Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

DAS-59122-7
Commodity: Corn / Maize
Traits: Coleoptera resistance,Glufosinate tolerance
European Union
Name of product applicant: Pioneer and Dow AgroSciences
Summary of application:

The genetically modified maize DAS-59122-7, as described in the application, expresses Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins which confer protection against certain coleopteran pests such as corn rootworm larvae (Diabrotica spp.) and the PAT protein, used as a selectable marker, which confers tolerance to the glufosinate-ammonium herbicide.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 24/10/2007
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)
OECD BioTrack Product Database
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 maize DAS-59122-7. - Validated by the Community reference laboratory established under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, published at
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) 23/10/2017
E-mail:
pablo.pindado-carrion@ec.europa.eu
Organization/agency name (Full name):
European Union
Contact person name:
Pablo PINDADO
Website:
Physical full address:
European Commission B232 04/106 1047 Brussels
Phone number:
00 32 2 298 67 06
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:
Australia
Name of product applicant: Dow AgroSciences Pty Ltd
Summary of application:
Corn line DAS-59122-7 has been genetically modified for protection against the Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica vigifera), Northern corn rootworm (Diabrotica berberi), and Mexican corn rootworm (Diabrotica vigifera zeae). These species are serious insect pests of dent corn in the major corn-producing states of the north-central United States and Canada.

Protection is conferred by the expression in the plant of bacterially derived protein toxins (Bt-δ-endotoxins) that are specific for these insects. Corn line DAS-59122-7 also contains a gene encoding resistance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium.
Corn line DAS-59122-7 contains three novel genes, cry34Ab1, cry35Ab1, and pat. The two cry genes express insecticidal crystal proteins and the pat gene expresses the enzyme phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) which confers tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium.

Commercial corn lines containing the cry genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) will provide growers with effective methods for controlling corn rootworm. Bt formulations are widely used as biopesticides on a variety of cereal and vegetable crops grown organically or underconventional agricultural conditions.

Corn, together with rice and wheat, is one of the most important cereal crops in the world with total production of 591 million tonnes in 2000 (FAO, 2001). The majority of grain and forage derived from maize is used in animal feed. Maize grain is also used in industrial products, such as ethyl alcohol by fermentation and highly refined starch by wet-milling.

Domestic production of corn in Australia and New Zealand is supplemented by the import of a small amount of corn-based products, largely as high-fructose corn syrup, which is not currently manufactured in either Australia or New Zealand. Such products are processed into breakfast cereals, baking products, extruded confectionery and corn chips. Other corn products such as cornstarch are also imported and used by the food industry for the manufacture of dessert mixes and canned foods.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 24/11/2005
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 A543 - Food from insect-protected glufosinate ammonium-tolerate corn line 59122
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
janet.gorst@foodstandards.gov.au
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Contact person name:
Janet Gorst
Website:
Physical full address:
Boeing Building, 55 Blackall Street, Barton ACT 2600, Australia
Phone number:
+61 2 6271 2266
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 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)

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: Dow AgroSciences Canada Inc. and Pioneer Hi-Bred Production Ltd.
Summary of application:
Dow AgroSciences has developed corn (Zea mays L.) lines based upon transformation event DAS-59122-7. Corn varieties containing this event express three novel proteins from three distinct genes. These genes are the cry34Ab1 and cry35Ab1 genes, which confer resistance to rootworm pests of corn and the phosphinotricin acetyltransferase (pat) gene, which confers tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbicides. Health Canada has previously indicated no objection to the sale of glufosinate tolerant Corn (line 1507, event T14 and event T25), Canola (Event T45 and Event HCN92), Soybean (Line A5547-127 and line A2704-12) and Sugarbeet (Event T120-7), for human food applications in Canada. Like corn event DAS-59122-7 , these lines express the pat gene which confers tolerance to glufosinate ammonium. Cry proteins have an almost sixty years history of use as a pesticide for agricultural purposes and have been widely used as a biocontrol agent in genetically modified crops.

Health Canada has previously issued letters of no objection to Cotton ( Event 281-24-236, Event 3006-210-23, Event 15985, Line 531 and line 757), Corn (line 1507, MON 863, MON 802, MON 810, MON 809, BT11, Line 176 and DBT 418), Tomato (Line 5345) and Potato (RBMT21-129, RBMT21-350, RBMT22-082, RBMT15-01, SEMT15-02, SEMT15-15, BT06, BT10, BT12, BT16, BT17, BT18, and BT23) all containing Cry proteins.

The safety assessment performed by Food Directorate evaluators was conducted according to Health Canada's Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods. The assessment considered: how corn event DAS-59122-7 was developed; how the composition and nutritional quality of corn varieties containing this event compared to non-modified and current commercial corn varieties; and what the potential is for corn lines containing this event to be toxic or cause allergic reactions.

