from the previous modification, where biobalistics was used, this transformation was made by Agrobacterium tumefaciens in tissues of conventional A3244 soy.
III. Aspects Related to Human and Animal Health
Alimentary safety of MON 87701 and MON 89788 soy, and that of event MON 87701 x MON 89788 was assessed through the following studies:
(1) Grain composition and fodder analysis;
(2) Studies of acute oral toxicity in animal models (mice):
(3) Comparative in silico studies of proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS regarding their amino acid composition;
(4) Digestibility studies of the proteins in simulated gastric and bowel juices;
(5) Allergenicity studies with affinity tests of proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS to human IgE; and
(6) Nutritional assessment of broiler chicken fed with the product.
A brief report on these studies follows:
Results were exhibited for total composition of grain and fodder produced in different Brazilian locations (Mato Grosso, Goiás, Paraná, Minas Gerais and Rio Grande do Sul) for MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy and contrasted to the respective conventional controls and reference materials. Sixty-four analytical components were analyzed in two samples of each cultivation region tested. Studies were conducted with exhibits of test (T), control (C) and references (R). Out of the sixty-four substances analyzed, eleven fatty acids had their analytical values below quantification limits and were not included in the statistical analysis. Charts were shown summarizing values obtained and their statistical analyses with tolerance interval of 99% (p<0.05). data="" on="" composition="" analysis="" were="" also="" given="" conducted="" with="" samples="" collected="" in="" five="" locations="" within="" the="" united="" states="" alabama="" arkansas="" georgia="" illinois="" and="" north="" carolina="" order="" to="" assess="" whether="" levels="" of="" nutrients="" anti-nutrients="" grain="" tissues="" fodder="" derived="" from="" mon="" 87701="" soy="" are="" comparable="" that="" found="" conventional="" cultivar="" a5547="" originated="" twenty="" cultivars="" included="" establish="" natural="" variability="" interval="" for="" each="" component="" examined="" tests="" results="" failed="" show="" significant="" differences="" p="">0.05) for 42 out of the 53 comparisons conducted with the respective conventional controls. Other variables were either within the 99% tolerance interval or were not consistently observed; in addition, the values remained within the intervals found in the literature and ILSI (International Life Science Institute) databanks, a reference for this type of study.
Proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS were also assessed regarding their potential toxicity for humans and animals according to the Codex Alimentarius Commission recommendations. The proteins have a long story of safe use, absence of structural similarity to known toxins or biologically active proteins that may cause harmful effects to mammals, fail to cause acute oral toxicity in mice and are a very small portion of the total protein present in the ration and food derived from MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy. They represent no more than 0.0012% and 0.04% of total protein in soy MON 87701 and MON 89788 soy, respectively. Bioinformatics analysis showed that proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS do not share structural and sequence similarities to known toxins or biologically active proteins. The non-observed level (NOEL) for oral toxicity in mice was 572 mg/kg for protein CP4 EPSPS and the higher tested doses of protein CRY1AC tested were 1.459 mg/kg for male mice and 1.292 mg/kg for female mice. Studies reached a conclusion that the two proteins do not show acute toxicity and fail to cause adverse effects in high doses.
Studies of in silico sequence comparisons were conducted with the use of the FASTA bioinformatics tool used in alignment of protein sequences. The analysis made by the FASTA program compares primary sequences of protein amino acids (linear) with sequences deposited in databanks and enables an inference of similarities between the secondary and tertiary structures. Proteins displaying large sequential similarities between them are usually homolog both in tertiary structures and in biochemical functions. Studies of the CRY1AC conducted with the FASTA tool and proteins of the databank TOXIN6 resulted in 15 alignments, with the highest one displaying 98.981% of sequential identity in a superposition of 1,178 amino acids with one ƒÔ-endotoxin. Delta-endotoxin is a synonym for Bt or Cry proteins. This alignment fails to indicate a potential toxicity for humans or animals. The fourteen additional alignments were found with other Cry proteins. The results showed that no relevant structural similarities exist between protein CRY1AC and any known toxic protein or other biologically active proteins that may threaten human and animal health. Alignments conducted with CP4 EPSPS protein sequence failed to display significant homology with known toxic proteins, the sequences of which had already been determined and included in the databank.
Digestibility studies conducted with CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS in simulated gastric fluid (SGF) were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and Western Blot methods. The studies evidenced that 95% of the CRY1AC protein are degraded within 30 seconds, while 98% of the CP4 EPSPS is degraded within no more than 15 seconds. Proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS were also submitted to digestibility studies in simulated intestinal fluid (SIF). Results showed that 95% of CRY1AC protein is degraded in less than 5 minutes and that over 50% of CP4 EPSPS is degraded after 10 minutes of incubation. After 100 minutes of incubation there was no detectable protein in the sample. In general, digestibility results in the tested systems (SGF and SIF) with proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS were consistent with results of proteins that display safety regarding human and animal health.
