TABLE 3.

Outcome of the comparative compositional analysis of forage and grain of maize DP915635. The table shows the number of endpoints in each category.

		Test of difference a
		Not treated c		Treated c
		Not different	Significantly different	Not different	Significantly different
Test of equivalence b	Category I/II	62	8 d	58	10 d
	Category III/IV	–	–	1 e	1 f
	Not categorised	–	–	–	–
	Total endpoints	70		70

^a Comparison between maize DP915635 and its comparator.

^b Four different outcomes: category I (indicating full equivalence to the non‐GM reference varieties); category II (equivalence is more likely than non‐equivalence); category III (non‐equivalence is more likely than equivalence); and category IV (indicating non‐equivalence). Not categorised means that the test of equivalence was not applied because of the lack of variation among the non‐GM reference varieties.

^c Treated/not treated with the intended herbicides.

^d Endpoints with significant differences between maize DP915635 and its comparator and falling under equivalence category I–II. For forage, none. For grains, not treated only: oleic acid (C18:1), linoleic acid (C18:2), eicosenoic acid (C20:1), pyridoxine; treated only: NDF, calcium, iron, pantothenic acid, p‐coumaric acid, inositol; both treated and not treated: palmitoleic acid (C16:1), stearic acid (C18:0), lignoceric acid (C24:0), methionine.

^e Endpoint with no significant differences between maize DP915635 and its comparator and falling under equivalence category III: carbohydrates (in forage, treated only).

^f Endpoint with significant differences between maize DP915635 and its comparator and falling in equivalence category III/IV: crude protein (in forage, treated only). Quantitative results for this endpoint are reported in Table 7.