Skip to main content
NCBI home page
EFSA Journal logoLink to EFSA Journal
. 2010 Jun 15;8(6):1644. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1644

Scientific Opinion on application (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2005‐16) for the placing on the market of insect resistant genetically modified cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Dow AgroSciences

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)
PMCID: PMC13085191  PMID: 42006967

Abstract

This scientific opinion reports an evaluation of a risk assessment for placing on the market of insect resistant genetically modified (GM) cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 (Unique Identifier DAS‐24236‐5 × DAS‐21Ø23‐5) for food and feed uses, import and processing. The GM cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 has been produced by conventional crossing between lines of the single cotton events 281‐24‐236 and 3006‐210‐23. The cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 expresses combined traits encoded by cry1F in event 281‐24‐236 and by cry1Ac in event 3006‐210‐23, both genes conferring resistance to certain lepidopteran pests. Both single events contain pat genes used as a selectable marker. The structure of the inserts in the single cotton events was retained in the stack 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23. Expression levels of Cry1Ac, Cry1F and PAT proteins were demonstrated to be comparable to those of the respective single events. The results of comparative analyses indicated that cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 and its respective single events are compositionally, agronomically and phenotypically equivalent to its conventional counterpart, except for the expression of Cry1Ac, Cry1F and PAT proteins. The safety assessment identified no concerns regarding toxicity and allergenicity of cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23. A feeding study on broiler chickens confirmed the nutritional equivalence of this GM cotton to its conventional counterpart and two commercial non‐GM cotton varieties. The intended uses of cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 exclude cultivation within the European Union. The environmental risk assessment is therefore restricted to the indirect exposure through manure and faeces mainly from animals fed with cotton products of 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 and with the accidental release into the environment of cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 grains during transportation and processing. There are no indications of increased likelihood of establishment or survival of feral cotton plants. If accidental spillage and subsequent release into the environment of cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 seeds occur, cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 plants would have a selective advantage only under infestation of target pest species or in presence of glufosinate‐ammonium herbicides, which are not commonly used on cultivated cotton or in most areas where the GM cotton might be spilled. In conclusion, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that information available for cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 addresses the scientific comments raised by Member States and that the cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 as described in this application is as safe as its conventional counterpart and other appropriate comparators with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of its intended uses. The EFSA GMO Panel concludes that cotton 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health and the environment, in the context of its intended uses.

Keywords: GMO, cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), 281‐24‐236, 3006‐210‐23, 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23, insect resistant, risk assessment, food and feed safety, environment, import and processing, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) ; Scientific Opinion on application (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2005‐16) for the placing on the market of insect resistant genetically modified cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) 281‐24‐236/3006‐210‐23 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Dow AgroSciences. EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1644. [32 pp.]. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1644

Panel members: Hans Christer Andersson, Salvatore Arpaia, Detlef Bartsch, Josep Casacuberta, Howard Davies, Patrick du Jardin, Gerhard Flachowsky, Lieve Herman, Huw Jones, Sirpa Kärenlampi, Jozsef Kiss, Gijs Kleter, Harry Kuiper, Antoine Messéan, Kaare Magne Nielsen, Joe Perry, Annette Pöting, Jeremy Sweet, Christoph Tebbe, Atte Johannes von Wright, and Jean‐Michel Wal.

Correspondence: GMO@efsa.europa.eu

Acknowledgement: The EFSA GMO Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Groups on Molecular characterisation, Food and Feed and Environment for the preparation of this opinion, Marco Nuti and Willem Seinen as external experts and EFSA's staff members Yi Liu, Sylvie Mestdagh and Nancy Podevin for the support provided to this EFSA scientific output.

Adoption date: 26 May 2010

Published date: 15 June 2010

Question number: EFSA‐Q‐2005‐124

On request from: the Competent Authority of the Netherlands on an application (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2005‐16) submitted by Dow AgroSciences

