Toxicological evaluation of proteins introduced into food crops

Non-seed plants are emerging gene sources for agriculture and insect control proteins

The non-seed plants (e.g., charophyte algae, bryophytes, and ferns) have multiple human uses, but their contributions to agriculture and research have lagged behind seed plants. While sharing broadly conserved biology with seed plants and the major crops, non-seed plants sometimes possess alternative molecular and physiological adaptations. These adaptations may guide crop improvements. One such area is the presence of multiple classes of insecticidal proteins found in non-seed plant genomes which are either absent or widely diverged in seed plants. There are documented uses of non-seed plants, and ferns for example have been used in human diets. Among the occasional identifiable toxins or antinutritive components present in non-seed plants, none include these insecticidal proteins. Apart from these discrete risk factors which can be addressed in the safety assessment, there should be no general safety concern about sourcing genes from non-seed plant species.

Bioinformatic and literature assessment of toxicity and allergenicity of a CRISPR-Cas9 engineered gene drive to control Anopheles gambiae the mosquito vector of human malaria

BACKGROUND

Population suppression gene drive is currently being evaluated, including via environmental risk assessment (ERA), for malaria vector control. One such gene drive involves the dsxFCRISPRh transgene encoding (i) hCas9 endonuclease, (ii) T1 guide RNA (gRNA) targeting the doublesex locus, and (iii) DsRed fluorescent marker protein, in genetically-modified mosquitoes (GMMs). Problem formulation, the first stage of ERA, for environmental releases of dsxFCRISPRh previously identified nine potential harms to the environment or health that could occur, should expressed products of the transgene cause allergenicity or toxicity.

METHODS

Amino acid sequences of hCas9 and DsRed were interrogated against those of toxins or allergens from NCBI, UniProt, COMPARE and AllergenOnline bioinformatic databases and the gRNA was compared with microRNAs from the miRBase database for potential impacts on gene expression associated with toxicity or allergenicity. PubMed was also searched for any evidence of toxicity or allergenicity of Cas9 or DsRed, or of the donor organisms from which these products were originally derived.

RESULTS

While Cas9 nuclease activity can be toxic to some cell types in vitro and hCas9 was found to share homology with the prokaryotic toxin VapC, there was no evidence from previous studies of a risk of toxicity to humans and other animals from hCas9. Although hCas9 did contain an 8-mer epitope found in the latex allergen Hev b 9, the full amino acid sequence of hCas9 was not homologous to any known allergens. Combined with a lack of evidence in the literature of Cas9 allergenicity, this indicated negligible risk to humans of allergenicity from hCas9. No matches were found between the gRNA and microRNAs from either Anopheles or humans. Moreover, potential exposure to dsxFCRISPRh transgenic proteins from environmental releases was assessed as negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

Bioinformatic and literature assessments found no convincing evidence to suggest that transgenic products expressed from dsxFCRISPRh were allergens or toxins, indicating that environmental releases of this population suppression gene drive for malaria vector control should not result in any increased allergenicity or toxicity in humans or animals. These results should also inform evaluations of other GMMs being developed for vector control and in vivo clinical applications of CRISPR-Cas9.

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 maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS‐40278‐9 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA GMO‐NL‐2020‐171)

Genetically modified maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS‐40278‐9 was developed by crossing to combine four single events: DP4114, MON 89034, MON 87411 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and two 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 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. Therefore, no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable four‐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 eight 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 four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS‐40278‐9. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Safety assessment of Mpp75Aa1.1, a new ETX_MTX2 protein from Brevibacillus laterosporus that controls western corn rootworm

