Guidance on allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants

Immunoassays and Mass Spectrometry for Determination of Protein Concentrations in Genetically Modified Crops

Quantifying protein levels in genetically modified (GM) crops is crucial in every phase of development, deregulation, and seed production. Immunoassays, particularly enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, have been the primary protein quantitation techniques for decades within the industry due to their efficiency, adaptability, and credibility. Newer immunoassay technologies like Meso Scale Discovery and Luminex offer enhanced sensitivity and multiplexing capabilities. While mass spectrometry (MS) has been widely used for small molecules and protein detection in the pharmaceutical and agricultural industries (e.g., biomarkers, endogenous allergens), its use in quantifying protein levels in GM crops has been limited. However, as trait portfolios for GM crop have expanded, MS has been increasingly adopted due to its comparable sensitivity, increased specificity, and multiplexing capabilities. This review contrasts the benefits and limitations of immunoassays and MS technologies for protein measurement in GM crops, considering factors such as cost, convenience, and specific analytical needs. Ultimately, both techniques are suitable for assessing protein concentrations in GM crops, with MS offering complementary capabilities to immunoassays. This comparison aims to provide insights into selecting between these techniques based on the user's end point needs.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (dossier GMFF-2022-9170)

Following the joint submission of dossier GMFF-2022-9170 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture B.V. and Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.V., the Panel on genetically modified organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide tolerant and insect resistant genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, a search for additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal dossier GMFF-2022-9170 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application GMFF-2022-3670)

Following the submission of dossier GMFF-2022-3670 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Corteva Agriscience Belgium BV and Bayer Agriculture BV, the Panel on genetically modified organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and a search for additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal dossier GMFF-2022-3670 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603.

Assessment of genetically modified maize DP202216 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-159)

Genetically modified maize DP202216 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-containing herbicides and to provide an opportunity for yield enhancement under field conditions. These properties were achieved by introducing the mo-pat and zmm28 expression cassettes. 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 maize DP202216 and its comparator needs further assessment, except for the levels of stearic acid (C18:0), which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the PAT and ZMM28 proteins as expressed in maize DP202216, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize DP202216. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP202216 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as the comparator and non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP202216 grains 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 maize DP202216. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as its comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Allergic to bureaucracy? Regulatory allergenicity assessments of novel food: Motivations, challenges, compromises, and possibilities

New sources of proteins are essential to meet the demands of the growing world population and evolving food trends. Assessing the allergenicity of proteins in novel food (NF) poses a significant food safety regulatory challenge. The Codex Alimentarius Commission presented an allergenicity assessment protocol for genetically modified (GM) foods, which can also be adapted for NF. Since no single laboratory test can adequately predict the allergenic potential of NF, the protocol follows a weight-of-evidence approach, evaluated by experts, as part of a risk management process. Regulatory bodies worldwide have adopted this safety protocol, which, among other things, promotes global harmonization. This review unravels the reliability and various motivations, terms, concepts, and approaches of allergenicity assessments, aiming to enhance understanding among manufacturers and the public. Health Canada, Food Safety Commission JAPAN, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand were surveyed, focusing on the European Food Safety Authority and the US Food Safety Administration for examples of scientific opinions regarding allergenicity assessments for novel and GM foods, from 2019 to 2023. According to our findings, current regulatory allergenicity assessments for NF approval primarily rely on literature reviews. Only a few of the NF assessments proactively presented additional tests. We recommend conducting bioinformatic analyses on NF when a panel of experts deems that there is insufficient prior scientific research.

Research gaps and future needs for allergen prediction in food safety

The allergenicity and protein risk assessments in food safety are facing new challenges. Demands for healthier and more sustainable food systems have led to significant advances in biotechnology, the development of more complex foods, and the search for alternative protein sources. All this has increased the pressure on the safety assessment prediction approaches anchored into requirements defined in the late 90's. In 2022, the EFSA's Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms published a scientific opinion focusing on the developments needed for allergenicity and protein safety assessments of new products derived from biotechnology. Here, we further elaborate on the main elements described in this scientific opinion and prioritize those development needs requiring critical attention. The starting point of any new recommendation would require a focus on clinical relevance and the development of a fit-for-purpose database targeted for specific risk assessment goals. Furthermore, it is imperative to review and clarify the main purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment. An internationally agreed consensus on the overall purpose of allergenicity risk assessment will accelerate the development of fit-for-purpose methodologies, where the role of exposure should be better clarified. Considering the experience gained over the last 25 years and recent scientific developments in the fields of biotechnology, allergy, and risk assessment, it is time to revise and improve the allergenicity safety assessment to ensure the reliability of allergenicity assessments for food of the future.

