Open AccessAnnual post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in 2015 from Monsanto Europe S.A.
Author(s) -
Naegeli Hanspeter,
Birch Andrew Nicholas,
Casacuberta Josep,
De Schrijver Adinda,
Gralak Mikołaj Antoni,
Guerche Philippe,
Jones Huw,
Manachini Barbara,
Messéan Antoine,
Nielsen Elsa Ebbesen,
Nogué Fabien,
Robaglia Christophe,
Rostoks Nils,
Sweet Jeremy,
Tebbe Christoph,
Visioli Francesco,
Wal JeanMichel,
Álvarez Fernando,
Ardizzone Michele,
Devos Yann,
FernándezDumont Antonio
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
efsa journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.076
H-Index - 97
ISSN - 1831-4732
DOI - 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4805
Subject(s) - european commission , context (archaeology) , microbiology and biotechnology , genetically modified maize , european union , resistance (ecology) , business , agricultural science , genetically modified crops , biology , agronomy , international trade , paleontology , biochemistry , transgene , gene
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority ( GMO Panel) assessed the annual post‐market environmental monitoring ( PMEM ) report for the 2015 growing season of the Cry1Ab‐expressing maize event MON 810 provided by Monsanto Europe S.A. The GMO Panel concludes that the insect resistance monitoring data submitted to EFSA do not indicate a decrease in susceptibility of field Iberian populations of corn borers to the Cry1Ab protein during the 2015 season. However, since the methodology for insect resistance monitoring remained unchanged compared to previous PMEM reports, the GMO Panel reiterates its previous recommendations on resistance monitoring to provide sufficient detection sensitivity. Although the farmer alert system to report complaints about product performance could complement the information obtained from the laboratory bioassays, the GMO Panel is currently not in a position to appraise its usefulness, and therefore encourages the consent holder to provide more information on this complementary resistance monitoring tool. The data on general surveillance (GS) do not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. The GMO Panel reiterates its previous recommendations on the analysis of farmer questionnaires, and advises the consent holder to provide more detailed information on the conducting and reporting of the literature search in future annual PMEM reports. Moreover, the GMO Panel encourages relevant parties to continue developing a methodological framework to use existing networks in the broader context of environmental monitoring. The GMO Panel concludes that the case‐specific monitoring ( CSM ) and GS activities of maize MON 810 as carried out by the consent holder do not provide evidence that would invalidate previous GMO Panel evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810.