The recently discovered insecticidal protein Mpp75Aa1.1 from Brevibacillus laterosporus is a member of the ETX_MTX family of beta-pore forming proteins (β-PFPs) expressed in genetically modified (GM) maize to control western corn rootworm (WCR; Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte). In this manuscript, bioinformatic analysis establishes that although Mpp75Aa1.1 shares varying degrees of similarity to members of the ETX_MTX2 protein family, it is unlikely to have any allergenic, toxic, or otherwise adverse biological effects. The safety of Mpp75Aa1.1 is further supported by a weight of evidence approach including evaluation of the history of safe use (HOSU) of ETX_MTX2 proteins and Breviballus laterosporus. Comparisons between purified Mpp75Aa1.1 protein and a poly-histidine-tagged (His-tagged) variant of the Mpp75Aa1.1 protein demonstrate that both forms of the protein are heat labile at temperatures at or above 55°C, degraded by gastrointestinal proteases within 0.5 min, and have no adverse effects in acute mouse oral toxicity studies at a dose level of 1920 or 2120 mg/kg body weight. These results support the use of His-tagged proteins as suitable surrogates for assessing the safety of their non-tagged parent proteins. Taken together, we report that Mpp75Aa1.1 is the first ETX-MTX2 insecticidal protein from B. laterosporus and displays a similar safety profile as typical Cry proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis.

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.

Subchronic feeding, allergenicity, and genotoxicity safety evaluations of single strain bacterial protein

Microbial proteins are potentially important alternatives to animal protein. A safety assessment was conducted on a Clostridium protein which can serve as a high-quality protein source in human food. A battery of toxicity studies was conducted comprising a 14-day dose-range finding dietary study in rats, 90-day dietary study in rats and in vitro genotoxicity studies. The allergenic potential was investigated by bioinformatics analysis. In the 90-day feeding study, rats were fed diets containing 0, 5.0, 7.5, and 10% Clostridium protein. The Clostridium protein-containing diets were well-tolerated and no adverse effects on the health or growth were observed. Significant reductions in neutrophil counts were observed in all female rats compared to controls, which were slightly outside of reference ranges. These effects were not deemed to be adverse due to the absence of comparable findings in male rats and high physiological variability of measured values within groups. A No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level (NOAEL) of at least 10% Clostridium protein, the highest dose tested and corresponding to 5,558 and 6,671 mg/kg body weight/day for male and female rats, respectively, was established. No evidence of genotoxicity was observed and the allergenic potential was low. These results support the use of Clostridium protein as a food ingredient.

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.

ToxDL: deep learning using primary structure and domain embeddings for assessing protein toxicity

MOTIVATION

Genetically engineering food crops involves introducing proteins from other species into crop plant species or modifying already existing proteins with gene editing techniques. In addition, newly synthesized proteins can be used as therapeutic protein drugs against diseases. For both research and safety regulation purposes, being able to assess the potential toxicity of newly introduced/synthesized proteins is of high importance.

RESULTS

In this study, we present ToxDL, a deep learning-based approach for in silico prediction of protein toxicity from sequence alone. ToxDL consists of (i) a module encompassing a convolutional neural network that has been designed to handle variable-length input sequences, (ii) a domain2vec module for generating protein domain embeddings and (iii) an output module that classifies proteins as toxic or non-toxic, using the outputs of the two aforementioned modules. Independent test results obtained for animal proteins and cross-species transferability results obtained for bacteria proteins indicate that ToxDL outperforms traditional homology-based approaches and state-of-the-art machine-learning techniques. Furthermore, through visualizations based on saliency maps, we are able to verify that the proposed network learns known toxic motifs. Moreover, the saliency maps allow for directed in silico modification of a sequence, thus making it possible to alter its predicted protein toxicity.

AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

ToxDL is freely available at http://www.csbio.sjtu.edu.cn/bioinf/ToxDL/. The source code can be found at https://github.com/xypan1232/ToxDL.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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.

Statement on in vitro protein digestibility tests in allergenicity and protein safety assessment of genetically modified plants

