| Commodity: |
Sugar Beet |
| Traits: |
Glyphosate tolerance |
| Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto Australia Ltd |
| Summary of application: |
Monsanto Australia Ltd have made an application to ANZFA to vary Standard A18 of the Food Standards Code to include food derived from sugarbeet which has been genetically modified to tolerate applications of the herbicide glyphosate. The genetically modified sugarbeet is marketed in the USA under the names Roundup® Ready Sugar Beet or Glyphosate-Tolerant Sugar Beet.
Sugarbeet has been grown for sugar production since the late eighteenth century when white Silesian beet was identified as a source of sugar in Europe. Napoleon encouraged the use and breeding of sugarbeet to provide an alternative to cane sugar, which required shipment from the West Indies. Sugarbeet currently accounts for approximately 1/3rd of world sugar production with some 35% being produced in the EU, 20% in Russia and 10% in the USA. Sugar in Australia is entirely produced from sugar cane.
Sugarbeet is processed into two major food products - pure sucrose and molasses. Sugarbeet pulp is a by-product of processing which has occasionally been purified and sold as foodn fibre. Waste products from both pre-processing (leaves and tops) and post-processing (trash) are used as cattle feed.
Weed competition in commercial sugarbeet fields constitutes a significant crop production problem. Glyphosate is the active ingredient of the herbicide Roundup® which is used widely as a non-selective pre-emergent weed control agent in primary crops including sugarbeet. Glyphosate acts by specifically binding and blocking the activity of the enzyme 5- enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) that is essential for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids in all plants, bacteria and fungi.
Biochemical studies of the EPSPS enzyme have shown that natural variation in glyphosateenzyme binding affinity exists across a variety of organisms, particularly across bacterial species. Tolerance to glyphosate in plants can therefore be achieved by introducing a bacterial version of the epsps gene that encodes for a version of the EPSPS protein with a reduced binding affinity for glyphosate, thus allowing plant aromatic amino acid synthesis to function normally in the presence of the herbicide.
The glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet in this application referred to as glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet line 77 was developed through the introduction of the cp4-epsps gene derived from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium sp.CP4 (Padgette et al., 1996). The cp4-epsps gene has been transferred into a number of other crop plants, including soybean, canola, corn, and cotton, to establish glyphosate tolerance. These plants are also the subjects of applications to ANZFA to vary Standard A18.
Glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77 was approved for environmental release by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in 1998. Food and feed use of glyphosate-tolerant sugar
beet GTSB77 was also notified to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1998.
Glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77 has not been submitted for environmental release approval in either Australia or New Zealand.
While refined sugar derived from sugarbeet line 77 is not specifically imported into Australia and New Zealand, it may occur as an element within ingredients used in locally-produced processed foods or as an ingredient within imported processed foods. |
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
09/05/2002 |
| 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): |
|
| 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: |
Application A378 - Glyphosate tolerant sugarbeet Line77
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Contact person name: Gaya Subramaniam
Website:
Physical full address: Level 4, 15 Lancaster Place, Majura Park ACT 2609, Australia
Phone number: +61 2 6271 2222
Fax number: +61 2 6271 2278
Country introduction: Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is the regulatory agency responsible for the development of food standards in Australia and New Zealand. The main office (approximately 115 staff) is located in Canberra (in the Australian Capital Territory) and the smaller New Zealand office (approximately 10 staff) is located in Wellington on the North Island. Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: FSANZ does not: Separately assess food from stacked event lines where food from the GM parents has already been approved; Mandate notification of stacked events by developers; Notify the public of stacked event ‘approvals’; List food derived from stacked event lines in the Code, unless the stacked event line has been separately assessed as a single line e.g. Application A518: MXB-13 cotton (DAS-21023-5 x DAS-24236-5)
No separate approval or safety assessment is necessary for foods derived from a stacked GM line that is the result of traditional breeding between a number of GM parent lines for which food has already been approved. Food from the parent lines must be listed in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The parent lines may contain any number of different genes. If food from any of the GM parent lines has not been approved, then a full pre-market safety assessment of food from the stacked line must be undertaken.
No separate approval is required for food derived from a line that is the product of a GM line, for which food has been approved, crossed traditionally with a non-GM line.
Where a single line containing a number of genes has been produced as a result of direct gene technology methods (rather than traditional crossing) then food derived from the line must undergo a full pre-market safety assessment before approval can be given Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au)
| Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto Australia Ltd |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
20/12/2002 |
| 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): |
Food from glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77 has been evaluated according to the safety assessment guidelines prepared by ANZFA. The assessment considered the following issues:
(1) the nature of the genetic modification; (2) general safety issues such as novel protein expression and the potential for transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to microorganisms in the human digestive tract; (3) toxicological issues; and (4) nutritional issues.
