Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

MON-ØØ863-5
Commodity: Corn / Maize
Traits: Coleoptera resistance,Kanamycin resistance
European Union
Name of product applicant: Monsanto
Summary of application:

The genetically modified maize MON 863 was generated by transformation of Zea mays cell culture line AT824 (initiated from immature embryos of an inbred maize line AT) with a MluI restriction fragment from plasmid PV-ZMIR13 using particle acceleration technology. The DNA fragment used for transformation carried two expression cassettes; a selectable marker gene nptII encoding neomycin phosphotransferase II and a trait gene encoding a variant Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 insecticidal protein. The nptII gene was regulated by the 35S promoter and used the NOS 3' polyadenylation sequence as terminator. Regulation of the variant cry3Bb1 gene involved: a CaMV 35S promoter containing four tandem copies of the AS-1 element (Lam and Chua, 1990); the untranslated 5'mRNA leader sequence of the wheat major chlorophyll a/b-binding protein; the rice actin intron (ract1); a 3' nontranslated region of the wheat heat shock protein 17.3 which terminates transcription and directs polyadenylation. The linear DNA fragment used for transformation was prepared by digestion of plasmid PV-ZMIR13 with restriction endonuclease MluI, separation of the fragments by agarose gel electrophoresis and isolation of the DNA fragment that encoded the cry3Bb1 and nptII expression cassettes. Thus, the MluI fragment used for transformation was not expected to contain plasmid backbone DNA sequences. The variant Cry3Bb1 protein expressed in MON 863 maize has seven amino acid differences from wild type Cry3Bb1 and was designed to enhance its expression in plants and insecticidal activity against corn rootworm.


Date of Authorization for food: 13/01/2006 (Application for renewal submitted). Date of authorization for feed 8/10/2005.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 13/01/2006
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): Biosafety Clearing House (BCH)
OECD BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment:
Please see the EU relevant links below.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Event specific real-time quantitative PCR based method for genetically modified MON-ØØ863-5 maize Validated by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. Please see the EU relevant links below. - Reference Material: Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission, URL: http://www.irmm.jrc.be
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: European Food Safety Authority, The EFSA Journal (2004) 49, 1-25 (under Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC)
European Food Safety Authority, The EFSA Journal (2004) 50, 1-25 (under Article 4 of the Novel Food Regulation (EC) No 258/97)
Method for Detection
Upload:
Authorization expiration date: 12/01/2016
E-mail:
pablo.pindado-carrion@ec.europa.eu
Organization/agency name (Full name):
European Union
Contact person name:
Pablo PINDADO
Website:
Physical full address:
European Commission B232 04/106 1047 Brussels
Phone number:
00 32 2 298 67 06
Fax number:
Country introduction:
The process for authorising a new GMO is based on the EU regulation on GM food and feed (1829/2003). An application for authorising food or feed consisting of or made from a GMO must be submitted to the national authorities. The national authority then sends the application to the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) for a risk assessment. EFSA then makes the application summary available to the public. No matter where in the EU the company applies, EFSA assesses the risks the GMO presents for the environment, human health and animal safety. If the application covers cultivation, EFSA delegates the environmental risk assessment to an EU country which sends EFSA its risk assessment report. After performing the risk assessment, EFSA submits its scientific opinion to the European Commission and to EU countries. The opinion is made available to the public, except for certain confidential aspects. Once EFSA publishes its risk assessment, the public has 30 days to comment on the Commission website for applications under Reg. 1829/2003, and on the Joint Research Centre website on the assessment report of the "lead" EU country for applications under Directive 2001/18. Within 3 months of receiving EFSA's opinion, the Commission grants or refuses the authorisation in a proposal. If it differs from EFSA’s opinion, it must explain why. National representatives approve the Commission’s proposal by qualified majority in: (1) The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health if the application was submitted under Reg. 1829/2003; (2) The Regulatory Committee under Directive 2001/18/EC if the application was submitted under Dir. 2001/18. The proposal is adopted if the Committee agrees with it. If there is no opinion, the Commission may summon an Appeal Committee where EU countries can adopt or reject the proposal. If the Appeal Committee makes no decision, the Commission may adopt its proposal. Authorisations are valid for 10 years (renewable).
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Australia
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Australia Ltd
Summary of application:
MON863 corn has been genetically modified for protection against corn rootworm
(Diabrotica spp). Corn rootworm larvae damage corn by feeding on the roots, reducing the ability of the plant to absorb water and nutrients from the soil, and causing harvestingdifficulties due to plant lodging.