This statement supplements and updates the GMO Panel guidance document on allergenicity of genetically modified (GM) plants published in 2017. In that guidance document, the GMO Panel considered that additional investigations on in vitro protein digestibility were needed before providing any additional recommendations in the form of guidance to applicants. Thus, an interim phase was proposed to assess the utility of an enhanced in vitro digestion test, as compared to the classical pepsin resistance test. Historically, resistance to degradation by pepsin using the classical pepsin resistance test has been considered as additional information, in a weight-of-evidence approach, for the assessment of allergenicity and toxicity of newly expressed proteins in GM plants. However, more recent evidence does not support this test as a good predictor of allergenic potential for hazard. Furthermore, there is a need for more reliable systems to predict the fate of the proteins in the gastrointestinal tract and how they interact with the relevant human cells. Nevertheless, the classical pepsin resistance test can still provide some information on the physicochemical properties of novel proteins relating to their stability under acidic conditions. But other methods can be used to obtain data on protein's structural and/or functional integrity. It is acknowledged that the classical pepsin resistance test is embedded into international guidelines, e.g. Codex Alimentarius and Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. For future development, a deeper understanding of protein digestion in the gastrointestinal tract could enable the framing of more robust strategies for the safety assessment of proteins. Given the high complexity of the digestion and absorption process of dietary proteins, it is needed to clarify and identify the aspects that could be relevant to assess potential risks of allergenicity and toxicity of proteins. To this end, a series of research questions to be addressed are also formulated in this statement.

History and Outlook for Glyphosate-Resistant Crops

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, commercially referred to as glyphosate-tolerant (GT), started the revolution in crop biotechnology in 1996. Growers rapidly accepted GR crops whenever they became available and made them the most rapidly adopted technology in agriculture history. Adoption usually meant sole reliance on glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, CAS No. 1071-83-6] for weed control. Not surprisingly, weeds eventually evolved resistance and are forcing growers to change their weed management practices. Today, the widespread dissemination of GR weeds that are also resistant to other herbicide modes-of-action (MoA) has greatly reduced the value of the GR crop weed management systems. However, growers continue to use the technology widely in six major crops throughout North and South America. Integrated chemistry and seed providers seek to sustain glyphosate efficacy by promoting glyphosate combinations with other herbicides and stacking the traits necessary to enable the use of partner herbicides. These include glufosinate {4-[hydroxy(methyl)phosphinoyl]-DL-homoalanine, CAS No. 51276-47-2}, dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid, CAS No. 1918-00-9), 2,4-D [2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid, CAS No. 94-75-7], 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase inhibitors, acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors, and other herbicides. Unfortunately, herbicide companies have not commercialized a new MoA for over 30 years and have nearly exhausted the useful herbicide trait possibilities. Today, glyphosate-based crop systems are still mainstays of weed management, but they cannot keep up with the capacity of weeds to evolve resistance. Growers desperately need new technologies, but no technology with the impact of glyphosate and GR crops is on the horizon. Although the expansion of GR crop traits is possible into new geographic areas and crops such as wheat and sugarcane and could have high value, the Roundup Ready® revolution is over. Its future is at a nexus and dependent on a variety of issues.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 87411 × 59122 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2017-139)

Maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 87411 × 59122 (six-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine six single events: MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, 1507, MON 87411 and 59122. The GMO Panel previously assessed the six single maize events and 17 of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the 17 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 and dsRNA in the six-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the six-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as its non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the six-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 39 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 six-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the six-event stack maize. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the six-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 application EFSA-GMO-NL-2016-132 for authorisation of genetically modified of insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant soybean DAS-81419-2 × DAS-44406-6 for food and feed uses, import and processing submitted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Dow Agrosciences LCC

Soybean DAS-8419-2 × DAS-44406-6 was developed to provide protection against certain lepidopteran pests and tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and other related phenoxy herbicides, and glyphosate- and glufosinate ammonium-containing herbicides. The Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Panel previously assessed the two single soybean events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single soybean events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the two-event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. In the case of accidental release of viable DAS-8419-2 × DAS-44406-6 seeds into the environment, soybean DAS-8419-2 × DAS-44406-6 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean DAS-8419-2 × DAS-44406-6. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that soybean DAS-8419-2 × DAS-44406-6, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-genetically modified soybean reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2016-128)

Soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × 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.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2017-144)

Maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411. The genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and four of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the four subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins and dsRNA in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the four‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the six maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2016-131)

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

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2016-134)

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.

