In Argentina, the food and feed risk assessment process of transformation events, as the result of modern biotechnology, is carried out by the National Service for Agrifood Health and Quality (Senasa). The General Office of Biotechnology, is the area responsible for carrying out this task. It has an specific professional team and the advise of a Technical Advisory Committee composed of experts from several scientific disciplines representing different sectors involved in the production, industrialization, consumption, research and development of genetically modified organisms.

Stacked events with all single events approved, are assessed as a new event, but with much less requirements, always on a case-by-case basis.

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 115 staff) is located in Canberra (in the Australian Capital Territory) and the smaller New Zealand office (approximately 10 staff) is located in Wellington on the North Island.

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

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

The agricultural sector is one of the economic pillars of Paraguay in its contribution to the GDP, with the main crops being soybean, cassava, maize, wheat, sugar cane, and cotton. It should also be noted that Paraguay is the world’s fourth exporter of soybean. In 2020, the area planted with crops was 4.67 million hectares and consisted of soybean (3.56 million hectares), maize (1.08 million hectares), and cotton (18,000 hectares). Agricultural biotechnology was first regulated in Paraguay in 1997. In 2012, the system was adjusted through the creation of the National Agricultural and Forestry Biosafety Commission (CONBIO), “with the mission to manage, analyze, and issue recommendations on all matters related to the introduction, confined field trials, pre-commercial and commercial release, and other intended uses of GE crops” Almost 94% of the soybean, 36% of the maize, and 56% of the cotton planted in the country are GE.

When a stacked event is approved, all possible combinations are approved. Previously evaluated single events are not reevaluated in stacks.

The agricultural sector is one of the economic pillars of Paraguay in its contribution to the GDP, with the main crops being soybean, cassava, maize, wheat, sugar cane, and cotton. It should also be noted that Paraguay is the world’s fourth exporter of soybean. In 2020, the area planted with crops was 4.67 million hectares and consisted of soybean (3.56 million hectares), maize (1.08 million hectares), and cotton (18,000 hectares). Agricultural biotechnology was first regulated in Paraguay in 1997. In 2012, the system was adjusted through the creation of the National Agricultural and Forestry Biosafety Commission (CONBIO), “with the mission to manage, analyze, and issue recommendations on all matters related to the introduction, confined field trials, pre-commercial and commercial release, and other intended uses of GE crops” Almost 94% of the soybean, 36% of the maize, and 56% of the cotton planted in the country are GE.

When a stacked event is approved, all possible combinations are approved. Previously evaluated single events are not reevaluated in stacks.

The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) is a Statutory Board established under the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) to oversee food safety and security. SFA’s mission is to ensure and secure a supply of safe food.  SFA adopts a risk-based approach to food safety. Foods with foodborne hazards that may pose potential food safety risks to consumers are subjected to more stringent checks, regardless of their country of origin. SFA has in place an integrated system to ensure that both imported and domestically produced foods are safe for consumption.  The system comprises control measures such as source accreditation, inspection and surveillance of food, laboratory analysis, food legislation and recall of food products, which safeguard food safety from farm to fork.

More information on the guidelines for the safety assessment of stacked events can be found on GMAC’s website:

http://www.gmac.sg/Index_Singapore_Guidelines_on_the_Release_of_Agriculture_Related_GMOs.html

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.

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.