As far as allergenic potential is concerned, one may state that these proteins are not originated by allergenic sources, do not share structural and immunologically relevant similarities with sequences of known amino acid sequences from allergens and are rapidly digested, as shown by the digestibility studies. Regarding safety of donor organisms, the application describes that the gene coding for protein CRY1AC derives from Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, a soil microorganism found in the environment in an ubiquitous and abundant way. Bacillus thuringiensis formulations display a long history of safe use for controlling plagues in agriculture, and are used for over fifty years as microbial pesticides with no adverse effects to human health.
Still related to allergenicity assessment, an experiment was conducted in the linking of MON 87701 and MON 89788 soy with human IgE using the ELISA (Enzyme Linked Immunoabsorbent Assay). Serums of patients clinically documented as being allergic to soy and of non-allergic patients were used to establish the linking interval of IgE to each soy extract. The interval represents a linking interval of IgE of each patient serum with the soy reference extracts. The interval includes 99% of the IgE linking values that feature a statistical confidence interval of 95%. All values coming from analyses of genetically modified soy MON 87701 and MON 89788 and conventional soy A5547 and A3244 used as control remained within the tolerance limits established by commercial references of each serum examined. No soybean cultivar displayed IgE linking with the serum of non-allergic patients. The conclusion is that both MON 87701 soy and MON 89788 soy have no allergenic potential larger than the conventionally marketed soy.
In order to assess safety as an alimentary genetically modified raw material, performances of model animals fed with MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy were tested. A forty-two days alimentary study was conducted with broiler chicken (Cobb x Cobb 500), comparing the nutrition value of diets containing MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy, conventional A5547 soy and six commercial cultivars (Anand, Osak, NK S38-T8, NC+2A86 and NK25-J5) used as control. Besides, a ration from other genetically modified soy was added to the study. These nine treatments were assessed in complete random blocks. They were distributed within five blocks of eighteen cages each (nine with males and nine withy female birds), with ten birds per cage, totaling 90 cages and 900 birds. Results indicate that there were no biologically relevant differences in the parameters measured in weight, carcass yield, breast meat and thigh meat analysis among the treatments studied. The diet containing rations from MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy was as nutritious and healthy as those diets containing ration from control or commercial reference soy.
MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy exhibits characteristics of parental soy, that is to say, insect resistance (expression of CRY1AC protein) and tolerance to glyphosate (expression of CP4 EPSPS protein). This is why one does not expect MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy to promote adverse effects in the human and animal food chain after its ingestion, based on alimentary safety obtained from parental soy and expressed proteins. The proteins, CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS are produced in different insect resistant and/or glyphosate resistant cultures already marketed for over 13 years with no record of allergic or toxic reactions. The donor organism of gene cry1Ac, Bacillus thuringiensis, has been commercially employed for several years in formulations derived from bacteria due to insecticide activity. Safety of proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis is vouched by decades of experiments where the proteins have displayed absence of toxicity to man and vertebrate animals and absence of adverse effects to non-target organisms and the environment. Besides, commercial formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis containing such proteins have been used in Brazil and other countries to control some farm pests for over 40 years. Cry proteins also possess very specific action and act only by ingestion in some Lepidopteran species.
The donor organism of gene cp4 epsps, Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, is a common soil bacterium that had the gene changed naturally. The mutation caused the gene to codify for production of glyphosate-tolerant CP4 EPSPS enzyme. The enzyme is structurally and functionally similar to the EPSPS enzymes that are endogenous of plants and microorganisms. EPSPS are ubiquitous in nature, have no known toxicity and fail to grant any selective advantage to the organisms that produce it.
Dietary safety of proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS present in foods and rations derived from soy MON 87701 and soy MON 89788, respectively, which are the parental of soy MON 87701 x MON 89788 obtained by classical genetic improvement, was assessed for risks to humans and animals. Studies have shown that both proteins do not feature acute toxicity and fail to cause adverse effects in high doses, 1.459 mg/kg of body weight of male mice and 1.292 mg/kg of body weight in female mice for protein CRY1AC and 572 mg/kg of body weight for CP4 EPSPS.
Proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS are rapidly digested in simulated gastric fluids. The studies were assessed in SDS-PAGE gel and Western Blotting with the two proteins produced by E. coli, in the presence of simulated gastric fluid and simulated bowel fluid. Allergens originated in food are normally resistant to heat, acids and proteases, may be glycosylated and are highly concentrated in food. The fact that the two proteins are promptly digested reduces the likelihood of causing allergies when consumed. Besides, the proteins do not feature similarity with amino acid sequence of known allergens of toxic proteins that cause adverse effects in animals.
Considering that soy is known to be an allergenic food culture, the company assessed whether introducing gene cry1Ac and protein CRY1AC in soy did not change the allergenic potential of MON 87701 soy and MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy as compared to the conventional soy cultivars. The studies were carried on assessing the levels of linkage of antibody IgE coming from sera of patients clinically documented as allergic to extracts of soy MON 87701 protein, from a control cultivar and from 17 commercial cultivars that are used to establish a linking interval to IgE. Sera from 13 patients that were clinically documented as allergic to soy and from 5 non-allergic patients were used to establish the linking interval of IgE to each soy extract. The tests were assessed by ELISA and showed that the linking with IgE of soy MON 87701 and control soy are within the established tolerance limits. Similar analysis was conducted with MON 89788 soy to assess the linking of CP4 EPSPS protein to IgE and like results were reached.
