Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

MON-ØØ757-7
Commodity: Cotton
Traits: Kanamycin resistance,Lepidoptera resistance
Australia
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Australia Ltd
Summary of application:
Monsanto Australia Ltd have made an application to ANZFA to vary Standard A18 to include food from insect resistant cotton lines in the Table to the standard. The insect resistant cotton lines described in the application are not intended to be used themselves in commercial production. Their insect resistant trait has been transferred into commercial cotton varieties by traditional breeding techniques.
Cotton lines 531, 757, 1076 and 1849 were generated by transformation of the parental cotton line (Gossypium hirsutum L. cv Coker C312) using Agrobacteriumûmediated transformation.
The cotton which is the subject of this application is known commercially in Australia as INGARD cotton or Bt cotton. The term Bt cotton denotes that the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis is the source organism for the genes conferring resistance to the insect pests. The insect pests in question are larvae of the moths Helicoverpa punctigera and H. armigera otherwise known as native budworm and cotton bollworm, respectively.
Following advice from the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee, the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals registered the INGARD gene as a plant pesticide (Approval No. 48296/01, 48404) in Australia. Cotton varieties containing this gene were first grown commercially in Australia in 1996 and in 1997 comprised 15% of the Australian cotton acreage.
The only human food products obtained from the cotton are cottonseed oil and linters. Cotton seed oil is a premium quality oil that may be used in a variety of foods including frying oil, mayonnaise, salad dressing, shortening, margarine and packing oil. Linters are short fibres removed from the cottonseed during delinting. After extensive processing at alkaline pH and high temperatures, the linters can be used as high fibre dietary products, sausage casings and viscosity enhancers in ice cream and salad dressings. The linters consist primarily of cellulose (>99%).
Upload:
Date of authorization: 07/12/2000
Scope of authorization: Food
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): OECD BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Application A341 - Oil and Linters derived from Insect Resistant Cotton
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
janet.gorst@foodstandards.gov.au
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Contact person name:
Janet Gorst
Website:
Physical full address:
Boeing Building, 55 Blackall Street, Barton ACT 2600, Australia
Phone number:
+61 2 6271 2266
Fax number:
+61 2 6271 2278
Country introduction:

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is the regulatory agency responsible for the development of food standards in Australia and New Zealand. The main office (approximately 120 staff) is located in Canberra (in the Australian Capital Territory) and the smaller New Zealand office (approximately 15 staff) is located in Wellington on the North Island.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

FSANZ does not: Separately assess food from stacked event lines where food from the GM parents has already been approved; Mandate notification of stacked events by developers; Notify the public of stacked event ‘approvals’; List food derived from stacked event lines in the Code, unless the stacked event line has been separately assessed as a single line e.g. Application A518: MXB-13 cotton (DAS-21023-5 x DAS-24236-5)

No separate approval or safety assessment is necessary for foods derived from a stacked GM line that is the result of traditional breeding between a number of GM parent lines for which food has already been approved. Food from the parent lines must be listed in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The parent lines may contain any number of different genes. If food from any of the GM parent lines has not been approved, then a full pre-market safety assessment of food from the stacked line must be undertaken.

No separate approval is required for food derived from a line that is the product of a GM line, for which food has been approved, crossed traditionally with a non-GM line.

Where a single line containing a number of genes has been produced as a result of direct gene technology methods (rather than traditional crossing) then food derived from the line must undergo a full pre-market safety assessment before approval can be given

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

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

Canada
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Canada Inc.
Summary of application:
The 531 and 757 lines of cotton (Gossypium hyrsutum) were developed through a specific genetic modification of cultivar Coker 321 to be resistant to lepidopteran insects. The novel varieties produce a version of the insecticidal protein, CryIA(c), derived from Bacillus thuringiensis. Delta-endotoxins, such as the CryIA(c) protein expressed in these transgenic cotton lines, act by selectively binding to specific receptors localized on the brush border midgut epithelium of susceptible insect species. Following binding, cation-specific pores are formed that disrupt midgut ion flow and thereby cause paralysis and death. CryIA(c) and related endotoxins are insecticidal only to lepidopteran or coleopteran insects and their specificity of action is directly attributable to the presence of specific receptors in the target insects. There are no receptors for delta-endotoxins of B. thuringiensis on the surface of mammalian intestinal cells, therefore, livestock animals and humans are not susceptible to these proteins.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 08/11/1996
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please see decision document weblinks
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Novel Foods Decision
Novel Feeds Decision
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Neil.Strand@hc-sc.gc.ca
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Health Canada
Contact person name:
Neil Strand
Website:
Physical full address:
251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Tunney's Pasture, PL 2204A1
Phone number:
613-946-1317
Fax number:
Country introduction:

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

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

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

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

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

Feed:

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

Neil Strand, Section Head of Novel Foods

New Zealand
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Australia Ltd
Summary of application:

Monsanto Australia Ltd have made an application to ANZFA to vary Standard A18 to include food from insect resistant cotton lines in the Table to the standard. The insect resistant cotton lines described in the application are not intended to be used themselves in commercial production. Their insect resistant trait has been transferred into commercial cotton varieties by traditional breeding techniques.
Cotton lines 531, 757, 1076 and 1849 were generated by transformation of the parental cotton line (Gossypium hirsutum L. cv Coker C312) using Agrobacteriumûmediated transformation.
The cotton which is the subject of this application is known commercially in Australia as INGARD cotton or Bt cotton. The term Bt cotton denotes that the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis is the source organism for the genes conferring resistance to the insect pests. The insect pests in question are larvae of the moths Helicoverpa punctigera and H. armigera otherwise known as native budworm and cotton bollworm, respectively.
Following advice from the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee, the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals registered the INGARD gene as a plant pesticide (Approval No. 48296/01, 48404) in Australia. Cotton varieties containing this gene were first grown commercially in Australia in 1996 and in 1997 comprised 15% of the Australian cotton acreage.
The only human food products obtained from the cotton are cottonseed oil and linters. Cotton seed oil is a premium quality oil that may be used in a variety of foods including frying oil, mayonnaise, salad dressing, shortening, margarine and packing oil. Linters are short fibres removed from the cottonseed during delinting. After extensive processing at alkaline pH and high temperatures, the linters can be used as high fibre dietary products, sausage casings and viscosity enhancers in ice cream and salad dressings. The linters consist primarily of cellulose (>99%).

