Scientific Opinion updating the risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on the genetically modified insect resistant maize MON 810

,

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.3017

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 169 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The immunogenic capacity of the Cry1Ab protein per se is wellknown and it has been described in previous studies (Adel-Patient et al, 2011). This has been previously assessed by the GMO Panel (EFSA GMO Panel, 2012b). Specific IgE antibodies against the purified Cry1Ab protein were observed by Andreassen et al (2015).…”

Section: 5mentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in 2014 from Monsanto Europe S.A.

Birch¹,

Casacuberta²,

Schrijver³

et al. 2016

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

However, as the methodology for insect resistance monitoring remained unchanged compared to previous PMEM reports, the GMO Panel reiterates its previous recommendations for improvement of the insect resistance management plan. The GMO Panel considers that the farmer alert system to report complaints regarding product performance could complement the information obtained from the laboratory bioassays, but encourages the consent holder to provide more information in order to be in a position to appraise its usefulness. The data on general surveillance activities do not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810 cultivation in 2014. The GMO Panel reiterates its previous recommendations to improve the methodology for the analysis of farmer questionnaires and conduct of the literature review in future annual PMEM reports on maize MON 810. The GMO Panel urges the consent holder to consider how to make best use of the information recorded in national registers to optimise sampling for farmer questionnaires, and requests to continue reviewing and discussing relevant scientific publications on possible adverse effects of maize MON 810 on rove beetles. Also, the GMO Panel encourages relevant parties to continue developing a methodological framework to use existing networks in the broader context of environmental monitoring. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 2903/j.efsa.2016.4446 Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-134226 Veröffentlichte VersionOriginally published at: Birch, Nicholas; Casacuberta, Josep; De Schrijver, Adinda; Gathmann, Achim; Gralak, Mikolaj Antoni; Guerche, Philippe; Jones, Huw; Manachini, Barbara; Messéan, Antoine; Naegeli, Hanspeter; Ebbesen Nielsen, Elsa; Nogué, Fabien; Robaglia, Christophe; Rostoks, Nils; Sweet, Jeremy; Tebbe, Christoph; Visioli, Francesco; Wal, Jean-Michel (2016 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made.The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food Safety Authority, an agency of the European Union. The 2014 case-specific monitoring (CSM) dataset on maize MON 810 consists of a survey on compliance with non-Bacillus thuringiensis (non-Bt) refugia in Spain and Portugal, and dose-response and diagnostic dose bioassays to monitor for changes in susceptibility to Cry1Ab in target pests (European and Mediterranean corn borer) collected from Iberian populations. The 2014 PMEM report shows partial non-compliance with the implementation of non-Bt refugia in Spain as observed in previous years. Therefore, the GMO Panel recommends that the consent holder consolidates its efforts to increase the level of compliance, especially in regions of high maize MON 810 uptake, where such compliance is crucial to ensure the effectiveness of the ...

show abstract

Section: 5mentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in 2014 from Monsanto Europe S.A.

Birch¹,

Casacuberta²,

Schrijver³

et al. 2016

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Guerrero et al, 2004;Adel-Patient et al, 2011) and the GMO Panel identified no indications of safety concern in the context of the applications assessed (EFSA GMO Panel, 2012, 2016a. 28 Sprayed once with glufosinate-ammonium-based herbicides and twice with glyphosate.…”

Section: Assessment Of Allergenicity Of the Newly Expressed Proteins 30mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From a broader perspective, the effects on the immune system of Cry proteins, in particular Cry1Ac and Cry1Ab, have been investigated (e.g. Guerrero et al, 2004;Adel-Patient et al, 2011) and the GMO Panel identified no indications of safety concern in the context of the applications assessed (EFSA GMO Panel, 2012, 2016a. A recent study by Torres-Mart ınez et al (2016) involving the Cry1Ac protein was assessed by the GMO Panel.…”

Section: Assessment Of Allergenicity Of the Newly Expressed Proteins 30mentioning

confidence: 99%

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)

Naegeli¹,

Birch²,

Casacuberta³

et al. 2018

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Environmental Analytical and Ecotoxicological Aspects of Bt Maize in the Pannonian Biogeographical Region of the European Union

Székacs

2020

GMOs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific Opinion updating the risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on the genetically modified insect resistant maize MON 810

Cited by 11 publications

References 169 publications

Annual post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in 2014 from Monsanto Europe S.A.

Annual post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in 2014 from Monsanto Europe S.A.

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)

Environmental Analytical and Ecotoxicological Aspects of Bt Maize in the Pannonian Biogeographical Region of the European Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About