Regarding chemical and nutritional composition between the food coming from a genetically modified plant and from a non-genetically modified plant, 64 components were assessed. Total composition of grain and fodder from MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy, MON 87701 soy and MON 89788 soy produced in field experiments in four locations in Brazil conducted during the 2007/2008 crop was contrasted to the conventional soy control and commercial references. The averages yielded from MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy appearing to be statistically different from the values of conventional soy control were either within the tolerance interval of 99% established by commercial references or within the intervals published in the relevant literature. Thus, the differences noticed were no relevant in the context of alimentary and nutritional safety.
Forty-two day studies with broiler chicken failed to uncover biologically relevant differences in parameters assessed in birds fed with a diet based on MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy and birds fed with the control and reference diets. The birds displayed comparable performance and similar carcass yield and meat composition, despite the diet. The diet containing a ration of MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy proved to be as nutritious and healthy than diets containing the control or commercial reference soy regarding the ability to contribute towards the birds’ rapid growth. Forty-one day nutritional studies with broiler chicken fed with the genetically modified soy expressing protein CRY1AC showed no difference when compared to the conventional soy, an evidence that protein CRY1AC does not interfere in animal performance.
The information and studies presented, besides other works in the literature, establish the safety of MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy. This soy variant exhibits low risk to human and animal health and is not likely to change into a plant pest. Insertion of cry1Ac and cp4 epsps genes did not change the product composition or nutritional value.
Also evident became the fact that proteins CRY1AC and CP4 EPSPS do not pose any significant risk to human and animal health according to acute oral toxicity and in vitro digestibility studies.
Based on the foregoing and keeping in mind that:
(1) The isolated proteins, as well as the grains used in the studies indicate that the products have no toxic activity to human and animal health;
(2) The history of safe use of the isolated genes has no report of documented adverse effects to human and animal health;
(3) There were no observed homologies between sequences of the tested genes and proteins and toxic products or known allergens available in databanks;
(4) The proteins are highly digestible in gastric juice and bowel fluid;
(5) The proteins are thermolabile;
(6) There were no significant differences found between development of animals fed with material from transgenic plants and their respective controls;
(7) The differences observed between components present in transgenic plants and their respective controls are either not significant or are within an acceptable tolerance margin for the main international parameters.
The conclusion is that soy MON 87701 x MON 89788 is as safe as its non-genetically modified equivalent for human and animal consumption, failing to pose additional risk when contrasted to such equivalent.
IV. Environmental Aspects
Essays of planned release into the Brazilian environment were conducted, namely in Não-Me-Toques (RS), Cachoeira Dourada (MG), Rolândia (PR) and Sorriso (MT). No signs of pleiotropic or epistatic effects were evidenced. There was no record of morphological, growth or development changes contrasting with conventional soy, except for tolerance to glyphosate herbicide and resistance to pest lepidopterans. The same behavior was evidenced in other countries where similar experiments were conducted, that is to say, there was no record of significant differences in MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy morphology, growth or development.
Average values of phenotypic and agronomic features of two consecutive GM soy crops, one obtained by crossing and its parental ones mono-modified, compared to conventional, control and commercial reference soy, failed to significantly differ, except for the height of soy MON 89788 plants. However, the difference kept within the range establisher for this parameter in commercial references cultivated under the same conditions. The disparity was attributed to genetic variability among soy cultivars. Therefore, there are no adverse effects in phenotypic and agronomic characteristics of stacked gene soy, MON 87701 x MON 89788, caused by individual genetic modifications after introduction of the insect-resistance and glyphosate-tolerance genes, as well as by the presence of the two factors in the same plant.
Regarding assessment of risk to the environment, it is worth analyzing data related to tests conducted in Brazil, Argentina and the United States. Seed dormancy studies conducted in Brazil and the United States were negative, indicating the unlikelihood that the three assessed soy plants (isolated and stacked events) turn into pest plants. In this same line, pollen viability of GM soy was no more resistant than that of other soy cultivars in low frequency, 0.04% to 3.62% in adjacent plants, and that Glycine species feature no kinship with species of the native flora.
Non-target organisms submitted to tests were the collembola and the earthworm, as soil decomposers, and four species of beneficial insects, honeybees, pirate bugs, ladybugs and parasitoid wasps. Test data reveal that MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy and its parental plants do not cause adverse effects to non-target organisms or species held as threatened.
Results of molecular characterization of the stacked event MON 87701 x MON 89788 confirm insertion of a functional copy from the cassette containing gene cry1Ac in a single genomic locus. Stability of this locus was assessed for five crossing generations in the parent MON 87701, and for the stacked event no phenotypic change or rearrangement was recorded. Essays conducted in Brazil showed that average levels of the insecticide protein did not change in a substantial way between the single and the stacked event, taking into consideration each plant part assessed: foliage, leaf and grain tissues – and the four locations of collection, in two crops, 07.2008 and 08.2009.