Protection against corn rootworm is achieved through expression in the plant of the Cry3Bb1 protein, encoded by the cry3Bb1 gene from the kumamotoensis subspecies of the sporeforming soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Cry3Bb1 is selectively toxic to certain Coleopteran insects, such as the corn rootworm, in the larval stage.
Field research indicates that corn varieties expressing Cry3Bb1 are protected from corn
rootworm feeding damage to a degree that is comparable or superior to that offered by
currently commercially available organophosphate, carbamate and pyrethroid insecticides.

The genetic modification in MON863 corn also involved the transfer of the nptII gene
encoding the enzyme neomycin phosphotransferase II (NPTII), which confers resistance against neomycin and other aminoglycoside antibiotics. NPTII is used as a dominant selectable marker in the initial laboratory stages of plant cell selection and does not perform any function in the plant or crop.

MON863 corn will be used in conventional breeding programs to produce corn hybrids
tolerant to corn rootworm. Corn seed containing event MON863 has been developed for cultivation in the United States and Canada and is not intended for cultivation in either Australia or New Zealand as the corn rootworm pest is not present in either country. Food derived from MON863 corn will therefore be entering the Australian and New Zealand food supply as imported, largely processed, food products only.
Domestic production of corn in Australia and New Zealand is supplemented by the import of a small amount of corn-based products, largely as high-fructose corn syrup, which is not currently manufactured in either Australia or New Zealand. Such products are processed into breakfast cereals, baking products, extruded confectionery and corn chips. Other corn products such as cornstarch are also imported and used by the food industry for the manufacture of dessert mixes and canned foods.

