DOCSLIB.ORG

Monsanto Company Petition (13-290-01P) for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Corn Rootworm-Protected and Glyphosate-Tolerant MON 87411 Maize

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monsanto Company Petition (13-290-01P) for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Corn Rootworm-Protected and Glyphosate-Tolerant MON 87411 Maize Monsanto Company Petition (13-290-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Corn Rootworm-Protected and Glyphosate-Tolerant MON 87411 Maize OECD Unique Identifier: MON-87411-9 Final Environmental Assessment October 2015 Agency Contact Cindy Eck USDA, APHIS, BRS 4700 River Road, Unit 91 Riverdale, MD 20737-1237 Phone: (301) 734-0667 Fax: (301) 734-8910 [email protected] The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326 W Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement or by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. TABLE of CONTENTS PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF PRODUCT ............................................................................... 1 1.3 COORDINATED FRAMEWORK REVIEW FOR MON 87411 MAIZE ............... 2 1.3.1 USDA-APHIS .......................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................ 3 1.3.3 Food and Drug Administration ................................................................. 4 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR APHIS ACTION .................................................. 5 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................. 5 1.5.1 First Opportunity for Public Involvement .................................................. 6 1.5.2 Second Opportunity for Public Involvement ............................................. 6 1.5.3 Public Involvement for Petition AHPIS Petition No. 13-290-01p .............. 7 1.6 ISSUES CONSIDERED ...................................................................................... 8 1.6.1 Summary of Issues .................................................................................. 8 1.6.2 Response to Comments .......................................................................... 9 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT. .............................................................................. 10 2.1 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OF Maize .................................................. 10 2.1.1 Areas and Acreage of Corn Production ................................................. 10 2.1.2 Agronomic Practices: Tillage, Crop Rotation, and Agronomic Inputs…14 2.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................... 22 2.2.1 Soil Quality ............................................................................................ 22 2.2.2 Water Resources ................................................................................... 23 2.2.3 Air Quality.............................................................................................. 26 2.2.4 Climate Change .................................................................................... 27 2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 29 2.3.1 Animal Communities ............................................................................. 29 2.3.2 Plant Communities ................................................................................ 32 2.3.3 Soil Microorganisms .............................................................................. 35 2.3.4 Biological Diversity ................................................................................ 35 2.3.5 Gene Movement .................................................................................... 37 2.4 HUMAN HEALTH ............................................................................................. 38 2.4.1 Public Health ......................................................................................... 39 2.4.2 Worker Health and Safety ..................................................................... 41 2.5 ANIMAL FEED ................................................................................................. 42 2.6 SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES ............................................................................ 44 2.6.1 Domestic Economic Environment .......................................................... 44 2.6.2 Trade Economic Environment ............................................................... 48 3 ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................. 51 3.1 NO ACTION: CONTINUATION AS A REGULATED ARTICLE ........................ 51 3.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: DETERMINATION THAT MON 87411 MAIZE IS NO LONGER A REGULATED ARTICLE ......................................... 51 3.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ........................................................................................... 52 3.3.1 Prohibit Any MON 87411 Maize from Being Released .......................... 52 3.3.2 Approve the Petition in Part ................................................................... 