The same way, molecular characterization of the stacked event MON 87701 x MON 89788 confirm insertion of a single copy of the functional and intact cassette of gene cp4 epsps in one single genomic locus; the stacked event failed to record any phenotypic change or rearrangement. Also, average levels of exogenous protein have not varied substantially between the single and the stacked event considering each part of the plant assessed and the four collection locations, in two crops, 07.2008 and 08.2009.
Soy is a predominantly autogamous species, with crossed pollination rate in the Brazilian cerrado environment, for instance, reaching 0.45% at a distance of 5m; 0.14% at 1m; and detectable absence at a distance of 6m. Soy is an exotic species, with no sexually compatible feral kindred in Brazil. The species has a highly domesticated, so that there are no scientific reasons to foresee survival of GM and non-GM plants away from the farming environment. Besides, in the absence of selective pressure (use of the herbicide and the insecticides), expression of the inserted genes fail to grant any adaptive advantage.
V – Restrictions to the use of the GMO and its derivatives.
As established by Article 1 of Law nº 11,460, of March 21, 2007 “research and cultivation of genetically modified organisms may not be conducted in indigenous lands and areas of conservation units.”
Studies submitted by applicant demonstrate that there are no significant differences between genetically modified soy and its conventional isoline regarding agronomic characteristics, mean of reproduction, dissemination or survival ability. All evidence submitted in the proceeding and bibliographic references confirm the risk level of the transgenic variety as equivalent to that of non-transgenic varieties regarding soil microbiota, as well as concerning other plants and human and animal health. Therefore, cultivation and consumption of MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy are not potential causes of significant degradation of the environment or threatening to human and animal health. For these reasons, there are no restrictions to the use of this soy and its derivatives, except for locations mentioned by Law 11,460, of March 21, 2007.
Soy is an exotic plant in Brazil and there are no feral kindred plants able to cross and generate descendants. Gene flow between soy plants was already studied in tropical conditions. Soy is an autogamous species with full flowers, featuring very low rates of crossed pollination, according to the cultivar type and location.
After ten years of use in different countries, no problem has been recorded for human and animal health and the environment that may be attributed to transgenic soy plants. We shall emphasize that the lack of negative effects resulting from farming transgenic soy plants does not mean that these effects will not take place. Zero risks and absolute safety are away from the biologic world, although there is a host of reliable scientific information and a safe history of use related to transgenic varieties in agriculture. Applicant submitted a post commercial release monitoring plan and may accommodate it to the terms of CTNBio Ruling Resolution nº 5 and according to this technical opinion.
VI. Consideration on the Particulars of Different Regions of the Country (Information to supervisory agencies)
As established by Article 1 of Law nº 11,460, of March 21, 2007 “research and cultivation of genetically modified organisms may not be conducted in indigenous lands and areas of conservation units.”
VII. Conclusion
Considering that the soy species is a well characterized plant with a solid history of safety for human and animal consumption and that the genes inserted in this variety codify for proteins that are ubiquitous in nature and well characterized;
Considering that centesimal composition data failed to record significant differences between genetically modified varieties and conventional varieties, suggesting their nutritional equivalence;
Whereas:
1. Events were well molecularly characterized and there is no trace of interaction between them when joined in the same plant by sexual way;
2. There is no evidence that the proteins expressed cause allergy or intoxication in humans and animals;
3. There was no evidence of botanical alterations in MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy that may grant the plant any adaptive advantage;
4. No pleiotropic or epistatic effects were identified in the parental and joint events.
For the foregoing and taking into consideration criteria internationally accepted in the process of risk assessment of genetically modified raw material, a conclusion was reached that MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy is as safe as its conventional equivalents. In the context of duties assigned to it by Article 14 of Law nº 11,105/2005, CTNBio finds that the request complies with the rules and legislation in effect with a view to secure biosafety to the environment, agriculture, human and animal health and concluded that MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy is substantially equivalent to conventional soy and its consumption safe for human and animal health. Regarding the environment, CTNBio concluded that MON 87701 x MON 89788 soy is not a potential cause of significant degradation of the environment, keeping with the biota a relation that is identical to that of conventional soy.
CTNBio finds that the activity is not a potential cause of significant environment degradation and not harmful to human and animal health. Restrictions to the use of the GMO and its derivatives are provided by Law nº 11,460, of March 21, 2007.
The analysis conducted by CTNBio considered the opinions issued by the Commission members; ad hoc consultants; documents forwarded by the Office of the CTNBio Executive Secretary and by applicant; lectures and related texts.