The Food Directorate has a legislated responsibility for pre-market assessment of novel foods and novel food ingredients as detailed in Division 28 of Part B of the Food and Drug Regulations (Novel Foods). Foods derived from corn DAS-59122-7 are considered novel foods under the following part of the definition of novel foods: "c) a food that is derived from a plant, animal or microorganism that has been genetically modified such that

i.the plant, animal or microorganism exhibits characteristics that were not previously observed in that plant, animal or microorganism"
Upload:
Date of authorization: 18/11/2005
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:
Neil.Strand@hc-sc.gc.ca
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

Japan
Name of product applicant: DuPont K.K.
Summary of application:

Corn line DAS-59122-7 has been genetically modified for protection against the Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica vigifera), Northern corn rootworm (Diabrotica berberi), and Mexican corn rootworm (Diabrotica vigifera zeae).

Upload:
Date of authorization: 25/10/2005
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 find the link below to the safety assessment performed by Food Safety Commission of Japan (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 by Food Safety Commision of Japan (in Japanese)
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
fscj-secretariat@cao.go.jp
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food Safety Commission Secretariat,Cabinet Office,GOJ
Contact person name:
Emi Takagi
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:
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

With regard to stacked events, FSCJ conducts the safety assessment of GM food based on the “Policies Regarding the Safety Assessment of Stacked Varieties of Genetically Modified Plants”.

Even if single events that are stacked have already approved, some products will be considered as new products and some will not.

Please refer to Article 5 and 6 of the MHLW’s notice, which is available at the following URL, for the details.

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-11130500-Shokuhinanzenbu/0000053519.pdf

Article 6 was modified in 2014, and the modified version is available at the following URL.

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-11130500-Shokuhinanzenbu/0000049695.pdf

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

Food Safety Commission of Japan (http://www.fsc.go.jp/english/index.html), Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/policy/health-medical/food/index.html)

Mexico
Name of product applicant: Híbridos Pionner de México, S.A. de C.V. - Dow AgroSciences, S.A. de C. V.
Summary of application:

Authorization by COFEPRIS: 27


The genetically modified maize DAS-59122-7, as described in the application, expresses Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins which confer protection against certain coleopteran pests such as corn rootworm larvae (Diabrotica spp.) and the PAT protein, used as a selectable marker, which confers tolerance to the glufosinate-ammonium herbicide.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 06/12/2004
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: DAS-59122-7 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:
sortiz@conacyt.mx
Organization/agency name (Full name):
CIBIOGEM
Contact person name:
Dra. Sol Ortiz García
Website:
Physical full address:
San Borja #938, Col. Del Valle • Del. Benito Juárez C.P. 03100, México, D.F.
Phone number:
+52 (55) 5575-6878
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:

Secretaría de Salud / Phone: +52 55 5080 5200 /Email: ralatorre@cofepris.gob.mx%20

Philippines
Name of product applicant: Pioneer Hi_Bred and Dow AgroSciences
Summary of application:
Pioneer Hi-Bred and Dow AgroSciences have developed maize plants that contain a plant-incorporated-protectant that effectively controls certain corn rootworm (CRW) pests. The tissues of these maize plants have been genetically modified, via recombinant DNA techniques, to express insecticidal crystal proteins (ICP) from Bacillus thuringiensis strain PS149B1 which are selectively toxic to CRW.

In addition to the B.t. genes, the pat gene, which encodes the enzyme phosphinothricin acetyltransferase, is also present in event DAS-59122-7. The pat gene is a synthetic version based on the native pat gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes, a non-pathogenetic microorganism. The inclusion of the pat gene enables plant selection of the B.t. lines and provides tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium herbicides.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 09/08/2011
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):
Pioneer Hi-Bred (PHI) and Dow AgroSciences (DAS) of the Philippines submitted an application to the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) requesting for Biosafety Permit under Administrative Order Number 8 (AO#8) Part 5 for Corn 59122 which has been genetically modified for herbicide resistance. PHI and DAS has provided data on the identity of the corn 59122, a detailed description of the modification method, data and information on the gene insertion sites, copy numbers and levels of expression in the plant, the role of the inserted genes and regulatory sequences in donor organisms, and full nucleotide sequences. The novel proteins were identified, characterized, and compared to the original bacterial proteins, including an evaluation of their potential toxicity to livestock. Relevant scientific publications were also supplied. Corn 59122 has been evaluated according to BPI’s safety assessment by concerned agencies of the Department of Agriculture (DA) such as :{(Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), 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 Public Information Sheet (PIS) of the said application in two widely circulated newspapers for public comment/review. BPI received no comments on the petition during the 30-day comment period. Review of results of evaluation by the 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:
bpibiotechsecretariat@yahoo.com
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Bureau of Plant Industry
Contact person name:
Merle B. Palacpac
Website:
Physical full address:
San Andres St., Malate, Manila
Phone number:
632 521 1080
Fax number:
632 521 1080
Country introduction:

The Philippines is the first ASEAN country to establish a modern regulatory system for modern biotechnology. The country's biosafety regulatory system follows strict scientific standards and has become a model for member-countries of the ASEAN seeking to become producers of agricultural biotechnology crops. Concerns on biosafety in the Philippines started as early as 1987 when scientists from the University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB) and 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) recognized the potential for harm of the introduction of exotic species and genetic engineering.

