Assessment of the 2021 post-market environmental monitoring report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in the EU.

Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the 2021 post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810. Evidence provided in the PMEM report shows that farmers growing maize MON 810 in Spain complied partially with refuge requirements, while full compliance was achieved in Portugal. Cry1Ab susceptibility tests performed on European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from north-eastern Spain in 2021 indicated no symptoms of resistance evolution to maize MON 810. However, unexpected damage to maize MON 810 plants was observed in a field trial in the province of Girona (north-eastern Spain), which may point to the presence of resistance alleles in this region. Information retrieved through farmer questionnaires and the scientific literature reveals no unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2021 PMEM report does not invalidate its previous conclusions on the safety of maize MON 810. The possible presence of Cry1Ab resistance alleles at frequencies leading to damage to maize MON 810 plants in Girona requires twofold actions: (1) increase monitoring efforts in this area; and (2) implement remedial measures to limit the suspected evolution and spread of resistance. As in previous years, EFSA identified shortcomings on resistance monitoring that need revision. In particular, full refuge compliance must be achieved in Spain. Moreover, the sensitivity of the monitoring plan must be increased, which can be achieved by replacing the current susceptibility assays by periodic F2 screens. EFSA also recommends the consent holder to revise the farmer questionnaires to account for the emergence of teosinte as a noxious agricultural weed in maize MON 810-growing areas in Spain.

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.

Gene drive in species complexes: defining target organisms.

Engineered gene drives, which bias their own inheritance to increase in frequency in target populations, are being developed to control mosquito malaria vectors. Such mosquitoes can belong to complexes of both vector and nonvector species that can produce fertile interspecific hybrids, making vertical gene drive transfer (VGDT) to sibling species biologically plausible. While VGDT to other vectors could positively impact human health protection goals, VGDT to nonvectors might challenge biodiversity ones. Therefore, environmental risk assessment of gene drive use in species complexes invites more nuanced considerations of target organisms and nontarget organisms than for transgenes not intended to increase in frequency in target populations. Incorporating the concept of target species complexes offers more flexibility when assessing potential impacts from VGDT.

Update of environmental risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations of EFSA (2016) on EU teosinte.

Teosinte, wild maize relatives originating from Mexico and Central America, emerged as a noxious agricultural weed in France and Spain. In 2016, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a technical report that assessed the available scientific information on teosinte for its relevance for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) and risk management (RM) of genetically modified (GM) maize MON810, Bt11, 1507 and GA21 for cultivation. It was concluded that the impact of insect resistance and/or herbicide tolerance in GM teosinte hybrid progeny (potentially acquired through hybridisation between GM maize and teosinte) on target and non-target organisms, the abiotic environment and biogeochemical cycles would be very low under EU conditions. Following a request of the European Commission, EFSA evaluated whether the ERA conclusions and RM recommendations of EFSA (2016) remain applicable, or require revision in light of new scientific evidence on teosinte that has become available since the publication of EFSA (2016). A protocol was developed to clarify the interpretation of the terms of reference of the mandate and make them operational. The assessment relied on evidence retrieved via an extensive literature search and from reports of the Competent Authorities of France and Spain, and on hearing expert testimonies. A limited collection of 18 publications of varying relevance and quality was retrieved and assessed. Based on this evidence, it is concluded that the ERA conclusions and RM recommendations of EFSA (2016) remain applicable, except those pertaining to the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on maize GA21 which should be considered under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In infested agricultural areas (especially in regions where maize MON810 is widely grown), weed management measures implemented to monitor, control and/or eradicate teosinte must remain in place, as they will contribute to further reduce the low vertical gene flow potential between GM maize and EU teosinte.

In Silico Methods for Environmental Risk Assessment: Principles, Tiered Approaches, Applications, and Future Perspectives.

This chapter aims to introduce the reader to the basic principles of environmental risk assessment of chemicals and highlights the usefulness of tiered approaches within weight of evidence approaches in relation to problem formulation i.e., data availability, time and resource availability. In silico models are then introduced and include quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models, which support filling data gaps when no chemical property or ecotoxicological data are available. In addition, biologically-based models can be applied in more data rich situations and these include generic or species-specific models such as toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic models, dynamic energy budget models, physiologically based models, and models for ecosystem hazard assessment i.e. species sensitivity distributions and ultimately for landscape assessment i.e. landscape-based modeling approaches. Throughout this chapter, particular attention is given to provide practical examples supporting the application of such in silico models in real-world settings. Future perspectives are discussed to address environmental risk assessment in a more holistic manner particularly for relevant complex questions, such as the risk assessment of multiple stressors and the development of harmonized approaches to ultimately quantify the relative contribution and impact of single chemicals, multiple chemicals and multiple stressors on living organisms.

Managing resistance evolution to transgenic Bt maize in corn borers in Spain.