Evaluation of the effects of sugarcane processing on the presence of GM DNA and protein in sugar

The Brazilian Sucro-energy Sector produces both energy, in the form of ethanol fuel, industrial steam and electricity, and sugar. Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira (CTC), the leading Brazilian sugarcane breeding company, has developed a pipeline of insect-protected sugarcane varieties to control sugarcane borer damage. The goal of this manuscript is to present the results of studies with three genetically modified (GM) sugarcane varieties and to evaluate the published literature regarding the possible presence of GM sugarcane DNA or protein in raw or refined sugar. Specifically, two varieties of approved GM sugarcane, CTC91087-6 and CTC175-A, and an experimental CTC variety, were grown in four individual plots to produce four batches each of processed raw sugar using standard smaller-scale laboratory processing methods resulting in a total of 12 independent batches of raw sugar. Herein, we report the development of event-specific probes and DNA detection methods, designed to detect the junction of sugarcane genomic DNA and the inserted DNA of the two approved GM varieties. An identical approach was used for the testing of sugar made from the experimental CTC variety. The methodology used TaqMan® real-time PCR and ELISA assays validated for the four GM proteins expressed by these three events (Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, NPTII, and PAT (bar)). The developed assays had very low limits of detection (LODs) for the various event-specific DNA probes (7.2-25 ng/g sugar) and insecticidal and selectable marker proteins (2.9-10.9 ng/g sugar). No event-specific DNA and no GM proteins were detectable in the 12 independent batches of raw sugar produced from these three GM sugarcane events. The results of this study, using very sensitive methods and testing several sugar batches, extend the conclusions of previous studies, reviewed herein, that showed the extensive degradation and removal of DNA and protein during sugarcane processing. Overall, these results indicate that there are no distinguishable differences between the highly purified, chemically defined sugar produced from conventional or GM varieties.

Safety assessment of miraculin using in silico and in vitro digestibility analyses

Miraculin is a glycoprotein with the ability to make sour substances taste sweet. The safety of miraculin has been evaluated using an approach proposed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization for assessing the safety of novel proteins. Miraculin was shown to be fully and rapidly digested by pepsin in an in vitro digestibility assay. The proteomic analysis of miraculin's pepsin digests further corroborated that it is highly unlikely that any of the protein will remain intact within the gastrointestinal tract for potential absorption. The potential allergenicity and toxigenicity of miraculin, investigated using in silico bioinformatic analyses, demonstrated that miraculin does not represent a risk of allergy or toxicity to humans with low potential for cross-reactivity with other allergens. The results of a sensory study, characterizing the taste receptor activity of miraculin, showed that the taste-modifying effect of miraculin at the concentration intended for product development has a rapid onset and disappearance with no desensitizing impact on the receptor. Overall, the results of this study demonstrate that the use of miraculin to impact the sensory qualities of orally administered products with a bitter/sour taste profile is not associated with any safety concerns.

Evaluation of the effects of feeding glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (CP4 EPSPS) on the testis of male Sprague-Dawley rats

Glyphosate tolerant soybeans represent a large portion of soybeans grown and fed to farm animals around the world. Despite their widespread use for many years, some have raised questions regarding their safety because the soybeans were genetically modified. The CP4 EPSPS gene which imparts resistance to topical application of the herbicide glyphosate was introduced into soybeans. Application of glyphosate to soybean fields will reduce weed pressure and increase soybean yield. To assess their safety on the rat reproduction system, male Sprague Dawley rats were fed either glyphosate-tolerant (GM) soybean (40-3-2) or near-isogenic, non-GM (A5403) (control) soybean meal. The processed soybean meal was added to formulated rodent diets at 20% (w/w) and fed to rats for 90 days. Some rats from the control group were separately administered mitomycin C for 40 days and served as positive controls in the sperm abnormality test. Body weights and behavior were monitored daily, serum enzymes and histologic and EM appearance of the testis, and sperm morphology were also examined. After 90 days of feeding, no adverse effects were observed in rats fed glyphosate-tolerant soybeans.

