EFSA GMO Panel Research Articles

Statement complementing the EFSA Scientific Opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-NL-2015-126) for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788.

Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to the application for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified soybean MON × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (EFSA-GMO-NL-2015-126). The applicant conducted a 90-day feeding study on GM soybean MON 87705 and provided a proposal for post-market monitoring considering the altered fatty acid profile of GM soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, to fulfil the deficiencies identified by EFSA GMO Panel, addressing elements that remained inconclusive from a previous EFSA scientific opinion issued in 2020. The GMO Panel concludes that the 90-day feeding study on GM soybean MON 87705 is in line with the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 and that no treatment-related adverse effects were observed in rats after feeding diets containing soybean MON 87705 meals at 30% or 15% for 90 days. The GMO Panel reiterates the recommendation for a PMM for food in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 and concludes that the proposal provided by the applicant is in line with the recommendations described for the PMM plan of soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 in the adopted scientific opinion. Taking into account the previous assessment and the new information, the GMO Panel concludes that soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, as assessed in the scientific opinion on application EFSA-GMO-NL-2015-126 and in the supplementary toxicity study, is as safe as its non-GM comparator and the non-GM reference varieties tested and does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals, within the scope of this application.

Safety of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii as a food additive.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii as a food additive in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The proposed food additive, LegH Prep, is intended to be used as a colour in meat analogue products. The yeast Komagataella phaffii strain MXY0541 has been genetically modified to produce soy leghemoglobin; the safety of the genetic modification is under assessment by the EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-162). The amount of haem iron provided by soy leghemoglobin from its proposed uses in meat analogue products is comparable to that provided by similar amounts of different types of meat. The exposure to iron from the proposed food additive, both at the mean and 95th percentile exposure, will be below the 'safe levels of intake' established by the NDA Panel for all population groups. Considering that the components of the proposed food additive will be digested to small peptide, amino acids and haem B; the recipient (non GM) strain qualifies for qualified presumption of safety status; no genotoxicity concern has been identified and no adverse effects have been identified at the highest dose tested in the available toxicological studies, the Panel concluded that there was no need to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that the food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use in food category 12.9 and maximum use level. The Panel concluded that the use of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii MXY0541 as a new food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use and use level. This safety evaluation of the proposed food additive remains provisional subject to the ongoing safety assessment of the genetic modification of the production strain by the GMO Panel (EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-162).

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. This Technical Note to the applicants puts together requirements and recommendations for the quality assessment of the methodology, analysis and reporting when DNA sequencing is used for the molecular characterisation of GM plants. In particular, it applies to the use of Sanger sequencing and next-generation sequencing for the characterisation of the inserted genetic material and its flanking regions at each insertion site, the determination of the copy number of all detectable inserts and the analysis of the genetic stability of the inserts. This updated document replaces the EFSA 2018 Technical Note and 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. It does not take into consideration the verification and validation of the detection method which remains under the remit of the Joint Research Centre (JRC).

Risk assessment of additional information on maize MIR162

The European Commission requested the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA GMO Panel) to assess new scientific information on maize MIR162, and to indicate whether the previous conclusions on the safety of maize MIR162 as a single event and as a part of stacked events remain valid. The new information is included in a European patent that reports a decrease in male fertility in some MIR162 inbred lines, pointing to a potential link between such decrease and the Vip3 protein expressed by maize MIR162. The EFSA GMO Panel evaluated the data provided by the patent owner and found scarce support for a causal link between Vip3 and decreased fertility. The general hypothesis of an association between event MIR162 and altered fertility could not be confirmed. The EFSA GMO Panel conducted the safety assessment based on the conservative assumption that such an association exists. The EFSA GMO Panel concluded that a decrease in male fertility would have no impact on the previous conclusions on maize MIR162 and stacked events containing MIR162.

Animal dietary exposure in the risk assessment of feed derived from genetically modified plants.

