Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

MON-88913-8
Commodity: Cotton
Traits: Glyphosate tolerance
Australia
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Australia Ltd
Summary of application:
Cotton line MON 88913 has been genetically modified to be tolerant to the herbicide
glyphosate. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, is a broadspectrum contact herbicide that provides effective post-emergence control of many broadleaf and grassy weeds. Glyphosate is a reversible competitive inhibitor of the enzyme 5- enolpyruvyl-3-phosphoshikimic acid synthase (EPSPS), however it does not inhibit any other phosphoenolpyruvic acid dependent enzymatic reactions (OECD, 1999).

Tolerance to glyphosate is conferred though the expression in the plant of the enzyme 5- enolpyruvyl-3-phosphoshikimic acid synthase (EPSPS) encoded by the epsps gene from the bacterium Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4. The production of EPSPS by cotton line MON 88913 enables the post emergence use of glyphosate herbicides without risk of damaging the crop. The applicant has stated that development of glyphosate tolerant cotton will provide increased tolerance to glyphosate and will enable the application of a Roundup herbicide over the top of the cotton crop at later stages of development than is currently possible with Roundup Ready®cotton.

In Australia, Roundup Ready Flex cotton has been planted in contained field trials under the OGTR (Office of the Gene Technology Regulator) licence DIR 035/2003 since October 2003, and recently, the OGTR completed a full risk assessment and risk management plan (DIR 055/2004) for a large scale field trial over two seasons on up to 91 sites (1811 ha.) from 2005-6. The applicant intends to release cotton line MON 88913 for commercial production in Australia in the future. Roundup Ready Flex cotton will not be grown in New Zealand.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 10/02/2006
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 A553 - Food derived from Glyphosate - Tolerant Cotton line MON88913
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)
Brazil
Name of product applicant: Monsanto do Brasil Ltda.
Summary of application:
Commercial release of genetically modified glyphosate tolerant MON 88913 cotton
Upload:
Date of authorization: 30/06/2011
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.): Center for Environmental Risk Assessment
Summary of the safety assessment:
MON 88913 cotton was developed based on the Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated genetic transformation of cotton hypocotyl. Pasmid binary PV-GHGT35, which contains two expression cassettes of the cp4 epsps gene linked in series, was employed. The molecular characterization showed that MON 88913 cotton contains a single DNA insert of intact and integrated PV-GHGT35 plasmid at a single locus in the cotton genome, with the two expression cassettes of the cp4 epsps gene intact and the genetic elements also intact. No additional element resulting from the transformation with the PV-GHGT35 plasmid, whether linked or not to the insert, was detected. The stability of the DNA in subsequent generations was demonstrated by Southern blot analysis. Phenotypic segregation data confirmed that the insertion is present at a single locus and that the glyphosate tolerance characteristic behaves as a single dominant locus, with a Mendelian segregation pattern. The product of the cp4 epsps gene expression in the cotton genome is the CP4 EPSPS protein. Detailed characterization of the CP4 EPSPS protein produced in MON 88913 cotton and E. coli included studies on identity and function, equivalence, and immunoreactivity, molecular weight, and purity. Expression levels of the CP4 EPSPS protein in various MON 88913 cotton tissues were evaluated by ELISA in plant tissue samples collected in the United States and Brazil. The values of the CP4 EPSPS levels found in Brazil were within the ranges identified in the same tissue samples analyzed in the United States. In Brazil, the agronomic evaluation of TST did not reveal any pleiotropic or epistatic effects. Based on the food security evaluation of MON 88913 cotton and the CP4 EPSPS protein expressed therein, data on were obtained the cp4 epsps gene donor organism, the similarity of the CP4 EPSPS protein, and the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the protein. The safety of the CP4 EPSPS enzyme was confirmed through the absence of any similarity with known toxins and allergens, the long history of safe consumption of the enzyme and of proteins similar to EPSPS derived from a wide variety of food sources, the rapid break-down in vitro of CP4 EPSPS, and the absence of acute oral toxicity in mice. Analysis of the chemical and nutritional composition of MON 88913 cotton was performed with seed samples collected in Brazil and the United States. From the data and information presented, the key nutrients and other components of MON 88913 cotton were found to be equivalent to the composition of conventional cotton and its commercial references. In regard to the environmental safety assessment of MON 88913 cotton, phenotypic, agronomic, and ecological interaction (plant-insect, plant-pathogen, and plant abiotic stress) characteristics were evaluated and compared to control cotton under field conditions and in laboratory tests performed in the United States and Brazil. The potential of gene flow in MON 88913 cotton pollen to other sexually compatible cotton species present in Brazil was evaluated. The phenotypic data of the field and laboratory evaluations of MON 88913 cotton, when compared to conventional cotton, led to the conclusion that MON 88913 cotton does not have the potential to become a harmful plant or, in particular, an invasive plant. The results stemming from evaluation of the ecological interactions of the MON 88913 cotton did not reveal differences in susceptibility to pests or environmental stress. Based on the studies performed, it was concluded that MON 88913 cotton does not have the potential to cause adverse effects to beneficial organisms, to plants, or to non-target organisms. The potential for gene flow from MON 88913 cotton to sexually compatible cotton species present in Brazil is not likely as the compatible cotton species are located