Human dietary exposure assessment to newly expressed proteins in GM foods

EFSA carries out the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) submitted under Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 and Regulation (EU) 503/2013. Dietary exposure is an essential element of the risk assessment on genetically modified (GM) foods. Dietary exposure estimations should cover average and high consumers across all the different age classes and special population groups and identify and consider particular consumer groups with expected higher exposure. This EFSA statement provides guidance on how human dietary exposure to newly expressed proteins in GM foods should be estimated using a deterministic model that makes use of the available information. Summary statistics of consumption of foods containing, consisting of and produced from crops relevant for the assessment of GMO applications are available in the EFSA website together with different factors to convert the reported consumption of processed foods into raw primary commodities. Guidance is also provided on how concentration data of newly expressed proteins, typically determined in raw primary commodities, should be used (materials to be analysed, growth stage, descriptive statistics to be used, etc.). An overview of the different uncertainties linked to the dietary exposure estimations is provided, informing on the strengths and limitations of the assessment. The document also describes the information applicants need to provide on human dietary exposure to allow EFSA doing an appropriate evaluation of the assessment provided as part of the application dossiers.

Assessment of genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2011-103)

Maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 (six‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21. The GMO Panel previously assessed the six single events and 22 of their combinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the maize single events or their 22 combinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment 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 the six‐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 six‐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 34 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 six‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the six‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the six‐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.

Effect of common processing of soybeans on the enzymatic activity and detectability of the protein, Dicamba Mono-Oxygenase (DMO), introduced into dicamba-tolerant MON 87708

Assessing the safety of genetically engineered crops includes evaluating the risk (hazard and exposure) of consuming their newly expressed proteins. The dicamba monooxygenase (DMO) protein, introduced into soybeans to confer tolerance (DT) to dicamba herbicide, was previously characterized and identified to pose no food or feed safety hazards. Most agricultural commodities (e.g., soybeans, maize) enter the food supply after processing methods that can include exposure to high temperatures, harsh solvents or pH extremes that can adversely impact the structure and function of proteins. To understand the likelihood of exposure to DMO in foods from DT soy, enzymatically active and/or immunodetectable forms of DMO were measured in pilot-scale productions of two soy foods (soymilk and tofu), and eight processed fractions (full fat flour, inactivated full fat flour, defatted flour, toasted meal, protein isolate, protein concentrate, crude lecithin, and refined, bleached and deodorized oil). Western blot analysis detected DMO in tofu and in five of the eight processed fractions. DMO activity was not detected in either soymilk or tofu, nor in six of the eight processed fractions. Therefore, many commercial soy processing methods can denature and/or degrade introduced proteins, like DMO. Although the DMO protein has shown no evidence of hazard, this study demonstrates that processing further reduces any food or feed risk by limiting dietary exposure to intact DMO protein.

A 90-day subchronic toxicology screen of genetically modified rice Lac-3 and its effects on the gut microbiota in Sprague-Dawley rats

A 90-day subchronic toxicology screen of genetically modified (GM) rice Lac-3 expressing human lactoferrin (hLF) and its effects on the gut microbiota were studied in comparison to non-GM rice fed to Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats. Three different dietary concentrations (17.5%, 35% and 70%, w/w) of the GM rice or its corresponding non-GM rice were used. Additionally, the phylotypes of gut microbiota in the control group, the 70% GM rice diet group and the 70% non-GM rice diet group on day 90 were determined by 16S rRNA sequencing. The results of the 90-day subchronic feeding study demonstrated that the GM rice Lac-3 containing human lactoferrin (LF) gene is considered as safe as the non-GM rice. The results of bacterial 16S rRNA sequencing showed that the structure of gut microbiota in the 70% GM group slightly changed when compared with the control group and the 70% non-GM group. There were no significant differences in the microbiota diversity among the three groups.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and subcombinations independently of their origin for food and feed uses, import and processing, under Regulation (EC) No 1829-2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2013-112)

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

Potential prebiotic activity of Tenebrio molitor insect flour using an optimized in vitro gut microbiota model

Potential prebiotic activity of Tenebrio molitor insect flour using an optimized in vitro gut microbiota model.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and subcombinations independently of their origin for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2013-113)

Maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 (five-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the 5 single maize events and 11 of their subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or their 11 subcombinations that could modify 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 indicates 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 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 for which no experimental data were provided, and concludes that they 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. No post-market monitoring of food/feed is 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.

