Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32625612›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2017

Scientific Opinion on application EFSA-GMO-BE-2013-118 for authorisation of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and subcombinations independently of their origin, for food and feed uses, import and processing submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Monsanto Company.

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Hanspeter Naegeli, Andrew Nicholas Birch, Josep Casacuberta, Adinda De Schrijver, Mikołaj Antoni Gralak, Philippe Guerche, Huw Jones, Barbara Manachini, Antoine Messéan and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)
Hanspeter Naegeli
Andrew Nicholas Birch
Josep Casacuberta
Adinda De Schrijver
Mikołaj Antoni Gralak
Philippe Guerche
Huw Jones
Barbara Manachini
Antoine Messéan
Elsa Ebbesen Nielsen
Fabien Nogué
Christophe Robaglia
Nils Rostoks
Jeremy Sweet
Christoph Tebbe
Francesco Visioli
Jean-Michel Wal
Fernando Álvarez
Anna Lanzoni
Konstantinos Paraskevopoulos

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this opinion, the GMO Panel assessed the five-event stack maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 ×1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and its 25 subcombinations, independently of their origin. The GMO Panel has previously assessed the five single events combined to produce this five-event stack maize and 11 subcombinations of these events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or their previously assessed subcombinations, leading to modification of the original conclusions were identified. The combination of the single events and of the newly expressed proteins in the five-event stack maize did not give rise to issues - based on the molecular, agronomic/phenotypic or compositional characteristics - regarding food and feed safety and nutrition. Considering the scope of this application, the known biological function of the newly expressed proteins and the data available for the five-event stack maize and its previously assessed maize subcombinations, the GMO Panel considered that different combinations of the single events would not raise environmental concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the five-event stack maize is as safe and as nutritious as the non-genetically modified (GM) comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties in the context of its scope. For the 14 maize subcombinations for which no experimental data were provided, the GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events, and concluded that their combinations would not raise safety concerns. These maize subcombinations are therefore expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and maize MON 87427 ×MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122. Since the post-market environmental monitoring plan for the five-event stack maize does not include any provisions for the 14 maize subcombinations not previously assessed, the GMO Panel recommended the applicant to revise the plan accordingly.

Indexed as

GMOherbicide toleranceinsect resistancemaizeMON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122

Identifiers

PMID32625612
PMCPMC7009856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.