53 3.3.3 Isolation Distance between MON 87411 Maize and Non-GE Corn and Geographical Restrictions ...................................................... 53 3.3.4 Requirement of Testing for MON 87411 Maize ..................................... 53 3.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... 54 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................... 59 4.1 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................. 59 4.2 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OF CORN ................................................... 59 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative: Areas and Acreage of Corn Production .............. 60 4.2.2 Preferred Alternative: Areas and Acreage of Corn Production ............... 60 4.2.3 No Action Alternative: Agronomic Practices—Tillage and Crop Rotation ........................................................................................ 61 4.2.4 Preferred Alternative: Agronomic Practices—Tillage and Crop Rotation ........................................................................................ 61 4.2.5 No Action Alternative: Agronomic Inputs ............................................... 62 4.2.6 Preferred Alternative: Agronomic Inputs ................................................ 62 4.2.7 No-Action Alternative: Organic Corn Farming ........................................ 63 4.2.8 Preferred Alternative: Organic Corn Farming ........................................ 63 4.2.9 No-Action Alternative: Specialty Corn Production .................................. 64 4.2.10 Preferred Alternative: Specialty Corn Production................................... 64 4.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................ 65 4.3.1 No Action Alternative: Soil Quality ......................................................... 65 4.3.2 Preferred Alternative: Soil Quality.......................................................... 66 4.3.3 No Action Alternative: Water Resources................................................ 66 4.3.4 Preferred Alternative: Water Resources ................................................ 67 4.3.5 No Action Alternative: Air Quality ........................................................... 67 4.3.6 Preferred Alternative: Air Quality ........................................................... 68 4.3.7 No Action Alternative: Climate Change ................................................. 68 4.3.8 Preferred Alternative: Climate Change .................................................. 69 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 69 4.4.1 No Action Alternative: Animal Communities .......................................... 69 4.4.2 Preferred Alternative: Animal Communities ........................................... 70 4.4.3 No-Action Alternative: Plant Communities ............................................. 71 4.4.4 Preferred Alternative: Plant Communities .............................................. 72 4.4.5 No Action Alternative: SoilMicroorganisms ............................................ 72 4.4.6 Preferred Alternative: Soil Microorganisms ............................................ 73 4.4.7 No-Action Alternative: Biological Diversity ............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gene Targeting in Plants: 25 Years Later HOLGER PUCHTA* and FRIEDRICH FAUSER
    Int. J. Dev. Biol. 57: 629-637 (2013) doi: 10.1387/ijdb.130194hp www.intjdevbiol.com Gene targeting in plants: 25 years later HOLGER PUCHTA* and FRIEDRICH FAUSER Botanical Institute II, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany ABSTRACT Only five years after the initiation of transgenic research in plants, gene targeting (GT) was achieved for the first time in tobacco. Unfortunately, the frequency of targeted integration via homologous recombination (HR) was so low in comparison to random integration that GT could not be established as a feasible technique in higher plants. It took another 25 years and great effort to develop the knowledge and tools necessary to overcome this challenge, at least for some plant species. In some cases, the overexpression of proteins involved in HR or the use of negative select- able markers improved GT to a certain extent. An effective solution to this problem was developed in 1996, when a sequence-specific endonuclease was used to induce a double-strand break (DSB) at the target locus. Thus, GT frequencies were enhanced dramatically. Thereafter, the main limitation was the absence of tools needed to induce DSBs at specific sites in the genome. Such tools became available with the development of zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), and a breakthrough was achieved in 2005 when ZFNs were used to target a marker gene in tobacco. Subsequently, endogenous loci were targeted in maize, tobacco and Arabidopsis. Recently, our toolbox for genetic engineering has expanded with the addition of more types of site-specific endonucleases, meganucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and the CRISPR/Cas system.
    [Show full text]
  • CRISPR-Cas9-Mediated Efficient Directed Mutagenesis and RAD51
