| Commodity: |
Sugar Beet |
| Traits: |
Glyphosate tolerance |
| Name of product applicant: |
KWS SAAT and Monsanto |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
03/08/2018 |
| 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 of detection: event specific real-time PCR based method for the quantification of KM-ØØØH71-4 sugar beet. Reference material: ERM®-BF419 accessible via the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. Please see the EU relevant links below. |
| Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
Opinion of the European Food Safety Authority
Method for Detection
Reference Material
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
05/08/2028 |
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: |
Monsanto Australia Ltd |
| Summary of application: |
The sugar beet has been genetically modified (GM) for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, and is marketed in the United States under the names Roundup Ready® Sugar Beet and Glyphosate-Tolerant Sugar Beet.
Sugar beet line H7-1 contains the cp4 epsps gene from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, which encodes the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (CP4 EPSPS). The CP4 EPSPS enzyme is structurally and functionally similar to native plant EPSPS enzymes, but has a lower affinity for the herbicide glyphosate (Padgette et al 1996). In non-GM plants, glyphosate binds to the plant EPSPS enzyme and blocks the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids, thereby depriving plants of essential components (Steinrucken and Amrhein 1980). However, in Roundup Ready® plants, the CP4 EPSPS enzyme is not inactivated by glyphosate, so that growth and development of the plant can continue in the presence of the herbicide. |
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
24/11/2005 |
| 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 A525 - Food derived from herbicide - tolerant sugar beet H7-1
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Contact person name:
Website:
Physical full address: Level 4, 15 Lancaster Place, Majura Park ACT 2609, Australia
Phone number: +61 2 6271 2222
Fax number: +61 2 6271 2278
Country introduction: Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is the regulatory agency responsible for the development of food standards in Australia and New Zealand. The main office (approximately 115 staff) is located in Canberra (in the Australian Capital Territory) and the smaller New Zealand office (approximately 10 staff) is located in Wellington on the North Island. Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: FSANZ does not: Separately assess food from stacked event lines where food from the GM parents has already been approved; Mandate notification of stacked events by developers; Notify the public of stacked event ‘approvals’; List food derived from stacked event lines in the Code, unless the stacked event line has been separately assessed as a single line e.g. Application A518: MXB-13 cotton (DAS-21023-5 x DAS-24236-5)
No separate approval or safety assessment is necessary for foods derived from a stacked GM line that is the result of traditional breeding between a number of GM parent lines for which food has already been approved. Food from the parent lines must be listed in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The parent lines may contain any number of different genes. If food from any of the GM parent lines has not been approved, then a full pre-market safety assessment of food from the stacked line must be undertaken.
No separate approval is required for food derived from a line that is the product of a GM line, for which food has been approved, crossed traditionally with a non-GM line.
Where a single line containing a number of genes has been produced as a result of direct gene technology methods (rather than traditional crossing) then food derived from the line must undergo a full pre-market safety assessment before approval can be given Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au)
| Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto Canada Inc. and KWS SAAT AG |
| Summary of application: |
Monsanto and KWS have developed sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L..) lines based upon transformation event Roundup Ready® sugar beet H7-1 (H7-1). Sugar beet varieties containing this event express the CP4 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (cp4-epsps) gene which confers tolerance to glyphosate herbicides (trade name, Roundup®). Health Canada has previously indicated no objection to the sale of glyphosate tolerant corn (603, Mon 802, Mon 832), cotton (1445), canola (GT 200, GT 73) and soybean (GTS 40-3-2) lines for human food applications in Canada. Like sugar beet event H7-1 these lines contain the CP4 EPSPS enzyme which confers tolerance to glyphosate herbicides.
The safety assessment performed by Food Directorate evaluators was conducted according to Health Canada's Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods. The assessment considered: how sugar beet event H7-1 was developed; how the composition and nutritional quality of sugar derived from sugar beet varieties containing this event compare to the sugar of non-modified sugar beet varieties; and what the potential is for sugar derived from lines containing this event to be toxic or cause allergic reactions.
The Food Directorate has a legislated responsibility for pre-market assessment of novel foods and novel food ingredients as detailed in Division 28 of Part B of the Food and Drug Regulations (Novel Foods). Sugar derived from sugar beet lines containing event H7-1 is considered novel foods under the following part of the definition of novel foods: "c) a food that is derived from a plant, animal or microorganism that has been genetically modified such that
I.the plant, animal or microorganism exhibits characteristics that were not previously observed in that plant, animal or microorganism"
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
31/08/2005 |
| 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
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: |
Monsanto (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
14/12/2021 |
| 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, Environment and Climate Change
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, Environment and Climate Change 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: |
Monsanto Australia Ltd |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
23/03/2006 |
| 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): |
FSANZ has completed a comprehensive safety assessment of food derived from sugar beet line H7-1 as required under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (FSANZ Act). The assessment included consideration of:
(i) the genetic modification to the plant;
(ii) the safety of any transferred antibiotic resistance genes;
(iii) the potential toxicity and allergenicity of any new proteins; and
(iv) the composition and nutritional adequacy of the food, including whether there had been any unintended changes.
No potential public health and safety concerns were identified in the assessment of food
derived from sugar beet line H7-1. Therefore, on the basis of all the available evidence,
including detailed studies provided by the Applicant, it has been concluded that food, namely sugars derived from sugar beet line H7-1 is as safe and wholesome as food derived from other sugar beet 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: |
Application A525 - Food derived from herbicide - tolerant sugar beet H7-1
|
| 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: |
Monsanto Philippines |
| Summary of application: |
Monsanto Company has developed Roundup Ready® sugar beet (Sugar beet H7-1) plants (Beta vulgaris ssp vulgaris) that are tolerant to glyphosate. The genetically modified sugar beet plant was produced by the introduction of: the cp4 epsps gene derived from the common soil bacterium Agrobacterium strain CP4 which encodes for the production of the CP4 EPSPS enzyme and the gox gene from Ochrobactrum anthropi strain LBAA which encodes for the production of the enzyme glyphosate oxidase (GOX). Both gene products are responsible for conferring tolerance to glyphosate. |
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
28/07/2010 |
| 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): |
Monsanto Philippines Inc. submitted an application to the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) requesting for biosafety permit under AO#8 part 5 for Sugar beet H7-1 which has been genetically modified for herbicide resistance.
Sugarbeet H7-1 has been evaluated according to BPI’s safety assessment by concerned agencies of the Department of Agriculture, such as the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), and Bureau of Fisheries and Product Standards (BAFPS), and a Scientific Technical Review Panel (STRP) members. The process involves an intensive analysis of the nature of the genetic modification together with a consideration of general safety issues, toxicological and nutritional issues associated with the modified sugarbeet.
The petitioner/applicant published the application for direct use in two widely circulated newspapers for public comment/review. BPI received no comment on the petition during the 30-day comment period. Review of results of evaluation by the BPI Biotech Core Team, in consultation with DA Biotechnology Advisory Team (DA-BAT), completed the approval process.
|
| Upload: |
|
| Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
| Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
|
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: |
Monsanto Philippines, Inc. |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
22/03/2022 |
| 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): |
Gene Interaction:
The presence of CP4 EPSPS and PAT proteins will not interact to produce any new allergens or toxins. This is due to the different modes of action and metabolic pathway which have no known mechanism of interaction that could lead to adverse effects.[1][2].
The CP4 EPSPS protein is targeted to accumulate in the chloroplast via chloroplast transit peptide (CTP2) while the PAT protein which is not regulated by a transit peptide, is likely to accumulate in the cytoplasm.[1][5].
Metabolic Pathway:
The proteins CP4 EPSPS and PAT have different modes of action and metabolic pathway.[1].
CP4 EPSPS proteins are involved in the biochemical shikimic pathway producing aromatic amino acid in the chloroplasts. It catalyzes the transfer of enolpyruvyl group from phosphoenol pyruvate (PEP) to the 5-hydroxyl of shikimate3-phosphate (S3P) producing inorganic phosphate and 5 enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate. This enzyme catalyzes the reaction wherein the enolpyruvyl group from phosphoenol pyruvate (PEP) is transferred to the 5-hydroxyl of shikimate-3-phosphate (S3P) to form 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSPS) and inorganic phosphate (Pi).
PAT detoxifies glufosinate ammonium through acetylation of
phosphinothricin forming N-acetyl-glufosinate (NAG), 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid (MPP) and 3-methylphosphinicoacetic acid (MPA).[1][2][3][4].
Gene Interaction:
There is similar expression of proteins in the stacked event as in its corresponding single events. There are no marker genes transferred and expressed in MON 88302 x MS8 x RF3.[1].
The protein expression analysis indicated that CP4 EPSPS and PAT in MON 88302 x MS8 x RF3 are being expressed at low levels in the plant.[1].
The distinct modes of action of the proteins involved in different metabolic pathways and the protein expression analysis indicates that the possibility of unexpected effects of the stacked genes on the metabolism of the plant is unlikely.[1][2]. |
| 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): 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: |
Monsanto Company and KWS SAAT AG |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
31/05/2006 |
| 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): |
Peer review of the data submitted by the applicant and the results of complex
medical and biological studies of transgenic sugar beet line H7-1 tolerant to glyphosate herbicide, attest to the absence of any toxic, genotoxic, or allergenic effects of this sugar beet line. By biochemical composition, transgenic sugar beet line H7-1 was identical to conventional sugar beet.
GM sugar beet line H7-1 tolerant to glyphosate herbicide has been registered for food use, listed in the State Register, and licensed for use in the territory of the Russian
Federation, import into the territory of the Russian Federation, and placing on the market without restrictions.
|
| 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): FSBI «Institute of Nutrition» RAMS
Contact person name: Nadezhda Tyshko
Website:
Physical full address: 109240, Russia, Moscow, Ustinsky Proezd, 2/14
Phone number: +7(495)698-53-64
Fax number:
Country introduction: The development of the GMO safety assessment currently used in the Russian Federation started in 1995–1996. The methodological approaches to comprehensive complex medical and biological assessment of GMOs were developed in the Russian Federation with due regard for international and national experience as well as new scientific approaches based on the achievements of contemporary fundamental science: genomic and proteomic analysis, detection of DNA damage or mutagenic activity, identification of products of free-radical modifications of DNA or other sensitive biomarkers. GMO safety assessment is carried out for the state registration. Any novel food derived from plant GMO produced in Russia or imported into Russia for the first time is subject to the state registration . Guidance for safety assessment is specified in MU 2.3.2.2306-07 “Medico-Biological Safety Assessment of Plant Genetically Modified Organisms”. According to the accepted regulations,the human health assessment of a novel GMO to be placed on the domestic market includes the following: ■ Molecular assessment includes analysis of genetic construction, genetic modification method, and the gene expression level. ■ Technological assessment includes determination of organoleptic and functional properties, analysis of technological characteristics of the finished products. ■ Human health safety assessment includes several sections of required assessments: analysis of compositional equivalence and toxicological,genotoxicological, and allergological safety studies. ■ Methods for identification include qualitative and quantitative assay of GMO in food (studies targeted at determination of correspondence of these methods to those used in Russia in order to provide monitoring of use and labeling of GM food). The list and the scope of required studies is determined on the basis of analysis of information of the GMO submitted for registration; however, the above-mentioned studies are required. If significant changes in the GMO’s genome, proteome, or metabolome are shown, additional studies may be required to determine: biological value and absorbency reproductive effect; gonadotoxic, embryotoxic, teratotoxic effect; potential carcinogenic effect; lifetime, etc. Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events: Russia follows the national Methodical Guidelines 2.3.2.3388-16 “Medical and biological safety assessment of genetically modified stack events of plant origin ”
Our position regarding GM stacks registration is very close to the EU approach.
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: Federal Research Centre of nutrition and biotechnology Viktor A. Tutelyan Ustinsky proezd, 2/14 109240 Moscow, RUSSIA E-mail: [email protected] Tel.:+7 495 698-53-60
| Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
02/07/2007 |
| 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): |
Sugar beet line H7-1 (KM-000H71-4) has been genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. It contains the cp4 epsps gene derived from the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens sp. strain CP4. This gene expresses the bacterial EPSPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) enzyme, which allows the plant to continue to grow in the presence of the herbicide glyphosate. One intact copy of the cp4 epsps gene cassette has been inserted in the sugar beet. H7-1 expresses one novel protein, CP4 EPSPS, which is not toxic and is not likely to be allergenic to humans. Food derived from sugar beet H7-1 is compositionally equivalent to food derived from non-GM sugar beet. Sugars derived from sugar beet line H7-1 is as safe as food derived from other sugar beet 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: |
|
| 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: |
Monsanto Company and KWS SAAT AG |
| Summary of application: |
Sugar beet
Trait 1 Added Protein: 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS)
Source: Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4
Intended Effect: Tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
17/08/2004 |
| 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:
|
|
