Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

MON-ØØ6Ø3-6xMON-ØØ81Ø-6
Commodity: Corn / Maize
Traits: Glyphosate tolerance,Lepidoptera resistance
European Union
Name of product applicant: Monsanto
Summary of application:

The genetically modified maize MON-ØØ6Ø3-6xMON-ØØ81Ø-6, as described in the application, is produced by crosses between maize containing MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 and MON-ØØ81Ø-6 events and expresses the CP4 EPSPS protein which confers tolerance to glyphosate herbicides and the Cry1Ab protein which confers protection against certain lepidopteran insect pests (Ostrinia nubilalis, Sesamia spp.).

Upload:
Date of authorization: 19/12/2018
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.): EU Register of authorised GMOs
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 methods for genetically modified maize MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 and MON-ØØ81Ø-6 maize validated on MON-ØØ6Ø3-6xMON-ØØ81Ø-6 maize. Reference Material: ERM®-BF413 (for MON-ØØ81Ø-6) and ERM®-BF415 (for MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) accessible via the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. The relevant links are provided below.
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) 18/12/2028
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
European Union
Contact person name:
Alexandre Huchelmann
Website:
Physical full address:
European Commission B232 04/106 1047 Brussels
Phone number:
3222954092
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:
Brazil
Name of product applicant: Monsanto do Brasil Ltda.
Summary of application:
Commercial Release of corn containing events MON810 and NK603, granting resistance to insects and tolerance to herbicides, respectively, combined by sexual reproduction
Upload:
Date of authorization: 17/09/2009
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): center for Environmental Risk Assessment
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Insect resistant and glyhphosate tolerant MON 15895 810 x NK 603 corn was generated by crossing NK 603 corn and MON 810 corn through classical genetic improvement and expresses proteins CP4 EPSPS (NK 603 corn) and Cry1Ab (MON 810 corn). MON 810 corn is the result of genetic modification of “Hi-II” corn with gene Cry1Ab for expression of resistance characteristics towards pest insects of the Lepidoptera order. The product of gene cry1Ab expression is protein Cry1Ab that has insecticide activities on target pests – Spodoptera frugiperda [fall armyworm], Diatrea saccharalis [stalk borer] and Helicoverpa zea [earworm], protecting the plants from damages caused by such insects. Gene cry1Ab was isolated from Bacillus thuringiensis. Protein Cry1Ab produced in MON 810 corn is a protein with selective toxicity for some species of Lepidoptera insects and its action is mediated by specific receptors located in the bowel cells where protein cry1Ab establishes a link in susceptible insects. Mammals, including humans, as well as fish, birds and non-target insects, are devoid of such receptors. NK 603 corn expresses protein CP4-EPSPS (CP4 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) that promotes expression of the characteristic of tolerance to glyphosate herbicide in the plant. Gene cp4 epsps originates from Agrobacterium sp. Protein CP4-EPSPS, expressed in glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified plants, is an enzyme that is functionally identical to the plant-endogenous EPSPS protein. In conventional plants, the glyphosate bonds to the EPSPS enzyme and blocks the biosynthesis of 5-hydroxy shikimate-3-phosphate, hindering the formation of aromatic amino acids and secondary metabolites. Differently from genetically modified plants, as the NK 603 corn, aromatic amino acids and other metabolites needed in the development of plants continue being produced by the activity of the protein expressed by an alternative metabolic route. Gene cp4epsps, present in MON810 x NK603 corn was inherited from the parental NK 603 corn through classical genetic improvement, while cry1Ab was inherited from MON 810 corn. Proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab and their action patterns fail to have any known interaction mechanisms able to cause adverse effects to human or animal health, and to the environment. Proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab accumulate in different cell compartments of MON810 x NK603 corn and have distinct and non-interactive metabolic functions. This way, protein CP4-EPSPS is directed to the chloroplast while protein Cry1Ab is accumulated in the cytoplasm and both are expressed in very low levels in each individual event, that is to say, NK 603 and MON 810 corn. MON810 x NK603 corn contains the combination of genetically modified events whose biosafety was analyzed in separate applications passed by CTNBio, and such events were largely tested, in the fields, under different environments within the Brazilian territory. Analysis of the combination of genotype MON810 x NK603 showed that expected tolerance levels to glyphosate are similar to those of the NK 603 corn, while the expected levels of insect resistance were, in the same way, similar to those of MON 810 corn. MON810 x NK603 corn has been marketed in different countries, including: United States, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Argentina and European Union. Proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab are expressed in low concentrations in MON810 x NK603 corn, so that any potential exposure to such proteins is extremely low in human and animal food. Studies showed that such proteins are rapidly digested in in vitro digestion essays. Acute oral toxicity tests conducted with purified CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab proteins and subchronic toxicity tests, where the proteins were administered in doses substantially higher than the ones found in the normal consumption of corn showed that the proteins fail to produce adverse effects, posing no food safety problem for humans and animals. Because proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab do not cause toxicity in the maximum doses tested, the conclusion is that a synergetic interaction between them is highly unlikely in the doses normally found in food. Absence of interaction between proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab and absence of damaging effects to humans, animals and the environment is demonstrated by the information on the product of expression of exogenous DNA in the plant (proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab), the level of expression of such exogenous proteins in plant tissues, their mechanism of action, the location of the biologic activities of the proteins and the history of safe use of individual and combined events in countries where they were approved and have been used for several years. Therefore, after analyzing the data supplied by applicant and the independent scientific literature, a conclusion is reached that the selective biologic activities of CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab proteins were not affected and keep the same metabolic function and efficacy found in NK 603 and MON 810 corn, as well as in MON810 x NK603 corn. This way, the conclusion is that corn containing combined events (MON810 x NK603) is as safe as its conventional isoline. According to Annex I of Ruling Resolution nº 5, of March 12, 2008, applicant shall have a term of thirty (30) days from the publication of this Technical Opinion to adjust its proposal of post commercial release monitoring plan. In the context of Article 14 of Law nº 11,105/05, CTNBio holds that the request complies with the rules of applicable legislation that aim at securing the biosafety of the environment, agriculture, and human and animal health. In the context of Article 14 of Law nº 11,105/05, CTNBio holds that the request complies with the rules of applicable legislation that aim at securing the biosafety of the environment, agriculture, and human and animal health, and reached a conclusion that the stacked MON810 x NK603 corn is substantially equivalent to conventional corn and therefore its consumption is safe for human and animal health. Regarding the environment, CTNBio concluded that cultivation of MON810 x NK603 corn is not a potential cause of significant degradation of the environment and that it keeps with the biota a relation that is identical to that of conventional corn. TECHNICAL OPINION I. GMO Identification GMO name: MON810 x NK603 corn. Applicant: Monsanto do Brasil Ltda. Species: Zea Mays L. Inserted characteristics: Tolerance to glyphosate herbicide and insect resistance Method of insertion: MON810 x NK603 corn, ranked as Risk Class I, was developed by classical genetic improvement, through sexual crossing between genetically modified lineages containing event MON 810 and event NK 603. Prospective use: Free registration, use, essays, tests, sowing, transport, storage, marketing, consumption, import, release and discarding. II. General Information