Allergenicity of alternative proteins: research hotspots, new findings, evaluation strategies, regulatory status, and future trends: a bibliometric analysis

As the world population rises, the demand for protein increases, leading to a widening gap in protein supply. There is an unprecedented interest in the development of alternative proteins, but their allergenicity has raised consumer concerns. This review aims to highlight and correlate the current research status of allergenicity studies on alternative proteins based on previously published studies. Current research keywords, hotspots and trends in alternative protein sensitization were analyzed using a mixed-method approach that combined bibliometric analysis and literature review. According to the bibliometric analysis, current research is primarily focused on food science, agriculture, and immunology. There are significant variations in the type and amount of allergens found in alternative proteins. A significant amount of research has been focused on studying plant-based proteins and the cross-reactivity of insect proteins. The allergenicity of alternative proteins has not been studied extensively or in depth. The allergenicity of other alternative proteins and the underlying mechanisms warrant further study. In addition, the lack of a standardized allergy assessment strategy calls for additional efforts by international organizations and collaborations among different countries. This review provides new research and regulatory perspectives for the safe utilization of alternative proteins in human food systems.

Modeling Peptide-Protein Interactions by a Logo-Based Method: Application in Peptide-HLA Binding Predictions

Peptide-protein interactions form a cornerstone in molecular biology, governing cellular signaling, structure, and enzymatic activities in living organisms. Improving computational models and experimental techniques to describe and predict these interactions remains an ongoing area of research. Here, we present a computational method for peptide-protein interactions' description and prediction based on leveraged amino acid frequencies within specific binding cores. Utilizing normalized frequencies, we construct quantitative matrices (QMs), termed 'logo models' derived from sequence logos. The method was developed to predict peptide binding to HLA-DQ2.5 and HLA-DQ8.1 proteins associated with susceptibility to celiac disease. The models were validated by more than 17,000 peptides demonstrating their efficacy in discriminating between binding and non-binding peptides. The logo method could be applied to diverse peptide-protein interactions, offering a versatile tool for predictive analysis in molecular binding studies.

Camargo A, Goumperis T, Lenzi P, Piffanelli P, Raffaello T. Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 810 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (dossier GMFF-2022-9450)

Following the submission of dossier GMFF-2022-9450 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect protected genetically modified maize MON 810, for food and feed uses (including pollen), excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize MON 810 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in dossier GMFF-2022-9450 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 810.

Assessment of genetically modified maize DP23211 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-163)

Genetically modified maize DP23211 was developed to confer control of certain coleopteran pests and tolerance to glufosinate-containing herbicide. These properties were achieved by introducing the pmi, mo-pat, ipd072Aa and DvSSJ1 expression cassettes. 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 maize DP23211 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for those in levels of histidine, phenylalanine, magnesium, phosphorus and folic acid in grain, which do not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD072Aa, PAT and PMI proteins and the DvSSJ1 dsRNA and derived siRNAs newly expressed in maize DP23211, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP23211. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP23211 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. Therefore, no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP23211 grains 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 maize DP23211. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP23211 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Assessment of genetically modified maize DP915635 for food and feed uses, under regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2020-172)

Genetically modified maize DP915635 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate herbicide and resistance to corn rootworm pests. These properties were achieved by introducing the ipd079Ea, mo-pat and pmi expression cassettes. 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 maize DP915635 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of crude protein in forage, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD079Ea, PAT and PMI proteins expressed in maize DP915635. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP915635. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP915635 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP915635 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP915635 grains 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 maize DP915635. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP915635 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Assessment of Novel Proteins Triggering Celiac Disease via Docking-Based Approach

Human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) are pivotal in antigen processing, presenting to CD4+ T cells, and are linked to autoimmune disease susceptibility. In celiac disease, HLA-DQ2.5 and HLA-DQ8.1 bind gluten peptides on APCs, some recognized by CD4+ T cells, prompting inflammation and tissue damage. While extensively studied experimentally, these alleles lack comprehensive in silico analysis. To explore peptide-HLA preferences, we used molecular docking on peptide libraries, deriving quantitative matrices (QMs) for evaluating amino acids at nine-residue peptide binding cores. Our findings tie specific residue preferences to peptide backbone conformations. Validating QMs on known binders and non-binders showed strong predictive power (89-94% accuracy). These QMs excel in screening protein libraries, even whole proteomes, notably reducing time and costs for celiac disease risk assessment in novel proteins. This computational approach aligns with European Food Safety Authority guidance, promising efficient screening for potential celiac disease triggers.

