Search

Maize DP4114 × MON 810 × MIR604 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: DP4114, MON 810, MIR604 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and one of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombination were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, is as safe as the comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in nine of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombination and the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maize NK603 × T25 × DAS‐40278‐9 (three‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single events: NK603, T25 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the three single maize events and two of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the two subcombinations were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the three‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the three‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in one of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the three‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the three‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the three‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Maize NK603 × T25 × DAS‐40278‐9 (three‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single events: NK603, T25 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the three single maize events and two of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the two subcombinations were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the three‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the three‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in one of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the three‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the three‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the three‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the selected non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and four of the subcombinations did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the four subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the six maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

The GMO90+ project was designed to identify biomarkers of exposure or health effects in Wistar Han RCC rats exposed in their diet to 2 genetically modified plants (GMP) and assess additional information with the use of metabolomic and transcriptomic techniques. Rats were fed for 6-months with 8 maize-based diets at 33% that comprised either MON810 (11% and 33%) or NK603 grains (11% and 33% with or without glyphosate treatment) or their corresponding near-isogenic controls. Extensive chemical and targeted analyses undertaken to assess each diet demonstrated that they could be used for the feeding trial. Rats were necropsied after 3 and 6 months. Based on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development test guideline 408, the parameters tested showed a limited number of significant differences in pairwise comparisons, very few concerning GMP versus non-GMP. In such cases, no biological relevance could be established owing to the absence of difference in biologically linked variables, dose-response effects, or clinical disorders. No alteration of the reproduction function and kidney physiology was found. Metabolomics analyses on fluids (blood, urine) were performed after 3, 4.5, and 6 months. Transcriptomics analyses on organs (liver, kidney) were performed after 3 and 6 months. Again, among the significant differences in pairwise comparisons, no GMP effect was observed in contrast to that of maize variety and culture site. Indeed, based on transcriptomic and metabolomic data, we could differentiate MON- to NK-based diets. In conclusion, using this experimental design, no biomarkers of adverse health effect could be attributed to the consumption of GMP diets in comparison with the consumption of their near-isogenic non-GMP controls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS‐40278‐9 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 89034, 1507, NK603 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and four of their subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the maize single events or their four subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicates that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food/feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the six maize subcombinations for which no experimental data were provided, and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. No post‐market monitoring for food/feed is necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

