| Commodity: |
Canola / Oilseed rape / Rape Seed |
| Traits: |
Glufosinate tolerance,Kanamycin resistance,Male sterility |
| Name of product applicant: |
Aventis CropScience Pty Ltd |
| Summary of application: |
Aventis Crop Science Pty Ltd have submitted an application to ANZFA to vary Standard A18 to include all food products derived from glufosinate-ammonium tolerant and pollination controlled canola. The lines encompassed by this application are known commercially in North America as LibertyLink open pollinated and InVigor hybrid canola. Seven lines (known as Topas 19/2, T45, Ms1, Ms8, Rf1, Rf2 and Rf3) of canola (Brassica napus, B. rapa and crosses) have been genetically modified to confer tolerance to the broad-spectrum herbicide, glufosinate-ammonium. Five of these lines have been generated primarily for use in a hybrid seed production system by expressing one of two genes that enable control of pollen production, in conjunction with the herbicide tolerance trait. Two lines of open pollinated canola have been genetically modified with the herbicide tolerance trait only. Three traits may be contained within an individual transformed canola line, however not all lines contain all the traits. The genes coding for the new traits are the bacterial genes bar (or pat), barnase, barstar and npt II. The bar and pat genes produce an enzyme, phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT), that metabolises the herbicide phosphinothricin (PPT) into an inactive form. Phosphinothricin is the active ingredient of the commercial herbicide glufosinate-ammonium. Glufosinate-ammonium is currently registered in Australia under the commercial name of Basta for non-selective uses, or Finale for turf and home garden uses, and as Buster in New Zealand. The mode of action of glufosinate-ammonium (or phosphinothricin) is to inhibit the plant enzyme glutamine synthetase (GS), an essential enzyme in nitrogen metabolism and amino acid biosynthesis in plants. The result of GS inhibition is the over accumulation of inorganic ammonia leading to the death of plant cells. In addition to the herbicide tolerance gene, five of the GM canola lines for use in hybrid production contain either of the genes, barnase and barstar. Expression of the barnase gene in specific plant cells induces male sterility (Ms) and when these plants are crossed with fertility restorer (Rf) canola plants expressing the barstar gene, fertility is restored in the hybrid offspring. Hybrids produced from conventional crosses between the Ms and Rf lines are reported to have significantly higher yields of oil-bearing seeds. Canola oil and meal are the two major products produced from oilseed rape plants. Canola oil is used extensively in the food industry as vegetable oil and in products such as margarine, salad dressings, bakery products, low-fat foods and confectionery. It is also used in pharmaceuticals and nutritional supplements. Canola meal is used only as a protein supplement in animal feed. |
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
09/05/2002 |
| Scope of authorization: |
Food |
| Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
OECD BioTrack Product Database
|
| Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
| Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
Application A372 - Glufosinate ammonium tolerant canola Topas 19/2..
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Contact person name:
Website:
Physical full address: Level 4, 15 Lancaster Place, Majura Park ACT 2609, Australia
Phone number: +61 2 6271 2222
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 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. Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: FSANZ does not: Separately assess food from stacked event lines where food from the GM parents has already been approved; Mandate notification of stacked events by developers; Notify the public of stacked event ‘approvals’; List food derived from stacked event lines in the Code, unless the stacked event line has been separately assessed as a single line e.g. Application A518: MXB-13 cotton (DAS-21023-5 x DAS-24236-5)
No separate approval or safety assessment is necessary for foods derived from a stacked GM line that is the result of traditional breeding between a number of GM parent lines for which food has already been approved. Food from the parent lines must be listed in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The parent lines may contain any number of different genes. If food from any of the GM parent lines has not been approved, then a full pre-market safety assessment of food from the stacked line must be undertaken.
No separate approval is required for food derived from a line that is the product of a GM line, for which food has been approved, crossed traditionally with a non-GM line.
Where a single line containing a number of genes has been produced as a result of direct gene technology methods (rather than traditional crossing) then food derived from the line must undergo a full pre-market safety assessment before approval can be given Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au)
| Name of product applicant: |
AgrEvo Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
22/02/1999 |
| 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.): |
|
| Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
During the risk assessment of this GMO based on existing knowledge to date, no toxic or allergic effects neither substantial nutritional changes are observed. The event is as safe as its conventional counterpart. |
| 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: |
BioTrack Product Database - Mexican profile
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): CIBIOGEM
Contact person name: Dra. Consuelo López López
Website:
Physical full address: San Borja #938, Col. Del Valle • Del. Benito Juárez C.P. 03100, México, D.F.
Phone number: +52 (55) 53227700
Fax number:
Country introduction: 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 Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
| Name of product applicant: |
Aventis CropScience Pty Ltd |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
20/12/2002 |
| Scope of authorization: |
Food |
| Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
OECD BioTrack Product Database
|
| Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Edible oil from the glufosinate-ammonium tolerant and pollination-controlled canola lines
have been evaluated according to the safety assessment guidelines prepared by ANZFA.
