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).

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.

In Argentina, in the case of stacked events in which each individual event (or sub-combinations of events) has been evaluated for food and feed safety, the evaluation is conducted using a "differential process," which is faster and requires significantly less information. The evaluation focuses on determining whether there are any risk hypotheses related to potential interactions between the introduced genes, their expression products, and/or affected metabolic pathways. Additionally, only other risk hypotheses that may arise depending on the specific case under evaluation will be considered. If potential interactions are identified, an assessment will be conducted to determine whether they pose a risk to human or animal health. If no potential interaction hypotheses are identified, it may be concluded that the stacked event—including all possible intermediate combinations and any crosses with conventional varieties—is as safe and no less nutritious than its conventional counterparts and other commercial varieties. In summary, when individual events have already been assessed, the applicant is only required to submit a rationale supporting the absence of interactions and should provide additional information only if other plausible risk hypotheses emerge from the problem formulation.

A regulatory update is currently underway, so a specific form for stacked events will soon be available to be conducted through “differential process” for food and feed assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy translation

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

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

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

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

No regulation on stacked events.

In Mexico, any GMO intended for human use or consumption, for processing into food for human consumption, public health, or bioremediation, must have an Authorization for commercialization and importation issued by the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) of the Ministry of Health (SS). To obtain this, the interested party must submit a request to COFEPRIS for the corresponding authorization through the COFEPRIS procedure 09-013, which must include, in writing, the information and requirements referred to in Articles 23 to 32 of the Regulations of the Biosafety Law of GMOs."

https://www.gob.mx/cofepris/acciones-y-programas/organismos-geneticamente-modificados

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.

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

As stipulated in Section 20, Article VIII. of the DOST-DA-DENR-DOH-DILG Joint Department Circular No. 01, series of 2021, titled Rules and Regulations for the Research and Development, Handling and Use, Transboundary Movement, Release into the Environment, and Management of Genetically Modified Plant and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology, plants produced through conventional breeding of genetically modified parental lines with approved individual events are not considered novel. The permit holder or an authorized licensee of registered events may request the listing of their stacked events in either the BPI Approval Registry for Commercial Propagation or the BPI Approval Registry for Direct Use, as applicable.

Listing in the BPI Approval Registry for Propagation

If each parental event has a Biosafety Permit for Commercial Propagation, the stacked events may be listed in the BPI Approval Registry for Commercial Propagation. The permit holder or an authorized licensee of registered events may also request the BPI to list any sub-stacks or intermediate stacks.

Listing in the BPI Approval Registry for Direct Use

If each parental event has a Biosafety Permit for Direct Use, the stacked events may be listed in the BPI Approval Registry for Direct Use. The permit holder or an authorized licensee of registered events may also request the BPI to list any sub-stacks or intermediate stacks.

Registration under the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority

For the commercial propagation of plants with stacked events involving multiple plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs), each individual PIP must first be registered under the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA). Additionally, the stacked PIP × PIP must be registered as a new product under the FPA in accordance with its guidelines on the registration of biorational products.

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

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

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

The Uruguayan National Biosafety System (SNB for its acronym in Spanish) on GM vegetables applies the Risk Analysis methodology in a case by case basis inluding enviromental and food and feed risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. The National Biosafety Cabinet (GNBio) is the competent authority to define policies on GM vegetables and is responsible to make decisions regarding each aplication. GNBio is integrated by the Ministers of: Agriculture, MGAP (chair); Health (MSP); Economy (MEF); Environment (MVOTMA); Foreign Affairs (MRREE); and Industry (MIEM).

The Risk Management Commission (CGR) is integrated by one delegate of each of the ministries represented within GNBio.  The CGR advises GNBio on biosafety of GM vegetables issues.

The Risk Assessment in Biosafety (ERB) is integrated by experts proposed by the CGR and designated by GNBio among specialists in the different areas of risk assessment. ERB is responsible for assuring a case-by-case risk assessment based on science and technical criteria. ERB coordinates the analysis of the risk assesment with The Institutional Articulation Committee (CAI) which is integrated by delegates of nine different national research institutions, From where experts are sourced to form a network of evaluators, which currently consists of between 37 and 40 experts organized in different ad hoc groups. The Ad hoc groups are specialized in different areas of knowledge related to the analysis of the risk assement like molecular characterization and identification, environmental and food safety aspects as well as statistical analysis.  

In the case of stacked events whose individual events have not been previously analyzed, a full risk assessment is conducted. For stacked events which individual events have already been analyzed, only an assessment of potential interactions between the proteins expressed in the individual events is performed.

In the case of cross-pollinated species, such as maize, if a favorable conclusion is reached, all individual events and possible combinations are authorized. In the case of self-pollinated species, such as soybean, the applicant must indicate whether they wish to be authorized all individual events and their combinations or only the stacked event presented.