Scientific mistakes from the agri-food biotech critics

Critics of the use of advanced biotechnologies in the agri-food sector ("New Breeding Techniques", comprising CRISPR) demand a strict regulation of any such method, even more severe than rules applied to so-called "Genetically Modified Organisms" (i.e. recombinant DNA processes and products). But their position is unwarranted, since it relies on faulty arguments.While most life scientists have always explained that the trigger for regulation should be the single product and its phenotypic traits, opponents insist that the target should be certain biotech processes.The antagonists maintain that NBTs are inherently risky: this belief is exactly the opposite of a long-standing, overwhelming scientific consensus. NBTs involve unpredictable effects, but it is the same for the results of any other technique. The critics wrongly equate "unintended" with "harmful" and misunderstand two meanings of "risk": the "risk" of not achieving satisfactory results does not automatically translate into health or environment "risks". Generic claims that allergenic or toxic properties are a hidden danger of outcomes from NBTs are unsubstantiated - as they would be for traditional techniques.Among several errors, we criticize the misuse of the Precautionary principle, a misplaced alarm about "uncontrolled spreading" of genetically engineered cultivars and the groundless comparison of (hypothetical) agricultural products from NBTs with known toxic substances.In order to "save" traditional techniques from "GMO"-like regulations, while calling for the enforcement of similar sectarian rules for the NBTs, the dissenters engage in baseless, unscientific distinctions.Important and necessary socio-economic, ethical and legal considerations related to the use of agri-food biotechnologies (older and newer) are outside the scope of this paper, which mostly deals with arguments from genetics, biology, and evolutionary theory that are provided by those who are suspicious of NBTs. Yet, we will provide some hints on two additional facets of the debate: the possible motivations for certain groups to embrace views which are utterly anti-scientific, and the shaky regulatory destiny of NBTs in the European Union.

Variability of CP4 EPSPS expression in genetically engineered soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)

The expression of the CP4 EPSPS protein in genetically engineered (GE) soybean confers tolerance to the Roundup® family of agricultural herbicides. This study evaluated the variability of CP4 EPSPS expression using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in soybean tissues collected across diverse germplasm and 74 different environments in Argentina, Brazil and the USA. Evaluated material included single and combined (stacked) trait products with other GE traits in entries with cp4 epsps gene at one or two loci. The highest level of CP4 EPSPS was observed in leaf tissues, intermediate in forage and seed, and lowest in root tissues. Varieties with two loci had approximately twice the level of CP4 EPSPS expression compared to one locus entries. Variable and non-directional level of CP4 EPSPS was observed with other factors like genetic background, trait stacking, growing region or season. The maximum and average CP4 EPSPS expression levels in seed provided large margins of exposure (MOE of approximately 4000 and 11,000, respectively), mitigating concerns over exposure to this protein in food and feed from soybean varieties tolerant to Roundup® herbicides.

Assessment of genetically modified maize Bt11 x MIR162 x 1507 x GA21 and three subcombinations independently of their origin, for food and feed uses under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2010-86)

In this opinion, the GMO Panel assessed the four-event stack maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 and three of its subcombinations, independently of their origin. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and seven of their combinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or the seven subcombinations leading to modification of the original conclusions were identified. Based on the molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics, the combination of the single events in the four-event stack maize did not give rise to food/feed safety issues. Based on the nutritional assessment of the compositional characteristics of maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21, foods and feeds derived from the genetically modified (GM) maize are expected to have the same nutritional impact as those derived from non-GM maize varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as its non-GM comparator in the context of the scope of this application. For the three subcombinations included in the scope, for which no experimental data were provided, the GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events and concluded that their combinations would not raise safety concerns. These maize subcombinations are therefore 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 maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 and its subcombinations. A minority opinion expressed by a GMO Panel member is appended to this opinion.