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

Turkey
Name of product applicant: Special case: please show below
Summary of application:

 


Application for direct use as feed


 


Turkish Biosafety Law, entered in force in 2010, diverges from EU legislations in some points
 such as food and feed use require different separate applications, risk assessments and approvals.
  Addition, our Law forsees prision sentences in some circumtances of Law violation and joint
 reponsibilities for the violation. Therefore, GM product owners avoid to make application for approval
and non product developer have made application till now. Instead, some Turkish assosiations
 such as poultry producers assosiations, animal feed assosiations have applied to get approval
for import of GM products for their members. Thus, name of product applicants are not product
developers for our country.


 


Turkish Feed Manufacturer's Association
Turkish Poultry Meat Producers and Breeders Association
Turkish Egg Producers Association


 

Upload:
Date of authorization: 24/12/2011
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 and also by considering public opinion, Biosafety Board has approved the use of genetically modified maize DAS59122 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:
iozkan@tagem.gov.tr
Organization/agency name (Full name):
General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policy
Contact person name:
İsa Özkan
Website:
Physical full address:
İstanbul Yolu üzeri, Tarım Kampüsü No:38 06171 Yenimahalle/Ankara/Turkey
Phone number:
+90 312 315 52 86
Fax number:
+90 312 315 26 98
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. According to Biosafety Law it is forbidden to cultivate GM crops and animals, in Turkey. Biosafety Board founded in 22nd September 2010 to evaluate applications about GMO and products and perform tasks that are written in Biosafety Law and related regulations. Biosafety Board makes a “Decision” about applications on GMO and products via taking Scientific Committees’ risk assessment and socio-economic assessment into account. To date, 7 types of GM soybean and 25 types of GM maize were approved as feed for import.

 

For food, 29 different varieties (3 soybean, 21 maize, 3 oilseed rape, 1 sugar beet, 1 potato) has been applied and risk assessment for soybean and maize has been opened to public opinion. However, applicants withdrew due to the public pressure so Biosafety Board has not made any decision.

 

Biosafety Board makes a “Decision” about applications on GMO and products via taking Scientific Committees’ risk assessment and socio-economic assessment into account. Application evaluation process is like below:

  • Evaluation of application by Biosafety Board                              90 days
  • Feedback to the applicant                                                         15 days
  • Biosafety Board’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
  • Board’s final decision after taking reports and public opinions into account
  • Report’s presentation to Ministry by Board
  • Publishing the Positive Decision                                                30 days
  • Reclamation period to Negative Decision                                   60 days
  • Evaluation of reclamation by Board                                          60 days

 

Table 1: Decisions for GMO’s Depending on Usage

 

Usage

Positive

Negative

Date of desicion

Feed

3 GM soybean

-

Official   Gazette  no 27827 in  26 January    2011

Feed

16 GM maize

-

Official Gazette    no 28152 in  24 December 2011   (13 GM maize)

Official Gazette    no 28271 in  21 April 2012 (3 GM   maize)

Feed

-

6 GM  maize

13. Biosafety   Board Meeting decision

(26 March 2012)

Feed

-

3 GM oilseed rape

16. Biosafety   Board Meeting decision

(19 November 2012)

Feed

-

1 GM sugar beet

16. Biosafety   Board Meeting decision

(19 November 2012)

Bioetanol

-

22 GM maize

16. Biosafety   Board Meeting decision

(19 November 2012)

Feed

3 GM maize

-

Official   Gazette  no 29418 in  16 July 2015

Feed

2 GM soybean

-

Official   Gazette  no 29418 in  16 July 2015

Feed

2 GM soybean

-

Official   Gazette  no 29523 in  5 November 2015

Feed

6 GM maize

-

Official Gazette    no 29523 in  5 November 2015

 

 

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: Mycogen Seeds c/o Dow AgroSciences LLC
Summary of application:

Corn
Trait 1 Added Protein or DNA: Cry34Ab1
Source: Bacillus thuringiensis strain PS149B1
Intended Effect: Resistance to Coleopteran insects
Trait 2 Added Protein or DNA: Cry35Ab1
Source: Bacillus thuringiensis strain PS149B1
Intended Effect: Resistance to coleopteran insects
Trait 3 Added Protein or DNA: Phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT)
Source: Streptomyces viridochromogenes
Intended Effect: Tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium
Event Designation: DAS-59122-7

Upload:
Date of authorization: 31/08/2005
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 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
EPA BRAD
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
jason.dietz@fda.hhs.gov
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 (premarkt@fda.hhs.gov); Environmental Protection Agency