Third party scientific studies and publications independent from applicant were also taken into consideration.
|
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
Molecular Traditional methods |
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
National Biosafety Comission
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
Not Applicable |
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): National Biosafety Technical Commission
Contact person name: Paulo Augusto Viana Barroso
Website:
Physical full address: SPO Area 5 Qd 3 Bl B S 10.1 Brasilia DF
Phone number: 556120335087
Fax number:
Country introduction: Brazil had the first biosafety law approved in 1995. After the identification of the need to improve the biosafety system of Brazilian genetically modified organisms, a new law was published. The Law 11.105 / 05 establishes a technical committee dedicated to the analysis of the safety aspects of genetically modified organisms and a council of ministers that is dedicated to the analysis of the socioeconomic aspects of the commercial release of genetically modified organisms. In this context, Brazil already has several commercial products that involve genetically modified organisms (plants, human and veterinary vaccines, microorganisms for fuel production) and products derived from new genetic modification techniques.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: At the discretion of, and upon consultation with, CTNBio, a new analysis and issuance of technical opinion may be released on GMOs containing more than one event, combined through classic genetic improvement and which have been previously approved for commercial release by CTNBio
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Dr. Paulo Augusto Viana Barroso (President of national Biosafety Commission)
Name of product applicant: |
Compañia Agricola S.A.S |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
26/01/2012 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Based on the risk assessment, it can be concluded that the event shows the same risks as its conventional counterpart. Therefore the National Technical Biosafety Committee for GMO use exclusively in Health and human consumption (CTNSalud) recommends its authorization. |
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Ministerio de salud y proteccion social
Contact person name: Daniel Rubio
Website:
Physical full address: Carrera 13 No. 32- 76 piso 12, Bogotá
Phone number: 330 5000 ext 1256
Fax number:
Country introduction: The 4525 decree of 2005, established the Ministry of Health and Social Protection as the competent authority for GMO for health and food purposes and creates the National Biosafety Technical Committee for GMO's used in health and food purposes (CTNSalud).
The CTNSalud is composed by the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, the National Food and Drug Surveillance Institute (INVIMA) and the Technology and Innovation Administrative Department (COLCIENCIAS). This committee is responsible for the assesment of risk assessments; to inquire for any additional information; assessment of any measurements in accordance to the Cartagena Protocol; and the recommendation for the authorization of GMO for health or food purposes.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
07/02/2016 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Competent National Authority: Ministry of Health and Medical Education- Food & Drug Administration. Risk Assessment file is uploaded.
https://bch.cbd.int/en/database/RA/BCH-RA-IR-114055/2 |
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): ABRII
Contact person name: Gholamreza Salehi Jouzani
Website:
Physical full address: Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII), Mahdasht Road, 31535-1897, Karaj, Iran
Phone number: 0098(26)32701132
Fax number: 0098(26)32701132
Country introduction: Iran has ratified Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2003. The National Biosafety Law has also been ratified in 2009. The regulations for the National Biosafety Law have been prepared and approved during last ten years. All these laws and regulations deal with Living GMOs (LMOs) and there is no Law for the regulation of the non-living GMOs. All these laws and regulations are accessible at: http://bch.cbd.int/database/results?searchid=622770. Codex principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology and other guidelines such as the Codex guidelines for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods produced using recombinant-DNA plants and microorganisms are widely accepted and used.
The process for authorization of new LMO release includes comprehensive risk assessment and management analysis. Ministry of Agriculture (Jihade Keshavarzi) is responsible for approval of the release, import, export, transit and use of Agricultural Related LMOs. The requests should be forwarded to: a[email protected]; with a CC to National Focal Point: [email protected]. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety National Focal Point is in charge of all liaison affairs related to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and acts as the contact point for the communications received. The Ministry of Health and Medical Education is in charge with the approval of all LMOs related to food and medicine. Environmental Protection Organization is in charge with the environmental release of LMOs in the wild nature and/or related to the wild organisms. Detailed procedure for authorization of GM food and feed is under preparation.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Agricultural Jihad Ministry
Tehran, Tehran
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
|
Ministry of Health and Medical Education- Food & Drug Administration
Food and Drug Administration, Fakhrerazi St., Enghelab Ave.
Tehran
Iran (Islamic Republic of), 1314715311
|
Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto Japan Ltd. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
13/06/2011 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
OECD BioTrack Product Database
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Please see the link below (in Japanese). |
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
Food safety assessment performed by Food Safety Commission of Japan (in Japanese)
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Food Safety Commission Secretariat,Cabinet Office,
Contact person name: Kojiro Yokonuma
Website:
Physical full address: Akasaka 5-2-20 Minato Ward,Tokyo,Japan
Phone number: 81 3 6234 1122
Fax number: 81 3 3584 7392
Country introduction: Safety assessments of GM foods are mandatory under the Food Sanitation Law in Japan. The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) legally imposes safety assessments of GM foods so that those that have not undergone safety assessments would not be distributed in the country. MHLW receives application and requests the Food Safety COmmission of Japan (FSCJ) to evaluate the safety of GM foods in terms of human health. Safety assessments are carried out by FSCJ.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto Comercial, S.A. de C.V. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
03/11/2011 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
UI OECD: MON-877Ø1-2xMON-89788-1
During the risk assessment of this GMO based on existing knowledge to date, no toxic or allergic effects neither substantial nutritional changes are observed. The event is as safe as its conventional counterpart.