References

  1. Accinelli C, Koskinen WC, Beker JM, Sadowsky MJ, 2008. Mineralization of the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac endotoxin in soil. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56, 1025–1028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Addison SJ, Farrell T, Roberts GN and Rogers DJ, 2007. Roadside surveys support predictions of negligible naturalisation potential for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in north‐east Australia. Weed Research, 47, 192–201. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmad A, Wilde GE and Zhu KY, 2005. Detectability of coleopteran‐specific Cry3Bb1 protein in soil and its effect on nontarget surface and below‐ground arthropods. Environmental Entomology, 34, 385–394. [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkins FM, Wilson M and Bock SA, 1988. Cottonseed hypersensitivity: new concerns over an old problem. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 82, 242–250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bagavathiannan MV and Van Acker RC, 2008. Crop ferality: Implications for novel trait confinement. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 127, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barker RF, Idler KB, Thompson DV and Kemp JD, 1983. Nucleotide sequence of the T‐DNA region from the Agrobacterium tumefaciens octopine TI plasmid PTI15955. Plant Molecular Biology, 2, 335–350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. CAC , 2003. Codex principles and guidelines on foods derived from biotechnology. Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome. [Google Scholar]
  8. Christensen AH, Sharrock RA and Quail PH, 1992. Maize polyubiquitin genes ‐ structure, thermal perturbation of expression and transcript splicing, and promoter activity following transfer to protoplasts by electroporation. Plant Molecular Biology, 18, 675–689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Davies PH, 1967. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Vol.2. Editor. Edinburgh Univ. Press, [Google Scholar]
  10. Eastick RJ and Hearnden MN, 2006. Potential for weediness of Bt cotton in northern Australia. Weed Science, 54, 1142–1151. [Google Scholar]
  11. EC , 2001. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities, L106, 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  12. EC , 2009. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, L309, 1–50. [Google Scholar]
  13. EFSA , 2006a. Guidance Document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants and Derived Food and Feed The EFSA Journal, 99, 1–100. [Google Scholar]
  14. EFSA , 2006b. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) on the Post Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants. The EFSA Journal, 1–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. EFSA , 2006c. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) related on an application (Reference EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2005‐13) for the placing on the market of glufosinate‐tolerant genetically modified LLCotton25, for food and feed uses, and import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience. The EFSA Journal, 1–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. EFSA , 2007. Guidance Document for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants containing stacked transformation events by the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). The EFSA Journal, 1–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. EFSA , 2008. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on Gossypol as undesirable substance in animal feed. The EFSA Journal, 2008, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  18. Einspanier R, Lutz B, Rief S, Berezina O, Zverlov V, Schwarz W and Mayer J, 2004. Tracing residual recombinant feed molecules during digestion and rumen bacterial diversity in cattle fed transgene maize. European Food Research and Technology, 218, 269–273. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis JG, Llewellyn DJ, Walker JC, Dennis ES and Peacock WJ, 1987. The OCS element ‐ a 16 base pair palindrome essential for activity of the octopine synthase enhancer. Embo Journal, 6, 3203–3208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. EPA , 2004. Products characterization, human health risk, ecologicaL risk, and insect resistance management for Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton products. www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2004/june/agenda.htm
  21. Gao Y, Fencil KJ, Xu X, Schwedler DA, Gilbert JR and Herman RA, 2006. Purification and characterization of a chimeric Cry1F delta‐endotoxin expressed in transgenic cotton plants. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54, 829–835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Guertler P, Lutz B, Kuehn R, Meyer HHD, Einspanier R, Killermann B and Albrecht C, 2008. Fate of recombinant DNA and Cry1Ab protein after ingestion and dispersal of genetically modified maize in comparison to rapeseed by fallow deer (Dama dama). European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  23. Herouet C, Esdaile DJ, Mallyon BA, Debruyne E, Schulz A, Currier T, Hendrickx D, van der Klis RJ and Rouan D, 2005. Safety evaluation of the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase proteins encoded by the pat and bar sequences that confer tolerance to glufosinate‐ammonium herbicide in transgenic plants. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 41, 134–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hofs JL, Klein E, Pierre J, Chèvre AM and Hau B, 2007. GM cotton gene flow in small‐scale farming systems: probable impact on organic cotton production in Africa. In: Book of abstracts of the third International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non‐GM‐based Agricutlural Suplly Chains. Stein AJ, Rodriguez‐Cerezo E. European Commission, pp. 87–90, [Google Scholar]
