Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

SYN-EV176-9
Commodity: Corn / Maize
Traits: Glufosinate tolerance,Lepidoptera resistance
Australia
Name of product applicant: Novartis Seeds Pty Ltd
Summary of application:
The corn referred to as ‘Bt-176 corn’ has been modified to confer protection against insect attack by the production of an insecticidal protein representing the active portion of the Cry1A(b) protein that occurs naturally in Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain HD1.

The insect-protected corn plants are protected against attack from Lepidopteran insects, particularly by the European Corn Borer (ECB). The bar gene, which confers increased tolerance to the herbicide phosphinothricin, has also been introduced to Bt-176 corn, but it does not confer protection to commercial applications of the herbicide.

The corn lines containing the Bt-176 transformation event were developed by Novartis Pty Ltd for cultivation in the United States. The Bt-176 corn described in this application includes insect-protected (dent) corn hybrids into which the Bt-176 transformation event has been introduced. According to the applicant,
grain harvested from Bt-176 corn will enter the food chain only after processing. It should be noted that two other varieties of corn are cultivated: sweet corn and popping corn. Sweet corn is the variety grown for use as a fresh vegetable or in canned form. Popping corn is grown for use in the production of popcorn. While the current application refers to the insect-protection trait in dent corn hybrids the germplasm from the Bt-176 event may subsequently be introduced into commercial sweet and popping corn varieties.

Following assessment by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1995
hybrids incorporating the Bt-176 event were commercialised in the USA. The
US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved the use of Bt-176 corn in human food in 1995. In 1997 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) exempted phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT, and the genetic material, ie the bar gene, necessary for its production in all plants) from “the requirement of a tolerance on all raw agricultural commodities” (US EPA 1997). Approvals for environmental release and use in human food and animal feed in Canada were given in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

Corn harvested from these plants or processed products containing Bt-176 corn components may have been imported into Australia and New Zealand since 1995. The Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) and Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) in New Zealand have not received an application from Novartis Seeds for commercial release of Bt-176 corn for cultivation in Australia and New Zealand. Domestic production of corn in both countries is supplemented by a small amount of imported corn-based products, largely as high-fructose corn syrup, which is not currently manufactured in either Australia or New Zealand. Other products include maize starch which is used by the food industry for the manufacture of dessert mixes and canned foods and corn-based ingredients processed into breakfast cereals, baking products, extruded confectionary and corn chips.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 30/08/2001
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 A385 - Insect protected BT-176 corn
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)

Canada
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Seeds Canada Inc.
Summary of application:
The 176 line of corn (Zea mays) was developed through a specific genetic modification to be ECB (Ostrinia nubilalis) resistant. The novel variety produces a truncated version of the insecticidal protein, CryIA(b) derived from Bacillus thuringiensis. Delta-endotoxins, such as the CryIA(b) protein expressed in 176 corn, act by selectively binding to specific sites localized on the brush border midgut epithelium of susceptible insect species. Following binding, cation-specific pores are formed that disrupt midgut ion flow and thereby cause paralysis and death. CryIA(b) and related endotoxins are insecticidal only to lepidopteran insects and their specificity of action is directly attributable to the presence of specific binding sites in the target insects. There are no binding sites for delta-endotoxins of B. thuringiensis on the surface of mammalian intestinal cells, therefore, livestock animals and humans are not susceptible to these proteins. The modified corn line is protected from ECB damage which is a major insect pest in corn agriculture.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 19/12/1995
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.): BioTrack Product Database
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: Novel Foods Decision
Novel Feeds Decision
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Health Canada
Contact person name:
Neil Strand
Website:
Physical full address:
251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Tunney's Pasture, PL 2204A1
Phone number:
613-946-1317
Fax number:
Country introduction:

Federal responsibility for the regulations dealing with foods sold in Canada, including novel foods, is shared by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Health Canada is responsible for establishing standards and policies governing the safety and nutritional quality of foods and developing labelling policies related to health and nutrition. The CFIA develops standards related to the packaging, labelling and advertising of foods, and handles all inspection and enforcement duties. The CFIA also has responsibility for the regulation of seeds, veterinary biologics, fertilizers and livestock feeds. More specifically, CFIA is responsible for the regulations and guidelines dealing with cultivating plants with novel traits and dealing with livestock feeds and for conducting the respective safety assessments, whereas Health Canada is responsible for the regulations and guidelines pertaining to novel foods and for conducting safety assessments of novel foods.

The mechanism by which Health Canada controls the sale of novel foods in Canada is the mandatory pre-market notification requirement as set out in Division 28 of Part B of the Food and Drug Regulations.