Assessment of genetically modified cotton COT102 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2017-141)

Genetically modified cotton COT102 was developed to confer resistance against several lepidopteran species. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the differences in the agronomic-phenotypic and compositional characteristics between cotton COT102 and its non-GM comparator needs further assessment, except for levels of acid detergent fibre, which do not raise safety or nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Vip3Aa19 and APH4 proteins as expressed in cotton COT102 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of cotton COT102. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from cotton COT102 does not represent a nutritional concern for humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton COT102 is as safe as the non-GM comparator and non-GM cotton varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable cotton COT102 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 cotton COT102. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton COT102 is as safe as its non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM cotton varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Assessment of genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 and 30 subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2018-149)

Genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 was developed by crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, MON 89034, 5307 and GA21, the GMO Panel previously assessed the 6 single maize events and 27 out of the 56 possible subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed 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 six-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that six-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable six-event stack maize grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in 29 of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and covered by the scope of this application and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the six-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21. The GMO Panel concludes that six-event stack maize and the 30 subcombinations covered by the scope of the application are as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-024)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-024 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide tolerant genetically modified oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-024 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87419 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2017-140)

Genetically modified maize MON 87419 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba- and glufosinate-based herbicides. These properties were achieved by introducing the dmo and pat expression cassettes. 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 maize MON 87419 and its conventional counterpart needed further assessment, except for the levels of arginine and protein in grains which did not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the dicamba mono-oxygenase (DMO) and phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase (PAT) proteins as expressed in maize MON 87419. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 87419. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 87419 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87419 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 87419 grains 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 maize MON 87419. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87419 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Assessment of genetically modified maize GA21 × T25 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2016-137)

Genetically modified maize GA21 × T25 was developed by crossing to combine two single events: GA21 and T25. The GMO Panel previously assessed the two single maize events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events 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 maize GA21 × T25 does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 × T25, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food and feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize GA21 × T25 grains 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 maize GA21 × T25. Post-market monitoring of food and feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 × T25 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties tested, with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Slow alignment of GMO allergenicity regulations with science on protein digestibility

The current science on food allergy supports the dual allergen exposure hypothesis where sensitization to allergenic proteins is favored by dermal and inhalation exposure, and tolerization against allergy is favored by exposure in the gut. This hypothesis is bolstered by the epidemiological evidence showing that regions where children are exposed early in life to allergenic foods have lower rates of allergy. This led medical experts to replace the previous recommendation to exclude commonly allergenic foods from the diets of young children with the current recommendation that such foods be introduced to children early in life. Past beliefs that lowering gut exposure would reduce the likelihood that a protein would be allergenic led regulators and risk assessors to consider digestively stable proteins to be of greater allergenic risk. This resulted in international guidance and government regulations for newly expressed proteins in genetically engineered crops that aligned with this belief. Despite empirical results showing that allergens are no more digestively stable than non-allergens, and that gut exposure favors tolerization over sensitization, regulations have not come into alignment with the current science prompting developers to continue to engineer proteins for increased digestibility. In some rare cases, this could potentially increase sensitization risk.

Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-022)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-022 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-022 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788.

Assessment of genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-023)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-023 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean 40-3-2, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in soybean 40-3-2 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-023 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean 40-3-2.

Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87701 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-021)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-021 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant genetically modified soybean MON 87701, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the event in soybean MON 87701 considered for renewal is identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-021 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 87701.

Updated scientific opinion on plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis

In 2012, EFSA issued an opinion on plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis. With the development of New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) in the last decade, cisgenic and intragenic plants can now be obtained with the insertion of a desired sequence in a precise location of the genome. EFSA has been requested by European Commission to provide an updated scientific opinion on the safety and the risk assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis, in order to (i) identify potential risks, comparing them with those posed by plants obtained by conventional breeding and Established Genomic Techniques (EGTs) and (ii) to determine the applicability of current guidelines for the risk assessment of cisgenic and intragenic plants. The conclusions of the previous EFSA opinion were reviewed, taking into consideration the new guidelines and the recent literature. The GMO panel concludes that no new risks are identified in cisgenic and intragenic plants obtained with NGTs, as compared with those already considered for plants obtained with conventional breeding and EGTs. There are no new data since the publication of the 2012 EFSA opinion that would challenge the conclusions raised in that document. The conclusions of the EFSA 2012 Scientific Opinion remain valid. The EFSA GMO Panel reiterates from these conclusions that with respect to the source of DNA and the safety of the gene product, the hazards arising from the use of a related plant‐derived gene by cisgenesis are similar to those from conventional plant breeding, whereas additional hazards may arise for intragenic plants. Furthermore, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that cisgenesis and intragenesis make use of the same transformation techniques as transgenesis, and therefore, with respect to the alterations to the host genome, cisgenic, intragenic and transgenic plants obtained by random insertion do not cause different hazards. Compared to that, the use of NGTs reduces the risks associated with potential unintended modifications of the host genome. Thus, fewer requirements may be needed for the assessment of cisgenic and intragenic plants obtained through NGTs, due to site‐directed integration of the added genetic material. Moreover, the GMO panel concludes that the current guidelines are partially applicable and sufficient. On a case‐by‐case basis, a lesser amount of data might be needed for the risk assessment of cisgenic or intragenic plants obtained through NGTs.

This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7618/full

Biotechnological Advances to Improve Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Crops

The major challenges that agriculture is facing in the twenty-first century are increasing droughts, water scarcity, flooding, poorer soils, and extreme temperatures due to climate change. However, most crops are not tolerant to extreme climatic environments. The aim in the near future, in a world with hunger and an increasing population, is to breed and/or engineer crops to tolerate abiotic stress with a higher yield. Some crop varieties display a certain degree of tolerance, which has been exploited by plant breeders to develop varieties that thrive under stress conditions. Moreover, a long list of genes involved in abiotic stress tolerance have been identified and characterized by molecular techniques and overexpressed individually in plant transformation experiments. Nevertheless, stress tolerance phenotypes are polygenetic traits, which current genomic tools are dissecting to exploit their use by accelerating genetic introgression using molecular markers or site-directed mutagenesis such as CRISPR-Cas9. In this review, we describe plant mechanisms to sense and tolerate adverse climate conditions and examine and discuss classic and new molecular tools to select and improve abiotic stress tolerance in major crops.

Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape GT73 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-026/1)

Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐026/1 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for foods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from oilseed rape GT73 with the exception of isolated seed protein, and feed produced from this GM oilseed rape, excluding cultivation in the EU. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and a search for additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in oilseed rape GT73 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐026/1 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape GT73.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MIR162 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-025)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-025 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant genetically modified maize MIR162, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the EU. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-025 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MIR162.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 for food and feed uses, under regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2018-151)

Genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS‐40278‐9 was developed by crossing to combine five single events: MON 89034, 1507, MIR162, NK603 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the five single maize events and 16 of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombinations were identified that could lead to the 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 five‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that five‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the non‐GM comparator and non‐GM maize varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable five‐event stack maize grains 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 subcombinations and the five‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS‐40278‐9. 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 maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Evaluation of existing guidelines for their adequacy for the food and feed risk assessment of microorganisms obtained through synthetic biology

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to evaluate synthetic biology (SynBio) developments for agri-food use in the near future and to determine whether or not they are expected to constitute potential new hazards/risks. Moreover, EFSA was requested to evaluate the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment of SynBio and if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this Opinion covers food and feed risk assessment, the variety of microorganisms that can be used in the food/feed chain and the whole spectrum of techniques used in SynBio. This Opinion complements a previously adopted Opinion with the evaluation of existing guidelines for the microbial characterisation and environmental risk assessment of microorganisms obtained through SynBio. The present Opinion confirms that microbial SynBio applications for food and feed use, with the exception of xenobionts, could be ready in the European Union in the next decade. New hazards were identified related to the use or production of unusual and/or new-to-nature components. Fifteen cases were selected for evaluating the adequacy of existing guidelines. These were generally adequate for assessing the product, the production process, nutritional and toxicological safety, allergenicity, exposure and post-market monitoring. The comparative approach and a safety assessment per se could be applied depending on the degree of familiarity of the SynBio organism/product with the non-genetically modified counterparts. Updated guidance is recommended for: (i) bacteriophages, protists/microalgae, (ii) exposure to plant protection products and biostimulants, (iii) xenobionts and (iv) feed additives for insects as target species. Development of risk assessment tools is recommended for assessing nutritional value of biomasses, influence of microorganisms on the gut microbiome and the gut function, allergenic potential of new-to-nature proteins, impact of horizontal gene transfer and potential risks of living cell intake. A further development towards a strain-driven risk assessment approach is recommended.