Corn, Zea Mays L., is a species of the family Gramineae, tribe Maydae, sub-family Panicoidae that is separated within the sub-genus Zea and has chromosome number 2n = 20,21,22,24(1). The wild species closest to corn is the teosinte found in Mexico and some regions of Central America, where it is able to cross with cultivated corn in the production fields. Corn has a history of over eight thousand years in the Americas, and is cultivated since the pre-Columbian era. Among higher plants, corn is the best scientifically characterized and is currently the cultivated species that reached the highest degree of domestication and is able to survive in nature only when cultivated by man(2). There are currently over 300 identified races of corn and, within each such race, thousands of cultivars. One of the most important sources of food in the world, corn is an input in the production of a wide range of foodstuff, rations and industrial products. Brazil is one of the largest producers of corn over the world, and the plant is cultivated nearly all over the national territory(3). Occurrence of insects in Earth is larger in the tropics than in temperate regions where the damages caused by such animals are more significant. Among the most damaging corn pests an important place is taken by the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Cruz et al. (4) estimated that the losses in Brazil caused by infestations of S. frugiperda reach 400 million Dollars each year. Other species of the order Lepidoptera are also important pests in the culture of corn, such as the corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) and stalk borer (Ditraea sacharalis). The main measure to control insects in the corn cultivation has been the use of insecticides. In some areas of the Brazilian Center-West, for instance, tenths of insecticide sprays are needed in a single culture cycle. Another measure to control pests would be the use of resistant cultivars. Compared with conventional corn, MON810 x NK603 corn fails to display greater ability to survive as a pest. The presence of gens granting resistance to Lepidoptera insects and tolerance to glyphosate herbicide give a selective advantage to MON810 x NK603 corn when exposed to the herbicide and submitted to the presence of target-insects. However, such characteristics are not sufficient to make this corn a pest in corn cultivars(5,6). The use of corn containing stacked events represent a future trend – that meets producers' demand – by combining two characteristics of agronomic importance in a same hybrid. Corn with events combined by classical genetic improvement were already approved in Japan, Korea, Argentina, El Salvador, European Union, South Africa, Taiwan and Philippines(7). III. Description of GMO and Proteins Expressed Corn containing event MON 810 is the result of genetic modification of “Hi-II” corn displaying gene cry1Ab that determines expression of resistance to certain pest insects of the Order Lepidoptera. The product of expression of gene cry1Ab is protein Cry1Ab that has insecticide activity on target pests, protecting the plants from damages caused by such pests. Gene cry1Ab was isolated from Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki strain HD-1(8,9). NK 603 corn contains gene cp4 epsps coming from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 and is responsible for expression of protein CP4-EPSPS (CP4 5 enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate) that determines expression of glyphosate herbicide tolerance. Protein CP4-EPSPS expressed in glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified plants is functionally identical to the plant endogenous EPSPS protein(10). In conventional plants, glyphosate bonds to EPSPS enzyme and blocks the biosynthesis of 5-hydroxy shikimate-3-phosphate, hindering the formation of aromatic amino acids and secondary metabolites(11). In genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant plants, such as NK 603 corn, the aromatic amino acids and other metabolites needed to the plant development, keep being produced by the CP4-EPSPS protein activity(12). The mode of action and biologic activities of proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab expressed in MON810 x NK603 corn are separate and fail to have any known interaction mechanism that could cause adverse effects to human and animal health and to the environment. In a certain way, proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab present in MON810 x NK603 corn are accumulated in different cell compartments and have separate and non-interactive metabolic functions. This way, protein CP4-EPSPS is directed to the chloroplast while protein Cry1Ab is accumulated in the cytoplasm(4,5). The level of expression of proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab is low in individual events (NK 603 and MON 810 corn) and therefore the likelihood that such proteins interact between them is held improbable, a fact that is microscopically ratified by analyzing agronomy and phenotype characteristics related to efficacy and selectivity of MON810 x NK603 corn in field(4,5). IV. Aspects Related to Human and Animal Health Safety aspects of proteins Cry1Ab and EPSPS were thoroughly assayed by CTNBio(4,5). Protein Cry1Ab mode of action is well clarified by scientific literature(15,16). In vitro tests were used to assay increased digestibility of foodstuffs containing pre-heated proteins Cry1Ab and CP4-EPSPS. The study showed that pre-heating increases the protein digestibility in simulated gastric and intestine fluids, suggesting that the likelihood of an eventual allergenic potential of protein Cry1Ab is extremely low for the ease of its digestion, which is an important component in assessing the safety of MON 810 corn(17,18). Further, in vivo and in vitro studies confirmed that protein Cry1Ab expressed in B. thuringiensis and MON810 x NK603 corn is highly selective and do not act on mammals(19,20,21,22,23,24,25). Protein CP4-EPSPS is an enzyme that is present in all plants and in a large number of microorganisms(22), while protein Cry1Ab does not display enzymatic activity in plants and therefore fails to affect the plant metabolism. The likelihood that biochemical interaction takes place between proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab in the complex matrix of a plant is limited, since such proteins accumulate in different locations of the cells and in a low level of expression. With this, a potential exposure to such proteins is extremely low in human and animal feeding. Considering that proteins CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab fail to produce toxicity in the maximum doses tested, it is highly unlikely that an interaction able to cause additive or synergic effects occurs between such proteins in the normal doses found in foodstuffs. The literature in the area of toxicology of chemical mixtures provides information showing that such interactions are inexistent when the substances are administered in doses substantially below the levels of unobserved adverse effect(26,27,28,29). Due to the rigorous specificity for substrates, enzymes EPSPS bond just S3P, PEP and glyphosate. The only known resulting metabolic product is the 5 enolpyruvylshikimic acid 3-phosphate, which corresponds to the penultimate product of the shikimic acid pathway. Shikimic acid is a precursor for biosynthesis of amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan) and a number of secondary metabolites, such as tetrahydrofolate, ubiquinone and vitamin K (30). Though the shikimic acid (or shikimate) pathway and proteins EPSPS do not occur in mammals, fish, birds and insects, they are important to plants. It is reckoned that aromatic molecules, all derived from shikimic acid, represent no less than 35% of a plant’s dry weight(31,32). In vitro assays performed with simulated digestive fluids are widely used tools as a model for animal digestion. This simulated system was used to probe into digestibility of plant proteins(33,34), animal proteins(35), and food additives(36), as well as to assay protein quality(37) and allergenicity potential through absorption of the proteins by the digestive system(38). Finally, the knowledge on the mode of action, specificity and safe use history of protein EPSPS, potential toxic and allergenic effects of such proteins to humans and other mammals were assayed through in vitro digestion tests. The studies used simulated gastric fluids (pH 1.2) and intestinal fluids (pH 7.5). The degradation rate of protein CP4-EPSPS (mature protein with no transit peptide) was assessed through Western blot analyses. The study showed that protein CP4-EPSPS and peptides degrade in less than 15 seconds after being exposed to the gastric fluid. In the simulated intestinal fluid, degradation of CP4-EPSPS protein occurred in less than 10 minutes(39). V. Environmental Aspects Corn is a monoic, allogamic and annual plant, with anemocoric pollination and distances that may be covered by the pollen depend on wind patterns, humidity and temperature. Corn pollen is freely dispersed