For more detail please find attached the risk assessment summary in this page. |
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): CIBIOGEM
Contact person name: Dra. Consuelo López López
Website:
Physical full address: San Borja #938, Col. Del Valle • Del. Benito Juárez C.P. 03100, México, D.F.
Phone number: +52 (55) 53227700
Fax number:
Country introduction: México ha buscado garantizar la inocuidad de los productos biotecnológicos para el uso y consumo de su población.
Desde 1984 el artículo 282 bis 1 de la Ley General de Salud, contempló que la Secretaría de Salud debería regular aquellos productos biotecnológicos, o sus derivados, destinados al uso o consumo humano.
En un inicio, con fundamento en este artículo, la Secretaria de Salud evaluó la inocuidad alimentaria de productos biotecnológicos, para su comercialización con fines de uso o consumo humano. A partir de 2005, con la entrada en vigor de la Ley de Bioseguridad de Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (LBOGM), se realizó la adecuación de la regulación para dar lugar a la Autorización que es el acto administrativo mediante el cual la Secretaría de Salud, a través de la Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS), autoriza Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (OGMs), a efecto de que se pueda realizar su comercialización, así como su utilización con finalidades de Salud Pública o de Biorremediación.
Las facultades que corresponden a la Secretaría de Salud se estipulan en el artículo 16 de la LBOGM y lo relativo a la Autorizaciones se describe en los artículos 91 al 98 de dicha Ley.
Quienes pretendan obtener una Autorización para Comercialización e Importación de OGMs deben presentar ante COFEPRIS, una solicitud por escrito acompañada de la información a que se refiere los artículos 23 al 32 del Reglamento de la Ley de Bioseguridad de OGMs.
http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/normatividad/vigente/LBOGM.pdf
http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/normatividad/vigente/Reg_LBOGM.pdf
Courtesy translation
Mexico has sought to guarantee the safety of biotechnological products the use and consumption of its population. Since 1984, article 282 bis 1 from the General Law of Health, considered that the Secretary of Health should regulate those biotechnological products, or their derivatives, intended for food and feed use. Initially, the Secretary of Health evaluated the food safety of biotechnological products, based on this article, for commercialization with purposes of food, feed and processing. Subsequently in 2005, with the entry into force of the Law on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (LBOGM), the regulation was adapted to give rise to the Authorization, which is the administrative act through which the Secretary of Health, by means of the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS), authorizes Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), to their commercialization, as well as their use for purposes of public health or bioremediation.
The faculties that correspond to the Secretary of Health are stipulated in Article 16 of the LBOGM and what is related to the Authorizations is described in Articles 91 to 98 of this Law. Those who seek to obtain an Authorization for GMOs merchandising and importation, must present to COFEPRIS, a written request accompanied by the information referred into articles 23 to 32 of the Regulation of the Law on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms.
http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/normatividad/vigente/LBOGM.pdf
http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/normatividad/vigente/Reg_LBOGM.pdf
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Name of product applicant: |
MONSANTO |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
11/02/2013 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food and feed |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
MON-877Ø1-2xMON-89788-1
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Please refer to the document. The Commercial Release Opinion of the National Commission for Agricultural and Forestry Biosafety (CONBIO), in its substantial part states: "...Recommends technically: (1) The commercial release of the event MON-877Ø1-2xMON-89788-1 (2) In case of detection of an unexpected effect, the company is obliged to inform CONBIO". |
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería
Contact person name: Santiago Bertoni
Website:
Physical full address: Yegros 437 entre 25 de mayo y Cerro Cora
Phone number: +595 981 256262
Fax number:
Country introduction: The agricultural sector is one of the economic pillars of Paraguay in its contribution to the GDP, with the main crops being soybean, cassava, maize, wheat, sugar cane, and cotton. It should also be noted that Paraguay is the world’s fourth exporter of soybean. In 2020, the area planted with crops was 4.67 million hectares and consisted of soybean (3.56 million hectares), maize (1.08 million hectares), and cotton (18,000 hectares). Agricultural biotechnology was first regulated in Paraguay in 1997. In 2012, the system was adjusted through the creation of the National Agricultural and Forestry Biosafety Commission (CONBIO), “with the mission to manage, analyze, and issue recommendations on all matters related to the introduction, confined field trials, pre-commercial and commercial release, and other intended uses of GE crops” Almost 94% of the soybean, 36% of the maize, and 56% of the cotton planted in the country are GE.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: When a stacked event is approved, all possible combinations are approved. Previously evaluated single events are not reevaluated in stacks.
