Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32625613›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2017

Scientific Opinion on application EFSA-GMO-BE-2013-117 for authorisation of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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
Andrea Gennaro
Franco Maria Neri
Konstantinos Paraskevopoulos

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/C/00004158Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/C/00004975
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this opinion, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) assessed the three-event stack maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 and its three subcombinations, independently of their origin. The GMO Panel has previously assessed the three single events combined to produce this three-event stack maize and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety, were identified. Based on the molecular, agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics, the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three-event stack maize did not give rise to issues regarding food and feed safety or nutrition. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 into the environment, the three-event stack maize would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the three-event stack maize is as safe and as nutritious as the non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties in the context of its scope. The GMO Panel considered that its previous conclusions on the two-event stack maize MON 89034 × NK603 remain valid. For the two 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 combination would not raise safety concerns. These two subcombinations are therefore expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed maize MON 89034 × NK603 and maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603. Since the post-market environmental monitoring plan for the three-event stack maize does not include any provisions for the two subcombinations not previously assessed, the GMO Panel recommended the applicant to revise the plan accordingly.

Indexed as

CP4 EPSPSCry1A.105Cry2Ab2GMOherbicide toleranceinsect resistancemaizeMON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

Identifiers

PMID32625613
PMCPMC7010211

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.