near the cultivated area, may reach styli-stigmas of the same or different genotypes and, under adequate conditions, starts its germination that will generate the pollinic tube and promote ovule fecundation within an average term of 24 hours. Studies on pollen dispersion have been conducted and show that pollen may travel long distances, though the majority is deposited close to the cultivated area with a very low translocation rate. Over 95% of the pollen may reach distances within 60 m of the pollen source(37). Luna et al. (38) investigated pollen isolation distance and control, where it was shown that crossed pollination occurs within 200 m. However, no crossed pollination, under conditions of non-detasseling, was noticed in distances higher than 300 m from the pollen source. The results indicate that pollen viability is maintained for two hours and that crossed pollination was not observed in distances of 300 m from the pollen source. When compared with concentrations at one meter from the source culture under low-to-moderate winds it was estimated that about 2% of the pollen reaches 60 meters, 1.1% reaches 200 meters, and 0.75% to 0.5% reaches a distance of 500 meters. At a distance of ten meters from the field, the number of pollen grains per unit of area is tenfold lower than the number observed at one meter from the border. Therefore, if established separation distances developed for the production of corn seeds are observed, it may be expected that pollen transfer to surrounding varieties is minimized and that the presence of glyphosate-tolerant genetic materials to be unlikely. From the agronomic viewpoint, coexistence between cultivars of conventional corn (improved or creole) and transgenic corn is possible(41,42). Ancient communities and modern farmers have learned how to live on without trouble with different corn cultivars, while keeping their genetic identities along time. Studies conducted in the field, nursery and laboratory with MON810 x NK603 corn showed that this genetic transformation event is comparable to conventional corn in what regards reproductive, agronomic, food and environment safety characteristics(3,4,18. The use of MON810 x NK603 technology containing the characteristics of being resistant to insects and tolerant to herbicide is becoming an option to control invading species(43) and insects(44). Insecticide Cry proteins are extremely selective to insects of the Lepidoptera Order(45,46,47,48,49), failing to show negative effects on beneficial and non-target insects, including predators, parasitoids, pollinating and other insects(50,51,52,53). On the other hand, protein EPSPS is deemed to be safe and is widely accepted for its characteristic of being ubiquitous, having no history of toxicity, and dissociated from pathogenicity(3,4). The action of corn containing the stacked genes, MON810 x NK603, on non-target organisms was studies in different species(18). In Brazil, studies were conducted to assay the population dynamics of non-target organisms in corn containing the isolated MON 810 event, such as natural enemies and secondary pests(54,55,56). Field studies with corn expressing protein Cry1Ab were conducted in Brazil to assay pest insects and natural enemies in comparison with the ones on conventional corn(57). Studies to assay the control of pest Lepidoptera and interaction with natural enemies found in corn culture were conducted in Barretos, São Paulo; Santa Cruz das Palmeiras, São Paulo; e Capinópolis, Minas Gerais, during the 1999/2000 summer crop(55,58). The results indicated that MON 810 corn promoted an efficient control of Spodoptera frugiperda and Helicoverpa Zea. Besides, there was no interference on the population level of the predator’s complex (Coccinellidae, Sirphydae, Orius sp. and Geocoris sp.), as well as the predator linear earwig (Doru lineare). Impacts that Cry proteins could cause on non-target insects and soil organisms in general have been widely studied as part of the assay on environmental safety of cultures containing the isolated event MON 810, which expresses protein Cry1Ab. Studies demonstrated that the tested terrestrial and soil non-target organisms were not affected by Cry1Ab protein, despite being the level of such protein above the maximum levels that could be measured in case of natural exposure(48,59,60). In addition, a comparison between proteins Cry produced by Bacillus thuringiensis and protein Cry1Ab produced by MON 810 corn demonstrated that they may persist in tropical soils for a longer time due to its bonding to clay particles, although effects on the soil microbiota were not observed(61). Studies published by the scientific literature concluded that the presence of protein Cry1Ab, besides not significantly affecting the microbiota and animals living in soil, was also absorbed by cultures subsequent to the MON 810 corn. Cry proteins from three subspecies of Bacillus thuringiensis did not show microbiocidal or microbiostatic activity against a variety of bacteria, fungi and algae(64). Another environmental issue relates to the gene flow of genetically modified corn and the effects that this flow could cause to conventional corn. The likelihood of crossed pollination between a genetically modified plant and a conventional one, followed by introgression, relates to availability and viability of pollen of the genetically modified parental and the delivery of such pollen to the stigma of the conventional parental. This availability will depend on the time of sowing and agronomic conditions. Regarding the pollen delivery to the stigma, it depends on wind, vectors, distance, precipitation and natural barriers to the pollen movement. Still, the efficiency of crossed pollination will depend simultaneously on the flowering time of the receiving and donor parental plant, viability and competition ability of such pollen. Depending on the heritage pattern of the characteristics, part of the pollen produced by the donor fails to contain the gene of interest. In addition, corn pollen grains are large and heavy, which reduces dispersion distances and the larger deposition takes place nearby the donor plant(65,40). Dispersion of 98% of the pollen takes place within 25 meters of the issuing field and almost 100% within 100 meters. The larger part (99%) of crossed pollination outside the issuing field takes place within 18 to 20 meters from the field borders(41). Climatic conditions (and wind direction) and physical barriers affect pollen dispersion and the rate of corn crossed pollination, and the closer from the field, the more efficient are the barriers. Dispersion of MON810 x NK603 corn pollen may therefore be controlled so that co-existence of conventional, organic and genetically modified cultivars is possible(41), most the same way in which genotypes for different uses (human nutrition, creole races, etc.) are produced in contiguous areas. VI. Restrictions to the Use of the GMO and its Derivatives As established by Article 11 of Law nº 11,460, of March 21, 2007 “research and cultivation of genetically modified organisms may not be conducted in indigenous lands and areas of conservation units.” The studies submitted by applicant showed that there was no significant difference between corn hybrids derived from unmodified lineages and MON810 x NK603 corn regarding agronomic characteristics, reproduction and dissemination modes, and survival ability. All evidences submitted with the application documents and bibliographic references confirm the risk level of the transgenic variety as being equivalent to the risk level of non transgenic varieties regarding soil microbiota, other plants and human and animal health. Therefore, cultivation and consumption of MON810 x NK603 corn are not potential causes of significant degradation of the environment, nor of risks to human and animal health. For the foregoing, there are no restrictions to the use of such corn and its derivatives, except in locations mentioned by Law nº 11,460, of March 21, 2007. Vertical gene flow to local varieties (the so-called creole corns) of open pollination is possible and poses the same risk as the one caused by commercial genotypes available in the market (80% of conventional corn planted in Brazil comes from commercial seeds that underwent genetic improvement). Coexistence of conventional corn (either improved or creole) cultivars and transgenic corn cultivars is possible from the agronomic viewpoint(41,42) and shall comply with the provisions of CTNBio Ruling Resolution nº 4. After being used for ten years in other countries, no problems were detected to human and animal health and the environment that may be ascribed to transgenic corns. It shall be emphasized that the lack of negative effects resulting from farming transgenic corn plants is far from a guarantee that such problems may not occur in the future. Zero risk and absolute safety do not exist in the biologic world, although there is a significant amount of reliable scientific information and a safe history of ten years underlying the fact that Bt11 x GA21 corn is as safe as the traditional corn