Upload:
Date of authorization: 20/12/2000
Scope of authorization: Food
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): OECD BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
On the basis of the safety assessment conducted, no potential public health and safety concerns were identified. Oil and linters derived from insect resistant cotton lines 531, 757, 1076 and 1849 can be regarded as substantially equivalent to the oil and linters from conventional cotton varieties in respect of their composition, safety, wholesomeness and end use.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Application A341 - Oil and Linters derived from Insect Resistant Cotton
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
andrew.pearson@mpi.govt.nz
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Ministry for Primary Industries
Contact person name:
Andrew Pearson
Website:
Physical full address:
Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace, Wellington, 6012
Phone number:
+6448942535
Fax number:
Country introduction:

New Zealand and Australia share a joint food regulation system for the composition of labelling of most foods. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is the regulatory agency responsible for the development of the joint food standards in Australia and New Zealand. The main office (approximately 120 staff) is located in Canberra (in the Australian Capital Territory) and the smaller New Zealand office (approximately 15 staff) is located in Wellington on the North Island.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

FSANZ does not: Separately assess food from stacked event lines where food from the GM parents has already been approved; Mandate notification of stacked events by developers; Notify the public of stacked event ‘approvals’; List food derived from stacked event lines in the Code, unless the stacked event line has been separately assessed as a single line e.g. Application A518: MXB-13 cotton (DAS-21023-5 x DAS-24236-5)

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

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

United States of America
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Company
Summary of application:

Cotton
Trait 1 Added Protein or DNA: CryIAc
Source: Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (Btk)
Intended Effect: Resistance to cotton ballworm, pink bollworm, and tobacco budworm
Event Designation: 757

Upload:
Date of authorization: 01/01/1995
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please consult the website links below.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: FDA's webpage regarding this variety
EPA Registered Plant Incorporated Protectants
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
jason.dietz@fda.hhs.gov
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food and Drug Administration
Contact person name:
Jason Dietz
Website:
Physical full address:
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park MD 20740
Phone number:
240-402-2282
Fax number:
Country introduction:

The United States is currently in the process of populating this database. The Food and Drug Administration regulates food and feed (food for humans and animals) from genetically engineered crops in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA regulates pesticides, including those that are plant incorporated protectants genetically engineered into food crops, to make sure that pesticide residues are safe for human and animal consumption and do not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health or the environment. FDA In the Federal Register of May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984), FDA published its "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (the 1992 policy). The 1992 policy clarified the agency's interpretation of the application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to human and animal foods derived from new plant varieties and provided guidance to industry on scientific and regulatory issues related to these foods. The 1992 policy applied to all foods derived from all new plant varieties, including varieties that are developed using genetic engineering (also known as recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology). In the 1992 policy, FDA recommended that developers consult with FDA about foods from genetically engineered plants under development and developers have routinely done so. In June 1996, FDA provided additional guidance to industry on procedures for these consultations (the consultation procedures). These procedures describe a process in which a developer who intends to commercialize food from a genetically engineered plant meets with the agency to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or other regulatory issues regarding the genetically engineered food and then submits to FDA a summary of its scientific and regulatory assessment of the food. FDA evaluates the submission and if FDA has questions about the summary provided, it requests clarification from the developer. At the conclusion of the consultation FDA responds to the developer by letter. The approach to the safety assessment of genetically engineered food recommended by FDA during consultations, including data and information evaluated, is consistent with that described in the Codex Alimentarius Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants. EPA The safe use of pesticidal substances is regulated by EPA. Food from a genetically engineered plant that is the subject of a consultation with FDA may contain an introduced pesticidal substance, also known as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), that is subject to food (food for humans and animals) safety and environmental review by EPA. PIPs are pesticidal substances produced by plants and the genetic material necessary for the plant to produce the substance. Both the PIP protein and its genetic material are regulated by EPA. When assessing the potential risks of PIPs, EPA requires studies examining numerous factors, such as risks to human health, non-target organisms and the environment, potential for gene flow, and insect resistance management plans, if needed. In regulating PIPs, decisions are based on scientific standards and input from academia, industry, other Federal agencies, and the public. Before the first PIP product was registered in 1995, EPA required that PIP products be thoroughly tested against human safety standards before they were used on human food and livestock feed crops. EPA scientists assessed a wide variety of potential effects associated with the use of PIPs, including toxicity, and allergenicity. These potential effects were evaluated in light of the public's potential exposures to these pesticides, taking into account all potential combined sources of the exposure (food, drinking water, etc.) to determine the likelihood that a person exposed at these levels would be predisposed to a health risk. Based on its reviews of the scientific studies and often peer reviews by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Scientific Advisory Panel, EPA determined that these genetically engineered PIP products, when used in accordance with approved label directions and use restrictions, would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment during their time-limited registration.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

Stacked events that are each plant incorporated protectants, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, must be registered by the Envriornmental Protection Agency before they can be commercialized.  Food/feed safety asssessment of single events are generally sufficient to ensure the safety of food/feed from stacked events.   

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

Food and Drug Administration (premarkt@fda.hhs.gov); Environmental Protection Agency