Commodity: |
Corn / Maize |
Traits: |
2 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2 4-D) tolerance,Aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitor tolerance |
Name of product applicant: |
Dow AgroSciences Distribution S.A.S. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
04/07/2017 |
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.): |
EU Register of authorised GMOs
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
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: |
Method for detection: Event specific real-time quantitative PCR based method for DAS-4Ø278-9 maize; the detection method is validated on the single-trait event using genomic DNA extracted from seeds of DAS-4Ø278-9 maize. Reference material: ERM®-BF433 accessible via the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. The relevant links are provided below. |
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
Method for detection
Reference Material
Opinion of the European Food Safety Authority
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
03/07/2027 |
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): European Union
Contact person name: Alexandre Huchelmann
Website:
Physical full address: European Commission B232 04/106 1047 Brussels
Phone number: 3222954092
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:
Name of product applicant: |
Dow AgroSciences S.A. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
29/11/2017 |
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): |
• Inheritance studies conducted indicated that Mendelian segregation exists. • New expression proteins are expressed in low levels. • It is compositionally equivalent to its non-transgenic counterpart. • No evidence of similarity or homology was found with known toxic proteins. • There is no evidence of expression of known allergenic substances for the proteins expressed in the event. It is concluded that the event is substantially equivalent to its conventional counterpart, therefore, it is as safe and no less nutritious than conventional commercial varieties. |
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: |
GMO commercial approvals in Argentina
GMO approvals for food/feed
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Ministerio de Agroindustria
Contact person name: Andrés Maggi
Website:
Physical full address: Paseo Colón Avenue 367, 3° floor, City of Buenos Aires
Phone number: 54 11 5222 5986
Fax number:
Country introduction: 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.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: 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.
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: National Service for Agrifood Health and Quality (Senasa)
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/senasa
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/senasa/programas-sanitarios/biotecnologia
Name of product applicant: |
Dow AgroSciences Australia Ltd |
Summary of application: |
Dow AgroSciences Australia Limited has submitted an application to FSANZ to vary
Standard 1.5.2 – Food produced using Gene Technology – in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) to include food from a new genetically modified (GM) corn line, DAS-40278-9. The corn has been modified to be tolerant to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors (“fop” herbicides) such as quizalofop-P-ethyl.
Tolerance to these herbicides is conferred by expression in the plant of the aad-1 gene,
encoding aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase (AAD-1), which inactivates herbicides having a
common aryloxyalkanoate structure The aad-1 gene is derived from Sphingobium
herbicidovorans, a common soil bacterium.
Corn is not a major crop in Australia or New Zealand. Domestic production 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 food coatings. Other corn products such as cornstarch are also imported and used by the food industry for the manufacture of dessert mixes and sauces. Corn may also be imported in finished products such as corn chips and canned corn.
DAS-40278-9 corn will be grown in North America and is not intended for cultivation in
Australia or New Zealand. Therefore, if approved, food from this line may enter the
Australian and New Zealand food supply as imported food products. |
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
13/10/2011 |
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 A1042 - Food derived from herbicide-tolerant corn line DAS-40278-9
|
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: Gaya Subramaniam
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: |
Dow Agroscience Sementes e Biotecnologia Ltda |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
05/03/2015 |
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.): |
ISAAA
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
The applicant requested from CTNBio technical advice for the commercial release of genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9 which confers tolerance to the herbicide 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) and certain herbicides inhibitors of acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase ) Aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) for the purpose of its release into the environment for the cultivation, production, handling, transfer, marketing, import, export, storage, consumption, release and disposal of the genetically modified organism and its derivatives for commercial purposes. CTNBio considers that: 1) The available information made it possible to properly evaluate the biosafety of genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9; 2) Scientific studies conducted to evaluate biosafety, agronomic and phenotypic characteristics, as part of the risk assessment of this GMO, included several ecosystems of representative regions for maize culture in Brazilian territory; 3) The phenotype of the transformed plants is equivalent to the original plant phenotype conventional in terms of human and animal health and safety for plants and the environment; (4) The commercial release of genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9 is not likely to cause significant degradation of the environment or human and animal health |
Upload: |
|
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
molecular traditional methods |
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
National Biosafety Commission
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
Not Applicable |
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): National Biosafety Technical Commission
Contact person name: Paulo Augusto Viana Barroso
Website:
Physical full address: SPO Area 5 Qd 3 Bl B S 10.1 Brasilia DF
Phone number: 556120335087
Fax number:
Country introduction: Brazil had the first biosafety law approved in 1995. After the identification of the need to improve the biosafety system of Brazilian genetically modified organisms, a new law was published. The Law 11.105 / 05 establishes a technical committee dedicated to the analysis of the safety aspects of genetically modified organisms and a council of ministers that is dedicated to the analysis of the socioeconomic aspects of the commercial release of genetically modified organisms. In this context, Brazil already has several commercial products that involve genetically modified organisms (plants, human and veterinary vaccines, microorganisms for fuel production) and products derived from new genetic modification techniques.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: At the discretion of, and upon consultation with, CTNBio, a new analysis and issuance of technical opinion may be released on GMOs containing more than one event, combined through classic genetic improvement and which have been previously approved for commercial release by CTNBio
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Dr. Paulo Augusto Viana Barroso (President of national Biosafety Commission)
Name of product applicant: |
Dow AgroSciences Canada Inc. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
16/05/2012 |
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 (food safety): |
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 (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Health Canada
Contact person name: Neil Strand
Website:
Physical full address: 251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Tunney's Pasture, PL 2204A1
Phone number: 613-946-1317
Fax number:
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.
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.
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: Neil Strand, Section Head of Novel Foods
Name of product applicant: |
Dow Agrosciences Colombia S.A |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
13/03/2014 |
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): |
Based on the risk assessment, it can be concluded that the event shows the same risks as its conventional counterpart. Therefore the National Technical Biosafety Committee for GMO use exclusively in Health and human consumption (CTNSalud) recommends its authorization. |
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 (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Ministerio de salud y proteccion social
Contact person name: Daniel Rubio
Website:
Physical full address: Carrera 13 No. 32- 76 piso 12, Bogotá
Phone number: 330 5000 ext 1256
Fax number:
Country introduction: 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.