EFSA carries out the risk assessment of genetically modified plants for food and feed uses under Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. Exposure assessment - anticipated intake/extend of use shall be an essential element of the risk assessment of genetically modified feeds, as required by Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. Estimates of animal dietary exposure to newly expressed proteins should be determined to cover average consumption across all the different species, age, physiological and productive phases of farmed and companion animals, and identify and consider particular consumer groups with expected higher exposure. This statement is aimed at facilitating the reporting of the information that applicants need to provide on expected animal dietary exposure to newly expressed proteins and to increase harmonisation of the application dossiers to be assessed by the EFSA GMO Panel. Advice is provided on the selection of proper feed consumption and feed concentration data, and on the reporting of exposure's estimates. An overview of the different uncertainties that may be linked to the estimations is provided. This statement also explains how to access an Excel calculator which should be used in future applications as basis to provide a more consistent presentation of estimates of expected animal dietary exposure.

Updated scientific opinion on plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis.

In 2012, EFSA issued an opinion on plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis. With the development of New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) in the last decade, cisgenic and intragenic plants can now be obtained with the insertion of a desired sequence in a precise location of the genome. EFSA has been requested by European Commission to provide an updated scientific opinion on the safety and the risk assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis, in order to (i) identify potential risks, comparing them with those posed by plants obtained by conventional breeding and Established Genomic Techniques (EGTs) and (ii) to determine the applicability of current guidelines for the risk assessment of cisgenic and intragenic plants. The conclusions of the previous EFSA opinion were reviewed, taking into consideration the new guidelines and the recent literature. The GMO panel concludes that no new risks are identified in cisgenic and intragenic plants obtained with NGTs, as compared with those already considered for plants obtained with conventional breeding and EGTs. There are no new data since the publication of the 2012 EFSA opinion that would challenge the conclusions raised in that document. The conclusions of the EFSA 2012 Scientific Opinion remain valid. The EFSA GMO Panel reiterates from these conclusions that with respect to the source of DNA and the safety of the gene product, the hazards arising from the use of a related plant‐derived gene by cisgenesis are similar to those from conventional plant breeding, whereas additional hazards may arise for intragenic plants. Furthermore, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that cisgenesis and intragenesis make use of the same transformation techniques as transgenesis, and therefore, with respect to the alterations to the host genome, cisgenic, intragenic and transgenic plants obtained by random insertion do not cause different hazards. Compared to that, the use of NGTs reduces the risks associated with potential unintended modifications of the host genome. Thus, fewer requirements may be needed for the assessment of cisgenic and intragenic plants obtained through NGTs, due to site‐directed integration of the added genetic material. Moreover, the GMO panel concludes that the current guidelines are partially applicable and sufficient. On a case‐by‐case basis, a lesser amount of data might be needed for the risk assessment of cisgenic or intragenic plants obtained through NGTs.

Risk assessment of a new bioinformatics evaluation of the insertion sites of genetically modified soybean event 40-3-2.

Genetically modified (GM) soybean 40‐3‐2 expresses a 5‐enolpyruvylshikimate‐3‐phosphate synthase protein from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS), which confers tolerance to glyphosate. This event was previously assessed by the GMO Panel as a single event and as part of a two‐event stack and was found to be as safe as its conventional counterparts and other appropriate comparators with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. On September 2021, the European Commission requested EFSA to evaluate a new bioinformatics study which revealed predicted genomic deletions at the insertion sites using the available soybean reference genome. Considering the variability of the soybean genome, with a number of structural variants such as presence/absence variants and copy number variants including genic regions, as well as the fact that a number of genes are present only in particular varieties, the GMO Panel concludes that comparing only to the reference genome does not allow to conclude that the transformation event resulted in gene loss. In support of this, the transcriptomic analysis did not show major differences in gene expression when comparing the soybean 40‐3‐2 with the most closely related conventional variety, indicating that the genetic redundancy may compensate for the potential gene loss. Moreover, the composition, phenotypic and agronomic analyses already assessed by the GMO Panel in previous opinions did not show differences between soybean 40‐3‐2 and its comparators suggesting that the potential gene loss may not have a significant phenotypic effect in soybean 40‐3‐2. For these reasons, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that the new information provided by the applicant on soybean 40‐3‐2 does not alter EFSA's previous conclusions.