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: In 2012, the system was adjusted through the creation of the National Agricultural and Forestry Biosafety Commission (CONBIO), “with the mission to manage, analyze, and issue recommendations on all matters related to the introduction, confined field trials, pre-commercial and commercial release, and other intended uses of GE crops”. Additional information https://conbio.mag.gov.py/
Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto Korea Ltd. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
23/07/2012 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Please see the link below(in Korean). |
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Ministry of Food and Drug Safety
Contact person name:
Website:
Physical full address: Osong Health Technology Administration Complex, 187, Osongsaengmyeong 2-ro, Osong-eup, Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheonbuk-do, 363-700, Korea
Phone number: 82-43-719-2360
Fax number:
Country introduction:
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Name of product applicant: |
Sodrugestvo-Soy |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
22/09/2016 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Peer review of the data submitted by the applicant during the state registration of GM lines MON87701 and MON89788, and the results of complex medical and biological studies of transgenic soybean lines MON87701 and MON89788 tolerant to lepidopteran insects and glyphosate herbicides, attest to the absence of any toxic, reprotoxic, genotoxic, or allergenic effects of these soybean lines. By biochemical composition, transgenic soybean lines MON87701 and MON89788 were identical to conventional soybeans.
GM soybean line MON87701×MON89788 has been registered for food use, listed in the State Register, and licensed for use in the territory of the Russian Federation, import into the territory of the Russian Federation, and placing on the market without restrictions.
|
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): FSBI «Institute of Nutrition» RAMS
Contact person name: Nadezhda Tyshko
Website:
Physical full address: 109240, Russia, Moscow, Ustinsky Proezd, 2/14
Phone number: +7(495)698-53-64
Fax number:
Country introduction: The development of the GMO safety assessment currently used in the Russian Federation started in 1995–1996. The methodological approaches to comprehensive complex medical and biological assessment of GMOs were developed in the Russian Federation with due regard for international and national experience as well as new scientific approaches based on the achievements of contemporary fundamental science: genomic and proteomic analysis, detection of DNA damage or mutagenic activity, identification of products of free-radical modifications of DNA or other sensitive biomarkers. GMO safety assessment is carried out for the state registration. Any novel food derived from plant GMO produced in Russia or imported into Russia for the first time is subject to the state registration . Guidance for safety assessment is specified in MU 2.3.2.2306-07 “Medico-Biological Safety Assessment of Plant Genetically Modified Organisms”. According to the accepted regulations,the human health assessment of a novel GMO to be placed on the domestic market includes the following: ■ Molecular assessment includes analysis of genetic construction, genetic modification method, and the gene expression level. ■ Technological assessment includes determination of organoleptic and functional properties, analysis of technological characteristics of the finished products. ■ Human health safety assessment includes several sections of required assessments: analysis of compositional equivalence and toxicological,genotoxicological, and allergological safety studies. ■ Methods for identification include qualitative and quantitative assay of GMO in food (studies targeted at determination of correspondence of these methods to those used in Russia in order to provide monitoring of use and labeling of GM food). The list and the scope of required studies is determined on the basis of analysis of information of the GMO submitted for registration; however, the above-mentioned studies are required. If significant changes in the GMO’s genome, proteome, or metabolome are shown, additional studies may be required to determine: biological value and absorbency reproductive effect; gonadotoxic, embryotoxic, teratotoxic effect; potential carcinogenic effect; lifetime, etc.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: Russia follows the national Methodical Guidelines 2.3.2.3388-16 “Medical and biological safety assessment of genetically modified stack events of plant origin ”
Our position regarding GM stacks registration is very close to the EU approach.
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Federal Research Centre of nutrition and biotechnology Viktor A. Tutelyan Ustinsky proezd, 2/14 109240 Moscow, RUSSIA E-mail: [email protected] Tel.:+7 495 698-53-60
Name of product applicant: |
Bayer Thai Co., Ltd. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
04/12/2022 |
Scope of authorization: |
Food |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
The food safety assessment performed by the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) as advisory and technical arm of Thai FDA. BIOTEC conduct food safety assessment according to codex guideline and based on the safety data and information provided by the applicant (as specified in Annex 2 attached to Notification of the Ministry of Public Health No.431). According to the existing scientific data and information available during the safety assessment, it is concluded that the stacked event MON87701 x MON89788 soybean is expected to be as safe as the single events that has previously been assessed by the food biosafety subcommittee and technical biosafety committee of the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC). |
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): National Burequ of Agricultural Commodity and Food
Contact person name: Director of Office of Standard Development
Website:
Physical full address: 50 Phahonyothin Rd., Lardyao, Chathuchak, Bangkok 10900
Phone number: +6625612277 ext.1401
Fax number: +6625613373
Country introduction: National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards (ACFS) is a governmental agency under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) responsible for the development of national agricultural and food standards. The Agricultural Standards Act B.E. 2551 (2008) establishes the mechanisms for the development of Thai Agricultural Standards (TAS) as either voluntary or mandatory standards. This is based on scientific data, consumer’s health and fair trade. Within the TAS, there are four standards relating GM food assessment, namely Principle for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Biotechnology (TAS 9010-2006), Assessment of Possible Allergenicity (TAS 9011-2006), Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants (TAS 9012-2006) and Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Produced Using Recombinant-DNA Microorganisms (TAS 9013-2006). These standards are adapted from relevant Codex standards. Safety assessment for imported GM crops and foods is done by the cooperation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC)via the Committees relating National Committees to consider technical and political issues. The Committees comprise representatives from all relevant governmental and non-governmental key sectors including experts on genetic modification, toxicity and others.