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: |
PT. Dow AgroSciences Indonesia |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
28/05/2020 |
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.): |
Indonesia biosafety cliring house
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Indonesia National Agency of Drug and Food certified food safety for GM Maize event DAS-40278-9 (tolerance to 2 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2 4-D),and to aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitor
|
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 (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and De
Contact person name: Sustiprijatno
Website:
Physical full address: BB Biogen Jl Tentara Pelajar 3A Bogor 16111 Indonesia
Phone number: +622518333440
Fax number: +622518334420
Country introduction:
- Indonesia has ratified Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) through the Indonesian Law No. 21 / 2004. In the implementation, biosafety assessment for GM products, based on Goverment Regulation Number 21 /2005, Indonesia has regulated GM products on several items including : product kinds and requrements, research and developement, product importation, product assessment, release and distribution, supervision and monitoring, and institution and financing. We have also Law for food No. 18 /2012 which also consists of regulation for GM food.
- Indonesia already have procedure /application on GMO biosafety assessment and National Authorized Institution who conducting the biosafety assessment . Each GM food should have authorization from Goverment before it can be released and distributed. An application for authorisation for new GM food should be submited to Biosafety Commision through related Ministry or authorised Non Departement Goverment Agency (LPND) . Biosafety Commision, then sends the application to the National Agency for Drug and Food Control (Badan POM) for technical team to evaluate the GM food safety. The recommendation by technical team will be sent back to Biosafety Commision. The recommendation and GM Food safety certificate will be released by Biosafety Commision to the applicant through related ministry or LPND.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: National Agency of Food and Drug Control (BPOM): http://www.pom.go.id/new/home/en
Name of product applicant: |
Dow AgroSciences GmbH |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
13/10/2020 |
Scope of authorization: |
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): |
Competent National Authority: Ministry of Agriculture-Jehad, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO). Risk Assessment file is uploaded.
https://bch.cbd.int/en/database/RA/BCH-RA-IR-115739/1 |
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 (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): ABRII
Contact person name: Gholamreza Salehi Jouzani
Website:
Physical full address: Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII), Mahdasht Road, 31535-1897, Karaj, Iran
Phone number: 0098(26)32701132
Fax number: 0098(26)32701132
Country introduction: Iran has ratified Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2003. The National Biosafety Law has also been ratified in 2009. The regulations for the National Biosafety Law have been prepared and approved during last ten years. All these laws and regulations deal with Living GMOs (LMOs) and there is no Law for the regulation of the non-living GMOs. All these laws and regulations are accessible at: http://bch.cbd.int/database/results?searchid=622770. Codex principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology and other guidelines such as the Codex guidelines for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods produced using recombinant-DNA plants and microorganisms are widely accepted and used.
The process for authorization of new LMO release includes comprehensive risk assessment and management analysis. Ministry of Agriculture (Jihade Keshavarzi) is responsible for approval of the release, import, export, transit and use of Agricultural Related LMOs. The requests should be forwarded to: a[email protected]; with a CC to National Focal Point: [email protected]. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety National Focal Point is in charge of all liaison affairs related to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and acts as the contact point for the communications received. The Ministry of Health and Medical Education is in charge with the approval of all LMOs related to food and medicine. Environmental Protection Organization is in charge with the environmental release of LMOs in the wild nature and/or related to the wild organisms. Detailed procedure for authorization of GM food and feed is under preparation.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Agricultural Jihad Ministry
Tehran, Tehran
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
|
Ministry of Health and Medical Education- Food & Drug Administration
Food and Drug Administration, Fakhrerazi St., Enghelab Ave.
Tehran
Iran (Islamic Republic of), 1314715311
|
Name of product applicant: |
Dow Chemical Japan Ltd. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
30/05/2012 |
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): |
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 Food Safety Commission of Japan (in Japanese)
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Food Safety Commission Secretariat,Cabinet Office,
Contact person name: Kojiro Yokonuma
Website:
Physical full address: Akasaka 5-2-20 Minato Ward,Tokyo,Japan
Phone number: 81 3 6234 1122
Fax number: 81 3 3584 7392
Country introduction: 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.
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: |
Dow Agrosciences (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
01/08/2017 |
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.): |
Department of Biosafety Malaysia
CBD Biosafety Clearing House
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Please refer to the Risk Assessment Report |
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 (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Department of Biosafety Malaysia
Contact person name: Dr. Anita Anthonysamy
Website:
Physical full address: Department of Biosafety,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability
Level 4, Block F11, Complex F
Lebuh Perdana Timur, Precinct 1
62000 Putrajaya, Malaysia
Phone number: +60380917322
Fax number: +60380917371
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: Department of Biosafety, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability, Level 4, Block F11, Complex F Lebuh Perdana Timur, Precinct 1 62000 Putrajaya, Malaysia. Email: [email protected]. Url: www. biosafety.gov.my
Food Safety and Quality Division, Ministry of Health, Level 4, Menara Prisma, No. 26, Persiaran Perdana, Putrajaya, Malaysia, 62675. Phone: +603 88850797 Fax: +603 88850790 Email: [email protected]
Name of product applicant: |
Híbridos Pioneer de México, S.A. de C.V. - Dow AgroSciences, S.A. de C.V. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
16/12/2011 |
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): |
UI OECD: DAS-4Ø278-9
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.
For more detail please find attached the risk assessment summary in this page.
|
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 (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: |
Dow AgroSciences Australia Ltd |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
08/12/2011 |
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): |
In conducting a safety assessment of food derived from herbicide-tolerant corn line DAS-40278-9, a number of criteria have been addressed including: a characterisation of the transferred gene, its origin, function and stability in the corn genome; the changes at the level of DNA, protein and in the whole food; compositional analyses; evaluation of intended and unintended changes; and the potential for the newly expressed protein to be either allergenic or toxic in humans.
No potential public health and safety concerns have been identified in the assessment of insect-protected corn DAS-40278-9. On the basis of the data provided in the present application, and other available information, food derived from corn DAS-40278-9 is considered to be as safe for human consumption as food derived from conventional corn cultivars. |
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 A1042 - Food derived from herbicide-tolerant corn line DAS-40278-9
|
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: |
DOW AGROSCIENCES PARAGUAY S. A. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
08/11/2019 |
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.): |
DAS-4Ø278-9
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Differentiated approval procedure: Through Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Resolutions 1030 and 1071 there was stated a differentiated treatment for the commercial release of novel GE crops and for GE crops that have been approved in third countries, whose scientific, technical and safety characteristics are well-founded. Paraguayan Ministry of Agriculture’s Resolutions authorize taking into consideration the decision documents from third countries with regard to both human and animal food safety in the cases where these evaluations have been based on Codex Alimentarius, such as the Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants and carried out in countries with time-tested regulatory systems and transparent procedures.