Workshop on allergenicity assessment – prediction

An online workshop on allergenicity assessment, held on the 15th-16th of June 2021, was organised by the Allergenicity Working Group of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (EFSA GMO Panel). The aim of the workshop was to set the scene on the current state-of-the-art in the science of allergenicity assessment and to define what specific elements of such assessment need to be developed to move forward a field still in its infancy. The formulation of specific research requirements for allergenicity assessment and protein safety in general is urgently needed in a world that demands more sustainable food systems. The outcome of the workshop will guide the EFSA GMO Panel in the preparation of a Scientific Opinion focused on 1) improving the allergenicity risk assessment for products derived from biotechnology, 2) defining knowledge gaps, 3) determining how new basic research findings and technological developments can improve the current risk assessment methodology, and 4) prioritizing basic research funding, amongst others. Collaboration and engagement with stakeholders, academia and the scientific international community at large will be encouraged. The overall conclusion from the workshop was that science policy makers and the community overall should prioritize and dedicate more future resources to this topic. Our society demands innovative foods, which will strongly challenge the current allergenicity assessment paradigm, and it is the responsibility of risk assessors to make sure that we are ready for the future.

Pollen supplements and substitutes in the EU feed market: a product/market survey for bees and other animal species

A survey to overview the presence of pollen supplements and substitutes for bees and other animal species in the EU was conducted to serve as input for the regulatory risk assessment of genetically modified feed by the EFSA GMO Panel. A comprehensive mapping of the possible presence of pollen collected by honey bees in the feed supply chain requires an understanding of the production in the EU as well as the flow of imports from non-EU to EU countries. The different uses of pollen as feed supplement were compiled by both identifying products being offered as well as the scientific and grey literature describing the applicability of pollen as feed for invertebrates such as honey bees and bumble bees as well as vertebrates ranging from pond fish, pet birds and chickens, rabbits, dogs, horses, camels, sheep and cows. The use of pollen as feed for managed honey bee colonies was identified, but rarely in commercial products due to the potential risk of spreading bee diseases. Significant quantities of frozen pollen were found necessary for the rearing of bumble bee colonies, which are marketed on an industrial scale for pollination. Bumble bee production is the only niche market where large amounts of pollen are specifically used as feed. Feed products for vertebrates tend to be generated from the same stock as pollen-based products for human consumption. This niche market is very fragmented. Any beekeeper can produce and market a pollen-based product. Only a few large specialized producers have been identified both in and outside the EU. The ratio between food and feed use of pollen is unknown in most cases. A notable exception is feed for bumble bee colonies, which may account for half of the pollen produced and imported in the EU. Products for other animals (vertebrates) are unlikely to represent more than 5% of the market. The customs classification for pollen does not allow for a clear distinction between food and feed and no statistics are being systematically stored and maintained.

Report on EFSA project OC/EFSA/GMO/2017/01 “In vitro protein digestibility” (Allergestion)

The primary objective of the assessment of novel proteins is to evaluate whether they are safe to consume, including potential allergenicity. As part of a suite of assessments, the in vitro digestion of protein has been seen as a useful exercise. Thus, in line with the guidance offered by the EFSA GMO Panel we are using an early phase and a late phase gastric simulation as well as a simulation of the infant gastric compartment, all followed by intestinal phases. These digestion scenarios were used with a panel of 10 proteins from plant and animal origin that were proteins with distinct allergenic potential. The results from the SDS‐PAGE and densitometry show significant and mainly expected differences between the different digestion scenarios. The milk proteins were fully digested in the intestinal phase but the BLG was largely resistant to pepsin. In contrast, the egg proteins showed significant persistence except under late phase conditions. For the plant proteins, KTI and ConA were largely resistant to all conditions whereas LIP and AP were only resistant to infant conditions. Similarly, Ara h 1 showed some resistance to infant gastric conditions. The LC‐MS analysis of peptides was able to highlight a number of clusters where differences were seen between the digestion scenarios and these could in some cases be mapped onto the primary sequence and where relevant compared with known allergenic epitopes. Under the different digestion scenarios, we were able to show significant differences in the persistence of peptides larger than 9 amino acids and significant overlap of abundant peptides from early phase intestinal digestion and known epitopes for a number of proteins. Although, linking these differences to immunological responses (epitope mapping) still seems to be quite challenging, there are clear differences between scenarios and strong potential for improved risk assessment.

