Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

SYN-EV176-9
Commodity: Corn / Maize
Traits: Glufosinate tolerance,Lepidoptera resistance
Australia
Name of product applicant: Novartis Seeds Pty Ltd
Summary of application:
The corn referred to as ‘Bt-176 corn’ has been modified to confer protection against insect attack by the production of an insecticidal protein representing the active portion of the Cry1A(b) protein that occurs naturally in Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain HD1.

The insect-protected corn plants are protected against attack from Lepidopteran insects, particularly by the European Corn Borer (ECB). The bar gene, which confers increased tolerance to the herbicide phosphinothricin, has also been introduced to Bt-176 corn, but it does not confer protection to commercial applications of the herbicide.

The corn lines containing the Bt-176 transformation event were developed by Novartis Pty Ltd for cultivation in the United States. The Bt-176 corn described in this application includes insect-protected (dent) corn hybrids into which the Bt-176 transformation event has been introduced. According to the applicant,
grain harvested from Bt-176 corn will enter the food chain only after processing. It should be noted that two other varieties of corn are cultivated: sweet corn and popping corn. Sweet corn is the variety grown for use as a fresh vegetable or in canned form. Popping corn is grown for use in the production of popcorn. While the current application refers to the insect-protection trait in dent corn hybrids the germplasm from the Bt-176 event may subsequently be introduced into commercial sweet and popping corn varieties.

Following assessment by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1995
hybrids incorporating the Bt-176 event were commercialised in the USA. The
US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved the use of Bt-176 corn in human food in 1995. In 1997 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) exempted phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT, and the genetic material, ie the bar gene, necessary for its production in all plants) from “the requirement of a tolerance on all raw agricultural commodities” (US EPA 1997). Approvals for environmental release and use in human food and animal feed in Canada were given in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

Corn harvested from these plants or processed products containing Bt-176 corn components may have been imported into Australia and New Zealand since 1995. The Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) and Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) in New Zealand have not received an application from Novartis Seeds for commercial release of Bt-176 corn for cultivation in Australia and New Zealand. Domestic production of corn in both countries is supplemented by a small amount of imported corn-based products, largely as high-fructose corn syrup, which is not currently manufactured in either Australia or New Zealand. Other products include maize starch which is used by the food industry for the manufacture of dessert mixes and canned foods and corn-based ingredients processed into breakfast cereals, baking products, extruded confectionary and corn chips.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 30/08/2001
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 A385 - Insect protected BT-176 corn
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: Syngenta Seeds Canada Inc.
Summary of application:
The 176 line of corn (Zea mays) was developed through a specific genetic modification to be ECB (Ostrinia nubilalis) resistant. The novel variety produces a truncated version of the insecticidal protein, CryIA(b) derived from Bacillus thuringiensis. Delta-endotoxins, such as the CryIA(b) protein expressed in 176 corn, act by selectively binding to specific sites 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(b) and related endotoxins are insecticidal only to lepidopteran insects and their specificity of action is directly attributable to the presence of specific binding sites in the target insects. There are no binding sites for delta-endotoxins of B. thuringiensis on the surface of mammalian intestinal cells, therefore, livestock animals and humans are not susceptible to these proteins. The modified corn line is protected from ECB damage which is a major insect pest in corn agriculture.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 19/12/1995
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.): BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment:
Please see decision document weblinks
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Novel Foods Decision
Novel Feeds Decision
Upload:
Authorization expiration date:
E-mail:
luc.bourbonniere@hc-sc.gc.ca
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Health Canada
Contact person name:
Luc Bourbonniere
Website:
Physical full address:
251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Tunney's Pasture, PL 2204A1
Phone number:
613-957-1405
Fax number:
613-952-6400
Country introduction:
Federal responsibility for the regulations dealing with foods sold in Canada, including novel foods, is shared by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Health Canada is responsible for establishing standards and policies governing the safety and nutritional quality of foods and developing labelling policies related to health and nutrition. The CFIA develops standards related to the packaging, labelling and advertising of foods, and handles all inspection and enforcement duties. The CFIA also has responsibility for the regulation of seeds, veterinary biologics, fertilizers and livestock feeds. More specifically, CFIA is responsible for the regulations and guidelines dealing with cultivating plants with novel traits and dealing with livestock feeds and for conducting the respective safety assessments, whereas Health Canada is responsible for the regulations and guidelines pertaining to novel foods and for conducting safety assessments of novel foods. The mechanism by which Health Canada controls the sale of novel foods in Canada is the mandatory pre-market notification requirement as set out in Division 28 of Part B of the Food and Drug Regulations (see Figure 1). Manufacturers or importers are required under these regulations to submit information to Health Canada regarding the product in question so that a determination can be made with respect to the product's safety prior to sale. The safety criteria for the assessment of novel foods outlined in the current document were derived from internationally established scientific principles and guidelines developed through the work of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. These guidelines provide for both the rigour and the flexibility required to determine the need for notification and to conduct the safety assessment of the broad range of food products being developed. This flexibility is needed to allow novel foods and food products to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and to take into consideration future scientific advances.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Food: Consistent with the definition of "novel food" in Division 28 of the Food and Drug Regulations, the progeny derived from the conventional breeding of approved genetically modified plants (one or both parents are genetically modified) would not be classified as a novel food unless some form of novelty was introduced into such progeny as a result of the cross, hence triggering the requirement for pre-market notification under Division 28. For example, notification may be required for modifications observed in the progeny that result in a change of existing characteristics of the plant that places those characteristics outside of the accepted range, or, that introduce new characteristics not previously observed in that plant (e.g. a major change has occurred in the expression levels of traits when stacked). In addition, the use of a wild species (interspecific cross) not having a history of safe use in the food supply in the development of a new plant line may also require notification to Health Canada. However, molecular stacks are considered new events and are considered to be notifiable as per Division 28.