The Fate of IgE Epitopes and Coeliac Toxic Motifs during Simulated Gastrointestinal Digestion of Pizza Base

Understanding how food processing may modify allergen bioaccessibility and the evolution of immunologically active peptides in the gastrointestinal tract is essential if knowledge-based approaches to reducing the allergenicity of food are to be realised. A soy-enriched wheat-based pizza base was subjected to in vitro oral–gastro–duodenal digestion and resulting digests analysed using a combination of sodium dodecyl sulphate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and mass spectrometry (MS). The digestion profile of pizza base resembled that of bread crust where higher temperatures during baking reduced protein solubility but still resulted in the generation of a complex mixture of peptides. MS profiling showed numerous peptides carrying IgE epitopes, and coeliac toxic motifs were in excess of 20–30 residues long and were only released after either 120 min of gastric digestion or a combination of gastric and duodenal digestion. In silico prediction tools showed an overestimated number of cleavage sites identified experimentally, with low levels of atypical peptic and chymotryptic cleavage sites identified particularly at glutamine residues. These data suggest that such alternative pepsin cleavage sites may play a role in digestion of glutamine-rich cereal foods. They also contribute to efforts to provide benchmarks for mapping in vitro digestion products of novel proteins which form part of the allergenicity risk assessment.

Evaluation of existing guidelines for their adequacy for the food and feed risk assessment of genetically modified plants obtained through synthetic biology

Synthetic biology (SynBio) is an interdisciplinary field at the interface of molecular engineering and biology aiming to develop new biological systems and impart new functions to living cells, tissues and organisms. EFSA has been asked by the European Commission to evaluate SynBio developments in agri-food with the aim of identifying the adequacy and sufficiency of existing guidelines for risk assessment and determine if updated guidance is needed. In this context, the GMO Panel has previously adopted an Opinion evaluating the SynBio developments in agri-food/feed and the adequacy and sufficiency of existing guidelines for the molecular characterisation and environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants (GMPs) obtained through SynBio and reaching the market in the next decade. Complementing the above, in this Opinion, the GMO Panel evaluated the adequacy and sufficiency of existing guidelines for the food and feed risk assessment of GMPs obtained through SynBio. Using selected hypothetical case studies, the GMO Panel did not identify novel potential hazards and risks that could be posed by food and feed from GMPs obtained through current and near future SynBio approaches; considers that the existing guidelines are adequate and sufficient in some Synbio applications; in other cases, existing guidelines may be just adequate and hence need updating; areas needing updating include those related to the safety assessment of new proteins and the comparative analysis. The GMO Panel recommends that future guidance documents provide indications on how to integrate the knowledge available from the SynBio design and modelling in the food and feed risk assessment and encourages due consideration to be given to food and feed safety aspects throughout the SynBio design process as a way to facilitate the risk assessment of SynBio GMPs and reduce the amount of data required.

Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape MON 94100 for food and feed uses, under regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2020-169)

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.

Assessment of genetically modified soybean A5547‐127 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐020)

Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐020 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide‐tolerant genetically modified soybean A5547‐127, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐020 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean A5547‐127.

Safety evaluation of the food enzyme pullulanase from the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain NZYM-LU

The food enzyme pullulanase (pullulan 6‐α‐glucanohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.41) is produced with the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain NZYM‐LU by Novozyme A/S. The genetic modifications did not give rise to safety concerns. The production strain has been shown to qualify for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) status. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in brewing processes and in starch processing for production of glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of glucose syrups, dietary exposure was calculated only for the brewing processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.59 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Given the QPS status of the production strain and the lack of hazards resulting from the food enzyme manufacturing process, toxicological studies were not considered necessary. The similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is low. Based on the data provided, the QPS status of the production strain and the absence of issues of concern arising from the production process, the Panel concluded that the food enzyme pullulanase produced with the genetically modified B. licheniformis strain NZYM‐LU does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Development of a Sequence Searchable Database of Celiac Disease-Associated Peptides and Proteins for Risk Assessment of Novel Food Proteins

