Genome editing for healthy crops: traits, tools and impacts.

Crop cultivars in commercial use have often been selected because they show high levels of resistance to pathogens. However, widespread cultivation of these crops for many years in the environments favorable to a pathogen requires durable forms of resistance to maintain "healthy crops". Breeding of new varieties tolerant/resistant to biotic stresses by incorporating genetic components related to durable resistance, developing new breeding methods and new active molecules, and improving the Integrated Pest Management strategies have been of great value, but their effectiveness is being challenged by the newly emerging diseases and the rapid change of pathogens due to climatic changes. Genome editing has provided new tools and methods to characterize defense-related genes in crops and improve crop resilience to disease pathogens providing improved food security and future sustainable agricultural systems. In this review, we discuss the principal traits, tools and impacts of utilizing genome editing techniques for achieving of durable resilience and a "healthy plants" concept.

Biosafety of bee pollinators in genetically modified agro-ecosystems: Current approach and further development in the EU.

Bee pollinators are an important guild delivering a fundamental input to European agriculture due to the ecological service they provide to crops in addition to the direct economic revenues from apiculture. Bee populations are declining in Europe as a result of the effects of several environmental stressors, both natural and of anthropic origin. Efforts are ongoing in the European Union (EU) to improve monitoring and management of pollinator populations to arrest further declines. Genetically modified (GM) crops are currently cultivated in a limited area in Europe, and an environmental risk assessment (ERA) is required prior to their authorization for cultivation. The possible impacts of GM crops on pollinators are deemed relevant for the ERA. Existing ecotoxicological studies indicate that traits currently expressed in insect-resistant GM plants are unlikely to represent a risk for pollinators. However, new mechanisms of insect resistance are being introduced into GM plants, including novel combinations of Cry toxins and double strand RNA (dsRNA), and an ERA is required to consider lethal and sublethal effects of these new products on nontarget species, including insect pollinators. The evaluation of indirect effects linked to the changes in management practices (e.g. for herbicide-tolerant GM crops) is an important component of EU regulations and a requirement for ERA. This paper reviews current approaches used to test the sensitivity of pollinators to GM plants and their products to determine whether sufficient data are being provided on novel GM plants to satisfy EU risk assessment requirements. © 2021 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Promoting Ethically Responsible Use of Agricultural Biotechnology.

Growing global demands for food, bioenergy, and specialty products, along with the threat posed by various environmental changes, present substantial challenges for agricultural production. Agricultural biotechnology offers a promising avenue for meeting these challenges; however, ethical and sociocultural concerns must first be addressed, to ensure widespread public trust and uptake. To be effective, we need to develop solutions that are ethically responsible, socially responsive, relevant to people of different cultural and social backgrounds, and conveyed to the public in a convincing and straightforward manner. Here, we highlight how ethical approaches, principled decision-making strategies, citizen-stakeholder participation, effective science communication, and bioethics education should be used to guide responsible use of agricultural biotechnology.

Biosafety of GM Crop Plants Expressing dsRNA: Data Requirements and EU Regulatory Considerations.

The use of RNA interference (RNAi) enables the silencing of target genes in plants or plant-dwelling organisms, through the production of double stranded RNA (dsRNA) resulting in altered plant characteristics. Expression of properly synthesized dsRNAs in plants can lead to improved crop quality characteristics or exploit new mechanisms with activity against plant pests and pathogens. Genetically modified (GM) crops exhibiting resistance to viruses or insects via expression of dsRNA have received authorization for cultivation outside Europe. Some products derived from RNAi plants have received a favourable opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for import and processing in the European Union (EU). The authorization process in the EU requires applicants to produce a risk assessment considering food/feed and environmental safety aspects of living organisms or their derived food and feed products. The present paper discusses the main aspects of the safety assessment (comparative assessment, molecular characterization, toxicological assessment, nutritional assessment, gene transfer, interaction with target and non-target organisms) for GM plants expressing dsRNA, according to the guidelines of EFSA. Food/feed safety assessment of products from RNAi plants is expected to be simplified, in the light of the consideration that no novel proteins are produced. Therefore, some of the data requirements for risk assessment do not apply to these cases, and the comparative compositional analysis becomes the main source of evidence for food/feed safety of RNAi plants. During environmental risk assessment, the analysis of dsRNA expression levels of the GM trait, and the data concerning the observable effects on non-target organisms (NTO) will provide the necessary evidence for ensuring safety of species exposed to RNAi plants. Bioinformatics may provide support to risk assessment by selecting target gene sequences with low similarity to the genome of NTOs possibly exposed to dsRNA. The analysis of these topics in risk assessment indicates that the science-based regulatory process in Europe is considered to be applicable to GM RNAi plants, therefore the evaluation of their safety can be effectively conducted without further modifications. Outcomes from the present paper offer suggestions for consideration in future updates of the EFSA Guidance documents on risk assessment of GM organisms.