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry5B protein as a new pan-hookworm cure

Hookworms are intestinal nematode parasites that infect nearly half a billion people and are globally one of the most important contributors to iron-deficiency anemia. These parasites have significant impacts in developing children, pregnant women and working adults. Of all the soil-transmitted helminths or nematodes (STNs), hookworms are by far the most important, with disease burdens conservatively estimated at four million DALYs (Disability-Adjusted Life Years) and with productivity losses of up to US$139 billion annually. To date, mainly one drug, albendazole is used for hookworm therapy in mass drug administration, which has on average ∼80% cure rate that is lower (<40%) in some places. Given the massive numbers of people needing treatment, the threat of parasite resistance, and the inadequacy of current treatments, new and better cures against hookworms are urgently needed. Cry5B, a pore-forming protein produced by the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has demonstrated good efficacy against Ancylostoma ceylanicum hookworm infections in hamsters. Here we broaden studies of Cry5B to include tests against infections of Ancylostoma caninum hookworms in dogs and against infections of the dominant human hookworm, Necator americanus, in hamsters. We show that Cry5B is highly effective against all hookworm parasites tested in all models. Neutralization of stomach acid improves Cry5B efficacy, which will aid in practical application of Cry5B significantly. Importantly, we also demonstrate that the anti-nematode therapeutic efficacy of Cry5B is independent of the host immune system and is not itself negated by repeated dosing. This study indicates that Bt Cry5B is a pan-hookworm anthelmintic with excellent properties for use in humans and other animals.

Assessment of genetically modified cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2011-94)

The three-event stack cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985 was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single cotton events, GHB614, LLCotton25 and MON 15985. The EFSA GMO Panel previously assessed the three single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. Based on the molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics, the combination of the single events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three-event stack cotton did not give rise to food and feed safety or nutritional issues. Food and feed derived from cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985 are expected to have the same nutritional impact as those derived from the non-GM comparator. In the case of accidental release of viable GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985 cottonseeds into the environment, this three-event stack cotton would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985, as described in this application, is as safe as the non-GM comparator with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Food and feed safety of DAS-444Ø6-6 herbicide-tolerant soybean

DAS-444Ø6-6 soybean was genetically engineered (GE) to withstand applications of three different herbicides. Tolerance to glufosinate and glyphosate is achieved through expression of the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) and double-mutated maize 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthase (2mEPSPS) enzymes, respectively. These proteins are expressed in currently commercialized crops and represent no novel risk. Tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is achieved through expression of the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase 12 (AAD-12) enzyme, which is novel in crops. The safety of the AAD-12 protein and DAS-444Ø6-6 event was assessed for food and feed safety based on the weight of evidence and found to be as safe as non-GE soybean.

Evaluating Potential Risks of Food Allergy and Toxicity of Soy Leghemoglobin Expressed in Pichia pastoris

SCOPE

The Soybean (Glycine max) leghemoglobin c2 (LegHb) gene was introduced into Pichia pastoris yeast for sustainable production of a heme-carrying protein, for organoleptic use in plant-based meat. The potential allergenicity and toxicity of LegHb and 17 Pichia host-proteins each representing ≥1% of total protein in production batches are evaluated by literature review, bioinformatics sequence comparisons to known allergens or toxins, and in vitro pepsin digestion.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Literature searches found no evidence of allergenicity or toxicity for these proteins. There are no significant sequence matches of LegHb to known allergens or toxins. Eleven Pichia proteins have modest identity matches to minor environmental allergens and 13 Pichia proteins have significant matches to proteins from toxic sources. Yet the matched allergens and toxins have similar matches to proteins from the commonly consumed yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, without evidence of food allergy or toxicity. The demonstrated history of safe use indicates additional tests for allergenicity and toxicity are not needed. The LegHb and Pichia sp. proteins were rapidly digested by pepsin at pH 2.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that foods containing recombinant soy LegHb produced in Pichia sp. are unlikely to present an unacceptable risk of allergenicity or toxicity to consumers.

Polar aprotic solvent-water mixture as the medium for catalytic production of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) from bread waste

Valorisation of bread waste for hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) synthesis was examined in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)-, tetrahydrofuran (THF)-, acetonitrile (ACN)-, and acetone-water (1:1v/v), under heating at 140°C with SnCl₄ as the catalyst. The overall rate of the process was the fastest in ACN/H₂O and acetone/H₂O, followed by DMSO/H₂O and THF/H₂O due to the rate-limiting glucose isomerisation. However, the formation of levulinic acid (via rehydration) and humins (via polymerisation) was more significant in ACN/H₂O and acetone/H₂O. The constant HMF maxima (26-27mol%) in ACN/H₂O, acetone/H₂O, and DMSO/H₂O indicated that the rates of desirable reactions (starch hydrolysis, glucose isomerisation, and fructose dehydration) relative to undesirable pathways (HMF rehydration and polymerisation) were comparable among these mediums. They also demonstrated higher selectivity towards HMF production over the side reactions than THF/H₂O. This study differentiated the effects of polar aprotic solvent-water mediums on simultaneous pathways during biomass conversion.