Celiac disease (CeD) is an autoimmune enteropathy induced by prolamin and glutelin proteins in wheat, barley, rye, and triticale recognized by genetically restricted major histocompatibility (MHC) receptors. Patients with CeD must avoid consuming these proteins. Regulators in Europe and the United States expect an evaluation of CeD risks from proteins in genetically modified (GM) crops or novel foods for wheat-related proteins. Our database includes evidence-based causative peptides and proteins and two amino acid sequence comparison tools for CeD risk assessment. Sequence entries are based on the review of published studies of specific gluten-reactive T cell activation or intestinal epithelial toxicity. The initial database in 2012 was updated in 2018 and 2022. The current database holds 1,041 causative peptides and 76 representative proteins. The FASTA sequence comparison of 76 representative CeD proteins provides an insurance for possible unreported epitopes. Validation was conducted using protein homologs from Pooideae and non-Pooideae monocots, dicots, and non-plant proteins. Criteria for minimum percent identity and maximum E-scores are guidelines. Exact matches to any of the 1,041 peptides suggest risks, while FASTA alignment to the 76 CeD proteins suggests possible risks. Matched proteins should be tested further by CeD-specific CD4/8+ T cell assays or in vivo challenges before their use in foods.

Risk–benefit assessment of seaweed Allergenicity risk assessment of novel protein

As the world population rapidly grows, there is a clear need for alternative food sources, particularly for the provision of protein. Seaweed is one such alternative source of protein that requires greater investigation. In this context, a working programme within the European Food Risk Assessment (EU‐FORA) Fellowship Programme framework was developed at National Food Institute – Technical University of Denmark. This Programme is an initiative of the EFSA with the aim to build a European risk assessment community. The purpose of this technical report is to describe the activities in which the fellow was involved. As part of the Research Group for Risk–Benefit, the fellow performed a risk–benefit assessment of seaweed Palmaria palmata gaining an in‐depth expertise in all the steps. The health impact of Palmaria palmata consumption was estimated, considering its high nutritional value but also highlighting concerns towards some components. Simultaneous to the work on the risk–benefit, the fellow also worked within the Research Group for Food Allergy, specifically on the allergenicity risk assessment of a plant‐based novel protein (seaweed protein) using different laboratory assays. Seaweed protein digestibility was assessed, and its digestion products were characterised and assessed for immunogenicity. Finally, the fellow collaborated with the Research Group for Microbial Biotechnology and Biorefining in the development of a novel food (alfalfa protein) application dossier to be submitted to EFSA, gaining expertise in the risk assessment of a novel food. In conclusion, the present working programme, together with additional activities and training provided by different institutions, enabled the fellow to gain a broader perspective in food safety, particularly concerning seaweed, novel foods and the safety assessment of novel proteins.

Assessment of genetically modified maize DP4114 × MON 810 × MIR604 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2018‐150)

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.

Scientific Opinion on development needs for the allergenicity and protein safety assessment of food and feed products derived from biotechnology

This Scientific Opinion addresses the formulation of specific development needs, including research requirements for allergenicity assessment and protein safety, in general, which is urgently needed in a world that demands more sustainable food systems. Current allergenicity risk assessment strategies are based on the principles and guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius for the safety assessment of foods derived from 'modern' biotechnology initially published in 2003. The core approach for the safety assessment is based on a 'weight-of-evidence' approach because no single piece of information or experimental method provides sufficient evidence to predict allergenicity. Although the Codex Alimentarius and EFSA guidance documents successfully addressed allergenicity assessments of single/stacked event GM applications, experience gained and new developments in the field call for a modernisation of some key elements of the risk assessment. These should include the consideration of clinical relevance, route of exposure and potential threshold values of food allergens, the update of in silico tools used with more targeted databases and better integration and standardisation of test materials and in vitro/in vivo protocols. Furthermore, more complex future products will likely challenge the overall practical implementation of current guidelines, which were mainly targeted to assess a few newly expressed proteins. Therefore, it is timely to review and clarify the main purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment and the vital role it plays in protecting consumers' health. A roadmap to (re)define the allergenicity safety objectives and risk assessment needs will be required to inform a series of key questions for risk assessors and risk managers such as 'what is the purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment?' or 'what level of confidence is necessary for the predictions?'.

Assessment of genetically modified maize NK603 × T25 × DAS-40278-9 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-164)

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.

