Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

MON-877Ø8-9
Commodity: Soyabean / Soybeans
Traits: Dicamba tolerance
Australia
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Australia Ltd
Summary of application:
A genetically modified (GM) soybean line, MON87708 has been developed that provides tolerance to the herbicide dicamba. This modification will provide soybean growers with a broader weed management strategy.
Tolerance to dicamba is achieved through expression of the enzyme dicamba monooxygenase (DMO) encoded by the dmo gene derived from the common soil bacterium Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. The DMO protein has not previously been assessed by FSANZ.
It is anticipated that soybean plants containing event MON87708 may be grown in the United States of America and Canada subject to approval. There is no plan to grow the line in Australia or New Zealand.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 24/05/2012
Scope of authorization: Food
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): OECD BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment:
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 A1063 - Food derived from Herbicide-tolerant Soybean MON87708
Upload:
Authorization 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. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 establishes the mechanisms for the development and variation of joint food regulatory measures and creates FSANZ as the agency responsible for the development and maintenance of a joint Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code). The Code is read in conjunction with corresponding NZ and State & Territory food legislation as well as other appropriate legislative requirements (e.g. Trade Practices; Fair Trading). Within the Code, Standard 1.5.2 deals with Foods produced using Gene Technology. Applicants seeking to have a GM food approved, request a variation to Std 1.5.2 to have the GM food (from a particular line) included in the Schedule to Std 1.5.2. Only those GM foods listed in the Schedule can legally enter the food supply. An Application Handbook provides information that is required to make an application to vary the Code. This Handbook is a legal document and therefore the specified mandatory information must be supplied. For GM foods, there is also a Guidance Document that, as the name suggests, provides applicants with further details and background information on the data needed for the safety assessment of GM foods. The assessment process must be completed within a statutory timeframe (9 - 12 months depending on the complexity of the application) and involves at least one public consultation period. All GM applications involve an Exclusive Capturable Commercial Benefit i.e. applicants are required to pay a fee (outlined in the Application Handbook). Following the last public consultation, an Approval Report is prepared and is considered by the FSANZ Board who make a decision about whether the requested variation to the Code should be approved or not. The Board's decision is then passed on to the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation (the Forum), a committee comprising senior goevernment Ministers from Australia and NZ. This Committee has approximately 2 months to review the Board's decision. If the Board's approval is accepted by the Forum, the approval is then gazetted and becomes law.
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)
Canada
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Canada Inc.
Summary of application:

Monsanto Canada developed Dicamba Tolerant Soybean MON 87708 by modifying a proprietary, commercial soybean variety (A3525) using recombinant DNA techniques to introduce the dicamba mono-oxygenase (dmo) coding sequence derived from the bacterium Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. The sequence codes for the DMO protein which catalyzes the demethylation of the herbicide Dicamba to the non-herbicidal compounds 3,6-dicholorosalicylic acid (DCSA) and formaldehyde.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 12/10/2012
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment:
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:
E-mail:
luc.bourbonniere@hc-sc.gc.ca
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Health Canada
Contact person name:
Luc Bourbonniere
Website:
Physical full address:
251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Tunney's Pasture, PL 2204A1
Phone number:
613-957-1405
Fax number:
613-952-6400
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 (see Figure 1). 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 document 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:
Luc Bourbonniere, Section Head Novel Foods
Japan
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Japan Ltd.
Summary of application:

Soybean line MON87708 has been genetially modified to be tolerant to dicamba herbicide (modified dmo, Glycine max (L.) Merr.).