Concerning environmental safety, assessments are accepted for GE crops that besides having been authorized for commercial planting in countries with sound regulatory systems, include in the decision documents considerations as follows: that the GE crop under review has been studied under different environmental conditions, behaving in the same way as the conventional non-GE counterpart; that it will be managed in an agronomic manner similar to any GE or conventional hybrid/variety of the species; another aspect is that Paraguay is not center of origin of that crop, and finally two relevant characteristics are that there are no related weeds in Paraguay with which the GE crop could cross-breed and that the main target pests and the main non-target arthropod species present in Paraguay have been taken into account in the GE risk assessment carried out in those countries.
The Commercial Release Opinion of the National Commission for Agricultural and Forestry Biosafety (CONBIO), in its substantial part states: "...Recommends technically: (1) The commercial release of the event DAS-40278-9 (2) In case of detection of an unexpected effect, the company is obliged to inform CONBIO". |
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: |
Paraguay’s Path Toward the Simplification of Procedures in the Approval of GE Crops
|
Upload: |
|
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería
Contact person name: Santiago Bertoni
Website:
Physical full address: Yegros 437 entre 25 de mayo y Cerro Cora
Phone number: +595 981 256262
Fax number:
Country introduction: 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.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: When a stacked event is approved, all possible combinations are approved. Previously evaluated single events are not reevaluated in stacks.
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: 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”. Additional information https://conbio.mag.gov.py/
Name of product applicant: |
Dow AgroSciences |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
07/05/2019 |
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): |
STRP ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the documents submitted by the applicant:
A. Host Organism
The STRPs agree that Corn is a major item of grain grown for food and feed. Based on the combined compositional analysis from the literature, for human consumption , the grain contains (by dry weight basis) 63.3-89.8 % carbohydrates, 6.0- 17.3 % protein, 1.2-18.8 % total fat 8.3-35.3 % total dietary fiber and 0.62-6.28 % ash. For forage, it contains 66.9-94.5 % carbohydrates, 3.14-15.9 5 protein, 0.296-6.7 5 total fat. 19.0-62.8 % total dietary fiber and 1.3-10.5 % ash. Corn is also the source of some anti-nutrients like trypsin inhibitors, raffinose, phytic acid and secondary metabolites (coumaric acid, ferulic acid, furfural and inositol).
The STRPs also agree that Corn in not known to be a toxicant, except for improperly stored grain that can be infested by insects and toxin-producing molds. Corn grain is not a source of allergen. However, the pollen of the corn plant is known be allergenic to hypersensitive individuals. According to Astwood et al, 1996. The potential pollen allergens known are Zea m1 and Clone C13. The pollen specific cDNAs of these are similar to those found in rye (Lol P1 sequence) and olives (ole e1) (Villalba et al, 1993). Pollen is shed at specific time points in the growing season. Since the subject of this application is corn grain, then pollen is not expected to be included in the importation.
Further, the STRPs also noted that Corn has been used a primary source of food and consumed as food. In US, 90% of the total corn production is used as feed grain (meals, gluten feed, etc.). Estimates of both single serving (acute or short term intake) and repeat dose (chronic or average daily intake) corn exposures are available for consumption pattern that are relevant to the consumer. The intake of animal dietary burdens for livestock (beef, dairy, pig) and poultry are presented in tabulated form. Consumption pattern for livestock and poultry has been provided and described sufficiently. The introduction of the novel food (DAS 40278-9 Corn) is not expected to change as it was found to be substantially equivalent to conventional corn as a result of nutrient composition analyses.
B. Donor Organism
The STRPs concur that the inserted protein expressing aad-1 from a fragment of 6236 bp linear DNA was described. This was a fragment from the vector DNA plasmid pDAS1740. The regulatory sequences that included the promoter (Zm Ubi) the terminator (Zm Per 5 3’-UTR) were both from corn. The enhancers represented by the matrix attachment regions from tobacco (RB7 MAR v3 and v4 that flanked the aad-1 were adequately described in the patent documents. The promoter and terminator sequences were both expected to be recognized by the plant because they came from the same source and therefore ensure positive expression of the inserted gene. The MARS were included to increase consistency of expression and avoid any possible silencing (non-expression) of the inserted gene.
The STRPs also agree that the aad-1 encodes Aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase 1 which in the presence of α- ketoglutarate is known to degrade phenoxy auxins such as 2,4-D to dichlorophenol and eventually to succinate and carbon dioxide. These two products are common intermediated in cellular metabolism and are therefore not harmful by themselves. S. herbicidovorans could therefore use the phenoxy auxins and other xenobiotics as source of carbon for growth. Other substrates for this dioxygenase are the family of aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP)–acetyl CoA inhibitors or “fop” pesticides.
Further, they also agree that S. herbicidovorans, the source organism for the aad-1 gene is a gram-negative soil bacterium. Due to their biodegraduve and biosynthetic capabilities, the sphingomonads have been used for a wide range of biotechnological applications, including bioremediation of environmental contaminants and production of extracellular polymers such as sphingans which are used extensively in the food industry. There is no known pathogenicity and allergenicity of the encoded protein.
C. Transformation System
The STRPs all agree that the method of transformation was described and referenced as the Whisker-mediated direct DNA transfer using silicone carbide fiber directly penetrating the cell wall and directly incorporating the desired DNA. The target of genetic modification was the nuclear genome for stable and whole plant expression. The experimental procedure was adequately described and a schematic diagram was provided. A summary of the genetic elements are presented in tabulated form, indicating the locations on plasmid pDAS-1740 Tsp 1 fragment, size and description. he plasmid map of pDAS-1740 with all the genetic elements identified was presented. There was no carrier or helper DNA that was used in the introduction of the 8512 bp linear PTU from pDAS 1740 into the embryogenic cell suspension cultures to produce Event DAS 40278-9.