Development of Multiplex PCR Coupled DNA Chip Technology for Assessment of Endogenous and Exogenous Allergens in GM Soybean

Allergenicity assessment of transgenic plants and foods is important for food safety, labeling regulations, and health protection. The aim of this study was to develop an effective multi-allergen diagnostic approach for transgenic soybean assessment. For this purpose, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) coupled with DNA chip technology was employed. The study was focused on the herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready soya (RRS) using a set of certified reference materials consisting of 0, 0.1%, 0.5%, and 10% RRS. Technically, the procedure included design of PCR primers and probes; genomic DNA extraction; development of uniplex and multiplex PCR systems; DNA analysis by agarose gel electrophoresis; microarray development, hybridization, and scanning. The use of the asymmetric multiplex PCR method is shown to be very efficient for DNA hybridization with biochip probes. We demonstrate that newly developed fourplex PCR methods coupled with DNA-biochips enable simultaneous identification of three major endogenous allergens, namely, Gly m Bd 28K, Gly m Bd 30K, and lectin, as well as exogenous 5-enolppyruvyl shikimate-phosphate synthase (epsps) expressed in herbicide-resistant roundup ready GMOs. The approach developed in this study can be used for accurate, cheap, and fast testing of food allergens.

Safety evaluation of the food enzyme d-psicose 3-epimerase from the genetically modified Corynebacterium glutamicum strain FIS002

This assessment addresses a food enzyme preparation consisting of the immobilised intact but non-viable cells of the genetically modified Corynebacterium glutamicum strain FIS002 by CJ-Tereos Sweeteners Europe SAS. The production strain produces the food enzyme d-fructose 3-epimerase (d-psicose 3-epimerase; EC 5.1.3.30). The food enzyme preparation is used in processing fructose to produce a speciality carbohydrate d-allulose (synonym d-psicose). Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of d-allulose, dietary exposure was not calculated. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,796 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood of such reactions to occur is low. The food enzyme preparation contains multiple copies of an antimicrobial resistance gene, which is considered a hazard. However, under the specific intended conditions of use described by the applicant, and based on the evidence showing the removal of TOS during the production of d-allulose and the absence of recombinant DNA in the d-allulose, the Panel concluded that the identified hazard associated with the food enzyme d-psicose 3-epimerase produced with the genetically modified C. glutamicum strain FIS002 will not result in a risk.

Assessment of genetically modified cotton GHB811 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-ES-2018-154)

Cotton GHB811 was developed to confer tolerance to glyphosate and HPPD inhibitor herbicides. 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 cotton GHB811 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for % lint, lint length and dihydrosterculic acid, which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 proteins as expressed in cotton GHB811 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of cotton GHB811. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from cotton GHB811 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton GHB811 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM cotton reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable cotton GHB811 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 cotton GHB811. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton GHB811 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM cotton reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Assessment of genetically modified cotton GHB614 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-018)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-018 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified cotton GHB614, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-018 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on cotton GHB614.

Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape 73496 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2012-109)

Oilseed rape 73496 was developed to confer tolerance to the herbicidal active substance glyphosate through the expression of the glyphosate acetyltransferase protein GAT4621. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses identify no issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences between oilseed rape 73496 and its conventional counterpart in the agronomic/phenotypic endpoints tested needs further assessment. Differences identified in seed composition of oilseed rape 73496 as compared to its conventional counterpart raise no safety and nutritional concerns in the context of the scope of this application. No safety concerns are identified regarding toxicity and allergenicity of the GAT4621 protein as expressed in oilseed rape 73496. No evidence is found that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of oilseed rape 73496. Based on the outcome of the comparative and nutritional assessments, the consumption of oilseed rape 73496 does not represent any nutritional concern, in the context of the scope of this application. The implementation of a post-market monitoring plan is recommended to confirm the predicted consumption data and to verify that the conditions of use are those considered during the pre-market risk assessment. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape 73496 seeds into the environment, oilseed rape 73496 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 73496. The GMO Panel concludes that oilseed rape 73496, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-genetically modified oilseed rape reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Mass spectrometric analysis of digesta does not improve the allergenicity assessment of GM crops

An investigation of the potential allergenicity of newly expressed proteins in genetically modified (GM) crops comprises part of the assessment of GM crop safety. However, allergenicity is not completely predictable from a definitive assay result or set of protein characteristics, and scientific opinions regarding the data that should be used to assess allergenicity are continuously evolving. Early studies supported a correlation between the stability of a protein exposed to digestive enzymes such as pepsin and the protein’s status as a potential allergen, but over time the conclusions of these earlier studies were not confirmed. Nonetheless, many regulatory authorities, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), continue to require digestibility analyses as a component of GM crop risk assessments. Moreover, EFSA has recently investigated the use of mass spectrometry (MS), to make digestion assays more predictive of allergy risk, because it can detect and identify small undigested peptides. However, the utility of MS is questionable in this context, since known allergenic peptides are unlikely to exist in protein candidates intended for commercial development. These protein candidates are pre-screened by the same bioinformatics processes that are normally used to identify MS targets. Therefore, MS is not a standalone allergen identification method and also cannot be used to predict previously unknown allergenic epitopes. Thus, the suggested application of MS for analysis of digesta does not improve the poor predictive power of digestion assays in identifying allergenic risk.