Upload:
Date of authorization: 03/10/2013
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.): OECD BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment:
Please see the links below (in Japanese).
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Food safety assessment performed by Food Safety Commission of Japan (in Japanese), Food
Food safety assessment performed by Food Safety Commission of Japan (in Japanese), Feed
Upload:
Authorization expiration date:
E-mail:
fscj-secretariat@cao.go.jp
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food Safety Commission Secretariat,Cabinet Office,GOJ
Contact person name:
Hirotoshi Maehara
Website:
Physical full address:
Akasaka 5-2-20 Minato Ward,Tokyo,Japan
Phone number:
81 3 6234 1074
Fax number:
81 3 3584 7392
Country introduction:
The safety assessment of foods and food additives produced by recombinant DNA techniques (hereafter GM foods) is mandatory under the Food Sanitation Law. The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) receives application from Applicant and requests the Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) to evaluate the safety of GM foods, and the FSCJ evaluates the safety in terms of human health. Within the FSCJ, the Expert Committee of Genetically Modified Foods conducts safety assessments based on following standards and policies (1) Standards for the Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Foods (2) Policies Regarding the Safety Assessment of Stacked Varieties of Genetically Modified Plants (3) Standards for the Safety Assessment of Food Additives Produced Using Genetically Modified Microorganisms (4) Policies Regarding the Safety Assessment of Highly Purified Non-Protein Food Additives including Amino Acids Produced Using Genetically Modified Microorganisms It is forbidden to import or sell genetically modified foods or food products made from such foods that have not undergone safety assessment. After FSCJ submits a notification to MHLW, MHLW gives notice on the Official Gazette.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
With regard to stacked events, FSC conducts the Safety Assessment of GM Foods based on the “Policies Regarding the Safety Assessment of Stacked Varieties of Genetically Modified Plants”
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: Monsanto Comercial, S.A. de C.V.
Summary of application:

Soya (Glycine max)  tolerante al herbicida DICAMBA (Ácido 3,6- Dicloro-2-metoxibenzoico)


OECD: MON-877Ø8-9


Información presentada (la documentación deberá presentarse en español y podrá estar contenida en archivo electrónico):






































1) Descripción de aplicaciones o usos propuestos del   alimento modificado



ü



2) Información concerniente a fuente, identidad y   función del material genético introducido, incluyendo pruebas de estabilidad



ü



3) Información sobre la descripción de la   modificación genética y su caracterización (descripción del método de   transformación genética, caracterización y descripción de los materiales   genéticos insertados)



ü



4) Información concerniente a la identidad y función   de la expresión de los productos modificados, incluyendo un estimado de la   concentración de la modificación en el cultivo modificado o su alimento   derivado



ü



5) Información concerniente a cualquier   alergenicidad esperada o conocida de la expresión del producto y el   fundamento para concluir que el alimento que la contiene pueda ser consumido   con seguridad



ü



6) Información comparando la composición o   características de los alimentos modificados con los alimentos derivados de   la variedad original u otras variedades comúnmente consumidas, con particular   énfasis sobre los nutrientes importantes y tóxicos que de manera natural   puedan presentarse en el alimento



ü



7) Información adicional (relevante para la   seguridad y evaluación nutricional del alimento modificado)



ü



8) Autorizaciones emitidas por otros países del   producto para consumo humano (copia)



ü



 


Usos propuestos:









Para ser procesado y usado en los alimentos de   consumo humano y animal, forraje y productos industriales en la misma forma   como los productos obtenidos con la soya convencional.



 


Descripción del producto de transformación:









La soya MON 87708   contiene un gen de Stenotrophomonas   maltophilia que expresa una mono-oxigenasa que demetila Dicamba   rápidamente y lo convierte en un metabolito inactivo, el ácido   3,6-diclorosalicílico (DCSA), un metabolito bien conocido de Dicamba. MON   87708 fue desarrollado a través de la transformación mediada por Agrobacterium tumefaciens de tejido   del meristemo de la soya convencional A3525. El vector contiene dos T-DNA   separados cada uno delineado por las regiones de los Bordes Izquierdo y   Derecho. El primer T-DNA, designado como T-DNA I, contiene el cassette de   expresión dmo. El segundo T-DNA,   designado como T-DNA II, contiene el cassette de expresión de cp4 epsps.