The relevance of a digestibility evaluation in the allergenicity risk assessment of novel proteins. Opinion of a joint initiative of COST action ImpARAS and COST action INFOGEST

The current allergenicity assessment of novel proteins is based on the EFSA GMO guidance. Recently, EFSA launched a new guidance document on allergenicity assessment of GM plants (2017). This document describes, amongst other topics, the new scientific and regulatory developments on in vitro protein digestibility tests. The EFSA GMO Panel stated that for in vitro protein digestibility tests, additional investigations are needed before any additional recommendation in the form of guidance can be provided. To this end, an interim phase is considered necessary to evaluate the revisions to the in vitro gastrointestinal digestion test, proposed by EFSA. This prompted the establishment of a joint workshop through two COST Action networks: COST Action ImpARAS and COST Acton INFOGEST. In 2017, a workshop was organised to discuss the relevance of digestion in allergenicity risk assessment and how to potentially improve the current methods and readouts. The outcome of the workshop is that there is no rationale for a clear readout that is predictive for allergenicity and we suggest to omit the digestion test from the allergenicity assessment strategy for now, and put an effort into filling the knowledge gaps as summarized in this paper first.

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.

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) No1829/2003 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 cotton GHB614×LLCotton25×MON15985 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No1829/2003 (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.

Relevance of a new scientific publication (Mesnage et al., 2016†) on previous EFSA GMO Panel conclusions on the risk assessment of maize NK603

Relevance of a new scientific publication (Mesnage et al., 2016†) on previous EFSA GMO Panel conclusions on the risk assessment of maize NK603

Guidance on allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants.

This document provides supplementary guidance on specific topics for the allergenicity risk assessment of genetically modified plants. In particular, it supplements general recommendations outlined in previous EFSA GMO Panel guidelines and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. The topics addressed are non‐IgE‐mediated adverse immune reactions to foods, in vitro protein digestibility tests and endogenous allergenicity. New scientific and regulatory developments regarding these three topics are described in this document. Considerations on the practical implementation of those developments in the risk assessment of genetically modified plants are discussed and recommended, where appropriate.

Scientific Opinion on an application by DOW AgroSciences LLC (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2010‐89) for placing on the market the genetically modified herbicide‐tolerant maize DAS‐40278‐9 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

Maize DAS-40278-9 was developed by direct Whiskers-mediated transformation to express the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-1 (AAD-1) protein, conferring tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) herbicides. The molecular characterisation of maize DAS-40278-9 did not raise safety issues. The agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics of maize DAS-40278-9 tested under field conditions revealed no differences between maize DAS-40278-9 and its non-genetically modified (GM) comparator that would give rise to food and feed or environmental safety concerns. There were no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the newly expressed protein AAD-1, and no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of maize DAS-40278-9. The nutritional characteristics of maize DAS-40278-9 are not expected to differ from those of non-GM maize varieties and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. Maize DAS-40278-9 is as nutritious as its non-GM comparator and other non-GM commercial varieties. There are no indications of an increased likelihood of establishment and spread of occasional feral maize DAS-40278-9 plants, unless these plants are exposed to the intended herbicides. However, this will not result in different environmental impacts compared to conventional maize. Considering the scope of the application, interactions with the biotic and abiotic environment were not considered an issue. Risks associated with the unlikely but theoretically possible horizontal gene transfer from maize DAS-40278-9 to bacteria were not identified. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the scope of the application. In conclusion, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that the information available for maize DAS-40278-9 addresses the scientific comments raised by the Member States and that maize DAS-40278-9, as described in this application, is as safe as the non-GM comparator and non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of the scope of this application.

