Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

MON-88302-9
Commodity: Canola / Oilseed rape / Rape Seed
Traits: Glyphosate tolerance
European Union
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Europe S.A.
Summary of application:

Genetically modified oilseed rape line MON-883Ø2-9 expresses the CP4 EPSPS protein which confers tolerance to glyphosate-based herbicides.


Products:


1.) Foods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from MON-883Ø2-9 oilseed rape
2.) Feed containing, consisting or produced from MON-883Ø2-9 oilseed rape
3.) Products other than food and feed containing or consisting of MON-883Ø2-9 oilseed rape for the same uses as any other oilseed rape with the exception of cultivation

Upload:
Date of authorization: 24/04/2015
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): EU Register of authorised GMOs
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please see the EU relevant links below.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
"Method for detection: Event specific real-time quantitative PCR based method for genetically modified MON-883Ø2-9 oilseed rape Validated by the EU Reference Laboratory established under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Reference material: AOCS 1011-A and AOCS 0304-A accessible via the American Oil Chemists Society. Relevant links are provided below. "
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: Opinion of the European Food Safety Authority
Method for detection
Reference material
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date) 26/04/2025
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
European Union
Contact person name:
Alexandre Huchelmann
Website:
Physical full address:
European Commission B232 04/106 1047 Brussels
Phone number:
3222954092
Fax number:
Country introduction:

The process for authorising a new GMO is based on the EU regulation on GM food and feed (1829/2003). An application for authorising food or feed consisting of or made from a GMO must be submitted to the national authorities. The national authority then sends the application to the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) for a risk assessment. EFSA then makes the application summary available to the public. No matter where in the EU the company applies, EFSA assesses the risks the GMO presents for the environment, human health and animal safety. If the application covers cultivation, EFSA delegates the environmental risk assessment to an EU country which sends EFSA its risk assessment report. After performing the risk assessment, EFSA submits its scientific opinion to the European Commission and to EU countries. The opinion is made available to the public, except for certain confidential aspects. Once EFSA publishes its risk assessment, the public has 30 days to comment on the Commission website for applications under Reg. 1829/2003, and on the Joint Research Centre website on the assessment report of the "lead" EU country for applications under Directive 2001/18. Within 3 months of receiving EFSA's opinion, the Commission grants or refuses the authorisation in a proposal. If it differs from EFSA’s opinion, it must explain why. National representatives approve the Commission’s proposal by qualified majority in: (1) The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health if the application was submitted under Reg. 1829/2003; (2) The Regulatory Committee under Directive 2001/18/EC if the application was submitted under Dir. 2001/18. The proposal is adopted if the Committee agrees with it. If there is no opinion, the Commission may summon an Appeal Committee where EU countries can adopt or reject the proposal. If the Appeal Committee makes no decision, the Commission may adopt its proposal. Authorisations are valid for 10 years (renewable).

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:
Contact details of the competent authority(s) responsible for the safety assessment and the product applicant:
Australia
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Australia Ltd
Summary of application:
Monsanto Australia Limited submitted an application to FSANZ to vary Standard 1.5.2 –Food produced using Gene Technology – in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) to include food from a new genetically modified (GM) canola line MON88302 (OECD Unique Identifier MON-88302-9). The canola has been modified such that all plant tissue is tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate.
Tolerance to glyphosate is achieved through expression of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvyl-3-shikimatephosphate synthase (CP4 EPSPS) encoded by the cp4epsps gene derived from the common soil bacterium Agrobacterium sp. The CP4 EPSPS protein has previously been assessed by FSANZ in a range of crops including canola. In comparison with a previous GM canola line developed by the Applicant and assessed by FSANZ (Application A363 - line GT73), MON88302 has tolerance to higher rates of glyphosate and shows greater flexibility in the timing for glyphosate herbicide application.
Initially MON88302 canola will be grown in North America, but it is likely the Applicant will apply at some future date for a licence to grow the crop commercially in Australia. Therefore,if approved, food from this line may enter the Australian and New Zealand food supply both as imported and locally-produced food products.
Upload:
Date of authorization: 22/02/2013
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 A1071 - Food derived from Herbicide-tolerant Canola Line MON88302
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)

Canada
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Canada Inc.
Summary of application:

Monsanto Canada developed MON 88302 canola through genetic modification using recombinant DNA techniques to introduce the CP4 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (cp4 epsps) coding sequence derived from the common soil bacteriumAgrobacterium sp. strain CP4. The sequence codes for the CP4 EPSPS enzyme which is functionally equivalent to the native canola EPSPS, except that it is tolerant to inhibition by glyphosate herbicide.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 12/06/2012
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): 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

Japan
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Japan Ltd.
Summary of application:

Oilseed rape tolerant to glyphosate herbicide (Modified cp4 epsps, Brassica napus L.).

Upload:
Date of authorization: 17/10/2013
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): OECD BioTrack Product Databas
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please see the links 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), Food
Food safety assessment performed by Food Safety Commission of Japan (in Japanese), Feed
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:
Mariko Murakami
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)

Mexico
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Comercial, S.A. de C.V.
Summary of application:

Authorization by COFEPRIS: 116


Monsanto developed MON 88302 canola through genetic modification using recombinant DNA techniques to introduce the CP4 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (cp4 epsps) coding sequence derived from the common soil bacteriumAgrobacterium sp. strain CP4. The sequence codes for the CP4 EPSPS enzyme which is functionally equivalent to the native canola EPSPS, except that it is tolerant to inhibition by glyphosate herbicide.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 11/02/2013
Scope of authorization: Food
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
UI OECD: MON-88302-9 During the risk assessment of this GMO based on existing knowledge to date, no toxic or allergic effects neither substantial nutritional changes are observed. The event is as safe as its conventional counterpart. For more detail please find attached the risk assessment summary in this page.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
CIBIOGEM
Contact person name:
Biól. Erica L. Hagman Aguilar
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 / Phone: +52 55 5080 5200 /Email: [email protected]%20

New Zealand
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Australia Ltd
Summary of application:

Monsanto Australia Limited submitted an application to FSANZ to vary Standard 1.5.2 –Food produced using Gene Technology – in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) to include food from a new genetically modified (GM) canola line MON88302 (OECD Unique Identifier MON-88302-9). The canola has been modified such that all plant tissue is tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate.
Tolerance to glyphosate is achieved through expression of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvyl-3-shikimatephosphate synthase (CP4 EPSPS) encoded by the cp4epsps gene derived from the common soil bacterium Agrobacterium sp. The CP4 EPSPS protein has previously been assessed by FSANZ in a range of crops including canola. In comparison with a previous GM canola line developed by the Applicant and assessed by FSANZ (Application A363 - line GT73), MON88302 has tolerance to higher rates of glyphosate and shows greater flexibility in the timing for glyphosate herbicide application.
Initially MON88302 canola will be grown in North America, but it is likely the Applicant will apply at some future date for a licence to grow the crop commercially in Australia. Therefore,if approved, food from this line may enter the Australian and New Zealand food supply both as imported and locally-produced food products.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 09/05/2013
Scope of authorization: Food
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.): OECD BioTrack Product Database
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
In conducting a safety assessment of food derived from herbicide-tolerant canola line MON88302, a number of criteria have been addressed including: a characterisation of the transferred gene, its origin, function and stability in the canola genome; the changes at the level of DNA, protein and in the whole food; compositional analyses; evaluation of intended and unintended changes; and the potential for the newly expressed protein to be either allergenic or toxic in humans. No potential public health and safety concerns have been identified in the assessment of herbicide-tolerant canola MON88302. On the basis of the data provided in the present Application, and other available information, food derived from canola line MON88302 is considered to be as safe for human consumption as food derived from conventional canolavarieties.
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 A1071 - Food derived from Herbicide-tolerant Canola Line MON88302
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:
Fiapaipai Auapaau
Website:
Physical full address:
Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace, Wellington, 6012
Phone number:
+6448314946
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)

Philippines
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Philippines
Summary of application:

Monsanto Philippines has developed herbicide tolerant canola event, MON 88302, which was developed by introducing a gene derived from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 that expresses 5- enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (CP4 EPSPS) protein which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate.


Monsanto Philippines, Inc. has filed an application with attached technical dossiers to the Bureau of Plant Industry on November 10, 2011 for a biosafety permit for direct use as food, feed or for processing under Administrative Order (AO) No. 8 Part 5 for MON 88302 canola, A safety assessment of MON 88302 was conducted as per Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 8 Series of 2002 and Memorandum Circulars Nos. 6 and 8, Series of 2004.


Monsanto has provided data and/or information on the identity of MON 88302 including a detailed description of the transformation method, the safety of donor organism, the role of the inserted genes and regulatory sequences, the insertion sites, copy number and genetic stability of the insert(s), and the levels of expression in the plant, . The introduced protein was identified, characterized and evaluated for their potential toxicity and allergenicity to human and livestock. Relevant scientific publications were supplied. 

Upload:
Date of authorization: 24/04/2015
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
MON 88302 has been evaluated according to BPI’s safety assessment by concerned agencies [Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Standards (BAFS) and a Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP)]. The process involved an extensive safety evaluation of the nature of the genetic modification with a consideration of general safety issues, toxicological and nutritional issues associated with the canola product. A history of safe use has been established for MON 88302 CP4 EPSPS protein. The safety of the cp4 epsps donor organism (Agrobacterium) and the ubiquitous presence of homologous EPSPS enzymes in food crops (e.g., soybean and corn) and common microorganisms (e.g., Saccharomyces cerevisiae), established that the EPSPS protein, and its enzyme activity pose no novel risks from a food or feed perspective. The CP4 EPSPS protein in MON 88302 has also been assessed for its potential allergenicity according to safety assessment guidelines and has demonstrated not to be allergenic. The CP4 EPSPS protein showed lack of structural similarity to known toxins, allergens or biologically active or anti-nutritional proteins known to have adverse effects on mammals. Digestibility studies in SGF and SIF show that CP4 EPSPS is rapidly digestible indicating that it is highly unlikely that these proteins will pose any safety concern to human and animal health. Finally acute toxicity studies with adult mice found no adverse effects when CP4 EPSPS protein was administered at dose far exceeding those that would be experienced consuming grain produced by MON 88302. Based on the weight of evidence, it is concluded that the CP4 EPSPS protein expressed in MON 88302 is safe and poses no concerns for humans, animals and the environment. Detailed compositional analyses in accordance with OECD guidelines were conducted to determine whether levels of key nutrients and anti-nutrients in MON 88302 were comparable to levels present in the conventional canola control and commercially available canola varieties. Canola forage is rarely consumed by animals and is not a source of nutrition for humans. Therefore, the OECD consensus document on compositional considerations for canola does not include analysis of canola forage, so forage samples were not collected. These compositional comparisons were made by analyzing the seed harvested from five replicated field sites across the United States and Canada during the 2009 field season. The analysis included proximates (ash, carbohydrates by calculation, moisture, protein, and total fat), fibers, amino acids, fatty acids, vitamin E, and minerals, toxicants and anti-nutrients in seed. The results demonstrated the genetic modification in MON 88302 does not meaningfully impact seed composition and therefore the food and feed safety and nutritional quality of this product is comparable to conventional canola with a history of safe consumption.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment:
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: Monsanto Korea Ltd.
Summary of application:

Glyphosate herbicide tolerance

Upload:
Date of authorization: 28/02/2014
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):
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:
Singapore
Name of product applicant: Monsanto
Summary of application:

Application for use as food, feed and for processing 

Upload:
Date of authorization: 15/03/2017
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):
Canola line MON88302-9 was developed to tolerant the herbicide glyphosate through Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. The line contains the cp4 epsps gene that encodes the enzyme 5-enolpyruvyl-3-shikimatephosphate synthase (CP4 EPSPS), conferring tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Molecular analyses indicate that there is a single insertion site comprising a single, complete copy of the cp4 epsps expression cassette. The introduced genetic elements are stably inherited from one generation to the next. There are no antibiotic resistance marker genes present in the line and no plasmid backbone has been incorporated into the transgenic locus. Canola line MON88302-9 expresses one novel protein, CP4 EPSPS, which lacks any significant amino acid sequence similarity to known protein toxins or allergens. Digestibility studies have demonstrated that CP4 EPSPS would be completely digested before absorption in the gastrointestinal tract would occur. The protein also loses enzyme activity with heating. The evidence indicates the CP4 EPSPS protein is unlikely to be toxic or allergenic to humans. Compositional Analyses concluded that seed from MON88302-9 is compositionally equivalent to seed from conventional canola varieties. No potential public health and safety concerns have been identified in the assessment of herbicide-tolerant canola MON88302. Based on the data provided in the dossier and other available information, food derived from canola line MON88302-9 is considered to be as safe for human consumption as food derived from conventional canola 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)

United States of America
Name of product applicant: Monsanto Company
Summary of application:
Canola
Trait 1 Added Protein: 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) from cp4 epsps gene
Source: Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4
Intended Effect: Tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate and, in particular, improved tolerance to glyphosate in male reproductive tissues
Upload:
Date of authorization: 23/04/2012
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.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Please consult the FDA website links below.
Upload:
Where detection method protocols and appropriate reference material (non-viable, or in certain circumstances, viable) suitable for low-level situation may be obtained:
Relevant links to documents and information prepared by the competent authority responsible for the safety assessment: FDA's webpage regarding this variety
Upload:
Authorization expiration date (a blank field means there is no expiration date)
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Food and Drug Administration
Contact person name:
Jason Dietz
Website:
Physical full address:
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park MD 20740
Phone number:
240-402-2282
Fax number:
Country introduction:

The United States is currently in the process of populating this database. The Food and Drug Administration regulates food and feed (food for humans and animals) from genetically engineered crops in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA regulates pesticides, including those that are plant incorporated protectants genetically engineered into food crops, to make sure that pesticide residues are safe for human and animal consumption and do not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health or the environment. FDA In the Federal Register of May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984), FDA published its "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (the 1992 policy). The 1992 policy clarified the agency's interpretation of the application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to human and animal foods derived from new plant varieties and provided guidance to industry on scientific and regulatory issues related to these foods. The 1992 policy applied to all foods derived from all new plant varieties, including varieties that are developed using genetic engineering (also known as recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology). In the 1992 policy, FDA recommended that developers consult with FDA about foods from genetically engineered plants under development and developers have routinely done so. In June 1996, FDA provided additional guidance to industry on procedures for these consultations (the consultation procedures). These procedures describe a process in which a developer who intends to commercialize food from a genetically engineered plant meets with the agency to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or other regulatory issues regarding the genetically engineered food and then submits to FDA a summary of its scientific and regulatory assessment of the food. FDA evaluates the submission and if FDA has questions about the summary provided, it requests clarification from the developer. At the conclusion of the consultation FDA responds to the developer by letter. The approach to the safety assessment of genetically engineered food recommended by FDA during consultations, including data and information evaluated, is consistent with that described in the Codex Alimentarius Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants. EPA The safe use of pesticidal substances is regulated by EPA. Food from a genetically engineered plant that is the subject of a consultation with FDA may contain an introduced pesticidal substance, also known as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), that is subject to food (food for humans and animals) safety and environmental review by EPA. PIPs are pesticidal substances produced by plants and the genetic material necessary for the plant to produce the substance. Both the PIP protein and its genetic material are regulated by EPA. When assessing the potential risks of PIPs, EPA requires studies examining numerous factors, such as risks to human health, non-target organisms and the environment, potential for gene flow, and insect resistance management plans, if needed. In regulating PIPs, decisions are based on scientific standards and input from academia, industry, other Federal agencies, and the public. Before the first PIP product was registered in 1995, EPA required that PIP products be thoroughly tested against human safety standards before they were used on human food and livestock feed crops. EPA scientists assessed a wide variety of potential effects associated with the use of PIPs, including toxicity, and allergenicity. These potential effects were evaluated in light of the public's potential exposures to these pesticides, taking into account all potential combined sources of the exposure (food, drinking water, etc.) to determine the likelihood that a person exposed at these levels would be predisposed to a health risk. Based on its reviews of the scientific studies and often peer reviews by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Scientific Advisory Panel, EPA determined that these genetically engineered PIP products, when used in accordance with approved label directions and use restrictions, would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment during their time-limited registration.

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

Stacked events that are each plant incorporated protectants, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, must be registered by the Envriornmental Protection Agency before they can be commercialized.  Food/feed safety asssessment of single events are generally sufficient to ensure the safety of food/feed from stacked events.   

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

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