The assessment considered the following issues: (1) the nature of the genetic modification;
(2) general safety issues such as novel protein expression and the potential for transfer of
novel genetic material to cells in the human digestive tract; (3) toxicological issues; and (4)
nutritional issues. On the basis of the available information, ANZFA concluded that oil
from the seven lines of herbicide-tolerant and pollination-controlled canola is as safe and
wholesome as oil from other commercial varieties of canola. |
| 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 A372 - Glufosinate ammonium tolerant canola Topas 19/2
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Ministry for Primary Industries
Contact person name: john vandenbeuken
Website:
Physical full address: Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace, Wellington, 6012
Phone number: 0298942581
Fax number:
Country introduction: New Zealand and Australia share a joint food regulation system for the composition of labelling of most foods. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is the regulatory agency responsible for the development of the joint food standards in Australia and New Zealand. The main office (approximately 120 staff) is located in Canberra (in the Australian Capital Territory) and the smaller New Zealand office (approximately 15 staff) is located in Wellington on the North Island. Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: FSANZ does not: Separately assess food from stacked event lines where food from the GM parents has already been approved; Mandate notification of stacked events by developers; Notify the public of stacked event ‘approvals’; List food derived from stacked event lines in the Code, unless the stacked event line has been separately assessed as a single line e.g. Application A518: MXB-13 cotton (DAS-21023-5 x DAS-24236-5) Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
| Name of product applicant: |
Plant Genetic Systems, N.V. |
| Summary of application: |
Canola
Trait 1 Added Protein: Barnase
Source: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
Intended Effect: Male sterility
Trait 2 Added Protein: Phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT)
Source: Streptomyces hygroscopicus
Intended Effect: Tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
04/04/1996 |
| Scope of authorization: |
Food and feed |
| Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): |
|
| Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Please consult the FDA website links below. |
| Upload: |
|
| Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
| Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
FDA's webpage regarding this variety
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Food and Drug Administration
Contact person name: Jason Dietz
Website:
Physical full address: 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park MD 20740
Phone number: 240-402-2282
Fax number:
Country introduction: The United States is currently in the process of populating this database. The Food and Drug Administration regulates food and feed (food for humans and animals) from genetically engineered crops in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA regulates pesticides, including those that are plant incorporated protectants genetically engineered into food crops, to make sure that pesticide residues are safe for human and animal consumption and do not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health or the environment. FDA In the Federal Register of May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984), FDA published its "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (the 1992 policy). The 1992 policy clarified the agency's interpretation of the application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to human and animal foods derived from new plant varieties and provided guidance to industry on scientific and regulatory issues related to these foods. The 1992 policy applied to all foods derived from all new plant varieties, including varieties that are developed using genetic engineering (also known as recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology). In the 1992 policy, FDA recommended that developers consult with FDA about foods from genetically engineered plants under development and developers have routinely done so. In June 1996, FDA provided additional guidance to industry on procedures for these consultations (the consultation procedures). These procedures describe a process in which a developer who intends to commercialize food from a genetically engineered plant meets with the agency to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or other regulatory issues regarding the genetically engineered food and then submits to FDA a summary of its scientific and regulatory assessment of the food. FDA evaluates the submission and if FDA has questions about the summary provided, it requests clarification from the developer. At the conclusion of the consultation FDA responds to the developer by letter. The approach to the safety assessment of genetically engineered food recommended by FDA during consultations, including data and information evaluated, is consistent with that described in the Codex Alimentarius Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants. EPA The safe use of pesticidal substances is regulated by EPA. Food from a genetically engineered plant that is the subject of a consultation with FDA may contain an introduced pesticidal substance, also known as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), that is subject to food (food for humans and animals) safety and environmental review by EPA. PIPs are pesticidal substances produced by plants and the genetic material necessary for the plant to produce the substance. Both the PIP protein and its genetic material are regulated by EPA. When assessing the potential risks of PIPs, EPA requires studies examining numerous factors, such as risks to human health, non-target organisms and the environment, potential for gene flow, and insect resistance management plans, if needed. In regulating PIPs, decisions are based on scientific standards and input from academia, industry, other Federal agencies, and the public. Before the first PIP product was registered in 1995, EPA required that PIP products be thoroughly tested against human safety standards before they were used on human food and livestock feed crops. EPA scientists assessed a wide variety of potential effects associated with the use of PIPs, including toxicity, and allergenicity. These potential effects were evaluated in light of the public's potential exposures to these pesticides, taking into account all potential combined sources of the exposure (food, drinking water, etc.) to determine the likelihood that a person exposed at these levels would be predisposed to a health risk. Based on its reviews of the scientific studies and often peer reviews by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Scientific Advisory Panel, EPA determined that these genetically engineered PIP products, when used in accordance with approved label directions and use restrictions, would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment during their time-limited registration. Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: Stacked events that are each plant incorporated protectants, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, must be registered by the Envriornmental Protection Agency before they can be commercialized. Food/feed safety asssessment of single events are generally sufficient to ensure the safety of food/feed from stacked events. Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
|
|