Corn varieties containing event MON863 have been cleared for food and feed use in the United States, Canada and Japan. An application has also been submitted to the European Union. Corn seed containing event MON863 will be marketed in the United States and Canada under the brand name YieldGard® Rootworm Corn Seed.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 17/12/2003
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.): OECD BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment:
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Application A484 - 'Yieldguard' Insect Protected Corn MON863
Upload:
Authorization expiration date:
E-mail:
janet.gorst@foodstandards.gov.au
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Contact person name:
Janet Gorst
Website:
Physical full address:
Boeing Building, 55 Blackall Street, Barton ACT 2600, Australia
Phone number:
+61 2 6271 2266
Fax number:
+61 2 6271 2278
Country introduction:
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is the regulatory agency responsible for the development of food standards in Australia and New Zealand. The main office (approximately 120 staff) is located in Canberra (in the Australian Capital Territory) and the smaller New Zealand office (approximately 15 staff) is located in Wellington on the North Island. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 establishes the mechanisms for the development and variation of joint food regulatory measures and creates FSANZ as the agency responsible for the development and maintenance of a joint Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code). The Code is read in conjunction with corresponding NZ and State & Territory food legislation as well as other appropriate legislative requirements (e.g. Trade Practices; Fair Trading). Within the Code, Standard 1.5.2 deals with Foods produced using Gene Technology. Applicants seeking to have a GM food approved, request a variation to Std 1.5.2 to have the GM food (from a particular line) included in the Schedule to Std 1.5.2. Only those GM foods listed in the Schedule can legally enter the food supply. An Application Handbook provides information that is required to make an application to vary the Code. This Handbook is a legal document and therefore the specified mandatory information must be supplied. For GM foods, there is also a Guidance Document that, as the name suggests, provides applicants with further details and background information on the data needed for the safety assessment of GM foods. The assessment process must be completed within a statutory timeframe (9 - 12 months depending on the complexity of the application) and involves at least one public consultation period. All GM applications involve an Exclusive Capturable Commercial Benefit i.e. applicants are required to pay a fee (outlined in the Application Handbook). Following the last public consultation, an Approval Report is prepared and is considered by the FSANZ Board who make a decision about whether the requested variation to the Code should be approved or not. The Board's decision is then passed on to the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation (the Forum), a committee comprising senior goevernment Ministers from Australia and NZ. This Committee has approximately 2 months to review the Board's decision. If the Board's approval is accepted by the Forum, the approval is then gazetted and becomes law.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
FSANZ does not: Separately assess food from stacked event lines where food from the GM parents has already been approved; Mandate notification of stacked events by developers; Notify the public of stacked event ‘approvals’; List food derived from stacked event lines in the Code, unless the stacked event line has been separately assessed as a single line e.g. Application A518: MXB-13 cotton (DAS-21023-5 x DAS-24236-5)
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au)
Canada
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Canada Inc.
Summary of application:
Corn line MON 863 was developed through genetic modification to express two novel proteins, a modified Cry3Bb1 and neomycin phosphotransferase type II (NPTII). The Cry3Bb1 protein has activity against corn rootworm species (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Diabrotica sp.). The enzyme expressed by the nptII gene confers resistance to aminoglycoside antibiotics and is used as a selectable marker in the development of the MON 863 corn line.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 03/03/2003
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment:
Please see decision document weblinks
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Novel Foods Decision
Novel Feeds Decision
Upload:
Authorization expiration date:
E-mail:
luc.bourbonniere@hc-sc.gc.ca
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Health Canada
Contact person name:
Luc Bourbonniere
Website:
Physical full address:
251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Tunney's Pasture, PL 2204A1
Phone number:
613-957-1405
Fax number:
613-952-6400
Country introduction:
Federal responsibility for the regulations dealing with foods sold in Canada, including novel foods, is shared by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Health Canada is responsible for establishing standards and policies governing the safety and nutritional quality of foods and developing labelling policies related to health and nutrition. The CFIA develops standards related to the packaging, labelling and advertising of foods, and handles all inspection and enforcement duties. The CFIA also has responsibility for the regulation of seeds, veterinary biologics, fertilizers and livestock feeds. More specifically, CFIA is responsible for the regulations and guidelines dealing with cultivating plants with novel traits and dealing with livestock feeds and for conducting the respective safety assessments, whereas Health Canada is responsible for the regulations and guidelines pertaining to novel foods and for conducting safety assessments of novel foods. The mechanism by which Health Canada controls the sale of novel foods in Canada is the mandatory pre-market notification requirement as set out in Division 28 of Part B of the Food and Drug Regulations (see Figure 1). Manufacturers or importers are required under these regulations to submit information to Health Canada regarding the product in question so that a determination can be made with respect to the product's safety prior to sale. The safety criteria for the assessment of novel foods outlined in the current document were derived from internationally established scientific principles and guidelines developed through the work of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. These guidelines provide for both the rigour and the flexibility required to determine the need for notification and to conduct the safety assessment of the broad range of food products being developed. This flexibility is needed to allow novel foods and food products to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and to take into consideration future scientific advances.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Food: Consistent with the definition of "novel food" in Division 28 of the Food and Drug Regulations, the progeny derived from the conventional breeding of approved genetically modified plants (one or both parents are genetically modified) would not be classified as a novel food unless some form of novelty was introduced into such progeny as a result of the cross, hence triggering the requirement for pre-market notification under Division 28. For example, notification may be required for modifications observed in the progeny that result in a change of existing characteristics of the plant that places those characteristics outside of the accepted range, or, that introduce new characteristics not previously observed in that plant (e.g. a major change has occurred in the expression levels of traits when stacked). In addition, the use of a wild species (interspecific cross) not having a history of safe use in the food supply in the development of a new plant line may also require notification to Health Canada. However, molecular stacks are considered new events and are considered to be notifiable as per Division 28.