Manufacturers or importers are required under these regulations to submit information to Health Canada regarding the product in question so that a determination can be made with respect to the product's safety prior to sale. The safety criteria for the assessment of novel foods outlined in the current guidance document (i.e. Canadian Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods) were derived from internationally established scientific principles and guidelines developed through the work of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. These guidelines provide for both the rigour and the flexibility required to determine the need for notification and to conduct the safety assessment of the broad range of food products being developed. This flexibility is needed to allow novel foods and food products to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and to take into consideration future scientific advances.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

Food: Consistent with the definition of "novel food" in Division 28 of the Food and Drug Regulations, the progeny derived from the conventional breeding of approved genetically modified plants (one or both parents are genetically modified) would not be classified as a novel food unless some form of novelty was introduced into such progeny as a result of the cross, hence triggering the requirement for pre-market notification under Division 28. For example, notification may be required for modifications observed in the progeny that result in a change of existing characteristics of the plant that places those characteristics outside of the accepted range, or, that introduce new characteristics not previously observed in that plant (e.g. a major change has occurred in the expression levels of traits when stacked). In addition, the use of a wild species (interspecific cross) not having a history of safe use in the food supply in the development of a new plant line may also require notification to Health Canada. However, molecular stacks are considered new events and are considered to be notifiable as per Division 28.

Feed:

Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

Neil Strand, Section Head of Novel Foods

China
Name of product applicant: Syngenta seeds, Inc.
Summary of application:

Genetically modified organism: SYN-EV176-9 (BT176)  line of maize (Zea mays L.); Exogenous gene: Cry1Ab, derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase (bar) and beta-lactamase (bla);  Trait: Resistance to European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis); phosphinothricin (PPT) herbicide tolerance; Transformation methods: Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue; Safety level: Ⅰ

Upload:
Date of authorization: 06/04/2004
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):
Please see decision document uploaded
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Chinese Agriculture Department Announcement No. 2122-15-2014: Detection of genetically modified plants and derived products Qualitative PCR method for insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant maize BT176 and its derivates
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Authority concern of GMO
Ministry of Agriculture of China
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) 6/4/2007
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Development Center for Science and Technology, Min
Contact person name:
Fu Zhongwen
Website:
Physical full address:
Room 717, Nongfeng Building, No.96 Dong San Huan Nan Lu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100122, P. R. China
Phone number:
+86-10-59199389
Fax number:
+86-10-59199391
Country introduction:

Regulations on Safety of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms (hereafter referred to as the Regulations)was promulgated by Decree No. 304 of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China on May 23, 2001. Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms, Implementation Regulations on the Safety of Import of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms and Implementation Regulations on Labeling of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms are formulated by Ministry of Agriculture on January 5, 2002 in accordance with the Regulations. The State Council establishes a system of joint ministry conference for the safety administration of agricultural GMOs. The joint ministry conference for the safety administration of agricultural GMOs shall be composed of officials from relevant departments of agriculture, science and technology, environment protection, public health, foreign trade and economic cooperation, inspection and quarantine, and be responsible for the decision-making and coordination of major issues with respect to the safety administration of agricultural GMOs. According to Article 9 of the Regulations, a national biosafety committee (NBC) shall be established and in charge of safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The NBC shall be composed of experts who are engaged in biological research, production, processing, inspection and quarantine with respect to agricultural GMOs, as well as experts in the fields of public health and environmental protection. The office term of the NBC shall be three years. Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the nationwide supervision and administration of the safety of agricultural GMOs. The Ministry of Agriculture sets up an office for biosafety administration of agricultural GMOs(OBA), which will be in charge of the administration of the safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. OBA is Affiliated to the Department of Science, Technology and Education.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

office for biosafety administration of agricultural GMOs(OBA), the Department of Science, Technology and Education,MOA, P. R. China Tel:+86-10-59193059, Fax:+86-10-59193072, E-mail: [email protected]

New Zealand
Name of product applicant: Novartis Seeds Pty Ltd
Summary of application:

The corn referred to as ‘Bt-176 corn’ has been modified to confer protection against insect attack by the production of an insecticidal protein representing the active portion of the Cry1A(b) protein that occurs naturally in Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain HD1.

The insect-protected corn plants are protected against attack from Lepidopteran insects, particularly by the European Corn Borer (ECB). The bar gene, which confers increased tolerance to the herbicide phosphinothricin, has also been introduced to Bt-176 corn, but it does not confer protection to commercial applications of the herbicide.

The corn lines containing the Bt-176 transformation event were developed by Novartis Pty Ltd for cultivation in the United States. The Bt-176 corn described in this application includes insect-protected (dent) corn hybrids into which the Bt-176 transformation event has been introduced. According to the applicant, grain harvested from Bt-176 corn will enter the food chain only after processing. It should be noted that two other varieties of corn are cultivated: sweet corn and popping corn. Sweet corn is the variety grown for use as a fresh vegetable or in canned form. Popping corn is grown for use in the production of popcorn. While the current application refers to the insect-protection trait in dent corn hybrids the germplasm from the Bt-176 event may subsequently be introduced into commercial sweet and popping corn varieties.