Assessment of genetically modified soybean GMB151 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2018-153)

Soybean GMB151 was developed to confer tolerance to 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitor herbicides and resistance to nematodes. 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 soybean GMB151 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for palmitic acid and heptadecenoic acid in seeds and carbohydrate and crude protein in forage, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the HPPD-4 and Cry14Ab-1 proteins as expressed in soybean GMB151, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of soybean GMB151. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from soybean GMB151 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean GMB151 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM soybean reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable soybean GMB151 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 soybean GMB151. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean GMB151 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Commercial Release of Genetically Modified Crops in Africa: Interface Between Biosafety Regulatory Systems and Varietal Release Systems

African countries face key challenges in the deployment of GM crops due to incongruities in the processes for effective and efficient commercial release while simultaneously ensuring food and environmental safety. Against the backdrop of the preceding scenario, and for the effective and efficient commercial release of GM crops for cultivation by farmers, while simultaneously ensuring food and environmental safety, there is a need for the close collaboration of and the interplay between the biosafety competent authorities and the variety release authorities. The commercial release of genetically modified (GM) crops for cultivation requires the approval of biosafety regulatory packages. The evaluation and approval of lead events fall under the jurisdiction of competent national authorities for biosafety (which may be ministries, autonomous authorities, or agencies). The evaluation of lead events fundamentally comprises a review of environmental, food, and feed safety data as provided for in the Biosafety Acts, implementing regulations, and, in some cases, the involvement of other relevant legal instruments. Although the lead GM event may be commercially released for farmers to cultivate, it is often introgressed into locally adapted and farmer preferred non-GM cultivars that are already released and grown by the farmers. The introduction of new biotechnology products to farmers is a process that includes comprehensive testing in the laboratory, greenhouse, and field over some time. The process provides answers to questions about the safety of the products before being introduced into the environment and marketplace. This is the first step in regulatory approvals. The output of the research and development phase of the product development cycle is the identification of a safe and best performing event for advancement to regulatory testing, likely commercialization, and general release. The process of the commercial release of new crop varieties in countries with established formal seed systems is guided by well-defined procedures and approval systems and regulated by the Seed Acts and implemented regulations. In countries with seed laws, no crop varieties are approved for commercial cultivation prior to the fulfillment of the national performance trials and the distinctness, uniformity, and stability tests, as well as prior to the approval by the National Variety Release Committee. This review outlines key challenges faced by African countries in the deployment of GM crops and cites lessons learned as well as best practices from countries that have successfully commercialized genetically engineered crops.

Safety evaluation of the food enzyme alternansucrase from Leuconostoc citreum strain NRRL B-30894

The food enzyme alternansucrase (sucrose:1,6(1,3)‐α‐d‐glucan 6(3)‐α‐d‐glucosyltransferase, EC 2.4.1.140) is produced with a non‐genetically modified Leuconostoc citreum strain NRRL B‐30894 by Cargill Incorporated. As a consequence of the absence of antimicrobial resistance genes identified in its genome, the production strain meets the criteria to qualify for the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. As no other concerns arising from the microbial source or from the manufacturing process have been identified, the Panel considers that toxicological tests are not needed for the assessment of this food enzyme. The alternansucrase food enzyme is intended to be used for the manufacture of α‐d‐glucan oligosaccharides as a sweetening agent. The purification processes applied to syrups produced from sucrose with alternansucrase are expected to largely remove the food enzyme. Any residual TOS remaining in the final product would consist of non‐hazardous material. This is based on the QPS status of the production organism, the medium components and the identified material used in downstream processing. Consequently, the Panel decided that dietary exposure did not need to be calculated. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Assessment of genetically modified maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2015-127)

Maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and six of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or the six 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 its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds 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 four 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 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 the non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Assessment of genetically modified maize Bt11 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-016)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-016 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified maize Bt11, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the event in maize Bt11 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-016 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize Bt11.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 88017 × MON 810 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-017)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-017 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BVBA the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified maize MON 88017 × MON 810, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, and updated bioinformatic analysis. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in maize MON 88017 × MON 810 considered for renewal are identical to the sequence of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-017 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 88017 × MON 810.