Feed:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Luc Bourbonniere, Section Head Novel Foods
China
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Company
Summary of application:

Genetically modified organism: MON-ØØ863-5  (MON863)  line of  maize (Zea mays L.) ; Exogenous gene: cry3Bb1 gene encoding a Coleopteran-specific insecticidal protein from Bacillus thuringiensis; Trait: Resistance to corn root worm (Coleopteran, Diabrotica sp.); Transformation methods: Microparticle bombardment of plant cells or tissue; Safety level: Ⅰ 

Upload:
Date of authorization: 25/06/2004
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.): Center for Environmental Risk Assessment
Summary of the safety assessment:
Please see decision document uploaded
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Chinese Agriculture Department Announcement No. 869-10-2007: Detection of Genetically Modified Plants and Derived Products Qualitative PCR Method for Insect-resistant Maize MON863 and Its Derivates
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Authority concern of GMO
Ministry of Agriculture of China
Upload:
Authorization expiration date: 25/6/2007
E-mail:
fuzhongwen@agri.gov.cn
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Development Center for Science and Technology, Ministry of Agriculture
Contact person name:
Fu Zhongwen
Website:
Physical full address:
Room 717, Nongfeng Building, No.96 Dong San Huan Nan Lu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100122, P. R. China
Phone number:
+86-10-59199389
Fax number:
+86-10-59199391
Country introduction:
Regulations on Safety of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms (hereafter referred to as the Regulations)was promulgated by Decree No. 304 of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China on May 23, 2001. Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms, Implementation Regulations on the Safety of Import of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms and Implementation Regulations on Labeling of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms are formulated by Ministry of Agriculture on January 5, 2002 in accordance with the Regulations. The State Council establishes a system of joint ministry conference for the safety administration of agricultural GMOs. The joint ministry conference for the safety administration of agricultural GMOs shall be composed of officials from relevant departments of agriculture, science and technology, environment protection, public health, foreign trade and economic cooperation, inspection and quarantine, and be responsible for the decision-making and coordination of major issues with respect to the safety administration of agricultural GMOs. According to Article 9 of the Regulations, a national biosafety committee (NBC) shall be established and in charge of safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The NBC shall be composed of experts who are engaged in biological research, production, processing, inspection and quarantine with respect to agricultural GMOs, as well as experts in the fields of public health and environmental protection. The office term of the NBC shall be three years. Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the nationwide supervision and administration of the safety of agricultural GMOs. The Ministry of Agriculture sets up an office for biosafety administration of agricultural GMOs(OBA), which will be in charge of the administration of the safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. OBA is Affiliated to the Department of Science, Technology and Education.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
office for biosafety administration of agricultural GMOs(OBA), the Department of Science, Technology and Education,MOA, P. R. China Tel:+86-10-59193059, Fax:+86-10-59193072, E-mail: gmo@agri.gov.cn
Japan
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Japan Ltd.
Summary of application:

MON863 was modified for resistance to corn root worm by inserting the cry3Bb1 gene. A neomycin phosphotransferase II (npt II) gene was also integrated into the host genome and confers resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 21/02/2002
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment:
Please see 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:
E-mail:
fscj-secretariat@cao.go.jp
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food Safety Commission Secretariat,Cabinet Office,GOJ
Contact person name:
Hirotoshi Maehara
Website:
Physical full address:
Akasaka 5-2-20 Minato Ward,Tokyo,Japan
Phone number:
81 3 6234 1074
Fax number:
81 3 3584 7392
Country introduction:
The safety assessment of foods and food additives produced by recombinant DNA techniques (hereafter GM foods) is mandatory under the Food Sanitation Law. The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) receives application from Applicant and requests the Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) to evaluate the safety of GM foods, and the FSCJ evaluates the safety in terms of human health. Within the FSCJ, the Expert Committee of Genetically Modified Foods conducts safety assessments based on following standards and policies (1) Standards for the Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Foods (2) Policies Regarding the Safety Assessment of Stacked Varieties of Genetically Modified Plants (3) Standards for the Safety Assessment of Food Additives Produced Using Genetically Modified Microorganisms (4) Policies Regarding the Safety Assessment of Highly Purified Non-Protein Food Additives including Amino Acids Produced Using Genetically Modified Microorganisms It is forbidden to import or sell genetically modified foods or food products made from such foods that have not undergone safety assessment. After FSCJ submits a notification to MHLW, MHLW gives notice on the Official Gazette.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
With regard to stacked events, FSC conducts the Safety Assessment of GM Foods based on the “Policies Regarding the Safety Assessment of Stacked Varieties of Genetically Modified Plants”
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Food Safety Commission of Japan (http://www.fsc.go.jp/english/index.html), Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/policy/health-medical/food/index.html)
Malaysia
Name of product applicant: Monsanto
Summary of application:
Please refer to uploaded document.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 19/09/2008
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.): Malaysia Biosafety Clearing House
CBD Biosafety Clearing House
Summary of the safety assessment:
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:
E-mail:
biosafety@nre.gov.my
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Department of Biosafety Malaysia
Contact person name:
Dr. Anita Anthonysamy
Website:
Physical full address:
Dept of Biosafety, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Level 1, Podium 2, Wisma Sumber Asli, No. 25, Persiaran Perdana, Precinct 4, 62574 Putrajaya
Phone number:
+60388861153
Fax number:
+60388904935
Country introduction:
GM food safety assessment is a requirement by law under the Biosafety Act 2007 in Malaysia. The National Biosafety Board reviews and makes decisions on events based on a scientific/technical risk assessment, policy considerations as well as public input. The decisions and its related documents made are publicly available through the Malaysian Department of Biosafety Website and the Convention of Biological Diversity Biosafety Clearing House.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Malaysian Department of Biosafety Level 1, Podium 2, Wisma Sumber Asli No. 25, Persiaran Perdana, Precinct 4 Putrajaya, Federal Territory Malaysia, 62574. Phone: +603 8886 1746 / 1579. Fax: +603-8889 5604 Email: biosafety@nre.gov.my. Url: www. biosafety.nre.gov.my
United States of America
Name of product applicant: Monsanto
Summary of application:

Please see EPA BRAD and FDA consultation.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 04/02/2003
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.): FDA Consultation
EPA BRAD
Summary of the safety assessment:
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date:
E-mail:
jason.dietz@fda.hhs.gov
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food and Drug Administration
Contact person name:
Jason Dietz
Website:
Physical full address:
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park MD 20740
Phone number:
240-402-2282
Fax number:
Country introduction:
The United States is currently in the process of populating this database. The Food and Drug Administration regulates food and feed (food for humans and animals) from genetically engineered crops in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA regulates pesticides, including those that are plant incorporated protectants genetically engineered into food crops, to make sure that pesticide residues are safe for human and animal consumption and do not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health or the environment. FDA In the Federal Register of May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984), FDA published its "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (the 1992 policy). The 1992 policy clarified the agency's interpretation of the application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to human and animal foods derived from new plant varieties and provided guidance to industry on scientific and regulatory issues related to these foods. The 1992 policy applied to all foods derived from all new plant varieties, including varieties that are developed using genetic engineering (also known as recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology). In the 1992 policy, FDA recommended that developers consult with FDA about foods from genetically engineered plants under development and developers have routinely done so. In June 1996, FDA provided additional guidance to industry on procedures for these consultations (the consultation procedures). These procedures describe a process in which a developer who intends to commercialize food from a genetically engineered plant meets with the agency to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or other regulatory issues regarding the genetically engineered food and then submits to FDA a summary of its scientific and regulatory assessment of the food. FDA evaluates the submission and if FDA has questions about the summary provided, it requests clarification from the developer. At the conclusion of the consultation FDA responds to the developer by letter. The approach to the safety assessment of genetically engineered food recommended by FDA during consultations, including data and information evaluated, is consistent with that described in the Codex Alimentarius Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants. EPA The safe use of pesticidal substances is regulated by EPA. Food from a genetically engineered plant that is the subject of a consultation with FDA may contain an introduced pesticidal substance, also known as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), that is subject to food (food for humans and animals) safety and environmental review by EPA. PIPs are pesticidal substances produced by plants and the genetic material necessary for the plant to produce the substance. Both the PIP protein and its genetic material are regulated by EPA. When assessing the potential risks of PIPs, EPA requires studies examining numerous factors, such as risks to human health, non-target organisms and the environment, potential for gene flow, and insect resistance management plans, if needed. In regulating PIPs, decisions are based on scientific standards and input from academia, industry, other Federal agencies, and the public. Before the first PIP product was registered in 1995, EPA required that PIP products be thoroughly tested against human safety standards before they were used on human food and livestock feed crops. EPA scientists assessed a wide variety of potential effects associated with the use of PIPs, including toxicity, and allergenicity. These potential effects were evaluated in light of the public's potential exposures to these pesticides, taking into account all potential combined sources of the exposure (food, drinking water, etc.) to determine the likelihood that a person exposed at these levels would be predisposed to a health risk. Based on its reviews of the scientific studies and often peer reviews by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Scientific Advisory Panel, EPA determined that these genetically engineered PIP products, when used in accordance with approved label directions and use restrictions, would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment during their time-limited registration.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Food and Drug Administration (premarkt@fda.hhs.gov); Environmental Protection Agency
United States of America
Name of product applicant: Monsanto
Summary of application:

Please see EPA BRAD and FDA consultation.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 04/02/2003
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.): FDA Consultation
EPA BRAD
Summary of the safety assessment:
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date:
E-mail:
jason.dietz@fda.hhs.gov
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food and Drug Administration
Contact person name:
Jason Dietz
Website:
Physical full address:
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park MD 20740
Phone number:
240-402-2282
Fax number:
Country introduction:
The United States is currently in the process of populating this database. The Food and Drug Administration regulates food and feed (food for humans and animals) from genetically engineered crops in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA regulates pesticides, including those that are plant incorporated protectants genetically engineered into food crops, to make sure that pesticide residues are safe for human and animal consumption and do not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health or the environment. FDA In the Federal Register of May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984), FDA published its "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (the 1992 policy). The 1992 policy clarified the agency's interpretation of the application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to human and animal foods derived from new plant varieties and provided guidance to industry on scientific and regulatory issues related to these foods. The 1992 policy applied to all foods derived from all new plant varieties, including varieties that are developed using genetic engineering (also known as recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology). In the 1992 policy, FDA recommended that developers consult with FDA about foods from genetically engineered plants under development and developers have routinely done so. In June 1996, FDA provided additional guidance to industry on procedures for these consultations (the consultation procedures). These procedures describe a process in which a developer who intends to commercialize food from a genetically engineered plant meets with the agency to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or other regulatory issues regarding the genetically engineered food and then submits to FDA a summary of its scientific and regulatory assessment of the food. FDA evaluates the submission and if FDA has questions about the summary provided, it requests clarification from the developer. At the conclusion of the consultation FDA responds to the developer by letter. The approach to the safety assessment of genetically engineered food recommended by FDA during consultations, including data and information evaluated, is consistent with that described in the Codex Alimentarius Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants. EPA The safe use of pesticidal substances is regulated by EPA. Food from a genetically engineered plant that is the subject of a consultation with FDA may contain an introduced pesticidal substance, also known as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), that is subject to food (food for humans and animals) safety and environmental review by EPA. PIPs are pesticidal substances produced by plants and the genetic material necessary for the plant to produce the substance. Both the PIP protein and its genetic material are regulated by EPA. When assessing the potential risks of PIPs, EPA requires studies examining numerous factors, such as risks to human health, non-target organisms and the environment, potential for gene flow, and insect resistance management plans, if needed. In regulating PIPs, decisions are based on scientific standards and input from academia, industry, other Federal agencies, and the public. Before the first PIP product was registered in 1995, EPA required that PIP products be thoroughly tested against human safety standards before they were used on human food and livestock feed crops. EPA scientists assessed a wide variety of potential effects associated with the use of PIPs, including toxicity, and allergenicity. These potential effects were evaluated in light of the public's potential exposures to these pesticides, taking into account all potential combined sources of the exposure (food, drinking water, etc.) to determine the likelihood that a person exposed at these levels would be predisposed to a health risk. Based on its reviews of the scientific studies and often peer reviews by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Scientific Advisory Panel, EPA determined that these genetically engineered PIP products, when used in accordance with approved label directions and use restrictions, would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment during their time-limited registration.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Food and Drug Administration (premarkt@fda.hhs.gov); Environmental Protection Agency