E. Inserted DNA
The molecular characterization of DAS-40278-9 corn was performed by Southern blot analyses. The result demonstrated that the transgene insert in DAS-40278-9 corn occurred as a single integration of a single intact copy of aad-1 expression cassette from plasmid pDAS 1740. The insert is stably integrated and inherited across and within the breeding generations. No plasmid backbone sequences are present in DAS-40278-9 corn. here was no indication of truncations in the Southern blots. The number and expected sizes of the specific hybridizing bands were consistently observed were consistently observed.There was also no indication of deletions in the Southern blots.
F. Genetic Stability
The STRPs concur that Southern blot analyses were conducted with five (5) distinct generations (T3, T4, BC3S3, and BC3S2) of DAS-40278-9 corn. Results across all DAS-40278-9 corn samples indicated stable inheritance of the intact single copy insert across multiple generations of DAS040278-9 corn. Segregation in T1, T2, BC1, BC2 BC3 and BC3S1 of DAS-40278- 9 corn were performed on leaf tissues through Southern blotting and immunoassay for the expressed AAD-1. The typical Mendelian inheritance ratio of 3:1 was observed. From the BC3S1 line for example, 65 tested positive for AAD-1 protein expression and 20 were null segregants. The aad-1 probe hybridized to each of the each 65 plants that tested positive for AAD-1. The 20 null segregants did not show this hybridization band, indicating the absence or non-inheritance of the inserted aad-1.
G. Expressed Material
A field expression study was conducted in 6 sites planted with DAS-40278-9 hybrid corn (BC3S1- A & E). Four treatments of the DAS-40278-9 corn expression study included 3 herbicide treatments as follows: AAD-1 Unsprayed, AAD-1 + Quizalofop, AAD-1 + 2,4-D, and AAD-1 + Quizalofop and 2,4-D. Results are presented showing the levels of AAD-1 protein (ng/mg tissue dry weight) measured in DAS-40278-9 corn indicating the range, mean and standard deviation. The average expression values ranged from 2.87 ng/mg dry weight in R1 stage root to 127 ng/mg in pollen tissue. For the plots sprayed and unsprayed with 2,4-D and quizalofop herbicides, no AAD-1 protein was detected in the control tissues across the 6 locations.
A summary of the AAD-1 protein concentrations (average across sites) in various corn matrices are shown in tabulated form. The expression values were similar for the sprayed treatments as well as for the plots sprayed and unsprayed with 2,4-D and quizalofop herbicides. No AAD-1 protein has been detected in the control tissue across the 6 locations.
H. Toxicological Assessment
The STRPs agree that the digestibility of AAD-1 protein was tested in vitro using simulated gastric fluid (SGF). Samples were analyzed via SDS-PAGE and Western blot. The results demonstrated that AAD-1 protein was readily digested or inactivated (not detected at 30 seconds in SGF). Heat inactivation tests were also done, the lowest temperature used was 50oC for 30 min. These conditions already inactivated 97 % of the enzyme activity. The common cooking conditions applied to corn processing covers this and with the average field expression level of the AAD-1 present at 4.81 ng/mg tissue, processed products from DAS-40278-9 corn can be expected to be inactivated. Human consumption of raw corn is not the norm.
The STRPs also agree that BLASTp Search summary of proteins in the alignmenmts with AAD-1 is presented and adequately described. None of the protein alignments returned by the BLASTp search are associated with toxicity. It was concluded that the AAD-1 proteins expressed in DAS-40278-9 corn contains no significant sequence similarity with any known toxic protein that is harmful to man and animals.
Further, an acute oral toxicity study was conducted with AAD-1 protein in mice at a dose loevel of 2000 mg AAD-1/kg b.w. All the animals survived and gained weight. No adverse effects and clinical signs were observed by study termination on day 15. It was concluded that the acute oral LD50 of AAD-1 protein in mice was greater than 2000 mg/kg b.w., hence AAD-1 protein is not a health risk concern.
The protein equivalency was also done by comparing aad-1 expression in transgenic corn with that of the Pseudomonas fluorescens using SDS-PAGE/Western blot/glycoprotein detection/MALDI-TOF MS/ and tandem mass spectrometry. The products of the analyteshave been shown to be biochemically equivalent. Biochemical equivalency was established by the procedures previously described.
I. Allergenicity Assessment
The STRPs agree that the digestibility of AAD-1 protein was tested in vitro using simulated gastric fluid (SGF). Samples were analyzed via SDS-PAGE and Western blot. The results demonstrated that AAD-1 protein was readily digested or inactivated (not detected at 30 seconds in SGF). Heat inactivation tests were also done, the lowest temperature used was 50oC for 30 min. These conditions already inactivated 97 % of the enzyme activity. The common cooking conditions applied to corn processing covers this and with the average field expression level of the AAD-1 present at 4.81 ng/mg tissue, processed products from DAS-40278-9 corn can be expected to be inactivated. Human consumption of raw corn is not the norm.
The STRPs also agree that BLASTp Search summary of proteins in the alignmenmts with AAD-1 is presented and adequately described. None of the protein alignments returned by the BLASTp search are associated with toxicity. It was concluded that the AAD-1 proteins expressed in DAS-40278-9 corn contains no significant sequence similarity with any known toxic protein that is harmful to man and animals. The AAD-1 protein is not glycosylated as proven by glycoprotein staining. The AAD-1 has a molecular weight of 33 kDa as shown by electrophoretic separation.
Further, an acute oral toxicity study was conducted with AAD-1 protein in mice at a dose loevel of 2000 mg AAD-1/kg b.w. All the animals survived and gained weight. No adverse effects and clinical signs were observed by study termination on day 15. It was concluded that the acute oral LD50 of AAD-1 protein in mice was greater than 2000 mg/kg b.w., hence AAD-1 protein is not a health risk concern. No serum screening was reported in the references possibly because of no evidence of similarity in sequence to known allergens. Please see above.
J. Nutritional Data
The STRPs agree that proximate analysis for grain show no differences across the six sites between control and transgenic lines were observed for fat ash, NDF and TDF. Fiber was within the reported literature range. A significant overall treatment effect was found for moisture but this did not show significance in the paired t-test or after adjustment for FDR. The differences in the values are not considered biologically meaningful because these were statistically low and in most cases was resolved after applying adjustment for false discovery rate (chance). Lastly, the values obtained still fall within those reported in the literature. Corn grain from Event DAS-40278-9 can therefore be considered substantially equivalent to conventionally-bred corn in terms of proximate.