Upload:
Date of authorization: 06/07/2012
Scope of authorization: Food
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment:
Evaluación de la inocuidad: Alergenicidad: Los ensayos de digestión simulada y de estabilidad al calor, así como la comparación informática con alérgenos conocidos, demostraron que la probabilidad de alergenicidad de las proteínas insertadas es baja. Toxicidad: Los estudios de toxicidad aguda y subcrónica, así como la comparación informática con toxinas conocidas, demostraron que la toxicidad de las proteínas insertadas es baja. Nutricional: Los resultados de composición para la soya MON-877Ø8-9 confirman la equivalencia sustancial entre la soya genéticamente modificada y la soya convencional utilizada como control. Autorizaciones del producto para consumo humano emitidas por otros países: El evento MON 87708 (OCDE: MON-877Ø8-9), presentó solicitud para su aprobación en Japón (Junio del 2010) y Canadá (Noviembre del 2010). Conclusión: No se observaron efectos tóxicos, alérgicos o cambios nutrimentales sustanciales en la soya genéticamente modificada evento MON-877Ø8-9. Por lo tanto puede asegurarse que el evento es, con base en los conocimientos existentes hasta la fecha, tan inocuo como su homólogo convencional.
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:
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:

La Comisión Intersecretarial de Bioseguridad de los Organismos Genéticamente Modificados está integrada por los titulares de las Secretarías de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales Renovables (SEMARNAT), Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA); Salud (SS); Hacienda y Crédito Público (SHCP); Economía (SE) y Educación Pública (SEP); así como por el Director General del Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT).

La presidencia de la Comisión es rotatoria por periodos de dos años, entre los Secretarios de Salud, SAGARPA y SEMARNAT ya que son las Secretarías con un mayor ámbito de competencia en relación con el uso seguro de los Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (OGMs).

Ley de Bioseguridad de Organismos Genéticamente Modificados, estipula que para su implementación la Comisión debe coordinar las acciones pertinentes con las instancias del Gobierno para cumplir su objetivo.

La CIBIOGEM, cuenta con grupos de apoyo que son sus órganos técnicos y consultivos: Comité Técnico, Consejo Consultivo Científico, Consejo Consultivo Mixto y la Secretaría Ejecutiva.

¿Cuál es el propósito de la CIBIOGEM?

Coordinar las políticas de la administración pública federal referentes a diferentes actividades relacionadas con OGMs como son: la producción, importación, exportación, movilización, transporte, siembra, consumo y, en general uso y aprovechamiento de OGMs.

 

-Courtesy Translation-

The Intersecretarial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms is made up of the heads of the Secreataries of Health (SSA); Agriculture, Livestock, Rural, Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA); Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT); Finance and Public Credit (SHCP); Economy (SE); Public Education, and the General Director of the National Council of Science and Technology.

The chair of the Commission rotates every two years among the Secretaries of Health, SEMARNAT and SAGARPA, the three entities most directly involved in policies concerning the use and biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

The Law on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms states that the Commission aims to promote and coordinate the actions of Government agencies. CIBIOGEM receives support from the Executive Secretariat of CIBIOGEM, the Technical Committee, the Scientific Advisory Board and the Joint Advisory Council.

What is the purpose of the CIBIOGEM?

To coordinate the policies and federal regulation of activities related to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) such as: production, import, export, mobilization, transportation, release into the environment, consumption, and general use of GMOs.