in isolated areas of Brazil. In addition, genetically modified cotton exclusion zones were established in Brazil, with the objective of protecting those species against pollen flows from genetically modified varieties. Evaluated together, the food and environmental security data demonstrated that MON 88913 cotton is considered as safe to the environment and human and animal health as conventional cotton. For this reason, no constraints are identified in the use of MON 88913 cotton and its products. CTNBio directs that monitoring following the authorization of cotton sales should be performed on commercial, not experimental, plantations. The areas selected for monitoring should not be isolated from other areas, possess borders, or include any situation not related to normal commercial standards. Monitoring must be performed on the basis of a comparative model between conventional planting systems and GMO planting systems and data collection, executed on the basis of samples. Monitoring should be conducted in representative biomes of the principal GMO crop areas and, where possible, encompass the diversity of producers. Further, monitoring is to be conducted for a minimum period of 5 years. Report submissions should include detailed information on all of the activities performed prior to planting and during planting, on its execution, with information of the activities executed in monitored areas during the crop cycle, on harvest activities, and on climate conditions. Human and animal health disorders must be followed up through official reporting systems on adverse health effects, such as the Notification System of Adverse Events relating to Health Products (Sistema de Notificação de Eventos Adversos relacionados a Produtos de Saúde – SINEPS) regulated by the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária – ANVISA). The respective analytical methods, results obtained, and interpretations should be performed in accordance with the principles of independence and transparency, with the exception of justified commercial confidentiality matters defined as such. With respect to the cp4 epsps gene, which provides resistance to the glyphosate herbicide, the following factors should be monitored: nutritional and health status of GM plants, chemical and physical attributes of soil in connection with fertility and other basic pedological characteristics, microbian diversity of soil, diaspore bank in soil, community of invasive plants, development of resistance to herbicides in invasive plants, herbicide residues in soil, seeds, and surrounding air, and gene flow of the inserted gene. Within the scope of the powers conferred through article 14 of Law No. 11105/05, CTNBio ruled that the application meets the pertinent rules and regulations enacted to ensure biosecurity of the environment, agriculture, and human and animal health, concluding, further, that MON 88913 cotton is substantively equivalent to conventional cotton and that its consumption is safe for human and animal health. In regard to the environment, CTNBio found that production of MON 88913 cotton is not a potential cause of significant environmental degradation and that it maintains an identical relationship with the biota as conventional cotton. Based on the technical and scientific justifications, CTNBio reserved the right to review this Opinion at any time. CTNBio notes that this summary does not exempt the applicant from fulfilling all other Brazilian laws in connection with the object of this application.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
molecular traditional methods
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: National Biosafety Commission
Upload:
Authorization expiration date: Not Applicable
E-mail:
gutemberg.sousa@mct.gov.br
Organization/agency name (Full name):
National Biosafety Technical Commission
Contact person name:
Edivaldo Domingues Velini
Website:
Physical full address:
SPO Area 5 Qd 3 Bl B S 10.1 Brasilia DF
Phone number:
556134115516
Fax number:
556133177475
Country introduction:
The Brazilian National Biosafety Commission – CTNBio , is responsible to the technical decision on biological risk as a response to a request from the proponent. The technical decision is given on a definitive basis. Only the National Biosafety Council (CNBS) can revoke the decision (in case of commercial release), based on social-economical reasons and not on biosafety reasons. Once a decision is taken by CTNBio favorable to the commercial release of a new GMO (being it a plant or any other organism), CNBS has 30 days to issue a revoke. After these steps, the new product must be evaluated for conformity to the Brazilian standards by the registration and enforcement agencies (ANVISA – Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Fisheries, according to the intended use of the product). If it conforms to the standards, it may be offered to the market. Every institution dealing with GMOs (including universities and public research institutes) has to have an Internal Biosafety Commission (CIBio), which is legally responsible of everything that may happen to be done or caused by the GMO
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
At the discretion of, and upon consultation with, CTNBio, a new analysis and issuance of technical opinion may be released on GMOs containing more than one event, combined through classic genetic improvement and which have been previously approved for commercial release by CTNBio
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Dr. Edivaldo Domingues Velini (President of national Biosafety Commission)
Canada
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Canada Inc.
Summary of application:
Monsanto has developed glyphosate tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) based upon event MON 88913. Cotton varieties containing event MON 88913 express a CP4 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (cp4-epsps) gene which confers tolerance to glyphosate herbicides (trade name, Roundup®). Health Canada has previously indicated no objection to the sale of glyphosate tolerant corn (NK603, MON 802, MON 832), cotton (MON 1445), canola (GT 200, GT 73) soybean (GTS 40-3-2) and sugarbeet (H7-1) lines for human food applications in Canada. Like cotton containing event MON 88913, these events express the CP4 EPSPS enzyme.

