EFSA Journal (May 2018)

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

  • EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO),
  • Hanspeter Naegeli,
  • Andrew Nicholas Birch,
  • Josep Casacuberta,
  • Adinda De Schrijver,
  • Mikołaj Antoni Gralak,
  • Philippe Guerche,
  • Huw Jones,
  • Barbara Manachini,
  • Antoine Messéan,
  • Elsa Ebbesen Nielsen,
  • Fabien Nogué,
  • Christophe Robaglia,
  • Nils Rostoks,
  • Jeremy Sweet,
  • Christoph Tebbe,
  • Francesco Visioli,
  • Jean‐Michel Wal,
  • Fernando Àlvarez,
  • Michele Ardizzone,
  • Konstantinos Paraskevopoulos,
  • Hermann Broll,
  • Yann Devos,
  • Antonio Fernandez Dumont,
  • Jose Ángel Gómez Ruiz,
  • Anna Lanzoni,
  • Franco Maria Neri,
  • Irina Olaru,
  • Nikoletta Papadopoulou

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5280
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 5
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract 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.

Keywords