Since 1998, genetically engineered Bt maize varieties expressing the insecticidal Cry1Ab protein (i.e. event MON 810) have been grown in the European Union (EU), mainly in Spain. These varieties confer resistance against the European and Mediterranean corn borer (ECB and MCB), which are the major lepidopteran maize pests in the EU, particularly in Mediterranean areas. However, widespread, repeated and exclusive use of Bt maize is anticipated to increase the risk of Cry1Ab resistance to evolve in corn borer populations. To delay resistance evolution, typically, refuges of non-Bt maize are planted near or adjacent to, or within Bt maize fields. Moreover, changes in Cry1Ab susceptibility in field populations of corn borers and unexpected damage to maize MON 810, due to corn borers, are monitored on an annual basis. After two decades of Bt maize cultivation in Spain, neither resistant corn borer populations nor farmer complaints on unexpected field damage have been reported. However, whether the resistance monitoring strategy followed in Spain, currently based on discriminating concentration bioassays, is sufficiently sensitive to timely detect early warning signs of resistance in the field remains a point of contention. Moreover, the Cry1Ab resistance allele frequency to Bt maize, which has recently been estimated in MCB populations from north-eastern Spain, might exceed that recommended for successful resistance management. To ensure Bt maize durability in Spain, it is key that adequate resistance management approaches, including monitoring of resistance and farmer compliance with refuge requirements, continue to be implemented and are incorporated in integrated pest management schemes.

Risk management recommendations for environmental releases of gene drive modified insects.

The ability to engineer gene drives (genetic elements that bias their own inheritance) has sparked enthusiasm and concerns. Engineered gene drives could potentially be used to address long-standing challenges in the control of insect disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, or help to rescue endangered species. However, risk concerns and uncertainty associated with potential environmental release of gene drive modified insects (GDMIs) have led some stakeholders to call for a global moratorium on such releases or the application of other strict precautionary measures to mitigate perceived risk assessment and risk management challenges. Instead, we provide recommendations that may help to improve the relevance of risk assessment and risk management frameworks for environmental releases of GDMIs. These recommendations include: (1) developing additional and more practical risk assessment guidance to ensure appropriate levels of safety; (2) making policy goals and regulatory decision-making criteria operational for use in risk assessment so that what constitutes harm is clearly defined; (3) ensuring a more dynamic interplay between risk assessment and risk management to manage uncertainty through closely interlinked pre-release modelling and post-release monitoring; (4) considering potential risks against potential benefits, and comparing them with those of alternative actions to account for a wider (management) context; and (5) implementing a modular, phased approach to authorisations for incremental acceptance and management of risks and uncertainty. Along with providing stakeholder engagement opportunities in the risk analysis process, the recommendations proposed may enable risk managers to make choices that are more proportionate and adaptive to potential risks, uncertainty and benefits of GDMI applications, and socially robust.

Potential use of gene drive modified insects against disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species poses new challenges for risk assessment.

Potential future application of engineered gene drives (GDs), which bias their own inheritance and can spread genetic modifications in wild target populations, has sparked both enthusiasm and concern. Engineered GDs in insects could potentially be used to address long-standing challenges in control of disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, or help to rescue endangered species, and thus provide important public benefits. However, there are concerns that the deliberate environmental release of GD modified insects may pose different or new harms to animal and human health and the wider environment, and raise novel challenges for risk assessment. Risk assessors, risk managers, developers, potential applicants and other stakeholders at many levels are currently discussing whether there is a need to develop new or additional risk assessment guidance for the environmental release of GD modified organisms, including insects. Developing new or additional guidance that is useful and practical is a challenge, especially at an international level, as risk assessors, risk managers and many other stakeholders have different, often contrasting, opinions and perspectives toward the environmental release of GD modified organisms, and on the adequacy of current risk assessment frameworks for such organisms. Here, we offer recommendations to overcome some of the challenges associated with the potential future development of new or additional risk assessment guidance for GD modified insects and provide considerations on areas where further risk assessment guidance may be required.

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.

EFSA is working to advance the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified crops to better protect butterflies and moths.

This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6443/full.

Evaluation of existing guidelines for their adequacy for the molecular characterisation and environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants obtained through synthetic biology.

Synthetic Biology (SynBio) is an interdisciplinary field at the interface of engineering and biology aiming to develop new biological systems and impart new functions to living cells. EFSA has been asked by the European Commission to evaluate SynBio developments in agri-food with the aim of identifying the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment and determine if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this opinion covers the molecular characterisation and environmental risk assessment of such genetically modified plants obtained through SynBio, meant to be for cultivation or food and feed purposes. The previous work on SynBio by the non-food scientific Committees (2014, 2015) was used and complemented with the output of a horizon scanning exercise, which was commissioned by the EFSA to identify the most realistic and forthcoming SynBio cases of relevance to this remit. The horizon scan did not identify other sectors/advances in addition to the six SynBio categories previously identified by the non-food scientific committees of the European Commission. The exercise did show that plant SynBio products reaching the market in the near future (next decade) are likely to apply SynBio approaches to their development using existing genetic modification and genome editing technologies. In addition, three hypothetical SynBio case studies were selected by the working group of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), to further support the scoping exercise of this Scientific Opinion. Using the selected cases, the GMO Panel concludes that the requirements of the EU regulatory framework and existing EFSA guidelines are adequate for the risk assessment of SynBio products to be developed in the next 10 years, although specific requirements may not apply to all products. The GMO Panel acknowledges that as SynBio developments evolve, a need may exist to adjust the guidelines to ensure they are adequate and sufficient.