RNA-based biocontrol compounds: current status and perspectives to reach the market.

Facing current climate challenges and drastically reduced chemical options for plant protection, the exploitation of RNA interference (RNAi) as an agricultural biotechnology tool has unveiled possible new solutions to the global problems of agricultural losses caused by pests and other biotic and abiotic stresses. While the use of RNAi as a tool in agriculture is still limited to a few transgenic crops, and only adopted in restricted parts of the world, scientists and industry are already seeking innovations in leveraging and exploiting the potential of RNAi in the form of RNA-based biocontrol compounds for external applications. Here, we highlight the expanding research and development pipeline, commercial landscape and regulatory environment surrounding the pursuit of RNA-based biocontrol compounds with improved environmental profiles. The commitments of well-established agrochemical companies to invest in research endeavours and the role of start-up companies are crucial for the successful development of practical applications for these compounds. Additionally, the availability of standardized guidelines to tackle regulatory ambiguities surrounding RNA-based biocontrol compounds will help to facilitate the entire commercialization process. Finally, communication to create awareness and public acceptance will be key to the deployment of these compounds. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry.

Assessment of genetically modified maize NK603 x MON810 for renewal of authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-007).

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-007 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (GMO Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application of the herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant genetically modified maize NK603 x MON810. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the events in maize NK603 x MON810 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in the renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-007 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize NK603 x MON810.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87403 for food and feed uses, import and processing, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-BE-2015-125).

Maize MON 87403 was developed to increase ear biomass at early reproductive phase through the expression of a modified AtHB17 gene from Arabidopsis thaliana, encoding a plant transcription factor of the HD-Zip II family. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses did not identify issues requiring assessment for food and feed safety. No statistically significant differences in the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics tested between maize MON 87403 and its conventional counterpart were identified. The compositional analysis of maize MON 87403 did not identify differences that require further assessment. The GMO Panel did not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the AtHB17∆113 protein, as expressed in maize MON 87403. The nutritional value of food and feed derived from maize MON 87403 is not expected to differ from that of food and feed derived from non-genetically modified (GM) maize varieties. Based on the outcome of the studies considered in the comparative analysis and molecular characterisation, the GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87403 is as safe and nutritious as the conventional counterpart and the non-GM maize reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 87403 grains into the environment, maize MON 87403 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 87403. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MON 87403, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

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.

Statement complementing the EFSA Scientific Opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-DE-2011-95) for the placing on the market of genetically modified maize 5307 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection AG taking into consideration an additional toxicological study.

The GMO Panel was previously not in the position to complete the food/feed safety assessment of maize 5307 due to an inadequate 28-day toxicity study necessary for an appropriate assessment of eCry3.1Ab protein. Following a mandate from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed a supplementary 28-day toxicity study in mice on the eCry3.1Ab protein (1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day) to complement its scientific opinion on application EFSA-GMO-DE-2011-95 for the placing on the market of the maize 5307 for food and feed uses, import and processing. The supplementary 28-day toxicity study did not show adverse effects. Taking into account the previous assessment and the new information, the GMO Panel concludes that maize 5307, as assessed in the scientific opinion on application EFSA-GMO-DE-2011-95 (EFSA GMO Panel, 2015) and in the supplementary toxicity study, is as safe and nutritious as its conventional counterpart in the scope of this application.

Assessment of genetically modified maize 4114 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2014-123).

Maize 4114 was developed through Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation to provide protection against certain lepidopteran and coleopteran pests by expression of the Cry1F, Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, and tolerance to the herbicidal active ingredient glufosinate-ammonium by expression of the PAT protein derived from Streptomyces viridochromogenes. The molecular characterisation data did not identify issues requiring assessment for food/feed safety. None of the compositional, agronomic and phenotypic differences identified between maize 4114 and the non-genetically modified (GM) comparator(s) required further assessment. There were no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the newly expressed proteins Cry1F, Cry34Ab1, Cry35Ab1 and PAT, and no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of maize 4114. The nutritional value of food/feed derived from maize 4114 is not expected to differ from that derived from non-GM maize varieties and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize 4114 grains into the environment, maize 4114 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize 4114. The genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel concludes that maize 4114 is as safe as the non-GM comparator(s) and non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of the scope of this application.

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87411 for food and feed uses, import and processing, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2015-124).

