Stacking transgenic event DAS‐Ø15Ø7‐1 alters maize composition less than traditional breeding

Abstract

SummaryThe impact of crossing (‘stacking’) genetically modified (GM) events on maize‐grain biochemical composition was compared with the impact of generating nonGM hybrids. The compositional similarity of seven GM stacks containing event DAS‐Ø15Ø7‐1, and their matched nonGM near‐isogenic hybrids (iso‐hybrids) was compared with the compositional similarity of concurrently grown nonGM hybrids and these same iso‐hybrids. Scatter plots were used to visualize comparisons among hybrids and a coefficient of identity (per cent of variation explained by line of identity) was calculated to quantify the relationships within analyte profiles. The composition of GM breeding stacks was more similar to the composition of iso‐hybrids than was the composition of nonGM hybrids. NonGM breeding more strongly influenced crop composition than did transgenesis or stacking of GM events. These findings call into question the value of uniquely requiring composition studies for GM crops, especially for breeding stacks composed of GM events previously found to be compositionally normal.

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.…”

“…equivalence or prediction of the assessed biological parameters when stacks were compared to non-GM materials or singles [17][18][19]. Cerqueira and colleagues reported a study where agronomic characteristics of GM maize products MON 89034 × TC1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9, MON 89034 × TC1507 × NK603, and DAS-40278-9 were evaluated and compared to a non-GM hybrid counterpart control and two commercial non-GM hybrids [22].…”

Risk-Only Assessment of Genetically Engineered Crops Is Risky

“…Although the potentially wider taxonomic sourcing of transgenes could be expected to allow for a greater array of expressed transgene products, the accompanying greater understanding of GE traits and their mechanism makes unexpected effects less likely than those anticipated and observed for non-GE breeding methods [45,[56][57][58]. Likewise, the limited genetic disruption expected and observed for transgenesis, compared with the random mutagenesis that accompanies several non-GE breeding methods, reduces unintended genetic changes in GE crops versus non-GE crops [43].…”

The evolving EU regulatory framework for precision breeding

“…Alternatively, if the best option would be to find a middle way? For the reader who wants to know more about the off-target effects of different breeding techniques, it is recommended to read Filipecki and Malepszy ( 2006 ), Schouten and Jacobsen ( 2007 ), Batista et al ( 2008 ), Zhou et al ( 2012 ), Schnell et al ( 2015 ), Nelson and Gersbach ( 2016 ), Anderson et al ( 2016 ), Batista et al ( 2017 ) and Herman et al ( 2017 ).…”