Scientific Opinion on a request from the European Commission for the assessment of the scientific elements put forward by Luxembourg to support the prohibition for the placing on the market of GM potato EH92-527-1 for cultivation purposes in Luxembourg

Tabs

Article
Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms
EFSA Journal
EFSA Journal 2012;10(9):2874 [9 pp.].
doi
10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2874
Panel members at the time of adoption
Salvatore Arpaia, Andrew Nicholas Edmund Birch, Andrew Chesson, Patrick du Jardin, Achim Gathmann, Jürgen Gropp, Lieve Herman, Hilde-Gunn Hoen-Sorteberg, Huw Jones, Jozsef Kiss, Gijs Kleter, Pagona Lagiou, Martinus Lovik, Antoine Messéan, Hanspeter Naegeli, Kaare Magne Nielsen, Jaroslava Ovesna, Joe Perry, Nils Rostoks, Christoph Tebbe.
Acknowledgements

The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Standing Working Group on Molecular Characterisation on GMO Applications and, among these, Sirpa Kärenlampi, for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion, and EFSA staff member Ana Gomes, for the support provided to the development of this EFSA scientific output.

Contact
Type
Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
On request from
European Commission
Question Number
EFSA-Q-2012-00614
Adopted
5 September 2012
Published in the EFSA Journal
20 September 2012
Last Updated
18 October 2012. This version replaces the previous one/s.
Affiliation
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
Note
Abstract

Luxembourg notified to the European Commission its scientific arguments justifying the implementation of a national safeguard measure prohibiting the placing on the market of GM potato EH92-527-1 for cultivation purposes in Luxembourg, after which the European Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess the scientific information supporting the prohibition. Having considered the information package provided by Luxembourg and all relevant scientific publications, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) concluded that: (i) no new data specific to the safety of the nptII gene have been provided; (ii) although bacterial DNA release and development of competence are expected to occur more efficiently in biofilms, the link between resistance in biofilms and cultivation/processing of GM potato EH92-527-1 was not established by Luxembourg, and the main barriers, limiting the transformation frequency of bacterial cells with transgenic plant DNA, remain; (iii) the risk posed by the formation of mosaic structures of aminoglycoside phosphotransferase genes could not be assessed without data documenting the existence of such structures among the existing gene variants, and such data were not provided; (iv) the knowledge gaps and uncertainties highlighted in the Luxembourgeois document and the therapeutic relevance of kanamycin and neomycin have already been considered in the previous EFSA opinion on antibiotic resistance marker genes, and no new information on the safety of nptII gene as present in the GM potato EH92-527-1 has been identified in the scientific literature that would cause the GMO Panel to change its previous conclusions. Therefore, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that no grounds exist to date that would lead to reconsideration of its opinion on GM potato EH92-527-1.

Keywords
GMOs, potato (Solanum tuberosum), EH92-527-1, Amflora, Luxembourg, safeguard clause, human and animal health, Directive 2001/18/EC
Print on demand
Number of Pages
9