Following assessment by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1995
hybrids incorporating the Bt-176 event were commercialised in the USA. The US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved the use of Bt-176 corn in human food in 1995. In 1997 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) exempted phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT, and the genetic material, ie the bar gene, necessary for its production in all plants) from “the requirement of a tolerance on all raw agricultural commodities” (US EPA 1997). Approvals for environmental release and use in human food and animal feed in Canada were given in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

Corn harvested from these plants or processed products containing Bt-176 corn components may have been imported into Australia and New Zealand since 1995. The Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) and Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) in New Zealand have not received an application from Novartis Seeds for commercial release of Bt-176 corn for cultivation in Australia and New Zealand. Domestic production of corn in both countries is supplemented by a small amount of imported corn-based products, largely as high-fructose corn syrup, which is not currently manufactured in either Australia or New Zealand. Other products include maize starch which is used by the food industry for the manufacture of dessert mixes and canned foods and corn-based ingredients processed into breakfast cereals, baking products, extruded confectionary and corn chips.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 25/10/2001
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):
Bt-176 corn has been evaluated according to ANZFA’s safety assessment guidelines. The process involves an extensive analysis of the nature of the genetic modification together with a consideration of general safety issues, toxicological issues and nutritional issues associated with the new GM food. This approach is used to establish whether or not foods produced from GM corn and its progeny are as safe and nutritious as their conventional non-GM equivalent. The detailed information available on the genetic modification used to produce Bt-176 corn indicates that no unintentional changes have taken place at the molecular level and that the novel genetic material (the cry1A(b), bar and bla genes) is stably inserted and maintained over several generations. Data on the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the proteins encoded by the transferred genes as well as potential changes to naturally occurring toxins or anti-nutrients have been reviewed. Corn has no endogenous toxins or anti-nutrients. The studies, including acute oral toxicity tests and model digestion system studies, indicate that the new proteins expressed in Bt-176 corn are non-toxic and unlikely to have allergenic effects. No protein product from the antibiotic resistance bla gene is expected in the genetically modified corn, as the gene has bacterial-specific regulatory elements. From these data, it can be concluded that the food products derived from insect-protected Bt-176 corn should pose no greater threat as a toxin or source of allergic reaction than food products from conventional corn. Compositional analyses demonstrate no significant differences between Bt-176 corn kernels and its conventional counterparts supporting that Bt-176 corn kernels are compositionally and nutritionally equivalent to conventionally produced corn. This constitutes further evidence that no unintentional effects have occurred as a result of the genetic modification. In assessing all of the above data, ANZFA has concluded that food derived from insect protected Bt-176 corn does not raise any public health and safety concerns.
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 A385 - Insect protected BT-176 corn
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:

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au)

Philippines
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Philippines
Summary of application:
SYNGENTA has developed a corn line resistant to the Asiatic Corn Borer (ACB) larva, a periodic pest of corn in the Philippines.. This corn line, designated Event 176 Bt corn has been transformed using microprojectile bombardment of embryos, to produce an insecticidal protein, from Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. kurstaki, active against certain species of Lepidoptera, an insect order to which butterflies and moths belong, including ACB. This corn line was developed to provide a method to control yield losses from insect feeding damage caused by the larval stages of ACB, without the use of conventional pesticides
Upload:
Date of authorization: 24/10/2013
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.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
SYNGENTA Phils. Inc. submitted an application to the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) requesting for biosafety permit under Administrative Order (AO) No. 8 Part 5 for Bt- 176 Corn which has been genetically modified for insect resistance (corn borer). Event 176 Corn has been evaluated according to BPI’s safety assessment by concerned agencies of the Department of Agriculture: [Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) and Bureau of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Product Standards (BAFPS)] and a Scientific Technical Review Panel (STRP). The process involves an intensive analysis of the nature of the genetic modification together with a consideration of general safety issues, toxicological issues and nutritional issues associated with the modified corn. The petitioner/applicant published the said application in two widely circulated newspapers for public comment/review. BPI received no comment on the petition during the 30-day comment period. Review of the results of evaluation by BPI Biotech Core Team, in consultation with DA-Biotechnology Advisory Team (DA-BAT), completed the approval process
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):
Bureau of Plant Industry
Contact person name:
Geronima P. Eusebio
Website:
Physical full address:
San Andres St., Malate, Manila
Phone number:
632 404 0409 loc 203
Fax number:
Country introduction:

In 1987, scientists from the University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the Quarantine Officer of the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), and the Director for Crops of the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD), recognizing the potential harm of the introduction of exotic species and genetic engineering, formed a committee and formulated the biosafety protocols and guidelines for genetic engineering and related research activities for UPLB and IRRI researchers. The committee went on to draft a Philippine biosafety policy, which was submitted to the Office of the President. On October 15, 1990, recognizing the potential for modern biotechnology both in improving the lives of the people and in creating hazards if not handled properly, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order 430 creating the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) that will formulate, review and amend national policy on biosafety and formulate guidelines on the conduct of activities on genetic engineering. The NCBP is comprised of representative of the Departments of Agriculture (DA); Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); Health (DOH); and Science and Technology (DOST), 4 scientists in biology, environmental science, social science and physical science; and 2 respected members of the community. On July 16, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued the Policy Statement on Modern Biotechnology, reiterating the government policy on promoting the safe and responsible use of modern biotechnology. On April 3, 2002, Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 2002 was issued implementing the guidelines for importation and release into the environment of Plants and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology. On March 17, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No.514 Establishing the National Biosafety Framework, prescribing guidelines for its implementation, reorganizing the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, and for other purposes. On December 8, 2015, the Philippine Supreme Court declared DA AO8 null and void and any application for contained use, field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation of GMOs was temporarily enjoined. In response to the nullification of DA AO8, the Technical Working Group composed of representatives from the Departments of Agriculture (DA), Science and Technology (DOST), Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Health (DOH), and Interior and Local Government (DILG) drafted the Joint Department Circular No. 1, Series of 2016 (JDC No.1, S2016) titled 'Rules and Regulations for the Research and Development, Handling and Use, Transboundary Movement, Release into the Environment, and Management of Genetically-Modified Plant and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology'. There were series of meeting and five public consultations conducted before the JDC No.1, S2016 was approved and signed by the Secretaries of the abovementioned agencies on March 7, 2016 and took effect on April 15, 2016. Under this Circular, more government agencies were involved such as the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) to regulate applications for contained use and confined test of regulated articles; Department of Agriculture (DA) to evaluate applications for field trial, commercial propagation and transboundary movement of regulated articles; Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to evaluate environmental risks and impacts of regulated articles; Department of Health (DOH) to evaluate of environmental health impacts of regulated articles; and Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to supervise public consultation during field trial.

 

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

Gene stacking in plants can be conferred either through genetic engineering or conventional breeding A full risk assessment as to food and feed or for processing shall be conducted to plant products carrying stacked genes conferred through genetic engineering or conventional breeding, where the individual traits have no prior approval for direct use as food and feed or processing from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) A desktop or documentary risk assessment on the possible or expected interactions between the genes shall be conducted for stacked gene products with multiple traits conferred through conventional breeding and individual events granted prior approval by the Bureau of Plant Industry.

 

Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes Conferred Through (a) Genetic Engineering or b) Conventional Breeding, with Individual Traits That Have No Prior Approval:

A full risk assessnent as to  food and feed or processing shall be conducted,consistent with Part V of AO No. 8,"Approval Process For the Importation of Regulated Articles for Direct Use as Food and Feed or For Processing for plant products with multiple traits conferred through:

(a) genetic engineering, or

(b) conventional breeding, where the individual traits have no prior approval from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) for direct use as food and feed or processing.

Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes Conferred through Conventional Breeding:

For plant products with multiple traits conferred through conventional breeding,with all individual events granted prior approval and included in the Approval Registry, a notlfication shall be submitted by the technology developer to the BPI, which shall conduct an evaluation in accordance with the relevant criteria in Annex I of this Memorandum Circular. The list of data contained in Annex I will not preclude the inclusion of other issues and concerns that will be raised by the BPI and the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) during the course of the desktop review.

Notificatlon Requirement for Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes

All technology developers shall submit a notification to the Bureau of Plant Industry of their developed plant products carrying stacked genes and shall be required to comply with the relevant approval process listed above.

The Bureau of Plant Industry shall issue a certiflcate as to the approval of the stacked gene product and shall likewise include the transformation event in the official approval registry of plant products for food and feed or processing.

Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

Bureau of Plant Industry 692 San Andres St, Malate, Manila 1004

Republic of Korea
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Korea
Summary of application:

Glufosinate herbicide tolerance, Lepidopteran insect resistance

Upload:
Date of authorization: 30/12/2003
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 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:
United States of America
Name of product applicant: Syngenta
Summary of application:

Event 176 Maize

Upload:
Date of authorization: 01/08/1995
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.): EPA 2001 BRAD
EPA 2010 BRAD
FDA Consultation
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please see EPA BRADs and FDA consultation.
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):
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:

Food and Drug Administration ([email protected]); Environmental Protection Agency