Maize MON 87411 was developed to confer resistance to corn rootworms (Diabrotica spp.) by the expression of a modified version of the Bacillus thuringiensis cry3Bb1 gene and a DvSnf7 dsRNA expression cassette, and tolerance to glyphosate-containing herbicides by the expression of a CP4 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (cp4 epsps) gene. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatics analyses did not identify issues requiring assessment for food and feed safety. No statistically significant differences in the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics tested between maize MON 87411 and its conventional counterpart were identified. The compositional analysis of maize MON 87411 did not identify differences that required further assessment except for palmitic acid levels in grains from not treated maize MON 87411. The GMO Panel did not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry3Bb1 and CP4 EPSPS proteins, as expressed in maize MON 87411 and found no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of maize MON 87411. The nutritional impact of maize MON 87411-derived food and feed is expected to be the same as those derived from the conventional counterpart and non-GM commercial reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87411, as described in this application, is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and the 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 MON 87411 grains into the environment, maize MON 87411 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 87411. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87411, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

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.

Technical Note on the quality of DNA sequencing for the molecular characterisation of genetically modified plants.

As part of the risk assessment (RA) requirements for genetically modified (GM) plants, according to Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 and the EFSA guidance on the RA of food and feed from GM plants (EFSA GMO Panel, 2011), applicants need to perform a molecular characterisation of the DNA sequences inserted in the GM plant genome. The European Commission has mandated EFSA to develop a technical note to the applicants on, and checking of, the quality of the methodology, analysis and reporting covering complete sequencing of the insert and flanking regions, insertion site analysis of the GM event, and generational stability and integrity. This Technical Note puts together requirements and recommendations for when DNA sequencing is part of the molecular characterisation of GM plants, in particular for the characterisation of the inserted genetic material at each insertion site and flanking regions, the determination of the copy number of all detectable inserts, and the analysis of the genetic stability of the inserts, when addressed by Sanger sequencing or NGS. This document reflects the current knowledge in scientific-technical methods for generating and verifying, in a standardised manner, DNA sequencing data in the context of RA of GM plants. From 1 October 2018, this Technical Note will replace the JRC guideline of 2016 (updated April 2017) related to the verification and quality assessment of the sequencing of the insert(s) and flanking regions. It does not take into consideration the verification and validation of the detection method which remains under the remit of the JRC.

Assessment of genetically modified maize 1507 × NK603 for renewal of authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-008).

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-008 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Dow AgroSciences LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant, herbicide-tolerant genetically modified maize 1507 × NK603, for food and feed uses, import and processing, excluding cultivation within the EU. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. In conclusion, under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the events in maize 1507 × NK603 considered for renewal are identical to the newly reported 1507 sequence and the NK603 sequence of the originally assessed two-event stack maize, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in the renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-008 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize 1507 × NK603 (EFSA, 2006).

Assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87751 for food and feed uses under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2014-121).

Soybean MON 87751 was developed through Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation to provide protection certain specific lepidopteran pests by the expression of the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses did not identify issues requiring assessment for food and feed safety. None of the compositional, agronomic and phenotypic differences identified between soybean MON 87751 and the conventional counterpart required further assessment. The GMO Panel did not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins as expressed in soybean MON 87751, and found no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of soybean MON 87751. The nutritional impact of soybean MON 87751-derived food and feed is expected to be the same as those derived from the conventional counterpart and non-GM commercial reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean MON 87751, as described in this application, is nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and the non-GM soybean reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food and feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable soybean MON 87751 seeds into the environment, soybean MON 87751 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean MON 87751. In conclusion, soybean MON 87751, 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.

New Biotechnological Tools for the Genetic Improvement of Major Woody Fruit Species.

The improvement of woody fruit species by traditional plant breeding techniques has several limitations mainly caused by their high degree of heterozygosity, the length of their juvenile phase and auto-incompatibility. The development of new biotechnological tools (NBTs), such as RNA interference (RNAi), trans-grafting, cisgenesis/intragenesis, and genome editing tools, like zinc-finger and CRISPR/Cas9, has introduced the possibility of more precise and faster genetic modifications of plants. This aspect is of particular importance for the introduction or modification of specific traits in woody fruit species while maintaining unchanged general characteristics of a selected cultivar. Moreover, some of these new tools give the possibility to obtain transgene-free modified fruit tree genomes, which should increase consumer's acceptance. Over the decades biotechnological tools have undergone rapid development and there is a continuous addition of new and valuable techniques for plant breeders. This makes it possible to create desirable woody fruit varieties in a fast and more efficient way to meet the demand for sustainable agricultural productivity. Although, NBTs have a common goal i.e., precise, fast, and efficient crop improvement, individually they are markedly different in approach and characteristics from each other. In this review we describe in detail their mechanisms and applications for the improvement of fruit trees and consider the relationship between these biotechnological tools and the EU biosafety regulations applied to the plants and products obtained through these techniques.