They also agree that there were also no significant differences in proximate analysis of forage, in control and transgenic lines for moisture, ADF, NDF, Ca and P. In comparison with the control line, protein content was lower in the transgenic line unsprayed and sprayed with quizalofop. On the other hand, ash content in the transgenic line sprayed with 2,4-D and quizalofop was highest. Carbohydrate was higher in the unsprayed and quizalofop-sprayed transgenic line. The differences are not of biological significance because there was no calculated treatment effect and the values still fall under the range of literature values. The value for carbohydrates was estimated by difference and has no significant FDR adjusted p-value and should therefore be of no biological concern.
Furthermore, across –site analysis for levels of fatty acids in the grain gave values for 8:0 to 15:1 and 16:1 to 17:1 fatty acids that were below the limit of quantitation (LOQ). Values for 16:0 palmitic and 18:0, stearic acids where not significantly different and showed no overall treatment effect for the control and transgenic lines. Additionally the values were within the literature ranges.
Anti-nutrients like raffinose was below the LOQ for the transgenic and non-transgenic control lines, as presented in table 24 of the summary. There was no significant difference found in the levels of trypsin inhibitor in the transgenic lines (4.87 to 5.45 % d.w.b) as compared to the non-transgenic line (5.08 %d.w.b).
K. Recommendation
Find scientific evidence that the regulated article applied for human food and animal feed use is as safe as its conventional counterpart and shall not pose any significant risk to human and animal health.
BPI-PPSSD ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION
Corn DAS 40278-9 was developed by Dow AgroSciences B.V., through the use of recombinant DNA technology. The said event was developed through Whisker’s – mediated direct DNA transformation of corn cells with pDAS1740 plasmid vector carrying, the aad-1 gene that encodes AAD-1 protein that provides herbicide tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (“fop” herbicides).
Host Organism (Zea mays L.)
Corn (Zea mays L.) has been widely consumed as staple food for humans and feed ingredient for animals. It is used in food products such as oil, grit, meal, flour, ethanol, syrup and starch as well as feeds such as hulls, gluten and hominy (OECD, 2002). Humans consume corn mostly in the form of corn-based ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup, starch, sweeteners, cereals, oil and alcohol. In terms of the feeds, it is commonly consumed in the form of corn silage (forage), gluten meal, gluten feed and distillers dried grains. In 2014, the daily per capita consumption index of corn in the Philippines is 60.08 grams/day, while the daily per capita calories supply is 213.88 grams (PSA, 2015).
Corn is a source of key nutrients such as amino acids, fatty acids, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and fiber (OECD, 2002). It is also known to contain anti-nutrients such as phytic acid, 2,4-Dihydroxy-7-methoxy-2H-1,4-benzoaxin-3(4H)-one (DIMBOA), raffinose, trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors, and secondary plant metabolites such as furfural, ferulic acid and p-coumaric acid. These anti-nutrients and secondary metabolites have been historically present in corn at levels that would not cause the food to be unsafe.
History of safe use was attributed to corn. It is known to produce no significant amount of toxins and anti-nutrients. It is not a common allergenic food; however, some reports had stated gastrointestinal and respiratory allergenic reactions.
Transgenic Plant (DAS-40278-9 Corn)
DAS-40278-9 corn has been reviewed and approved for food and/or feed use in many countries including Australia (Food, 2011), Brazil (Food and Feed, 2015), Canada (Food and Feed, 2012), Colombia (Food, 2014; Feed, 2013), European Union (Food and Feed, 2017), Japan (Food and Feed, 2012), Malaysia (Food and Feed, 2017), Mexico (2011), New Zealand (2011), South Africa (Food and Feed, 2012), South Korea (Food and Feed, 2014), Taiwan (2011), and United States of America (2011) (ISAAA).
The event, DAS-40278-9 was developed to express AAD-1 proteins derived from Sphingobium herbicidovorans (Dow AgroSciences, 2014). The protein confers tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (“fop” herbicides). The transformation method is through Whisker’s – mediated direct DNA transfer with plasmid vector pDAS1740 into the corn line Hi-II. The plasmid vector contains the aad-1 gene expression cassette which contains two (2) matrix attachment region (MAR) obtained from Nicotiana tobacum (RB7 MAR), ubiquitin promoter isolated from Zea mays, synthetic, plant optimized version of an aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase gene isolated from Sphingobium herbicidovorans, 3’ untranslated region from Zea mays peroxidase gene, and six (6) intervening sequences.
Donor Organisms (Sphingobium herbicidovorans)
Sphingobium herbicidovorans is a gram negative soil bacterium which has the ability to use phenoxy auxin and AOPP herbicides as carbon sources for growth (Dow AgroSciences, 2014). Sphingomonads are widely distributed in nature and was found in land, water, plant root systems, clinical specimens, etc. It has history of use in terms of bioremediation of environmental contaminants and production of extracellular polymers such as sphingans which are extensively used in food industry.
The donor organisms of other genetic elements included in the plasmid vector pDAS1740 includes Nicotiana tobacum and Zea mays (Dow AgroSciences, 2014). History of safe use has been attributed to Z. mays since it is being widely consumed as staple food of several countries worldwide and is not a common allergenic food nor a source of toxicants. No food safety concern with regards to the other donor organisms used in the transformation since the regulatory sequences obtained from these organisms are not being expressed in DAS-40278-9.
The only protein expressed in DAS-40278-9 is the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-1 (AAD-1) protein encoded by aad-1 gene. AAD-1 has an alpha ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenase activity (Dow AgroSciences, 2014).
Inserted DNA
Southern blot analyses using restriction enzymes such as EcoR I, Nco I, Sac I and Fse I/Hind III and aad-1, ZmUbi1 promoter and ZmPer5 terminator probes confirmed that the observed fragment sizes of each probe corresponds with the predicted fragment sizes of each probe of DAS-40278-9 genomic DNA and pDAS1740 (Dow AgroSciences, 2014). The results of analyses showed that DAS-40278-9 genome contains only a single insertion of the T-DNA from the plasmid pDAS1740. Also, no specific hybridization bands were detected in the negative control samples in any of the restriction enzyme and probe combinations. This indicates that the single insert in DAS-40278-9 corn contains an intact single copy of aad-1 gene. No truncations, deletions or rearrangements were identified. Southern blot analyses using Nco I and Sac I restriction enzymes on the backbone probes confirmed that no plasmid backbone sequences from pDAB1740 were integrated into DAS-40278-9.