On the basis of the available information, it is concluded that food from glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77 is not different to food from other commercial varieties in terms of its safety and nutritional adequacy |
| 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: |
Application A378 - Glyphosate tolerant sugarbeet Line77
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Ministry for Primary Industries
Contact person name: john vandenbeuken
Website:
Physical full address: Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace, Wellington, 6012
Phone number: 0298942581
Fax number:
Country introduction: New Zealand and Australia share a joint food regulation system for the composition of labelling of most foods. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is the regulatory agency responsible for the development of the joint food standards in Australia and New Zealand. The main office (approximately 120 staff) is located in Canberra (in the Australian Capital Territory) and the smaller New Zealand office (approximately 15 staff) is located in Wellington on the North Island. Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: FSANZ does not: Separately assess food from stacked event lines where food from the GM parents has already been approved; Mandate notification of stacked events by developers; Notify the public of stacked event ‘approvals’; List food derived from stacked event lines in the Code, unless the stacked event line has been separately assessed as a single line e.g. Application A518: MXB-13 cotton (DAS-21023-5 x DAS-24236-5) Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
| Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto Company and Novartis Seeds, Inc. |
| Summary of application: |
Sugar beet
Trait 1 Added Protein: 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS)
Source: Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4
Intended Effect: Tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
03/11/1998 |
| 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 consult the FDA website 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: |
|
| Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
FDA's webpage regarding this variety
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Food and Drug Administration
Contact person name: Jason Dietz
Website:
Physical full address: 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park MD 20740
Phone number: 240-402-2282
Fax number:
Country introduction: The United States is currently in the process of populating this database. The Food and Drug Administration regulates food and feed (food for humans and animals) from genetically engineered crops in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA regulates pesticides, including those that are plant incorporated protectants genetically engineered into food crops, to make sure that pesticide residues are safe for human and animal consumption and do not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health or the environment. FDA In the Federal Register of May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984), FDA published its "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (the 1992 policy). The 1992 policy clarified the agency's interpretation of the application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to human and animal foods derived from new plant varieties and provided guidance to industry on scientific and regulatory issues related to these foods. The 1992 policy applied to all foods derived from all new plant varieties, including varieties that are developed using genetic engineering (also known as recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology). In the 1992 policy, FDA recommended that developers consult with FDA about foods from genetically engineered plants under development and developers have routinely done so. In June 1996, FDA provided additional guidance to industry on procedures for these consultations (the consultation procedures). These procedures describe a process in which a developer who intends to commercialize food from a genetically engineered plant meets with the agency to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or other regulatory issues regarding the genetically engineered food and then submits to FDA a summary of its scientific and regulatory assessment of the food. FDA evaluates the submission and if FDA has questions about the summary provided, it requests clarification from the developer. At the conclusion of the consultation FDA responds to the developer by letter. The approach to the safety assessment of genetically engineered food recommended by FDA during consultations, including data and information evaluated, is consistent with that described in the Codex Alimentarius Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants. EPA The safe use of pesticidal substances is regulated by EPA. Food from a genetically engineered plant that is the subject of a consultation with FDA may contain an introduced pesticidal substance, also known as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), that is subject to food (food for humans and animals) safety and environmental review by EPA. PIPs are pesticidal substances produced by plants and the genetic material necessary for the plant to produce the substance. Both the PIP protein and its genetic material are regulated by EPA. When assessing the potential risks of PIPs, EPA requires studies examining numerous factors, such as risks to human health, non-target organisms and the environment, potential for gene flow, and insect resistance management plans, if needed. In regulating PIPs, decisions are based on scientific standards and input from academia, industry, other Federal agencies, and the public. Before the first PIP product was registered in 1995, EPA required that PIP products be thoroughly tested against human safety standards before they were used on human food and livestock feed crops. EPA scientists assessed a wide variety of potential effects associated with the use of PIPs, including toxicity, and allergenicity. These potential effects were evaluated in light of the public's potential exposures to these pesticides, taking into account all potential combined sources of the exposure (food, drinking water, etc.) to determine the likelihood that a person exposed at these levels would be predisposed to a health risk. Based on its reviews of the scientific studies and often peer reviews by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Scientific Advisory Panel, EPA determined that these genetically engineered PIP products, when used in accordance with approved label directions and use restrictions, would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment during their time-limited registration. Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: Stacked events that are each plant incorporated protectants, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, must be registered by the Envriornmental Protection Agency before they can be commercialized. Food/feed safety asssessment of single events are generally sufficient to ensure the safety of food/feed from stacked events. Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
|
|