Scientific opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-NL-2011-96) for the placing on the market of genetically modified insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant cotton GHB119, for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Baye

Cotton GHB119 was developed by Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation. It expresses the Cry2Ae and phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) proteins which, respectively, confer resistance to certain lepidopteran species and tolerance to glufosinate ammonium-based herbicides. The molecular characterisation of cotton GHB119 did not give rise to safety issues. The agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics of cotton GHB119 tested under field conditions revealed no relevant differences between cotton GHB119 and its conventional counterpart that would give rise to any food and feed or environmental safety concern. There were no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the newly expressed proteins Cry2Ae and PAT, and no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of cotton GHB119. The nutritional characteristics of cotton GHB119 are not expected to differ from those of non-GM cotton varieties. There are no indications of an increased likelihood of establishment and spread of feral cotton GHB119 plants. Considering the scope of this application, interactions with the biotic and abiotic environment were not considered to be an issue. Risks associated with an unlikely but theoretically possible horizontal gene transfer from cotton GHB119 to bacteria have not been identified. The monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the scope of the application. In conclusion, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that the information available for cotton GHB119 addresses the scientific comments raised by the Member States and that cotton GHB119, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of the scope of this application.

Scientific Opinion on an application by Syngenta (EFSA‐GMO‐DE‐2011‐99) for the placing on the market of maize Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21 and twenty subcombinations, which have not been authorised previously independently of their origin, for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

In this opinion, the EFSA GMO Panel assesses the five-event stack maize and 20 of its subcombinations independently of their origin. The EFSA GMO Panel has previously assessed the five single events that are combined to produce this five-event stack maize Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21 and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events, leading to a modification of the original conclusions on their safety, were identified. The molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional data on the five-event stack maize did not give rise to safety concerns and there is no reason to expect interactions between the single events impacting on the food and feed safety of the five-event stack maize. Considering the scope of the application (no cultivation), routes of exposure and limited exposure levels, the Panel concludes that this five-event stack maize would not raise safety concerns in the event of accidental release of viable grains into the environment. The EFSA GMO Panel concludes that the five-event stack maize is as safe and as nutritious as its conventional counterpart in the context of its scope. For the 20 subcombinations, the EFSA GMO Panel followed a weight-of-evidence approach, and concluded that they are expected to be as safe as the five-event stack maize. No specific data were submitted for the subcombinations included in the scope of this application that could be produced by conventional crossing through targeted breeding approaches. In order to reduce the consequent uncertainties and to confirm assumptions made for their assessment, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that the applicant should provide relevant information, if these subcombinations were to be created via targeted breeding approaches and imported into the EU in the future. In this case, this information should focus on expression levels of the newly expressed proteins. A minority opinion expressed by an EFSA GMO Panel member is appended to this opinion.

Scientific Opinion on an application by Syngenta (EFSA‐GMO‐DE‐2009‐66) for placing on the market of herbicide tolerant and insect resistant maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21 and subcombinations independently of their origin for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

The EFSA GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events combined to produce a four-event stack maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21 and did not identify safety concerns. In this opinion, the EFSA GMO Panel assesses the four-event stack maize and all its subcombinations independently of their origin. No new data on the single events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety, were identified. The molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional data on the four-event stack maize did not give rise to safety concerns and there is no reason to expect interactions between the single events impacting on the food and feed safety of the four-event stack maize. Considering the routes of exposure and limited exposure levels, the Panel concludes that this four-event stack maize would not raise safety concerns in the event of accidental release of viable grains into the environment. The EFSA GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack maize is as safe and as nutritious as its conventional counterpart in the context of its scope. Among the 10 subcombinations, four have been assessed previously and no safety concerns were identified. For the remaining six subcombinations, the EFSA GMO Panel followed a weight-of-evidence approach, and concluded they are expected to be as safe as the four-event stack maize. For some subcombinations that could be produced by conventional crossing through targeted breeding approaches, little or no specific data were submitted, giving rise to uncertainties due to data gaps. To reduce these uncertainties and to confirm assumptions made for the assessment of these subcombinations, the EFSA GMO Panel recommends that the applicant collate relevant information, if these subcombinations were to be created via targeted breeding approaches and commercialised in the future. In this case, this information should focus on expression levels of the newly expressed proteins.