| Commodity: |
Canola / Oilseed rape / Rape Seed |
| Traits: |
Glyphosate tolerance |
| Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
21/02/2007 |
| 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.): |
Biosafety Clearing House (BCH)
OECD BioTrack Product Database
|
| 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: |
Event specific real-time quantitative detection PCR method for MON-ØØØ73-7 oilseed rape Validated by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. Please see the EU relevant links below. -Reference Material: The American Oil Chemists' Society (AOCS) 2211 W. Bradley Ave., Champaign, IL USA 61821.
|
| Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
European Food Safety Authority, The EFSA Journal (2004) 29, 1-19 (for processing and feed use) UK Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (regarding food)
Method for Detection
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
20/02/2017 (for feed) |
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 Europe S.A. |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
24/04/2015 |
| 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.): |
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: |
Event specific real-time quantitative detection PCR method for MON-ØØØ73-7 oilseed rape Validated by the EU Reference Laboratory established under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Reference material: AOCS 0304-A and AOCS 0304-B accessible via the American Oil Chemists Society.
Relevant links are provided 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) |
26/04/2025 |
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: |
Monsanto Australia Ltd have made an application to ANZFA to vary Standard A18 of
the Food Standards Code to include food derived from canola which has been
genetically modified to be tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate. The genetically
modified canola plants are known commercially as Roundup Ready canola.
The glyphosate-tolerant phenotype has been developed in canola through two distinct
mechanisms: firstly, the introduction of an enzyme that is not sensitive to
applications of glyphosate and secondly, the introduction of an enzyme that can
degrade the herbicide. Monsanto Ltd developed the genetically modified canola for
cultivation in the United States, Canada and potentially Australia. Canola based
products produced from these plants may have been imported into Australia and New
Zealand for several years.
Canola seeds are processed into two major products, oil and meal. The oil is the only
product for human consumption and the only product assessed for approval in this
application. Toasted meal is used as an animal feed. Canola seed oil is a premium
quality oil that is used in a variety of manufactured food products including salad and
cooking oil, margarine, shortening, mayonnaise, sandwich spreads, creamers and
coffee whiteners. As a result of the processing steps, canola oil contains negligible
protein. Canola oil may be present as an ingredient in some imported processed
foods. |
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
07/12/2000 |
| 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 A363 - Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola GT73
|
| 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. |
| Summary of application: |
The GT73 line of canola (Brassica napus) was developed through a specific genetic modification to be resistant to the activity of glyphosate herbicides. The novel variety was developed from the Westar canola variety by insertion of two genes, one of which is a glyphosate tolerant mutant of the endogenous 5- enolypyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) and the other, a bacterial enzyme involved in the degradation of glyphosate to aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) and glyoxalate. Glyphosate specifically binds to and inactivates EPSPS, which is involved in the biosynthesis of the aromatic amino acids tyrosine, phenylalanine and tryptophan. This enzyme is present in all plants, bacteria and fungi, but not in animals, which do not synthesize their own aromatic amino acids. Thus, EPSPS is normally present in food derived from plant and microbial sources. The modified canola line permits farmers to use glyphosate-containing herbicides, such as Roundup®, for weed control in the cultivation of canola.
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
08/09/1994 |
| 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: |
Monsanto Company |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
06/04/2004 |
| 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.): |
Center for Environmental Risk Assessment
|
| Summary of the safety assessment (food safety): |
Please see decision document uploaded |
| Upload: |
|
| Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
Chinese Agriculture Department Announcement No. 869-11-2007: Detection of Genetically Modified Plants and Derived Products Qualitative PCR Method for Herbicide-tolerant Canola GT73 and Its Derivates |
| Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
Authority concern of GMO
Ministry of Agriculture of China
|
| Upload: |
|
| Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) |
6/4/2007 |
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name): Development Center for Science and Technology, Min
Contact person name: Fu Zhongwen
Website:
Physical full address: Room 717, Nongfeng Building, No.96 Dong San Huan Nan Lu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100122, P. R. China
Phone number: +86-10-59199389
Fax number: +86-10-59199391
Country introduction: Regulations on Safety of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms (hereafter referred to as the Regulations)was promulgated by Decree No. 304 of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China on May 23, 2001. Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms, Implementation Regulations on the Safety of Import of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms and Implementation Regulations on Labeling of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms are formulated by Ministry of Agriculture on January 5, 2002 in accordance with the Regulations. The State Council establishes a system of joint ministry conference for the safety administration of agricultural GMOs. The joint ministry conference for the safety administration of agricultural GMOs shall be composed of officials from relevant departments of agriculture, science and technology, environment protection, public health, foreign trade and economic cooperation, inspection and quarantine, and be responsible for the decision-making and coordination of major issues with respect to the safety administration of agricultural GMOs. According to Article 9 of the Regulations, a national biosafety committee (NBC) shall be established and in charge of safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The NBC shall be composed of experts who are engaged in biological research, production, processing, inspection and quarantine with respect to agricultural GMOs, as well as experts in the fields of public health and environmental protection. The office term of the NBC shall be three years. Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the nationwide supervision and administration of the safety of agricultural GMOs. The Ministry of Agriculture sets up an office for biosafety administration of agricultural GMOs(OBA), which will be in charge of the administration of the safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. OBA is Affiliated to the Department of Science, Technology and Education. Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant: office for biosafety administration of agricultural GMOs(OBA), the Department of Science, Technology and Education,MOA, P. R. China Tel:+86-10-59193059, Fax:+86-10-59193072, E-mail: [email protected]
| Name of product applicant: |
Monsanto |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
07/05/2019 |
| 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): |
Competent National Authority: Ministry of Health and Medical Education- Food & Drug Administration. Risk Assessment file is uploaded.
https://bch.cbd.int/en/database/RA/BCH-RA-IR-115213/1 |
| 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: |
Monsanto Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
10/11/2020 |
| 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.): |
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 Comercial, S.A. de C.V. |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
18/09/1996 |
| 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: MON-ØØØ73-7
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: |
Monsanto Australia Ltd |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
20/12/2000 |
| 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): |
Glyphosate-tolerant canola has been assessed by ANZFA according to the safety assessment guidelines for foods produced using gene technology. This involves an extensive analysis of the nature of the genetic modification together with a consideration of general safety issues, toxicological issues and nutritional issues associated with the new GM food. This approach can establish whether the foods produced from the glyphosate-tolerant canola is as safe and nutritious as foods produced from non-GM varieties of canola.
Two genes were transferred to canola to confer tolerance to applications of the herbicide glyphosate. There were no issues of concern regarding the source of the novel genes or of their protein products and expression in the plant. Additionally, the evidence did not indicate that there are any unintended effects associated with the genetic modification of the canola plant. Both genes are transferred to the canola genome as a single insert and are stably inherited from one generation to the next over multiple generations.
Neither of the novel proteins expressed in glyphosate-tolerant canola were found to
have physical or structural characteristics that are typical of known food allergens or
toxins and are not considered to pose any safety concern to humans.
An evaluation of the major constituents, nutrients, anti–nutritional factors and natural
toxicants of glyphosate tolerant canola line and conventional canola lines found no
significant differences between the lines. An assessment of canola oil found it to be
comparable to oil derived from conventionally produced canola in all respects.
Additionally, the only product derived from canola for human consumption is highly
refined oil, which undergoes extensive processing such that all protein and DNA are
removed. Consideration of all the above information has led to the conclusion that oil
derived from glyphosate-tolerant canola does not pose any safety or public health concerns.
Canola meal is not considered to be a human food fraction due to the presence of the
natural toxicants, erucic acid and glucosinolates and was evaluated to compare levels
of major components to determine any potentially unintended effects. Canola meal,
whether genetically modified or not, is not regarded as a food fraction and the genetic
modification does not change this pattern of consumption. |
| 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 A363 - Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola GT73
|
| 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: |
Using modern biotechnology, Monsanto Company has developed Roundup Ready® canola plants (Brassica napus L.) that are tolerant to glyphosate. The genetically modified canola 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: |
22/10/2013 |
| 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 Canola RT73 which has been genetically modified for herbicide resistance.
Canola RT73 has been evaluated according to BPI’s safety assessment by concerned agencies of the Department of Agriculture (DA): [Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) and Bureau of Agriculture, Fisheries and Product Standards (BAFPS)] and a Scientific Technical Review Panel (STRP). The process involves an intensive analysis of the nature of the genetic modification together with a consideration of general safety issues, toxicological issues and nutritional issues associated with the modified canola.
The petitioner/applicant published the said application in two widely circulated newspapers for public comment/review. During the 30-day comment period BPI had not received comments on the application.
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: |
28/05/2019 |
| 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): |
Toxicological Assessment and Allergenicity Assessment
The safety assessment of novel proteins, CP4 EPSPS and GOX v247, includes
digestibility, heat inactivation, oral toxicity and amino acid sequence
comparison studies to determine its potential to cause toxicity or
allergenicity to humans (Monsanto 1995). Escherichia coil-produced CP4
EPSPS and GOX v247 proteins were used in the analyses. Equivalence
study provided by the developer indicated the functional and structural
equivalence of the E. coil-produced proteins and the proteins derived from
RT73.
Digestibility study using Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF) with pepsin
demonstrated that CP4 EPSPS and GOX v247 readily degraded within 15
seconds of incubation with SGF in presence of pepsin, a characteristic of
most non-toxic proteins (Leach et al., 2002; Ream, 1994).
The enzymatic activity analysis on CP4 EPSPS and GOX v247 provided
by the developer indicated that 83% of the activity is lost in
immunodetectable level was observed upon incubation at 60°C for 15
minutes. The activity is significantly impacted by heat treatment
(Padgette et al., 1994]. For CP4 EPSPS, more than half of the activity is
lost in immunodetectable level upon incubation at 55°C for 15 minutes.
The activity is significantly impacted by heat treatment (Padgette et al.,
1993).
Amino acid sequence comparison of CP4 EPSPS and GOX v247 protein
using FASTA search alignment tool indicated no homology to any known
toxins and allergens (Mitsky, 1993; Silvanovich et al., 2001).
Acute oral toxicity study provided by the developer indicated no
treatment-related effects on survival, clinical observations, body weight
gain, food consumption or gross pathology upon administration of 572
mg/kg body weight CP4 EPSPS and 104 mg/kg body weight in mice. Both
concentrations were the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)
for both novel protein (Monsanto, 1995).
Based on the concentration of novel proteins in RT73 and % dry weight of
total protein in RT73, the percent of CP4 EPSPS and RT73 protein in the
transgenic canola is calculated as 0.02% and 0.064% which represents a
very small portion of total protein in RT73 canola. Hence, the margin
exposure of humans or animals to risk of consuming high dosage of CP4
EPSPS and GOX v247 is extremely high (Monsanto, 1995).
CP4 EPSPS and GOX v247 were expressed independently of each other
and their functional activity was maintained (Padgette et al., 1996,
Padgette et al., 1994). The expression cassette of cp4 epsps and gox v247
includes a chloroplast transit peptide (CTP) which directs the import of
the newly translated protein into chloroplasts (della-Cioppa et al., 1987).
CP4 EPSPS and GOX v247 proteins have distinct modes of action and
are not likely to interact (Steinrilicken and Amrhein, 1980; Padgette et
al., 1993, Padgette et al., 1994; Barry et al., 1994). The phenotype of RT73
is the result of the development of two distinct mechanisms of
glyphosate tolerance; reduced sensitivity of the molecular site of
herbicidal activity by the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate
synthase (EPSPS), and introduction of the means by which the plant can
degrade the herbicide by glyphosate oxidoreductase (GOX). There is no
known mechanism of interaction among these proteins that could lead to
adverse effects in humans, animals or environment.
Results of the toxicological and allergenicity assessment indicate that CP4
EPSPS and GOX v247 proteins being expressed in canola are not toxic or
allergenic to humans (Monsanto, 1995).
Nutritional Data
Compositional analysis provided by the developer indicating the nutritional
data of RT73 canola in comparison with the non-transgenic canola, and
range of literature values (Monsanto, 1995). Safety assessment based on
the nutritional data indicates that there is no significant difference
between the proximates, amino acid, fatty acid and anti-nutrient levels of
RT73 canola and conventional canola that can be considered biologically
relevant.
The assessors 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 greater risk to 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: |
|
| 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 27, 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: |
Monsanto Korea Ltd. |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
30/12/2003 |
| 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: |
Monsanto |
| Summary of application: |
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
23/04/2008 |
| 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): |
Canola line GT73 (MON-00073-7) was generated by the transfer of the CP4 EPSPS and gox genes which confer glyphosate tolerance to the plant. The protein products are both enzymes. The CP4 EPSPS enzyme is not sensitive to applications of glyphosate and the GOX protein can degrade the herbicide. The molecular analyses showed that the introduced genes have been stably integrated into the plant genome and were stably inherited for multiple generations. The newly expressed CP4 EPSPS and GOX proteins do not show any potential toxicity or allergenicity in humans. Composition analyses showed that canola line GT73 is compositionally comparable to other canola lines. Food derived from canola line GT73 is as safe as food derived from conventional canola. |
| Upload: |
|
| Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained: |
|
| Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: |
|
| 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 |
| Summary of application: |
Canola
Trait 1 Added Protein: 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS)
Source: Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4
Intended Effect: Tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate
Trait 2 Added Protein: Glyphosate oxidoreductase (GOX)
Source: Achromobacter sp. strain LBAA
Intended Effect: Tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate
|
| Upload: |
|
| Date of authorization: |
26/09/1995 |
| 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 at the 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 for 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:
|
|