versions. Therefore, applicant shall conduct the post-commercial release monitoring according to CTNBio Ruling Resolution nº 3. VII. Consideration on the Particulars of Different Regions of the Country (Information to supervisory agencies) As established by Article 11 of Law nº 11,460, of March 21, 2007 “research and cultivation of genetically modified organisms may not be conducted in indigenous lands and areas of conservation units.” VIII. Conclusion Whereas the corn (Zea mays) variety MON810 x NK603 belongs to a well characterized species with a solid history of safety for human consumption and that genes Cry1Ab and CP4-EPSPS introduced in this variety codify proteins that are ubiquitous in nature and are present in plants, fungi and microorganisms that are part of human and animal alimentary diet; Whereas insertion of this genotype took place through classic genetic improvement and resulted in insertion of a stable and functional copy of Cry1Ab and CP4-EPSPS genes that granted to the plants tolerance to glyphosate herbicide and resistance to insects; Whereas data on centesimal composition failed to show significant differences between genetically modified and conventional varieties, suggesting a nutritional equivalence between them; Whereas CTNBio conducted a separate assay on the events and issued an opinion favorable to commercial release of the separate events; Whereas: 1. MON810 x NK603 corn is a genetically modified product, displaying resistance to a number of Lepidoptera pests and tolerance to glyphosate herbicide, developed through classic improvement by sexual crossing between lineages containing event MON 810 and event NK 603, previously approved for commercial release; 2. Comparative molecular analysis of MON810 x NK603 corn evidenced that integrity of inserts was maintained during the classic improvement with the purpose of combining both events; 3. Segregation analysis and genetic heritance patterns of MON810 x NK603 corn showed that genes of events MON 810 and NK 603 are independent and segregate on a stable manner along successive generations; 4. Agronomic and efficacy assays of MON810 x NK603 corn indicate that combination of such events by classic genetic improvement methods (sexual crossings) did not lead to expression of any other characteristics, except those already expected, that is to say, resistance to certain insects and tolerance to glyphosate herbicide; 5. Expressions of proteins Cry1Ab and EPSPS in MON810 x NK603 corn are not significantly different from their expression in corns containing the separate events; Therefore, considering the above reasons and internationally accepted criteria in the process of analyzing risks in genetically modified raw-material it is possible to conclude that MON810 x NK603 corn is as safe as its conventional equivalents. In the context of the competences granted to it under Article 14 of Law nº 11,105/05, CTNBio considered that the request complies with the rules and legislation in effect that intend to guaranty environmental and agricultural biosafety and human and animal health, reaching a conclusion that MON810 x NK603 corn is substantially equivalent to conventional corn, being its consumption safe for human and animal health. Regarding the environment, CTNBio’s conclusion was that cultivation of MON810 x NK603 corn is not a potential cause of significant degradation to the environment, keeping with the biota a relation identical to that of conventional corn. CTNBio considers that this activity is not a potential cause of significant degradation to the environment or of harm to human and animal health. Restrictions to the use of the GMO analyzed and its derivatives are conditioned to the provisions of Law nº 11,460, of March 21, 2007, and to CTNBio Ruling Resolution nº 03 and Ruling Resolution nº 04. CTNBio assay took into consideration opinions issued by the Commission members; ad hoc consultants; documents delivered to CTNBio Executive Secretary by applicant; results of planned releases to the environment; and discussions, lectures and papers related to the public hearing held on 03.20.2007. Besides, independent studies and scientific literature of applicant, conducted by third parties, were also considered. According to Annex I to Ruling Resolution nº 5, of March 12, 2009, the applicant shall have a term of thirty (30) days from publication of this Technical Opinion to adjust its proposal to the post-commercial release monitoring plan. IV. Bibliography 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations / Word Health Organization. FAO/WHO – 2000a. Grassland Index. Zea mays L. (Available at): http:www.fao.org.WAICENT/faoinfo/agricult/agp/agpc/doc/gbase/data/pf000342.htm). 2. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento – CONAB. 2007. Milho total (1ª e 2ª safra) Brasil – Série histórica de área plantada: safra 1976-77 a 2006-07. http:www.conab.gov.br/conabweb/download/safra/MilhoTotalSerie Hist.xls. 3. Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança. CNTBio 2007. Parecer Técnico 1100/2008. Published in the Federal Official Gazette of 09.04.2007, Section nº 1, Page nº 9. 4. Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança. CNTBio 2008. Parecer Técnico 1597/2008. Published in the Federal Official Gazette of 10.14.2008. Section nº 1. Page nº 3. 5. CRUZ, I.; FIGUEIREDO, M. L. C.; OLIVEIRA, A. C.; VASCONCELOS, C. A. 1999. Damage of Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) in different maize genotypes cultivated in soil under three levels of aluminium saturation. International Journal of Pest Management 45: 293-296. 6. Nnnn 7. AGBIOS. 2009. GM DataBase, (http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php?action=Submit&evidcode=NK603+x+MON810 available on 10.07.2009). 8. FISCHHOFF, D. A.; BOWDISH, K. S.; PERLAK, F. J.; MARRONE, P. G.; MCCORMICK, S. M.; NIEDERMEYER, J. G.; DEAN, D. A.; KUSANO-KRETZMER, K.; MAYER, E. J.; ROCHESTER, D. E.; ROGERS, S. G.; FRALEY, R. T. Insect tolerant transgenic tomato plants. Bio/technology, v. 5, p. 807-813, 1987. 9. Hofte, H.; Whiteley, H. R. (1989) Insecticidal crystal proteins of Bacillus Thuringiensis. Microbiological Review, 242-255. 10. Padgette, S. R.; G. F. BARRY; D. B. Re; D. A. Eichholtz; M. Weldon; K. Kolacz; e G. M. Kishore. 1993. Purification, cloning and characterization of a highly glyphosate-tolerant 5 enolpytuvylshikimate – 3 – phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp. Strain CP4. Monsanto Technical Report MSL 12738. 11. Haslam, E. 1993. Shikimic acid: metabolism and metabolites. University of Sheffield, UK. 12. Steinrücken, H. C.; Amrhein, N. 1980. The herbicide glyphosate is a potent inhibitor of 5 enolpyruvyl-shikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 94: 1207-1212. 13. Padgette, S.; Taylor, N.; Nider, D. 1996a. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seed is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J Nutr 126: 702-716. 14. Padgette, S. R.; D. S. Re; G. F. Barry; D. E. Eichholtz; X. Delannay; R.L. Fuchs; G. M. Kishore; e R. T. Fraley. New weed control opportunities: development of soybeans with a Roundup gene. CRC Handbook 4: 53-84. 15. GILL, S. S.; COWLES, E. A.; PIETRANTONIO, P. V. The mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxins. Annu. Rev. Entomol., v. 37, p. 615-36, 1992. 16. ENGLISH, L.; SLATIN, S. L.; Mode of action of delta-endotoxins from Bacillus thuringiensis: a comparison with other bacterial toxins. Insect Biochemica. Molec. Biol., v. 22, n. 1, p. 1-7, 1992. 17. OKUNUKI, H.; TESHIMA, R.; SHIGETA, T.; SAKUSHIMA, J.; AKIYAMA, H.; GODA, Y.; TOYODA, M.; SAWADA, J. Increased digestibility of two products in genetically modified food (CP4-EPSPS and Cry1Ab) after preheating. J. Food Hygienic Soc. Japan., v. 43, p. 68-73, 2002. 18. Monsanto do Brasil. Milho Yieldgard. (http://www.yieldgard.com.br, available on 10/07/2003.) 19. WOLFERSBERG, M. G. V-ATPASE-ENERGIZED EPITHLIA AND BIOLOGICAL INSECT CONTROL. J. EXP. BIOL. 172, 377-386, 1992. 20. Wieczrek, H.; Brown, D.; Grinstein, S.; Ehrenfeld, J. and Harvey, W. R. (1999). Animal plasma membrane energization by proton-motive V-ATPases. Bioessays 21, 637- 648. 21. Griffitts and Aroian, 2005 J. Griffitts and R. Aroian, Many roads to resistance: how invertebrates adapt to Bt Toxins, BioEssays 27 (2005), pp. 614-624. 22. Shimada, N.; Miyamoto, K.; Kanda, K.; Murata, H. 2006a. Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal Cry1Ab toxin does not affect the membrane integrity of the mammalian intestinal epithelial cells: an in vitro study. In vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology – Animal, 42: 45-49. 23. Shimada, N.; Miyamoto, K.; Kanda, K.; Murata, H. 2006b. Binding of Cry1Ab toxin, a Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal toxin, to proteins of the bovine intestinal epithelial cell: an in vitro study. Applied Entomology and Zoology, 41: 295-301. 24. Stumpff, F.; Bondzio, Einspanier, A. R. and Martens, H. Effects of the Bacillus thuriengensis toxin Cry1Ab on membrane currents of isolated cells of the ruminal epithelium J, Membr. Biol. 219 (1-3) (2007), pp. 37-47. 