    CRISPR-Cas9-mediated efficient directed mutagenesis and RAD51-dependent and RAD51-independent gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella patens Cécile Collonnier, Aline Epert, Kostlend Mara, François Maclot, Anouchka Guyon-Debast, Florence Charlot, Charles White, Didier Schaefer, Fabien Nogué To cite this version: Cécile Collonnier, Aline Epert, Kostlend Mara, François Maclot, Anouchka Guyon-Debast, et al.. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated efficient directed mutagenesis and RAD51-dependent and RAD51- independent gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella patens. Plant Biotechnology Journal, Wiley, 2017, 15 (1), pp.122 - 131. 10.1111/pbi.12596. inserm-01904879 HAL Id: inserm-01904879 https://www.hal.inserm.fr/inserm-01904879 Submitted on 25 Oct 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License Plant Biotechnology Journal (2017) 15, pp. 122–131 doi: 10.1111/pbi.12596 CRISPR-Cas9-mediated efficient directed mutagenesis and RAD51-dependent and RAD51-independent gene targeting in the moss Physcomitrella
    [Show full text]
  • ES Cell Targeting Handbook
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview of ES Core Facility Introduction Generation of Gene-Targeted ES Cells Karyotyping of Positive ES Clones ES Cell Request Form General Information for the Generation of Targeted Cells Principles of Gene Targeting Requirements for the Design of Targeting Constructs Screening Assay for the Identification of Targeted ES Clones Overview of ES Cell Culture ES Cell Factors Affecting Successful Chimera Production FAQ Overview of ES Core Facility Our Mission The ES Core Facility (ECF) was founded by the NINDS Core Center Grant and was established to benefit the contributors of this proposal. The mission of ECF is to effectively produce ES cell lines with a high probability of germline transmission. Core Service Services provided by the Core for a typical project include: • Provide guidance on the design of targeting construct • Generate targeted ES cell lines for the production of chimeric mice • Karyotyping ES cells to be micro-injected into blastocysts Consultation is available from ECF directors and staff members on the entire procedures of generating gene knock-out mice. Application for Service Prior to the initiation of a project, a brief meeting is generally required between the investigator and ECF facility staff resulting in a mutually acceptable research strategy. This strategy will outline specifics of the project including knockout strategy, KO construct design, screening assays, and other procedural issues relevant to the generation of targeted ES cells. In addition, a completed service application form, signed by the principal investigator and approved by the Core Director, will also be required. The Core Director will prioritize the service requests according to the difficulty of the project and work load.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label, MON 863 X MON 810, 10/10/2008
    lv/ro 12-D9~ _, l UNITEO: ATES ENVIRONMENTJ&4;f,,\/ECTION c. _::NCY· i OCT 1 P 2008. Ms. Margaret Wideman Regulatory Affairs Manager Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd St.· Louis, MO 63167 Dear Ms. Wideman: Subject: Your February 15,2008 Amendment Requests to Remove the Expiration Dates for Yie1dGard, Yie1dGard Plus Com, and MON 88017 x -MONB 810 EPA Registration Nos. 524-489, 524-545, and 524-552 The amendments referred to above, .submitted in connection with registration under section 3(c)(7)(A)ofthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, are acceptable subject to the following comments. 1) For EPA Registration Numbers 524-489,~52*5~r5, and 524-552: ~) The subject plant-incorporated protectant may be combined through conventional breeding with other registered plant-incorporated protectants. that are similarly approved for use in combination, through conventional breeding, with other plant-incorporated protectants to produce inbred com lines and hybrid com varieties with combined pesticidal traits. b) The subject registration will automatically expire on midnight September 30,2010. We are currently unaware of any issues that would preclude a decision to remove the expiration date in the future.. However, due to other statutory priorities, BPPD's review. of the data and information submitted as conditions of registration is ongoing. Therefore, the expiration date is being extended to match that of com rootworm resistant Bt com as an interim measure. c) Refuge requirements do not apply to seed propagation of inbred and hybrid com seed com up to a total of 20,000 acres per county and up to a combined U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 2010
    Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 25, 2010 / Notices 52329 Those persons who are or, may be Dated: August 17, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: required to conduct testing of chemical Jay S. Ellenberger, Jeannine Kausch, Biopesticides and substances under the Federal Food, Acting Director, Field and External Affairs Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), or Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Pesticide Programs, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and [FR Doc. 2010–20842 Filed 8–24–10; 8:45 a.m.] Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). BILLING CODE 6560–50–S Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: B. How Can I Get Copies of this (703) 347–8920; fax number: (703) 305– Document and Other Related ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 0118; e-mail address: Information? AGENCY [email protected]. 1. Docket. EPA has established a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: docket for this action under docket ID [EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0699; FRL–8842–8] number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0001. I. General Information Corn Event MON 863 and MON 863 x Publicly available docket materials are MON 810; Product Cancellation Order A. Does this Action Apply to Me? available either in the electronic docket for Certain Pesticide Registrations at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a available in hard copy, at the Office of AGENCY: Environmental Protection wide range of stakeholders including Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Agency (EPA). environmental, human health, and Public Docket in Rm.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultancy Support for the Analysis of the Impact of GM Crops on UK Farm Profitability
    Consultancy support for the analysis of the impact of GM crops on UK farm profitability Final report Submitted to The Strategy Unit of the Cabinet Office By PG Economics Ltd April 29th 2003 NOTE: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS REPORT ARE THOSE OF PG ECONOMICS, AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE STRATEGY UNIT PG Economics Ltd, Dorchester, Dorset Consultancy support for the impact of GM crops on UK farm profitability Disclaimer A number of different sources of information were used in compiling this report. It also contains some forecasts and estimates. It therefore remains possible that the report contains inaccuracies. The authors do not accept any liability arising from any such errors or omissions and shall not be liable for any loss or damage suffered as a result of any information given in this publication Page: 2 Final report for the SU by PG Economics Ltd Consultancy support for the impact of GM crops on UK farm profitability Table of contents Executive summary.................................................................................................................. 8 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 18 1.1 Objectives.................................................................................................................... 18 1.2 Boundaries of the research............................................................................................ 18 1.3 Methodology ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Event-Specific Method for the Quantitation of Maize Line MON 863 Using Real-Time PCR Validation Report
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL JRC JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMUNITY REFERENCE LABORATORY FOR GM FOOD AND FEED Event-specific method for the quantitation of maize line MON 863 using real-time PCR Validation Report Biotechnology & GMOs Unit Institute for Health and Consumer Protection DG JRC 31 January 2005 Executive Summary The JRC as Community Reference Laboratory (CRL) for the GM Food and Feed (see Regulation EC 1829/2003), in collaboration with the European Network of GMO Laboratories (ENGL), has carried out a collaborative study to assess the performance of a quantitative event-specific method to detect and quantify the MON 863 transformation event in maize flour. The collaborative trial was conducted according to internationally accepted guidelines. Monsanto Company provided the method-specific reagents (primers, probes, reaction master mix), whereas the IRMM/JRC prepared the test samples (GM and non-GM maize flour). The trial involved twelve laboratories from eight European Countries. The results of the collaborative trial have fully met ENGL’s performance requirements and the scientific understanding about satisfactory method performance. Therefore, the JRC as Community Reference Laboratory considers the method validated as fit for the purpose of regulatory compliance. The results of the collaborative study are publicly available under http://gmo-crl.jrc.it/. The method will also be submitted to CEN, the European Standardisation body, to be considered as international standard. Contents 1. INTRODUCTION p. 3 2. LIST of PARTICIPANTS p. 4 3. MATERIAL p. 5 4. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGH p. 6 5. MWTHODS p. 6 - Description of the operational steps p. 6 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegane Z Lovom Se Ne V Zapor Da Regulirati Divjih Svinj