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 cotton containing event MON 88913 was developed; how the composition and nutritional quality of cottonseed derived from cotton varieties containing this event compares to the cottonseed of non-modified cotton varieties; and what the potential for cottonseed from varieties containing this event to be toxic or cause allergic reactions in humans.

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 cotton containing event MON 88913 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: 16/11/2005
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:
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
Philippines
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Philippines
Summary of application:
Cotton MON 88913 is a second-generation glyphosate-tolerant cotton product, which provides increased tolerance to glyphosate relative to the current product, Roundup Ready cotton event 1445, (herein referred to as Roundup Ready cotton), to provide more effective and flexible weed control options during production.

Using modern biotechnology, Monsanto Company has developed Roundup Ready® Flex Cotton plants (Gossypium hirsutum L.) that are tolerant to glyphosate. The genetically modified cotton plant was produced by the introduction of: the cp4 epsps gene derived from the common soil bacterium Agrobacterium strain CP4 which encodes for the production of the CP4 EPSPS enzyme. The gene product is responsible for conferring tolerance to glyphosate.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 26/11/2010
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment:
Monsanto Philippines Inc. submitted an application to the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) requesting for biosafety permit under AO#8 part 5 for Cotton MON 88913 (RR Flex cotton), which has been genetically modified for herbicide resistance. RR Flex Cotton has been evaluated according to BPI’s safety assessment by concerned agencies: [(Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), Bureau of Agriculture, Fisheries and Product Standards (BAFPS)] and 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 cotton. The petitioner/applicant published the said application in two widely circulated newspapers for public comment/review. BPI did not receive any comment 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:
Thelma L. Soriano
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
United States of America
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Company
Summary of application:
Cotton
Trait 1 Added Protein: 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS)
Source: Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4
Intended Effect: Tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate
Upload:
Date of authorization: 07/03/2005
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:
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