Search

Oilseed rape MON 94100 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba herbicide. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between oilseed rape MON 94100 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of carbohydrates, calcium and ADF in seeds, which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the dicamba mono-oxygenase (DMO) protein as expressed in oilseed rape MON 94100. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of oilseed rape MON 94100. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from oilseed rape MON 94100 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape MON 94100 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM oilseed rape reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape MON 94100 seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of oilseed rape MON 94100. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape MON 94100 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM oilseed rape reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Soybean MON 87751 9 MON 87701 9 MON 87708 9 MON 89788 (four-event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87751, MON 87701, MON 87708 and MON 89788. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events have been identified that would 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 and allergenicity assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four-event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack soybean, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the non-GM comparator and the non-GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four-event stack soybean into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four-event stack soybean. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack soybean is as safe as the non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Maize MON 87427 ×MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 (five‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the five single maize events and eleven of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the 11 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 five‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐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 five‐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 14 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 five‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the five‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐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.

In this opinion, the GMO Panelassessed the four-event stack maize 1507 x 59122 x MON810 x NK603 and its ten subcombinations, independently of their origin. The GMO Panelpreviously assessed the four single events combined in this four-event stack maize and five of their combinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or their previously assessed combinations leading to modification of the original conclusions were identified. Based on the molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics, the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four-event stack maize did not give rise to food and feed safety or nutritional issues. The GMO Panelconcludes that the four-event stack maize is as safe and as nutritious as its non-GM comparator. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of maize 1507 x 59122 x MON810 x NK603 into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. For four of the subcombinations not previously assessed, protein expression data were provided and did not indicate an interaction affecting the levels of the newly expressed proteins in these subcombinations. The five subcombinations not previously assessed are expected to be as safe as the single maize events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four-event stack maize. The GMO Panelconsiders that post-market monitoring of maize 1507 x 59122 x MON810 x NK603 and its subcombinations is not necessary. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize 1507 x 59122 x MON810 x NK603 and its subcombinations. (C) 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.