Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

SYN-IR162-4
Commodity: Corn / Maize
Traits: Lepidoptera resistance
European Union
Name of product applicant: Syngenta
Summary of application:

The genetically modified maize SYN-IR162-4, as described in the application, expresses a modified Vip3Aa20 protein which provides protection to certain lepidopteran pests. A pmi gene, allowing transformed maize cells to utilize mannose as a sole carbon source, was used as a selectable marker.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 18/10/2012
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): Biosafety Clearing House (BCH)
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
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 PCR based method for genetically modified maize SYN-IR162-4. - Validated by the Community reference laboratory established under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. 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) 17/10/2022
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:
Argentina
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Agro S.A.
Summary of application:
The maize event MIR162 confers resistance to certain lepidopteran insects through the expression of protein Vip3Aa20, besides express the phosphomannose isomerase protein, PMI, which acts as a selectable marker allowing the use of mannose as a carbon source.
The insecticidal protein Vip3Aa20 (VIP: vegetative insecticidal protein), controls Diatraea saccharalis, with a different action mechanism of Cry proteins, and also other important pests such as Helicoverpa zea and Spodoptera frugiperda.
Regarding genetic stability, both genes segregate according to Mendelian rules of inheritance for a single genetic locus. Moreover, the insert of the MIR162 event shows stability over multiple generations.
The Vip3Aa20 protein has approximately 89 kDa of molecular weight and is composed by 789 amino acid of length. The concentration of the protein is between 34,3 and 91,5 µg/g of dry weight approximately. PMI has approximately 42,8 kDa of molecular weight and 391 amino acids of length. The concentration of the protein is between 2,3 and 8,7 µg/g of dry weight approximately.
The compositional analysis was carried out with the comparison of 65 key components of forage and grain. Considering the evaluation of the significant differences, the average values were inside the range of natural variation; therefore it's concluding they have not a biological significance.
Whereas Vip3Aa20 protein doesn't have similarity with allergenic proteins, the other protein of new expression, PMI, was similar (identity window of 8 aminoacids) to the α-parvalbumin of frog (Rana sp.). However the reaction with serum from an allergic patient was negative, therefore this similarity is not considered as biologically significant. Both proteins of new expression don’t have similarity with toxic proteins, have rapid degradation in SGF (simulated gastric fluid) and are unstable to 65°C or to higher temperatures.
The event MIR162 is substantial and nutritionally equivalent to its non transgenic counterpart, the parental line and conventional varieties.
With the information exposed and having into account the current scientific knowledge available there were no objections to approve the event MIR162 for human and animal consumption.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 28/09/2010
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):
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: Principles for the Assessment of Food and Feed derived from GMO in Argentina - Resolution Nº 412
Decision document of food/feed safety assessment of event MIR162
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Ministerio de Agroindustria
Contact person name:
Andrés Maggi
Website:
Physical full address:
Paseo Colón Avenue 367, 3° floor, City of Buenos Aires
Phone number:
54 11 5222 5986
Fax number:
Country introduction:

In Argentina, the food and feed risk assessment process of transformation events, as the result of modern biotechnology, is carried out by the National Service for Agrifood Health and Quality (Senasa). The General Office of Biotechnology, is the area responsible for carrying out this task. It has an specific professional team and the advise of a Technical Advisory Committee composed of experts from several scientific disciplines representing different sectors involved in the production, industrialization, consumption, research and development of genetically modified organisms.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

Stacked events with all single events approved, are assessed as a new event, but with much less requirements, always on a case-by-case basis.

Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

National Service for Agrifood Health and Quality (Senasa)

https://www.argentina.gob.ar/senasa

 

https://www.argentina.gob.ar/senasa/programas-sanitarios/biotecnologia

Australia
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Seeds Pty Ltd
Summary of application:
Corn line MIR162 has been genetically modified to be resistant to a number of lepidopteran pests of corn, including fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), corn earworm/cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea), black cutworm (Agropis ipsilon) and western bean cutworm (Striacosta albicosta). Protection is conferred by the expression in the plant of the bacterially-derived vip3Aa20 gene, which produces the insecticidal protein Vip3Aa20, a variant of the native insecticidal Vip3Aa1 protein. A selectable marker gene, pmi, encodes phosphomannose isomerase and allows transformed cells to utilise carbon from phosphomannose media.
Unlike Syngenta’s Bt11 corn varieties, MIR162 has no insecticidal activity against European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis). The insect protection of MIR162 will be combined with Bt11 by conventional breeding. In regions where corn rootworm infestations are problematic for growers, these two traits will also be combined with Syngenta’s trait, MIR604, which has been genetically modified to be resistant to Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica vigifera vigifera), Northern corn rootworm (Diabrotica berberi), and Mexican corn rootworm (Diabrotica vigifera zeae). Both the Bt11 and MIR604 traits have previously been assessed by FSANZ and food derived from these lines approved for human consumption.
Bt-based formulations are widely used as biopesticides on a variety of cereal and vegetable crops grown organically or under conventional agricultural conditions. Several registered Bt-based microbial pest control products contain Vip3Aa or Vip3Aa-like proteins and it is likely that small quantities of these proteins are present in the food supply.
The majority of grain and forage derived from corn is used in animal feed. Corn grain is also used in industrial products, such as ethyl alcohol by fermentation and highly refined starch by wet milling.
Corn is not a major crop in Australia or New Zealand. Domestic production of corn in
Australia and New Zealand is supplemented by the import of a small amount of corn-based products, largely as high-fructose corn syrup, which is not currently manufactured in either Australia or New Zealand. Such products are processed into breakfast cereals, baking products, extruded confectionery and food coatings. Other corn products such as cornstarch are also imported and used by the food industry for
the manufacture of dessert mixes and sauces. Corn may also be imported in finished
products such as corn chips and canned corn, or dry milled goods such as cornflour.
Corn line MIR162 will be grown in North America and is not intended for cultivation in
Australia or New Zealand. Therefore, if approved, food from this line may enter the Australian and New Zealand food supply as imported food products.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 12/02/2009
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 A1001 - Food derived from Insect-protected Corn Line MIR162
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)

Brazil
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Seeds Ltda.
Summary of application:
Commercial release for genetically modified insect resistant corn (Zea mays), namely MIR 162 Corn,
Upload:
Date of authorization: 10/09/2009
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):
Syngenta Seeds developed MIR 162 corn to offer a corn genotype that is resistant to insect of the Lepidoptera class. For this purpose, the company inserted in the corn genome gene Vip3Aa, which is a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis highly toxic to Helicoverpa zea, Spodoptera frugiperda, Agrotis ipsilon, Ostrinia nubialis and Striacosta albicosta. The insertion had no effect in changing the potential behavior of transformed corns to become more invasive than untransformed hybrids, as evidenced by successive field essays where genetically modified corns were compared with conventional corns. The transformation was mediated by Agrobacterium tumefasciens in immature embryos of corn. The transformation method via Agrobacterium is efficient to the development of transformers containing simple inserts with a low number of copies. The method enables integration of DNA including left and right borders of the transformation plasmid to the target genome, while genetic elements beyond the plasmid borders are not inserted. Among the mentioned sequences, a cassette containing genes Vip3Aa19 and PMI, the promoter of corn polyubiquitin (ZmUbiINT) and 35S of CMV and region 3’ of nopaline synthase polyadenylation. Analyses by Southern and sequencing revealed that the T-DNA contains: I- a single copy of Vip3Aa; II- two copies of ZmUbiINT promoter; III- One copy of NOS terminator; and IV- No sequence of plasmid pNOV1300. Sequential analysis demonstrated two changes in the original sequence of Vip3Aa gene: one silent and another that had as consequence a substitution of one amino acid in the original sequence of Vip3Aa. For this reason, the sequence inserted in the corn was called Vip3Aa20. The transfer of T-DNA failed to interrupt any gene in the corn genome and no new ORF was created by the insertion. The genes inserted segregate in a Mendelian way that remained stable in successive generations, as analyzed. MIR 162 corn also expresses gene manA, obtained from the bacterium Escherichia coli K-2, codifying enzyme phosphomannose isomerase that interconverts mannose-6-phosphate/fructose-6-phosphate, enabling the bacterium to use mannose as a carbon source or, in humans, its importance stems from generating substrata to glycosylation reactions typical of the eukaryotic cell. The gene, introduced in plants, hinders depletion of phosphate sequestered as mannose-6-phosphate that is accumulated when mannose is added to the culture medium, and is a versatile and safe marker to identify transformed cells in plants(44), enabling the selection of plant cells that express the gene in a medium containing mannose as substratum. Bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens was used carrying plasmid pNOV1300 with two cassettes of expression: the first containing corn promoter ZmUBiInt, the optimized codifying region of peptide vip3Aa of Bacillus thuringiensis followed by a region containing intron 9 of corn phospoenopyruvate carboxylase (for increased gene expression), ending with terminator region 3’UTR 354S of the cauliflower mosaic virus. The second cassette of expression is formed by corn ZmUBiInt, the codifying region comprising gene manA of Escherichia coli that codifies protein phosphomannose isomerase (PMI), followed by the 3’UTR region of the nopaline synthase gene of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The constructs were described in detail and have been thoroughly verified by sequencing. The transgenic corn genome was assayed by Southern blot, using total DNA digested by different restriction enzymes and probes corresponding to four regions of the constructs used, confirming the presence of one copy of each cassette in their genome. Insertion took place in region 5.03 of corn chromosome 5 and displayed Mendelian inheritance with phenotypic and molecular stability over three generations. Genomic regions outflanking the cassettes failed to interrupt any corn gene. The commercial construct was generated by crossing with public lineages of American corn germplasm selected (in the United States) for their agronomic performance and insect resistance. Studies of biosafety, agronomic efficiency and insect resistance were conducted in the field (planned release into the environment) in about seventeen occasions in Brazil, countless tests in the USA and about 10 releases conducted in Argentina. Expressed proteins originated by genetic modification of MIR 162 corn, Vip3Aa20 (Vip) and phosphomannose isomerase (PMI), were assayed by ELISA. Vip ranged from 4.34 of dry weight (DW) on the leaf at the moment of senescence at 184.05 μg/g DW in styli and stigmas. In the corn kernel, the main part directed to human and animal consumption, the highest value recorded was 61.33 μg/g DW. PMI protein levels were lower, reaching a maximum of 7.06 μg/g DW in leaves at the anthesis stage. A variant of protein Vip3Aa20 (Vip3Aa19, which differs in one amino acid) was already approved for human and animal consumption in the USA in 2005 (in this case, a genetically modified cotton). Proteins of the same family are already used in commercial formulations of insecticides based on Bacillus thuringiensis proteins. ANVISA already authorizes cultures of this bacterium in 32 types of food cultures, and the formulations belong to toxicologic group IV, unrestricted for maximum level of residue and safety interval. In turn, protein PMI is produced by a wide range of organisms (vertebrates and microorganisms) and is the enzyme of sugar metabolism. Horizontal gene flow between MIR 162 corn and other corn species, even those closely related, is practically unlikely to occur, since wild species related to corn are not native to Brazil. Coexistence between of conventional corn cultivars (either improved or creole) and transgenic corn cultivars is possible from the agronomic viewpoint, and therefore the provisions of CTNBio Ruling Regulation nº 4 shall be observed. Use of insect-resistant genetically modified plants has positive effects also in aspects related to obtaining, distributing and using chemical insecticides, since it reduces significantly the pollution caused by industrial waste and utilization of water used in spraying, in addition to avoiding contamination of man, food, rivers and wellsprings resulting from the use, transportation and storage of insecticides. Hence, one may conclude that cultivation and consumption of MIR 162 corn is not a potential cause of significant degradation of the environment; nor a risk to human and animal health. For the above reasons, there are no restrictions to the use of such corn and its derivatives. Therefore, applicant shall conduct the post-commercial release monitoring according to CTNBio Ruling Resolution nº 3. As established by Article 11 of Law nº 11,460, of March 21, 2007 “research and cultivation of genetically modified organisms may not be conducted in indigenous lands and areas of conservation units.” Under Article 14 of Law no. 11,105/2005, CTNBio found that the request complies with the applicable rules and legislation securing the biosafety of environment, agriculture, human and animal health. Taking into consideration criteria internationally accepted in the process of assaying genetically modified raw-materials one may conclude that MIR 162 corn is as safe as its conventional counterpart. Under Article 14 of Law no. 11,105/2005, CTNBio found that the request complies with the applicable rules and legislation securing the biosafety of environment, agriculture, human and animal health and reached a conclusion that the MIR 162 corn is substantially equivalent to conventional corn and its consumption is safe for human and animal health. Regarding the environment, CTNBio’s conclusion is that cultivation of MIR 162 corn is not a potential cause of significant environmental degradation, keeping with the biota a relation identical to that of conventional corn. CTNBio TECHNICAL OPINION I. GMO Identification GMO designation: Insect-resistant genetically modified corn, MIR 162 corn. Applicant: Syngenta Seeds Ltda. Species: Zea Mays L. Inserted characteristics: Resistance to insects. Method of insertion: Transformation of immature embryos through bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens Prospective use: Production of grain from the GMO and its derivatives for human and animal consumption. II. General Information Corn, (Zea mays L. ssp mays) belongs to the Gramineae family (Poaceae), sub-family Panicoidae, tribe Maydeae, genus Zea and species mays. It is a diploid plant, with 2n=20 chromosomes, displaying therefore ten pairs of chromosomes. Fecundation rate is normally lower than 5%, being an allogamic species with its pollination predominantly done by the wind (Marcos Filho, 2005). The Maydaea tribe is characterized by its monoecism, that is to say, their flowers are unisexuated, generally in male and female inflorescences, separated in the same plant. In botany, corn came to be Zea mays L. ssp Mays and teosinte (the plant that originated corn), Zea mays, having as subspecies: Zea mays L. ssp mexicana, Zea mays parviglums, Zea mays ssp. luxurians, Zea mays ssp. diploperennis. Except for Zea mays ssp. diploperennis, all teosintes are annual plants. There is still another perennial teosinte, the tetraploid 2n=4n=40 chromosomes: Zea mays ssp. perennis(36). However, in Brazil, other species of teosinte are not farmed. Corn, Zea mays L. is a monoic annual plant with height ranging from 1.0 to 4.0 meters(47). The main stem is formed by clearly defined nodes and internodes. Internodes are wide at the base and gradually diminish until the inflorescence at the plant's higher part. Corn leaves alternate along the stem. Corn is the only grassy plant that has both male and female flower structures in the same plant, though located in different places(27). Corn has a history of over eight thousand years in the Americas, and is cultivated since the pre-Columbian era. Among higher plants, corn is the best scientifically characterized and is currently the cultivated species that reached the highest degree of domestication and is unable to survive in nature but when cultivated by man(1). There are currently over 300 identified varieties of corn and, within each such variety, thousands of cultivars. Corn (Zea mays) is one of the most commercially cultivated plants in the world, and about 150 million hectares of corn are sowed each year, contributing for an output of 700 million tons of grain(15,4). The species has been directly used for some centuries in the feeding of humans and domestic animals, and its importance is not restricted to the large annual production but also to the important social and economic role it plays. Corn is one of the most important food sources in the world and is held as input for production of a wide range of food products, rations and industrial products. Brazil is the third largest world producer of corn, with a yield of about 35 million tons in 2005, following the United States of America (282 million tons) and China (139 million tons)(17). Corn is the second most planted culture in Brazil and is cultivated practically in two harvests (summer and safrinha, the second crop) and is cultivated practically all over the Brazilian territory. The largest production is in the Center-South region, representing about 75.68% of the planted area, while the North-Northeast is responsible for about 24.32%. Regarding production, corn is second in a roll of the largest Brazilian cultures, second only to soybeans)(9). Brazil is a large world producer of corn, but it has also a significant consumption of this grain. National consumption is so high that an absence of the second crop would cause the need to import corn to meet national demand. The fall armyworm is considered the most important corn pest in Brazil(10). Controlling the fall armyworm is difficult for the wide range of hosts it has and its wide dispersion during the cultivation period. During the twenties, presence of this pest was reported in several Brazilian states, severely damaging some cultures. Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Nuctidae) is held as damaging to corn culture in three different ways: attacking corn stigmas, hindering fertilization and consequently causing the culture to fail; feeding from milky grains and destroying them; and, finally, for the bores left by worms in the corn ear at their pupal stage, that are a door open to microorganisms that are a cause of corn rot(21). Another pest that has frequently caused damages to the corn crops, mainly in the central region of Brazil is the stalk borer Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), an important sugarcane pest(46). MIR 162 corn contains gene Vip3Aa20 that codifies protein Vip3Aa20, granting resistance to the attack of certain lepidopteran pests as, for instance, the armyworm, and gene manA that codified enzyme phosphomannose isomerase (PMI), used as a selection marker during the transformation process. MIR 162 corn was already approved for commercial release in the United States, Australia and Taiwan. Gene Vip3Aa, is also present in the transgenic stacked corn Bt11 x MIR 162, approved in the United States, and transgenic cotton event Cot 102, approved in the United States and in Australia. III. Description of GMO and Proteins Expressed Syngenta Seeds developed MIR 162 corn to offer a corn genotype resistant to lepidopteran class insects. Therefore, the company inserted in the genome of corns gene Vip3Aa, which is a protein of Bacillus thuringiensis highly toxic to: Helicoverpa zea, Spodoptera frugiperda, Agrotis ipsilon, Ostrinia nubialis and Striacosta albicosta. The insertion failed to have any changing effect on potential behavior of the transformed corns towards becoming more invasive than the untransformed hybrids, as evidenced by successive field assays comparing GM corns with conventional ones. The transformation was mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens in immature corn embryos. The Agrobacterium transformation method is efficient to develop transformers containing simple inserts with a low number of copies. The method enables integrating the DNA, introducing the right and left borders of the transformation plasmid in the target genome, while genetic elements beyond the plasmid borders are not inserted. Among the mentioned sequences, a cassette was introduced with genes Vip3Aa and PMI, the promoter of corn polyubiquitine (ZmUbiINT) and 35S of CMV in region 3' of nopaline synthase polyadenylation. Analyses by Southern blot and sequencing revealed that the T-DNA contains: I- a single copy of Vip3Aa; II- two copies of ZmUbiINT promoter; III- One copy of NOS terminator; and IV- No sequence of plasmid pNOV1300. Sequential analysis demonstrated two changes in the original sequence of Vip3Aa gene, one silent and another that had as consequence substitution of one amino acid in the original sequence of Vip3Aa. For this reason, the sequence inserted in the corn was called Vip3Aa20. The transfer of T-DNA failed to interrupt any gene in the corn genome and no new open reading frame (ORF) was created by the insertion. The genes inserted segregate in a Mendelian way that remained stable in successive generations, as analyzed. The native protein Vip3Aa1 from Bacillus thuringiensis strain AB88 contains 789 amino acids and a molecular weight of about 89 kDa. Variant Vip3Aa20 produced in MIR 162 corn also displays 789 amino acids, but differs in two amino acids when compared with the native protein (positions 129 and 284). Variant Vip3Aa19 differs from the native protein in one amino acid in position 284 and from Vip3Aa20 in one amino acid in position 129. Vip3Aa19 and Vip3Aa20 are denominations used for two variants that are genetically modified starting from the native protein, defined by the nomenclature Committee of toxins originated from Bacillus thuringiensis . Bacillus thuringiensis, a gram-positive soil bacterium that produces different proteins acting as toxic to certain types of insects, known as Cry and Vip (from “Vegetative Insecticidal Proteins”) proteins(14). Differently from crystal proteins (Cry) from Bacillus thuringiensis, Vip proteins are produced during the bacterial vegetative development and are secreted as proteins soluble in the extra-molecular medium. Bacillus thuringiensis cultures keep producing the Vip protein during the stationary and sporulation phases of development. Compared to the non-proteinaceous thermostable ƒÒ-exotoxins secreted by strains of Bacillus thuringiensis, Vip proteins are thermolabile(28). Vip3a is the name used for native proteins found in the AB88 strain of Bacillus thuringiensis . MIR 162 corn also expresses gene manA obtained from bacterium Escherichia coli K-12 codifying enzyme phosphomannose isomerase that interconverts mannose-6-phosphate/fructose-6-phosphate enabling the bacterium to use mannose as a carbon sources or, in human beings, it is important by generating substrates for glycosylation reactions typical of the eukaryotic cell. This gene, when introduced in plants, hinders depletion of phosphate sequestrated as mannose-6-phosphate accumulated when mannose is added to the culture medium, being a versatile and safe marker to identify transformed cells in plants(44), enabling selection of plant cells that express it in a medium containing mannose as a substrate. Bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens was used carrying plasmid pNOV1300 with two cassettes of expression: one having corn promoter ZmUBiInt, the optimized codifying region of peptide vip3Aa of Bacillus thuringiensis, followed by the region containing intron 9 of corn phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (to increase gene expression), ending with the termination region 3’UTR of the cauliflower mosaic virus. The second expression cassette is formed by corn ZmUBiInt, the codifying region constituted by manA gene from Escherichia coli that codifies protein phosphomannose isomerase (PMI), followed by region 3’UTR of gene nopaline synthase of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The constructs are described in detail and were carefully checked by sequencing. The transgenic corn genome was analyzed by Southern blot using total DNA digested by several restriction enzymes and probes corresponding to four regions of the constructs used, confirming the presence of one copy of each cassette in the genome. Insertion took place in region 5.03 of corn chromosome 5 and showed Mendelian inheritance with phenotipical and molecular stability for three generations. The commercial construct was generated by crossing with public lineages of American corn germplasm selected (in the United States) for their agronomic performance and insect resistance. Studies of biosafety, agronomic efficiency and insect resistance were conducted in the field (planned release into the environment) in about seventeen occasions in Brazil, countless tests in the USA and about 10 releases conducted in Argentina. Expressed proteins originated by genetic modification of MIR 162 corn, Vip3Aa20 (Vip) and phosphomannose isomerase (PMI), were assayed by ELISA. Vip ranged from 4.34 μg/g of dry weight (DW) on the leaf at the moment of senescence at 184.05 μg/g DW in styli and stigmas. In the corn kernel, the main part directed to human and animal consumption, the highest value recorded was 61.33 μg/g DW. PMI protein levels were lower, reaching a maximum of 7.06 μg/g DW in leaves at the anthesis stage. A variant of protein Vip3Aa20 (Vip3Aa19, which differs in one amino acid) was already approved for human and animal consumption in the USA in 2005 (in this case, a genetically modified cotton). Proteins of the same family are already used in commercial formulations of insecticides based on Bacillus thuringiensis proteins. IV. Aspects Related to Human and Animal Health The effect of protein Vip3Aa20 in 10 species of non-target organisms was assayed using parts of corn plants that accumulated either protein Vip3Aa20 or Vip3Aa19(12). These proteins differ from each other by a single amino acid in position 129. The difference, however, does not change the action of the protein in its final form: the position is outside the tryptic cleavage site and the region of the final peptide that has cytotoxic function (cleavage of the initial peptide is made at position 199). In all cases, corn samples were tested with a knowingly sensitive species of insect to ascertain the presence of VIP proteins at toxic levels. Essays with water fleas, ladybugs, chrysops (both larvae and adults), earthworms, catfish, bees and bugs failed to reveal significant differences among control groups and groups treated with plants containing Vip3Aa20 or Vip3Aa19(33,8). Filed essays assessed the permanence, dominance, abundance and frequency of insect species collected in MIR 162 corn and conventional corn fields. There were no significant differences observed between the two groups. Stability of Vip3Aa20 in soil was estimated based on essays using soils from different Brazilian regions and a sample of USA soil to which protein Vip3Aa19 extracted from corn was added. Mortality of lepidopteran Agrotis ipsion exposed to the soil containing the protein enabled a conclusion that the protein half life ranged from 6.6 days (soil from Matão, State of São Paulo) to 12.6 days (soil from Cascavel, State of Paraná). Therefore, the conclusion is that the protein is biodegradable and does not accumulates in the soil. Protein expressed by gene manA (PMI) on corn is also present in plant and animal products and therefore appears normally in low concentrations in the alimentary chain. The human homologue of PMI has its gene expressed in all tissues examined, with maximum levels in the brain, heart and skeletal muscle(37). Due to the low quantity of exogenous proteins in MIR 162 corn, both proteins were expressed in Escherichia coli to produce an amount for toxicological studies. Proteins produced in the bacterium were biochemically and functionally analyzed and were found identical to the proteins produced in the plant. Allergenicity: Studies in silico failed to reveal any allergenicity potential in heterologous proteins expressed in MIR 162 corn. Parameters used as inidicators of allergenic potential were: not less than 30% of identity with a window of 80 amino acids or full identity of not less than 8 contiguous amino acids. Nothing was found regarding VIP, but as far as PMI is concerned, there was some similarity with a frog allergenic peptide. However, an analysis containing serum of a patient who was allergic to the protein showed that the patient’s antibodies were not recognized by the corn protein(24). Potential toxicity: Analyses in silico examine structural similarities to knowingly toxic proteins resulted in negative response for proteins Vip3Aa20 and manA. Digestibility: Using simulated intestinal juice with pancreatin (SIF) and simulated gastric juice containing pepsin (SGF), protein Vip3Aa20p was degraded both in SIF and SGF. Phosphomannose isomerase (PMI), a product of the manA gene was even more sensitive to degradation by SIF and SGF. Besides, there is a history of safe use of Vip3a proteins in formulation of bioinsecticides that use preparations of Bacillus thuringiensis without genetic manipulation. Raw data on digestibility were requested by one of the ad hoc opinion authors and confirmed the original report, though the opinion author considers the digestion of VIP to be partial, since there is a persistent band after treatment with SGF. The same author examined the charts and clarifies: in gel stained for total protein, at one minute of digestion, the intact band of VIP protein (between phosphorilase, 98 kDa and BSA, 62 kDA) it disappears completely, yet a band of ~38 kDa (aligned with the alcohol dehydrogenase marker) persists and weakens gradually until disappearance after 60 minutes of incubation. Since this band seems identical to another band with the same degradation kinetics and present in SGF without addition of recombinant protein, the band is irrelevant. This interpretation is corroborated by the analysis of Figure 2 that now shows the specific detection of the VIP protein using a specific polyclonal antibody. In this case, after one minute just a fragment of ~8 kDA is detectable (above the aprotinine pattern, 6 kDa) that becomes less intense until almost disappearing after 60 minutes of incubation. It shall represent a peptide resulting from the pepsin action and that keeps one of the epitopes recognized by the polyclonal antibody. The same may be said for VIP expressed by plants. In this case only results with Western blot are useful, since the proportion of this protein that is naturally present in plant material is very low. In the Western blot submitted, the first minute shows a band between 49 and 62 kDa and a band in 8 kDa. In subsequent essay times, the higher band disappears while the 8 kDa persists. The presence of a large amount of protein in the plant may be delaying digestion and enabling visualizing a product that is a degradation intermediary (~55 kDa band) and later disappears. Raw data were examined in essays with PMI protein and one may notice a strong PMI band in the sample without pepsin (0X), a band that disappears even in time zero and in two minutes of incubation, confirming the information of high sensitivity of this protein to SGF. One may notice a weak PMI band in time zero with just high dilution of the enzyme (0.001 x). The kinetic loss of the PMI enzymatic activity was measured in SGF with 0.001 x pepsin. In five minutes, activity drops to 50% and in ten minutes activity is almost none (Figure 4). Under treatment with simulated intestinal fluid (SIF – pancreatinin), the PMI band (staining for total protein) totally disappears with 1 x of pancreatinin. With 0.1 x, degradation is visible after two minutes and with higher dilutions it persists apparently intact. The ad hoc advisor that requested the raw data seems concerned with residual bands in the VIP + pepsin experiment. The specialist punctuated her opinion towards increasing precision of the applicant company that has not always supplied the full captions in the figures submitted, some low-resolution figures, in addition to recommending clarification of abbreviations and additional information deemed necessary. Lack of clarification on molecular size of patterns in some figures was solved by consultation to the Invitrogen site of the Internet, which offers apparent molecular sizes in different electrophoresis tampons. It is worth noticing that simulated digestion mimics only partially what the protein will really undergo in the digestive tract: pepsin is not in effect completely degraded and it cleavages the protein where there is tyrosine, phenylalanine and tryptophan, generating polypeptides. These polypeptides pass to the duodenum where there are pancreatic enzymes, such as trypsin, that will break the polypeptides alongside residues of lysine and arginine and other enzymes, such as chimiotrypsin and carboxypeptidases. In the intestine, existing peptides will be additionally degraded by peptidases and the resulting amino acids will be absorbed. However, degradation of these proteins in a real situation will be unquestionable and complete. Acute toxicity: A study was conducted in mice by ingestion of a maximum level of 1250 mg/kg of Vip3Aa20 in a single dose repeated after some hours. After fifteen days the animals were sacrificed and histopathologically examined. There was not any detectable effect with this concentration. For protein PMI, 3030 mg/kg were used in a single dose and mice examined after fifteen days. Again, there was no detectable toxic effect. A detailed description of the toxicity exams was not submitted and one of the ad hoc consultants requested the pertinent information, which were delivered by Syngenta as confidential information (a 32 page document). Syngenta states that the study involved thirteen male and 11 female mice. Organs weighted were the liver, brains, kidney and spleen. Observable clinical signs included skin, fur, eyes, mucosa, somatomotor activities, behavior, salivation, diarrhea, numbness, lethargy and comatose states. Raw data submitted confirm and document the initial description, showing an absence of toxicity in the high doses tested. The ad hoc advisor examined the raw data and concluded for the low oral toxicity of the substance tested. The objection concerned to the use of maximum dose of protein VPI (1250 mg/kg) applied in two different doses in the same day), below the dose recommended by OECD 420 (2000 mg/kg) is justified by the technical impossibility of supplying such amount of recombinant protein to the animal. We shall additionally remember that the amount of VIP in the kernel (0.004% of total protein, or ~44 μg/g) means that to reach 2000 mg/kg requires ingestion of about 45 kg of kernels at one dash. It is clear that patterns shall be analyzed in the context of rational use of the product. Raw data on expression of such proteins (VIP and PMI) in the material used to assay subchronic toxicity were supplied and values informed validate the results obtained in the United States and Brazil. Effect in mammals: Tests in rats conducted for ninety days with 10%, or 45.5% corn in their diet. There was no difference between conventional and GMO MIR 162 corn and the treatment failed to induce any change that might be associated to such consume during the period. Composition: Analysis of MIR 162 compared to isogenic non-transgenic corn and other non-GM hybrids assayed minerals, amino acids, fibers, total carbohydrates, starch and fatty acids. Values were equivalent to normal variation within the range described by International Life Science Institute. As requested by one of the ad hoc advisors, information on centesimal and micronutrient analyses was delivered by Syngenta, confirming the inexistence of significant variations. Microtoxins: The maximum amount tolerated for fumonisines is 2 ppm and aflatoxins is 20 ppb. Alongside adverse effects for human and animal health, presence of microtoxins results in important economic losses. Insect-resistant transgenic corn displays a low content of microtoxins and, financially, the benefits of sowing Bt corn would reach eight billion Dollars (fumonisines) and 14 million Dollars (aflatoxins) according to Wu, 2004(48). The death of 125 individuals in Kenya, in 2004, due to ingestion of corn contaminated with aflatoxin, is sufficient to remind us of how important this consideration may be. Effect in poultry: Poultry (both male and female) were fed during 44 days comparing MIR 162, isogenic non-GMO and commercial corn. There was no difference in survival, growth and energy conversion efficiency(25). The level of heterologous proteins in plant tissues were quantified through immunoenzymatic assay (ELISA). For Vip3Aa20p the range was ~4 to ~150 μg/g of dry weight. There are no experimental evidences that MIR 162 corn is inferior to, nor that it poses any toxicological or nutritional risk for animals when compared with, conventional corn. Therefore, the modification introduced by genetic manipulation, simply promotes expression of a protein that is toxic to certain species of insects that prey on corn. It expresses a small quantity of PMI, an ubiquitous protein that is part of components in a diet of animal or microbian origin. Its lower potential of infection by fungi due to lesions of attacks from insects and lower contamination of the product with pesticides – since the bioinsecticide is expressed in the plant and is of the nature of a protein with no action on vertebrates – suggests that it has potential to exhibit higher food safety than conventional varieties. V. Environmental Aspects Corn is an allogamic and annual plant that is cross-pollinated with the help of the wind, insects, gravity and other agents. The introduction of gene elements characterized in event MIR 162 did not change the plant’s reproductive features. Therefore, the likelihood of cross pollination between hybrids and lineages of non-genetically modified corn will be the same as that of cross pollination between plants of event MIR 162 and other corn plants. In Brazil, there are no kindred species of corn in natural distribution. However, there are populations of the so-called creole corn that may cross with genetically modified corns, if planted in their vicinity. The risk of the transgene to migrate to other individuals in nature and the consequences of such migration, mainly in the context of biodiversity, is undoubtedly one of the direct effects demanding the attention in the case of transgenic plants. Gene flow may be a horizontal flow, changing genetic information between individuals of different, genetically apart, species, or vertical flow, when the migration of genetic information occurs between individuals of the same species. Gene flow in corn may occur through transference of pollen and dispersion of seeds. Dispersion of seeds is easily controlled, since corn domestication has eliminated the ancient mechanisms of seed dispersion and pollen displacement is now the only effective means of gene escape in corn plants. Corn pollen is freely dispersed close to the cultivated area, and may reach styli-stigmas of the same or different genotypes and, under adequate conditions, starts its germination, generating the pollinic tube and promoting the ovule fecundation within an average term of 24 hours. MIR 162 corn was agronomically assayed in field conditions and in nursery house in several experiments conducted in the United States, Australia, Argentina and Brazil. In such studies, several parameters were tested comparing non-transgenic isogenic genotypes. The set of such assays showed that event MIR 162 displayed an agronomic performance at least equal to its isolines, and that and no significant fenotipical difference has been observed that might grant event MIR 162 better or worse adaptability to the environment, except in what refers to resistance to pest insects of the Lepidoptera order. Applicant conducted risk assays with non-target organisms, animals and insects. Animals included twelve different species of wild birds, mammals and fish produced in captivity. Among insects, pollinators and different species of arthropods were included. Protein VIP3A was used in concentrations comparable with the ones that such animals will realistically find in environmental conditions and no adverse effects were noticed. Conclusions enable to assert that MIR 162 corn expressing protein Vip3Aa20 will not have harmful effect except for some lepidopteran species. In order to act, the toxin requires cell receptors that are not found in other species. Bioessays conducted with other non-lepidopteran species fail to reveal any adverse effect. In field conditions the low level of protein Vip3Aa20, according to Applicant, determines a condition of innocuity to non-target species. Applicant indicates that the species of non-target lepidopteran that may be intoxicated by MIR 162 is the Licaiedis Melissa samuelis, which has the habit of collecting pollen from Lupinus perenis, a species of unlikely occurrence in the vicinity of corn fields. Studies conducted to assay the effect of protein VIP3Aa in different non-target organisms such as: water animals (fish, water flea); beneficial insects (ladybug, chrysopes, bees, earwigs) and earthworms lead to a conclusion that event MIR 162 has no adverse effect on insects and other non-target organisms. Studies on protein Vip degradation conducted in Brazilian and United States soils showed that its biologic activity resisted for a range of 6 to 13 days on average, indicating that protein Vip is easily degraded in natural soils. There is no possibility of horizontal gene flow in the Brazilian territory, since there is no close relative of corn in Brazil (Teosinte and Tripsacum occur only in Central America). Vertical gene flow to local varieties (so-called creole corns) of open pollination is possible, but it has the same risk caused by commercial genotypes available in the market. Coexistence between conventional corn (either improved or creole) and transgenic corn cultivars is possible and simple from the agronomic viewpoint. From the agronomic viewpoint, coexistence between cultivars of conventional corn (improved or creole) and transgenic corn is possible. Old communities and modern farmers have learned how to live on without problems with different corn cultivars, while keeping their genetic identities along time. Based on available scientific evidence MIR 162 Corn is as safe as conventional corn varieties and may therefore be used for the same purposes. VI. Restrictions to the Use of the GMO and its Derivatives Technical opinions related to agronomic performance concluded that there is equivalence between conventional and transgenic plants. Therefore, the information suggest that transgenic plants are not fundamentally different from untransformed corn genotypes, except for their resistance to insects. Besides, there is no evidence of adverse reactions to the use of MIR 162 Corn. For the foregoing, there are no restrictions to the use of such corn and its derivatives for both human and animal food. Gene flow to local varieties (so-called creole corns) of open pollination is possible and poses the same risk caused by commercial genotypes available in the market (80% of conventional corn planted in Brazil comes from commercial seeds that underwent genetic improvement). Coexistence between conventional corn (either improved or creole) and transgenic corn cultivars is possible from the agronomic viewpoint(5,34) and shall comply with the provisions of CTNBio Ruling Resolution nº 4. As established by Article 11 of Law nº 11,460, of March 21, 2007 “research and cultivation of genetically modified organisms may not be conducted in indigenous lands and areas of conservation units.” VII. Consideration on the Particulars of Different Regions of the Country (Information to supervisory agencies) In Brazil, there are no kindred species of corn in natural distribution. As established by Article 11 of Law nº 11,460, of March 21, 2007 “research and cultivation of genetically modified organisms may not be conducted in indigenous lands and areas of conservation units.” VIII. Conclusion Whereas: 1. Corn is the species that reached the highest degree in domestication among cultivated plants, and is unable to survive in nature without human intervention. 2. There are not in Brazil wild species with which corn may intercross, since the closest feral corn species is the teosinte, found only in Mexico and some places of Central America, where it may cross with cultivated corn in production fields. 3. MIR 162 Corn is as safe as conventional corn varieties and therefore may be used for the same purposes. 4. Event MIR 162 fails to display any adverse effect on the insect community and other non-target organisms. 5. Event MIR 162, expressing protein Vip3Aa20, has no harmful effect to non-target organisms, both animals and insects, except for some species of lepidopteran corn pests. 6. MIR 162 Corn is as safe as its conventional equivalent. 7. Studies on degradation of Vip protein in Brazilian and US soils showed that its biological activity remained from 6 to 13 days on average, indicating that the protein Vip is easily degraded in natural soils. 8. The set of assays showed that event MIR 162 displayed equal or better agronomic performance compared with its isolines and that no significant fenotipical difference was observed that could grant event MIR 162 better or worse adaptability to the environment, except in what concerns resistance to pest-insects of the Lepidoptera order. 9. Annex II to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Decree n 5,705, of February 16, 2006) provides that risks associated to modified living organisms or their derivatives, to wit, improved materials originated from a live modified organism containing new detectable combinations of replicable genetic material obtained through modern biotechnology, shall be considered in the context of the risks posed by non-modified recipients or kindred organisms in the likely recipient medium. 10. There is no evidence that MIR 162 corn is inferior or that it poses any toxicologic or nutritional risk to animals when compared to conventional corn. 11. Old communities and modern farmers have been successful in coexisting, along over 60 years, with no issues, with hundreds of corn cultivars available in the market, while keeping their genetic identities along time. 12. Coexistence of conventional corn cultivars (either improved or creole) and transgenic cultivars is possible from the agronomic viewpoint, indicating that the provisions of CTNBio Ruling Resolution nº 4 shall be observed. Therefore, considering internationally accepted criteria in the process of analyzing risks in genetically modified raw-material it is possible to conclude that MIR 162 corn is as safe as its conventional equivalent. In the context of the competences granted to it under Article 14 of Law nº 11,105/05, CTNBio considered that the request complied with the rules and legislation in effect that intend to guaranty environmental and agricultural biosafety and human and animal health, reaching a conclusion that MIR 162 corn is substantially equivalent to conventional corn, being its consumption safe for human and animal health. Regarding the environment, CTNBio’s conclusion was that the MIR 162 corn is not a potential cause of significant degradation to the environment, keeping with the biota a relation identical to that of conventional corn. Restrictions to the use of the GMO and its derivatives are conditioned to the provisions of CTNBio Ruling Resolution nº 03, and CTNBio Ruling Resolution nº 04. According to Annex I to Ruling Resolution nº 5, of March 12, 2009, the applicant shall have a term of thirty (30) days from publication of this Technical Opinion to adjust its proposal to the post-commercial release monitoring plan. IX. Bibliography 1. BAHIA FILHO, A. F. C.; GARCIA, J. C. 2000. Análise e avaliação do mercado brasileiro de sementes de milho. In: UDRY, C. V.; DUARTE, W. F. (Org.) Uma história brasileira do milho: valor de recursos genéticos. Brasília: Paralelo 15, 167-172. 2. BATES, S. L.; ZHAO, J. Z.; ROUSH, R. T.; et al. NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY 23: 57-62 Times Cited: 53 Insect resistance management in GM crops: past, present and future (2005). 3. BE, CARRIERE, Y.; DENNEHY, T. J.; et al. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 96: 1031-1038 Times Cited: 125 Insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops: Lessons from the laboratory and field (2003). 4. BRANDALIZZE, V. 2005 Mercado de milho. Inc: Fancelli, A. L.; Dourado-Neto, D. (Eds.). Milho: tecnologia e produção 5. BROOKES, G.; BARFOOT, P.; MELÉ, E.; MESSEGUER, J.; BÉNÉTRIX, F.; BLOC, D.; FOUEILLASSAR, X.; FABIÉ, A.; POEYDOMENGE, C. 2004. Genetically modified maize: pollen movement and crop co-existence. Dorchester, UK: PG Economics, 20 pp. (www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/Maizepollennov2004final.pdf) 6. CHAMTHIA, S. T. et al. 2008. Spore stage of vegetative insecticidal gene increase toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Aizawai SP41 against Spodoptera exigua. Journal of Biotechonology. 136: 310-316. 7. CHEN, J. et al. 2003. Comparison of the expression o Bacillus thuringiensis full-length and N- terminal truncated vip3A gene in Escherichia coli Journal of Applied Microbiology. 95: 310-316. 8. CHEN, M.; ZHAO, J. Z.; COLLINS, H. L.; EARLE, E. D.; CAO, J.; SHELTON, A. M. PLoS ONE. 3 (5): e 2284. A critical assessment of the effects of Bt transgenic plants on parasitoids (2008). 9. COMPANHIA NACIONAL DE ABASTECIMENTO – CONAB. 2007. Milho total (1ª e 2ª safra) Brasil – Série histórica de area plantada: safra 1976-77 a 2006-07. http://www.conab.gov.br/conabweb/download/safra/MilhoTotalSerieHist.xls 10. CRUZ, I.; CUNHA, J. R.; FIGUEREIDO, M. L.C. 2004. Avaliação de diferentes doses do inseticida Akito (betacypermetrina) sobre larvas de S. frugiperda e sobre os predadores Doru luteipes e Chrysoperla externa. In: Congresso Nacional do Milho e Sorgo, 25, Cuiabá, MT. Sete Lagoas: ABMS/ Embrapa Milho e Sorgo. 11. DOSS, V. A. 2002. Cloning and expression of the vegetative insecticidal protein (vip3V) gene Bacillus thuringiensis in Escherichia coli. Protein Expression and Purification. 26: 82-88. 12. DUTTON, A.; ROMEIS, J.; BIGLER, F. BIOCONTROL 48: 611-636 Times Cited: 51 Assessment the risks of insect resistant transgenic plants on entomophagous arthropods: Bt-maize expressing Cry1Ab as a case study (2003). 13. DUVICK, J. ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH PERPECTIVES 109: 337-342 Supplement: Suppl. 2 Times Cited: 23 Prospects for reducing fumonisin contamination of maize though genetic modification (2001). 14. ESTRUCH, J. J.; GREGORY W. WARREN; MARTHA A. MULLINS; GORDON J. NYE; JOYCE A. CRAIG; AND MICHAEL G. KOZIEL PNAS 93: 5389-5394 Vip3A, a novel Bacillus thuringiensis vegetative insecticidal protein with a wide spectrum of activities against lepidoptera insects (1996). 15. FANCELLI, A. L.; DOURADO-NETO. D 2000. Produção de milho. Guaíba: Agropecuária, 360p 16. FANG, J. et al. 2007. Characterization of Chemic Bacillus thuringiensis Vip 3 toxines. Apllied and Environmental Microbiology. 73: 956-961. 17. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS – FAO. 2007. FAOSTAT. Disponível em: http://faostat.fao.org/site/340/defaut.aspx. 18. FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND (FSANZ) 11 April 2008 – Application a 1001 food derived from insect-protected corn line mir162 – assessment report. 19. FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND (FSANZ) 6 August 2008 – Application a1001 food derived from insect-protected corn line mir162 – approval report. 20. FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND (FSANZ) 17 December 2008 – Application a 1001 food derived from insect-protected corn line mir162 – 1(st) review report. 21. GASSEN, D. N. 1996. Manejo de pragas associadas à cultura da milho. Passo Fundo: Aldeia Norte, 134p. 22. GOULD, F. 1998. Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: Integrating pest genetics and ecology. Annual Review of Entomology. 43: 701-726. 23. HAMMOND, B. et al. (2003) Reduction of fumonisin mycotoxins in Bt Corn. The Toxicologist 72 (S-1), 1217. 24. HILGER, C.; GRIGIONI, F.; THILL, L.; MERTENS, L.; AND HENTGES, F. (2002) Severe IgE- mediated anaphylaxis following consumption of fried frog legs: definition of alpha-parvalbumin as the allergen in cause. Allergy 57: 1053-1058. 25. JACOBS, C. M.; UTTERBACK, P. L.; PARSONS, C. M.; RICE, D.; SMITH, B.; HINDS, M.; LIEBERGESELL, M.; SAUBER, T. Performance of laying hens fed diets containing DAS-59122-7 maize grain compared with diets containing nontransgenic maize grain (2008) Jacobs, C.M.; Utterback, P. L.; Parsons, C. M.; Rice, D.; Smith, B.; Hinds, M.; Sauber, T. 26. KEYL, A. C. (1987) Aflatoxicosis in cattle. In: Mycotoxic Fungi, Mycotoxins, Mycotoxicosis, vol. 2: Wyllie, T. D.; Morehouse, L. G.; (Eds), Marcel Dekker: New York, pp. 9-27. 27. KIESSELBACH, T. A. The structure and reproduction of corn. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1980. 96p. 28. LEE, M. K.; WALTERS, F. S.; HART, H.; PALEKAR, N.; CHEN, J. S. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 4648-4657. The mode of action of the Bacillus thuringiensis vegetative insecticidal protein Vip3A differs from that of Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin (2003). 29. LIU, J. 2007. Identification of vip3-type genes from Bacillus thuringiensis strains and charactherization of a novel vip3A-tye gene. Letters in Applied Microbiology 45: 432-438. 30. LOGUERCIO, L. L. et al. 2002. Combined analysis of supernatant-based feeding bioessays and PCR as first-tier screening strategy for Vip-derived activities in Bacillus thuringiensis strains effective against tropical fall armyworm. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 93: 269-277. 31. LUNA, S.V.; FIGUEROA, J. M.; BALTAZAR, M. B.; GOMEZ, L. R.; TOWNSEND, R. E SCHOPER, J. B. 2001. Maize pollen longevity and distance isolation requirements for effective pollen control. Crop Sci. 41: 1551-1557. 32. MARASAS, W. F. O. et al. (2004) Fumonisins disrupt sphingolipid metabolism, folate transport, and neural tube development in embryo culture and in vivo: A potential risk factor for human neural tube defects among populations consuming fumonisin-contaminated maize. J Nutrition 134, 711-716. 33. MARVIER, M.; MCCCREEDY, C.; REGETZ, J.; KAREIVA, P. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates (2007) Science 316: 1475-1477. 34. MESSEGUER, J.; PEÑAS, G.; BALLESTER, J.; BAS, M.; SERRA, J.; SALVIA, J.; PALAUDEMÀS, M.; MELÉ, E. 2006. Pollen-mediated gene flow in real situations of coexistence. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 4: 633-645. 35. MYCOTOXIN REDUCTION IN BT CORN – F. WU – Environmental and Occupational Health, Unin of Pittsburg, PA, USA, http://www.isb.vt.edu/articles/sep0604.html (18/11/08). 36. PATERNIANI, E.; CAMPOS, M. S. 2001. Melhoramento de milho. Inc: Borém, A. Melhoramento de espécies cultivadas. Viçosa, pp; 491-499. 37. PROUDFOOT, A. E.; TURCATTI, G.; WELL, T. N.; PAYTON, M. A.; SMITH, D. J. (1994) Purification, cDNA cloning and heterologous expression of human phosphomannose isomerase. Eur. J. Biochem. 219: 415-423. 38. ROSE, R.; DIVELY, G. P. Environ Entomol 36: 1254-1268 Effects of insecticide-treated and Lepidoptera-active Bt transgenic sweet corn on the abundance and diversity of arthropods (207). 39. ROSS, P. F. et al. (1992) A review and update of animal toxicoses associated with fumonisin-contaminated feeds and production of fumonisins by Fusarium isolates. Micropathologia 17, 109-114. 40. SAXENA, D.; STEWART, C. N.; ALTOSAAR, I. et al. PLANT PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY 42: 383-387 Times Cited: 23 Larvical Cry proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis are released in root exudates of transgenic B-thuringiensis corn, potato, and rice but not of B-thuringiensis canola, cotton and tobacco (2004). 41. SHELTON, A. M.; ZHAO, J. Z.; ROUSH, R. T. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENTOMOLOGY 47: 845-881 Times Cited: 148 Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of Bt transgenic plants (2002). 42. Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: Integrating pest genetics and ecology (1998) Gould F ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENTOMOLOGY 43: 701-726 Times Cited: 363. 43. ROSS, P. F. et al. (1992) A review and update of animal toxicoses associated with fumonisin-contaminated feeds and production of fumonisins by Fusarium isolates. Micropathologia 17, 109-114. 44. TODD |R AND TAGUE BW (2001) Phosphomannose isomerase: a versatile selectable marker for Arabdopsis thaliana germ-line transformation. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 19: 307-319. 45. TURNER, P. C. et al. (2003) Modification of immune function through exposure to dietary aflatoxin in Gambian children. Environmental Health Perspectives 111, 217-20. 46. VENDRAMIN, J. D.; SILVA, F. C.; CAMARGO, A. P. 1989. Avaliação da dimensões da região danificada pelo complexo broca-podridões em seis cultivares de cana-de-açucar. Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil, Porto Alegre, v. 18, p. 105-118. 47. WATSON, LESLIE. DALLWITZ, MICHAEL, J. The grass genera of world. C.A.B.International. Wallingford, OX. C1992. 48. WU, F.; MILLER, J. D.; & CASMAN, E. A. (2004) Bt corn and mycotoxin reduction: An economic perspective. Journal of Toxicolcogy, Toxin Reviews 23(2-3), 397-424.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
molecular traditional methods.
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: National Biosafety Commission
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) Not Applicable
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
National Biosafety Technical Commission
Contact person name:
Paulo Augusto Viana Barroso
Website:
Physical full address:
SPO Area 5 Qd 3 Bl B S 10.1 Brasilia DF
Phone number:
556120335087
Fax number:
Country introduction:

Brazil had the first biosafety law approved in 1995. After the identification of the need to improve the biosafety system of Brazilian genetically modified organisms, a new law was published. The Law 11.105 / 05 establishes a technical committee dedicated to the analysis of the safety aspects of genetically modified organisms and a council of ministers that is dedicated to the analysis of the socioeconomic aspects of the commercial release of genetically modified organisms. In this context, Brazil already has several commercial products that involve genetically modified organisms (plants, human and veterinary vaccines, microorganisms for fuel production) and products derived from new genetic modification techniques.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

At the discretion of, and upon consultation with, CTNBio, a new analysis and issuance of technical opinion may be released on GMOs containing more than one event, combined through classic genetic improvement and which have been previously approved for commercial release by CTNBio

Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

Dr. Paulo Augusto Viana Barroso (President of national Biosafety Commission)

Canada
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Seeds Canada Inc.
Summary of application:

Syngenta Seeds Canada developed Insect Resistant Corn Event MIR 162 using recombinant DNA techniques to introduce the insecticidal vip3Aa20 coding sequence derived from the common soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis strain AB88. The introduction of this gene confers resistance to lepidoptran corn pests. This event was also modified to the phosphomannose isomerase (pmi) coding sequence from Escherichia coli, permitting cells producing PMI to use mannose as a primary carbon source. This gene was introduced for use as a selectable marker.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 24/03/2010
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.): 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

Colombia
Name of product applicant: SYNGENTA
Summary of application:

Authorization of the genetically modified maize MIR162 resistant to lepidoptera pest attack

Upload:
Date of authorization: 27/06/2012
Scope of authorization: Food
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Based on the risk assessment, it can be concluded that the event shows the same risks as its conventional counterpart. Therefore the National Technical Biosafety Committee for GMO use exclusively in Health and human consumption (CTNSalud) recommends its authorization.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Ministerio de salud y proteccion social
Contact person name:
Daniel Rubio
Website:
Physical full address:
Carrera 13 No. 32- 76 piso 12, Bogotá
Phone number:
330 5000 ext 1256
Fax number:
Country introduction:

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

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

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Colombia
Name of product applicant: Syngenta S.A
Summary of application:

GMO authorization for MIR162 soy as food for direct use or processing.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 08/09/2021
Scope of authorization: Food
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Based on the risk assessment, it can be concluded that the event shows the same risks as its conventional counterpart. Therefore, the National Technical Committee for GMO use exclusively in health and human consumption (CTNSalud) recommends its authorization.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) NO
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Ministerio de salud y proteccion social
Contact person name:
Daniel Rubio
Website:
Physical full address:
Carrera 13 No. 32- 76 piso 12, Bogotá
Phone number:
330 5000 ext 1256
Fax number:
Country introduction:

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

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

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Indonesia
Name of product applicant: PT. Syngenta Seed Indonesia
Summary of application:

The genetically modified maize is the maize event MIR162 that confers resistance to certain lepidopteran insects through the expression of protein Vip3Aa20.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 19/08/2011
Scope of authorization: Food
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please refer to the document (in Indonesian)
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and De
Contact person name:
Sustiprijatno
Website:
Physical full address:
BB Biogen Jl Tentara Pelajar 3A Bogor 16111 Indonesia
Phone number:
+622518333440
Fax number:
+622518334420
Country introduction:
  1. Indonesia has  ratified Protocol  on Biosafety to the  Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) through the Indonesian Law No. 21 / 2004.  In the implementation, biosafety  assessment for GM products, based on Goverment Regulation Number 21 /2005, Indonesia  has regulated GM products on  several items including : product kinds and requrements, research and developement,  product importation,  product assessment, release and distribution, supervision and monitoring, and institution and financing. We have also Law for food  No. 18 /2012 which also consists of regulation for GM food.
  2. Indonesia already have procedure /application on GMO  biosafety assessment and National Authorized Institution who conducting  the biosafety  assessment .  Each GM food  should have authorization from Goverment  before it can be released and distributed. An application for authorisation for new  GM food  should be submited to  Biosafety Commision  through related Ministry or authorised Non Departement Goverment Agency (LPND) . Biosafety Commision, then sends the application to the National Agency for Drug and Food Control (Badan POM) for technical team to evaluate  the GM food safety.  The recommendation by technical team will be sent  back  to Biosafety Commision. The recommendation and GM Food safety certificate will be released by Biosafety Commision to the applicant through  related ministry or LPND.  
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

National Agency of Food and Drug Control (BPOM): http://www.pom.go.id/new/home/en

Iran
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection AG
Summary of application:

MIR162 maize is transformed with vip3Aa20 gene which encodes the Vip3Aa20 protein that confers resistance against lepidopteran insect pests  including: fall armyworm, armyworm , beet armyworm , corn earworm , black cutworm , and western bean cutworm. Event MIR162 maize also contains the manA gene from Escherichia coli, which encodes the selectable marker, phosphomannose isomerase (PMI).

Vip3A is a group of vegetative insecticidal proteins (i.e., produced during the vegetative stage of bacterial growth) from Bacillus thuringiensis. The vip3Aa20 form inserted into MIR162 is a variant of the native vip3Aa gene, which was isolated from Bt strain AB88.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 09/10/2016
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-114048/2
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):
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)
Phone: +98-21-64583301
Fax: +98-21-88947075
Email: [email protected]
Url: http://www.maj.ir

 

Ministry of Health and Medical Education- Food & Drug Administration
Food and Drug Administration, Fakhrerazi St., Enghelab Ave.
Tehran
Iran (Islamic Republic of), 1314715311
Phone: 009821-61927130
Fax: 009821-66405570
Email: [email protected],[email protected]
Url: http://fda.behdasht.gov.ir/

 

Iran
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection AG
Summary of application:

MIR162 maize is transformed with vip3Aa20 gene which encodes the Vip3Aa20 protein that confers resistance against lepidopteran insect pests  including: fall armyworm, armyworm , beet armyworm , corn earworm , black cutworm , and western bean cutworm. Event MIR162 maize also contains the manA gene from Escherichia coli, which encodes the selectable marker, phosphomannose isomerase (PMI).

Vip3A is a group of vegetative insecticidal proteins (i.e., produced during the vegetative stage of bacterial growth) from Bacillus thuringiensis. The vip3Aa20 form inserted into MIR162 is a variant of the native vip3Aa gene, which was isolated from Bt strain AB88.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 29/10/2016
Scope of authorization: Feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Competent National Authority: Ministry of Agriculture-Jehad, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO). Risk Assessment file is uploaded. https://bch.cbd.int/en/database/RA/BCH-RA-IR-114192/2
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):
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)
Phone: +98-21-64583301
Fax: +98-21-88947075
Email: [email protected]
Url: http://www.maj.ir

 

Ministry of Health and Medical Education- Food & Drug Administration
Food and Drug Administration, Fakhrerazi St., Enghelab Ave.
Tehran
Iran (Islamic Republic of), 1314715311
Phone: 009821-61927130
Fax: 009821-66405570
Email: [email protected],[email protected]
Url: http://fda.behdasht.gov.ir/

 

Japan
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Seeds K.K.
Summary of application:

Corn line MIR162 has been genetically modified to be resistant to a number of lepidopteran pests of corn, including fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), corn earworm/cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea), black cutworm (Agropis ipsilon) and western bean cutworm (Striacosta albicosta).

Upload:
Date of authorization: 21/01/2010
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.): OECD BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please see the link below (in Japanese).
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Food safety assessment performed by Food Safety Commission of Japan (in Japanese)
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food Safety Commission Secretariat,Cabinet Office,
Contact person name:
Kojiro Yokonuma
Website:
Physical full address:
Akasaka 5-2-20 Minato Ward,Tokyo,Japan
Phone number:
81 3 6234 1122
Fax number:
81 3 3584 7392
Country introduction:
Safety assessments of GM foods are mandatory under the Food Sanitation Law in Japan. The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) legally imposes safety assessments of GM foods so that those that have not undergone safety assessments would not be distributed in the country. MHLW receives application and requests the Food Safety COmmission of Japan (FSCJ) to evaluate the safety of GM foods in terms of human health. Safety assessments are carried out by FSCJ.
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

With regard to stacked events, FSCJ conducts the safety assessment of GM food based on the “Policies Regarding the Safety Assessment of Stacked Varieties of Genetically Modified Plants”.

Even if single events that are stacked have already approved, some products will be considered as new products and some will not.

Please refer to Article 5 and 6 of the MHLW’s notice, which is available at the following URL, for the details.

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-11130500-Shokuhinanzenbu/0000053519.pdf

Article 6 was modified in 2014, and the modified version is available at the following URL.

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-11130500-Shokuhinanzenbu/0000049695.pdf

Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

Food Safety Commission of Japan (http://www.fsc.go.jp/english/index.html), Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/policy/health-medical/food/index.html)

Malaysia
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection Sdn. Bhd.
Summary of application:

Please refer the National Biosafety Board decision document.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 10/03/2016
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) None
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]
Mexico
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Seeds, Inc.
Summary of application:

Authorization by COFEPRIS: 74


The genetically modified maize SYN-IR162-4, as described in the application, expresses a modified Vip3Aa20 protein which provides protection to certain lepidopteran pests. A pmi gene, allowing transformed maize cells to utilize mannose as a sole carbon source, was used as a selectable marker.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 20/01/2010
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: SYN-IR162-4 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:

Secretaría de Salud / Teléfono: +52 55 5080 5200 / Correo electrónico: [email protected]%20

New Zealand
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Seeds Pty Ltd
Summary of application:

Corn line MIR162 has been genetically modified to be resistant to a number of lepidopteran pests of corn, including fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), corn earworm/cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea), black cutworm (Agropis ipsilon) and western bean cutworm (Striacosta albicosta). Protection is conferred by the expression in the plant of the bacterially-derived vip3Aa20 gene, which produces the insecticidal protein Vip3Aa20, a variant of the native insecticidal Vip3Aa1 protein. A selectable marker gene, pmi, encodes phosphomannose isomerase and allows transformed cells to utilise carbon from phosphomannose media.
Unlike Syngenta’s Bt11 corn varieties, MIR162 has no insecticidal activity against European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis). The insect protection of MIR162 will be combined with Bt11 by conventional breeding. In regions where corn rootworm infestations are problematic for growers, these two traits will also be combined with Syngenta’s trait, MIR604, which has been genetically modified to be resistant to Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica vigifera vigifera), Northern corn rootworm (Diabrotica berberi), and Mexican corn rootworm (Diabrotica vigifera zeae). Both the Bt11 and MIR604 traits have previously been assessed by FSANZ and food derived from these lines approved for human consumption.
Bt-based formulations are widely used as biopesticides on a variety of cereal and vegetable crops grown organically or under conventional agricultural conditions. Several registered Bt-based microbial pest control products contain Vip3Aa or Vip3Aa-like proteins and it is likely that small quantities of these proteins are present in the food supply.
The majority of grain and forage derived from corn is used in animal feed. Corn grain is also used in industrial products, such as ethyl alcohol by fermentation and highly refined starch by wet milling.
Corn is not a major crop in Australia or New Zealand. Domestic production of corn in Australia and New Zealand is supplemented by the import of a small amount of corn-based products, largely as high-fructose corn syrup, which is not currently manufactured in either Australia or New Zealand. Such products are processed into breakfast cereals, baking products, extruded confectionery and food coatings. Other corn products such as cornstarch are also imported and used by the food industry for the manufacture of dessert mixes and sauces. Corn may also be imported in finished products such as corn chips and canned corn, or dry milled goods such as cornflour.
Corn line MIR162 will be grown in North America and is not intended for cultivation in Australia or New Zealand. Therefore, if approved, food from this line may enter the Australian and New Zealand food supply as imported food products.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 16/04/2009
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 insect protected corn line MIR162, as required under Standard 1.5.2. The assessment included consideration of (i) the genetic modification to the plant; (ii) the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the novel proteins; and (iii) the composition of MIR162 corn compared with that of conventional corn varieties. No public health and safety concerns were identified as a result of the safety assessment. On the basis of the available evidence, including detailed studies provided by the Applicant, food derived from insect-protected corn line MIR162 is considered as safe and wholesome as food derived from other commercial corn 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 A1001 - Food derived from Insect-protected Corn Line MIR162
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:

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au)

Paraguay
Name of product applicant: SYNGENTA
Summary of application:

Commercial Release

Upload:
Date of authorization: 20/02/2014
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
The food and feed safety assessment was performed following the CODEX Guidelines
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería
Contact person name:
Santiago Bertoni
Website:
Physical full address:
Yegros 437 entre 25 de mayo y Cerro Cora
Phone number:
+595 981 256262
Fax number:
Country introduction:

The agricultural sector is one of the economic pillars of Paraguay in its contribution to the GDP, with the main crops being soybean, cassava, maize, wheat, sugar cane, and cotton. It should also be noted that Paraguay is the world’s fourth exporter of soybean. In 2020, the area planted with crops was 4.67 million hectares and consisted of soybean (3.56 million hectares), maize (1.08 million hectares), and cotton (18,000 hectares). Agricultural biotechnology was first regulated in Paraguay in 1997. In 2012, the system was adjusted through the creation of the National Agricultural and Forestry Biosafety Commission (CONBIO), “with the mission to manage, analyze, and issue recommendations on all matters related to the introduction, confined field trials, pre-commercial and commercial release, and other intended uses of GE crops” Almost 94% of the soybean, 36% of the maize, and 56% of the cotton planted in the country are GE.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

When a stacked event is approved, all possible combinations are approved. Previously evaluated single events are not reevaluated in stacks.

Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

In 2012, the system was adjusted through the creation of the National Agricultural and Forestry Biosafety Commission (CONBIO), “with the mission to manage, analyze, and issue recommendations on all matters related to the introduction, confined field trials, pre-commercial and commercial release, and other intended uses of GE crops”. Additional information https://conbio.mag.gov.py/

Philippines
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Philippines
Summary of application:
Syngenta developed a com line resistant to the Lepidopteran com insect pests such as com earworm, black cutworm, fall armyworm, and western bean cutworm. This com line referred to as Corn MIR 162, was developed to provide a method to control yield losses from insect feeding damage without the use of conventional pesticides.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 11/02/2010
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):
Syngenta Philippines, Inc. submitted applications to the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), requesting for biosafety permits under DA Administrative Order (AO) No.8 for Com MIR162 for direct use as food, feed or for processing. Com MIR 162 has been genetically modified for insect resistance. Com MIR162 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) for feed safety, and Bureau of Fisheries and Product Standards (BAFPS) for food safety, 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 com. 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-BA T), 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

Republic of Korea
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Korea
Summary of application:

Lepidopteran insect resistance

Upload:
Date of authorization: 25/10/2010
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):
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:
Russian Federation
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection AG
Summary of application:

There were submitted (1) data enabling to identify the matter of research (species, variety, and the transformation event); (2) data on the initial parental organism and the donor organism for introduced genetic sequences;  (3) data on the genetic modification method, genetic construction, and the level of gene expression; (4) data on identification of GM maize line MIR162 (identification methods, protocol of analysis, description of primers, reference materials); (5) data on registration of the GM line  in other countries and the results of safety assessment which conducted for registration purposes of GMO in other countries.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 29/06/2011
Scope of authorization: Food
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Peer review of the data submitted by the applicant and the results of complex medical and biological studies of transgenic maize line MIR162 tolerant to lepidopteran pests, attest to the absence of any toxic, genotoxic, or allergenic effects of this maize line. By biochemical composition, transgenic maize line MIR162 was identical to conventional maize. GM maize line MIR162 tolerant to lepidopteran pests 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

Singapore
Name of product applicant: Syngenta
Summary of application:

Application for use as food, feed or for processing

Upload:
Date of authorization: 10/07/2017
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
SYN-IR162-4 corn has been genetically modified for protection against feeding damage caused by larvae of a number of insect species by expression of a modified vip3Aa gene, encoding an insecticidal Vip protein, derived from Bacillus thuringiensis. SYN-IR162-4 corn also expresses the pmi gene, encoding the enzyme phosphomannose isomerase (PMI), which serves as a selectable marker, enabling plants to grow on mannose. SYN-IR162-4 contains two novel genes. The first, vip3Aa20, derived from B. thuringiensis, encodes the insecticidal protein Vip3Aa20. The vip3Aa20 gene is a modified version of the native vip3Aa1 gene found in the B. thuringiensis strain AB88. The second gene, pmi, is present as a selectable marker and encodes the enzyme phosphomannose isomerase derived from Escherichia coli. One copy of each of the vip3Aa20 and pmi genes has been inserted at a single site in the plant genome and the genes are stably inherited from one generation to the next. No antibiotic resistance marker genes are present in SYN-IR162-4 corn. Apart from the unexpected amino acid change at position 129, both the Vip3Aa20 and PMI proteins conform in size and amino acid sequence to that expected, do not exhibit any post-translational modification including glycosylation, and also demonstrate the predicted insecticidal (Vip3A) or enzymatic (PMI) activity. Both proteins are unlikely to be toxic or allergenic in humans. Compositional analyses showed that MIR162 corn is considered to be compositionally equivalent to food from conventional corn varieties. The nutritional adequacy of food derived from SYN-IR162-4 corn was also confirmed using a feeding study in rapidly-growing broiler chicks, which demonstrated that MIR162 corn is equivalent to its conventional counterpart and commercial corn in its ability to support typical growth and well-being. On the basis of the data provided by the applicant, and other available information, food derived from insect-protected SYN-IR162-4 corn is considered as safe as food derived from conventional corn 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:

More information on the guidelines for the safety assessment of stacked events can be found on GMAC’s website:

http://www.gmac.sg/Index_Singapore_Guidelines_on_the_Release_of_Agriculture_Related_GMOs.html

Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

Singapore Food Agency (SFA)

South Africa
Name of product applicant: Syngenta
Summary of application:

The GM maize MIR162 is produced by Agrobacterium mediated transformation. The maize expresses the Vip3Aa20 protein which controls certain lepidopteran pests.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 11/03/2014
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): Biosafety Clearing House (BCH)
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
The GM maize MIR162 has been assessed in terms of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, 1997 by the Advisory Committee, a scientific panel and the Executive Council an intergovernmental decision making body. The assessment considered amongst others the following: The source of the gene, nature of host organism, protein expression, toxicology and allergenicity issues
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries
Contact person name:
Nompumelelo Mkhonza
Website:
Physical full address:
30 Hamilton street, Harvest House building, Arcadia, Pretoria, 0001
Phone number:
+2712 319 6382
Fax number:
+2712 319 6298
Country introduction:
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

South Africa does not have a specific review/authorization mechanism for stacked events. Stacked events just like single events are subjected to a safety assessment as per the GMO Act.

Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

Department of Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) http://www.daff.gov.za

Thailand
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Seeds (Thailand) Limited.
Summary of application:

Commodity : Corn / Maize (Zea mays L. )


Maize event MIR162 has been genetically modified to expresses Vip3Aa20 protein which provide protection to certain lepidopteran pests.


Application for food safety assessment.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 04/12/2022
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):
The food safety assessment performed by the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) as advisory and technical arm of Thai FDA. BIOTEC conduct food safety assessment according to codex guideline and based on the safety data and information provided by the applicant (as specified in Annex 2 attached to Notification of the Ministry of Public Health No.431). According to the existing scientific data and information available during the safety assessment, it is concluded that the maize event MIR162 is not materially different from counterpart maize for morphology, nutrition, toxicology and allergenicity.
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):
National Burequ of Agricultural Commodity and Food
Contact person name:
Director of Office of Standard Development
Website:
Physical full address:
50 Phahonyothin Rd., Lardyao, Chathuchak, Bangkok 10900
Phone number:
+6625612277 ext.1401
Fax number:
+6625613373
Country introduction:

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

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

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

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

Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC)

Thailand
Name of product applicant: Syngenta Seeds (Thailand) Limited.
Summary of application:

Commodity:Corn / Maize (Zea mays L.)


 


Maize event MIR162 has been genetically modified to expresses Vip3Aa20 protein which provide protection to certain lepidopteran pests.


Application for food safety assessment.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 04/12/2022
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):
The food safety assessment performed by the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) as advisory and technical arm of Thai FDA. BIOTEC conduct food safety assessment according to codex guideline and based on the safety data and information provided by the applicant (as specified in Annex 2 attached to Notification of the Ministry of Public Health No.431). According to the existing scientific data and information available during the safety assessment, it is concluded that the maize event MIR162 is not materially different from counterpart maize for morphology, nutrition, toxicology and allergenicity.
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):
National Burequ of Agricultural Commodity and Food
Contact person name:
Director of Office of Standard Development
Website:
Physical full address:
50 Phahonyothin Rd., Lardyao, Chathuchak, Bangkok 10900
Phone number:
+6625612277 ext.1401
Fax number:
+6625613373
Country introduction:

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

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

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

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

Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC)

Türkiye
Name of product applicant: Special case: please show below
Summary of application:

Application for direct use as feed


Turkish Biosafety Law, entered in force in 2010, diverges from EU legislations in some points


 such as food and feed use require different separate applications, risk assessments and approvals.


 Addition, our Law forsees prision sentences in some circumtances of Law violation and joint


 reponsibilities for the violation. Therefore, GM product owners avoid to make application for approval and non product developer have made application till now. Instead, some Turkish assosiations  such as poultry producers assosiations, animal feed assosiations have applied to get approval for import of GM products for their members. Thus, name of product applicant is not product developers for our country.


 


Turkish Poultry Meat Producers and Breeders Association

Upload:
Date of authorization: 17/11/2015
Scope of authorization: Feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
After the evaluation of reports released by Scientific Risk Assessment Committee and Socio- economic Assessment Committee Biosafety Board has approved the use of genetically modified maize MIR162 and products thereof for animal feed.
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):
DG of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM)
Contact person name:
Ramazan BULBUL
Website:
Physical full address:
Universiteler Mah. Dumlupınar Bulvarı, Eskişehir Yolu 10. Km Çankaya/ANKARA/TURKEY
Phone number:
+90 312 307 60 48
Fax number:
+90 312 307 61 90
Country introduction:

Turkey is party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) since Jan 24, 2004. Biosafety applications in Turkey are carried out within the framework of the Biosafety Law (no.5977) which entered into force in 26 September 2010 and its relevant regulations (“The Regulation on Genetically Modified Organisms and Products” and “The Regulation Connected with Working Procedure and Principles of Biosafety Board and Committees”). Biosafety Law and two regulations came into force on 26th September 2010.

 Main objectives of the Biosafety Law are;

  • to prevent risks that may arise from GMO’s and products which are produced by using of modern biotechnology by taking into account scientific and technological developments;
  • to establish and implement biosafety system to ensure protection and sustainability of environment, biological diversity and health of human, animal and plant;
  • to inspect, regulate and monitor the activities in the scope of the law.

 The Law includes specific points regarding research, development, processing, releasing on the market, monitoring, using, import, export, handling, transportation, packaging, labelling, storage and similar operations in relation to GMO and GMOPs.

 Veterinarian medicinal products and medicinal products for human use and also cosmetic products which are permitted or certified by the Ministry of Health are out of this Law’s scope. 

 According to Biosafety Law following actions connected with GMO and GMOPs are prohibited:

  • Releasing  GMO and GMOPs on the market without approval of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
  • Production of genetically modified plants and animals.
  • Using GMO and GMOPs in baby food and baby formulae, follow-on baby food and follow-on formulae, infant and kid’s nutritional supplements

 According to the Biosafety Law, which was enacted in 2010, the Biosafety Board, which was established within the scope of the Law, was responsible for evaluating the applications regarding GMO and its products.

 However, the duties and powers of the Biosafety Board were assigned to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry with the Presidential Circular No. 2018/3 published in the Official Gazette on the date of August 2, 2018.

 The task of evaluating the applications related to GMO and its products, performing the secretarial services of the Committees and other duties specified in the Biosafety Law and related regulations has been assigned to General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM) under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry pursuant to Ministerial Approval dated 05/12/2018.

 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry makes a “Decision” about applications on GMO and products via taking Scientific Committees’ risk assessment and socio-economic assessment into account.

 For each application the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry assigns a new committee and each committee makes different assessment for each application. It is important to note that in Turkey food and feed each have a different assessment application.

 Members of scientific committees are selected from the List of Experts.

 11 members are selected for each GMO application.

 List of Experts has been made up by the evaluation of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry from the applicants who applied via using the Biosafety Clearing-House Mechanism of Turkey. Applicants were faculty members and experts of Universities and TÜBİTAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey).

 To date, 13 types of GM soybean and 23 types of GM maize were approved as feed for import.

Besides, by the use of aspergillus oryzae, developed through modern biotechnological methods, licences for industrial α-amylase, glucoamylase and hemicellulase enzyme production were granted.

 Threshold of labeling of GMO products that are approved by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is 0.9%.

There are not any applications for using GMO and products as food.

 After placing GMO and GMOPs on the market; the Ministry controls and inspects whether or not conditions designated by decision are met.

Activities of analysis are performed in laboratories designated by the Ministry.

In the case of any non-compliance detected with relation to the GMO Legislation (such as  a failure to specify the contained GMO on the label, identification of an unapproved gene, etc.) legal action is taken.

Application evaluation process is like below:

  • Evaluation of application by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry      90 days
  • Feedback to the applicant                                                            15 days
  • Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s “Decision”                             270 days

(Starts from feedback to the applicant)

Establishing of Scientific Committees

Report preparation of Committees

Report’s public release

Evaluation of public opinions by Committees

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s final decision after taking reports and public opinions into     

account

  • Publishing the Positive Decision                                                        30 days
  • Reclamation period to Negative Decision                                           60 days
  • Evaluation of reclamation by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry        60 days
Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies

Focal Point of the FAO GM Foods Platform

Ramazan BULBUL

Email: [email protected]

United States of America
Name of product applicant: Syngenta
Summary of application:

Vip3Aa20 Corn


 

Upload:
Date of authorization: 09/12/2008
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):
Please see EPA BRAD and FDA Consultation.
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: EPA BRAD
EPA Residue Tolerance Exemption
FDA Consultation
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:

Food and Drug Administration ([email protected]); Environmental Protection Agency