The safety assessment process of GM food in Thailand is on a voluntary basis. According to the current laws and regulations, there is no approval authority.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: The safety assessment for stacked events is divided into two patterns. The first pattern is for stacked events whose GM parents have never approved by FDA or other competent authority. Those stacked events shall be fully assessed in line with GM foods. Another pattern is introduced for the safety assessment of stacked event lines where from GM parents had already been approved. In the second pattern, the information of the parents could be used for consideration, as appropriate. However, the information relevant to interaction between genes and new proteins of stacked event should be mainly taken into account.
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC)
Name of product applicant: |
Special case: please show below |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
16/07/2015 |
Scope of authorization: |
Feed |
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
After the evaluation of reports released by Scientific Risk Assessment Committee and
Socio- economic Assessment Committee Biosafety Board has approved the use
of genetically modified soybean MON87701xMON89788 and products thereof for animal feed.
|
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): DG of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM)
Contact person name: Dr. Erkan TAÇBAŞ
Website:
Physical full address: Universiteler Mah. Dumlupınar Bulvarı, Eskişehir Yolu 10. Km
Çankaya/ANKARA/TURKEY
Phone number: +90 312 307 60 48
Fax number: +90 312 307 61 90
Country introduction: Turkey is party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) since Jan 24, 2004. Biosafety applications in Turkey are carried out within the framework of the Biosafety Law (no.5977) which entered into force in 26 September 2010 and its relevant regulations (“The Regulation on Genetically Modified Organisms and Products” and “The Regulation Connected with Working Procedure and Principles of Biosafety Board and Committees”). Biosafety Law and two regulations came into force on 26th September 2010.
Main objectives of the Biosafety Law are;
- to prevent risks that may arise from GMO’s and products which are produced by using of modern biotechnology by taking into account scientific and technological developments;
- to establish and implement biosafety system to ensure protection and sustainability of environment, biological diversity and health of human, animal and plant;
- to inspect, regulate and monitor the activities in the scope of the law.
The Law includes specific points regarding research, development, processing, releasing on the market, monitoring, using, import, export, handling, transportation, packaging, labelling, storage and similar operations in relation to GMO and GMOPs.
Veterinarian medicinal products and medicinal products for human use and also cosmetic products which are permitted or certified by the Ministry of Health are out of this Law’s scope.
According to Biosafety Law following actions connected with GMO and GMOPs are prohibited:
- Releasing GMO and GMOPs on the market without approval of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
- Production of genetically modified plants and animals.
- Using GMO and GMOPs in baby food and baby formulae, follow-on baby food and follow-on formulae, infant and kid’s nutritional supplements
According to the Biosafety Law, which was enacted in 2010, the Biosafety Board, which was established within the scope of the Law, was responsible for evaluating the applications regarding GMO and its products.
However, the duties and powers of the Biosafety Board were assigned to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry with the Presidential Circular No. 2018/3 published in the Official Gazette on the date of August 2, 2018.
The task of evaluating the applications related to GMO and its products, performing the secretarial services of the Committees and other duties specified in the Biosafety Law and related regulations has been assigned to General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM) under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry pursuant to Ministerial Approval dated 05/12/2018.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry makes a “Decision” about applications on GMO and products via taking Scientific Committees’ risk assessment and socio-economic assessment into account.
For each application the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry assigns a new committee and each committee makes different assessment for each application. It is important to note that in Turkey food and feed each have a different assessment application.
Members of scientific committees are selected from the List of Experts.
11 members are selected for each GMO application.
List of Experts has been made up by the evaluation of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry from the applicants who applied via using the Biosafety Clearing-House Mechanism of Turkey. Applicants were faculty members and experts of Universities and TÜBİTAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey).
To date, 15 types of GM soybean and 21 types of GM maize were approved as feed for import.
Threshold of labeling of GMO products that are approved by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is 0.9%.
There are not any applications for using GMO and products as food.
After placing GMO and GMOPs on the market; the Ministry controls and inspects whether or not conditions designated by decision are met.
Activities of analysis are performed in laboratories designated by the Ministry.
In the case of any non-compliance detected with relation to the GMO Legislation (such as a failure to specify the contained GMO on the label, identification of an unapproved gene, etc.) legal action is taken.
Application evaluation process is like below:
- Evaluation of application by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 90 days
- Feedback to the applicant 15 days
- Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s “Decision” 270 days
(Starts from feedback to the applicant)
Establishing of Scientific Committees
Report preparation of Committees
Report’s public release
Evaluation of public opinions by Committees
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s final decision after taking reports and public opinions into
account
- Publishing the Positive Decision 30 days
- Reclamation period to Negative Decision 60 days
- Evaluation of reclamation by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 60 days
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies
Focal Point of the FAO GM Foods Platform
Dr. Erkan TAÇBAŞ
Email: [email protected]
|
|