    32 DRUŠTVO ZA OSVOBODITEV ŽIVALI / LETNIK 13, DECEMBER 2016/ BREZPLAČEN IZVOD VEGANE Z LOVOM SE NE V ZAPOR DA REGULIRATI DIVJIH SVINJ Ali imamo pravico ljudem govoriti, da je njihov odnos do živali neprimeren? Lažno poročanje slovenskih medijev KRAVJE Kakšen je v resnici MLEKO položaj veganov v Italiji ? WWW.OSVOBODITEV-ZIVALI.ORG JEZUS SE JE ZAVZEMAL TUDI ZA ŽIVALI, ZATO NAJ BODO VSAJ PRAZNIKI BREZ KLANJA. REHABILITACIJA KRISTUSA POMENI TUDI REHABILITACIJO ODNOSA DO ŽIVALI. Prodajno mesto in sprejem naročil: Multimedijski center Beseda KMALU Tel. 05 901 67 35, GSM 031 325 712 NOVA Tel. 01 505 57 99 ( K naravi d.o.o) KNJIGA! Celovška c. 87, 1000 Ljubljana www.rehabilitacija-kristusa.de Uvodnik Odnos ljudi do drugih živali je pogosto 3 UVODNIK nelogičen. Na eni strani nezdrava obse- 4 ALI IMAMO PRAVICO LJUDEM GOVORITI, DA JE NJIHOV ODNOS DO ŽIVALI NEPRIMEREN? denost s »hišnimi ljubljenčki«, na drugi 6 VEGANE V ZAPOR strani ignorantski odnos do živali, ki so 9 VEGANSKA PREHRANA ZA OTROKE žrtve mesarjev, ribičev in lovcev. Ljudje, 10 LAŽNO POROČANJE SLOVENSKIH MEDIJEV 11 MOJE ŽIVLJENJE NA KMETIJI ki se jim upira misel jesti pse, brez pomi- 13 KRAVE – DEJSTVA IN ZLORABE sleka naročijo teletino. Razlika v odnosu 15 KRAVJE MLEKO ni odvisna le od živalske vrste. Suženjstvo, 18 JE ŽIVALI V PRAVU MOGOČE PRIZNATI KOT OSEBE S SVOJSTVENIMI PRAVICAMI? mučenje in umore podpirajo, dokler se 21 VETERINARSKA AKUPUNKTURA to dogaja daleč od oči. Ko pa so soočeni 24 IZOBRAŽEVANJE ZA POKLIC MESARJA z usodo posameznika, reagirajo drugače. 28 PEGGYJINA POT V SVOBODO 30 6. MEDNARODNA KONFERENCA AKTIVISTOV ZA PRAVICE ŽIVALI V tokratni številki ponovno objavljamo 33 PESMI članke, ki govorijo o pomoči posamezni- 33 VABILO KMETOVALCEM MIROLJUBNEGA KMETIJSTVA ka posamezniku – pujsu, kuncu, kravi.
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Efficient Transient Gene Expression and Gene Targeting in Primate Embryonic Stem Cells with Helper-Dependent Adenoviral Vectors
    Highly efficient transient gene expression and gene targeting in primate embryonic stem cells with helper-dependent adenoviral vectors Keiichiro Suzuki*, Kaoru Mitsui*, Emi Aizawa*, Kouichi Hasegawa†‡, Eihachiro Kawase§, Toshiyuki Yamagishi¶, Yoshihiko Shimizuʈ, Hirofumi Suemori†, Norio Nakatsuji§**, and Kohnosuke Mitani*†† *Division of Gene Therapy, Research Center for Genomic Medicine, ¶Department of Anatomy and ʈDepartment of Pathology, Saitama Medical University, Hidaka, Saitama 350-1241, Japan; and †Laboratory of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research Center and §Department of Development and Differentiation, Institute for Frontier Medical Sciences, and **Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan Communicated by C. Thomas Caskey, University of TexasϪHouston Health Science Center, Houston, TX, July 23, 2008 (received for review April 18, 2008) Human embryonic stem (hES) cells are regarded as a potentially gene expression in Ϸ100% of cells have not been established (9, unlimited source of cellular materials for regenerative medicine. 10). Furthermore, unlike mES cells, in which gene targeting via For biological studies and clinical applications using primate ES HR has been used routinely with great success, there are few cells, the development of a general strategy to obtain efficient studies using gene targeting in hES cells (11–17). Gene targeting gene delivery and genetic manipulation, especially gene targeting study in nonhuman primate ES cells has not yet been reported. via homologous recombination (HR), would be of paramount Although three investigative groups have reported that HPRT1 importance. However, unlike mouse ES (mES) cells, efficient strat- gene targeting was achieved in hES cells by using electroporation egies for transient gene delivery and HR in hES cells have not been (11, 12, 17), the frequencies of HR were extremely low at Ϸ1 ϫ established.
    [Show full text]
  • 04 12501P Com.Pdf
    APHIS’ Analysis and Response to Comments Received on Petition 04-125-01p and the EA A total of nineteen comments were submitted during the designated 60 day comment period. Eight comments submitted were in favor of deregulation of MON 88017. Four of these eight submissions were from state corn grower associations. All four state corn grower associations cited corn rootworm (CRW) as a significant pest in their respective states, and embraced any technology that helps to improve corn productivity. A university professional wrote in support of MON 88017 because it provides root protection equivalent to the granular insecticide FORCE 3G (pyrethroid type insecticide) in heavily CRW-infested soil. Another university professional wrote in support of MON 88017 and also noted the efficacy of rootworm control compared to conventional insecticide treatment. She also discussed the tangible risk to non-target species and to humans with conventional insecticides and noted that many corn producers can recount a personal experience of insecticide poisoning often due to the handling of soil insecticide. She stated that MON 88017 will play a continuing role in decreasing the use of broad-spectrum organophosphates and pyrethroid insecticides. Another university professional wrote in support of MON 88017 citing it as a “valuable pest management tactic” that not only reduces soil insecticide load, but will also decrease herbicides that leach into the ground water because of decreased use of both herbicides with high residual activity and toxic insecticides such as certain organophosates during crop growth. APHIS agrees with the above comments. A veterinarian wrote in favor of MON 88017 and also responded to issues in comments in opposition to deregulation of MON 88017.