25. Bondzio, A.; Stumpff, F.; Schön, J.; Martens, H.; Einspanier, R., 2008. Impact of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ab on rumen epithelial cells (REC) – A new in vitro model for safety assessment of recombinant food compounds. Food and Chemical toxicology, 46: 1976-1984. 26. Groten, J. P.; Schoen, E. D.; Kuper, C. F.; van Bladeren, P. J.; Van Zorge, J. A. and Feron, V. J. Subacute toxicity of a mixture of nine chemicals in rats: detecting interactive effects with a two level factorial design. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology (1997). 27. Jonker, D.; Woutersen, R. A. and Feron, V. J. Toxicity of nephrotoxicants with similar or dissimilar mode of action. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34 (1996), pp. 1075-1082. 28. Jonker, D.; Woutersen, R. A.; van Bladeren, P. J.; Til, H. P.; and Feron, V. J. 4-week oral toxicity study of a combination of eight chemical in rats: comparison with the toxicity of the individual compounds. Food and Chemical Toxicology 28 (1990), pp. 623-631. 29. Jonker, D.; Woutersen, R. A.; van Bladeren, P. J.; Til, H. P.; and Feron, V. J. Subacute (4-wk) oral toxicity of a combination of four nephrotoxins in rats: comparison with the toxicity of the individual compounds. Food and Chemical Toxicology 31(1993), pp. 125- 136. 30. TAYLOR, M. L.; HARTNELL, G.; NEMETH, M.; KARUNANANDAA, K.; GEORGE, B. 2005. Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing corn grain with insect-protected (corn rootworm and European corn borer) and herbicide-tolerant (glyphosate) traits, control corn, or commercial reference corn – revisited. Poult. Sci. 84: 1893-1899. 31. TAN, S.; EVANS, R.; SINGH, B. 2006. Herbicidal inhibitors of amino acid biosynthensis and herbicide-tolerant crops. Amino 30: 195-204. 32. SILVA-WERNECK, J. O.; SOUZA, M. T.; DIAS, J. M. C. S.; RIBEIRO, B. M. 1999. Characterization of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain S93 effective against the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda). Canadian Journal of Microbiology 45: 464- 471. 33. XIA, J. Y.; CUI, J. J.; MA, L. H.; DONG, S. X.; CUI, X. I. 1999. The role of transgenic Bt cotton in integrated insect pest management Acta Gossypii Sim 11:57-64. 34. YI, G.; SHIN, Y. M.; CHOE, G.; SHIN, B.; KIM, Y. S.; KIM, K. M. 2007. Production of herbicide-resistant sweet potato plants transformed with the bar gene. Biotechnol. Lett. 29: 669-675. 35. YU, J.; XIE, R.; TAN, L.; XU, W.; ZENG, S.; CHEN, J.; TANG, M.; PANG, Y. 2002. Expression of the full-length and 3’-spliced Cry1Ab gene in the 135-kDa crystal protein minus derivative of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kyushuensis. Curr. Microbiol. 45: 133-138. 36. WAQUIL, J. M.; VILLELA, F. M. F.; FOSTER, J. E. 2002. Resistência do milho (zea mays L.) transgênico (Bt) à lagarta-do-cartucho, Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 1(3): 1-11. 37. WATSON, S. A.; RAMSTAD, P. E. 1987. Corn: chemical and technology. St. Paul: American Association of Cereal Chemist, 605p. 38. CARPENTER, J.; FELSOT, ª; GOODE, T.; HAMMING, M.; ONSTAD, D.; SANKULA, S. 2002. Comparative environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soybean, corn, and cotton crops (CAST: 1-189). Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 39. RAYNOR, G.; OGDEN, E. C.; HAYES, J. V. 1972. Dispersion and deposition of corn pollen from experimental sources. Agron. J. 64: 420-427. 40. LUNA, S. V.; FIGUEROA, J. M.; BALTAZAR, M. B.; GOMEZ, L. R.; TOWNSEND, R. E.; SCHOPER, J. B. 2001. Maize pollen longevity and distance isolation requirements for effective pollen control. Crop Sci. 41: 1551-1557. 41. BROOKES, G.; BARFOOT, P.; MELÉ, E.; MESSEGUER, J.; BÉNÉTRIX, F.; BLOC, D.; FOUEILLASSAR, X.; FABIÉ, A.; POEYDOMENGE, C. 2004. Genetically modified maize: pollen movement and crop co-existence. Dorchester, UK: PG Economics, 20 pp. (www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/Maizepollennov2004final.fdf). 42. MESSEGUER, J.; PEÑAS, G.; BALLESTER, J.; BAS, M.; SERRA, J.; PALAUDELMAS, M.; MELÉ, E. 2006. Pollen-mediated gene flow in maize in real situations of coexistence. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 4: 633-645. 43. Dewar, Alan M. 2009. Weed control in glyphosate-tolerant maize in Europe. Pest Management Science, Volume 65, Number 10, pp. 1047-1058 (12). 44. MENDELSOHN, M.; KOUGH, J.; VAITUZIS, Z.; MATTEWS, K. Are Bt crops safe? Nature Biotechnology, v. 21, n. 9, p. 1003-1009, 2003. 45. DULMAGE, H. T. Microbial control of pests and plant diseases 1970 – 1980. In: BURGES, H. D. (Ed). London: Academic Press, 1981. p. 193-222. 46. KLAUSNER, A. Microbiol insect control. Bio/Technology, v. 2, p. 408-419, 1984. 47. ARONSON, A. I.; BACKMAN, W.; DUNN, P. Bacillus thuringiensis and related insect pathogens. Microbiol. Rev., v. 50, p. 1-24, 1986. 48. MACINTOSH, S. C.; STONE, T. B.; SIMS, S. R.; HUNST, P.; GREENPLATE, J. T.; MARRONE, P. G.; PERLAK, F. J.; FISCHHOFF, D. A.; FUCHS, R. L. Specificity and efficacy of purified Bacillus thuringiensis proteins against agronomically important insects. J. Insect Path., v. 56, p. 258-266, 1990. 49. WHITELEY, H. R.; SCHNEPF, H. E. T he molecular biology of parasporal crystal body formation in Bacillus thuringiensis. Ann. Rev. Microbiol., v. 40, p. 549-576, 1986. 50. CANTWELL, G. E.; LEHNERT, T.; FOWLER, J. Are biological insecticides harmful to the honey bee. Am. Bee J., v. 112, p. 294-296, 1972. 51. KRIEG, A.; LANGENBRUCH, G. A. Susceptibility of arthropod species to Bacillus thuringiensis. In: Microbiol Control of Pests and Plant Diseases. BURGES, H. D. (Ed). London: Academic Press, 1981. p. 837-896. 52. FLEXNER, J. L.; LIGHTHART, B.; CROFT, B. A. The effects of microbial pesticides on non-target beneficial arthropods. Agric. Ecosys. Environ., v.16, p. 203-254, 1986. 53. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Guidance for the re- registration of pesticide products containing Bacillus thuringiensis as the active ingredient. Springfield, VA.: US EPA/National Technical Information Service, 1988. v. 89, p. 164-198. 54. SANTOS, B. Estudo da dinâmica populacional de insetos-praga e inimigos naturais em milho Guardian comparativamente com milho convencional. Report of an unpublished study submitted to Monsanto, 2000. 55. FERNANDES, O. D.; CAMPOSILVAN, D.; MONTEZUMA, M. C. Dinâmica de lepidopteros pragas e inimigos naturais predadores em areas com a tecnologia MON 810 e milho convencional. Unpublished internal Monsanto study report. 2000. 56. CRUZ, I. Estudo de dinâmica populacional de insetos em milho Guardian e milho convencional C806. Report of an unpublished study submitted to Monsanto, 2000. 57. Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança – CNTBio. http://www.cntbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/3509.html, Available on 10/07/2009. 58. FERNASNDES, O. D. Efeito do milho geneticamente modificado (MON 810) em Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) e no parasitóide de ovos Trichogramma spp. 164 f. Tese (PhD in Entomology) – Departamento de Entomologia, ESALQ, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, 2003. 59. SIMS, S. R. Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Cry1Ac) protein expressed in transgenic cotton: effects on beneficial and other non-target insects. Southwestern Entomol., v. 20, p. 493-500, 1995. 60. SANDERS, P. R.; LEE, T. C.; GROTH, M. E.; ASTWOOD, J. D.; FUCHS, R. L. Safety assessment of insect-protected corn. In: THOMAS, J. A. Biotechnology and Safety Assessment. 2 ed. Taylor and Francis, 1998. p. 241-256. 61. MUCHAONYERWA, P.; WALADDE, S.; NYAMUGAFATA, P.; MPEPERKI, S. E RISTORI, G. G. Persistence and impact on microorganisms of Bacillus thuringiensis proteins in some Zimbabwean soils. Plant and Soil, v. 266, p. 41-46, 2004. 62. STOTZKY, G. Clays and humic acids affect the persistence and biological activity of insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis in soil. In: Developments in Soil Science 28B (Soil Mineral-Organic Matter-Microorganism Interactions and Ecosystem Health), p: 1-16, 2002. 63. STOTZKY, G. Persistence and biological activity in soil of the insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis, especially from transgenic plants. Plant and Soil, v. 266, p. 77-89, 2004. 64. KOSKELLA, J.; STOTZKY, G. Larvicidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki, morrisoni (strain tenebrionis), and israelensis have no microbiocidal or microbiostatic activity against selected bacteria, fungi, and algae in vitro. Can. J. Microbiol., v. 48, n. 3, p. 262-267, 2002. 65. GARCIA, C. M.; FIGUEIROA, J. M.; GÓMEZ, R. L.; TOWNSEND, R.; SCHOPER, J. Pollen control during transgenic hybrid maize development in México. Crop Science, v. 38, p. 1597-1602,1998.
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 (a blank field means there is no expiration date) not applicable
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
National Biosafety Technical Commission
Contact person name:
Paulo Augusto Viana Barroso
Website:
Physical full address:
SPO Area 5 Qd 3 Bl B S 10.1 Brasilia DF
Phone number:
556120335087
Fax number:
Country introduction:

Brazil had the first biosafety law approved in 1995. After the identification of the need to improve the biosafety system of Brazilian genetically modified organisms, a new law was published. The Law 11.105 / 05 establishes a technical committee dedicated to the analysis of the safety aspects of genetically modified organisms and a council of ministers that is dedicated to the analysis of the socioeconomic aspects of the commercial release of genetically modified organisms. In this context, Brazil already has several commercial products that involve genetically modified organisms (plants, human and veterinary vaccines, microorganisms for fuel production) and products derived from new genetic modification techniques.

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. Paulo Augusto Viana Barroso (President of national Biosafety Commission)

Colombia
Name of product applicant: Compañia Agricola S.A.S
Summary of application:

Authorization of the genetically modified maize NK603 X MON810 resistant to lepidoptera pest attack and tolerant to herbicide glyphosate 

Upload:
Date of authorization: 26/11/2009
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):
Based on the risk assessment, it can be concluded that the event shows the same risks as its conventional counterpart. Therefore the National Technical Biosafety Committee for GMO use exclusively in Health and human consumption (CTNSalud) recommends its authorization.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Ministerio de salud y proteccion social
Contact person name:
Daniel Rubio
Website:
Physical full address:
Carrera 13 No. 32- 76 piso 12, Bogotá
Phone number:
330 5000 ext 1256
Fax number:
Country introduction:

The 4525 decree of 2005, established the Ministry of Health and Social Protection as the competent authority for GMO for health and food purposes and creates the National Biosafety Technical Committee for GMO's used in health and food purposes (CTNSalud).

The CTNSalud is composed by the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, the National Food and Drug Surveillance Institute (INVIMA) and the Technology and Innovation Administrative Department (COLCIENCIAS). This committee is responsible for the assesment of risk assessments; to inquire for any additional information; assessment of any measurements in accordance to the Cartagena Protocol; and the recommendation for the authorization of GMO for health or food purposes.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Colombia
Name of product applicant: CompañÍa Agricola S.A.S
Summary of application:

GMO authorization for NK603 X MON 810 maize as food for direct use or processing.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 19/05/2020
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):
Based on the risk assessment, it can be concluded that the event shows the same risks as its conventional counterpart. Therefore, the National Technical Committee for GMO use exclusively in health and human consumption (CTNSalud) recommends its authorization.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Ministerio de salud y proteccion social
Contact person name:
Daniel Rubio
Website:
Physical full address:
Carrera 13 No. 32- 76 piso 12, Bogotá
Phone number:
330 5000 ext 1256
Fax number:
Country introduction:

The 4525 decree of 2005, established the Ministry of Health and Social Protection as the competent authority for GMO for health and food purposes and creates the National Biosafety Technical Committee for GMO's used in health and food purposes (CTNSalud).

The CTNSalud is composed by the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, the National Food and Drug Surveillance Institute (INVIMA) and the Technology and Innovation Administrative Department (COLCIENCIAS). This committee is responsible for the assesment of risk assessments; to inquire for any additional information; assessment of any measurements in accordance to the Cartagena Protocol; and the recommendation for the authorization of GMO for health or food purposes.

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

NK603 x MON810 was produced through cross breeding of the two genetically modified organisms NK603 and MON810. It contains the Cry1Ab which confers protection against the European corn borer and  5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) that allows the plant to survive the otherwise lethal application of glyphosate.
 


Upload:
Date of authorization: 11/02/2017
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):
Competent National Authority: Ministry of Agriculture-Jehad, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO). Risk Assessment file is uploaded. https://bch.cbd.int/en/database/RA/BCH-RA-IR-114218/2
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
ABRII
Contact person name:
Gholamreza Salehi Jouzani
Website:
Physical full address:
Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII), Mahdasht Road, 31535-1897, Karaj, Iran
Phone number:
0098(26)32701132
Fax number:
0098(26)32701132
Country introduction:

Iran has ratified Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2003. The National Biosafety Law has also been ratified in 2009. The regulations for the National Biosafety Law have been prepared and approved during last ten years. All these laws and regulations deal with Living GMOs (LMOs) and there is no Law for the regulation of the non-living GMOs. All these laws and regulations are accessible at: http://bch.cbd.int/database/results?searchid=622770. Codex principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology and other guidelines such as the Codex guidelines for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods produced using recombinant-DNA plants and microorganisms are widely accepted and used.

The process for authorization of new LMO release includes comprehensive risk assessment and management analysis. Ministry of Agriculture (Jihade Keshavarzi) is responsible for approval of the release, import, export, transit and use of Agricultural Related LMOs. The requests should be forwarded to: a[email protected]; with a CC to National Focal Point: [email protected]. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety National Focal Point is in charge of all liaison affairs related to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and acts as the contact point for the communications received. The Ministry of Health and Medical Education is in charge with the approval of all LMOs related to food and medicine. Environmental Protection Organization is in charge with the environmental release of LMOs in the wild nature and/or related to the wild organisms. Detailed procedure for authorization of GM food and feed is under preparation.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Agricultural Jihad Ministry
 
Tehran, Tehran
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Phone: +98-21-64583301
Fax: +98-21-88947075
Email: [email protected]
Url: http://www.maj.ir

 

Ministry of Health and Medical Education- Food & Drug Administration
Food and Drug Administration, Fakhrerazi St., Enghelab Ave.
Tehran
Iran (Islamic Republic of), 1314715311
Phone: 009821-61927130
Fax: 009821-66405570
Email: [email protected],[email protected]
Url: http://fda.behdasht.gov.ir/

 

Japan
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Japan Ltd.
Summary of application:

Maize tolerant to glyphosate herbicide and resistant to Lepidoptera (cp4 epsps, cry1Ab, Zea mays subsp. mays (L.) Iltis).