Genetic Stability
The multigenerational stability of the introduced traits was assessed through Southern Blot Analysis of genetic samples from five generations (T3, T4, BC3S1, BC3S2 and BC3S3) of DAS-40278-9 (Dow AgroSciences, 2014). Results showed that aad-1 gene is stably inherited across multiple generations of DAS-40278-9. Segregation is assessed by Southern blot analysis and protein detection of individual plants from a BC3S1 line of DAS-40278-9. Chi-square analysis indicated that the segregation ratio of the plants with positive transgene insert versus negative transgene insert is consistent with the 3:1 segregation ratio characteristic of Mendelian inheritance pattern of a single dominant trait.
Expressed Material (Cry34Ab1, Cry35Ab1 and PAT proteins)
AAD-1 protein has specific mode of action on 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and arylophenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (“fop” herbicides). The protein have no metabolic role in plants (Dow AgroSciences, 2014).
Expression level of AAD-1 in different plant parts of corn DAS-40278-9 was measured using ELISA methods (Dow AgroSciences, 2014). The measurements are in dry weight basis (ng/mg dry weight). Margin of exposure of general population and children in Japan to AAD-1 protein was derived from the data of the food intake in Japan and the No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) of AAD-1 protein determined from the acute oral toxicity study. Computed margins of exposure of general population and children (<6 year) to AAD-1 protein in corn is greater than 102564 and 67340, respectively.
Toxicological and Allergenicity Assessment
The novel protein, AAD-1, was subjected to digestibility, heat inactivation, oral toxicity and amino acid sequence comparison studies to determine its potential to cause toxicity or allergenicity to humans (Dow AgroSciences, 2014).
Digestibility study using Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF) with pepsin demonstrated that AAD-1 is readily degraded within 30 seconds of incubation with SGF, in presence of 0.32% w/v pepsin at pH 1.2, a characteristic of most non-toxic proteins (Dow AgroSciences, 2014).
Heat Inactivation of AAD-1 is evaluated by heating protein solutions for 30 minutes at 50°C, 70°C and 95°C (Schafer, 2008). Upon treatment, samples were analyzed through ELISA, SDS-PAGE and western blot. Activity of AAD-1 was assayed by colorimetric enzyme assay. Results of the SDS-PAGE analysis showed that the AAD-1 protein was undetectable upon heating at 50, 70 or 95°C for 30 minutes. This was observed upon centrifugation of the protein samples prior to addition of Laemmli buffer. Immunoreactivity and enzymatic activity of AAD-1 decreased by 100% upon heat treatment at 50°C. Only 0.2% immunoreactivity and 3.0% enzymatic activity was detected upon heat treatment at 90°C.
Amino acid sequence comparison of AAD-1 protein to toxins and allergens was conducted using BLASTp search algorithm against the GenBank and FASTA program (Dow AgroSciences, 2014). Results of bioinformatics analyses indicated that AAD-1 protein is not homologous to any toxin and allergen. This was verified through conducting amino acid comparison using the same bioinformatics tool on August 23, 2017 (AIS-FRA-17-06-BIA).
Acute oral toxicity study on mice showed no mortality, clinical signs and treatment-related gross pathological observations during the study (Wiescinski and Golden, 2007). The determined No Observed Effect Level for AAD-1 protein is greater than 2000 mg/kg body weight.
The AAD-1 protein used in the studies was obtained from Pseudomonas fluorescens (Dow AgroSciences, 2014). Biochemical characterization, SDS-PAGE and wester blot analysis of crude extracts, MALDI-TOF and ESI/LC-MS tryptic and Asp-N peptide mass fingerprints, tryptic and Asp-N Peptide N- and C- terminal sequence analysis, and endogenous allergen analysis were conducted by the proponent to confirm that the P. fluorescens- produced AAD-1 protein is biochemically and functionally equivalent to AAD-1 expressed in DAS-40278-9.
Levels of AAD-1 in DAS-40278-9 determined through ELISA and the crude protein content of DAS-40278-9 were used to compute the percent total protein for AAD-1 which is 0.0046%.
Results of the digestibility, heat inactivation, amino acid sequence comparison and acute oral toxicity studies indicates that AAD-1 protein being expressed in DAS-40278-9 corn is not toxic or allergenic to humans (Dow AgroSciences, 2014).
Nutritional Data
Compositional analysis provided by the developer indicating the nutritional data of DAS-40278-9 in comparison with the non-transgenic corn and range of literature values (Dow AgroSciences, 2014). The trials were conducted in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and Ontario. Results of the analysis indicated that there is no differences in the proximate, fiber, mineral, amino acid, fatty acid, vitamins, anti-nutrient and secondary metabolite levels of DAS-40278-9 and the non-transgenic corn that can be considered biologically relevant.
Conclusion
For the transgenic DAS-40278-9 corn, enough evidence is provided to support the equivalence of the genetically modified crop, in terms of the nutritional composition and food safety, with the conventional corn other than tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (“fop” herbicides. After reviewing the provided material of Dow AgroSciences, it is therefore concluded that DAS-40278-9 corn is as safe as its conventional counterpart.
BAI ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the documents submitted by the applicant, BAI made the following assessment:
A. Host Organism
Maize is a source of protein, amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins etc. It also contains low levels of several anti-nutrients including trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors, raffinose, phytic acid etc. Maize is consumed in various food forms including starch, oil, grits, meal and flour. Based on FAOSTAT data, consumption of maize intake by general population in ASEAN countries ranged from about 79-190g/person/day (Ranum et al., 2014)
B. Transgenic Plant
DAS 40278-9 is approved in: USA (USDA, 2014), Canada (CFIA, 2012; Health Canada, 2012), Brazil (CTNBio, 2015), Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ, 2011), Mexico (COFEPRIS, 2011), Columbia (ICA, 2013; INVIMA, 2014), South Africa (DAFF, 2012), Japan (MAFF, 2012; MHLW, 2012), Taiwan (DOH, 2011) and South Korea (MFDS, 2014; RDA, 2014).
DAS-40278-9 maize is as safe and as nutritious as conventional maize. There is no need to change consumption pattern as a result of introduction of this Maize event.
C. Donor Organism
The AAD-1 protein is not known to possess potential pathogenic or allergenic properties. The introduced expressible sequence include AAD-1 protein conferring herbicide tolerance to 2,4dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (“fop” herbicides).
Sphingobium herbicidovorans is a donor of AAD-1 protein. Donor organisms of genetic elements including promoters, terminators and border sequences include Nicotiana tobacum and Zea mays. There are no publications concerning toxicity or allergenicity of these genetic elements in peer-reviewed journals. AAD-1 is the only protein expressed in DAS-40278-9 maize. The protein has specific mode of action and have no significant sequence similarity to known allergens or toxins
D. Transformation System
DAS-40278-9 maize was generated through direct insertion of the DNA fragment from plasmid pDAS1740 via Whiskers-mediated transformation. The genetic modification was intended to express AAD-1 protein in maize plants, thus provide tolerance to 2,4dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (“fop” herbicides). The transformation protocol is described fully. The plasmid vector, pDAS1740 (including orientation and relative location of genetic elements), is described adequately. There is no carrier DNA used for the transformation of pDAS1740 into maize. Whiskers-mediated transformation is a direct DNA transfer method.
E. Inserted DNA
DAS-40278-9 maize contains one intact copy of the T-DNA insert at a single locus. The insert copy number was checked through Southern blot analysis. Integrity and order of genetic elements in DAS-40278-9 maize were demonstrated via Southern blot analysis. Southern blot analysis showed that DAS-40278-9 maize contains a single intact copy of the aad1 expression cassette integrated at a single locus. The T-DNA insert in DAS-40278-9 maize contains a single, intact copy of each of the expression cassette for aad-1 gene. No vector backbone sequences were detected in event DAS-40278-9. There were no re-arrangements of the cassette observed.
There is no plasmid vector backbone sequence present in DAS-40278-9 maize as demonstrated by Southern blot analysis. Confirmation of lack of vector backbone using Southern blot analysis is a scientifically proven method and is sufficient.
F. Genetic Stability
Stability of the T-DNA insert across five generations was demonstrated by Southern blot analysis. Segregation was assessed using event-specific PCR. Populations of T1, T2 generations, 3 backcross populations (BC1, BC2, BC3) and one population of BC3F2 were assessed. Segregation result is consistent with the reported one copy TDNA insert.
G. Expressed Material
Expression levels of AAD-1 protein were determined using protein-specific ELISA methods with and without herbicide treatments. Expression values were similar for the sprayed treatments as well as for the plots sprayed and unsprayed with 2, 4-D and quizalofop herbicides. Mean AAD-1 protein levels in roots ranged from 2.87-3.92; in V9 stage leaf from 5.38-6.52; in forage from 6.84-7.32; in pollen from 108-127 and in grain from 4.61-5.00 ng/mg dry weight tissue. AAD-1 protein has specific mode of action on 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (“fop” herbicides). The protein does not play a role in endogenous plant metabolism.
H. Toxicological Assessment
The digestibility of the microbe-derived AAD-1 protein was tested in vitro using simulated gastric fluid (SGF) containing gastric enzyme pepsin. The estimated T50 result was less than 30 seconds with no large size fragments remaining. AAD-1 protein was also evaluated by heating protein solutions for 30 min at 50, 70 and 95 C and 20 min in an autoclave in a phosphate based buffer. Results showed that AAD-1 protein is immunochemically denatured when heated. The AAD-1 protein lost more than 97% of its immunoreactivity, with results showing that it was almost undetectable by ELISA after exposure to the heat treatment.
Bioinformatics analysis through BLAST search showed AAD-1 has no significant sequence similarity with known toxins (Section 9.1.3.1 of the Food and Feed safety and Nutrition Assessment for Herbicide Tolerance DAS-40278-9 Maize dossier). Glycosylation analysis of AAD-1 isolated from DAS-40278-9 maize showed the protein is not glycosylated.AAD-1 protein used in the acute toxicity test was derived from Pseudomonas fluorescens. The microbial AAD-1 is biochemically and functionally equivalent to the AAD-1 expressed in DAS-40278-9
I. Allergenicity Assessment
The digestibility of the microbe-derived AAD-1 protein was tested in vitro using simulated gastric fluid (SGF) containing gastric enzyme pepsin. The estimated T50 result was less than 30 seconds with no large size fragments remaining. AAD-1 protein was also evaluated by heating protein solutions for 30 min at 50, 70 and 95 C and 20 min in an autoclave in a phosphate based buffer. Results showed that AAD-1 protein is immunochemically denatured when heated. The AAD-1 protein lost more than 97% of its immunoreactivity, with results showing that it was almost undetectable by ELISA after exposure to the heat treatment.
Bioinformatics analysis through BLAST search showed AAD-1 has no significant sequence similarity with known toxins (Section 9.1.3.1 of the Food and Feed safety and Nutrition Assessment for Herbicide Tolerance DAS-40278-9 Maize dossier). Glycosylation analysis of AAD-1 isolated from DAS-40278-9 maize showed the protein is not glycosylated.
When the WHO “GC 645 maize” acute consumption information is coupled to the AAD-1 field expression level of 4.81 ng/mg tissue, the potential acute exposure to AAD-1 protein via maize is estimated as: (1) 0.0195 mg protein/kg bw/day, for general population (i.e. adults) and (2) 0.0297 mg protein/kg bw/day, for children of 6 years or younger.
No serum screening was performed for the said application. AAD-1 has no evidence of allergenicity.
J. Nutritional Data
Differences were observed in moisture and carbohydrates in grain between DAS-40278-9 maize and comparator. However, levels were all within reference range and literature range. Nutrient composition analysis showed DAS40278-9 maize is substantially equivalent to comparator, the non-transgenic Maize, with no significant and biologically meaningful differences, both in grains and forage.
K. Recommendation
Find scientific evidence that the regulated article applied for animal feed use is as safe as its conventional counterpart and shall not pose any significant risk to human and animal health
DOH ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION
After a thorough review and evaluation of the documents provided by the proponent, Dow AgroSciences B.V., Philippines Branch through the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), in support of their application for approval for Direct Use for Food and Feed or for Processing (FFP) of Corn DAS 40278-9. I/We,
Find that the regulated article applied for Direct Use for Food and Feed or for Processing (FFP) is safe as its conventional counterpart and shall not pose any significant risk to human and animal health, and environment.
The following are the observations and recommendations:
1) Find that the regulated article applied for Direct Use for FFP does not require changes in the usual practices in unloading and loading, hauling, transport and storage, and processing. As such, the regulated article is as safe as its conventional counterpart and is not expected to pose any significant risk to human and animal and the environment while in transit, storage and processing.
2) Scientific pieces of evidence from provided references i.e. literatures show that the regulated article applied for Direct Use as FFP is as safe as its conventional counterpart and shall not pose any significant risk to human and animal health and on the environment.
3) It is suggested that the BPI ensure the following:
a) Strict monitoring of the regulated article from port of entry to the traders/importers storage/warehouse as stated in Sec 32 of JDC 1 s2016
b) The BPI to include in the issuance of permit for release of this product the following conditions:
i. Any spillage (during unloading and loading/hauling and transport unloading and storage) shall be collected and cleaned up immediately.
ii. Transportation of the consignment from the port of entry to any destination shall be in closed containers.
iii. There shall be a clear instructions that the product is only for the purpose of direct use for FFP and is not to be used as planting materials.
Based on the above considerations and with the submitted sworn statement and accountability of the proponent, this recommendation is being submitted to the BPI related to the processing and issuance of a biosafety permit for Direct Use as FFP of corn DAS 40278-9.
|
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 (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
May 6, 2024 |
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Bureau of Plant Industry
Contact person name: Geronima P. Eusebio
Website:
Physical full address: San Andres St., Malate, Manila
Phone number: 632 404 0409 loc 203
Fax number:
Country introduction: 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.
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.
Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes Conferred Through (a) Genetic Engineering or b) Conventional Breeding, with Individual Traits That Have No Prior Approval:
A full risk assessnent as to food and feed or processing shall be conducted,consistent with Part V of AO No. 8,"Approval Process For the Importation of Regulated Articles for Direct Use as Food and Feed or For Processing for plant products with multiple traits conferred through:
(a) genetic engineering, or
(b) conventional breeding, where the individual traits have no prior approval from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) for direct use as food and feed or processing.
Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes Conferred through Conventional Breeding:
For plant products with multiple traits conferred through conventional breeding,with all individual events granted prior approval and included in the Approval Registry, a notlfication shall be submitted by the technology developer to the BPI, which shall conduct an evaluation in accordance with the relevant criteria in Annex I of this Memorandum Circular. The list of data contained in Annex I will not preclude the inclusion of other issues and concerns that will be raised by the BPI and the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) during the course of the desktop review.
Notificatlon Requirement for Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes
All technology developers shall submit a notification to the Bureau of Plant Industry of their developed plant products carrying stacked genes and shall be required to comply with the relevant approval process listed above.
The Bureau of Plant Industry shall issue a certiflcate as to the approval of the stacked gene product and shall likewise include the transformation event in the official approval registry of plant products for food and feed or processing.
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
Name of product applicant: |
Dow AgroSciences Int'l. Ltd. |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
03/07/2014 |
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 see the link below(in Korean). |
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 (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Ministry of Food and Drug Safety
Contact person name:
Website:
Physical full address: Osong Health Technology Administration Complex, 187, Osongsaengmyeong 2-ro, Osong-eup, Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheonbuk-do, 363-700, Korea
Phone number: 82-43-719-2360
Fax number:
Country introduction:
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: |
Dow AgroSciences |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
11/08/2020 |
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): |
Herbicide-tolerant corn line DAS-40278-9 has been genetically modified to tolerate 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors such as quizalofop-P-ethyl. This has been achieved through the introduction of the aad-1 gene, from Sphingobium herbicidovorans, expressing the enzyme aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase (AAD-1). Molecular analyses of corn DAS-40278-9 indicate there is one insertion site at a single genetic locus. This site contains one copy of the aad-1 gene and it is stably inherited from one generation to the next generation. Corn DAS-40278-9 expresses one new protein, AAD-1, which is non-toxic and non-allergenic to humans. Composition analyses showed that the levels of key components in seed from corn DAS-40278-9 are equivalent to conventional corn cultivars. Food derived from corn DAS-40278-9 is as safe as food derived from conventional corn cultivars. |
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 (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Singapore Food Agency (SFA)
Contact person name: Dr Tan Yong Quan
Website:
Physical full address: 52 Jurong Gateway Road 14-01 JEM Office Tower Singapore 608550
Phone number: (65)68052750
Fax number:
Country introduction: 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.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Singapore Food Agency (SFA)
Name of product applicant: |
DowAgroSciences |
Summary of application: |
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
01/06/2012 |
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)
|
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
The GM maize DAS-40278-9 has been assessed in terms of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, 1997 by the Advisory Committee, a scientific panel and the Executive Council an intergovernmental decision making body. The assessment considered amongst others the following: The source of the gene, nature of host organism, protein expression, toxicology and allergenicity issues |
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 (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries
Contact person name: Nompumelelo Mkhonza
Website:
Physical full address: 30 Hamilton street, Harvest House building, Arcadia, Pretoria, 0001
Phone number: +2712 319 6382
Fax number: +2712 319 6298
Country introduction: South Africa is a party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Department responsible for the Environment is the National Focal Point for the CPB and the Department responsible for Agriculture is the Competent National Authority for the CPB and National Focal point for the Biosafety Clearing House.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: South Africa does not have a specific review/authorization mechanism for stacked events. Stacked events just like single events are subjected to a safety assessment as per the GMO Act.
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Department of Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) http://www.daff.gov.za
Name of product applicant: |
Dow AgroSciences LLC |
Summary of application: |
Corn
Trait 1 Added Protein: Aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-1 (AAD-1) protein encoded by the aad-1 gene
Source: Sphingobium herbicidovorans
Intended Effect: Tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and certain aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides (e.g., quizalofop, cyhalofop, haloxyfop)
|
Upload: |
|
Date of authorization: |
13/04/2011 |
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:
|
|