Feed:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Luc Bourbonniere, Section Head Novel Foods
Philippines
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Philippines
Summary of application:
SYNGENTA has developed a corn line resistant to the Asiatic Corn Borer (ACB) larva, a periodic pest of corn in the Philippines.. This corn line, designated Event 176 Bt corn has been transformed using microprojectile bombardment of embryos, to produce an insecticidal protein, from Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. kurstaki, active against certain species of Lepidoptera, an insect order to which butterflies and moths belong, including ACB. This corn line was developed to provide a method to control yield losses from insect feeding damage caused by the larval stages of ACB, without the use of conventional pesticides
Upload:
Date of authorization: 24/10/2013
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment:
SYNGENTA Phils. Inc. submitted an application to the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) requesting for biosafety permit under Administrative Order (AO) No. 8 Part 5 for Bt- 176 Corn which has been genetically modified for insect resistance (corn borer). Event 176 Corn has been evaluated according to BPI’s safety assessment by concerned agencies of the Department of Agriculture: [Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) and Bureau of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Product Standards (BAFPS)] and a Scientific Technical Review Panel (STRP). The process involves an intensive analysis of the nature of the genetic modification together with a consideration of general safety issues, toxicological issues and nutritional issues associated with the modified corn. The petitioner/applicant published the said application in two widely circulated newspapers for public comment/review. BPI received no comment on the petition during the 30-day comment period. Review of the results of evaluation by 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:
E-mail:
bpibiotechsecretariat@yahoo.com
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Bureau of Plant Industry
Contact person name:
Thelma L. Soriano
Website:
Physical full address:
San Andres St., Malate, Manila
Phone number:
632 521 1080
Fax number:
632 521 1080
Country introduction:
The Philippines is the first ASEAN country to establish a modern regulatory system for modern biotechnology. The country's biosafety regulatory system follows strict scientific standards and has become a model for member-countries of the ASEAN seeking to become producers of agricultural biotechnology crops. Concerns on biosafety in the Philippines started as early as 1987 when scientists from the University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB) and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the Quarantine Officer of the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) and the Director for Crops of the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) recognized the potential for harm of the introduction of exotic species and genetic engineering. The joint committee formed the biosafety protocols and guidelines for genetic engineering and related research activities for UPLB and IRRI researchers. This proposal was eventually adapted into a Philippine Biosafety policy by virtue of Executive Order No 430, Series of 1990, issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino on October 15, 1990, which created the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP). The NCBP formulates, reviews and amends national policy on biosafety and formulates guidelines on the conduct of activities on genetic engineering. The NCBP comprised of representative from the Department of Agriculture (DA); Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); Health (DOH); and Department of Science and Technology (DOST), 4 scientists in biology, environmental science, social science and physical science and 2 respected members of the community. The Philippines’ Law, Executive Order No.514 (EO514), Series of 2006 entitled “Establishing the National Biosafety Framework (NBF), Prescribing Guidelines for its Implementation, Strengthening the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, and for Other Purposes was also issued. This order sets the establishment of the departmental biosafety committees in the DA, DENR, DOH and DOST. The mandates jurisdiction and other powers of all departments and agencies in relation to biosafety and biotechnology is guided by the NBF in coordination with the NCBP and each other in exercising its power. The Department of Agriculture (DA) issued Administrative Order No 8, Series of 2002, (DA AO8, 2002), which is part of EO 514, for the implementation of guidelines for the importation and release into the environment of plants and plant products derived from the use of modern biotechnology. The DA authorizes the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) as the lead agency responsible for the regulation of agricultural crops developed through modern biotechnology. The BPI has adopted a protocol for risk assessment of GM crops for food and feed or for processing based on the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA plants and a protocol for environmental risk assessment in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and with the recommendation of the Panel of Experts of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). DA AO8, 2002 ensures that only genetically food crops that have been well studied and found safe by parallel independent assessments by a team of Filipino scientists and technical personnel from the concerned regulatory agencies of the Department are allowed into our food supply and into our environment. The DA AO 8, 2002 has a step by step introduction of GM plant into the environment. The research and development phase would require testing the genetically modified (GM) crop under controlled conditions subject to regulation by the government agencies. The first stage of evaluation for GM crops is testing under contained facilities such as laboratories, greenhouses and screenhouses. After satisfactory completion of testing under contained facilities, confined environmental release or field trial is done. Confined field trial (CFT) is the first controlled introduction of the GM crop into the environment. The approval for field trial shall be based on the satisfactory completion of safety testing under contained conditions. Unconfined environmental release or commercialization of the product would follow after the safe conduct of the CFT. Approval for propagation shall only be allowed after field trials and risk assessment show no significant risk to human and animal health and the environment.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Gene stacking in plants can be conferred either through genetic engineering or conventional breeding A full risk assessment as to food and feed or for processing shall be conducted to plant products carrying stacked genes conferred through genetic engineering or conventional breeding, where the individual traits have no prior approval for direct use as food and feed or processing from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) A desktop or documentary risk assessment on the possible or expected interactions between the genes shall be conducted for stacked gene products with multiple traits conferred through conventional breeding and individual events granted prior approval by the Bureau of Plant Industry.
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Bureau of Plant Industry 692 San Andres St, Malate, Manila 1004