Assessment of genetically modified maize 1507 × 59122 × MON810 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2011-92)

In this opinion, the GMO Panel assessed the four‐event stack maize 1507 × 59122 ×  MON810 ×  NK603 and its ten subcombinations, independently of their origin. The GMO Panel previously 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 Panel concludes 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 × 59122 × MON810 × 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 Panel considers that post‐market monitoring of maize 1507 × 59122 ×MON810 × 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 × 59122 × MON810 ×NK603 and its subcombinations.

Which Plant Proteins Are Involved in Antiviral Defense? Review on In Vivo and In Vitro Activities of Selected Plant Proteins against Viruses

Plants have evolved a variety of defense mechanisms to tackle virus attack. Endogenous plant proteins can function as virus suppressors. Different types of proteins mediate defense responses against plant viruses. Pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins are activated upon pathogen infections or in different stress situations and their production is one of many components in plant defense. Ribosome-inactivating proteins (RIPs) suppress translation by enzymatically damaging ribosomes and they have been found to have antiviral activity. RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) bind to target RNAs via specialized RNA-binding domain and can directly or indirectly function in plant defense system against RNA viruses. Proteins involved in silencing machinery, namely Dicer-like (DCL) proteins, Argonaute (AGO) proteins, and RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RDRs) confer innate antiviral defense in plants as they are able to degrade foreign RNA of viral origin. This review aims to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of plant proteins participating in antiviral defense. As a result we discuss proteins conferring plant antiviral resistance and their potential future applications in different fields of life including agriculture and medicine.

Functional classification of protein toxins as a basis for bioinformatic screening

Proteins are fundamental to life and exhibit a wide diversity of activities, some of which are toxic. Therefore, assessing whether a specific protein is safe for consumption in foods and feeds is critical. Simple BLAST searches may reveal homology to a known toxin, when in fact the protein may pose no real danger. Another challenge to answer this question is the lack of curated databases with a representative set of experimentally validated toxins. Here we have systematically analyzed over 10,000 manually curated toxin sequences using sequence clustering, network analysis, and protein domain classification. We also developed a functional sequence signature method to distinguish toxic from non-toxic proteins. The current database, combined with motif analysis, can be used by researchers and regulators in a hazard screening capacity to assess the potential of a protein to be toxic at early stages of development. Identifying key signatures of toxicity can also aid in redesigning proteins, so as to maintain their desirable functions while reducing the risk of potential health hazards.

Scientific Opinion on application EFSA-GMO-BE-2013-118 for authorisation of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and subcombinations independently of their origin, for food and feed uses, import and processing submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Monsanto Company

In this opinion, the GMO Panel assessed the five‐event stack maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 ×1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and its 25 subcombinations, independently of their origin. The GMO Panel has previously assessed the five single events combined to produce this five‐event stack maize and 11 subcombinations of these events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or their previously assessed subcombinations, leading to modification of the original conclusions were identified. The combination of the single events and of the newly expressed proteins in the five‐event stack maize did not give rise to issues – based on the molecular, agronomic/phenotypic or compositional characteristics – regarding food and feed safety and nutrition. Considering the scope of this application, the known biological function of the newly expressed proteins and the data available for the five‐event stack maize and its previously assessed maize subcombinations, the GMO Panel considered that different combinations of the single events would not raise environmental concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize is as safe and as nutritious as the non‐genetically modified (GM) comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties in the context of its scope. For the 14 maize subcombinations for which no experimental data were provided, the GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events, and concluded that their combinations would not raise safety concerns. These maize subcombinations are therefore expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and maize MON 87427 ×MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122. Since the post‐market environmental monitoring plan for the five‐event stack maize does not include any provisions for the 14 maize subcombinations not previously assessed, the GMO Panel recommended the applicant to revise the plan accordingly.