  25. IRMM , 2006. The certification of reference materials of cotton seed powder with different mass fractions of the cotton event 281‐24‐236 × 3006‐210‐23 Certification report EUR 22527 EN. irmm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/html/reference_materials_catalogue/catalogue/attachements/ERM‐BF422_report.pdf
  26. Jiang LJ, Tian XL, Duan LS, Li ZH, 2008. The fate of Cry1Ac Bt toxin during oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) cultivation on transgenic Bt cottonseed hulls. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 88, 214–217. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kareiva P, Morris W and Jacobi CM, 1994. Studying and managing the risk of cross‐fertilization between transgenic crops and wild relatives. Molecular Ecology, 3, 15–21. [Google Scholar]
  28. Knox OGG, Gupta Vadakattu V.S.R, Roberts GN, Downes SJ, 2007. Improving Environmental Loading Assessments of Cry Protein from GM Plants Based on Experimentation in Cotton, The Open Agriculture Journal, 2, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  29. Llewellyn D and Fitt G, 1996. Pollen dispersal from two field trials of transgenic cotton in the Namoi Valley, Australia. Molecular Breeding, 2, 157–166. [Google Scholar]
  30. Llewellyn D, Tyson C, Constable G, Duggan B, Beale S and Steel P, 2007. Containment of regulated genetically modified cotton in the field. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 121, 419–429. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lutz B, Wiedemann S and Albrecht C, 2006. Degradation of transgenic Cry1Ab DNA and protein in Bt‐176 maize during the ensiling process. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition (Berl), 90, 116–123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lutz B, Wiedemann S, Einspanier R, Mayer J and Albrecht C, 2005. Degradation of Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize in the bovine gastrointestinal tract. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53, 1453–1456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Malanin G and Kalimo K, 1988. Angioedema and urticaria caused by cottonseed protein in whole‐grain bread. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 82, 261–264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. McGregor SE, 1959. Cotton‐flower visitation and pollen distribution by honey bees. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science, 129, 97–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Mendelsohn M, Kough J, Vaituzis Z and Matthews K, 2003. Are Bt crops safe? Nature Biotechnology, 21, 1003–1009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Moffett JO and Stith LS, 1972. Honey bees as pollinators of hybrid cooton‐D. Environmental Entomology, 1, 368–370. [Google Scholar]
  37. Moffett JO, Stith LS, Burkhart CC and Shipman CW, 1975. Honey Bee Hymenoptera‐Apidae visits to Cotton Flowers. Environmental Entomology, 4, 203–206. [Google Scholar]
  38. OECD , 2004. Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense): key food and feed nutrients, Anti‐Nutrients. Series on the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, 11,
  39. Shan GM, Embrey SK and Schafer BW, 2007. A highly specific enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of Cry1Ac insecticidal crystal protein in transgenic wideStrike cotton. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 55, 5974–5979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Shan G, Embrey SK, Herman RA, McCormick R, 2008. Cry1F Protein Not Detected in Soil After Three Years of Transgenic Bt Corn (1507 Corn) Use. Environmental Entomology, 37, 255–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Todaro F, 1917. Lezioni di Agricoltura. Editor. Casa Editrice Fratelli Marescalchi, Casale Monferrato. Vol 2, pp. 317–319, [Google Scholar]
  42. Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Valentine DH, Walters SM and Webb DA, 1992. Flora Europaea. Editor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Vol 2, 5th reprint, pp. 469, [Google Scholar]
  43. Umbeck PF, Barton KA, Nordheim EV, McCarty JC, Parrott WL and Jenkins JN, 1991. Degree of pollen dispersal by insects from a field‐test of genetically engineered cotton. Journal of Economic Entomology, 84, 1943–1950. [Google Scholar]
  44. Vaissiere BE and Vinson SB, 1994. Pollen morphology and its effect on pollen collection by honeybees, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), with special reference to upland cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. (Malvacaece). Grana, 33, 128–138. [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Deynze AE, Sundstrom FJ and Bradford KJ, 2005. Pollen‐mediated gene flow in California cotton depends on pollinator activity. CropScience, 45, 1565–1570. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wiedemann S, Lutz B, Kurtz H, Schwarz FJ and Albrecht C, 2006. In situ studies on the time‐dependent degradation of recombinant corn DNA and protein in the bovine rumen. Journal of Animal Science, 84, 135–144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Xanthopoulos FP and Kechagia UE, 2000. Natural crossing in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 51, 979–983. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zangheri P, 1976. Flora Italica. Editor. Padova, [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang BH, Pan XP, Guo TL, Wang QL and Anderson TA, 2005. Measuring gene flow in the cultivation of transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Molecular Biotechnology, 31, 11–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Zohary D and Hopf M, 2000. Domestication of plants in the Old World: the origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley. Domestication of plants in the Old World: the origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley, xi + 316 pp. [Google Scholar]

Articles from EFSA Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES