Food safety and quality
| share
 

OECD Unique Identifier details

SPS-00E12-8
Commodity: Potatoes
Traits: Reduced levels of arginine and reducing sugars, reduced black spot bruising
Australia
Name of product applicant: SPS International Inc
Summary of application:

SPS International Inc (SPS), a subsidiary of the United States of America food and agribusiness company J.R. Simplot, submitted an application to FSANZ to vary Schedule 26 in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) to include food from a new genetically modified (GM) potato line E12 with OECD Unique Identifier SPS-ØØE12-8 (herein referred to as E12). This potato has been genetically modified using an approach called RNA interference (RNAi). In this approach, fragments of four genes have been introduced with the intent of suppressing the level of expression of four native potato genes. No other genetic modification has been introduced and no new proteins are produced in line E12.


The suppression of the four genes was expected to have two main effects. The first effect was that less acrylamide would be produced when the potatoes are cooked at high temperature, such as in roasting or deep frying. While many cooked foods contain acrylamide, it is regarded as prudent to not consume too much. The second effect was a reduction in browning in raw potato tubers when they are bruised, cut or damaged (a phenomenon known as blackspot bruising). Potatoes with blackspot bruising are either trimmed or rejected during processing, resulting in economic loss.


The genetic modification was designed to reduce the expression of asparagine synthetase-1 (Asn1), phosphorylase-L (PhL), water dikinase R1 (R1), and the polyphenol oxidase-5 gene (Ppo5). The introduced DNA fragments are derived from potato (Solanum tuberosum) except for Ppo5, which is derived from a related species, S. verrucosum. The aim of the suppression of Asn1 was to reduce free asparagine, and the aim of suppression of PhL and R1 was to lower the content of the reducing sugars, fructose and glucose. Collectively the reduced expression of these three genes was intended to result in potatoes with reduced acrylamide potential. Reduced expression of Ppo5 was intended to confer a reduced browning phenotype resulting in potatoes with reduced blackspot bruising.


At this point, SPS does not intend to import potato line E12 into Australia or New Zealand or cultivate it in either country. The aim of this application is to obtain food approval for imported processed foods that may contain E12. GM potato line E12 was approved for use as human food and animal feed in the USA (2015) and Canada (2016).

Upload:
Date of authorization: 09/02/2017
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: A1128 – Food derived from reduced Acrylamide Potential & Browning Potato Line E12
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)

Mexico
Name of product applicant: SIMPLOT PS MEXICO S. de R.L. de C.V.
Summary of application:

Authorization by COFEPRIS: 167


Potatoe (Solanum tuberosum), cultivate: Russet Burbank, event E12. Potatoe genetically modified with RNAi cassettes to reduce the expression of four enzymes of the potato: asparagine synthetase ASN, polyphenol oxidase PPO, water dinasin R1 and phosphorylase PHL. What allows to have lower levels of asparagine and reducing sugars, which helps transformed potatoes have fewer black spots and have lower levels of acrylamide when cooked at high temperatures.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 08/11/2017
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
No documentary evidence indicating toxicological and / or allergenic effects was observed; as well as substantial nutritional changes in the potato (Solanum tuberosum) Cultivate: Russet Burbank, event E12, so it is concluded that the genetically modified potato (Solanum tuberosum) with OCDE identifier SPS-ØØE12-8 is, based on existing knowledge o date, as innocuous as its conventional counterpart.
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: SPS International Inc
Summary of application:

A1128 was submitted by SPS on 25 February 2016. It sought approval for food derived from a potato line with OECD Unique Identifier SPS-ØØE12-8 (herein referred to as ‘E12’) which has reduced acrylamide potential and reduced browning (blackspot bruise).


E12 has been genetically modified using a RNA interference (RNAi) approach. Gene fragments from four genes that were intended to suppress the expression of four endogenous potato genes were introduced into E12. The introduced gene fragments are derived from potato (Solanum tuberosum) and a related species (Solanum verrucosum). No other genetic modifications were introduced and no new proteins are produced in line E12.


The four potato genes targeted for reduced expression in the tubers were: asparagine synthetase-1 (Asn1), phosphorylase-L (PhL), water dikinase R1 (R1), and polyphenol oxidase-5 (Ppo5). The aim of suppressing Asn1 was to reduce levels of free asparagine. The aim of suppressing PhL and R1 was to reduce levels of the reducing sugars, fructose and glucose. Collectively, the reduction of free asparagine and reducing sugars was expected to result in potato tubers with reduced acrylamide potential. Reduced expression of Ppo5 was expected to result in tubers with reduced blackspot bruising.


What actually occurred was a reduction in the expression levels of Asn1 and Ppo5 but not of PhL and R1. Despite not reducing the expression of PhL and R1 and therefore not significantly lowering the levels of fructose and glucose, the reduction in expression of ASn1 was sufficient by itself to produce the desired trait (reduced acrylamide production) in cooked products (fries) of E12. The reduction in Ppo5 expression did successfully reduce the activity of polyphenol oxidase (PPO), the enzyme that leads to a darkening of damaged tissue.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 04/04/2017
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 E12, a number of criteria have been addressed including: a characterisation of the transferred gene sequences, their origin, function and stability in the potato genome; the changes at the level of DNA, RNA and protein in the whole food; compositional analyses; and evaluation of intended and unintended changes. No potential public health and safety concerns have been identified in the assessment of E12. On the basis of the data provided in the present Application, and other available information, food derived from E12 is considered to be as safe for human consumption as food derived from conventional potato 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: A1128 – Food derived from reduced Acrylamide Potential & Browning Potato Line E12
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: SPS International, Inc.
Summary of application:

On February 01, 2019 Simplot Plant Science International Inc.’s filed for application of potato E12  direct use as food and feed, or for processing, as original application under the DOST-DA-DENR-DOH-DILG Joint Department Circular (JDC) No. 1 Series of 2016.  After reviewing the Risk Assessment Report and attachments submitted by the applicant, the assessors namely: Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP), BPI Plant Products Safety Services Division (BPI-PPSSD) and Bureau of Animal Industry- Biotech Team (BAI-BT), concurred that potato E12 is as safe for human food and animal feed as its conventional counterpart. 

Upload:
Date of authorization: 29/10/2019
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Toxicological and Allergenicity Assessment The assessors have reported that toxicological and allergenicity assessment was conducted by identifying thirty unique open reading frames (ORFs) and conducting a bioinformatics analysis. Identification of the open reading frames (ORFs) in E12 and conduct of bioinformatic analysis are applied to assess allergenicity of potato E12. A 30 unique start-to-stop ORFs were identified within the E12 insert and associated with the junction regions surrounding the insert. The bioinformatic analysis involved examination on the homology between ORFs and known putative allergens and and demonstrated that there are no ORFs which showed homology with known toxins and allegens. Additionally, glycoalkaloid content was similar to control Russet Burbank potatoes. Nutritional Data According to the assesors, there were no differences observed for any proximates analyzed with the mean values of the proximates in potato E12 were all within the tolerance interval and combined literature range. Comparison with nine potato varieties namely Atlantic, Chieftain, IdaRose, Ranger Russet, Red Norland, Russet Burbank, Snowden and 2 propriety varieties were performed. These varieties were grown under the same environmental conditions as potato E12 and upon comparison, it was demonstratedd that the data derived from potato E12 proximate analysis were within the tolerance interval or range for commercial varieties. No differences were observed for vitamins and minerals between E12 and Russet Burbank. Some amino acid levels differed between E12 and Russet Burbank however, the mean and range values for all amino acids fell within the combined literature range, indicating that E12 was comparable to conventional potato varieties. Any nutrient like Vit B3, Vit B6, Vit C, copper, magnesium and potassium in E12 potato are comparable with reference non-transgenic varieties reported in literature. Differences in the amounts of amino acid contents of the potato E12 compared to the reference potato Russet Burbank do not necessarily imply a biologically relevant activity in the transgenic E12 potato. The assessors reported that this implies that genetic transformation does not alter the nutrient components of the transformation event E12 and it is of substantial equivalence to the reference non-transgenic commercial varieties. Comparable levels of key nutrients in E12 and in conventional non-transgenic potatoes explain the substantial equivalence of the transgenic E12 potato in terms of its safe and nutritious character as food as with that of the reference non-transgenic potato. Furthermore, no significant difference in glycoalkaloid content, although slightly lower content in E12. All mean glycoalkaloid values for the E12 event fell within the tolerance interval or combined literature range. Processing, involving washing, peeling, cutting, rinsing and heat treatment usually result in removal of the outer skin where there is higher concentration of alkaloids. Sprouted and green potatoes have as much alkaloid in the tuber tissues and are not usually consumed. Recommendation Upon review of the provided materials of SPS International, Inc. and other literatures, the BPI-PPSSD, BAI and STRPs find scientific evidence that the regulated article applied for direct use as food and feed or for processing is as safe as its conventional counterpart and shall not pose greater risk to human and animal health. Weight of evidences approach indicate that Potato E12 is as safe as its conventional counterpart with regards to substantial equivalence and food safety. History of safe use is attributed on the host organism (Solanum tuberosum) and donor organisms (Solanum tuberosum and S. verrucosum) which are not known to be toxic or allergenic to humans and animals. The BPI-PPSSD, BAI and STRPs recommend for the approval of Potato E12’s application for biosafety permit for direct use as food and feed or for processing.
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) October 28, 2024
E-mail:
Organization/agency name (Full name):
Bureau of Plant Industry
Contact person name:
Geronima P. Eusebio
Website:
Physical full address:
San Andres St., Malate, Manila
Phone number:
632 404 0409 loc 203
Fax number:
Country introduction:

In 1987, scientists from the University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the Quarantine Officer of the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), and the Director for Crops of the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD), recognizing the potential harm of the introduction of exotic species and genetic engineering, formed a committee and formulated the biosafety protocols and guidelines for genetic engineering and related research activities for UPLB and IRRI researchers. The committee went on to draft a Philippine biosafety policy, which was submitted to the Office of the President. On October 15, 1990, recognizing the potential for modern biotechnology both in improving the lives of the people and in creating hazards if not handled properly, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order 430 creating the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) that will formulate, review and amend national policy on biosafety and formulate guidelines on the conduct of activities on genetic engineering. The NCBP is comprised of representative of the Departments of Agriculture (DA); Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); Health (DOH); and Science and Technology (DOST), 4 scientists in biology, environmental science, social science and physical science; and 2 respected members of the community. On July 16, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued the Policy Statement on Modern Biotechnology, reiterating the government policy on promoting the safe and responsible use of modern biotechnology. On April 3, 2002, Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 2002 was issued implementing the guidelines for importation and release into the environment of Plants and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology. On March 17, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No.514 Establishing the National Biosafety Framework, prescribing guidelines for its implementation, reorganizing the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, and for other purposes. On December 8, 2015, the Philippine Supreme Court declared DA AO8 null and void and any application for contained use, field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation of GMOs was temporarily enjoined. In response to the nullification of DA AO8, the Technical Working Group composed of representatives from the Departments of Agriculture (DA), Science and Technology (DOST), Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Health (DOH), and Interior and Local Government (DILG) drafted the Joint Department Circular No. 1, Series of 2016 (JDC No.1, S2016) titled 'Rules and Regulations for the Research and Development, Handling and Use, Transboundary Movement, Release into the Environment, and Management of Genetically-Modified Plant and Plant Products Derived from the Use of Modern Biotechnology'. There were series of meeting and five public consultations conducted before the JDC No.1, S2016 was approved and signed by the Secretaries of the abovementioned agencies on March 7, 2016 and took effect on April 15, 2016. Under this Circular, more government agencies were involved such as the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) to regulate applications for contained use and confined test of regulated articles; Department of Agriculture (DA) to evaluate applications for field trial, commercial propagation and transboundary movement of regulated articles; Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to evaluate environmental risks and impacts of regulated articles; Department of Health (DOH) to evaluate of environmental health impacts of regulated articles; and Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to supervise public consultation during field trial.

