Suchergebnisse

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-012 under Regulation (EC) No1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience N.V., the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (GMO Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified oilseed rape T45, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in oilseed rape T45 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in the renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-012 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape T45.

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-009 under Regulation (EC) No1829/2003 from BayerCropScienceN.V., the Panelon Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean A2704-12, for food and feed uses, import and processing, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. In addition, the applicant provided sequence data on the soybean A2704-12 event using material from a commercial variety currently on the market and intended to be marketed in the coming years. The GMO Panelassessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panelconcludes that there is no evidence in the renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-009 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean A2704-12.

The scope of application EFSA-GMO-DE-2016-133 is for food and feed uses, import and processing ofgenetically modified (GM) maize MZHG0JG in the European Union. Maize MZHG0JG was developed toconfer tolerance to the herbicidal active substances glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium. Themolecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feedsafety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositionalcharacteristics tested between maize MZHG0JG and its conventional counterpart needs furtherassessment, except for early stand count (pre-thinning). The GMO Panel does not identify safetyconcerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the mEPSPS and PAT proteins as expressed inmaize MZHG0JG, andfinds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overallallergenicity of maize MZHG0JG. The nutritional impact of food/feed derived from maize MZHG0JG isexpected to be the same as that of food/feed derived from the conventional counterpart andcommercial non-GM maize reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZHG0JG isnutritionally equivalent to and as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize referencevarieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case ofaccidental release of viable maize MZHG0JG grains into the environment, maize MZHG0JG would notraise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reportingintervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZHG0JG. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considersthat maize MZHG0JG, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart andthe tested non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animalhealth and the environmen.

Large efforts are on-going within the EU to prepare the Marine Strategy Framework Directive's (MSFD) assessment of the environmental status of the European seas. This assessment will only be as good as the indicators chosen to monitor the eleven descriptors of good environmental status (GEnS). An objective and transparent framework to determine whether chosen indicators actually support the aims of this policy is, however, not yet in place. Such frameworks are needed to ensure that the limited resources available to this assessment optimize the likelihood of achieving GEnS within collaborating states. Here, we developed a hypothesis-based protocol to evaluate whether candidate indicators meet quality criteria explicit to the MSFD, which the assessment community aspires to. Eight quality criteria are distilled from existing initiatives, and a testing and scoring protocol for each of them is presented. We exemplify its application in three worked examples, covering indicators for three GEnS descriptors (1, 5 and 6), various habitat components (seaweeds, seagrasses, benthic macrofauna and plankton), and assessment regions (Danish, Lithuanian and UK waters). We argue that this framework provides a necessary, transparent and standardized structure to support the comparison of candidate indicators, and the decision-making process leading to indicator selection. Its application could help identify potential limitations in currently available candidate metrics and, in such cases, help focus the development of more adequate indicators. Use of such standardized approaches will facilitate the sharing of knowledge gained across the MSFD parties despite context-specificity across assessment regions, and support the evidence-based management of European seas.

The identification of nursery grounds and other essential fish habitats of exploited stocks is a key requirement for the development of spatial conservation planning aimed at reducing the adverse impact of fishing on the exploited populations and ecosystems. The reduction in juvenile mortality is particularly relevant in the Mediterranean and is considered as one of the main prerequisites for the future sustainability of trawl fisheries. The distribution of nursery areas of 11 important commercial species of demersal fish and shellfish was analysed in the European Union Mediterranean waters using time series of bottom trawl survey data with the aim of identifying the most persistent recruitment areas. A high interspecific spatial overlap between nursery areas was mainly found along the shelf break of many different sectors of the Northern Mediterranean indicating a high potential for the implementation of conservation measures. Overlap of the nursery grounds with existing spatial fisheries management measures and trawl fisheries restricted areas was also investigated. Spatial analyses revealed considerable variation depending on species and associated habitat/depth preferences with increased protection seen in coastal nurseries and minimal protection seen for deeper nurseries (e.g. Parapenaeus longirostris 6%). This is partly attributed to existing environmental policy instruments (e.g. Habitats Directive and Mediterranean Regulation EC 1967/2006) aiming at minimising impacts on coastal priority habitats such as seagrass, coralligenous and maerl beds. The new knowledge on the distribution and persistence of demersal nurseries provided in this study can support the application of spatial conservation measures, such as the designation of no-take Marine Protected Areas in EU Mediterranean waters and their inclusion in a conservation network. The establishment of no-take zones will be consistent with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy applying the ecosystem approach to fisheries management and with the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to maintain or achieve seafloor integrity and good environmental status.