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: marriola@cofepris.gob.mx
Philippines
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Philippines
Summary of application:
Monsanto Philippines, Inc. has developed biotechnology-derived soybean MON87708 that is tolerant to dicamba herbicide. MON87708 was developed through Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of conventional conventional A3525 meristem tissue with the 2T-DNA plasmid vector PV-GMHT4355. PV-GMHT4355 contains two separate T –DNAs: first T-DNA contains the dmo expression cassette regulated by the peanut chlorotic streak caulimovirus promoter and the pea E9 3’ non translated region. The dmo gene, which was derived from Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (S. maltophilia); the second T-DNA (T-DNA II) contains the cp4 epsps expression cassette, functioned as a marker gene, under the regulation of the figwort mosaic virus (FMV) promoter and the pea E9 3’non-translated region. MON87708 contains a dmo expression cassette that produces a single MON87708 DMO precursor protein that is post- translationally processed into two forms of the dicamba mono-oxygenase (DMO) protein; referred to a MON87708 DMO protein and MON87708 DMO+27 protein. The active form of these proteins confer dicamba tolerance.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 05/05/2014
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:
Monsanto 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 Soybean MON87708 which has been genetically modified for herbicide tolerance. Monsanto Philippines has provided data on the identity of the soybean MON87708, 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. Soybean MON87708 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 soybean. 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 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:
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. The joint committee formed the biosafety protocols and guidelines for genetic engineering and related research activities for UPLB and IRRI researchers. This proposal was eventually adapted into a Philippine Biosafety policy by virtue of Executive Order No 430, Series of 1990, issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino on October 15, 1990, which created the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP). The NCBP formulates, reviews and amends national policy on biosafety and formulates guidelines on the conduct of activities on genetic engineering. The NCBP comprised of representative from the Department of Agriculture (DA); Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); Health (DOH); and Department of Science and Technology (DOST), 4 scientists in biology, environmental science, social science and physical science and 2 respected members of the community. The Philippines’ Law, Executive Order No.514 (EO514), Series of 2006 entitled “Establishing the National Biosafety Framework (NBF), Prescribing Guidelines for its Implementation, Strengthening the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, and for Other Purposes was also issued. This order sets the establishment of the departmental biosafety committees in the DA, DENR, DOH and DOST. The mandates jurisdiction and other powers of all departments and agencies in relation to biosafety and biotechnology is guided by the NBF in coordination with the NCBP and each other in exercising its power. The Department of Agriculture (DA) issued Administrative Order No 8, Series of 2002, (DA AO8, 2002), which is part of EO 514, for the implementation of guidelines for the importation and release into the environment of plants and plant products derived from the use of modern biotechnology. The DA authorizes the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) as the lead agency responsible for the regulation of agricultural crops developed through modern biotechnology. The BPI has adopted a protocol for risk assessment of GM crops for food and feed or for processing based on the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA plants and a protocol for environmental risk assessment in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and with the recommendation of the Panel of Experts of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). DA AO8, 2002 ensures that only genetically food crops that have been well studied and found safe by parallel independent assessments by a team of Filipino scientists and technical personnel from the concerned regulatory agencies of the Department are allowed into our food supply and into our environment. The DA AO 8, 2002 has a step by step introduction of GM plant into the environment. The research and development phase would require testing the genetically modified (GM) crop under controlled conditions subject to regulation by the government agencies. The first stage of evaluation for GM crops is testing under contained facilities such as laboratories, greenhouses and screenhouses. After satisfactory completion of testing under contained facilities, confined environmental release or field trial is done. Confined field trial (CFT) is the first controlled introduction of the GM crop into the environment. The approval for field trial shall be based on the satisfactory completion of safety testing under contained conditions. Unconfined environmental release or commercialization of the product would follow after the safe conduct of the CFT. Approval for propagation shall only be allowed after field trials and risk assessment show no significant risk to human and animal health and the environment.
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.
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
Philippines
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Philippines
Summary of application:

Monsanto Philippines has developed biotechnology-derived soybean MON 87708 that is tolerant to dicamba herbicide by producing MON 87708 DMO (active form of DMO in MON 87708, a trimer comprised of three monomers). The DMO trimer can be comprised of MON 87708 DMO protein, MON 87708 DMO+27 protein, or a combination of both proteins.


MON 87708 was developed through Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of conventional soybean A3525 meristem tissue with 2T-DNA plasmid vector PV-GMHT4355, which contains two separate T-DNAs (T-DNA I and T-DNA II) that are each delineated by Left and Right Border regions. Transfer DNA (T--DNA refers to DNA that is transferred to the plant during transformation.


The first T-DNA, designated as T-DNA I, contains the dmo coding sequence for the DMO from the bacterium Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain DI-6 isolated from soil.  The presence of MON87708 DMO confers tolerance to dicamba. The second T-DNA, designated as T-DNA II, contains the cp4 epsps coding sequence from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 encoding CP4 EPSPS conferring tolerance to glyphosate and was used as a selectable marker during the transformation selection process. Subsequently, due to self-pollination and segregation, cp4 epsps coding sequence was eliminated.  


