Plant characterization of genetically modified maize hybrids MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-88Ø17-3, MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-ØØ6Ø3-6, and MON-ØØ6Ø3-6: alternatives for maize production in Mexico

Abstract

Environmental risk assessment (ERA) of genetically modified (GM) crops is a process to evaluate whether the biotechnology trait(s) in a GM crop may result in increased pest potential or harm to the environment. In this analysis, two GM insect-resistant (IR) herbicide-tolerant maize hybrids (MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-88Ø17-3 and MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) and one herbicide-tolerant GM hybrid (MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) were compared with conventional maize hybrids of similar genetic backgrounds. Two sets of studies, Experimental Phase and Pilot Phase, were conducted across five ecological regions (ecoregions) in Mexico during 2009–2013, and data were subject to meta-analysis. Results from the Experimental Phase studies, which were used for ERA, indicated that the three GM hybrids were not different from conventional maize for early stand count, days-to-silking, days-to-anthesis, root lodging, stalk lodging, or final stand count. Statistically significant differences were observed for seedling vigor, ear height, plant height, grain moisture, and grain yield, particularly in the IR hybrids; however, none of these phenotypic differences are expected to contribute to a biological or ecological change that would result in an increased pest potential or ecological risk when cultivating these GM hybrids. Overall, results from the Experimental Phase studies are consistent with those from other world regions, confirming that there are no additional risks compared to conventional maize. Results from Pilot Phase studies indicated that, compared to conventional maize hybrids, no differences were detected for the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics measured on the three GM maize hybrids, with the exception of grain moisture and grain yield in the IR hybrids. Since MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-88Ø17-3 and MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 confer resistance to target insect pests, they are an alternative for farmers in Mexico to protect the crop from insect damage. Additionally, the herbicide tolerance conferred by all three GM hybrids enables more cost-effective weed management.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11248-016-9991-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Transportability of non‐target arthropod field data for the use in environmental risk assessment of genetically modified maize in Northern Mexico

“…It is important that regulators have access to and utilize relevant data produced in one geographical region to support a risk assessment on the crop and trait for another geographical region (Garcia‐Alonso et al., ; Horak et al., ; Roberts, Devos, Raybould, Bigelow, & Gray, ). Several recent reports have provided empirical evidence for when data can be transported from one geographical region to another for the ERA of a GM soya bean (Horak et al., ) and GM maize (Ahmad et al., ; Heredia Díaz et al., ; Nakai et al., ). These studies demonstrate that the environmental safety conclusions from comparative assessments between GM and conventional counterparts are consistent across geographies, including those differing in climate and production practices.…”

“…This data may include tiered approach data, or field data from well‐designed studies conducted for the ERA of the same GM crop, related traits or GM crop/trait combinations where the ecological assessment endpoints (e.g., NTA) are similar. Results from field studies obtained from multiple geographies for GM soya bean (Horak et al., ) and GM maize (Ahmad et al., ; Heredia Díaz et al., ; Nakai, Hoshikawa, Shimono, & Ohsawa, ) demonstrate the utility of generating relevant data that are transportable across geographic regions for the ERA of GM crops. Leveraging existing, relevant ERA data of GM crops across countries will facilitate the efficient use of regulatory data, minimize redundancy and support conclusions with high certainty for assessing potential environmental risk from the commercial release of a GM crop.…”

Transportability of Conclusions From Confined Field Trials: A Case Study Using the Virus Resistant Transgenic Bean Developed in Brazil

“…Only if a specific risk hypothesis is identified for a particular receiving environment, that cannot be addressed by the available information, local CFTs might be required to generate new information. There is published evidence supporting transportability of data generated in different geographies for the ERA of transgenic soybean and maize (Horak et al, 2015;Nakai et al, 2015;Ahmad et al, 2016;Heredia Díaz et al, 2017;Corrales Madrid et al, 2018;Clawson et al, 2019;Matsushita et al, 2020). These publications show that, even when climate and production practices may be different, the environmental safety conclusions from the comparative assessments are consistent across geographies provided that studies are run across a broad range of conditions.…”

“…Based on the premise that “studies conducted in different countries may be relevant and can help risk assessors in making informed safety decisions” ( Garcia-Alonso et al, 2014 ), recent reports support transportability showing that environmental safety conclusions from comparative assessments are consistent across geographies ( Horak et al, 2015 ; Nakai et al, 2015 ; Ahmad et al, 2016 ; Heredia Díaz et al, 2017 ; Corrales Madrid et al, 2018 ; Clawson et al, 2019 ; Matsushita et al, 2020 ).…”

Comparing agronomic and phenotypic plant characteristics between single and stacked events in soybean, maize, and cotton

“…The current regulatory framework considers it essential to assess the risks of stacked products compared to conventional (non-GM) counterparts or commercially available GM/non-GM references in order to gain commercial approval. This is despite numerous publications showing similarity to conventional controls or corresponding single-events products in compositional profile [13][14][15][16][17][18], transgene product levels [19], lack of impact on non-target organisms [20,21], and agronomic performance [11,22,23]. These studies have led to very similar conclusions regarding risk concerns, demonstrating that the combined GM products are no different than either of the single GM events, and not substantially different from conventional comparator/control materials concerning any of the analyzed endpoints.…”