The examination of transgenic loci is an integral part of biosafety legislation in the European Union (EU). The EU directive 2001/18/EC requires any genetically modified (GM) event to be stable. Mutations in the nucleotide sequence of GM events must be avoided in the production and use of seeds. In the present work, an F1 and an F2 generation of the corn event NK603 were studied in stacked varieties (NK603 × MON810). The central aspect of this work was to utilize high-resolution melting analysis, real-time PCR, and Sanger sequencing for the examination of genetic stability of the entire construct of NK603 as well as in the regions flanking NK603. To perform such screening, it was necessary to develop specific PCR primers for the NK603 insert. Twenty-five specific primer pairs and PCR reactions were used to screen a total number of 340 samples. In addition to the screening, the NK603 zygosity was determined by a PCR-based testing method. Differences to the published patent sequence occurring in all samples were detected in two locations of the transgenic DNA sequence. These differences were also found in certified NK603 reference material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present study, a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) system was developed for detecting NK603 maize, and flanking sequence in NK603 maize was used as the target template to design event specific LAMP primers. Different kinds of genetically modified (GM) or non GM crops were selected to ensure the specificity of detection and the results of the non-target samples were negative, indicating that the primer set for NK603 maize had good levels of specificity. The limit of detection (LOD) of the LAMP system was about 50 copies of the maize haploid genome. Moreover, the amplified reaction could be accomplished in about 1 h, and the LAMP amplification products tend to be far longer than conventional PCR products and thus easier to be visible to naked eyes via end point analysis. Therefore, the LAMP method developed by this study is visual, faster, and more sensitive, and does not need special equipment compared to traditional PCR technique, which is very useful for detecting transgenic maize aimed at screening the growing transgenic crops in the fields and detecting GM ingredients in imported and domestic foods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Our recent work (Séralini et al., 2012) remains to date the most detailed study involving the life-long consumption of an agricultural genetically modified organism (GMO). This is true especially for NK603 maize for which only a 90-day test for commercial release was previously conducted using the same rat strain (Hammond et al., 2004). It is also the first long term detailed research on mammals exposed to a highly diluted pesticide in its total formulation with adjuvants. This may explain why 75% of our first criticisms arising within a week, among publishing authors, come from plant biologists, some developing patents on GMOs, even if it was a toxicological paper on mammals, and from Monsanto Company who owns both the NK603 GM maize and Roundup herbicide (R). Our study has limits like any one, and here we carefully answer to all criticisms from agencies, consultants and scientists, that were sent to the Editor or to ourselves. At this level, a full debate is biased if the toxicity tests on mammals of NK603 and R obtained by Monsanto Company remain confidential and thus unavailable in an electronic format for the whole scientific community to conduct independent scrutiny of the raw data. In our article, the conclusions of long-term NK603 and Roundup toxicities came from the statistically highly discriminant findings at the biochemical level in treated groups in comparison to controls, because these findings do correspond in an blinded analysis to the pathologies observed in organs, that were in turn linked to the deaths by anatomopathologists. GM NK603 and R cannot be regarded as safe to date. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Plasmid molecule based reference material (RM) has been shown to be a good alternative as the calibrator for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) identification and quantification, while most of the currently developed plasmid RM can only be used for one specific target detection. In this study, a flexible plasmid RM pNK containing three DNA fragments, i.e. 5′ and 3′ event-specific sequences of maize NK603 and endogenous gene zSSIIb, was developed. We have proved that pNK is suitable for using as a calibrator in both 5′ and 3′ event-specific detection of maize NK603, compared with that of genuine genomic DNA. The limit of detection (LOD) was 10 copies of pNK DNA in conventional PCR assays. The absolute LOD and limit of quantification (LOQ) in quantitative PCR assays were 5 and 25 copies. The standard curves targeting to zSSIIb, 5′ and 3′ event-specific sequences based on pNK DNA showed high reaction efficiency and good linearity. Also, low bias and variations were obtained in practical samples quantification using pNK as the calibrator. These results demonstrated that the developed pNK is flexible and suitable for identification and quantification of maize NK603, as a preferable substitute of RM from the plant raw material. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Safety concerns arising from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops remains a controversial subject. We report here a faecal microbiota compositional analysis in Wistar rats from the GMO90 + study, which fed glyphosate-tolerant NK603 (+/− Roundup application) and Bt toxin MON810 GM maize for 6 months in comparison to their closest non-GM isogenic lines. We first integrated the faecal microbiota compositional data with results from plasma metabolomics to understand which bacterial species can influence host metabolism. Coriobacteriaceae and Acetatifactor significantly predicted plasma metabolic profile in males, while Bifidobacterium and Ruminococcus were able to predict female plasma metabolites. We then investigated the differences in fecal microbiota composition between group of rats fed MON810 or NK603 GM maize in comparison to their isogenic lines. Bacterial community richness was not altered by the test diets. There were no statistically significant differences in taxa abundance in the rat faecal microbiota that we could attribute to the consumption of either MON810 or NK603. We show that the consumption of the widely cultivated GM maize varieties NK603 and MON810 even up to 33% of the total diet had no effect on the status of the faecal microbiota compared to non-GM near isogenic lines. • We evaluated effects of NK603 and MON810 GM maize on the rat gut microbiota. • Faecal microbiota composition was associated with plasma metabolite levels. • No differences in microbiota composition could be attributed to the consumption of either MON810 or NK603. • Consumption of NK603 maize either sprayed or not with Roundup during cultivation showed comparable effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and four of the subcombinations did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the four subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the six maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS‐40278‐9 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 89034, 1507, NK603 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and four of their subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the maize single events or their four subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicates that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food/feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the six maize subcombinations for which no experimental data were provided, and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. No post‐market monitoring for food/feed is necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]