 


 

Upload:
Date of authorization: 05/05/2014
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:
On 18 May 2011, Monsanto submitted an application to the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) requesting for biosafety permit under Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 8, series of 2002 for Dicamba Tolerant Soybean MON 87708. Monsanto has provided data or information on a detailed description of the transformation method, the source of the done gene, molecular characterization of MON 87708 soybean and levels of expression in the plant. The novel protein. MON 87708 DMO was identified, characterized and compared to the original bacterial proteins, including an evaluation of their potential toxicity to livestock and non-target organisms. Relevant scientific publications were supplied. Soybean MON 87708 has been evaluated according to BPI‘s safety assessment by concerned agencies: Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), BPI, Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Standards (BAFS) and a Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) members. The process involved an intensive analysis of the nature of the genetic modification with a consideration of general safety issues, toxicological and nutritional issues associated with the modified soybeans.
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:
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. The joint committee formed the biosafety protocols and guidelines for genetic engineering and related research activities for UPLB and IRRI researchers. This proposal was eventually adapted into a Philippine Biosafety policy by virtue of Executive Order No 430, Series of 1990, issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino on October 15, 1990, which created the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP). The NCBP formulates, reviews and amends national policy on biosafety and formulates guidelines on the conduct of activities on genetic engineering. The NCBP comprised of representative from the Department of Agriculture (DA); Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); Health (DOH); and Department of Science and Technology (DOST), 4 scientists in biology, environmental science, social science and physical science and 2 respected members of the community. The Philippines’ Law, Executive Order No.514 (EO514), Series of 2006 entitled “Establishing the National Biosafety Framework (NBF), Prescribing Guidelines for its Implementation, Strengthening the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, and for Other Purposes was also issued. This order sets the establishment of the departmental biosafety committees in the DA, DENR, DOH and DOST. The mandates jurisdiction and other powers of all departments and agencies in relation to biosafety and biotechnology is guided by the NBF in coordination with the NCBP and each other in exercising its power. The Department of Agriculture (DA) issued Administrative Order No 8, Series of 2002, (DA AO8, 2002), which is part of EO 514, for the implementation of guidelines for the importation and release into the environment of plants and plant products derived from the use of modern biotechnology. The DA authorizes the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) as the lead agency responsible for the regulation of agricultural crops developed through modern biotechnology. The BPI has adopted a protocol for risk assessment of GM crops for food and feed or for processing based on the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA plants and a protocol for environmental risk assessment in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and with the recommendation of the Panel of Experts of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). DA AO8, 2002 ensures that only genetically food crops that have been well studied and found safe by parallel independent assessments by a team of Filipino scientists and technical personnel from the concerned regulatory agencies of the Department are allowed into our food supply and into our environment. The DA AO 8, 2002 has a step by step introduction of GM plant into the environment. The research and development phase would require testing the genetically modified (GM) crop under controlled conditions subject to regulation by the government agencies. The first stage of evaluation for GM crops is testing under contained facilities such as laboratories, greenhouses and screenhouses. After satisfactory completion of testing under contained facilities, confined environmental release or field trial is done. Confined field trial (CFT) is the first controlled introduction of the GM crop into the environment. The approval for field trial shall be based on the satisfactory completion of safety testing under contained conditions. Unconfined environmental release or commercialization of the product would follow after the safe conduct of the CFT. Approval for propagation shall only be allowed after field trials and risk assessment show no significant risk to human and animal health and the environment.
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.
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: Monsanto Korea Ltd.
Summary of application:

Dicamba herbicide tolerance

Upload:
Date of authorization: 02/10/2013
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:
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:
E-mail:
mytrue85@korea.kr
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: Monsanto Company
Summary of application:
Soybean
Trait 1 Added Protein: dmo gene expressing a dicamba mono-oxygenase (DMO) precursor protein that is post-translationally processed into two isoforms
Source: Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain DI-6
Intended Effect: Tolerance to the herbicide dicamba
Upload:
Date of authorization: 11/10/2011
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:
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:
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:
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