 

Useful links
Relevant documents
Stacked events:

Gene stacking in plants can be conferred either through genetic engineering or conventional breeding A full risk assessment as to food and feed or for processing shall be conducted to plant products carrying stacked genes conferred through genetic engineering or conventional breeding, where the individual traits have no prior approval for direct use as food and feed or processing from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) A desktop or documentary risk assessment on the possible or expected interactions between the genes shall be conducted for stacked gene products with multiple traits conferred through conventional breeding and individual events granted prior approval by the Bureau of Plant Industry.

 

Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes Conferred Through (a) Genetic Engineering or b) Conventional Breeding, with Individual Traits That Have No Prior Approval:

A full risk assessnent as to  food and feed or processing shall be conducted,consistent with Part V of AO No. 8,"Approval Process For the Importation of Regulated Articles for Direct Use as Food and Feed or For Processing for plant products with multiple traits conferred through:

(a) genetic engineering, or

(b) conventional breeding, where the individual traits have no prior approval from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) for direct use as food and feed or processing.

Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes Conferred through Conventional Breeding:

For plant products with multiple traits conferred through conventional breeding,with all individual events granted prior approval and included in the Approval Registry, a notlfication shall be submitted by the technology developer to the BPI, which shall conduct an evaluation in accordance with the relevant criteria in Annex I of this Memorandum Circular. The list of data contained in Annex I will not preclude the inclusion of other issues and concerns that will be raised by the BPI and the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) during the course of the desktop review.

Notificatlon Requirement for Plant Products Carrying Stacked Genes

All technology developers shall submit a notification to the Bureau of Plant Industry of their developed plant products carrying stacked genes and shall be required to comply with the relevant approval process listed above.

The Bureau of Plant Industry shall issue a certiflcate as to the approval of the stacked gene product and shall likewise include the transformation event in the official approval registry of plant products for food and feed or processing.

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

Bureau of Plant Industry 692 San Andres St, Malate, Manila 1004

Singapore
Name of product applicant: SPS International Inc
Summary of application:

Apply for use as food, feed and processing 

Upload:
Date of authorization: 07/02/2019
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
Summary of the safety assessment (food safety):
Potato line E12 (SPS-ØØE12-8) has been developed with less browning when the tubers are bruised, cut or damaged (referred to as blackspot bruising) and tubers have reduced potential to produce acrylamide when cooked at high temperatures. This potato line has been genetically modified using a RNA interference (RNAi) approach. Gene fragments from four genes were introduced into E12 and were intended to supress the expression of four endogenous potato genes. The introduced DNA fragments are derived from potato (Solanum tuberosum) and a related species (Solanum verrucosum). No other genetic modification has been introduced and no new proteins are produced in line E12. The four potato genes targeted for reduced expression in the tubers were: asparagine synthetase-1 (Asn1), phosphorylase-L (PhL), water dikinase R1 (R1), and polyphenol oxidase-5 (Ppo5). The aim of the suppression of Asn1 was to reduce levels of free asparagine. The aim of suppression of PhL and R1 was to reduce levels of the reducing sugars, fructose and glucose. Collectively, the reduction of free asparagine and reducing sugars was expected to result in potato tubers with reduced acrylamide potential. Reduced expression of Ppo5 was expected to result in tubers with reduced blackspot bruising. E12 was generated through Agrobacterium-mediated transformation with a single T-DNA containing two expression cassettes. The cassettes contain gene fragments that when transcribed were expected to lead to the suppression of four endogenous potato genes: Asn1, PhL, R1, and Ppo5. Molecular analyses indicate there is a single insertion site containing a single complete copy of the T-DNA insert. The introduced genetic elements are stably maintained from one generation to the next. Tubers from E12 are compositionally similar to tubers from conventional potato varieties. E12 is as safe as food derived from conventional potato 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):
Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA)
Contact person name:
Dr Wong Kwok Onn
Website:
Physical full address:
52 Jurong Gateway Road, #14-01, Singapore 608550
Phone number:
(65)68052895
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: J.R. Simplot Company
Summary of application:

Please consult the FDA website links below.

Upload:
Date of authorization: 20/03/2015
Scope of authorization: Food and feed
Links to the information on the same product in other databases maintained by relevant international organizations, as appropriate. (We recommend providing links to only those databases to which your country has officially contributed.):
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