Upload:
Date of authorization: 30/06/2003
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.): BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please see the link 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 Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (in Japanese)
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food Safety Commission Secretariat,Cabinet Office,
Contact person name:
Kojiro Yokonuma
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:
Safety assessments of GM foods are mandatory under the Food Sanitation Law in Japan. The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) legally imposes safety assessments of GM foods so that those that have not undergone safety assessments would not be distributed in the country. MHLW receives application and requests the Food Safety COmmission of Japan (FSCJ) to evaluate the safety of GM foods in terms of human health. Safety assessments are carried out by FSCJ.
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: Monsanto Comercial, S.A. de C.V.
Summary of application:

Authorization by COFEPRIS: 22


Maize tolerant to glyphosate herbicide and resistant to Lepidoptera (cp4 epsps, cry1Ab, Zea mays subsp. mays (L.) Iltis).

Upload:
Date of authorization: 03/03/2004
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: MON-ØØ603-6 X MON-ØØ81Ø-6 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:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
CIBIOGEM
Contact person name:
Dra. Consuelo López López
Website:
Physical full address:
San Borja #938, Col. Del Valle • Del. Benito Juárez C.P. 03100, México, D.F.
Phone number:
+52 (55) 53227700
Fax number:
Country introduction:

México ha buscado garantizar la inocuidad de los productos biotecnológicos para el uso y consumo de su población.

Desde 1984 el artículo 282 bis 1 de la Ley General de Salud, contempló que la Secretaría de Salud debería regular aquellos productos biotecnológicos, o sus derivados, destinados al uso o consumo humano.

En un inicio, con fundamento en este artículo, la Secretaria de Salud evaluó la inocuidad alimentaria de productos biotecnológicos, para su comercialización con fines de uso o consumo humano. A partir de 2005, con la entrada en vigor de la Ley de Bioseguridad de Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (LBOGM), se realizó la adecuación de la regulación para dar lugar a la Autorización que es el acto administrativo mediante el cual la Secretaría de Salud, a través de la Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS), autoriza Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (OGMs), a efecto de que se pueda realizar su comercialización, así como su utilización con finalidades de Salud Pública o de Biorremediación.

Las facultades que corresponden a la Secretaría de Salud se estipulan en el artículo 16 de la LBOGM y lo relativo a la Autorizaciones se describe en los artículos 91 al 98 de dicha Ley.

Quienes pretendan obtener una Autorización para Comercialización e Importación de OGMs deben presentar ante COFEPRIS, una solicitud por escrito acompañada de la información a que se refiere los artículos 23 al 32 del Reglamento de la Ley de Bioseguridad de OGMs.

http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/normatividad/vigente/LBOGM.pdf

http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/normatividad/vigente/Reg_LBOGM.pdf

 

Courtesy translation

Mexico has sought to guarantee the safety of biotechnological products the use and consumption of its population. Since 1984, article 282 bis 1 from the General Law of Health, considered that the Secretary of Health should regulate those biotechnological products, or their derivatives, intended for food and feed use. Initially, the Secretary of Health evaluated the food safety of biotechnological products, based on this article, for commercialization with purposes of food, feed and processing. Subsequently in 2005, with the entry into force of the Law on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (LBOGM), the regulation was adapted to give rise to the Authorization, which is the administrative act through which the Secretary of Health, by means of the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS), authorizes Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), to their commercialization, as well as their use for purposes of public health or bioremediation.

The faculties that correspond to the Secretary of Health are stipulated in Article 16 of the LBOGM and what is related to the Authorizations is described in Articles 91 to 98 of this Law. Those who seek to obtain an Authorization for GMOs merchandising and importation, must present to COFEPRIS, a written request accompanied by the information referred into articles 23 to 32 of the Regulation of the Law on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms.

http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/normatividad/vigente/LBOGM.pdf

http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/normatividad/vigente/Reg_LBOGM.pdf

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 / Teléfono: +52 55 5080 5200 / Correo electrónico: [email protected]%20

Philippines
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Philippines
Summary of application:

Corn MON 810 with resistance to Lepidopteran pests are produced through introduction of the cry1Ab gene from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki. The cry1Ab sequence encodes for the production of a Bt insect toxin. Corn NK 603 with tolerance to the family of Roundup® herbicides are produced through introduction of the cp4 epsps gene from Agrobacterium sp. Strain CP4. The cp4 epsps sequence encodes for the production of the naturally occurring 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase. Inbred line, MON 810, was crossed with inbred line, NK 603, resulting in the combined trait product MON 810 x NK 603 with resistance to insects and tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 21/06/2021
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):
Monsanto Philippines, Inc. has filed an application with attached technical dossiers to the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) for a biosafety notifications for direct use as food, feed and for processing under Department of Agriculture (DA) Administrative Order (AO) No. 8 Part 5 for Combined trait product corn: MON810 x NK603 which has been genetically modified for insect resistance and herbicide tolerance. A safety assessment of combined trait product corn: MON 810 x NK 603 was conducted as per AO 8 Series of 2002. The focus of risk assessment is the gene interactions between the two transgenes. 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) August 21, 2024
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Bureau of Plant Industry
Contact person name:
Geronima P. Eusebio
Website:
Physical full address:
San Andres St., Malate, Manila
Phone number:
632 404 0409 loc 203
Fax number:
Country introduction:

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

 

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

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

 

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

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

(a) genetic engineering, or

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

Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes Conferred through Conventional Breeding:

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

Notificatlon Requirement for Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes

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

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

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

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

Republic of Korea
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Korea Ltd.
Summary of application:

Glyphosate herbicide tolerance , Lepidopteran insect resistance

Upload:
Date of authorization: 05/03/2004
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please see the link below(in Korean).
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Ministry of Food and Drug Safety
Contact person name:
Website:
Physical full address:
Osong Health Technology Administration Complex, 187, Osongsaengmyeong 2-ro, Osong-eup, Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheonbuk-do, 363-700, Korea
Phone number:
82-43-719-2360
Fax number:
Country introduction:
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
South Africa
Name of product applicant: Monsanto
Summary of application:

The GM maize NK603 x MON810 results from traditional breeding, it expresses the Cry1Ab protein that confers resistance to lepidopteran insects and  5-enolpyruvulshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) enzyme that confers tolerance to glyphosate herbicide.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 30/04/2004
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
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:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries
Contact person name:
Nompumelelo Mkhonza
Website:
Physical full address:
30 Hamilton street, Harvest House building, Arcadia, Pretoria, 0001
Phone number:
+2712 319 6382
Fax number:
+2712 319 6298
Country introduction:
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

South Africa does not have a specific review/authorization mechanism for stacked events. Stacked events just like single events are subjected to a safety assessment as per the GMO Act.

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

Department of Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) http://www.daff.gov.za

Thailand
Name of product applicant: Bayer Thai Co., Ltd.
Summary of application:

The stacked event NK603 × MON810 maize obtained from conventional breeding of the genetically modified maize events NK603 and MON810 to expresses CP4 EPSPS protein which confers tolerance to glyphosate herbicide and Bt-toxin (Cry1Ab protein) which provide protection to certain lepidopteran pests.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 04/12/2022
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):
The food safety assessment performed by the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) as advisory and technical arm of Thai FDA. BIOTEC conduct food safety assessment according to codex guideline and based on the safety data and information provided by the applicant (as specified in Annex 2 attached to Notification of the Ministry of Public Health No.431). According to the existing scientific data and information available during the safety assessment, it is concluded that the stacked event NK603 × MON810 maize is expected to be as safe as the single events that has previously been assessed by the food biosafety subcommittee and technical biosafety committee of the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC).
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
National Burequ of Agricultural Commodity and Food
Contact person name:
Director of Office of Standard Development
Website:
Physical full address:
50 Phahonyothin Rd., Lardyao, Chathuchak, Bangkok 10900
Phone number:
+6625612277 ext.1401
Fax number:
+6625613373
Country introduction:

National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards (ACFS) is a governmental agency under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) responsible for the development of national agricultural and food standards. The Agricultural Standards Act B.E. 2551 (2008) establishes the mechanisms for the development of Thai Agricultural Standards (TAS) as either voluntary or mandatory standards. This is based on scientific data, consumer’s health and fair trade. Within the TAS, there are four standards relating GM food assessment, namely Principle for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Biotechnology (TAS 9010-2006), Assessment of Possible Allergenicity (TAS 9011-2006), Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants (TAS 9012-2006) and Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Produced Using Recombinant-DNA Microorganisms (TAS 9013-2006). These standards are adapted from relevant Codex standards. Safety assessment for imported GM crops and foods is done by the cooperation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC)via the Committees relating National Committees to consider technical and political issues. The Committees comprise representatives from all relevant governmental and non-governmental key sectors including experts on genetic modification, toxicity and others.

The safety assessment process of GM food in Thailand is on a voluntary basis. According to the current laws and regulations, there is no approval authority. 

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

The safety assessment for stacked events is divided into two patterns. The first pattern is for stacked events whose GM parents have never approved by FDA or other competent authority. Those stacked events shall be fully assessed in line with GM foods. Another pattern is introduced for the safety assessment of stacked event lines where from GM parents had already been approved. In the second pattern, the information of the parents could be used for consideration, as appropriate. However, the information relevant to interaction between genes and new proteins of stacked event should be mainly taken into account.

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

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC)

Türkiye
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 NK603xMON810 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:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
DG of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM)
Contact person name:
Ramazan BULBUL
Website:
Physical full address:
Universiteler Mah. Dumlupınar Bulvarı, Eskişehir Yolu 10. Km Çankaya/ANKARA/TURKEY
Phone number:
+90 312 307 60 48
Fax number:
+90 312 307 61 90
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.

 Main objectives of the Biosafety Law are;

  • to prevent risks that may arise from GMO’s and products which are produced by using of modern biotechnology by taking into account scientific and technological developments;
  • to establish and implement biosafety system to ensure protection and sustainability of environment, biological diversity and health of human, animal and plant;
  • to inspect, regulate and monitor the activities in the scope of the law.

 The Law includes specific points regarding research, development, processing, releasing on the market, monitoring, using, import, export, handling, transportation, packaging, labelling, storage and similar operations in relation to GMO and GMOPs.

 Veterinarian medicinal products and medicinal products for human use and also cosmetic products which are permitted or certified by the Ministry of Health are out of this Law’s scope. 

 According to Biosafety Law following actions connected with GMO and GMOPs are prohibited:

  • Releasing  GMO and GMOPs on the market without approval of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
  • Production of genetically modified plants and animals.
  • Using GMO and GMOPs in baby food and baby formulae, follow-on baby food and follow-on formulae, infant and kid’s nutritional supplements

 According to the Biosafety Law, which was enacted in 2010, the Biosafety Board, which was established within the scope of the Law, was responsible for evaluating the applications regarding GMO and its products.

 However, the duties and powers of the Biosafety Board were assigned to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry with the Presidential Circular No. 2018/3 published in the Official Gazette on the date of August 2, 2018.

 The task of evaluating the applications related to GMO and its products, performing the secretarial services of the Committees and other duties specified in the Biosafety Law and related regulations has been assigned to General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM) under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry pursuant to Ministerial Approval dated 05/12/2018.

 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry makes a “Decision” about applications on GMO and products via taking Scientific Committees’ risk assessment and socio-economic assessment into account.

 For each application the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry assigns a new committee and each committee makes different assessment for each application. It is important to note that in Turkey food and feed each have a different assessment application.

 Members of scientific committees are selected from the List of Experts.

 11 members are selected for each GMO application.

 List of Experts has been made up by the evaluation of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry from the applicants who applied via using the Biosafety Clearing-House Mechanism of Turkey. Applicants were faculty members and experts of Universities and TÜBİTAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey).

 To date, 13 types of GM soybean and 23 types of GM maize were approved as feed for import.

Besides, by the use of aspergillus oryzae, developed through modern biotechnological methods, licences for industrial α-amylase, glucoamylase and hemicellulase enzyme production were granted.

 Threshold of labeling of GMO products that are approved by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is 0.9%.

There are not any applications for using GMO and products as food.

 After placing GMO and GMOPs on the market; the Ministry controls and inspects whether or not conditions designated by decision are met.

Activities of analysis are performed in laboratories designated by the Ministry.

In the case of any non-compliance detected with relation to the GMO Legislation (such as  a failure to specify the contained GMO on the label, identification of an unapproved gene, etc.) legal action is taken.

Application evaluation process is like below:

  • Evaluation of application by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry      90 days
  • Feedback to the applicant                                                            15 days
  • Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’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

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s final decision after taking reports and public opinions into     

account

  • Publishing the Positive Decision                                                        30 days
  • Reclamation period to Negative Decision                                           60 days
  • Evaluation of reclamation by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry        60 days
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies

Focal Point of the FAO GM Foods Platform

Ramazan BULBUL

Email: [email protected]

Uruguay
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Co.
Summary of application:

NK603 x MON810 was produced through cross breeding of the two genetically modified organisms NK603 and MON810. It contains the Cry1Ab which confers protection against the European corn borer and  5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) that allows the plant to survive the otherwise lethal application of glyphosate.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 21/06/2011
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.): BCH
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please refer to uploaded document
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca
Contact person name:
Alejandra Ferenczi
Website:
Physical full address:
Constituyente 1476, Piso 2, Of. 212B. Montevideo, Uruguay
Phone number:
+598 2 4104155 int 3
Fax number:
Country introduction:

The Uruguayan National Biosafety System (SNB for its acronym in Spanish) includes safety assessments of food end feed, environmental risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. The National Biosafety Cabinet (GNBio) is the competent authority on biosafety of GMOs. Integrated by: The Minister of Agriculture, MGAP (chair); Minister of Health (MSP); Minister of Economy (MEF); Minister of Environment (MVOTMA); Minister of Foreign Affairs (MRREE); and Minister of Industry (MIEM). This Cabinet is the last responsible to make decisions over a submitted request. It has the authority to define policies to be followed with respect to biosafety in all scopes of GMO application. Other committees of experts and scientists give support to decisions of GNBio through risk analysis of biotechnological products. The Risk Management Commission (CGR) is composed by one delegate of each of the ministries represented within GNBio.  The CGR advises GNBio on GMO biosecurity issues; elaborates reference terms for risk assessments; manages the risk communication participation process; is responsible for follow-up and monitoring of authorized events. The Risk Assessment in Biosecurity (ERB) is composed of experts proposed by the CGR and designated by GNBio among specialists in the different areas of risk assessment. Is responsible for considering, on a case-by-case basis, the potential risks and benefits of each new biotech product; assure case-by-case risk assessment evaluation based on scientific methods; writes an operational plan (pre-report) of risk assessment according to CGR directives; advises CGR based on the results of the analysis of risk assessment, and provides information during the consultation process. The Institutional Articulation Committee (CAI) is a committee of technical experts from nine different national public and research institutions, which analyzes the risk assessment of new events and prepares a technical report. The technical analysis is coordinated by ERB organized in different ad hoc groups of experts. The Ad hoc experts groups are technical-scientific specialists in different areas of knowledge related to the analysis of GMO events like characterization and molecular identification of events, environmental and food safety aspects. 

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

GM vegetables from cross-pollinated species, such as corn, with stacked events are not considered as a new product. In the case of GM vegetables from self-pollinated species, such as soybean, are considered as a new product even if all single events stacked have already been approved. However, there is an abbreviated analysis procedure in cases where single events were already analyzed. Stacked events not yet analyzed must have the individual risk assessment report.

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

GNBio office. E-mail: [email protected]; Adress: Constituyente 1476, piso 2, oficina 212B, Montevideo 11200, Uruguay.