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.

Gene Drive-Modified Organisms: Developing Practical Risk Assessment Guidance.

Risk assessors, risk managers, developers, potential applicants, and other stakeholders at many levels discuss the need for new or further risk assessment guidance for deliberate environmental releases of gene drive-modified organisms. However, preparing useful and practical guidance entails challenges, to which we offer recommendations based on our experience drafting guidance.

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.

Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives.

Advances in molecular and synthetic biology are enabling the engineering of gene drives in insects for disease vector/pest control. Engineered gene drives (that bias their own inheritance) can be designed either to suppress interbreeding target populations or modify them with a new genotype. Depending on the engineered gene drive system, theoretically, a genetic modification of interest could spread through target populations and persist indefinitely, or be restricted in its spread or persistence. While research on engineered gene drives and their applications in insects is advancing at a fast pace, it will take several years for technological developments to move to practical applications for deliberate release into the environment. Some gene drive modified insects (GDMIs) have been tested experimentally in the laboratory, but none has been assessed in small-scale confined field trials or in open release trials as yet. There is concern that the deliberate release of GDMIs in the environment may have possible irreversible and unintended consequences. As a proactive measure, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been requested by the European Commission to review whether its previously published guidelines for the risk assessment of genetically modified animals (EFSA, 2012 and 2013), including insects (GMIs), are adequate and sufficient for GDMIs, primarily disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, for deliberate release into the environment. Under this mandate, EFSA was not requested to develop risk assessment guidelines for GDMIs. In this Scientific Opinion, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) concludes that EFSA's guidelines are adequate, but insufficient for the molecular characterisation (MC), environmental risk assessment (ERA) and post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of GDMIs. While the MC,ERA and PMEM of GDMIs can build on the existing risk assessment framework for GMIs that do not contain engineered gene drives, there are specific areas where further guidance is needed for GDMIs.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MZIR098 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2017-142).

Maize MZIR098 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-containing herbicides and resistance to certain coleopteran pests. 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 MZIR098 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for neutral detergent fibre (NDF) in grains, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the eCry3.1Ab, mCry3A and PAT proteins as expressed in maize MZIR098, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MZIR098. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MZIR098 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZIR098 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MZIR098 grains into the environment, maize MZIR098 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZIR098. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MZIR098, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM maize reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Assessment of genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 for food and feed uses, import and processing, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2012-111).

The scope of application EFSA-GMO-DE-2012-111 is for food and feed uses, import and processing of genetically modified (GM) soybean SYHT0H2 in the European Union. Soybean SYHT0H2 was developed to confer tolerance to the herbicidal active substances mesotrione and other p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting herbicides and glufosinate ammonium. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues except for sequence similarity of AvHPPD-03 to bacterial haemolysins that was considered in food/feed safety assessment. The outcome of the comparative analysis (agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics) did not need further assessment except for the changes in seed levels of α-tocopherol and γ-tocopherol that were assessed for food and feed relevance. The GMO Panel does not identify toxicological and allergenicity concerns for the AvHPPD-03 and PAT proteins expressed in soybean SYHT0H2 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of soybean SYHT0H2. The nutritional impact of food/feed from soybean SYHT0H2 is expected to be the same as that of food/feed from the conventional counterpart and commercial non-GM soybean reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean SYHT0H2 is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM soybean reference varieties, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable soybean SYHT0H2 grains into the environment, soybean SYHT0H2 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean SYHT0H2. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that soybean SYHT0H2, as described in this application, 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.

Risk Assessment Considerations for Genetically Modified RNAi Plants: EFSA's Activities and Perspective.

Genetically modified plants (GMPs) intended for market release can be designed to induce "gene silencing" through RNA interference (RNAi). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and other international risk assessment bodies/regulatory agencies have taken several actions to determine whether the existing risk assessment approaches for GMPs are appropriate for the risk assessment of RNAi-based GMPs or require complementary or alternative approaches. To our knowledge, at the international level, no dedicated guidelines have been developed for the risk assessment and regulation of RNAi-based GMPs, confirming that existing science-based risk assessment approaches for GMPs are generally considered suitable for RNAi-based GMPs. However, some specificities have been identified for the risk assessment of RNAi-based GMPs. Here, we report on some of these specificities as identified and addressed by the EFSA GMO Panel for the molecular characterisation, food/feed safety assessment and environmental risk assessment of RNAi-based GMPs, using the DvSnf7 dsRNA-expressing maize MON87411 as a case study.