    [Show full text]
  • Gene Targeting in Plants
    The EMBO Journal vol.7 no.13 pp.4021 -4026, 1988 Gene targeting in plants Jerzy Paszkowski, Markus Baur, Although integration of transforming DNA into the Augustyn Bogucki and Ingo Potrykus homologous chromosomal DNA occurs efficiently in yeast, other fungi and Dictyostelium discoideum (Hinnen et al., Friedrich Miescher Institut, PO Box 2543, CH4002 Basel, 1978; De Lozanne et al., 1987; Miller et al., 1987), Switzerland non-homologous ('illegitimate') integration of foreign DNA Present address: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute of into the genome of higher eukaryotic cells makes it difficult Plant Sciences, ETH-Zentrum, Universitatstrasse 2, CH-8092 Zurich, to assay the frequency of gene targeting to a desired locus. Switzerland Only recently has the application of selection (Lin et al., Communicated by J.-D.Rochaix 1985; Thomas et al., 1986; Doetschman et al., 1987; Song et al., 1987; Thomas and Capecchi, 1987) and screening Although the generation of transgenic plants is now (Smithies et al., 1985) systems allowed comparison of the routine, the integration of foreign genetic information has frequencies of homologous and illegitimate integration of so far been at random sites in the genome. We now transformed DNA in cultured mammalian cells. In plants present evidence for directed integration into a predicted the high transformation frequencies reported for DNA location in the host plant genome. Protoplasts of molecules with no homology to the plant genome (Shillito transgenic tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) plants carrying et al., 1985; Negrutiu et al., 1987) indicate efficient copies of a partial, non-functional drug-resistance gene illegitimate integration. Therefore, the detection of gene in the nuclear DNA were used as recipients for DNA targeting through homologous DNA recombination requires molecules containing the missing part of the gene.
    [Show full text]
  • National Biosafety Committee Opinion on an Application by CHI Farm
    National Biosafety Committee opinion on an application by CHI Farm Limited for the placing on the market of genetically modified soybean for food or feed import and processing for the import and Export of GM Maize containing events, MON 863 (insects resistance) DAS-40278-9 (to contain detoxifies 2, 4 –D herbicide) MON 863 X MON810 X NK603 ( Cry 1Ab confers resistance to lepidopteran) (cry 3Bb1: confers resistance to coleopteran and cp4 epsps (glyphosate herbicide tolerance), MON 8934 X NK603 (cp4 epsps (glyphosate herbicide tolerance), ( Cry 1A confers resistance to lepidopteran insect) and ( Cry 1Ab2 (confers resistance to lepidopteran insect) Policy Framework • To ensure safety to human health and the environment taking into consideration food security General Assumptions and Monitoring plans for all products • The NBC in expressing these opinions has relied heavily on previous positive reviews of risk assessment for these products in the USA and Canada and especially from European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as well as on the long history of safe use. • The scientific assessment of this product included molecular characterization of the inserted DNA and expression of the new protein. A comparative analysis of agronomic traits and composition was undertaken and the safety of the newly expressed protein and the whole food/feed was evaluated with respect to potential toxicity, allergenicity and nutritional quality. An assessment of environmental impacts and the post-market environmental monitoring plan were undertaken. • The monitoring plan and reporting intervals were in line with the intended uses. MON 863 (insect resistance) Molecular Characterization MON 863 maize was developed to provide protection against certain coleopteran pests, principally corn rootworm (Diabrotica spp.) by the introduction of a variant Bacillus thuringiensis cry3Bb1 gene expressing an insecticidal protein.
    [Show full text]